2 Linguistic Fundamentals of Anaphors and Anaphora

2 Linguistic fundamentals of anaphors and anaphora 2.1 Basic definitions The word anaphora originates from Greek ana- (“back”) and pherein (“to bear”) and entered English via Latin transmission (cf. “Anaphora” 2010). In English, it is documented for the first time in 1589 (cf. Simpson & Weiner 1989: 436-437): Anaphora, or the Figure of Report. Repetition in the firſt degree we call the figure of Report according to the Greeke originall, and is when we make one word begin, and as they are wont to ſay, lead the daunce to many verſes in ſute, as thus. To thinke on death it is a miſerie, To think on life it is a vanitie: To thinke on the world verily it is, To thinke that heare man hath no perfit bliſſe. (Puttenham 1589: 165) “Anaphora” here denotes the rhetoric figure of repetition. The first written evi- dence of a use in grammar is not found until 1933, when the term appeared in Bloomfield’s work Language: [W]hen we say Ask that policeman, and he will tell you, the substitute he means, among other things, that the singular male substantive expression which is replaced by he, has been recently uttered. A substitute which implies this, is an anaphoric or dependent substitute, and the recently-uttered replaced form is the antecedent. (Bloomfield 1984: 249) Later he gives another example: The word one […] replaces a with anaphora of the noun […] when no other modifier is present (Here are some apples; take one); […] it is the anaphoric substitute for nouns after an adjective, and in this use forms a plural, ones (the big box and the small one, these boxes and the ones in the kitchen […]). (ibid.: 265-266) As for derivations, the adjective anaphoric and the adverb anaphorically are first mentioned in 1914 (cf. Bloomfield 1984: 249-251; Simpson & Weiner 1989: 436-437). According to the Oxford Dictionary of English (2005, 2nd rev. ed.), the noun anaphor has its origin in a backformation of anaphora, which dates back to the 1970s (cf. Soanes & Stevenson 2005: 55). When consulting current dictionaries, the word anaphora often divides up into different senses, depending on its use in various contexts. First, the term denotes a part of the mass in liturgics. Second, “anaphora” describes the “repe- DOI 10.1515/9783110416756-003 Open Access © 2020 Helene Schmolz, publiziert von Walter de Gruyter GmbH. Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Lizenz. 4 | Linguistic fundamentals of anaphors and anaphora tition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses, lines of verse, etc.” (Agnes et al. 2007: 51) in rhetoric (cf. Wilpert 2001: 27). So it is still used in the sense it was for the first time (cf. Puttenham 1589, above). Third, “anaphora” is used in music for the repetition of a voice, usually the bass (cf. Bartel 2007: 90-95). The fourth – grammatical – definition is of importance here: “anaphora” is “[t]he use of a word which refers to, or is a substitute for, a preceding word or group of words” (Simpson & Weiner 1989: 436). According to Valentin (1996: 179), this meaning has developed from the use of anaphora in rhetoric. The following example illustrates what an anaphor is in the grammatical sense of the word: (1) Susan plays the piano. She likes music.1 In example (1), the word she is an anaphor2 and refers back to a preceding expression, in this case Susan. As can be seen in this example, an anaphor is an item that commonly points backwards.3 Anaphors derive their interpretation from the expressions they refer to because their own meaning is often rather general (cf. Finch 2005: 199-200; Trask & Stockwell 2007: 16-17; Huddleston 2010a: 68; Quirk et al. 2012: 335, 862). This becomes obvious if the second sentence in example (1), She likes music, appears on its own. In such circumstances, it is not possible to find out the person meant by she. We can only state that it is most likely a female person.4 But if both sentences are present, she is undoubt- edly used in place of Susan. The linguistic element or elements to which an anaphor refers is called “an antecedent”. The antecedent in the preceding example is the expression Susan. The relationship between anaphor and antecedent is termed “anaphora” (cf. Huddleston 2010a: 68-69). “Anaphora resolution” or “anaphor resolution” is || 1 Throughout this work, anaphors are underlined, antecedents are set in boldface. 2 In his binding theory, Chomsky uses the word anaphor differently. For him, an anaphor encompasses only reflexive (e.g. himself) and reciprocal pronouns (e.g. each other). All other anaphors, such as personal pronouns, are called “pronominals”. In this book, though, Chomsky’s definition is not relevant. Subsequently, she is regarded as anaphor in example (1) (cf. Chomsky 1993: 188, 211-212; Garnham 2001: 53; Bußmann 2008: 40-41; Jurafsky & Martin 2009: 736). 