Talk:Anaphora (linguistics)

Monkeys versus Bananas

We gave the bananas to the monkeys because they were hungry.

I like the "banana" example. What would this be: We gave the bananas to the monkeys because they went bananas? (...monkey business??) - just kidding --Rolf-Peter Wille (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Pragmatics, rather than semantics, informs us that monkeys get hungry and bananas become ripe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.134.172 (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

anaphora vs coreference

Both concepts link to eachother, but no explanation on the difference between the two... As I'm not an expert, maybe somebody else could clarify this? 157.193.203.65 (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Would this be an example?

This is a thought that I had the other day as a matter of construction that is allowed in English:

Would you like to eat steak with me? (To eat (with me) steak, not to eat (steak with me))
Would you like to eat steak with potatoes? (To eat (steak with potatoes), not to eat (with potatoes) steak. Potatoes don't eat steak.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.123.16 (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why no disambiguation?

Could someone explain why we deleted the disambiguation header (below)? Thanks. Agradman (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    This article is about the linguistic term. For other uses, see Anaphora (disambiguation).

Oh, okay, I figured how to use {{ otheruses2|Anaphora }} . Please let me know if I did this inappropriately. Agradman (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What would this fall under..

"Is this it?"? ArdClose (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, "it" can be used in lots of ways--you're (probably) giving us only one half of the conversation. "We're looking for the Smiths' house--is this it?" In that case, regular anaphora. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Anaphora resolution

The first sentences of this section strike me as odd:

"This means finding what the anaphor is referring to. Statistical methods based on tokens’ frequency are commonly used, though with compromises."

Unless someone is trying to be clever by using anaphora ("this") we might want to say "Anaphora resolution means. . .". Secondly, statistical methods? Surely we're talking about speakers resolving anaphora in discourse, not linguists poring over piles of newspaper clippings. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Precede/follow" instead of "left/right"

Should the left/right references be changed to precede/follow? It would describe spoken as well as written language and be independent of the direction of writing.24.209.96.195 (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I will correct the article to accommodate the comment. --Tjo3ya (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. I'd like to see all occurences of "left/right" replaced by "antecedent/postcedant" or "precede/follow". (I'm a new contributor; is it OK for me to just go in and change things a bit?) Chanooga (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's good if you can correct it. --Tjo3ya (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Example of anaphora as a rhetorical device does not belong here.

The editor who recently (repeatedly) added the so-called example "Shrek is love, Shrek "is life". " is probably thinking of Anaphora (rhetoric). Please discuss here before attempting to re-insert. --Boson (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

cleaning up the definitions

The way in which the multiple definitions of "anaphora" are laid out is a little confusing. In particular, the section entitled "The "anaphor" in generative grammar: a source of confusion" seems unnecessary, since the "Nomenclature and examples" section already attempts to inform the reader on the various ways in which the term "anaphor" is used. I suggest that the "Nomenclature and examples" section list these definitions (i.e. the "broad" definition, including the various types of endo- and exophor; the "narrow" definition, in opposition to cataphors; as well as the definition specific to generative grammar and binding theory) before giving examples of these different types. --Colinej (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ling 300, UBC, right? Apparently, you guys have received the assignment of critiqueing an existing article in Wikipedia. Be aware that critiqueing others work is really easy. Producing something better is much much more difficult. Pass this message on to your instructor. --Tjo3ya (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Some possible contents to add

I love the introduction part in which this concept's significance in different subjects are explained. And the first section about the terminologies is very informative. However, I would appreciate it if someone can elaborate on anaphora in generative grammar from GB theory to minimalist program. There are much more literature on this topic than on 'Complement anaphora', so readers may expect the corresponding section to be longer and more detailed, too. We can expand the briefly mentioned different behaviors of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, give some examples, illustrate the structure restrictions with syntax trees, or provide information about logical semantic researches on it. Also, since anaphora is a cross-linguistic phenomenon, it would be really nice if there are cross-linguistic data and information about typology of anaphora. I don't mean I can do a better job--I just think these can be the icing on the cake.Liu, Y. 90 (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty tall order. Do you think your group is capable of pulling that off in a coherent fashion? Some information about anaphora in HPSG, LFG, CxG, TAG, DG, should also be added, right? The discussion should not be limited to one particular paradigm, e.g. GB/MP, right? --Tjo3ya (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

/* See also */ convert to annotated links

Hi Mathglot, you reverted my conversion of the "See also" section to annotated links with an edit summary referring to the second paragraoh of the usage section on the {{annotated link}} documentation. I am not sure whether you noticed that that refers to disambiguation pages, not "see also" sections of regular articles, which is probably the most frequently used application for the template. If you have an objection to the use of annotated links in principle, or for see also sections in general, or specifically for this article, I would like to understand your reasons. I refer you to the manual of style, which recommends annotations for all "See also" links where it is not obvious why the link is relevant. I accept that there are cases where a customised annotation can be better than using the short description, and have no problem with articles using customised annotations provided they are better for that purpose than the short description. The advantage of annotaed links is that the short description gets used as and when it is created, and eventually the majority of articles should have a short description, in compliance with the compromise agreement between Wikipedia and WMF, which you can read up via the links at WP:WikiProject Short descriptions#History if you don't know the details. Currently about 30% of articles have a short description. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood Look agsin; para 2, not 3. Mobile now; more detail latrr if you wish, but in brief it’s unnecessary and unwelcome complication; bottom line: does not improve the article when no sdesc to show. No deadline; ok to add when it improves sthg. Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph reads: If a {{short description}} template exists in the targeted article, but is empty, or contains a space, non-breaking space, the word blank, none, null, or other indication that a short description is not appropriate or needed, the output should be an un-annotated link. If it is not, list such cases on the talk page for attention, or fix it if you can. This refers to possible errors in the display, which are not relevant here. The point of adding annotated links is that as soon as the short descriptions exist they will automatically display as annotations, making the conversion to annotated links an improvement after the fact without having to hunt down all the possible places it might have been linked in a see also section. Annotations are not strictly necessary, but they are recommended by the MoS as good practice, and they are being systematically added to articles. However there are still about 4 million articles to improve by adding short descriptions, and it is more effective use of time to fix some of them. Once I have added short descriptions to these linked articles I may come back and finish the job. Then you will have an opportunity to make an informed judgement of whether the annotations improve the article or not. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There are now short descriptions for all of the see also links for this article, so I have reinstated the annotated link templates to display them. I hope you find them an improvement on the absence of annotations we had before, but feel welcome to improve any of the short descriptions you feel you can, I make no claim to be an expert in linguistics. It is also possible to extend the annotation by adding text which will display after the short description, if you think that necessary or desirable. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)