Chapter 2 Reference

Chapter 2 Reference 2.1 Endophoric and exophoric reference There are certain items in every language which have the property of reference, in the specific sense in which we are using the term here; that is to say, instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference to something else for their interpretation. In English these items ace personals, demonstrarives and comparatives. We start with an example of each: [2: I J a. Three blind mice, three blind mice. See how they run! See how they run! b. Doctor Foster went to Gloucester in a shower of rain. He stepped in a puddle right up to his nllddle and never went there again. c. There were two wrens upon a tree. Another came, and there were three. In (a), they refers to three blind mia; in (b) there refers to Gloucester; in (c) another refers to wrens. These items are directives indicating that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere. So much they have in common with all cohesive ele- ments. What characterizes this particular type of cohesion, that which we are calling REFERENCE, is the specific nature of the information that is signalled for retrieval. In the case of reference the information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to; and the cohesion lies in the con- tinuity of reference, whereby the same thing enters into the discourse a second time. In See how they run!, they means not merely 'three blind mice' hut • thesam.ethree blind mice that we have just been talking .about'. This is sometimes expressed by the formula that all reference items 'con-

32 JUIFB.RE.NCB tain the definite .article'. since the definite article is the item that, in Eng- lish. carries the meaning of specific identity or 'definiteness • in its pure form {see 2.4.2. below). But this is putting it in unnecessarily concrete terms; there is no need to imagine a the lurking in every reference item. It :is enough to say that reference has the semantic property of definiteness, or spccifidty. In principle this specificity can he achieved by reference to the context of situation. By contrast to substitution. which is a grammatical relation (see Chapter 3 below). reference is a semantic relation. One of the con- sequences of this. distinction, as we shall see, is that substitution is subject to a very strong grammatical condition: the substitute must be of the s,ame grammatical class as the item for: which it substitutes. This restriction does not apply to reference. Since the relationship is on the semantic level, the reference item is in no way constrained to match the grammatical class of the item it refers to. What must match are the semantic properties. But these need not necessarily have been encoded in the text; they may be retrievabk from the situation. as in [2:2] for he•s a jolly good fellow And ro say aU of us. where the text does not make it explicit who he is. although his identity is not in doubt to those who are present. It has been suggested in fact that reference to the situation is the prior fOrm of reference, and that reference to another item within the text is a secondary or derived form of this relation. This seems quite plausible. even though it is not entirely dear what it means;. is the priority a historical one, or is it in some sense logical? It is certainly possible that. in the evolu- tion of language, situational reference preceded text reference: in other words, that the meaning 'the thing you see in front of you • evolved earlier th:m the meaning 'the thing I have just mentioned•. Being present in the text is. as it were, a special case ofbeing present in the situation. We tend to see nutters the other way round;. the word CONTEXT, for example. means literally 'accompanying text •, and its use in the collocation CON- TEXT OF SITUATION seems to US a metaphorical extension. But it (s fairly e2sy to see that there is a logical continuity from naming (referring to a thing i.nd.ependencly of the context of situation), through situational reference (referring to a thing as identified in the context of situation) to textual reference (referring to a thing as identified in the surrounding text); and in this perspective, situational reference would appear as the prior form.

2.I ENDOPHORIC AND EXOPHOll.IC REFEJU:lNCB 33 We shall .find it useful in the discussion to have a special tenn for situa- rional reference, This we are referring to aS EXOPHOltA, Ol' EXOPHORIC reference; and we could contrast it with ENDOPHORIC as a general name for reference within the text: [situati:onal1 cxophora Reference: (textualJ endophora {to preceding text] anaphor:a {to following text) cataphora As a general rule, therefOre, reference items may be exophoric or endo- phoric; and, if endophoric, they may be anaphoric or cataphoric (if 1.9 above). This scheme will allow w to recognize certain distinctions within the class of reference items, according to their different uses and ~ phoric • tendencies . .Exophora is. not simply a synonym for referential meaning. Lexical items like John or tree or run have referential meaning in that they are names for some thing : object, dass of objects, process and the like. An exophoric item, however, is one which does not name anything; it signals that reference must be made to the context of situation. Both exophoric and endophoric reference embody an instruction to retrieve from else- where the information necessary for interpreting the passage in question; and taken in isolation a reference item. ls simply neutral in this respect -if we hear .a fragment of conversation such as [2:3] That must have cost a lot of money. we have no means ofknowing whether the that is anaphoric or exophoric. The previous speaker might have said~ 'I~ve just been on holiday in Tahiti,, or the participants might be looking at their host•s collection of antique silver; and if both these conditions hold good, the interpretation will remain doubtful Ambiguous situations of this kind do in fact quite often arise. What is essential to every instance of reference whether endophoric (textual) or exophoric (situational) is that there is a presupposition that must be satisfied; the thing referred to has to he identifiable somehow.

34 :REFE-RENCE One of the features that distinguish different REGISTERS is the relative amount of exophoric reference that they typically display. If the situation is one of 'language-in-action'. with the language playing a relatively small and subordinate role in the total event, the text is likely to contain a high proportion of instances of exophoric reference. Hence. as Jean Ure has demonstrated in her studies of different registers, it is often difficult to interpret a text of this kind if one only hears it and has no visual record available. It is important to make this point, and to emphasize that the special flavour of language-in-action is not a sign that it is ungrammatical, sim- plified, or incomplete. It is ofien highly complex, although we have no very convincing measures of structural complexity; and if it appears un- grammatical or incomplete this is largely due to the preponderance of reference items used exophorically, which seem incomplete because their presuppositiom are unresolved. A high degree of exophoric reference is one characteristic of the language of the children's peer group. When children interact with each other, especially young children, they do so through constant reference to things; and since the things which serve as reference points are present in the immediate environment they are typically referred to exophorically. In the same way the adult is expected to pick up the necessary dues from the context of situation, as in this ex-change between one of the present authors and her three-year-old son: [2:4] Child: Why does THAT one come out? Parent: That what? Child: THAT one. Pareht: That what? Child: That ONE.! Parent: That one what? Child: That lever there that you push to let the water out. It di.d not occur to the child that he could point to the object :in question, presumably because it did not occur to him that what was in HIS focw of attention was not also in everyone dse's, a limitation that is characteristic of the egocentric phase of interaction . .Bernstein has shown that one characteristic of speech that is regulated by RliSTRICTED CODE is the large amount of exophoric reference that is associated with it; and the researchers in his tearn have found abundant evidence of this. He characterizes it in terms of dependence on the context of situ;ltion; exophoric reference is one form of context-dependence,

2-.I ENDOI'HORIC AND EXOPHORIC REFEltENCE 35 since without the context we cannot interpr:et what is said. Let us quote one ofBernstein's passages in which this point is brought out. We can distinguish between uses of language which can be called • context bound • and uses of language which are less context hound. Consider, for example. the two following stories which Peter Hawkins,_ Assistant Research Officer in the Sociologlc:al Research Unit, con- structed as a result of his analysis of the speech of middle-class and wocking-class five-year-old children. The children were given a series of four pictures which told a story and they were invited to tdl the story. The first picture showed some boys p1aying fOotball; in the second the ball goes through the window of a house; the third shows a woman looking out of the window and a man making an ominous gesture, and in tbe fourth the children are moving away. Here are the two stories: (1) Three boys .are playing football .and one boy kicks the ball and it- goes through the window and. the hall breaks the window and the boys are looking at it and a man comes out and shouts at them be- cause they've broken the window so they run away and then that lady looks out Of her window and she tells the boys of£ (z) They're playing footbaU and he kicks it .and it goes through there it breaks the window and they~ re looking at it and he comes out and shouts at them because they've broken it so they run away and then she looks out and she tells them oft: With the first story the reader does not have to have the four pictures which were wed as the basis for the story~ whereas in the case of the second story the reader would require the initial pictures in order- to make sense of the story_ The firrt story is free of the context which generated it, whereas the second story is much more closdy tied to its context. There is nothing ungratnnu.tical about the second version of the story, nor is it any simpler in its structure; but it is 'context-bound~ because it depends on exophoric reference - h~, she~ they and there have no possible interpretation without the pictures. Notice that in the other version we do not get any significantly greater AMOUNT of information. The equivalents of they~ he. he and she are three boys. one boy. a man .and that Luly; but we know the sex from the pronouns. and we could have guessed which were children and which were adults from the story, And it is not hard to infer

36 that through there means through the- window. The significant dtlference be- tween the two versions is that three lwys. rme boy and a m.m do not pre- suppose anything else. They are not very specific in themselves; but they carry no implication that any further specification is available from else- where, and hence they are not context-bound:. (On the other hand that Luiy does contain an exophoric that; if Hawklns had wanted to be totally con- sistent he would have had to write a lady. For the interesting case of the in through tk window see 2.4.2 bdow.) If children's speech is characteri2:ed by a tendency towards exophoric reference, this is because it is neighbourhood speech, the language of the children's peer group. We know very little about neighbourhood speech; but lt seems likely rbat it is highly exophoric, no doubt because of the way children tend to relate to things, and to relate to each other through things. Typically in peer group interaction the context of situation is the material environment- the 'things' are there in front of one- and there is also a reservoir of shared experience, a common context of culture; so exophoric reference poses no problems and, in fact, any more explicit naming would he unnatural. Tbe ~restricted code' nature of neighbourhood language is a positive feature; one should not he misled by the word • restricted', which is an abstract technical term referring to the highly coded, non-redundant properties of spee~h in this semantic mode. Such speech is characteristic not only of the neighbourhood but of all dose-knit social groups.; for example, to quote from one of Bemstein' s descriptions. • prison llun:ate~ combat units of the armed forces, criminal sub- cultures, the peer group of children and adolescents, and married couples of long standing·. It becomes RESTlllcrtNG if ir is tr.ms:ferred to contexts in v.-hich it is inap- propriate; if Bernstein has emphasized the damaging consequences of restricted code in the context of formal education. this is not because of my deficiency in restricted code as such hut because the educational con- text is one to which neighbourhood and peer group semantic styles are not relevant. The problem lies as much in the nature of fonnai education as in the nature of te5tricted code. There are of course many other aspects to restricted code than a high frequency of exophoric reference. But one of the principal characteristics of restricted code is dependence on the context, 3Ild the exopb.oric use of reference items is one form such dependence takes. A reference item is not of itself exophoric or ~nd:ophoric; it is just

