[Lingtyp] Term for “non-pronominal anaphora"

Don Killian donald.killian at helsinki.fi
Thu Jun 3 11:21:19 UTC 2021


I have an article recently published on predicative demonstratives 
(https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingty-2021-2078/html 
for those interested), and I use both exophoric and endophoric regularly 
there. Oddly enough, I hadn't actually realized that anaphoric could 
even have the more generalized use until a friend had pointed it out in 
some earlier comments.

Volker's taxonomy of exophoric vs. (endophoric (anaphoric vs. cataphoric 
)) is precisely the same one I was familiar with and use.

Perhaps it's just a matter of what area of linguistics you're dealing 
with more regularly? Being able to differentiate cataphoric reference 
from anaphoric reference is very important when working on demonstratives.

Best,

Don

On 6/3/21 1:11 PM, Françoise Rose wrote:
> Personally, I see the term “endophoric” very regularly (I’ve been 
> working on demonstratives and classifiers lately). Instead of spending 
> energy on developing a new term, why not simply use the existing one 
> that does not raise any problem ? The simple facts that people on this 
> list (especially those publishing typological papers) use it would very 
> likely enhance its use.
> 
> I am in general a bit resistant about any type of committee (or 
> discussion list) that would decide what everyone else has to do. But 
> this kind of inclination towards prescriptivism or active linguistic 
> policy is actually funny to observe among linguists!
> 
> *De :*Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> *De la part 
> de* Martin Haspelmath
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 3 juin 2021 11:49
> *À :* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Objet :* Re: [Lingtyp] Term for “non-pronominal anaphora"
> 
> Thanks to Randy LaPolla, Volker Gast and Christian Lehmann for pointing 
> to Halliday & Hasan's term "endophoric"!
> 
> Unfortunately, this term has not caught on in general, and in practice, 
> the term "anaphoric" is widely used as a cover term for "cataphoric" and 
> "epanaphoric" (e.g. in Huang's 2000 overview book "Anaphora"). I did a 
> Twitter poll which confimed my hunch:
> 
> "What's the best cover term for "anaphoric" (backward-looking) and 
> "cataphoric" (forward-looking)?
> 
> (A) phoric (35%)
> (B) endophoric (22%)
> (C) anaphoric (taken broadly) (43%)"
> 
> (See https://twitter.com/haspelmath/status/1400034485941460994)
> 
> Thus, "endophoric" is preferred only by a minority, and most people 
> think that "anaphoric" can be used as a cover term for both – hence it 
> seems best to use a new term ("epanaphoric") for the complement of 
> "cataphoric".
> 
> Best,
> Martin
> 
> Am 01.06.21 um 20:31 schrieb Volker Gast:
> 
>     Hi Martin,
>     I'm not sure if we need a standardization committee here. Our
>     students grow up with the terminology established by M.A.K Halliday,
>     who distinguishes between 'endophoric' and 'exophoric' reference.
>     'Endophoric' reference can be 'anaphoric' or 'cataphoric'. I'm not
>     aware of the use of 'anaphoric' as 'forward-looking' (as this would
>     be 'cataphoric' imho). And I agree with everyone who thinks that
>     anaphor(a) do(es) not have to imply pronouns (that would be a matter
>     of 'substitution', in Halliday's terms). What's wrong with the taxonomy
> 
>     exophoric vs. (endophoric (anaphoric vs. cataphoric ))
> 
>     ?
> 
>     (And wouldn't 'ep(i)-ana-phoric' be redundant in this context? Isn't
>     'anaphoric' originally '[carry] up[stream]', hence 'backward'?)
> 
>     Best,
>     Volker
> 
>     On 31/05/2021 10:56, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
> 
>         Paolo's mention of the term pair "anaphora/cataphora" brings up
>         a frequent issue in terminology: When a new and relatively short
>         term (like "cataphora") is coined to refer to a special case,
>         then it is not clear whether the old term (here "anaphora")
>         refers to the general case or to the complement of the special case.
> 
>         Unfortunately, "anaphora" has thus become ambiguous: (i) it
>         refers to backward-looking and forward-looking discourse
>         reference relations; (ii) it refers only to backward-looking
>         relations.
> 
>         It would be good to have a standardization committee that
>         resolves this problem, because it seems that the discipline will
>         otherwise be stuck with ambiguity of a key term. (Personally, I
>         would prefer to use "anaphora" in the general sense, and to have
>         a new term, e.g. "epanaphora", for backward-looking relations;
>         cf. Greek κάτω 'down', επάνω 'up'. But this would be for a
>         committee to decide.)
> 
>         Best,
>         Martin
> 
>         Am 30.05.21 um 19:37 schrieb paolo Ramat:
> 
>             I agree with Bill: "anaphora" does not refer only to
>             "pronouns" or "pro-forms". In a sentence such as /The jury
>             found him guilty and the verdict shocked him deeply/  'the
>             verdict' refers anaphorically (= looking backwards)  to what
>             has been said  in the first coordinated sentence. On the
>             contrary, /The verdict of the jury was: he is guilty /. 'the
