In linguistics, anaphora (/nfr/) is the use of an expression the interpretation of which

depends upon another expression in context (its antecedent or postcedent). In the

sentence Sally arrived, but nobody saw her, the pronoun her is anaphoric, referring back
to Sally. The term anaphora denotes the act of referring, whereas the word that actually does
the referring is sometimes called an anaphor (or cataphor). Usually, an anaphoric
expression is a proform or some other kind of deictic expression.[1]
Anaphora is an important concept for different reasons and on different levels: first, anaphora
indicates howdiscourse is constructed and maintained; second, anaphora binds
different syntactical elements together at the level of the sentence; third, anaphora presents
a challenge to natural language processing in computational linguistics, since the
identification of the reference can be difficult; and fourth, anaphora tells some things about
how language is understood and processed, which is relevant to fields of linguistics interested
in cognitive psychology.[2]

Contents
[hide]

1 Nomenclature

and examples

2 The "anaphor" in generative grammar: a source of confusion

3 Complement anaphora
4 See also
5 Notes
6 Literature
7 External links

Nomenclature and examples[edit]

The term anaphora is actually used in two ways. In a broad sense, it denotes the act of
referring. Any time a given expression (e.g. a proform) refers to another contextual entity,
anaphora is present. In a second, narrower sense, the term anaphora denotes the act of
referring to the left, that is, the anaphor points to its left toward its antecedent (in languages
that are written from left to right). In this narrow sense, anaphora stands in contrast
to cataphora, which sees the act of referring pointing to the right. A proform is a cataphor
when it points to its right toward its postcedent. Both effects together are called endophora.
In the broad sense, the term anaphora includes all of these referential effects.[3] Examples of
anaphora and cataphora (in the narrow sense) are given next. Anaphors and cataphors
appear in bold, and their antecedents and postcedents are underlined:
Anaphora (endophora)
a. Susan dropped the plate. It shattered loudly. - The pronoun it is an anaphor; it
points to the left toward its antecedentthe plate.
b. The music stopped, and that upset everyone. - The demonstrative pronoun that is
an anaphor; it points to the left toward its antecedent The music stopped.

c. Fred was angry, and so was I. - The adverb so is an anaphor; it points to the left
toward its antecedent angry.
d. If Sam buys a new bike, I will do it as well. - The verb phrase do it is anaphor; it
points to the left toward its antecedentbuys a new bike.
Cataphora (endophora)
a. Because he was very cold, David put on his coat. - The pronoun he is a cataphor;
it points to the right toward its postcedent David.
b. His friends have been criticizing Jim for exaggerating. - The possessive
adjective his is a cataphor; it points to the right toward its postcedent Jim.
c. Although Sam might do so, I will not buy a new bike. - The verb phrase do so is a
cataphor; it points to the right toward its postcedent buy a new bike.
d. In their free time, the kids play video games. - The possessive adjective their is a
cataphor; it points to the right toward its postcedent the kids.
A further distinction is sometimes drawn. One distinguishes between endophoric
and exophoric reference. Exophoric reference occurs when an expression, an exophor, refers
to something that is not directly present in the linguistic context, but is rather present in the
situational context. Deictic proforms are stereotypical exophors, e.g.
Exophora
a. This garden hose is better than that one. - The demonstrative
adjectives this and that are exophors; they point to entities in the situational context.
b. Jerry is standing over there. - The adverb there is an exophor; it points to a
location in the situational context.
Finally, one can also acknowledge homophoric reference. Homophoric reference occurs when
a generic phrase obtains a specific meaning through knowledge of its context. For example,
the referent of the phrase the Queenmust be determined by the context of the utterance,
which would identify the identity of the queen in question. In discussing 'The Mayor' (of a
city), the Mayor's identity must be understood broadly through the context which the speech
references as general 'object' of understanding.

The "anaphor" in generative grammar: a source of confusion[edit]

The term anaphor is used in a special way in generative grammar. It denotes a reflexive or
reciprocal pronoun in English and analogous forms in other languages. The use of the
term anaphor in this narrow sense is unique to generative grammar, and in particular, to the
traditional binding theory.[4] This theory investigates the syntactic relationship that can or

must hold between a given proform and its antecedent (or postcedent). Anaphors (reflexive
and reciprocal pronouns) behave very differently from, for instance, personal pronouns. [5] Due
to the prominence of the traditional binding theory in the study of syntax, this specialized
meaning has been a source of confusion about exactly what an anaphor is supposed to be.