2-.2 TYPES OF ltEFEREHCB 37 ~ phoric • - it simply has the property of reference. Any given lNSTANCE of reference may be either one or the other, or it may even be both at once. We shall see in this chapter that there are tendencies fur particular items or classes of items to be used exophorically or endophoricaHy; but the reference relation .is itself neutral~ it merely means~ see elsewhere~. On the other hand, :.~.s we have emphasized already. only endophoric reference is cohesive. Exophoric reference contributes to the CREATION of text, in tha.t it links the language with the context of situation; but it does not contri- bute to the INTEGRATION of one passage with another so that the two together form part of the SAME text. Hence it does not contribute directly to cohesion as we have defined it. For this reason we shall take only little account of exophoric reference, not attempting to describe it in detail but bringing it in where it relates to and contrasts with reference within the text. We shall treat 'endophoric' reference as the norm; not implying by this that it is the logically prior form of the reference rda.tion, but merely that it is the form of it which plays a part in cohesion. and which therefore has priority in the context of the present study. At the same time, however, where we identify TYPES OF REFERENCE and REPl!.RENCE ITEMS in the language, we do SO on the criterion of reference potential without regard to the endophoric{exo- phoric distinction. A reference item is any mie which has this potential~ and. a systematic account of the different types of reference and their place in_ the linguistic system has to be based. on the generalized concept of reference and not on the particular concrete form that it takes when in- corporated into the text. 2.2 Types of reference There are three types of reference: personal, demonstrative. and com- parative. Personal reference is reference by means of function in the speech situation. through the categoty of PERSON (Table 2). Demonstrative reference is reference hy means of location, on a scale of PROXIMiTY (Table 3). Comparativ~ reference is indirect reference by rnearu of IDENTITY or SIMlLARITY (Table 4). Grammatically. all reference items except the demonstrative adverbs, and some comparative .adverbs. function within the nominal group {noun phrase). It will be necessary therefore to give a brief account of the struc-

j8 lt.E.F.BRENCJ! Table 2: Penonal reference Semantic category Grmnmatical function Person: 'peaker (only) add=ee(s), with/without other pe=n( ') speaker and other person{s) other person. male other person, female other persons; objects object; passage of text generalized person Existential noun (pronoun) I me you we us he him ilie her they them it Possessive Modili<r determinet mme my yours your oun our )ll, )ll, h= her theirs their [i"J Its one' For categories of grammatical function and class. see below. Table 3: Demonstrative reference Semantic caugory Sdective Grammatical Junction Proximity: near far neutral Modifier/Head this th= that those Adjunct here [now] there then Non-selective Modifier

2.:2 TYPES OF REFERENCE 39 Table 4: Comparative reference Grammatical }Unction Gmer-411 comparison: identity C/as; general simiiarity difference (ie non- identity or simllarity) Particular comparison: Modifier: SubmodifierJAdjunct DeicticJEpithet (see below) adjective same identical equal identically similar additional simihrly likewise so such other different else differently otherwise better. more etc so more less equaU y fcomparative adjectives and quantifiers} ture of the nominal group. in order to explain the grammar of reference in more explicit terms.* The logical structure of the nomina1 group is one of modification; it consists of a HEAD, with optional MODIFIER. The modifying elements in- clude some which precede the head and some which follow it; the dis- tinction in the rdative position of modifying elements is semantically * T'he analyris of the nominal group follow~; thu ofH:alli.day; versions of it have appeared in vuiou~t unpublished $OUrces, ey: English Sy$tnn Netwtwks (1964). For its me in textual. studies see Ruqaiya Hasan., ' A linguistic ttudy of contr.lrting features in the style of two contem~ English~ writers', Univernty ofEdinbucgh Ph.D thesi5,. t9()4; alro G.J- Tumtt and B. A. Mohm,.A Linguisli£ Dtsuiption mu! Cotnp11tn" PrOgTtuff. for Chiltlrm' s Speuh, London. Routkdgr & lkg::m Paul. 1970. For a Jdatrd interpretation see J. M eH. Sincl.air, A Go~ in Spe>ken English: c-ar. London, Oxford U.P .• I972- A detailed account of' the present Ya'Sion will appear in M. A. K. Hallioby, .MM~ting '?[ Mcn!ml EngiWt, London, Oxford U.P. {furthcoming). We cetain. the term NOMINAL GlitOUP in prefuence to the more usual NOUJ<J l'HilA.5B., partly because it has been used throughout 1-Wlida.y'~; writing~; and related publications, having originally been taken over by Halliday {1956) from W. S.. Alku (1951}, but more because, although noun phrase and nmnina! group are more or less equivalent. Halliday'~ VElitBAL GROUF is very diffa-ent fro :m the v~ phr.uc, ro that the tenD verbal group has to be~ in any c::r.se, and, by the same token, nwnitW group belongs in .a somewhat d.ilfeunt roneep- tual ~k frnm noun phnse.

40 llEFB:RBNCB significant, so it is useful to make it terminologically explicit, and we shall refer to modification preceding the head by the term PREMODIFIER and to that following the head by the term POST MODIFIER. Thus in [2:5] The two high stone walls along the roadside the Head is walls. the Premod.ifier is formed by the two high stone and the Postmodifier by along the roadside. The Head is typically expressed by a common noun, proper noun or pronoun. UsuaJly only common nouns accept modification; pronouns and proper nouns tend to occur alone (see below}. Simultaneously the nominal group is structured along another dimen- sion, the experiential - that is. in terms of the function that language has of expressing (the speaker's experience of) phenomena of the real world (if 1.3.4 above). This has the effect of introducing subdivisions within the Modifier. although these are not in fact suhcategories of Modifier but, as we have said, structural roles deriving from a different functional com- ponent within the semantics. The elements of this structure are DE I CTI c, NUMERATIVE. EPITHET, CLASSIFIBR• QUALIFIER. and what we shall caJl THING. The structucal analysis of[2: 5] is now as fo1lows; the last line shows the classes of word (or. in one case, rankshifted group) which realize the functions in question. These are the typical classes associated with each function. high "0~ """' olong the roa<U;de tn>cture" logicd Premodifier I Head Postmodifier experiential Deictic Numera- Epithet CJamli<T Thing Qualifier tive a,_, de<er- n==l -- ~= == [prepositional ="' Ovc group] • ' As far as the • experiential' structure is concerned, the Deictic is nor- mally a determiner. the Numerative a numeral or other quantifier. the Epithet an a-djective and the Classifier a common or proper nOWl; but the correspondence of class and function is far from being one to one- adjec-

2.2 TYPES OF :REFERENCE 4I tives, for example, regularly function both as Deictic and as Classifier, eg their famous old red wine Epithet Classifier Thing determiner adjective adjective adjective noun (whereas fanwus in a fanwus vidory and red in red paint are both functioning as Epithet}. The Qualifier is normally a rankshifted rdative clause or pre- positional phrase. Apart from the Thing, aH elements in the experiential structure may occur more than once; note that this does NOT refer to co- ordination. since coordinate items function as single units - in boys and girls there are two nouns but only one Thing. and in hot or cold tea there are two adjectives but only one Epithet. The logical structure is somewhat different~ here there is always a Head, but it may be of any class, and may be mapped on to any of the experi- ential functions. This can hest be explained by illustration: Modifier custo- mcrs Numerative Thing , Dcictic Modi- fier Numerative Similarly in the olJ we h.avc the function of Head combined with tha.t of Epithet, and in the red (in the sense of'thc red wine'. eg in rll take the m!) Head combined with Classifier. Where the Head is a noun, it may be not only a common noun, as in {2:5], hut also a proper noun or pronoun. (To avoid the confusion usually inherent in the use of the word NO UN. let us: represent its meaning as follows: -1 verb noun2 ( = sub&tantivc) common noun proper (noun3) noun word classes adjective ' i numeral

