In this paper I will try to examine how different academic fields approach anaphoric phenomena. The fields involved here are primarily philosophy and linguistics, with its subfields of semantics, syntax, and psycholinguistics. Especially in linguistics, Anaphora is traditionally thought of in opposition to deixis. Philosophy is not so much directly concerned with anaphora, but rather more generally with the processes of reference; however this larger discussion adds to an understanding of anaphoric processes too. Formal semantics, again, has developed a new dichotomy of bound anaphora versus referential ones - instead of the classical one between anaphora and deixis. Given these different approaches, I will try to find those within the two broad fields which seem to be best compatible. I will especially present one linguistic approach that might be compatible with at least one strand of the philosophical literature, and also with psycholinguistic insights into the matter. My hope is that Sag & Hankamer’s paper of 1984 fulfills these criteria and thus allows for an interdisciplinary view of anaphora.
Sag & Hankamer’s approach will however only be addressed later. First, I will give an oversight of what anaphora is supposed to mean linguistically and then go on to present what philosophy makes of the phenomenon.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Anaphora as a Linguistic Phenomenon
3. Syntactic and Semantic Approaches to Anaphora
4. Anaphora as a Philosophical Phenomenon
5. Anaphora as a Psycholinguistic Phenomenon
6. Sag and Hankamer’s Approach
6.1 Sag and Hankamer 1976
6.2 Sag and Hankamer 1984
7. Compatibility of Sag and Hankamer 1984 with Philosophical Approaches
8. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to explore how various academic disciplines, including philosophy, linguistics, and psycholinguistics, approach and define anaphoric phenomena to determine whether these disparate perspectives can be unified. The central research question investigates the compatibility of linguistic models of anaphora with philosophical frameworks of reference.
- The linguistic classification of anaphora and its opposition to deixis.
- Syntactic and semantic interpretations of anaphoric binding.
- Philosophical contributions to reference, sense, and intent.
- The psycholinguistic role of discourse registers and conceptual models.
- An evaluation of the Sag and Hankamer framework regarding anaphoric processing.
Excerpt from the Book
Anaphora as a Linguistic Phenomenon
Anaphora is part of the phenomenon of indexicality, which also includes deixis. This family of phenomena shares the fact that they cannot be easily accounted for by formal semantic theories. This is because they involve reference to a point outside of the linguistic realm of individual sentences, which is usually the basis for a semantic, truth-conditional analysis. Sentences that include indexicals cannot be easily evaluated as to their truth values, because these suddenly depend on extra-linguistic (or at least extra-sentential) features. Because of this problem, indexicality has since long been regarded as the core domain of pragmatics.
At the same time it was believed to be a relatively contained problem, which “involves a small set of terms and a fairly trivial mapping from the spatio-temporal context of an utterance to a (possibly unique) interpretation for each.” (Green 34). This belief is proved wrong as soon as one studies indexicality in more detail. Today it is clear that the problems evoked in this field are neither trivial nor contained. Rather, “the interpretation of indexicals and related anaphora is shown to require assumptions of inferences about the speaker’s beliefs and/or intended referents, and thus requires a broader interpretation of pragmatics.” (Green 17).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the goal of synthesizing different academic perspectives on anaphoric phenomena and introduces the hope for an interdisciplinary view.
Anaphora as a Linguistic Phenomenon: Defines anaphora as a process of referring to established entities in discourse and discusses its relationship to indexicality and pragmatics.
Syntactic and Semantic Approaches to Anaphora: Examines how generative grammar and formal semantic theories attempt to account for anaphora through binding relationships and referential construal.
Anaphora as a Philosophical Phenomenon: Explores the philosophical debates on reference, sense, and connotation, specifically highlighting the influence of Frege and Mill on understanding anaphora.
Anaphora as a Psycholinguistic Phenomenon: Analyzes the mental representation of discourse referents and the role of "discourse registers" in grounding anaphora.
Sag and Hankamer’s Approach: Details the theoretical evolution of Sag and Hankamer’s work from 1976 to 1984 regarding surface and deep anaphora.
Compatibility of Sag and Hankamer 1984 with Philosophical Approaches: Proposes that the distinction between surface and deep anaphora can be reconciled with philosophical models of sense and reference.
Conclusion: Summarizes the findings and reinforces the potential for an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach to anaphora.
Keywords
Anaphora, Deixis, Indexicality, Reference, Semantics, Syntax, Psycholinguistics, Discourse Register, Sense, Frege, Mill, Sag and Hankamer, Ellipsis, Deep Anaphora, Pragmatics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper examines how different academic fields, such as philosophy and various branches of linguistics, approach and define anaphoric phenomena.
What are the primary thematic fields discussed?
The core themes include linguistics (syntax, semantics, psycholinguistics) and philosophy (theories of reference and sense).
What is the primary objective of this research?
The goal is to determine if disparate academic approaches to anaphora can be combined into a single, cohesive framework.
Which scientific method is utilized in this work?
The work employs a theoretical and comparative analysis, synthesizing existing literature in linguistics and philosophy to construct a model of discourse processing.
What is treated in the main body of the text?
The body covers the definition of anaphora, its syntactic/semantic constraints, philosophical perspectives on reference, psycholinguistic discourse models, and a detailed critique of Sag and Hankamer’s theories.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The work is defined by concepts like anaphora, deixis, discourse register, sense, reference, and the distinction between surface and deep anaphora.
How does Frege's concept of "sense" apply to anaphoric reference?
Frege’s "sense" provides an intermediate plane between a linguistic expression and its referent, which helps explain how anaphors can function without direct, static reference to objects in the world.
Why is the distinction between "surface" and "deep" anaphora important in Sag and Hankamer’s work?
It allows for the separation of purely linguistic, syntactic processes (surface anaphora/ellipsis) from discourse-level referential processes (deep anaphora).
What is the role of a "discourse register"?
A discourse register contains the shared set of representations between a speaker and hearer, acting as a mental space where information is updated during communication.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2006, Anaphora as a liguistic, philosophical and psycholinguistic phenomenon, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/66807
