part2- 13. Anaphora and the ...

part2- 13. Anaphora and the Pragmatics–Syntax Interface, Materiały naukowe, The Hanbook of Pragmatics

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
13. Anaphora and the PragmaticsÎSyntax Interface : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Bl...
Page 1 of 19
13. Anaphora and the Pragmatics
ÏSyntax
Syntax
Syntax Interface
Interface
YAN HUANG
Subject
Theoretical Linguistics
Ç
Pragmatics
Key
-Topics
Topics
anaphora
,
syntax
DOI:
10.1111/b.9780631225485.2005.00015.x
A
NAPHORA
can be defined as a relation between two linguistic elements, in which the interpretation of
one (called an anaphor) is in some way determined by the interpretation of the other (called an
antecedent).
1
In terms of syntactic category, anaphora falls into two main groups: (i) NP-, including
N-, anaphora, and (ii) VP-anaphora. From a truth-conditional, semantic point of view, anaphora can
be divided into five types: (i) referential anaphora, (ii) bound-variable anaphora, (iii) E[vans]-type
anaphora, (iv) anaphora of Ñlaziness,Ò and (v) bridging cross-reference anaphora (cf. Huang 2000a: 2Ï
7).
Anaphora is at the center of research on the interface between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in
linguistic theory. It is also a key concern of psycho- and computational linguistics, and of work on the
philosophy of language and on the linguistic component of cognitive science. It has aroused this
interest for a number of reasons. In the first place, anaphora represents one of the most complex
phenomena of natural language, the source of fascinating problems in its own right. Secondly,
anaphora has long been regarded as one of the few Ñextremely good probesÒ (Chomsky 1982b: 23) in
furthering our understanding of the nature of the human mind, and thus in facilitating an answer to
what Chomsky (e.g. 1981, 1995c) considers to be the fundamental problem of linguistics, namely, the
logical problem of language acquisition - a special case of Plato's problem. In particular, certain
aspects of anaphora have repeatedly been claimed by Chomsky (e.g. 1981) to present evidence for the
argument that human beings are born equipped with some internal, unconscious knowledge of
language, known as the language faculty. Thirdly, anaphora has been shown to interact with syntactic,
semantic, and pragmatic factors. Consequently, it has provided a testing ground for competing
hypotheses concerning the relationship between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in linguistic
theory.
Anaphora clearly involves syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors. Although it is generally
acknowledged that pragmatic factors play an important role in discourse anaphora, it is equally widely
held that only syntactic and semantic factors are crucial to intrasentential anaphora. In this article, I
shall concentrate on that type of referential, NP-anaphora known as
BINDING
in the linguistics
literature. In the spirit of an ongoing debate about the interaction and division of labor between
syntax and pragmatics, I shall first discuss the two main generative approaches to binding. I shall
then examine some earlier neo-Gricean pragmatic analyses of anaphora. Finally, I shall present a
revised neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora as developed in Levinson (1987b, 1991, 2000a)
and Huang (1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, 2000a, b).
1 Generative Approaches to Binding
Two generative approaches to binding can be identified: (i) syntactically oriented, and (ii) semantically
oriented.
28.12.2007
13. Anaphora and the PragmaticsÎSyntax Interface : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Bl...
Page 2 of 19
1.1 The
1.1 The syntactic/geometric approach
syntactic/geometric approach
The syntactic or geometric approach is formulated predominantly in configurational terms, appealing
to structural concepts such as c-command, government, and locality. This approach is best
represented by Chomsky's (1981, 1995c) binding conditions (see also Chomsky 1995c: 211 for the
interpretative version of these conditions within the minimalist framework).
(1) Chomsky's (1995c: 96) binding conditions
A. An Anaphor must be bound in a local domain.
2
B. A pronominal must be free in a local domain.
C. An R expression must be free.
(2) Chomsky's (1995c: 41) typology of overt NPs
a. [+anaphor, -pronominal] reflexive/reciprocal
b. [-anaphor, +pronominal] pronoun
c. [+anaphor, +pronominal] -
d. [-anaphor, -pronominal] name
1.2 The semantic argument
-structure
structure
structure approach
approach
In contrast to the syntactically based approach, the semantically oriented approach attempts to give
an account of binding primarily in argument-structure terms. Reinhart and Reuland's (1993) theory of
reflexivity belongs to this camp.