R.EF.ERENCR We shall avoid as far as possible the use of NouN in the sense of noun1, that of • nominal word • in the most generalized scheme of word classes.. In almost aU cases its use will correspond tonoun2, 'nominal word that is the typical exponent of .a Thing': F..XCLUDING adjective, numeral (quantifier) and determiner but INCLUDING pronoun and proper noun as well as com- mon norm. When it is necessary to indicate common or proper noun, but excluding pronoun, the locution COMMON OR PROPER NOUN will be used; since proper nouns in many ways resemble pronouns rather than common nouns. there is no particular reason for using noun in just this sense. Occasionally, where the context makes it dear, NOU!'< will be used in the sense of noun3, • common noun' only. All other uses of noun, those in which it refi::rs to elements higher than words - phrases, clauses, nominalizacions of any kind. are avoided altogether.) If the Head is a proper nonn or pronoun. it usually occurs without modification. It is beyond our scope here to go further into the analys:is and interpretation of the nominal group; but for purposes of cohesion it is important to clarify and explain the structure up to this point. Common nowts designate classes of things; so they are liable to be further specified, and the general meaning of the functions Deictic. Numerative, Epithet, Classifier and Qualifier is that of SPECIFICATION. The Deictic specifies by identity, non-specific :as well as specific (which train?, a train. all trains) and including identity based on reference (this train, my train); the Numerative by quantity or ordination (two trains, next train}; the Epithet by reference to a property (long trains); the Classifier by reference to a subclass (express trains, passenger trains); and the Qualifier by reference to some charac- terizing relation or process (trains for London, train I' m on). These functions are introduced .into the nominal group through the logical structure of modification,. being mapped on to the function of Modifier; hence, com- mon nouns are typically modified. But pronouns and proper n3mes are not as .a rule susceptible of further specification. The category of pronoun is a mixed hag; but it comprises PERSOKALand lNDE!'INlTE pronouns, of which the personals, as we have seen. are reference items and therefore take over the specificity of whatever it is they are presupposing, while the indefmites (eg: something, everybiXiy) already embody a non-specific deictic component :in their meaning and cannot be specified further. Proper names designate individuals, and are therefore fully specified in their own right. Proper names can accept DESCRIPTIVE modification, as in that ChMlie &own, beautiful Butrermere; this is a derived function of the modi- fying structure and one which differs in certain significant ways (for example, descriptive modifiers do not admit of ellipsis; see Chapter 4).

2.j P.B.RSONAL R.Bl'ERENCE 43 But the normal pattern is: with Modifier if the Head is a common noun, without Modifier if the Head is proper noun or pronoun. FinalJy there is the structural relationofsuBMODIFICATION, by which a Modifier is itself further modified. Submodifiers are typically adverbs, such as very, equally. tM; they may also be rankshifted prepositional groups, like in every way i.n an in every way $•aliant attempt. Subrnodifiers are most frequent within the Epithet, though they can be found else- where. ft will he necessary to refer to the strUCture of the nominal group at fre- quent points in the discussion of cohesion. To cite one example, it is a regular source of ellipsis., and we can de£ne an elliptical nominal group as one in which there is no overt Thing and the Head is therefore combined with some other fUnction. What distinguishes reference from other types of cohesion. however, is that reference is overwhelmingly nominal in character. With the exception of the demonstrative adverbs here, there, now, and then, and some comparative adverbs, all reference items are found within the nominal group. They may have any of the functions in the • experiential • structure except those of Classifier and Qualifier. It is not that these elements cannot -also incorporate cohesive reference - they can, but if so the reference item functions as something else, typically as Deictic, in a r.ankshifted nominal group. eg: that referring to box in [2:6] It•s an old box camera.- I never had one of that kind. The classif«::ation of reference items is not, however, based on their function in the nominal group; it is based. on the type of reference in- volved. This is a semantic classification and cuts across the classification according to grammatical function. At the same rime the type of reference is not unrelated to the form which it takes in the grammar. and to the classes of word "Which function .as reference items. This will he discussed and exemp-lified where necessary in what follows. 2.3 Personal reference The category of PERSONALS includes the three classes of personal pro- norms, possessive determiners (usually called 'possessive adjectives •), and possessive pronouns. There is no general name for this category in tradi- tional gramma-r, because the members of it belong to di-fferent classes with diverse structural roles; but in fact they represent a single system. that of PERSON:

44 lt:I!FERBNCII --[-""'only I ,_h£<aJ= -<peake>- pi.. W< role> reuee(s) you penon--J --{ hurnan--[mak he [ pecifu: ----~-singular non-human it female she er lplura1 they roles- eralized hum:m In tabular form: s peec roes h Oth rol er es Specific Generalized Ncn- Human SF' aka i Addressee Human human i he him his his it it one one I me she her [its] its -ones nune my you you hers ber mure we us , yours your they them than one ours our I theirs their I ' These items are all reference items; they refer to something by speci- fying its. function or role in the speech situation. This system of reference is known as PERSON, where • person, is used in the special sense of' role'; the traditionally recognized categories are FIRST PERSON, SECOND PERSON and THIRD PERSON, intersecting with the NUM:BBB.Categories ofSINGU- L A Rand 1'L URAL. The actual system found in the semantics oflanguages is nearly always a departure in some way from this 'ideal' type; that of Eng- lish is as set out above, with one or two further complexities which will be brought up in the discussion - including the so-c.llled impersonal uses of wt", you and they.

2.3 PERSONAL ._EFBRENCE 45 The term PER s OK might seem a little misleading, as the system includes not only •jmpersonal • meaning$ (which are actually stiU personal, ie hu- man; they are merely not individualized) but also reference that is truly non-persona1. reference to objecrs. But most grammatical teems have -fUzzy edges; they express the central or typical meaning of the category in question, and are justified by being in this way simple and easy to remem- ber. The alternatives- would he either to use purely abstract labels. such as letters and numbers, which have no mnemonic value; or to attempt more accurate designations, which would soon become cumbersome and syn- tactically recalcitrant The technical term itself is not part of any linguistic theory; it is simply an 'address' for easy recovery. :2.3.1 Semantic Jistinctions in the personal sysrem The significance of the PlillSON system is that it is the means of referring to RELEVANT persons and objects. making use of a small set of option-s centring around the particular nature of their relevance to the speech situ- ation. The principal distinction is that between the PERSONS DEFINED BY THEIR ROLES JN THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS, on the one hand, and all other entities on the other. The former we shall call SPEECH ROLES; they are the roles of SPEAKER and ADDRESSEE.. These are the two roles assigned by the speaker~ and we use 'addressee~ in preference to 'hearer' or 'listener' in order to suggest the meaning 'person DESIG- NATED BY THE SPEAKER AS recipient of the communication•- as dis- tinct from one who chooses to listen or happens to hear. The latter~ which we shall call simply OTHER ROLES, include all other relevant entitie~ OTHIIR THAN speaker or addressee. In terms of the traditional categories of person, the distinction is that between first and second person on the one hand (I, Y""• we) and third penon on the other (he, she, it, they, cne) _ Each of these personal form-s enters into the structure in one of two guises: either as participant in some process, or as possessor of some entity. If the former, it falls into the class NOUN, subclass PRONOUN, and func- tions as Head- and role element- in the nominal group; it then has one form when that nominal group is the Subject (I. you, we, he, she, it, they. one) and in most cases a different form \\>hen it is anything other than sub- ject (me, you. us, him. her, it, them. one). If the latter. it falls into the class DE.TERMINE.R,<md. then functions either as Head (mine, yours, ours, his. hus. {its1, theirs) or as Modifier {my. your, our, his, her, its. thtir. one's}. Examples: (a) I had a cat I: participant; Subject

46 (h) the cat pleased me me: participant; non-Subject (c) take mine mine: possessor (d) my plate~s empty my: possessor Modificr Note that one never occurs as possessor/Head. although it does as possessor/ Modifier: we can say Do they pay one'sJebts? but not Do they only pay their own debts. or do they also pay one's? There is a reason for this, which will appear later. The form its is afso rare as Head, although there seems to he no very clear reason for this restriction and, in fact.- instan-ces do occur, eg [2:7] You know that mouse you saw? Well that hole there must be its. Within each of the two major -categories of personals, further distinc- tions are built into the system. Within the speech roles, the English person system recognizes only speaker I and addressee you, making no distinction according to the number of addressees or according to the social hierarchy or the social distance between addressee and speaker.* It does however comprise a third form we representing the speaker together with some other person or persons.., among whom the addressee(s) may or may not be i.nduded.t As far as the remaining items are concerned, those which refer to other roles, not to speaker or addressee, the distinctions are fairly dearcut. There is a generalized personal form with human referent, cme, perhaps 'bor- row-ed~ from French en although it is not restricted to functioning as Sub- ject as on is; in the following example, only the second of the four could have on in French translation: fz:8] They couldn•t do a thing like that to one. - One never knows, does one? -It makes one think, though. * Efuabeth= English distinguished th1»1 (singular, familiar) from you (plural; or singular showing respect or distan~). mu.;;h like the Fteneh distinction oft~ and -vous today. The diWnction was ll»t in all varieties ofEngWh e;u;ept lOme northclll rural dialects, in wlllch it is now fut dyjng out. The Quaker use of thu i~ a later imitation and does not direcrly rd'lea original usage. t It ihould be noted that .o ~par;ue system of 'petK>n' operate$ in impentive clauses. The Subject of an impentive clause is always a_' personal' e1ement; but in this c.ue tbe addressee is always indu&d, and the option U plus or minus the speaker. In other W1mis the contn5t is between {you-} go! and let't gc!, where let's always includes 'you'. So in's is not equivalent to kt N$, in which ut is pan of the mdinary person system and may ezclude the addressee. The fonn fu'stT}' is a form of the imperacivc of rry; but kt 1u 1ry contains the imperative- of ln (as. in ltt)t!hn tTy, etc} and means '(you) allow W- to try', where us may, and in such innances typically does, exclude the pawn bring spoken to.

2.3 PERSONAL RB!'ERENCB 47 There is a difference between British and American English as regards repetition of one within the sentence: .British English retains one in second and subsequent occurreru::es. where American English norill:llly substi- tutes he: [2:9] One can hardly be expected to reveal one'sjhis innermost secrets to the first casual enquirer. can one/he? The rest of the 'other roles • arc non-generalized: they make specific refer- ence to persons or things, and the categories are familiar to every student of English .&om lesson one: plural. with no distinction of persons and things. they; singular, human, male he. female she. non-human it. Animals are treated sometimes as persons and sometimes as things; the lower orders of creation are referred to as it, the higher orders either as it or as he/she depending on a whole number of variables, primarily the speaker's rela- tionship to the species in question (farmer and farm animal, pet owner and pet. for example), but also on his individual preference. If the reference is to a s.ingle human being. but with the sex unknown or unspecified, the form used is he, as in: [2: ro] If the buycr wants to know the condition of the property, he has to have another survey carried out on his own behal£* This means that, as in many languages, the masculine is the S)'tltactically unmarked form. This is a matter of concern to some, since they see in it another manifestation of the subjection of women and want to insist on he or she (or presumably sh~ "'he) in such instances. Not all languages enforce the sex distinction; in Chinese there is only one word meaning both he and she. just as there is only the one word they (as contrasted with ils and elles) for the plural in English. And it cannot be denled that, whatever the origins of the • unmarked masculine • - they lie far back in the history of Indo- European - the use of he has its problems. The authors of the Breakthrough to Literacy Teacher's Manual u!ied he to refer to a child but she to refer to a teacher, on the grounds that infant teachers are more often female - a reasoning that might equally be objected to: [2: I I] It is most important to note that a child who tells his teacher an imaginative stocy which she subsequently writes down for- him is not engaged in creative writing; but in creative speaking. No doubt the authors were glad to be able to avoid the possible ambigui- ties that might arise if both child and teacher- were referred to by identical personal forms. * 'I1w:- Ug.U Side l?f&ying:: IW~&, Consumcn· Association.

4-8 2.j.2 Spuch roles and «her roles The use of penona1 forms as reference Items with a cohesive function is so all-pervading in English that it hardly needs illustrating. The following is from Alice's conversation with the flowers: fz: 12] • Aren't you sometimes £Tightened at being planted. out here, with nobody to take care of you?' • There's the tree in the middle; said the Rose. 'What else is it good for?' 'But what could it do, -if danger came?' Alice asked. 'It could bar~' said the Rose. 'It says "Bough-wough! .. ' cried a Daisy: 'that"s why its branches are called. boughs !• Four occurrences of il, and one of its. refer anaphoric::ally to the tree. To appreciate the dfect of the use of personals, and cohesive items of all kinds, WITHOUT appropriate referents, see the verses read out by the White Rab- bit as. evidence in A/ice in Wonderland, Chapter 12,_ beginning [2:13] 'Theytoldmeyouhadbeentoher And mentioned me to him.' The whole poem is an excellent example of a pseudo-text. There is a distinction to be made, however, between the speech roles: (first and second person) and the other roles (third person). Only the third person is inherently cohesive, in that a third person form typically refers anapborically to a preceding item in the text. First and second person forms do not normally refer to the text at all; their referents are defined by the speech roles of speake£" and hearer. and hence they a.re normally inter- preted exophorically. by reference to the situation. This is an important distinction in principle: there is a major division within the person system between the third person,. which as far as the speech situation is concerned is not a 'person • - not a role - at all (it can only be defined negatively as 'not £r.st or second}, and the first and second persons which are defined as roles in the speech situation. The :first and second person forms essentially refer to the situation, whereas chose of the thir-d person essentially refer anaphorially or cataphorically to the text. Hence the absence of any verbal reference for I and yAA does not nor- mally kad to any s:eme of incompleteness. In written language they are anaphoric when they occur in quoted ('direct') speech. as opposed to those instances where the writer is addressing his readers; so in [I: 34] I and you have .as verbal referents Alke and tit£ CdL Compare

2.3 PERSONAL 1lEFERE.NCE 49 fz: 14] There was a brief note from Susan. She just said,' I am not com- ing home this weekend. • where I, in the quoted clause, refers back, like the preceding sh~.to Susan in the first sentence. These are instances of anaphora, albeit indirect anaphora; I still refers to the speaker, but we have to look in the text to fmd out who the speaker is. In general however I and ycu are given by the situation; other than in cases of quoted speech. if we are 'i.n on • the text at all we are usually ourselves occupying one or other of the speech roles. Conversely, a third person fo.rm does normaUy imply the presence of a referent somewhere in the text; and in the absence of such a referent the text appears incomplete. The meaning 'male person other than speaker or addressee' is hardly specific, so that an occurrence of he typically presup- poses a singular human masculine common or proper noun somewhere in the vicinity. At the same time, just as the first and second person forms, while typi.o.lly exophor!c, may refer anaphorically. so also the third. per- son forms, while typically anaphoric. may refer exophorically to some person or thing that is present in the context of situation. An example such as the following could occur as a complete text. [2:15] Oh,. he"s already been?- Yes. hewentbyahoutfive minutes ago. The nature of the reply shows that the identity of he is dear to the respon- dent, at least to his o\\o-n satisfaction. As we have emphasized already, • present in the context of situation' does not necessarily mean physically present in the interactants' field of perception; it merely means that the context of situation permits the identification to be made. The setting of the above example might be some event at which a collection is being taken. where the first speaker, money ln hand, notices that those around him are no longer proffering contributions; by this time the steward. the he of the dialogue, is in fact well out of sight. but it is obvious to both speakers who is in question. We may be inclined to speculate, as with other reference items, that the original mode of reference of third. person forms: was actually situational. and that endophoric reference is ultimatdy derived from exophoric. There are reasons for thinking that reference is primarily a situational"RELATZON, whereas substitution is a textual one (see Chapter 3). Be that as it may, the typical INSTANCE of third person reference is textual, and thet:efot:e cohesive; and in many texts the third person forms constitute the most frequent single class of cohesive items. Finally there is the •mixed• personal we. This may refer just to speaker and addressee ('you and I'). and so include in its meaning only the speech

50 REI'lHtENCB roles; but it may extend to a third person or persons (either with or with- out the addressee, ie 'he/she/they and r or "he/she/they and you and f). in which case it is mixed and demands a referent for the • other role •. This may be e:xophoric,. as when the leader of a delegation uses we to refer to himself plus the group of which he is acting as spokesman - who may or may not he forgathered around him: again the concept of' situation' is an abstract one defined not by the physical presence of the participants hut by the institutional framework, in this case the concept of a spokesman • one who speaks on behalf of (himself and) others •. Or it may he anaphoric. as in [2: 16] My husband and I are leaving. We have seen quite enough of this unpleasantness. To summarize: personals referring to the speech roles (speaker and addressee) are typicaUy exophori<:: this includes I and you. and we meaning ~you and I'. They become anaphoric, however, in quoted speech; and so are normally anaphoric in many varieties of written language, such as narrative fiction. In narration the context of situation includes a • context of reference~, a fiction that is to be constructed &om the text itself. so that all reference within it must ultimately he endophoric. Somewhere or other in the narrative will be names or designations to which we can relate the I and you of the dialogue. A written text as .a whole. however, still has its outer context of situation, in which the writer may refer exophorically either to hlmsel£ as I or we, or to his reader{s), as you,. or to both. This happens in letter-writing, in first person narrative. in advertising, in offi- cial documents addressed to the puhJi.c., and in notices; for eK.lmple: [2: 17] a. Dear Carrie: How are you? I had a strange dream about you last night - we were wandering together through a dense forest ... b. I suppose my face must have given me away. for suddenly she swept across and kissed me, but fortunatdy for my good resolutions she didn't linger dose to me but promptly returned to her chair, c. Look ar-ound you. Just how much of YOU is projected into your environment, and how much of IT is projected at you? d. The Medical Director thanks you for your attendance at the X-Ray Unit and is happy to inform you that your film is satisfactory. YOU SHOULD 1Q!l'U> THIS LETTER AND TAKE IT WITI1 YOU WHENEVER YOU HAVE AN X-RAY IN FUTURE. e. You have been warned!

2.3 PERSONAL .RBFERBNCil jl Personals referring to other roles (persons or objects other than the speaker or addressee) are typically anaphoric; this includes he, slu, it and they, and aOO the 'third person' component of Wt' when present. They may be exophoric, however, wherever the context of situation is UudgeJ by the speaker to be) such as to permit identification of the referent in question. As has been pointed out, it is only the anaphoric type of reference that is relevant to cohesion, since it provides a hnk with a preceding portion of the text. When we talk of the cohesive function of personal reference, therefore. it is particularly the third person forms that we have in mind. But we shall find instances of these whidl are not cohesive, as well as in- stances of the first and second person forms which are. In spoken English, especially in contexts of' language-in-action', those registers in which the verbal activity is dose]y interwoven with non-verbal activity, it is quite common for third person fonm to function exophorically; but in writing an explicit referent will normally he required, and even in speech the hearer .is sometimes constrained to demand one- so we hear exchanges such as: They• u lure! - Who are? In other words,. a third person form is assumed to be anaphoric unless the context of situation makes it quite unambiguous. Wlth the first and second person forms. on the other hand. the assumption is the other way round. In spoken 1anguage I means the speaker and you mean~ the addressee unless there is positive indication to the contrary in the form of a clause introducing quoted speech; and quoted speech, although common enough. is largely associated with certain par- ticular types. of narrative. such as. gossip and joke-telling. In written lan- guage the exophoric use of I as writer and you as audience is restricted to certain registers; but even in writing vv-e find some form of explicit signal (quotation marks, or 'inverted commas') to tell us when they ace not be- ing used in this way. Speech roles I. you, we ('you and I') typically: exophoric (non-cohesive): speaker, addressee(s); writer, reader(s) secondarily: anaphoric (cohesive): speaker. addressee in quoted speech Other roles he. she. it, they. we f and cther(s)') aru.phoric (cohesive): person(•) or thing(•) previously referred to exophoric (non-cohesive): person(s) or thing{s) identified in context of situation

