Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T17:21:57.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual Reference Points: A Cognitive Grammar Account of Pronominal Anaphora Constraints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Karen van Hoek
Karen van Hoek*
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
*
Program in Linguistics, University of Michigan, 1088 Frieze Bldg., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285 kvh@umich.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the constraints on pronominal anaphora in English within the framework of Cognitive Grammar in terms of semantic distinctions between pronouns and full noun phrases. Semantic notions of prominence and conceptual interconnection are used to develop a model of conceptual reference points which defines the contexts within which coreference is acceptable or unacceptable. The analysis provides a conceptual-semantic account of the ‘core’ anaphora facts which have previously been explained in terms of structural notions such as c-command, as well as certain data which have long been problematic for structural accounts.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , June 1995, pp. 310 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24.65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Pronouns and repeated nouns. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1979. Pronouns in discourse. In Givón 1979b, 289–309.Google Scholar
Bosch, P. 1983. Agreement and anaphora. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cantrall, William R. 1974. Viewpoint, reflexives, and the nature of noun phrases. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carden, Guy. 1982. Backward anaphora in discourse context. Journal of Linguistics 18.361–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1979. The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Givón 1979b, 159–81.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. by Tomlin, Russell, 21–51. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1991. Grammatical subjects in speaking and writing. Text 11.45–72.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1992. Discourse, consciousness and time. Santa Barbara: University of California, ms.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1992. Grammar in mind and brain: Explorations in cognitive science. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard. 1985. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York & London: Garland.Google Scholar
Farmer, Ann. 1984. Modularity in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1977. The case for case reopened. Syntax and semantics 8: Grammatical relations, ed. by Cole, Peter and Sadock, Gerrold, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 1987a. Anaphora in popular written English narratives. Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. by Tomlin, Russell, 157–74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 1987b. Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979a. On understanding grammar: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.) 1979b. Syntax and discourse. Syntax and semantics 12. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, ed. by Givón, Talmy, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984a. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984b. Direct object and dative-shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. Objects, ed. by Plank, Franz, 151–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1985. The pragmatics of referentiality. Meaning, form and use in context, ed. by Schiffrin, Deborah, 120–38. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1989. The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Technical Report No. 89-7. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69.274–307.Google Scholar
Hendrick, Randall. 1990. Breton pronominals, binding, and barriers. The syntax of the modern Celtic languages: Syntax and semantics 23, ed. by Hendrick, Randall, 121–65. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John. 1979. Organizational patterns in discourse. In Givón 1979b, 135–57.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1976. Arguments for a non-transformational grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8.63–99.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1976. Pronouns and reference. Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, James D., 275–336. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987b. Nouns and verbs. Language 63.53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4.1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1989. On the necessity of binding conditions. Essays on anaphora, ed. by Lasnik, Howard, 149–67. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert. 1979. The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In Givón 1979b, 115–34.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara. 1986. Introduction. Studies in the acquisition of anaphora Vol. 1: Defining the constraints, ed. by Lust, Barbara, 3–103. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1977. Starting points. Language 53.152–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCray, A. 1980. The semantics of backwards anaphora. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, ed. by Jensen, J., 329–44. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara, and Bach, Emmon. 1984. Quantification, pronouns and VP-anaphora. Reprinted in Truth, Interpretation and Information: Selected papers from the Third Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, Theo, and Stokhof, Martin, 99–130. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Postal, Paul. 1983. Towards a universal characterization of passivization. Studies in Relational Grammar 1, ed. by Perlmutter, David, 3–29. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23.261–303.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12.605–36.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1986. Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. Studies in the acquisition of anaphora Vol. 1, ed. by Lust, Barbara, 123–50. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24.657–720.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1987. Modal subordination, distributivity and anaphora. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence. 1983. Pronominal reference: Child language and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Force dynamics in language and thought. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, ed. by Eilfort, William H., Kroeber, Paul D., and Peterson, Karen L., 293–337. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1995. The windowing of attention in language. Essays in semantics, ed. by Thompson, Sandra and Shibatani, Masayoshi. to appear.Google Scholar
Thomason, Richmond, and Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. A semantic theory of adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 2.195–220.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell. 1983. On the interaction of syntactic subject, thematic information, and agent in English. Journal of Pragmatics 7.411–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, Russell. 1987. Linguistic reflections of cognitive events. Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. by Tomlin, Russell, 455–79. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hoek, Karen. 1992. Paths through conceptual structure: Constraints on pronominal anaphora. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
van Hoek, Karen. 1993. Conceptual connectivity and constraints on anaphora. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society Parasession, 363–75.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Sproat, Richard; and McKoon, Gail. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67.439–73.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65.695–727.Google Scholar