Testing the Limits of Anaphoric Distance in Classical Arabic: a Corpus-Based Study

• Authors: Samir O. Jarbou , Fathi Migdadi
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

One of the central aims in research on anaphora is to discover the factors that determine the choice of referential expressions in discourse. Ariel (1988; 2001) offers an Accessibility Scale where referential expressions, including demonstratives, are categorized according to the values of anaphoric (i.e. textual) distance that each of these has in relation to its antecedent. The aim of this paper is to test Ariel’s (1988; 1990; 2001) claim that the choice to use proximal or distal anaphors is mainly determined by anaphoric distance. This claim is investigated in relation to singular demonstratives in a corpus of Classical Arabic (CA) prose texts by using word count to measure anaphoric distance. Results indicate that anaphoric distance cannot be taken as a consistent or reliable determinant of how anaphors are used in CA, and so Ariel’s claim is not supported by the results of this study. This also indicates that the universality of anaphoric distance, as a criterion of accessibility, is defied.

Keywords

EN

anaphora; anaphoric distance; word boundaries; Classical Arabic; Ariel's Accessibility Scale

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 10
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 423-444

Dates

published

2012-12-01

online

2013-01-29

Contributors

author

Samir O. Jarbou

• Jordan University of Science and Technology

author

Fathi Migdadi

• Jordan University of Science and Technology

References

• Ariel, M. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24: 65-87.
• Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
• Ariel, M. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schliperoord and <http://www.tau.ac.il/~mariel/wordoc/writings/Ariel2001-Accessibility%20overview.htm> W. Spooren (eds) Text Representation (Human Cognitive Processing Series). <http://www.tau.ac.il/~mariel/wordoc/writings/Ariel2001-Accessibility%20overview.htm> Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 29-87. <http://www.tau.ac.il/~mariel/wordoc/writings/Ariel2001-Accessibility%20overview.htm>
• Beeston, A.1970. The Arabic Language Today. London: Hutchinson.
• Bentivoglio, P. 1983. Topic continuity and discontinuity in discourse: A study of Spoken Latin American Spanish. In T. Givon (ed) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 255-312.
• Botley, S. and. T. McEnery (eds). 2000. Discourse anaphora: The need for synthesis. In S. Botley and T. McEnery (eds) Corpus-based and Computational Approaches to Discourse Anaphora. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1-39.
• Botley, S. and T. McEnery. 2001. Proximal and distal demonstratives: A corpus-based study. Journal of English Linguistics, 29: 214-233.
• Botley, S. 2006. Indirect anaphora: Testing the limits of corpus-based linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11: 73-112.
• Brockelmann, C. 1977. Tariikh Aladab Al3arabi [History of Arabic Literature], vol. 1, 4th. edn. Abdul Haliim Najjar (trans). Cairo: Dar Alma3aarif.
• Comish, F. 1996. ‘Antecedentless’ anaphors: Deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French. Journal of Linguistics, 32: 19-41.
• Cornish, F. 2008. How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 997-1018.[WoS]
• Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Diessel, H. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17: 463-489.
• Diver, W. 1984. The Grammar of Modern English (Textbook Linguistics G6801). Unpublished work.
• Dixon, R. 2003. Demonstratives: Cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language, 27: 61­112.[WoS]
• Ehlich, K. 1982. Anaphora and deixis: Same, similar or different? In Robert Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, Place and Action. Chichester: John Wiley: 315-338.
• Francis, G. 1994. Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge: 83-101.
• Gasser, M. 1983. Topic continuity in written Amharic narrative. In Talmy Givon (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 95-140.
• Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givon (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 1-41.
• Grosz, B. J, A. Joshi and S. Weinstein.1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21: 203-225.
• Grundy, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics ( 2nd edn). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hassan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
• Hanks, W. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Hasselbach, R .2007. Demonstratives in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 107: 1-27.
• Himmelmann, N. P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In B. Fox (ed) Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 205-54.
• Hinds, J. 1983. Topic continuity in Japanese. In T. Givon (ed) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 43­93.
• Ibn 3aqiil, A.1996. SharHIbn 3aqiil 3ala Alfiat Ibn Maalik [Ibn 3aqiil’s explanation of Ibn Maalik’s Alfia poem], vol 1. M. Halaawi (ed). Beirut: dar ?Hiia? Alturaath Al3arabi.
• Jaggar, P. 1983. Some dimensions of topic-NP continuity in Hausa narrative. In T. Givon (ed) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 365-424
• Jarbou, S. O. 2010. Accessibility vs. physical proximity: An analysis of exophoric demonstrative practice in Spoken Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics: 42, 3078-3097.[WoS]
• Jarbou, S. O. 2012. Medial deictic demonstratives in Arabic: Fact or fallacy. Pragmatics, 22: 103-118.[Crossref][WoS]
• Laury, R.1997. Demonstratives in Interaction: The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Levinson, S. C. 2006. Deixis and pragmatics. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing: 97-121.
• Lyons, J.1978. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Marchello-Nizia, C. 2005. Deixis and subjectivity: The semantics of demonstratives in Old French (9th-12th Century). Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 43-68.
• Owens, J. 2006. A Linguistic History of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Plag, I. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reboul, A.1997. What (if anything) is accessibility?: A relevance-oriented criticism of Ariel’s accessibility theory of referring expressions. In J. Connolly, R. Vismans, C. Butler and R. Gatward (eds) Discourse and pragmatics in functional grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter: 91-108.
• Safwat, A. (comp) .1933. Jamaharat Khotab Al-Arab ‘Collection of the public speeches/sermons of the Arabs’, vol. 1. Beirut: Almaktaba Al3ilmiya.
• Sidner, C.1983. Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In M. Brady and R. Berwick (eds) Computational Models of Discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 267-330.
• Seuren, P. 2009. Primary and donkey anaphora. In P Seuren (ed) The Logic of Language: Language from within, vol.2. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 283-310. Strauss, S. 2002. This, that, and it in Spoken American English: A demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences 24: 131-152.
• Taboada, M. 2008. Reference, centers, and transitions in Spoken Spanish. In J. K. Gundel and N. Hedberg (eds) Reference: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 167-215.
• Taboada, M. and L. Zabala. 2008. Deciding on units of analysis within Centering Theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4: 63-108.[WoS]
• Versteegh, K. 2001. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Walker, M. A, A. K. Joshi and E. F. Prince (eds). 1998. Centering Theory in Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon.
• ---

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10015-012-0003-y