The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 93. In the past decade, Cognitive Linguistics has developed into one of the most dynamic and attractive frameworks within theoretical and descriptive linguistics The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics is a major new reference that presents a comprehensive overview of the main theoretical concepts and descriptive/theoretical models of Cognitive Linguistics, and covers its various subfields, theoretical as well as applied. | CHAPTER 34 PRONOMINAL ANAPHORA KAREN VAN HOEK 1. Introduction One of the fundamental beliefs guiding the cognitive linguistic enterprise is that grammar is meaningful. Rather than being conceived as a separate module or subtheory of language grammar is viewed as the conventionalized patterns by which complex meanings are expressed. Grammatical phenomena should therefore be fully characterizable in terms of meaningful linguistic units rather than requiring that we posit special theoretical constructs for their explication. The theory of Cognitive Grammar developed by Langacker 1987 1991 arguably the most fully developed grammatical theory within the field of Cognitive Linguistics assumes that there are in fact only three kinds of linguistic units semantic phonological and symbolic where a symbolic unit is a bipolar unit consisting of a semantic unit paired with a phonological unit similar to a Saussurean sign. Cognitive Grammar takes the position that syntactic phenomena can be fully characterized using only these three kinds of units without requiring a special vocabulary or special constructs for the description of syntax. An ideal test case for these claims is the classic problem of pronominal anaphora the principles governing the circumstances under which a pronoun such as he she it and a name or descriptive noun phrase Sally the green car that guy over there can be interpreted as referring to the same person or thing. The principles of pronominal coreference have been the focus of intensive study in Generative Linguistics since the late 1960s. The most widely accepted models within the PRONOMINAL ANAPHORA 891 generative tradition are based on the notion of c-command a theoretical construct which does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in a cognitive linguistic approach for reasons explained below. The mystery of pronominal anaphora can be illustrated quite simply. The sentences in 1a and 1b allow for an interpretation in which the pronoun corefers with the
