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

Samir O. Jarbou; Fathi Migdadi

doi:10.2478/v10015-012-0003-y

Authors

Samir O. Jarbou Jordan University of Science and Technology
Fathi Migdadi Jordan University of Science and Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-012-0003-y

Keywords:

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

Abstract

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.

Author Biographies

Samir O. Jarbou, Jordan University of Science and Technology

Samir Jarbou obtained his PhD in rhetoric and linguistics from Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA in 2002. He is currently employed at the Department of English Language and Linguistics, Jordan University of Science and Technology. He is mainly interested in deixis, anaphora, speech acts, and the semantics-pragmatics interface.

Fathi Migdadi, Jordan University of Science and Technology

Fathi Migdadi is employed at the Department of English Language and Linguistics, Jordan University of Science and Technology. He received his PhD from Ball State University, USA in 2003. His research interests include speech acts, conversation analysis, and bilingualism.

References

Ariel, M. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24: 65-87.
Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schliperoord and W. Spooren (eds) Text Representation (Human Cognitive Processing Series). Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 29-87.
Google Scholar

Beeston, A.1970. The Arabic Language Today. London: Hutchinson.
Google Scholar

Bentivoglio, P. 1983. Topic continuity and discontinuity in discourse: A study of Spoken Latin American Spanish. In T. Givón (ed) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 255-312.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Botley, S. and T. McEnery. 2001. Proximal and distal demonstratives: A corpus-based study. Journal of English Linguistics, 29: 214-233.
Google Scholar

Botley, S. 2006. Indirect anaphora: Testing the limits of corpus-based linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11: 73-112.
Google Scholar

Brockelmann, C. 1977. Tariikh Aladab Al3arabi [History of Arabic Literature], vol. 1, 4th. edn. Abdul Haliim Najjar (trans). Cairo: Dar Alma3aarif.
Google Scholar

Cornish, F. 1996. ‘Antecedentless’ anaphors: Deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French. Journal of Linguistics, 32: 19-41.
Google Scholar

Cornish, F. 2008. How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 997-1018.
Google Scholar

Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Diessel, H. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17: 463–489.
Google Scholar

Diver, W. 1984. The Grammar of Modern English (Textbook Linguistics G6801). Unpublished work.
Google Scholar

Dixon, R. 2003. Demonstratives: Cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language, 27: 61-112.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Gasser, M. 1983. Topic continuity in written Amharic narrative. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross–Language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 95-140.
Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross–Language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 1–41.
Google Scholar

Grosz, B. J, A. Joshi and S. Weinstein.1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21: 203-225.
Google Scholar

Grundy, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics ( 2nd edn). New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hassan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Google Scholar

Hanks, W. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Hasselbach, R .2007. Demonstratives in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 107: 1-27.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Hinds, J. 1983. Topic continuity in Japanese. In T. Givón (ed) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross–Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 43-93.
Google Scholar

Ibn 3aqiil, A.1996. SharH Ibn 3aqiil 3ala Alfiat Ibn Maalik [Ibn 3aqiil’s explanation of Ibn Maalik’s Alfia poem], vol 1. M. Halaawi (ed). Beirut: dar ɁHiiaɁ Alturaath Al3arabi.
Google Scholar

Jaggar, P. 1983. Some dimensions of topic-NP continuity in Hausa narrative. In T. Givón (ed) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross–Language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 365-424
Google Scholar

Jarbou, S. O. 2010. Accessibility vs. physical proximity: An analysis of exophoric demonstrative practice in Spoken Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics: 42, 3078-3097.
Google Scholar

Jarbou, S. O. 2012. Medial deictic demonstratives in Arabic: Fact or fallacy. Pragmatics, 22: 103-118.
Google Scholar

Laury, R.1997. Demonstratives in Interaction: The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2006. Deixis and pragmatics. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing: 97–121.
Google Scholar

Lyons, J.1978. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Marchello-Nizia, C. 2005. Deixis and subjectivity: The semantics of demonstratives in Old French (9th–12th Century). Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 43–68.
Google Scholar

Owens, J. 2006. A Linguistic History of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Plag, I. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Safwat, A. (comp) .1933. Jamaharat Khotab Al-Arab ‘Collection of the public speeches/sermons of the Arabs’, vol. 1. Beirut: Almaktaba Al3ilmiya.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Strauss, S. 2002. This, that, and it in Spoken American English: A demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences 24: 131-152.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Taboada, M. and L. Zabala. 2008. Deciding on units of analysis within Centering Theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4: 63-108.
Google Scholar

Versteegh, K. 2001. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar

Walker, M. A, A. K. Joshi and E. F. Prince (eds). 1998. Cent ering Theory in Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon.
Google Scholar