(3) Reinhart and Reuland's (1993: 678) binding conditions
A. A reflexive-marked syntactic predicate is reflexive.
B. A reflexive semantic predicate is reflexive-marked.
3
(4) Reinhart and Reuland's (1993: 659) typology of overt NPs
É SELF SE pronoun
Reflexivizing function + ĉ ĉ
Referential independence ĉ ĉ +
SELF = a morphologically complex reflexive
SE = a morphologically simplex reflexive
The paradigmatic patterns for binding are illustrated from English in (5):
(5) a. Handel
1
admired himself
1
.
b. Handel
1
admired him
2
.
c. Handel
1
admired Handel
2
.
1.3 Problems for both
1.3 Problems for both approaches
approaches
Cross-linguistically, both approaches are problematic. Let us take the binding condition A pattern
first. To begin with, many languages in the world systematically allow long-distance reflexives -
reflexives that are bound outside their local syntactic domain, and even across sentence boundaries
into discourse. These include most East, South, and Southeast Asian languages (e.g. Chinese,
Kannada, and Malay), some mainland and insular Scandinavian languages (e.g. Norwegian, Swedish,
and Icelandic), some non-Scandinavian Germanic and Romance languages (e.g. Dutch, Italian, and Old
Provenal), some Slavonic languages (e.g. Czech, Polish, and Russian), and others (e.g. Greek,
KiNande, and Northern Pomo). The following is an example from Chinese:
(6) (Chinese)
Xiaoming1 yiwei Xiaohua
2
xihuan ziji
1/2
.
28.12.2007
13. Anaphora and the PragmaticsÎSyntax Interface : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Bl...
Page 3 of 19
Xiaoming think Xiaohua like self
ÑXiaoming1 thinks that Xiaohua
2
likes him1/himself
2
.Ò
In recent years, two general strategies have been established in generative grammar to tackle the
problems posed by long-distance reflexivization for Chomsky's binding theory: (i) to deny that
binding condition A is violated by claiming that a long-distance reflexive is not a true anaphor, and
(ii) to modify the standard version of binding theory in such a way as to allow long-distance
reflexivization to be accommodated by binding condition A. Under the first strategy, there are three
ways to pursue such an escape route: (i) to argue that a long-distance reflexive is a (bound)
pronominal; (ii) to treat a long-distance reflexive as a pronominal Anaphor; and (iii) to claim that a
long-distance reflexive is an Anaphor of a special kind. Under the second strategy, there are also
three tacks: (i) to parameterize the notion of local domain; (ii) to postulate movement at LF; and (iii) to
relativize antecedents for long-distance reflexives (see also Cole et al. 2001).
However, as I have argued in Huang (1996, 2000a), none of these proposals really works. Let us start
with the first generative strategy. First, what syntactic evidence there is shows that a long-distance
reflexive is an Anaphor rather than a pronominal in the Chomskyan sense. Unlike a real pronoun, a
longdistance reflexive cannot undergo topicalization, cannot be co-indexed with a non-c-
commanding NP, and cannot be bound to an object. Secondly, if a longdistance reflexive were a
pronominal Anaphor, we would expect it to be illicit in a syntactic position which constitutes both its
Anaphoric and pronominal binding domain. One such position is the object position of an embedded
clause. But this is clearly not the case, as can be evidenced by the grammaticality of (6) above. Finally,
the distribution of such long-distance reflexives as ziji in Chinese, zibun in Japanese, and caki in
Korean poses serious problems for the Anaphor in a special kind of analysis. On the one hand, these
long-distance reflexives may be bound within their local domain, and on the other hand, they need
not be bound in their matrix sentence.
What, then, about the second generative strategy? In the first place, as mentioned above, a long-
distance reflexive need not even be bound in the root sentence. This would make any attempt to
expand and parameterize the syntactically definable binding domain a very dubious enterprise. Next,
contrary to the predictions of the LF movement analysis, there is no direct correlation between either
locality and the X-bar status, or the domain properties and the antecedent properties, of reflexives.
Finally, under the relativized antecedent account, the class of so-called anti-local reflexive in some
South Asian languages remains unexplained (see Huang 2000a: 90Ï126 for detailed argumentation).