Complement anaphora[edit]
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it byverifying the claims
made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be
removed. (November 2014)
In some special cases, anaphora may refer not to its usual antecedent, but to
its complement set. This phenomenon was first studied in a series of psycholinguistic
experiments in the early 1990s.[6] In the following example a, the anaphoric
pronoun they refers to the children who are eating the ice-cream. Contrastingly, example b
has they seeming to refer to the children who are not eating ice-cream:
a. Only a few of the children ate their ice-cream. They ate the strawberry flavor
first.
b. Only a few of the children ate their ice-cream. They threw it around the room
instead.
That examples like the second one here (example b) exist seems odd. [according to whom?] By
definition, an anaphoric pronoun must refer to some noun (phrase) that has already been
introduced into the discourse. In complement anaphora cases, however, it is difficult to
explain how the anaphor can refer to something that is, from a technical standpoint, not
present, since the referent of the pronoun has not been formerly introduced. The set of icecream-eating-children in example b is introduced into the discourse, but then the
pronoun they refers to the set of non-ice-cream-eating-children, a set which has not been
properly mentioned.
Several accounts of this phenomenon are found in the literature, based on both semantic and
pragmatic considerations. The most important point of debate is the question of whether the
pronoun in sentence b refers to the complement set (i.e. only to the set of non-ice-creameating-children) or to the maximal set (i.e. to all the children, while discounting the minority
group).[7] The answer to this question may have theoretical consequences regarding the kind
of information the brain is able to access or calculate, and also pragmatic consequences
regarding the way a theory of anaphora resolution should be constructed.
In linguistics, coreference (sometimes written co-reference) occurs when two or more
expressions in a text refer to the same person or thing; they have the same referent,
e.g. Bill said he would come; the proper noun Bill and the pronoun he refer to the same
person, namely to Bill.[1] Coreference is the main concept underlying bindingphenomena in
the field of syntax. The theory of binding explores the syntactic relationship that exists
between coreferential expressions in sentences and texts. When two expressions are
coreferential, the one is usually a full form (the antecedent) and the other is an abbreviated
form (a proform or anaphor). Linguists use indices to show coreference, as with the i index in
the example Billi said hei would come. The two expressions with the same reference
are coindexed, hence in this example Bill and he are coindexed, indicating that they should be
interpreted as coreferential.

Contents
[hide]

1 Types of

coreference

2 Coreference versus bound variables

3 Coreference resolution
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References

Types of coreference[edit]
When exploring coreference, there are numerous distinctions that can be made,
e.g. anaphora, cataphora, split antecedents, coreferring noun phrases, etc.[2] When dealing
with proforms (pronouns, pro-verbs, pro-adjectives, etc.), one distinguishes between anaphora
and cataphora. When the proform follows the expression to which it refers, anaphora is
present (the proform is an anaphor), and when it precedes the expression to which it refers,
cataphora is present (the proform is a cataphor). These notions all illustrated as follows:
Anaphora
a. The musici was so loud that iti couldn't be enjoyed. - The anaphor it follows the
expression to which it refers (its antecedent).
b. Our neighborsi dislike the music. If theyi are angry, the cops will show up
soon. - The anaphor they follows the expression to which it refers (its antecedent).
Cataphora
a. If theyi are angry about the music, the neighborsi will call the cops. - The
cataphor they precedes the expression to which it refers (its postcedent).
b. Despite heri difficulty, Wilmai came to understand the point. - The
cataphor her precedes the expression to which it refers (its postcedent)
Split antecedents
a. Caroli told Bobi to attend the party. Theyi arrived together. - The
anaphor they has a split antecedent, referring to both Carol and Bob.
b. When Caroli helps Bobi and Bobi helps Caroli, theyi can accomplish any task. The anaphor they has a split antecedent, referring to both Carol and Bob.
Coreferring noun phrases
a. The project leaderi is refusing to help. The jerki thinks only of himself. -

Coreferring noun phrases, whereby the second noun phrase is a predication over the
first.

b. Some of our colleagues1 are going to be supportive. These kinds of

people1 will earn our gratitude. - Coreferring noun phrases, whereby the second
noun phrase is a predication over the first.

