Presemantics and Semantics of Anaphoric Pronouns

Journal of Pragmatics, 1997

Sciences pour la communication, 2015

Problematic Cases of Exophoric/Endophoric Reference in Two Modern-phrased Translations of the Quranic Text with Particular Reference to Dummy/Impersonal Pronouns, 2019

This paper is concerned with the investigation into and the translation of certain problematic cases of exophoric/endophoric reference-with particular reference to 'dummy pronouns'-in two modern-phrased translations of the Qur'anic text, namely The Gracious Qur'an: A Modern-phrased Interpretation in English by Ahmad Zaki Hammad, published in 2006 (edition used is that of 2008) and The Qur'an by Saheeh International, published in 1997 (a revised edition of 2004). A translation-oriented text analysis approach is adopted. Certain problematic cases of reference are observed within the range of the present paper to cause real translational dilemmas for translators: sometimes the referent is not only 'questionable' pushing the translator to make painful decisions that can result in mistranslations and/or mistakes, but it can be both anaphoric and cataphoric within its micro context as well; even a multi-referent/dummy pronoun! In such a case, the translator is supposed to make a decision that solves the problem and does not affect the communicativeness of the context at the same time. Still, reference ambiguity, in such cases, does have a subtle function and/or purpose that cannot be conveyed in the translation process due to the morpho-syntactic yet pragma-semantic differences between English and Arabic. In this case, the problem is not with the translators, but it, as it were, is with the target language norms and/or traditions. The ultimate objective of this paper, inasmuch as the researcher endeavours to answer its respective research questions, is to give insight into such morpho-syntactic yet pragma-semantic translational problems of reference, on the one hand, and to reach a conclusion of avail to practising translators, )*( Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts Volume 79 Issue 8 October 2019 on the other hand, eschewing respective translation loss in the examples selected as well as in similar ones.

Nazariyat, 2024

The issue of ambiguous words (al-mubhamât), which occupies the core subject of 'Adud al-Dīn al-Ījī's (d. 756/1355) al-Risālat al-wad'iyya, has blossomed into subject of a serious logical and semantical dispute between two great names of later Islamic thought, Sa'd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (d. 792/1390) and Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 816/1413). The operant traces of the debate can palpably be traced up to the late Ottoman polymath Ismail Gelenbevī (d. 1205/1791) and his commentators. In this paper, I take up the relevant debate with reference to the problem of context-sensitive terms in the contemporary philosophy of language. Throughout the article, I examine both the course of the issue in the philosophy of language tradition by using the literature following al-Ījī's treatise and how al-Taftāzānī has made this topic into a matter of logic by referring to some works of logic. Thus, I intend to show the contributions or criticisms of some philosophers from al-Taftāzānī to Gelenbevī towards the logicalization of context-sensitive terms.

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2002

This paper investigates the syntax of independent pronounsin Halkomelem Salish and argues that thesepronouns are morphosyntactically complex. In particular,the paper shows that independent pronounscontain a syntactically active determiner, and concludesthat they are full DPs with an elliptical NP.Licensing of elliptical NPs is subject to cross-linguisticvariation, and thus not all languages allow fordeterminers to be used pronominally. The analysisof independent pronouns as full DPs is supported bytheir external syntax as well as their bindingproperties. It is shown that independent pronouns behave likeR-expressions in that they are subject toCondition C. On the basis of this observation, it is concluded thatbinding theory must be sensitive to syntacticcategories and, crucially, that regular 'condition B' pronounscannot be analyzed as (intransitive) DPs,contrary to standard assumptions.

Journal of Pragmatics, 2011

Work on anaphoric and cataphoric relations has so far concentrated mainly on the question of how they are signalled by simple determiners such as the definite article and demonstratives, as illustrated in (1) and (2). (1) We saw some tall ships in the harbour; the boats were here for the Bicentennial. (Martin, 1992:126) (2) This is what bothers me-you can't trust them. (Martin, 1992:123) In (1) the in the boats indicates that these boats are presumed known. To identify them, the hearer 1 has to retrieve the set introduced by some tall ships in the preceding text, i.e. effect anaphoric retrieval of the antecedent. To identify this in (2), the hearer has to relate it to the postcedent you can't trust them, which is cataphoric retrieval. We will use Martin's (1992:124) cover term ''phoric'' for both anaphoric and cataphoric relations. In the tradition of Halliday and Hasan (1976:Ch. 2), Martin (1992:99) defines anaphoric and cataphoric items as signalling that information

2014

We argue in this paper that many common adverbial phrases generally taken to be discourse connectives signalling discourse relations between adjacent discourse units are instead anaphors. We do this by (i) demonstrating their behavioral similarity with more common anaphors (pronouns and definite NPs); (ii) presenting a general framework for understanding anaphora into which they nicely fit; (iii) showing the interpretational benefits of understanding discourse adverbials as anaphors; and (iv) sketching out a lexicalised grammar that facilitates discourse interpretation as a product of compositional rules, anaphor resolution and inference. Comments University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research in Cognitive Science Technical Report No. IRCS-01-13. At the time of publication, the author, Bonnie L. Webber, was affiliated with the University of Edinburgh. Currently, July 2007, she is a faculty member in the Department of Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. This technical r...

Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1986

Genitiw seg-reflexives c. !seg selv]NP } selv-reflexives d. !ham selvjNP e. !hverandrejNP reciprocal 1 closeness anaphors The reflexive forms seg and sin are third person forms, contrasting with third person non-reflexive pronouns like ham 'him' etc.; in first and second person there are no special reflexive forms corresponding to seg! sin.' The labels to the right in (1) will be used for reference throughout. One fact about these anaphors is that the items in (c)-(e) are subject to a CLOSENESS requirement relative to their antecedent, which does not apply to (a)-(b); this requirement is essentially the same as for English reflexives and reciprocals, and provides the label indicated in (1). Another circumstance is that all the seg-reflexives «a)-(c» are constrained by a condition which, on the face of it, may seem not to apply to (d), (e), viz. that the anaphor be contained in an expression PREDICATED of the antecedent. The purpose of this paper is to bring to light some considerations favoring an approach where all anaphors, including (d), (e), are subjected to such a condition. Section 1.1. will demonstrate the closeness condition on (c)-(e), while sections 1.2. and 1.3. show the need for supplementary conditions relating to these anaphors, in view of certain constructions treated there. The predication condition on seg-reflexives is demonstrated in 2.1., and in 2.2.-2.3. we consider seg-reflexives inside those constructions which were seen to necessitate principles in addition to the closeness condition for the closeness anaphors. Crucially, no extra principles turn out to be required for the behavior of seg-reflexives in these cases. This opens the possibility of subjecting the closeness anaphors in general to a predication condition, whereby the supplementary principles considered in 1.2. and 1.3. can be dispensed with. Section 3. gives the outline of such an approach. Among other things, it will follow, on such an approach, that the notion of structural c-command will play a less direct role in the principles of anaphora binding than it does in current versions of EST, such as Government/Binding theory. While this discussion is carried out with 103