A second type of counter-evidence to condition A is presented by the distribution of certain
morphologically simplex reflexives in such languages as Dutch and Norwegian. It has been observed
(e.g. in Reinhart and Reuland 1993) that there is a contrast in the use of this type of reflexive between
intrinsic and extrinsic reflexivization contexts: whereas a morphologically simplex reflexive can be
locally bound in the former, as in (7a), it cannot be locally bound in the latter, as in (7b).
(7) (Dutch)
a. Rint schaamt zich.
Rint shames self
ÑRint is ashamed.Ò
b. *Rint veracht zich.
Rint despises self
ÑRint despises himself.Ò
There is thus evidence that, cross-linguistically, the distribution of reflexives violates Chomsky's
binding condition A in both directions: on the one hand, a reflexive can be bound outside its local
domain, and on the other, it may not be bound within its local domain.
How, then, does the cross-linguistic distribution of reflexives fit with Reinhart and Reuland's theory of
reflexivity? Given (3) and (4), the ungrammaticality of (7b) ceases to require an explanation. This is
because since (7b) contains a semantic predicate, it must be reflexive-marked in order to cohere with
Reinhart and Reuland's binding condition B. But the SE-anaphor is not a reflexivizer and, as a
consequence, cannot reflexive-mark the predicate, hence the ungrammaticality of (7b). However, the
28.12.2007
13. Anaphora and the PragmaticsÎSyntax Interface : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Bl...
Page 4 of 19
theory per se has nothing to say about longdistance reflexivization, given that on this account,
binding is defined on the co-arguments of a predicate.
We move next to the binding condition B pattern. Once again, evidence from various languages casts
serious doubts on both Chomsky's binding condition B and Reinhart and Reuland's theory of
reflexivity. First, many languages in the world have no reflexives, and consequently utilize
pronominals as one of the means to encode reflexivity. These include some Low West Germanic
languages (e.g. Old and Middle Dutch, Old English, Old Frisian, and perhaps West Flemish and Modern
Frisian), Bamako Bambara, biblical Hebrew, Isthmus Zapotec, the majority of Australian languages
(e.g. Gumbaynggir, Jiwarli, and Nyawaygi), some Austronesian languages (e.g. Chamorro, Kilivila, and
Tahitian), some Papuan languages (e.g. Harway), and many pidgin and creole languages (e.g. the
Spanish-based Palenquero, and perhaps Bislama, Chinook Jargon, the French-based Guadeloupe, the
Arabic-based KiNubi, Kriyol, Martinique Creole, and Negerhollands). An example from Fijian is given
below.
(8) (Fijian, cited in Levinson 2000a)
Sa va'a-.dodonu-.ta'ini Óea o Mika.
ASP correct 3SG-OBJ ART Mika.
ÑMike corrected himself/him.Ò
Secondly, there are languages that lack first- and/or second-person reflexives. In these languages,
first- and second-person personal pronouns double for use as bound Anaphors. Some Germanic (e.g.
Danish, Dutch, and Icelandic) and Romance (e.g. French and Italian) languages, for instance, belong to
this type.
(9) (German)
Du denkst immer nur an dich.
you think always only of you
ÑYou always think only of yourself.Ò
Thirdly, the use of a locally bound third-person personal pronoun in syntactic structures where its
corresponding, third-person reflexive is not available is attested in a range of languages. This can be
illustrated from Piedmontese in (10). Similar examples can be found in, for example, Catalan, French,
Galician, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Sardinian, Spanish, and Tsaxur.
(10) Oscar is here but he has forgotten his calculator.
(Piedmontese, Burzio 1991)
Giuanin a parla sempre d' chiel.
Giuanin CL-speak always of him
ÑGiuanin always talks about himself.Ò
All this shows that the use of a pronoun as an Anaphor in the world's languages is not highly marked,
as Reinhart and Reuland (1993) claim. Consequently, neither Chomsky's binding condition B nor
Reinhart and Reuland's theory of reflexivity can be correct. This is because given Chomsky's binding
condition B, a pronominal is not allowed to be bound within its local domain, and by Reinhart and
Reuland's binding condition B, a pronominal, being a non-reflexivizer, is not permitted to reflexive-
mark a predicate.
Next, given the standard formulation of Chomsky's binding conditions A and B, it is predicted that
Anaphors and pronominals should be in strict complementary distribution; that is, Anaphors can
occur only where pronominals cannot, and vice versa. This is because the two binding conditions are
precise mirror images of each other.
This predicted distributional complementarity between Anaphors and pronominals, however, seems to
be a generative syntactician's dream world. Even in a ÑsyntacticÒ language like English, it is not
difficult to find syntactic environments where the complementarity breaks down. Well-known cases
(cf. e.g. Kuno 1997) include (i) ÑpictureÒ NPs (11a), (ii) adjunct PPs (11b), (iii) possessive NPs (11c), and
28.12.2007
13. Anaphora and the PragmaticsÎSyntax Interface : The Handbook of Pragmatics : Bl...
Page 5 of 19
(iv) emphatic NPs (11d).
(11) a. George W. Bush1 saw a picture of himself
1
/him
1
in The New York Times.
b. Yan
1
is building a wall of pragmatics books around himself
1
/him
1
.
c. [Pavarotti and Domingo]1 adore each other's
1
/their
1
performances.
d. Pavarotti
1
said that tenors like himself
1
/him
1
would not sing operas like that.
Worse still, when we take a look at a wider range of languages, we find that the total distributional
complementarity entailed by Chomsky's binding conditions A and B stands on softer ground. First, as
we have remarked above, there are long-distance reflexivization languages - languages that
systematically allow a reflexive to be bound outside its local domain. In these languages, there is
frequently a systematic syntactic distributional overlap between Anaphors and pronominals, as can be
exemplified in (12).
(12) (Malay)
Fatimah1 mengadu bahawa Ali
2
mengecam dirinya1/nya
1
.
Fatimah complain that Ali criticize self-3SG/3SG
ÑFatimah1 complains that Ali
2
criticizes her
1
/himself
2
.Ò
Secondly, following in part a suggestion by Burzio (1996), languages can be grouped into three types
with respect to bound possessive anaphora: (i) those allowing Anaphors but not pronominals (e.g.
Basque, Chechen, Danish, Gimira, Hindi/Urdu, and Mundani); (ii) those permitting pronominals but
not Anaphors (e.g. Akan, English, German, Guugu Yimidhirr, and Spanish); and (iii) those permitting
both Anaphors and pronominals (e.g. Japanese, Malay, Malayalam, Sinhala, Tamil, and Tuki). In the
first type, the possessive and the antecedent are ÑnearÒ enough to allow only a reflexive but not a
pronoun, as in (13). In the second, because either there is no possessive reflexive in the language or
the possessive reflexive cannot be used, only a pronoun is permitted, as in (14). Finally, in the third
type, the possessive and the antecedent are both ÑcloseÒ enough to allow a reflexive and at the same
time ÑdistantÒ enough to permit a pronoun as well, as in (15).
(13) (Ingush, Nichols 2001)
Muusaaz
1
shii1 /cyn
2
bierazhta
Muusaaz-ERG 3SG-REFL-GEN/3SG-GEN children-DAT
kinashjka icaad.
book bought
ÑMuusaaz
1
bought self s
1
/his
2
children a book.Ò
(14) (Akan, Faltz 1985)
John
1
praa ne
1/2
Ófie.
John swept 3SG-POSS house
ÑJohn
1
swept his
1/2
house.Ò
(15) (Oriya, Ray 2000)
raama
1
nija
1
/taa
1
bahi paDhilaa.
Rama self's his book read
ÑRama1 read self's
1
/his1 book.Ò
While Chomsky's binding conditions A and B make correct predications for the distribution of
possessive anaphora in ÑAnaphors onlyÒ and perhaps also in Ñpronominals onlyÒ languages, depending
on how the binding domain is defined, they certainly make wrong predictions for Ñboth Anaphors and
pronominalsÒ languages.
Thirdly, still another type of distributional overlap is found cross-linguistically. This involves certain
emphatic contexts. Emphatics can be either morphologically simplex or complex. Morphologically
complex emphatics are usually in the form of Ñpronoun/reflexive + adjunct/modifier,Ò with the
adjunct/modifier having the meaning of Ñself,Ò Ñsame,Ò Ñbody,Ò Ñhead,Ò Ñeye,Ò Ñsoul,Ò Ñmarrow,Ò Ñseed,Ò
or - in the case of possessives - ÑownÒ (cf. Levinson 1991, Baker 1995, Knig and Siemund 2000).
These morphologically complex emphatics can alternate with pronouns.
28.12.2007
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

zanotowane.pl

doc.pisz.pl

pdf.pisz.pl

anio102.xlx.pl