Anaphora (linguistics)

Anaphora refers to the reference of a sentence part to another, standing in front of him part of the sentence; it also says the phrase to Build a anaphoric connection to another part of the sentence on. An anaphoric connection means that the rear body part is understood differently than required by the actual wording.

The front part of the sentence is called the antecedent, the rear part of the sentence anaphora. Phrase here is a single word or a phrase. This is called an anaphoric link directly if they can be understood by mere application of grammatical rules. An indirect anaphoric link ( " bridging" ), however, requires additional knowledge. Are the antecedent and the anaphor in the same sentence, it is called intrasententialer anaphora, they are in different sets of intersententialer anaphora.

The Anaphora is similar to the Kataphorik in which a phrase is associated with a later rather than an earlier part of the sentence. Both forms are explored on the linguistics and computational linguistics.

Anaphora and deixis

Anaphors differ from deictic elements in that their reference elements, ie in-house language to search in the text, as they are to look at a deixis non-verbally (see also:. Deixis vs. anaphora ). Thus, the first and second person personal pronouns have from (I, you, we, you ) a deictic function by the / the speaker or his / her addressee reference, whereas the third person (he, she, it) usually fulfills an anaphoric function in that it continues an existing orientation to a person or a thing.

Direct anaphoric links

Direct anaphoric references are usually obvious and can be resolved through the grammar of the text. It identifies the type of direct anaphora by the type of anaphor. The most important examples are:

• Pronoun: pronouns as a proxy for other words.

Personal pronouns: Hans went to eat today. He especially likes pizza. Possessive pronouns: Peter 's birthday and his mother has to baked him a cake. Reflexive: I bought a car. Demonstrative: Lisa has invited Gabi, but this did not happen. Relative pronoun: this is the sentence I meant. / They went skiing what Sabine does not like. Interrogative: The 's has done is a scoundrel! - Who has done it? Indefinite pronouns: The students go to the cafeteria. One eats cake. Noun phrases: a noun phrase includes a noun and any directly associated another set of parts.

Proper names: Hans Meier goes eat today. Mr. Meier especially like pizza. ... pro-forms:

For adverbs: Hans flies to Mallorca. He wants a relaxing holiday. ... Nullanaphern

Indirect anaphoric connections ( bridging)

Indirect Anaphora is a subtle way to link two phrases in content with each other. The understanding of such a connection requires a so-called bridge adoption. From the term " bridge assumption " is derived the name Bridging ( engl. "Building Bridges " ), which is used synonymously with " indirect anaphoric connection".

Origin and function of the bridge assumption

A. The motor is broken. The V-belt is broken. Here, the second sentence provides a rationale for the first. You might as well say: "The engine is broken, because the belt is broken ." But where does the reader know? Although the set

B. The motor is broken. The lace is torn. is grammatically built entirely equal, no reader would assume that is meant: "The engine is broken, because the lace is torn ." In A. So there is a connection between the sentences, which is not detectable with grammar. This relationship is established by the anaphor " the belt " and the antecedent "the engine". To understand it, the reader must but additionally make the following assumption bridge: " the belts is an important part of the engine ."

This is actually an assumption for the purposes of hypothesis: The reader must not know that an engine has a V-belt to the understanding of anaphora, the mere conjecture.

Forms of bridging

One can classify indirect anaphoric connections to two features:

The first question is used to distinguish various types of bridging:

• Schematically:

The restaurant is empty. The waitress has nothing to do. The first sentence provides a rationale for the second. The bridge assumption is " the waitress working in the restaurant"; this assumption is part of a scheme that is part of the general knowledge: " In a restaurant waitresses work ". So the first sentence opens a scheme (in this case "Restaurant" ), from which the second sentence served ( here by selecting a waitress ). semantically:

The motor is broken. The V-belt is broken. Semantic ( meaning contemporary ) relations are very similar schematic relations; the difference is that schemes of experiences and experiences exist even experienced situations, while semantic links such as property, understanding can not be purchased through their own experience. Discourse -based:

Hans finds Martha's Dinner hideous, but for decency's sake he has at least tried the meat. Many indirect anaphoric relations are suggested by the wording of the text. Here the bridge assumption appears " the meat is a part of the dinner ," obviously, but it's still not out of the grammatical structure of the sentence derivable. For comparison, a set with the same grammatical structure without anaphora would be: Hans finds Martha's Dinner hideous, but for decency's sake he has at least raised an apology. A comparable set of anaphoric direct connection would be: Hans finds Martha's Dinner hideous, but for decency's sake, he has at least tried it. The second question on the nature of the compound produced is examined in the context of discourse relations and does not belong directly to the issues of Bridging. A distinction is made, for example, causal relations here - the second sentence explains the first - or elaborative relations - the second sentence explains the first closer.

The purpose of the research

Linguistics is mainly interested in theoretical questions such as: What are the connections between grammar and bridging? What types of bridging are there? Of practical importance is primarily the interest of computational linguistics: How can I teach a computer Bridging? How can help bridging a computer to understand natural language?