Arguably, anaphora is one of the most interesting linguistic phenomena. Broadly speaking, the term refers to a relation between two linguistic elements. In this relation, the interpretation of one element, the anaphor, is determined by the interpretation of another: the antecedent. Thus, in the sentence Cordelia said she loved Manet, the pronoun ‘she’ is the anaphor, which refers back (the word ‘anaphor’ is derived from a Greek term which translates as ‘to carry back’), while Cordelia is its antecedent. Anaphora is closely linked to deixis, the phenomenon in language whereby the meaning of certain elements requires contextual and/or co-textual information.

As Huang points out (p. 2), in recent years anaphora has become the object of attention not only in linguistics but also in philosophy of language, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. This, argues Huang, has happened for a number of reasons. Firstly, ‘anaphora represents one of the most complex phenomena of natural language’ (p. 2). As an example, he cites the fact that, whereas a language like English does not allow the dropping of a pronoun of a tensed clause, Italian and Spanish do. Furthermore, languages like Chinese and Japanese ‘exhibit the blocking effect of long-distance reflexivisation’ (p. 2). Huang (p. 16) also reminds the reader that Chomsky (Reference Chomsky1981, Reference Chomsky1982, Reference Chomsky1995) has repeatedly claimed that anaphora offers evidence of the innateness hypothesis. Finally, because ‘anaphora has been shown to interact with syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors […] it has provided a testing ground for a number of competing hypotheses concerning the relationship’ between those three components in linguistic theory.

Chapter one offers a clear and succinct introduction to the various typologies of anaphora. Already from this chapter, the reader is exposed to the breadth of linguistic data which characterises the whole book. Examples from languages as different as English, Chinese, Serbo-Croatian, and Nunggubuyo, a language spoken in the Northern Territory of Australia, are presented and discussed. Needless to say, this is extremely valuable for anyone interested in typology. However, in this reviewer's opinion, this is also useful for language instructors, as well as language learners.

Chapter two deals with syntactic approaches to anaphora. In it, Huang presents and convincingly critiques approaches to anaphora that stem from generative approaches to language. In the same chapter, the author also takes account of works on anaphora informed by Optimality theory. Chapter three concentrates on semantic approaches to anaphora. It begins by discussing Verb Phrase-ellipsis anaphora, in order to account for sentences such as (1), where the VP-ellipsis can give rise to competing interpretations, in which Susan either adores her own piano teacher or she adores Mary's teacher.

1. (1) Mary adores her piano teacher, and Susan does, too. (p. 133)

Both chapters two and three are detailed and, as pointed out, the items that the author discusses are always illustrated with examples from a varied array of languages. Overall, the argumentation is clear. Huang's reason for discussing syntactic approaches to anaphora from the point of view of generative grammar in its latest developments, principles-and-parameters and the minimalist programme, is that this is the ‘most widely studied and most dominant’ (p. vii) of current syntactic theories. On the other hand, the author's justification for paying attention to Optimality theory is ‘the belief that this theory […] will yield some exciting results’ (p. vii). Huang is certainly right about the established status of the Chomskyan tradition and the rising popularity of Optimality theory. However, although – in fairness – suggestions for further reading are provided, readers not well versed in these approaches might find chapter two somewhat demanding. Chapter three, which focuses on semantic approaches to anaphora, ends with a formal analysis of logophoric pronouns in African languages and long-distance reflexives in the languages of East Asia by resorting to Discourse Representation Theory (DRT). DRT is ‘a formal account of the meaning of discourse […] in which a semantic representation, called Discourse Representation Structure, is derived cumulatively, sentence by sentence, by rules operating on representations of their syntax’ (Matthews, Reference Matthews2007: 108). The decision not to discuss DRT elsewhere in the volume contributes to the impression of chapter three as being slightly ‘weaker’ than the other ones, mainly because it does not appear as coherent.

Perhaps because of Huang's expertise in pragmatics, chapter four is the strongest and – in its innovative approach – the most engaging and convincing, at least in this reviewer's opinion. Here, the author's main aims are the following (p. 205): to reinforce previously-made arguments that syntax, semantics, and pragmatics ‘are interconnected to determine many of the processes of anaphora that are thought to fall within the province of grammar’; to advance his neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora ‘against a wide variety of genetically unrelated and structurally diverse languages’; and to ‘survey a number of other pragmatic/cognitive/functional analyses of anaphora’ (p. 205). The resulting account is well-argued, interesting, and convincing.

The last of the analytical chapters, chapter five, addresses switch-reference and discourse anaphora. The former refers to one of the mechanisms available in natural languages where a marker signals ‘whether a subject or other argument of a following verb has or has not the same referent as that of the verb preceding’ (Matthews, Reference Matthews2007: 394). The latter deals with NPs which are governed by pragmatic principles which are active at the discourse, rather than sentence, level. This concluding chapter allows Huang to continue his comparison and discussion of syntactically-oriented languages, such as English, and pragmatically-oriented ones, such as Chinese and Japanese. In so doing, the author offers an impressive and clear typological survey.

Overall, this is an impressive work which is rich in detail and yet, in spite of the possible unfamiliarity (to some readers, at least), offers an illuminating and often innovative account of anaphora. To readers new to the study of anaphora, and especially ones not well-versed in the aforementioned linguistic theories, Huang's work may prove challenging, in places. Although there are numerous notes, some with suggestions for further readings, and a lengthy bibliography, a glossary might have made it easier to approach. In addition, one of the strengths of the work, i.e. its many examples from many languages, all of which are followed by grammatical glosses as well as translations, makes the text quite dense and ‘heavy’ to follow in places. In fairness, the author states (pp. vii–viii) that his assumption is that the book will be of interest primarily to ‘scholars and students with some background in contemporary syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and discourse theories’. Yet, while the book is possibly challenging in places, this reviewer believes that sections of this important work will be of interest, as well as helpful, not only to scholars and students but, crucially, also to (foreign) language-teachers. The many examples and the discussions of them will certainly enhance the teaching and understanding of the fascinating, multifaceted, ubiquitous phenomenon which is anaphora.