,52 R.EFll.RENCE. Note finally that it is characteristic of third person fo:rms- that they may be cumulatively anaphoric. One occurrence of John at the beginning of a text may be followed by an indefinitely large number of occurrences of he, him or his all to be interpreted by reference to the original John. This phenomenon contributes very markedly to the internal cohesion of a text, since it creates a kind of network of lines of reference, each occurrence be- ing linked to all its predecessors up to and including the initial reference-. The number and density of such networks is one of the factors which gives to any text its particular flavour or texture. 2.3.3 Some spfflai kituls of personal r4"erenc.e Z.:J.J.I l!XTENDBD llEFE.llENC£, AND TEXT ltEFERENCE The word ;t differs from all other personals in that it may refer not only to a particular person or object. some entity that is encoded linguistically as a • participant'- a norm or nominal expression- but also to .any identifiable portion of text. This actually comprises two rather distinct phenomena, both of which are illustrated in the following example: [z: r8) [The Queen said:] 'Curtsey while you're thinking what to say. It saves time: Alice wondered a little at this, but she was. too much in awe of the Queen to disbelieve it. In the first instance, It save.s time. it refers to curtsq{ing] while you're think- ing w~at to s.ay; the reference is still to a 'thing', but not in the narrow sense of a particip:mt (person or object) - it is a whole process or complex phenomenon which is in question. Only it has the property of EXTEND BD REFERENCE of this kind: consider for example an eye-witness's descrip- tion of an accident, concluding with the remark It all happened so quickly. In the second instance, ... to disklieve it, the it refers not to a THING but to a FACT: [that] curt.rey[ing) while you're thinking what to say .. . saves time. This is an instance of Tl!XT REFERENCE. Whereas extended reference dif- fers from usual instances of reference on1y in extent- the referent is more than just a person or object. it is a process or .sequence of processes (gram- matically, a clause or string of clauses, not jwt a single nominal) - text reference dilfers in kind: th(." referent is not being taken up at its face-value but is being transmuted into a fact or a report. Perhaps the hest way to convey the distinction is through ambiguity: [2: 19] It rained day and night for two weeks. The basement flooded and everything was under water. It spoilt all our calculations.

2.3 PERSONAL REFERENCE 53 Either the phenomenon of heavy rains and flooding, the EVENT itself, destroyed our records; or the 'met:aphenomenon ', the FA er th-at it rained. so much, upset the weather pattem that we had predicted. In addition to it, the demonstratives this and that frequently occur in both extended reference and text reference. One of the striking aspects of cohesion is the ability ofhearers and readers to identify the relevant portion of text as referent, when they are faced with it. this or that in these uses. Clearly one of the factors that enables them to do this is the internal cohe- sion within the passage that is being presupposed. 2.J.J.2 GENERALIZED EXOPHORIC REFERENCE Not only the generalized personalllne hut aho we, you, they and it all have a generalized exophor.ic use in which the referent is treated as being as it were immanent in all contexts of situation. (i) You and one mean ~any hu- man individual'~ as in you never know, one ne-ver knows; and often by impli- cation • any sdf-r~pecting individual'. • any individual I would approve of' • particularly in the combination of one plus a verbal modulation as in one must accept certain .standards. (ii) We is used. in similar fashion but more concretely, implying a particular group of individuals with which the speaker wishes to identify himself. as in we don't do that sort ujthing here. In addition there .are various other intermediate uses of we: royal and edi- torial~ eg: we consider it cur duty ...• with an assumption of status behind it; medical we, fiom doctor to patient as in how au we today?, -implying 'you in your role as patient, with whom I seek: to identify myself'; impersonal we used in expository writing (fur example in this book), eg: we wnclude t.herifore that ...• -simply because English demands a subject and an excess of passives soon becomes tiresome. (iii) They is used to mean • persons unspecified'; often those with responsibility. 'the authorities'. but also simply 'persons adequately specified for purposes of discussion by the context', as in they' re mending the road out there. {iv) It occurs as a universaf meteorological operator in a few expressions such as it's mowing, it's hot to- day. All these are exophoric, but with a kind of irutitutionalized exophora; they make it possible to conform to the structural requirements of ·the clause. which demands a nominal in various places: - for this: reason they are often untranslatable, since other languages make different requirements. Exophoric reference makes no contribution to the cohesion of a text. But it is worth noting, perhaps. that this • institutionalized' exophora makes no demands either on the verbal context or on the context of situa-- tion. Confronted with the old verse

54 {z:zo] They· re digging up Grandpa's grave to build a sewer the hearer does not fed obliged to ask • Who are?' - the message is com- plete. If a personal form cannot be interpreted institutionally, either be- cause it does not make sense in the context or because it is one such as he which is never used in this way, then the hearer must seek the necessary evidence for interpreting it. If he finds such evidence in the situation, he can accept the passage in question as a complete text. If not. he has to seek textual evidence, and therefore to assume that the original passage is related to some preceding piece by cohesion - otherwise, he can only regard it as incompkte. It is not suggested that he performs these operations as a systematic search in this or any other order. The important fact is that the hearer typically assumes that any passage which for external reasons OUGHT to be a text (as opposed to something that he knows to be a frag- ment. such as one end of a telephone conversation} is in fact a text; and he will go to enormous lengths to interpret it as complete and intelligible. This is an aspect of the very general human tendency to assume In the other person an intention to communicate, an assumption which is no doubt of very great value for survival. 2-3.4 Personal pronouns, posses.n've tkterminers and possessive pronouns All that has been said about the personal pronouns applies equally to the other two categories of personal, namdy the possessive determinen and possessive pronouns. Neither the syntactic function of the personal itsdf, nor the syntactic function of its referen~ has any bearing on the anaphoric relation between the two; in this respect reference is quite unlike substi- tution (Chapter 3). In (2:21] below, the personal reference item he is a pronoun functioning as Head; this refers back to John equally well whether John ls non-possessive proper noun as Head as in (a), possessive as Deictic as in (b). or possessive as Head as in (c): [z:zr] a. John has moved to a new house. } b. John's house is beautiful He had it built last year. c. Thatru:whouseisJohn's. Likewise the other personal forms, both possessive determiners (my, your* etc) and possessive pronouns (mine~ yours, etc), may refer w:itbout restric- tion to a referent having any of the functions of John in [2: :;u ], or indeed any other syntactic function that is open to nominals. So we could have any combination of the following:

2.3 PERSONAL REFE.llE.NCE 55 [2;22] a. John has moved to a x. He had it built last year. new house. b. John's house is beautifuL y. His wife must be delighted with it. c. Thatnew house is John\. z. I didn't know it was his. where (x) has personal pronoun he. (y) has possessive determiner his and (z} has possessive pronomt his. Moreover the referent may be embedded deep in a complex sentence; there is still no difficulty in identifying John as the referent of h1's in [z: 2-3]; [z:z3) You rea1ly ought to ask Sally not to tell a story like that to all those friends of hers if she thinks they might be going to he working wi.thJohn. unless she cm be quite sure it's not going to go any further. 1 hardly think it would appeal to his sense of humour. There is however one respect in which possessive pronouns differ from other personal reference items as regards their anaphoric function. Where- as the other personals require only one referent for their interpretation. possessive pronouns clemand two, a possessor and a possessed. The dif- ference can he seen in (2:24]: [2:14] a. Jolm' s is nice. b. His house is nice. c. Hi.& is nice. Given (a), we need the answer to £John's what?'; given {h), the answer to ·whose house?~; but given (c) we need the answer to 'whose what?•. So any occurrence of a possessive pronoun involves two ties. only one of which is a form of reference; the other is present with any possessive nomina1, such asjolu{s or my father's, whenever it is functioning as Head. This is in fact an instance of ellipsis (Chapter .f.). Possessive pronou.ns, in other words. are doubly anaphoric because they are both referential and dliptical: they are anaphoric (i) by reference~ to the possessor. and (ii) by ellipsis,. to the thing possessed. So in (2:25] only (c) satisfies the presupposi- tions of the second sentence: [2:25] a. Can you find another programme? } b. Can you help M:.rry? Hers has got lost. c. Can you hand Mary a programme? The possessive pronoun hers presupposes Mary by reference and pro- gramme by ellipsis.

j6 llEFBRBNCB 2.3.5 Cata.phoric riferena: So fac no mention has been made of cataphoric personal reference. Per- sonals can refer cataphoricalJy, as in [2:26] He who hesitates is lost. where be does not presuppose any referent in the preceding text but simply refers forward to who h~sitates. Unlike demonstratives, however. which do refer cataphorica11y in a way that is genuinely cohesive - they refer FORWARD to succeeding elements to which they are in no way struc- turally related (see 2.4 below) - personals are normally cataphoric only within a structural framework, and therefore do not contribute to the co- hesion of the text. The reference is within the sentence, and is determined by the structure of the sentence. It may be hdpfitl nevertheless ro summarjze the cataphoric structural functions of the personal forms - in which only the penonal pronouns participate, never the possessive fonns. (i) Third person ptnnouns other than it may refer cataphorically to a defining relative clause, as in [z:W:]. This usage is felt to he somewhat archaic; it is .found in proverbs and aphorisms, and in some rhetorical, literary and liturgical styles. Such cata- phoric reference is. also found occasionally with we and you, as in you who doubt my word (meaning 'those among you who doubt my word~; note that there is no cataphora in forms which ace non-defining, such as you, who used w be .JO tolerant). (ii) All third person pronouns occur cataphori- cally as 'substitute themes • in clauses in which their referent is ddayed to the end, rg: they' re gc>od kst: peaches. (iii) A-s a special case of the last. it is very frequently used in this way where the subject of the clause is a nominalization, as in it' J true tha.t he works very hard. This is in fact the un- marked or typical form in such cases;. the alternative, that he works very hard is true, is possible but restricted. All such cataphoric reference ls struc- turally determined and makes. no direct contribution to the texture. There is one cataphoric use of it that is cohesive. illustrated by [2.:27]: [2:2.7] I wou1d never have believed it. They've accepted the whole scheme. This happens only where it is text-referring(see2.J.3.above); again, like i:ts anapboric equivalent, it has more in common with demonstrative refer- ence than with personal reference. Thus. to sum up. not all occurrences of personal fonns are anaphoric, nor is the mere presence of a personal reference item by itself an indication

2.4 DEMONSTRATIVE ltBPIHU!NC.B 57 of a cohesive tie. In the first place~ the reference may be exophoric. inter- pretabk by recourse to the context of situation: either in the generalized e:xophoric sense of we. you, they or it, or in the special exophoric sense of the speech roles expressed by you and I. Exophoric reference does not con- stitute a cohesive tie. fu the second place, it may he cataphoric; it will then be cohesive only in the case of the special use of it exemplified by [2:2-7] above. This does constitute a tie, linking up with what follows:. All other instances are anaphoric, including most occurrences of third person forms and some occurrences of fmt and second person forms (those in a context of quotation}. Usually there is no great difficulty in recognizing an ana- phoric penonal form; and we are all sensitized to the presence of one which seems to be anaphoric hut for which no clear reference is available. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why children used. to be discouraged tto:m using them. The other reason is one of manners: 'It's rude to point'. and cxophoric reference is. after all, just pointing with words. 2.4 Demonstrative referenre Demonstrative reference is essentially a form of verbal pointing. The speaker identifies the referent by locating it on a scale of proximity. The system is as follows: eutrai ..near --L: (not near} near: far: cngular: tin.. th.t lective participant plural: those lakre: here thm · cumstance - . thm nme: The circumstantial (adverbial} demonstratives here~ there, now and then refer to the location of a process in space or time~ and they normally do so directly, not via the location of some person or object that is participating

58 in the process; hence they typically function as Adjuncts in the clause, not as ekments within the nominal group. They have a secondary function as Qualifier, as in that man there. The remaining (nomina1) demonstratives this. these, that. those. and the refer to the location of some tlllng, typicaHy some entity - person or object - that is participating in the process; they therefore occur as demcnts within the nominal group. They belong to the class of determiners, and have the experiential function ofDeictic; in the logical s.tructure they function either as Modifier or as Head. with the exception of the which is a Modifier only. In this respect the nominal demonstratives resemble the possessives. which can also function either as Modifier or as Head, although. unlike the possessives, the demonstra- tives have only one form- there is no distinction between demonstrative determiner .and demomtr.ative pronoun corresponding to that between possessive determiner (eg: your) and possessive pronoun (eg: yours): as Modifier demonstrative that garden seems bigger possessive your garden seems bigger as Head that is a big garden yours is a big garden In the case of the demonstratives. however. there are certain differences in meaning between the functions of Modifier and Head; a demonstrative functioning as. Head is more like a personal pronoun. Historically. in fact. both it and the are reduced forms of that; and. alrhough it now operates in the system of personals. both c.an be explained as being the ·neutral' or non-selective type of the nominal demonstrative - as essentially one and the same element, which takes the form it when functioning .as Head and the when functioning as Deictic (ree further 2.4.2 below). Like personals. the demonsttatives regularly refer exophoricallytosome- thing within the context of situation. This is the primary form of verba) pointing; and it may be accompa.::Ued by demoru:trative action. in the form of a gesture indicating the object referred to. Examples are obvious enough: [2:28] Picktheseupl [2-:29] How would you like a cruise in that yacht? Similarly with the demonstrative adverbs: [2:30) leave that there and come here! In general this, these and here imply proximity to the speaker; that, those and there imply distance from the speaker, which may or may not involve

24 DEMONSTRATIVE R.BFRRE.NCE 59 proximity to the addressee - the meaning is • near you. or not near either of us, but at any rate not near me •. Many languages, for example Japanese, have a set of three demonstratives in which the meanings • near you' and • not near either of us' are kept distinct; this system is found in one or two dialects of English, which have this, here • near me •, that, there • near you' and yon, yonder • not near either of us'. In such languages there is a dose parallelism between the demonstrative and the personal systems., with 'this' corresponding to "I' (speaker), 'that' to "you' (addressee}, and "yon • to 'he, she, it' (other location or role).* In languages like Standard English, with only the two terms, 'this' is more specific than • that' • Since 'this' has the speaker as its point of reference while • that' has no particu1ar reference point -it is simply interpreted as ~not this'. This explains why the neutral forms the and it derived from that and not &om this. We are not concerned here with exophoric reference, for the reasons already given: it is not textually cohesive. Bur the uses of this and that in endophoric reference are explainable by reference to their exophoric meanings; so it is important to start from the general concept of proximity as this is interpreted situationally, The same applies to the deiinite article: the is also used e:xophorically, where the situation makes it dear what referent is. jruended, as in {a: 31] Look at the flowers! [2:32] Don't go; the train•s coming. This is the meaning of the here: namely that the referent is fully specified by the context and no further specification is needed. The anaphoric and cataphoric uses of the are iilcewise more readily interpretable if we relate them to its meaning as an exophoric deictic. Demonstrative reference is discussed in more detail in the next three sections: 2.4.I, the sekcrive nominal demonstratives; 2.4.2, the; 2.4.3, the adverbial demonstr:atives. 2.4.1 The selective nominal Jemon.stTatives: this, these, that, those These demonstratives occur extensively with anaphoric function in all * The thu-d n:rm • yon' is sometimes expWned as • in the pcoximity of some third pawn', but that :is a niliinretpreration. based on tbe asrumption tha1 dem.onstntiVi:S are DEitiVEP Hl.m.t ~ Rather we should s:oy that the third de:monsttative. where it is found. shares wtth tlu: dUni penon the «>mmon meaning 'ot:he:r •. i~ ncithcr of the two specifk posllibilitiei. So 'he, she. it' is 'neither spe;a.ker nor addressee, but llOme other entity"; 'r"<~n' is 'ncither near speaker ~ :near add~ezsee, but some other location'.

• 6o lUIFEllBNCE varieties of English. In principle, they embody within themselves theee systematic distinctions; (t) between 'near' (this, tluS<) and 'not near' (that, those) (z) between 'singular' (this, that) and 'plural' (these, those) (3) between Modifier (this, etc, plus n~ eg: this tree is an oak) and Head (this, etc, without noun, eg: this is an oak). All these distinctions have some rdevance to cohesion. in that they parti- ally determine the use of these items in endophoric (textual) reference. They are discussed in the next tlu:ee subsections. 2..(..1.1 NUR. AND NOT NEAR.: thisfth~se VERSUS thatjt/wse Both thu and thot regularly rder anaphorically to something that has been said befOre. In dialogue there is some tendency for the speaker to use this to refer to something he himself has said and that to refer to something said by !m interlocutor; compare [2:33] and [2:34]: [2: 3 3) a. There seems to have been a great deal of sheer carelessness. This is what I can't understand. b. There seems to have been a great deal of sheer carelessness. -Yes, that's what Ican~t understand. This distinction is dearly related to that of' near (the speaker)~ versus 'not near'; 'what I have just mentioned' is. textUally speaking, 'near me~ whereas 'what you have just mentioned~ is not. The tendency seems to be further reinforced if the referent is also in some way ASSOCIATED WITH the speaker;forexaTDpl~ (>= J4] !like the lions, and I like the polar bears. These are my favourites. -Those are my favourites too. Here there ace as it were two kinds of proximity: the lions and the polar bears have not only been mentioned by the speaker but also explicitly linked to his personal fedings., !0 that he naturally refers to them as theR. Co-existing with this tendency is :mother one whereby proximity is interpreted in terms of time; in this case that tends to be associated with a past-time referent and this for one in the present or future. For example. [2:35} a. We went to the opera last night. That was our first outing for monw. b. We're going to the opera tonight. This'U be our first outing for months.

2.4 DllMONSTRATIVB ltBFBRBNCB 61 Compare this with the exophoric me of this to refer to current periods of time: this morning. this ~ar and so on; and also in those days. in these days. Neither of these tendencies is fully dominant. If in a given instance both are working in the same direction. the choice is likely to follow the expecred pattern; for example [2: 36] 'I couldn't a1ford to learn it," said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. • I only took the regular course. • 'What was that?~ inquired Alice. Here Alicecould hardly have said What was this? Similarly with [2:37]: [2:37] a. What about this exhibition? h. What about that exhibition? If we hear [:z.: 3J.l] we are likdy to supply something like 'that I told you is on now; shall we go and see it?"; whereas with [2:37h] the presupposi- tion is more likely to he 'that you told me was on earlier; did you go and see it?'- at least. it could not be the other way round. But the criteria may conHict, precisely because the notion of proximity has various interpreta- tions; and in such .cases there is no very dearly felt distinction between this and that. In [2:38] we could easily substitute that: [2:38) But then, Mr. Dubourdlectedgloomily, women never had any prudence. Though he had profited by this lack many a time, it annoyed him now. In any case there are mark::ed differences among different styles and varieties of English as regarda their patterru of anaphoric usage of this and that. the study of which goes beyond our present scope. For example, in narrative of a mditionaJ kind. such as children's stories and ballads, we often find that where, i.n conversational narrative, a speaker would tend to use this~ conveying a sense of immediacy and also of solidarity with the hearer, of shared interest and attention. So the bal1ad of the three little pigs has [2:39] And afier a time those little pigs died. whereas if we were recounting the incident we should probably say tlu!se little pigs. It is this assumption of shared interest and attention which lies behind the use of the • near • forms, this and these, in conversational narrative where they are not strictly 'phoric' at all: There was this man ..• , where • this man • is present neither in the text nor in the situation but ouly in the speaker•s mind. The context is one of highly coded, in-group speech, and the effect is to emphasize common experience and a cotnmon interest.

2.4-1.2 SINCUL.U AND PLUitAL: this{ that VERSUS tfu!seftlrose In general this distinction follows the expected pattern: this/that refer to count singular or mass nouns, tlu!sefth&se to count plural. The most im- portant difference is that which separ.ates the SINGULAR FORMS USED AS HEAD (ie: this and tl1at without following noun) from the rest;. this will he discussed in 2.4.1.3 below. Otherwise, we may note simply that the plural forms may refer anaphorially not merely to a preceding plural noun. as in [z: 39]~ but also ro sets that are p1ura1 in meaning. for example [2:40] 'Where do you come from?" said the Red Queen.' And where are you going? Look up. -speak nicely, and don't twiddle your fingers all the time: Alice attended to all these directions, and explained. as well as she t:ould~ that she had lost her way. Conversely the singular demonstrative may refer to a whole list irrespec- tive of whether or not it contains items that are themselves plural: [z:41] I"ve ordered two turkeys, a leg oflamb, some cooked ham and tongue. and two pounds of minced bee£ - Whatever are you going to do with all that food. ? But these uses follow from the general nature of anaphoric reference ite~ that they refer to the meanings and not to the forms that have gone before, 2.4-1.3 HEAD AND MODIFIER! th~ BTC. AS PRONOUN VEllSUS this. BTC, PLUS FOLLOWING NOUN A dem.onstrative as Modifier(' demonstrative adjective') may refer withow: restriction to any class of noun. A demonstrative as Head(' demonstrative pronoun). on the other hand. while it can refer &eely to non-humans. is highly restricted in its reference to human nouns; it cannot refer to a hu- man referent except in the special environm.ent of an equative clause. Foe example, in [2: 42] ~Now the cleverest thing I ever did," the Knight went on afier a pause, • was inventing a new pudding during the meat-course . . :. I don't believe that pudding ever was cooked.' it would be perfecdy possible to omit the second pudding and say I Jcm't believe that ever was cooked(if[2:40J and [2:4I]). On the ot:hac hand:, in [2: 4-3] I must introduce you to the surgeon who looked after me when I

2.4 DEMONSTRATIVE: REFERENCE 63 was in hospital. That surgeon really did a fine job, and nothing was too much trouble fur him. we coUld not replace thm surgeon hy that. The only instance where demon- struives: can refer pronorninally to human referents, whether anaphori- cally or exophoricaUy. is in relational clauses of the equative type "'"'-here one element is: supplying the identification of the others. for example [z:-44] a. Do you want to know the woman who designed it? That was Mary Smith. h. Who are those colourful characters? - Those must be the presidential gw:rds. Compare the exophoric Who's that?, this is John (when introducing him). those are the peiJPle I was telling you about; but never let's ask this, I don't know wh.tt that's la.ughing abcmt. The principle is that the demonstrative pronoun eotte!ponds to it and not to he or she. The fact that the plural form they is the same for both human and non-human referents may explain why the demonstrative is: slightly less unacceptable wi.th a human referent when it is in the pJural; we might perhaps accept let's ask tlwse, I don't know what those are laughing about. There is one other important characteristic of demonstrative reference that is specifically a feature of demonstratives functioning as Head. This concerns the level of generality of the referent. If the demonstrative is. used with a noun. then the meaning is always identical with that of the presupposed item. Examples are [2:39}, [2:42] and [2: 43]. This normally hoJds true even if t:he noun following the demonstrative is not identical with the presupposed item; it may he some kind of a synonym, like food in [2:41], which is a SUPliRORDINATE (ie a more general term}. or like diredions in [2:4-o). There is still identity of reference in such instances; it is 'that particular food', 'those particulu directions •. These are in fact di-fferent types of lexical cohesion, and are discussed further in Chapter 6. To invent one further example, in [2:45] it does not matter whether we have cat or animtll or trickster in the second sentence; the reference is still to the original cat: [2 :45] There's a cat trying to get in. shall I open the window?- Oh, that cat f that animal / that trickster's always coming here cadging. Suppose however that we use the demonstrative a-fone, without a fol- lowing noun. The reference may still be identical; but it may be broader.

llEFERBN C.E referring to the general class denoted by the noun. including but not limited to the particular member or members of that class being referred to in the presupposed item. If for ex:unple the first sentence in [2:45] had begun There dr£ two cats trying to get in. then the answer those cats would still have referred only to the original twq cats; but the answer those, eg; Tlw:se have to be kept out, could refer not just to the two cats mentioned but to cats in general. Compare: [2:46] There's been another big industrial merger. It seems that nothing can be done about this. where the meaning is not • this particular merger • but 'mergers in general', as we can see by substituting this merger, or this one, for rhis. A related instance is provided by [2:47]: [2047] H;, hand gmped for the krufe. If he could only reach that he would be safe. Here we could, in &et, substitute that knifo, but not th.n one; the meaning is not 'that particular knife' but 'that particular object, namely the knife'. This affords a very good illustration of the difference between reference and substitution, as summarized at the beginning of Chapter 3 be!ow. In the plural, the distinction is less dearcut, and there is the possibility of ambiguity: [2:-48] How did you like the recitations? (find_ those boring. If it had been I found, the meaning would have been • those particular recitations' and we could have substituted those recitations or those ones.* 1 find. however, suggests •(those particular things. namely) recitations in general'; here we could certainly not substitute those on!s, but it would perhaps be possible to substitute those recitations and still interpret it in this sense. [n a comparable way, given there are two cals trying to get in. the answer th()Se creatures have to be kept out is ambiguous as between 'those panlcular cats. • and • those particular creatures, namely cats in general'. The general principle behind this is simply that dcmonstratives, since * In mort \-meties of written English, ;~nd with some speakers, thtse ones~ thase enu do- not oca~r; but rh ere is a growing tendency to use these forms in speech preci~ly in orda- to make thil: di5tinction m me:ming; to give w.othcr ex2mple, Do y<IIO like my hydrangt4S' - yes, Ill~ ti1!.>1C ('hydrangeas in general'} oontnsted vrith Yl"s. l U~ ~ t>neS ('those particular hydran- geas'). The form with om-{1) ls very often used exophorically, tbougb not exclusively so. We .tn" HOW beginning to bear my <m~<), }""" O.W.:s) etc" in phce of mine, y.>ur<, etc, <llthongh here the disbnction i;; unne.-ces'iary because the latter occur only in the ~cond, particubrized ~ See J.l below.

2.4 DEMONSTRATIVE :REFERENCE 65 {like other reference items) they identify semantically and not gram- matically, when they are anaphoric require the explicit repetition of the noun, or some form of synonym. if they are to signal exact identity of specific reference; that is. to refer unambiguously to the presupposed item at the identical degree of particularization. A demonstrative without a following noun may refer to some more general class that includes the presupposed items; and this also applies under certain conditions to a demonstrative with a following nowt - namely if the context is such that the noun can be INTERPRETED more genera1ly. h is not easy to specify exactly what these conditions are, but they are more likely to obtain with plural or mass nouns because these are general unless specified. In spoken English there is a one-way phonological distinction: the demonstratives have a weakened form that is used ONLY when they are NOT specifying and the meaning is one of generalized reference; for example [2-:49] How did you manage with the new drugs I gave you? (i) !I thO>e I new / drugs up/><t me 11 (ii) !/A those / new / drugs up/set me // Here (i) is ambiguous: it might mean either • the ~rticular ones you gave me • or 'new drugs in general•; whereas (ii) can mean only • new drugs in general'. The generalized type is typically associated with expressions of attitude, foe example I don't trust these lawyers ('lawyers in general'), those French are so touchy (note that in the particularized sense it would have to be those French people); and also that Bach hml genius, meaning not 'J.S. as opposed to the rest of the family~ but • Bach~ that we all know'. All these are simply equivalent to non-specific forms (new drugs, lawyers, the French and B.uh) to which a demonstrative has been added. often for anaphoric purposes but without carrying over any specificity there may have been in the item that is presupposed. The distinction between the particn1ar use of a demonstrative, having exact identity of reference with the presupposed item, and the generalized use is related to that between defining and non-defining modifiers. In that Bach, that is non-defining; but if we change to it that follow Bach it becomes defining. Similarly if we interpret that in [ z .. t.J J as 'that knife' it is non- defining, but if we inter-pret, it as 'that thing' it is defining. Compare rhis m [>.so] They wept like anything to= Such quantities of sand. "If this were only swept away: They said. • it would be grand'

