Basic English Syntax with Exercises

anaphor

7.6 Conclusion

In this chapter we have introduced the final part of the clause structure of the English sentence. This part of the structure, built on top of the IP serves a number of purposes, but collectively seems to be to do with the syntactic arrangement of operators of one type or another. With wh-movement, both in interrogative clauses and relative clauses, the wh-element is an operator with either quantifier-like or anaphoric function. The interpretation of this element is dependent on movement which has a dual role, both to mark the clause as having a special interpretation (as an interrogative or relative) and to establish a relationship between that interpretation and a position in the clause itself. Hence, questions can be seen to be ‘about’ the subject or the clause, etc. and relatives can relate the modified noun to the object of the clause, etc. Focus and negative fronting may also have a similar function in that their interpretation is quantifier-like. Topicalisation, although not quantificational, may be seen as anaphoric in that the topic refers to some element established in the discourse.

8.2.2 Control

In (74a) the pronoun her can either be taken as referring to Sue or someone not even mentioned in the sentence. Note that it couldn’t possibly refer to Lucy. In contrast the pronoun in (74b) can only refer to Lucy and cannot refer to someone not mentioned or to Sue. We call the first kind of pronoun a pronominal and the second kind anaphors. It seems to work like this. An anaphor must have an antecedent within some domain, say the clause, and cannot refer to anything outside of this, or indeed have no antecedent at all. A pronominal, on the other hand, cannot have its antecedent within the same domain, but may refer freely outside this domain. The situation is a little more complex than this however, as there are restrictions on where the antecedent must be in relation to the pronoun. For example, while an object anaphor can take the subject as its antecedent, a subject anaphor cannot take the object as its antecedent:

8.2.2 Control

This is a simplification and things are more complex than this and further complications can be found if we try to define precisely what the binding domain is. However, for our purposes it will suffice to know that there is a domain within which an anaphor must have a binder and a pronominal cannot.

8.2.2 Control

What kind of a pronoun is PRO: an anaphor or a pronominal? Interestingly, this is not such a straightforward question to answer as PRO demonstrates properties of both pronominals and anaphors and a number of properties that are unique to itself. One can find in the literature claims that PRO is a pronominal, an anaphor or even both! One observation is that PRO more than often must have an antecedent, a property that it shares with anaphors. Thus, in the following PRO must be taken as referentially dependent on the subject of the main clause and cannot be taken as referring to someone not mentioned:

8.2.2 Control

In (81a) PRO has to be taken as coreferential with the object him and cannot refer to the subject. In contrast (81b) has PRO referring to the subject, not to the object. This is again very different from the referential conditions facing other pronouns, which although they either must or cannot take an antecedent within the binding domain, depending on whether they are an anaphor or a pronominal, are free to take any possible antecedent within these confines: