Article

Typology of Coreferential Possessive Anaphora and Neo-Gricean Pragmatics: Implications for a Newly Designed Artificial Language

Yan Huang 1
Author Information & Copyright
1University 0f Reading

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

Coreferential possessive anaphora can be defined as a relation be- tween two linguistic expressions, one a possessive anaphor, and the other its antecedent, in which the possessive anaphor refers to what its antecedent refers to. This article presents a typology of coreferential possessive anaphora, on the basis of a preliminary investigation into a variety of genetically different and structurally distinct languages in the world. It also provides an analysis of coreferential possessive anaphora in terms of the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora, as constructed in Huang (2000a). Finally, coreferential possessive anaphora in Esparento will be examined, and implications for the construction of such anaphora in a newly designed artificial language will be discussed.

Keywords: possessive anaphora; typology; neo-Gricean pragmatics; natural languages; artificial languages

References

1.

Amritavali, R. 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Kannada. In B. Lust et al (eds.), 49-112.

2.

Annamalai, E. 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Tamil. In B. Lust et al (eds.), 169-216.

3.

Baker, C. 1995. Contrast, Discourse Prominence, and Intensification with Special Reference to Locally Free Reflexives in British English. Language 71, 63-101.

4.

Biloa, E. 1991. Anaphora and Binding. Linguistics 29, 845-859.

5.

Breeze, M. 1986. Personal Pronouns in Gimira. In U. Wiesemann (ed.), 47-69.

6.

Burzio, L. 1991. The Morphological Basis of Anaphora. JournaI of Linguistics 27, 81-105.

7.

Burzio, L. 1996. The Role of The Antecedent in Anaphoric Relations. In R. Fredin (ed.), Current Issues in Comparative Grammar 1-45. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

8.

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

9.

Chomsky, N. 1995. The MinimaIist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Davison, A. 1997. Lexical Anaphora in Hindi/Urdu. Ms., Iowa City,IO: University of Iowa.

11.

Edmondson, J. & F. Plank. 1978. Great Expectations: An Intensive SeIf Analysis. Linguistics and PhiIosophy 2, 373-413.

12.

Faltz, L. 1985. RefIexivization: A Study in UniversaI Syntax. New York: Garland.

13.

Farmer, A. & R. Hanish. 1987. Communicative Reference with Pronouns. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.), The Pragmatics Perspective 547- 565. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

14.

Grice, H. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15.

Hestvik, A. 1992. LF Movement of Pronouns and Antisubject Orientation. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 557-594.

16.

Huang, Y. 1991. A Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Theory of Anaphora. JournaI of Linguistics 27, 301-335.

17.

Huang, Y. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with SpeciaI Reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Huang, Y. 1995. On Null Subjects and Null Objects in GenerativeGrammar. Linguistics 33, 1081-1123.

19.

Huang, Y. 1996. A Note on the Head-movement Analysis of Long-distance Reflexives. Linguistics 34, 833-840.

20.

Huang, Y. 2000a. Anaphora: A Cross-Iinguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21.

Huang, Y. 2000b. Discourse Anaphora: Four Theoretical Models. JournaI of Pragmatics 32, 151-176.

22.

Huang, Y. In preparation. Pragmatics. To be published by Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23.

Kitagawa, C. 1982. Topic Constructions in Japanese. Lingua 57, 175-214.

24.

Levinson, S. 1987. Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora. JournaI of Linguistics 23, 379-434.

25.

Levinson, S. 1991. Pragmatic Reduction of the Binding Conditions Revisited. JournaI of Linguistics 27, 107-161.

26.

Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of GeneraIized ConversationaI ImpIicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

27.

Lust, B., K. Wali, J. Gair, & K. Subbarao. (eds.). 2000. LexicaI Anaphors and Pronouns in SeIected South Asian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

28.

Mohanan, K. 1983. Grammatical Relations and Anaphora in Malayalam. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 163-190.

29.

Nicholas, J. 2001. Long-distance Reflexivization in Chechen and Ingush. In P. Cole, G. Hermon, & C. Huang (eds.), Long-distance RefIexivization 255-278. New York: Academic Press.

30.

Parker, E. 1986. Mundani Pronouns. In U. Wiesemann (ed.), 131-166.

31.

Ray, T. 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Oriy. In B. Lust et al (eds.), 575-636.

32.

Rebuschi, G. 1987. Defining the Three Binding Domains of Basque. Paper Presented in the Conference on the Basque Languages. Sengupta, G. 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Bangala. In B. Lust et al (eds.), 277-332.

33.

Shibatani, M. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Subbarao, K. & B. Murthy. 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Telugu. In B. Lust et al (eds.), 217-276.

35.

Wali, K. 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Marathi. In B. Lust et al (eds.), 513-574.

36.

Wali, K., O. Koul, P. Hook, & A. Koul. 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Kashmiri. In Lust et al (eds.), 471-512.

37.

Wiesemann, U. (ed.). 1986. PronominaI Systems. Tübingen: Narr.