Interpreting anaphora without identifying reference

Journal of Semantics 1 (3-4):315-322 (1982)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
It is proposed that, by adopting an antecedent-determined account of the interpretation of anaphoric pronominais, we may misrepresent what is actually required in the interpretive process. If we adopt an antecedent plus predicate(s)-determined account, we may arrive at massively over-specified representations which would seem to create a substantial processing load. Since it can be observed that one of the characteristics of conversational speech is the occurrence of ante-cedentless pronominais, it is suggested that the analytically required referential identity for anaphora resolution may not actually be an on-line processing requirement. What hearers may do is focus their attention on what is predicated of (at least some) pronominais, following the focus-marking of the speaker, and simply accept that there is, for the speaker, some referent or referential set for the pronominais encountered. Consequently, for the hearer, identifying the reference of those pronominais need not be a requirement in the interpretation of the speaker's utterance. That is, the interpretation of anaphora need not be, in some circumstances, a referential issue at all
No keywords specified (fix it)
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
566 ( #7,114 of 51,738 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
34 ( #17,258 of 51,738 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.