Accessing And Non-accessing Functions Of Anaphoric Expressions

One of the kernel questions for anaphoric study is why diverse anaphoric expressions differ in terms of their structure and distribution. The Accessibility theories, represented by Ariel, regard the anaphoric expressions as accessibility markers, attributing the differences between the anaphoric expressions to the different degrees of their antecedents in the mental space. These theories, however, show various insufficiencies in the explanation of many anaphoric phenomena. In addition, these theories are often haunted by problems of obscure definition of concepts, and lack of logical consistency within their theoretical frameworks. These problems need to be solved, if a better cognitive-based theory for anaphora is to be constructed; and these problems can be reduced to one crucial question: what indeed has been encoded by anaphoric expressions, if it is not the degrees of the accessibility of the antecedents.The conclusion we draw in the present study is as follows: the anaphoric expressions encode two kinds of functions, i.e. the functions concerning the retrieval of the antecedents and the functions irrelevant to the retrieval of the antecedents. With the functions relating to the retrieval of the antecedents, anaphoric expressions mark different spheres of contexts by reference to a set of cognitive traits, accessibility being one of them, derived from Unity or Consistency, which is regarded as a synthetical property of Topics.As we see it, the discrepancies between the major types of anaphoric expressions are a result of a process of linguistic simplification motivated by the omniscient Principle of Economy over the long course of human practice of linguistic communication. To be specific, this process of linguistic simplification is a result of the joint influence of three cognitive and pragmatic principles, namely, the Principle of Minimal Differentiation, the Principle of Minimal Burden on Memory, and the Principle of Minimal Resort to Linguistic Medium. These principles require the participants in communication to maximally rely on pragmatic inference to reach understanding, and to maximally resort to familiar anaphoric expressions to achieve the task of differentiation. It is the joint influence of these principles, we believe, that has caused the evolution of anaphoric system in the direction of simplification, resulting in the existence of the three major sub-systems of anaphoric expressions, namely, the system of nominal expressions, the system of demonstrative expressions and the system of pronouns.From the cognitive and pragmatic perspective, we propose the concept of Elementary Topic, which we believe to be the key to the description of the distribution of the three major types of anaphoric expressions. Generally speaking, pronouns refer to the thematic entities of the current or the previous Elementary Topic; demonstratives are mainly used to refer to relatively obscure entities of the current or the previous Elementary Topic. The referential sphere for nominal expressions is much wider: they are allowed to refer to actually any entity within the global topic of the discourse. The different contextual spheres for different anaphoric expressions constitute a major part of the functional meaning of these linguistic signs. And since consistency is a synthetical property , we can describe these spheres from different perspectives: In addition to describing the different anaphoric expressions as marking different contextual spheres, we can describe them as marking different degrees of Inferential Expectability of the antecedents; or we can describe them as marking different degrees of Unity or Consistency of the antecedents; We can also say that different anaphoric expressions possess different capabilities of Conjunction, enabling them to realize the continuity of antecedents in topics of different degrees of Unity. With these concepts we have given detailed analysis to diverse usages of pronouns, demonstratives and nominal expressions in discourse, yielding satisfactory results.With careful observation we see that a high proportion of anaphoric expressions actually execute non-accessing functions in discourse. We can analyze the structure of an anaphoric expression into two parts: the Referential Nucleus and the Referential Substance. The Referential Nucleus is an abstract functional unit, referring to the kernel part of a definite noun phrase that is relevant to its presuppositional meaning; and the rest of the structure is the Referential Substance. The non-accessing functions of the anaphoric expressions can be classified into three kinds: the function of Pseudo-presupposition, the function of Rhetorical Retrieval, and the function of Contextual Anchorage. By Pseudo-presupposition we mean anaphoric expressions may lose their original function of presupposing the existence of the referents, but are actually used to introduce new entities, or new information about the entities into the context. By Rhetorical Retrieval we mean anaphoric expressions may carry old information whose function is to create specific rhetorical effects, rather than help the retrieval of the antecedent. By Contextual Anchorage we mean anaphoric expressions introducing new entities may carry information whose function is to link the new entities with old entities in the context, enabling them to merge efficiently into the contextual structure.We have carefully analyzed the functions of demonstrative and nominal expressions, and found that the non-accessing functions such as Pseudo-presupposition, Rhetorical Retrieval and Contextual Anchorage can be found in almost every part of the structure of the anaphoric expressions. These non-accessing functions are not only born by demonstrative phrases, proper names, but also born by generic names, including bare generic names and phrasal generic names. With the notions of Pseudo-presupposition and Rhetorical Retrieval, we can also give satisfactory explanation to many linguistic phenomena relating to Indirect Anaphora, Metaphorical Anaphora, etc.. Even some of the usage of demonstrative phrases we call Domain-recall references can be explained as cases of Pseudo-presupposition. Statistical figures show the non-accessing functions are very common; they hold a great proportion of the usage of anaphoric expressions, and thus should not be ignored as a trivial matter in the study of anaphora.The present study is innovative in the following respects:1)Based on a critical survey of the conceptual foundation of the Accessibility theory, we have proposed a series of new concepts, giving Accessibility a much subtler definition. This refined definition of Accessibility not only can clear up misunderstandings about the Accessibility theory, but is helpful for us to decide more accurately the nature of the function of anaphoric expressions in discourse, which is essential for any related statistical studies.2)We have given particularly detailed analysis to the concept of"Consistency"(or Unity). We suggest that Consistency is a synthetical cognitive property explicable from varied angles. We claim that intense consistency lies in Elementary Topics, and is a principal cognitive condition for the discrepancies between anaphoric expressions. With this analysis we hope to construct a unifying model, enabling us to interpret the differences between anaphoric expressions from diverse vantage points.3)We propose that the differences between anaphoric expressions be ultimately attributed to three pragmatic and cognitive principles relating to human communication, namely, the Principle of Minimal Differentiation, the Principle of Minimal Burden on Memory, and the Principle of Minimal Resort to Linguistic Medium. These principles prove to be satisfactory in accounting for the distributional patterns of anaphoric expressions in discourse. They also provide relatively concise explanations to some"exceptional"usages of anaphoric expressions.4)We have given a comprehensive description to the non-accessing functions of anaphoric expressions. We classify the non-accessing functions into three major categories: the function of Pseudo-presupposition, the function of Rhetorical Retrieval, and the function of Contextual Anchorage. A tentative statistical study shows that these functions are wide-spread in the usage of anaphoric expressions in discourse. We believe a systematic description of non-accessing functions of anaphoric expressions is necessary for a better understanding of their nature in discourse, which is indispensable if we want to avoid invalidity in related statistical studies.5)We have revised the Reference-point theory of Langacker and van Hoek, proposing a new cognitive model based on concepts such as"Basic Domain","Reference point","Major Entities","Minor Entities", etc.. This revised Reference-point model proves to be effective in explaining many anaphoric phenomena, including the structural characteristics of what we call Domain-recall References, Broad Indirect Anaphora, and long definite expressions, etc..