3 An anaphor can also point forwards. This, however, is not very frequent (see chapter 2.3.1). 4 If a person has a close connection with an animal, it is also possible to refer to these animals with she or he. This especially happens with domesticated animals, such as pets (cf. Quirk et al. 2012: 316-317). Basic definitions | 5 the process of finding the correct antecedent of an anaphor (cf. Kübler n.d.: 5; Mitkov 2004a: 269; Crystal 2009: 25). In addition, so-called “anaphoric chains” can arise, if anaphors are themselves antecedents. In example (2), the anaphor she refers to the antecedent Ann, and she is also the antecedent of herself (cf. Halliday & Hasan 2008: 15, 52; Stirling & Huddleston 2010: 1457). (2) Ann knew that she had written the letter herself. Another central aspect of anaphors is that they can vary with regard to the importance of the antecedent for determining reference. Anaphoric noun phrases with a definite article are a case in point. They, for instance, can have antecedents that are not needed for determining the referent of the anaphor, as is shown here: (3) I went to an amusing show recently where I met two friends. … As they were sitting next to me during the show [1] I was able to ask them about the presenter. However, they could not tell me anything about the show [2]. In this example, the second anaphor the show [2] has the antecedent the show [1]. At first sight, the second anaphor [2] does not seem to gain new information through this relation to the antecedent [1]. But as the antecedent [1] itself is an anaphor and refers to an amusing show, the second anaphor [2] also gains information through these links. In consequence, it makes sense that the second anaphor [2] is interpreted in relation to its identical antecedent [1] (cf. Quirk et al. 2012: 1464-1465). Recognising anaphors whose antecedents are literally identical with themselves is also important for computational anaphora resolution systems because anaphoric chains can be established through that process. Additionally, when detecting anaphoric chains, the distance between anaphor and antecedent does not become unnaturally large. Stirling & Huddleston (2010) argue: There can be a very large distance between the first antecedent in a chain and the final anaphor, greater than would typically be permitted for a direct link: it is the intermediate links that keep the referent salient in the context of discourse so that reference to it can be made by means of a personal pronoun or other anaphor with little intrinsic content. (ibid.: 1457) With regard to the form of anaphors and antecedents, different realisations are possible. Anaphors can be whole noun or verb phrases, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, infinitive markers; even “gaps”, i.e. ellipses (see chapter 3), 6 | Linguistic fundamentals of anaphors and anaphora can work as anaphors. An anaphor, therefore, can constitute a gap, a single word or a phrase. The antecedent can be a word, a phrase – especially a noun phrase – a clause or even one or more sentences. There are antecedents that are coordinated, for example with an and-conjunction (example (4)): (4) Yesterday Kate and Joshua went to the new restaurant. They enjoyed the food immensely. Antecedents, namely so-called “split antecedents”, can also be made up from two or more separate parts (cf. Kübler n.d.: 20; Stirling & Huddleston 2010: 1458-1460), as in the following example (5), where the anaphor they refers to Sue and Peter: (5) Sue got married to Peter. They were very much in love. Finally, anaphors can vary whether their antecedent is in the same sentence (intrasentential anaphors), as in example (2), or in another sentence (intersen- tential anaphors), as in example (4) and (5) (cf. Botley & McEnery 2000: 4). 2.2 The relationship between anaphor and antecedent 2.2.1 Coreference As the examples so far have shown, an anaphor is often related coreferentially to its antecedent, for instance, in (4), in which they and Kate and Joshua are coreferential. In fact, coreference represents the prototypical and simplest anaphoric relation. Fillmore (1975), for instance, formulated: “by the anaphoric use of an expression I mean that use which can be correctly interpreted by knowing what other portion of the same discourse the expression is coreferential with”5 (ibid.: 40). Lewandowski (1994) describes anaphors similarly: Es handelt sich um Ausdrücke, die innerhalb eines Satzes oder Textes auf vorausgehende Ausdrücke Bezug nehmen, indem sie Identität herstellen. Die Bedeutung dieses Bezugs oder dieser Identitätsbeziehung läßt sich als Referenzidentität oder Koreferenz bezeich- nen […]. (ibid.: 64) || 5 Underlining of anaphoric and coreferential removed. The relationship between anaphor and antecedent | 7 In the same way, Glück (2010: 40-41) and Bußmann (2008: 40-41) take coreference as criterion in their definition of anaphors or anaphoric relations.

Load more