Show Less
Restricted access

Nouvelles perspectives sur l’anaphore

Points de vue linguistique, psycholinguistique et acquisitionnel


Edited By Marion Fossard and Marie-José Béguelin

Longtemps limitée à une simple perspective textualiste, l’anaphore a, ces vingt dernières années, été l’enjeu de nombreux travaux influencés par les forts courants de la linguistique du discours ainsi que par les approches cognitives, pragmatiques et, plus récemment encore, interactionnelles de la référence. Phénomène discursif éminemment complexe, l’anaphore met en jeu des mécanismes informationnels, mémoriels et inférentiels variés, que de nombreux modèles, linguistiques et psycholinguistiques, ont cherché à capter.
Le propos du présent ouvrage est double : proposer un bilan épistémologique mettant au jour, parmi les modèles et approches proposés, ceux qui ont résisté au temps (et aux modes) ; pointer les aspects du phénomène anaphorique qui nécessiteraient des investigations complémentaires. En abordant l’anaphore de manière interdisciplinaire, ce livre vise aussi à décloisonner des domaines de recherche qui trop souvent s’ignorent : il rétablit le dialogue entre approches linguistiques, psycholinguistiques et acquisitionnelles, tout en faisant place aux perspectives orientées vers la logopédie et le TAL (Traitement Automatique du Langage).
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Ambiguity avoidance in noun-phrase anaphora: The repeated name advantage: Wind Cowles & Laura Dawidziuk


In normal discourse or dialogue, it is frequently necessary to refer back to things that have already been mentioned, and languages typically offer a number of ways to achieve this. For example, in a sentence pair like (1) there are several potential forms that an anaphoric expression could take.

(1)The robin flew down from the tree.

{It / The bird / The robin} was on the hunt for a tasty worm.

Repeated anaphors (such as the robin above) have often been associated with increased reading times when they refer to antecedent referents that are “in focus” (at the center of attention – a status that can be achieved both when they are the subject of the previous sentence (e.g. topic) and when they are clefted (e.g. contrastive focus)). Yet, under certain circumstances there may be reasons why a repeated anaphor to a highly accessible antecedent referent would be a better choice than a less specific anaphor, such as a category1 anaphor (e.g. the bird) or pronoun (e.g. it). In this paper we investigate the hypothesis that the ‘penalty’ for repeated anaphora to a focused antecedent is reduced when it allows unambiguous identification of the antecedent. ← 213 | 214 →

Many factors are known to influence the time it takes readers to process an anaphor and which referent they interpret as the antecedent referent. In this paper we will focus particularly on the factors that are known to influence fuller forms of anaphors, and especially...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.