How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference

Abstract

My goal in this article is to compare the behavior of a variety of non clausebound types of indexical expression in English across three texts from different genres, spoken as well as written. A key distinction is the one claimed to exist between the dimensions of text and discourse, and the comparison of the indexical types demonstrates its relevance. In a given text, certain lexically-specific types of indexical bearing an anaphoric interpretation may perform particular strategic, discourse unitdemarcating roles; while others realizing a deictic value may signal a shift in referential perspective, preparing the reader or addressee for a transition to a new discourse unit or sub-unit. Particularly highlighted are the deictic, anadeictic and anaphoric roles of the various indexicals as a function of text genre, utterer's intention and the interlocutive relationships developed throughout the discourse.The article also assesses the neo-Gricean pragmatic account of (non-)coreference in discourse put forward in Levinson's (2000) Presumptive Meanings. The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, MIT Press. It argues that, rather than their discourse value being necessarily determined by the possibility of a choice between an attenuated and a prolix indexical type, it is the textual, contextual as well as discourse factors isolated during the earlier comparison which are adequate to describe and account for this.

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

“…That is, a demonstrative is anaphoric when it refers to the same entity that a prior term (i.e. the antecedent) refers to in discourse (Lyons 1978: 660;Levinson 1983:67; see also Levinson 2006;Cornish 2008). In most cases, the anaphor does not refer to the antecedent itself since both mutually point at another entity outside the text, which is the referent.…”

When indexicals target discursively subsidiary information: How foregrounding and backgrounding in discourse affect indexical reference

“…First of all, our examples and discussion have shown, I think, contra what is argued in Unger (2006), that discourse is not a purely linear, "river-like" phenomenon, which "flows" along incrementally (though this may well be an accurate characterisation of "text" in any context of use: see Cornish, 2008: Table 1, p. 998). There is a hierarchical structure to it, formed by segments assuming a foreground, midground or background relation with respect to other co-occurring segments; these segments may also be related paratactically, as "sister" units assuming the same "grounding" relation with respect to some other, dominating segment (see Walker, 1998 on this point).…”

“…If such a substitution is possible, preserving the anaphoric relation initially established, then we may be dealing (at the level of utterance processing) with an incrementation of the discourse model under construction, and therefore with an instance of macro-syntax -though in Berrendonner's later work (Berrendonner et al, fc. ) There is an evident (partial) parallel between Berrendonner's notion "micro-syntax" and that of text in my conception (see Cornish, 2008: , realises a nuclear grammatical function -that of second object of the verb told ('to tell someone something'), and is therefore a lexically governed unit.…”

Topic-Continuity and Topic-Shift Effects in Spanish Discourse

“…Such effect is also known as the joint attention effect in the psycholinguistics literature (Diessel, 2006). In the discourse anaphoric mode of reference (see Ehlich, 1982;Lyons, 1975Lyons, , 1979Kleiber, 1990;Maes and Noordman, 1995;Cornish, 2008;among others) demonstratives are coreferential with a range of discourse entities such as individuals, eventualities, event-types or propositions (Webber, 1979(Webber, , 1988Asher, 1993). Syntactically, the antecedents of demonstrative anaphors can be of a varied nature, i.e.…”