Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T12:33:32.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Pragmatic Analysis of So-Called Anaphoric Islands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Gregory Ward ,
Richard Sproat  and
Gail McKoon
Gregory Ward*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Richard Sproat
Affiliation:
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Gail McKoon
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Gregory Ward, Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University, 2016 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is commonly assumed that words are grammatically prohibited from containing antecedents for anaphoric elements, and thus constitute ‘anaphoric islands’ (Postal 1969). In this paper, we argue that such anaphora—termed OUTBOUND ANAPHORA—is in fact fully grammatical and governed by independently motivated pragmatic principles. The felicity of outbound anaphora is shown to be a function of the accessibility of the discourse entity which is evoked by the word-internal element and to which the anaphor is used to refer. The morphosyntactic status of the antecedent is but one factor affecting the accessibility of that entity. A series of psycholinguistic experiments support the analysis.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 439 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by 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

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chichewa. Lg. 63.741–82.Google Scholar
Browne, Wayles. 1974. On the topology of anaphoric peninsulas. Linguistic Inquiry 5.612–20.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google 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
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Corum, Claudia. 1973. Anaphoric peninsulas. Chicago Linguistic Society 9.89–97.Google Scholar
DiSciullo, Anna Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1984. Syntactic affixation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Greene, Steven, McKoon, Gail; and Ratcliff, Roger. 1990. Discourse models and anaphoric reference. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, ms.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara. 1977. The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara, and Sidner, Candace. 1986. Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12.175–204.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, and Hedberg, Nancy. 1990. Givenness. implicature, and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Berkeley Linguistics Society 16. 442–53.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7.391–426.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia, and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1986. The intonational structuring of discourse. Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting, 136–44. New York: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. Syntax and semantics VII: Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, James, 363–86. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by Yang, In Seok, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Ross, John. 1972. A note on anaphoric islands and causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 3.121–25.Google Scholar
Levi, Judith N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1984. Grammatical rules and sublexical elements. Papers from the parasession on lexical semantics, Chicago Linguistic Society 20.187–99.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
McKoon, Gail, and Ratcliff, Roger. 1989. Semantic association and elaborative inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15.326–38.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, Roger, Ward, Gregory, Ratclief, Roger; and Sproat, Richard. 1990. Morphosyntactic and pragmatic manipulations of salience in the interpretation of anaphora. Evanston, IL, and Murray Hill, NJ: Northwestern University and AT&T Bell Laboratories, ms.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1978. Toward a rational model of discourse comprehension. Proceedings of TINLAP-2, ed. by Waltz, David, 109–14. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory. 1985. Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 9.785–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian morphology and lexical theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Intentions in communication, ed. by Cohen, Phil, Morgan, Jerry, and Pollack, Martha, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1969. Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5.205–39.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981a. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 223–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981b. Topicalization, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 7.249–64.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1986. On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions. Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory, Chicago Linguistic Society 22.208–22.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, Roger, and McKoon, Gail. 1988. A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review 95.385–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27.53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1971. The superficial nature of anaphoric island constraints. Linguistic Inquiry 2.599–600.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1986. Infinite syntax. Norwood. NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Rothkope, Ernest, Koether, Mary, Billington, Marjorie; and Biesenbach, Barbara. 1988. Why are certain sentence constructions mnemonically robust for modifiers? New York: Columbia University, ms.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Hankamer, Jorge. 1984. Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7.325–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Kageyama, Taro. 1988. Word formation in a modular theory of grammar: Postsyntactic compounds in Japanese. Lg. 64.451–84.Google Scholar
Sidner, Candace. 1979. Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 1988. On anaphoric islandhood. Theoretical morphology, ed. by Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 291–301. Orlando: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael, and Ward, Gregory, 1987. Pragmatic considerations in anaphoric island phenomena. Chicago Linguistic Society 23.321–35.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., and Carlson, Greg N. 1990. Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 5.257–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tic Douloureux, P.R.N. 1971. A note on one's privates. Studies out in left field: Defamatory essays presented to James D. McCawley on the occasion of his 33rd or 34th birthday, ed. by Zwicky, Arnold et al., 45–52. Edmonton & Champaign: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A., and Kintsch, Walter. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Watt, W. 1975. The indiscreteness with which impenetrables are penetrated. Lingua 37.95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie. 1979. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Sperber, Dan. 1979. Ordered entailments: An alternative to pre-suppositional theories. Syntax and semantics XI: Presupposition, ed. by Oh, Choon-Kyu and Dinneen, David, 299–323. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

A correction has been issued for this article:

Corrections