(redirected from anaphors)
Also found in: Thesaurus.
Related to anaphors: anaphoric pronoun
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.anaphor - a word (such as a pronoun) used to avoid repetition; the referent of an anaphor is determined by its antecedent
word - a unit of language that native speakers can identify; "words are the blocks from which sentences are made"; "he hardly said ten words all morning"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
References in periodicals archive ?
The terms "nominal" and "pronominal" strategy imply that the verbs in the relevant constructions are transitive ones and that the reciprocal markers are referentially dependent anaphors. Siloni (2002) rejects this assumption for French with convincing arguments, which cannot easily be applied to languages like German, however.
This differentiation allows us to reconsider a number of issues relating to the synchronic and diachronic relationship between SELF-intensifiers and reflexive anaphors. Assessing relevant crosslinguistic data against the background of the aforementioned distinction reveals a surprising fact: patterns of "formal relatedness" suggest a particularly strong empirical as well as conceptual tie-up between reflexives and SELF-intensifiers in their nonjuxtaposed rather than adnominal use.
We argue in Featherston (2002) that the same applies to parts of the binding theory; again a murky descriptive area whose many twists and apparent exempt anaphors can be accommodated more naturally when survivability is embraced.
The sentences in (18) show the analogy of the two constructions with respect to condition A of the binding theory: backward binding of anaphors seems to be possible in both constructions.
(19.) Van der Sandt (1992) takes presuppositions to be anaphors that are either bound, if there is an available antecedent, or otherwise accommodated.
Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory.
NPs in subordinate clauses don't bind (* anaphors) into matrix clauses.
Most notably, such examples are of relevance to Chomsky's (1981, 1986) binding theory because they threaten to violate its claim that there is relationship of complementarity in the distribution of anaphors and personal pronouns.8 Specifically, they appear to violate the claim that such complementarity arises because anaphors are bound within their own minimal governing category whereas personal pronouns are free within their own minimal governing category.
Given the fact that anaphors need a subject antecedent and cannot be bound by a dative antecedent, plus the assumption that implicit arguments cannot bind anaphors in German, it follows that the infinitives in (19a) and (20a) must contain a PRO subject, those in (19b) and (20b) need not.
In the well-formed paraphrases in (39), the R-phrases should not be conceived of as sentence topics, but as nonreferential anaphors that corefer with the topic in a very loose sense.
The interpretation of many linguistic expressions depends on context: pronouns, anaphors, verbal morphology, etc.
the formalism used by Dik to represent anaphors in underlying clause structure, and the (necessarily) dynamic relationship between anaphors, their host predication, and the utterance containing a relevant antecedent trigger.