Coreference versus bound variables[edit]

Semanticists and logicians sometimes draw a distinction between coreference and what is
known as a bound variable.[3] An instance of a bound variable can look like coreference, but
from a technical standpoint, one can argue that it actually is not. Bound variables occur when
the antecedent to the proform is an indefinite quantified expression, e.g. [4]
a. Every studenti has received hisi grade. - The pronoun his is an example of a
bound variable
b. No studenti was upset with hisi grade. - The pronoun his is an example of a
bound variable
Quantified expressions such as every student and no student are, from a technical standpoint,
not referential. The subjects every student and no student are grammatically singular, but
they do not pick out single referents in the discourse world. Thus since the antecedents to the
possessive adjective his is not referential, one also cannot say that his is referential. Instead,
one says it is a variable that is bound by its antecedent. Its reference varies based upon
which of the students in the discourse world is thought of. If Jack, John, and Jerry are the three
students in the discourse world, then the meaning of his varies based upon whether Jack,
John, or Jerry is the focus of the minds eye. The existence of bound variables is perhaps more
apparent with the following example:
c. Only Jacki likes hisi grade. - The pronoun his can be a bound variable.
This sentence is ambiguous. It can mean that Jack likes his grade, but everyone else dislikes
Jack's grade, or more likely, it means that Jack likes his grade, but John dislikes his (John's)
grade, and Jerry dislikes his (Jerry's) grade. The second, more natural reading is the bound
variable reading. While the distinction between coreference and bound variables may be real,
coindexation can be construed as accommodating both. That is, when two or more
expressions are coindexed, it indicates that one is dealing with coreference or a bound
variable.

Coreference resolution[edit]
In computational linguistics, coreference resolution is a well-studied problem in discourse. To
derive the correct interpretation of a text, or even to estimate the relative importance of
various mentioned subjects, pronouns and other referring expressions must be connected to
the right individuals. Algorithms intended to resolve coreferences commonly look first for the
nearest preceding individual that is compatible with the referring expression. For
example, she might attach to a preceding expression such as the woman or Anne, but not

to Bill. Pronouns such as himself have much stricter constraints. Algorithms for resolving
coreference tend to have accuracy in the 75% range. As with many linguistic tasks, there is a
tradeoff between precision and recall.
A classic problem for coreference resolution in English, is the pronoun it, which has many
uses. It can refer much like he and she, except that it generally refers to inanimate objects
(the rules are actually more complex: animals may be any of it, he, or she; ships are
traditionally she; hurricanes are usually it despite having gendered names).It can also refer to
abstractions rather than beings: "He was paid minimum wage, but didn't seem to mind it."
Finally,it also has pleonastic uses, which do not refer in anything specific:
a. It's raining.
b. It's really a shame.
c. It takes a lot of work to succeed.
d. Sometimes it's the loudest who have the most influence.
Pleonastic uses are not considered referential, and so are not part of coreference. [5]
In linguistics, cataphora (/ktfr/; from Greek, , kataphora, a downward
motion from , kata, downwards and , pher, I carry) is used to first insert an
expression or word that co-refers with a later expression in the discourse.[1] An example of
strict, sentence-internal cataphora in English is the following sentence:
When he arrived home, John went to sleep.
In this sentence, the pronoun he (the anaphor) appears earlier than the
noun John (the postcedent) that it refers to, the reverse of the normal pattern (anaphora),
where a referring expression such as John or the soldier appears before any pronouns that
reference it. Both cataphora and anaphora are types of endophora. As a general rule,
cataphora is much less frequent cross-linguistically than anaphora.

Examples[edit]
Other examples of the same type of cataphora are:
If you want some, here's some parmesan cheese.
After he had received his orders, the soldier left the barracks.
If you want them, there are cookies in the kitchen.
Cataphora across sentences is often used for rhetorical effect. It can build suspense and
provide a description. For example:
He's the biggest slob I know. He's really stupid. He's so cruel. He's my boyfriend Nick.
The examples of cataphora described so far are strict cataphora, because the anaphor is an

actual pronoun. Strict within-sentence cataphora is highly restricted in the sorts of structures
it can appear within, generally restricted to a preceding subordinate clause. More generally,
however, any fairly general noun phrase can be considered an anaphor when it co-refers with
a more specific noun phrase (i.e. both refer to the same entity), and if the more general noun
phrase comes first, it can be considered an example of cataphora. Non-strict cataphora of this
sort can occur in many contexts, for example:
A little girl, Jessica, was playing on the swings.
('The anaphor a little girl co-refers with Jessica.)
Finding the right gadget was a real hassle. I finally settled with a digital camera.
(The anaphor the right gadget co-refers with a digital camera.)
Strict cross-sentence cataphora where the antecedent is an entire sentence is fairly common
cross-linguistically:
I should have known it: The task is simply too difficult.
Ich htte es wissen mssen: Die Aufgabe ist einfach zu schwer. (Same as previous
sentence, in German.)
Cataphora of this sort is particularly common in formal contexts, using an anaphoric
expression such as this or the following:
This is what I believe: that all men were created equal.
After squaring both sides, we arrive at the following: