Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora

Gregory Murphy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

A distinction has been made between two classes of anaphora. One class can take as antecedents not only linguistic constituents, but also objects and events in the extra-linguistic context. The other class accepts only certain linguistic elements as antecedents. It is not well understood why there should be two such classes, nor why a given form of anaphora is in one class rather than the other. This article attempts to explain the existence of the two classes by analyzing the difficulty a listener would have in recovering the antecedents of various forms of anaphora. This analysis suggests that it is intrinsically more difficult to discover the antecedents of some forms than of others, and that it is just these forms (with one exception) that have restrictions on acceptable antecedents. Therefore, the grammatical distinction between these two classes is not arbitrary, but subserves an important communicative function - that of ensuring that antecedents for anaphors are always recoverable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)785-813
Number of pages29
JournalJournal of Pragmatics
Volume9
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 1985

Fingerprint

Linguistics
Psychology
linguistics
listener
event
Psychological Explanation
Anaphora

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora. / Murphy, Gregory.

In: Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 9, No. 6, 1985, p. 785-813.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Murphy, Gregory. / Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora. In: Journal of Pragmatics. 1985 ; Vol. 9, No. 6. pp. 785-813.
@article{b3c963426f6c423099cd49e442cab8e7,
title = "Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora",
abstract = "A distinction has been made between two classes of anaphora. One class can take as antecedents not only linguistic constituents, but also objects and events in the extra-linguistic context. The other class accepts only certain linguistic elements as antecedents. It is not well understood why there should be two such classes, nor why a given form of anaphora is in one class rather than the other. This article attempts to explain the existence of the two classes by analyzing the difficulty a listener would have in recovering the antecedents of various forms of anaphora. This analysis suggests that it is intrinsically more difficult to discover the antecedents of some forms than of others, and that it is just these forms (with one exception) that have restrictions on acceptable antecedents. Therefore, the grammatical distinction between these two classes is not arbitrary, but subserves an important communicative function - that of ensuring that antecedents for anaphors are always recoverable.",
author = "Gregory Murphy",
year = "1985",
doi = "10.1016/0378-2166(85)90004-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "785--813",
journal = "Journal of Pragmatics",
issn = "0378-2166",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora

AU - Murphy, Gregory

PY - 1985

Y1 - 1985

N2 - A distinction has been made between two classes of anaphora. One class can take as antecedents not only linguistic constituents, but also objects and events in the extra-linguistic context. The other class accepts only certain linguistic elements as antecedents. It is not well understood why there should be two such classes, nor why a given form of anaphora is in one class rather than the other. This article attempts to explain the existence of the two classes by analyzing the difficulty a listener would have in recovering the antecedents of various forms of anaphora. This analysis suggests that it is intrinsically more difficult to discover the antecedents of some forms than of others, and that it is just these forms (with one exception) that have restrictions on acceptable antecedents. Therefore, the grammatical distinction between these two classes is not arbitrary, but subserves an important communicative function - that of ensuring that antecedents for anaphors are always recoverable.

AB - A distinction has been made between two classes of anaphora. One class can take as antecedents not only linguistic constituents, but also objects and events in the extra-linguistic context. The other class accepts only certain linguistic elements as antecedents. It is not well understood why there should be two such classes, nor why a given form of anaphora is in one class rather than the other. This article attempts to explain the existence of the two classes by analyzing the difficulty a listener would have in recovering the antecedents of various forms of anaphora. This analysis suggests that it is intrinsically more difficult to discover the antecedents of some forms than of others, and that it is just these forms (with one exception) that have restrictions on acceptable antecedents. Therefore, the grammatical distinction between these two classes is not arbitrary, but subserves an important communicative function - that of ensuring that antecedents for anaphors are always recoverable.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745871335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745871335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90004-9

DO - 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90004-9

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 785

EP - 813

JO - Journal of Pragmatics

JF - Journal of Pragmatics

SN - 0378-2166

IS - 6

ER -