>             verdict' is in cataphoric (=looking forwards) position.
> 
>             I think that if we consider anaphora and cataphora together,
>             we can get a better understanding of both.
> 
>             Paolo
> 
>             <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> 
>             	
> 
>             Mail priva di virus. www.avast.com
>             <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> 
> 
>             Il giorno dom 30 mag 2021 alle ore 15:48 William Croft
>             <wcroft at unm.edu <mailto:wcroft at unm.edu>> ha scritto:
> 
>                 Dear all,
> 
>                     I find the definition of "anaphora" implied in Ian's
>                 post to presuppose a theory of anaphora that not
>                 everyone, certainly not myself, agrees with. Namely,
>                 that anaphora only happens across sentences, and/or the
>                 only strategy for anaphora are "pronouns" or
>                 "pro-forms". Both of these assumptions have been
>                 debated, and there are different theories; see Croft
>                 (2013) and references cited therein. I think "anaphora"
>                 as a comparative concept should be defined more broadly
>                 -- as I think it generally is -- to accommodate
>                 different theories about the possible form of anaphoric
>                 expressions, and their possible distribution.
> 
>                 Bill
> 
>                 Croft, William. 2013. “Agreement as anaphora, anaphora
>                 as coreference.” /Languages across boundaries: studies
>                 in memory of Anna Siewierska/, ed. Dik Bakker and Martin
>                 Haspelmath, 107-29. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
> 
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                 *From:*Lingtyp
>                 <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
>                 <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on
>                 behalf of JOO, Ian [Student] <ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk
>                 <mailto:ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk>>
>                 *Sent:* Sunday, May 30, 2021 1:54 AM
>                 *To:* LINGTYP <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>                 <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
>                 *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Term for “non-pronominal anaphora"
> 
>                 *  [EXTERNAL]*
> 
>                 Dear all,
> 
>                 thank you for your guidance.
>                 I think the closest form is “lexical/nominal anaphora”
>                 but given the examples I’ve read so far, it seems that
>                 they are different from the lexical repetition within a
>                 clause.
>                 For example, in the following sentence, “the guy” refers
>                 to John, but it’s not in the same clause as “John”:
>                 “I know John_i. The guy_i has a dog.”
>                 But in the following Korean, the two occurences of
>                 “John” are within the same clause:
>                 “John_i-kwa John_i-uy kay" (lit. John_i and John_i’s dog)
>                 So I think the the within-clause repetition and
>                 cross-clause repetition must be distinguished.
>                 Also I agree with Martin’s initial suggestion that this
>                 Korean case shouldn’t be termed as “anaphora” because it
>                 really isn’t anaphoric reference. It’s just the repeated
>                 occurrence of the same lexeme where you would expect
>                 anaphora in an European language, so to call it anaphora
>                 might be a little Euro-centric.
> 
> 
>                  From Hong Kong,
> 
>                 Ian
> 
>                 On 27 May 2021, 11:41 PM +0800, Christian Chiarcos
>                 <christian.chiarcos at web.de
>                 <mailto:christian.chiarcos at web.de>>, wrote:
> 
>                     Depends on the context, I guess. In the area of
>                     *anaphor resolution* and *linguistic annotation*,
>                     "nominal anaphora" is much more established.
>                     "Lexical anaphora" is potentially ambiguous, because
>                     it would also cover or at least overlap with "verbal
>                     anaphora", a term occasionally used for "do so"
>                     constructions and/or verb repetitions.
> 
>                     Best,
> 
>                     Christian
> 
>                     Am Fr., 21. Mai 2021 um 08:00 Uhr schrieb JOO, Ian
>                     [Student] <ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk
>                     <mailto:ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk>>:
> 
>                         Dear all,
> 
>                         is there a term for “non-pronominal anaphora”,
>                         i. e. using personal names or titles for
>                         anaphoric reference?
>                         Example:
> 
>                             Hyeng-kwa hyeng-uy chinkwu
> 
>                             older.brother-COM older.brother-GEN friend
> 
>                             `Older brother and his (lit. older
