2013 | 11 | 3 | 335-358
Article title


Title variants
Languages of publication
The paper addresses the problem of interpreting anaphoric NPs in Modern Greek. It includes a proposal of a novel analysis based on the systematic interaction of the neo- Gricean pragmatic principles of communication, which provides a neat and elegant approach to NP-anaphora resolution. The findings of this study provide evidence for an account of NP-anaphora in terms of the division of labour between syntax and pragmatics and more accurately in terms of the systematic interaction of the neo-Gricean pragmatic principles.
Physical description
  • Anagnostopoulou, Elena and Everaert, Martin. 1999. “Towards a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions.” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 97-119.[Crossref]
  • Arlenga, Peter. 2006. “Scalar (non-) identity and similarity.” In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 25).
  • Arlenga, Peter. 2007. “Types, tokens and identity.” In Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 38).Edmondson, Jerold and Plank, Frank. 1978. “Great expectations: An intensive self analysis.” Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 373-413.
  • Blackwell, Sarah E. 1994. A neo-Gricean approach to Spanish NP-anaphora. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Pittsburgh.
  • Blackwell, Sarah E. 2000. “Anaphora interpretations in Spanish utterances and the neo- Gricean pragmatic theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 389-424.[Crossref]
  • Blackwell, Sarah E. 2001. “Testing the neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora: The influence of consistency constraints on interpretations of coreference in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 901-941.[Crossref]
  • Blackwell, Sarah E. 2003. Implicatures in discourse: The case of Spanish NP-anaphora.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Chiou, Michael. 2010. NP-anaphora in Modern Greek: A neo-Gricean pragmatic approach. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language, its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
  • Culy, Christopher. 1994. “Aspects of logophoric marking.” Linguistics 32: 1055-1094.
  • Culy, Christopher. 1997. “Logophoric pronouns and point of view.” Linguistics 35: 845-859.
  • Dowty, David. 1980. “Comments on the paper by Bach and Partee.” In Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora, Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, E. A. (eds), 29-40.Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • Fox, Barbara. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Frey, Werner. 2005. “Pragmatic properties of certain German and English left peripheral constructions.” Linguistics 43 (1): 89-129.
  • Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Cole Peter and J. L. Morgan (eds), 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
  • Grice, Paul. 1982. “Meaning Revisited.” In Mutual Knowledge, N. V. Smith (eds), 223-243. New York: Academic Press.
  • Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Grodzinsky, Yosef and Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. “The innateness of binding and coreference.” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69-101.
  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. “Against markedness (and what to replace it with).” Journal of Linguistics 42: 25-70.[Crossref]
  • Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter and Philippaki-Warburton, Irene, 1997. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.
  • Horn, Laurence. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Huang, Yan. 1991. “A neo-Gricean Pragmatic Theory of Anaphora.” Journal of Linguistics 27: 301-333.[Crossref]
  • Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with special reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross Linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huang, Yan, 2004. “Anaphora and the pragmatics - syntax interface.” In Handbook of pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn and George Ward (eds), 288-314. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Iatridou, Sabine. 1986. “An anaphor not bound in its category.” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 766-772.
  • Iatridou, Sabine. 1988. “Clitics, anaphors and the problem of co-indexation.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 698-703.
  • Iatridou, Sabine, 1993. “On nominative case assignment and a few related things.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: Papers on Case and Agreement II. 175-195.
  • Joseph, Brian D. and Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm.
  • Karamanis, Nikiforos and Miltsakaki, Eleni. 2006. “Centering theory on Greek Narratives and Newspaper Articles.” In The World of Texts: A Collection of Articles in Honor of G. Babiniotis.
  • Karanasios, Giorgos. 1989. “Kenes katigories ke sintaktiko ipokimeno sta Elinika (Empty categories and syntactic subject in Greek).” In Studies in Greek Linguistics.Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Department of Linguistics: 169-185.University of Thessaloniki.
  • Kempson, Ruth. 1984. “Pragmatics, anaphora and logical form”. In Meaning, form and use in context: linguistic applications, Schiffrin, D. (ed), 1-10. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Kempson, Ruth. 1988a. “Grammar and conversational principle.” In Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, Newmeyer, F.J. (ed), Vol 2, 139-163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kempson, Ruth. 1988b. “Logical form: the grammar cognition interface.” Journal of Linguistics 24: 393-431.[Crossref]
  • Kempson, Ruth. (ed.). 1988c. Mental representations: the interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. “Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns.” In More than Words, Ingrid, K. and Stiebels, B. (eds), Studia Grammatica 53: 179-226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  • Koopman, Hilda and Sportiche, Dominique. 1989. “Pronouns, logical variables and logophoricity in Abe.” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 555-588.
  • Kordoni, Valia. 1995. “Psychological predicates in Modern Greek.” In Greek linguistics ’95, Drachman, G., Malikouti-Drachman, A., Klidi, C. & Fykias, J. (eds.), 535-544.Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Greek linguistics. Graz: W Neugebauer Verlag.
  • Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kuno, Susumu and Kaburaki, Etsuko. 1977. “Empathy and syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 627-672.
  • Lapata, Maria. 1998. “Anaphoric Binding in Modern Greek”. In Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference, CSLI Publications: The University of Queensland, Brisbane. [on-line] available from: /
  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. “Pragmatics and the grammar of Anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena.” Journal of Linguistics 23: 379-434.[Crossref]
  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. “Pragmatic Reduction of Pragmatic Conditions Revisited.” Journal of Linguistics 27: 107-161.[Crossref]
  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  • Mackridge, Peter. 1985. The Modern Greek Language: A Descriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Miltsakaki, Eleni. 2002. “Toward an aposynthesis of topic continuity and intrasentential anaphora.” Computational Linguistics 28 (3): 319-355.[Crossref]
  • Mittwoch, Anita. 1983.” Backward anaphora and discourse structure.” Journal of Pragmatics 7: 129-139.[Crossref]
  • Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. “The theory of empty categories and the pro-drop parameter in Modern Greek.” Journal of Linguistics 23: 289-318.[Crossref]
  • Philippaki-Warburton, Irene and Catsimali, Georgia. 1999. “On Control in Greek.” In Studies in Greek Syntax, Alexiadou, A. Horrocks, G. and Stavrou, M. (eds.), 153-168.
  • Runner, Jeffrey T, Sussman, Rachel S and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2003. “Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements.” Cognition 89: B1-B13.[Crossref]
  • Reinhart, Tania. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
  • Reinhart, Tania. and Reunald, Eric. 1993. “Reflexivity.” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657-720.
  • Sells, Peter. 1987. “Aspects of logophoricity.” Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445-479.
  • Terzi, Arhonto. 1991. “PRO and Obviation in Modern Greek Subjunctives.” In Proceedings of WCCFL 10: 471-482
  • Terzi, Arhonto. 1993. “PRO and Null Case in Finite Clauses.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Ottawa.
  • Valiouli, Maria. 1994. “Anaphora, agreement and right dislocations in Greek.” Journal of Semantics 11: 55-82.[Crossref]
  • Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 1993. “Control in Modern Greek.” University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 144-163.
  • Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 1994. Issues on Modern Greek sentential complementation.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Meryland, College Park.
  • Varlokosta, Spyridoula and Hornstein, Norbert. 1993. “A Bound Pronoun in Modern Greek.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 175-195.
  • Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1989. “Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse.” Language 65: 695-727.[Crossref]
  • Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1995. “Emphatic or Reflexive? On the Endophoric character of French lui-même and similar complex pronouns.” Journal of Linguistics 31: 333-374. [Crossref]
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.