>                             brother’s) friend’ (Korean)
> 
>                         I tried to search it in Google, but since I
>                         don’t know what this phenomenon is called, I
>                         don’t know what to search for.
>                         I would appreciate your help.
> 
> 
>                         Regards,
> 
>                         ian
> 
> 
>                         /Disclaimer:/
> 
>                         /This message (including any attachments)
>                         contains confidential information intended for a
>                         specific individual and purpose. If you are not
>                         the intended recipient, you should delete this
>                         message and notify the sender and The Hong Kong
>                         Polytechnic University (the University)
>                         immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or
>                         distribution of this message, or the taking of
>                         any action based on it, is strictly prohibited
>                         and may be unlawful./
> 
>                         /The University specifically denies any
>                         responsibility for the accuracy or quality of
>                         information obtained through University E-mail
>                         Facilities. Any views and opinions expressed are
>                         only those of the author(s) and do not
>                         necessarily represent those of the University
>                         and the University accepts no liability
>                         whatsoever for any losses or damages incurred or
>                         caused to any party as a result of the use of
>                         such information./
> 
>                         _______________________________________________
>                         Lingtyp mailing list
>                         Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>                         <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>                         http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
> 
>                 /Disclaimer:/
> 
>                 /This message (including any attachments) contains
>                 confidential information intended for a specific
>                 individual and purpose. If you are not the intended
>                 recipient, you should delete this message and notify the
>                 sender and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (the
>                 University) immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or
>                 distribution of this message, or the taking of any
>                 action based on it, is strictly prohibited and may be
>                 unlawful./
> 
>                 /The University specifically denies any responsibility
>                 for the accuracy or quality of information obtained
>                 through University E-mail Facilities. Any views and
>                 opinions expressed are only those of the author(s) and
>                 do not necessarily represent those of the University and
>                 the University accepts no liability whatsoever for any
>                 losses or damages incurred or caused to any party as a
>                 result of the use of such information./
> 
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 Lingtyp mailing list
>                 Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>                 <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>                 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
>             <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> 
>             	
> 
>             Mail priva di virus. www.avast.com
>             <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>             _______________________________________________
> 
>             Lingtyp mailing list
> 
>             Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org  <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> 
>             http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
> 
> 
>         -- 
> 
>         Martin Haspelmath
> 
>         Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> 
>         Deutscher Platz 6
> 
>         D-04103 Leipzig
> 
>         https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
> 
> 
> 
>         _______________________________________________
> 
>         Lingtyp mailing list
> 
>         Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org  <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> 
>         http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
> 
>     Lingtyp mailing list
> 
>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org  <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> 
>     http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Martin Haspelmath
> 
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> 
> Deutscher Platz 6
> 
> D-04103 Leipzig
> 
> https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 

-- 
Don Killian
Researcher in Linguistics
Department of Languages
PL 24 (Unioninkatu 38 B)
FI-00014 University of Helsinki
+358 (0)44 5016437



More information about the Lingtyp mailing list