66 :REFERENCE - •this sand'. or 'this stuff'. The distinction does not, however. affect the textual fWlction of demonsttatives, since both uses are equally associated with anaphoric reference, and hence contribute to cohesion within the tex~ 2.4.1.4 EXTENDED RIIF.ERE.NCE AND :REF.BRI!NCE TO • FA er': this AND tfMt Related to the last, generalized type of demonstrative reference, but at the same time quite distinct from it, is the use of demonstratives to refer to extended text, including text as 'fact' (if: it in 2.J.J.I above). This applies only to the singular forms this and that used without a followiug noun. For example: [.a: si] They broke .a Chinese vase. (i) That was valuable. (ii) That was careless. In {i} that refers to the object vase; we could have that vase instead.. In (ii} thnt refers to the total event, ~their breaking of the vase'. If there had been more than one breakage we could have had tlrose were valuable but not tho!f! were carek:ss: [2; 52) They broke a Chinese vase and damaged two chandeliers. (i} Those were aU very valuable. (ii) That was all very careless.* Extended reference probably accounts for the majority of all instances of demonstratives in all except a few specialized varieties of English. For example, in the last two chapters of A lice" s Adventures in Wonderland there are 51 demonstratives, made up of 22 this, 24 that, 3 these and 2 tlwse. Of the total, 31 are used in extended reference. Of the remaining 20, 3 refer ro time, which is another form of extended reference, (eg [2:53a}), 10 are e:xophoric in the dialogue (eg [z:s3b]). and 5 are anaphoric to preceding nominal> (•g [2: ne]): * A demonstrative functioning pronominall.y, le without a fOllowing noun. is $0metlmes ~as ani~ oferupsis; q in [2:51i} we might be inclined to consider that as • elliptical foE"' that vase. But in many instances we cannot, in &et, 'fill out' with a 'missing' noun because-, as we have seen, theu is no appropriate noun available: cither became the rdi:rence is compound, as in [2; s.n1. OE" ~. as in {2: 46]; or because it is to .an extended pasagc of text, as in f:z: 9ii}. Moreover reference is different in meaning from ellips,is {see Chapten 4 and 7 below); and all demorut:r:Uives, whether functioning ~Modifier m a.s Head, satisfy me semantic couditions of refecaK:e, wbere:u they do not satisfy those of ellipsis.

2-.4 Dl!:MONSTRA TIVB AEFEllBNCB 67 {2: 53] a. Just at this moment Alice felt .a very curious sensation. b. •Treack; said a sleepy voice behind her. "Collar that Dor- mouse; the Queen shrieked out. c. One of the jurors had a pencil that squeaked. This, of course, Alice could twt stand . . . Two instances are unclassifiable (before sire had this fit, in the verses read out by the White Rabbit and repeated by the King). Examples of extended reference are : l2:54l a. 'Give your evidence; said the King; ~and don~t be nervous. or fll have you executed on the spot: This did not seem to encourage the witness at all. b. 'But what did the Dormouse say?' one of the-jury asked. 'That I can't remember/ said the Hatter. c ... 1 gave her one, they gave him two''- why, that must be what he did with the tarts~ you know.' It is not always easy to say whether the referent of a demonstrative in a given instance is a particular nominal item in the text or should be taken to include something more; the this in {2:53c] could be supposed to refer to the whole of the preceding sentence. The distinction is not a sharp one, and it is usually irrelevant; in either case the effect is cohesive. But in many instances the referent clearly is an extended passage of text. and this, together with the related use of it, is one of the major cohesive devices of the English language. Perhaps the most frequent form taken by such extended reference is in equative clauses where the demonstrative provides the • given • element in the message and this then serves to identify some other element that is 'new'. by simply being equated with it. [2:54£] is one example; here are some others.: [2'55]a. [following the White Rabbit"s reoding of the venesJ 'That's the most important piece of evidence we've heard yet,' said the King~ rubbing his hands. b. I come .from Wolverhampton. -That's where I come from too. c. No one will take it seriously. This is the frightening thing. Spoken English is typically held together by inurnal cross-referencing of this L:ind, which combines powerful structure with great flexibility and freedom of movement.

68 ltEF.IIltBNCB 24-~"·5 ANAPH.OltiC AND CATAPHORIC DEMONSTRA.TIVES There is differentiation between tins and that in extended text reference. which relates to their differentiation in terms of proximity. Whereas that is always anaphoric, this m:~.y be either anaphoric or cataphoric. Some Shakespearean examples: [2:56]a. Viola: lamaUthedaughtersofmyf.ather'-shouse And 2ll the brothers ~ -and yet [ know not. - Sir, shall! to this lady? Duke: Ay, that's the theme. b. Hamlet: Do notlouk upon me Lest with this piteous action you convert My stern effects: then what I have to do Wdl want true colour; tears perchance for blood. Queen: To whom do you speak this? Hamlet: Do you see nothing there? Queen: Nothing at all; yet all that is I see. Hamlet: Nor did you nothing bear? Queen: No,. nothing but ourselves. Hamlet: Why.look you there! I~ how it steals away! My father~ in his habit as he liv\H Loo~ where he goes, even now. out of the portal! Queen: This is the very coinage of your brain. c. Cassius: That you have wronged me doth appear in this:: You have condemn~d and notedLucius Pella For taking bribes here of the Sardians; Wherein my letters, praying on his side, Because [knew the man:, were slighted off: {z: s6a) has amphoric that, (h) three instances of anaphoric this, and (c) cataphoric this. This use of this, together with the parallel use of here(= •·4·3 below), is the only significant instance of cataphoric cohesion in English. We have di-stinguished this. in the previous discussion. from structural cataphora as in he wlw hesitates; stcucttrral cataphora is very common, especially with the definite article (see 2.4.2 below), but it is simply a realization of a gram- m-atical rdatiomhip within the nominal group and has no cohesive. teXt- forming function. Textual cauphora. by contrast. is true reference for- ward in the text; it therefore is cohesive, not by picking up what has pre- ceded but by anticipating what is to follow. From Alia;

Z-4- DBMONSTllATIVE REFERENCE (z:57} These were the venes the Whire Rabbit read:- [followed by the verses] In writing. sentences which are related cataphorically are often joined by a colon; but there is no structural relation between the two -this is a purdy orthographic convention, serving precisely to signal the presence of cataphoric cohesion. A fmal point to note is that in spoken English thU and that in extended reference often carry the tonic (primary stress}. In this they are unlike all other cohesive items in the language. Since, in the most general terms, tonicity is associated with information that is new, it is not surprising to find that anaphoric items, which by -definition are not 'new • ~ becaure they are referring to what has gone before. do not normally carry the tonic. (The position is quite ditferent with reference items used exophorically; these are often tonic- again. not surprisingly, since in this case the referent has not been mentioned before.} We can be quite precise about anaphoric items: they are tonic: when and only when they are c:ontr.ative. and this is part of the same story. The semantic category of~ new' means •informa- tion being treooted by the speaker as non-recoverable to the hearer • ~it may be non-recoverable either because it has not been previously mentioned or because it has been previously mentioned but is unexpected and hence contrastive in the particular context. For example. in fz: 58] these is 'new' in this second. contrastive sense: (2: s8] The first mw of cottages looked empty and decrepit. But behind them stood another row, wdl kept and with small bright gar- dens. "Whoever lived in these cottages lived well enough. A demonstrative with texmal reference. however, is very frequently tonic; and this arises in two ways, both of which are simply extensions of the principle mentioned above., that tonicity signals what is new. In the first place there are very many instances in which the reference, while :ma- phoric. IS in fact contrastive. this being the whole point of the utterance; for example [2:59] Whereareyougoing? - To reed the fish. - THAT~s what 1 was trying to remember to do just now. In the second place, the reference may he cataphoric, in which case the referent has not been mentioned before; a cat.tphoric demonstrative is therefore regularly tonic. Contrast ~2.:6oa], where this is anaphoric, mean-

RBFBRRNCR ing 'what I've just said", with [2:6ob] where it is cataphoric, and means ·what fmjust going to say': [2:6o] a. Ican"t getanyrdiablelNFORMATION. This is whatwOlUUBS me. b. THIS is what worries me: I can't get any reliable INFORMATION. (In (z:6oa] this could he replaced by that, whereas in [2:6ob] it could not.} M a corollary of its carrying the tonic. the cataphoric this could equally come at the end: in(b) we might well have Whatwcrries me is this:, where- as in (a) such a reversal is highly improbable. 2.f.2 The The defi:nite article the has usually been set apan. in grammars of English. as a unique member of a class., its only relative being the indefinite article a. There is some justification for this; no other item in English behaves exactly like the. On the other hand, it has important similarities with a whole group of other items. so that we need not hesitate to classify it with the determiners; and, more particularly, with the specific determiners, the class which includes the demonstratives and the possessives. (Likewise the indefinite article i.s a member of the wider class of non-specific deter- miners.) The full set of specific determiners: is as follows: Demonstrative Possessive Referential f"' t1uu Speech roles my, your. Sdectiv ""' these these {his, her, their Non-sdective the Other roles its (Jtu!' s Interrogative which whose Hence the in many ways resembles: the demonstratives, from one form of which it is derived.. It is originally a reduced fOrm of that, functioning only as a modifier~ in the same way that a is a reduced form of one like- wise restricted to the modifier function. And this ls reflected. in its mean- ing. EssentiaUy the. like the demonstratives, is a specifying agent. serving

2-4 DBMONSTRA TJVE REFERENCE 71 to identify a particular individual or subclass within the class designated by the noun~ but it does this only through dependence on something else- it contains no specifying element of its own. This can be explained as follows. A11 other specific determiners are semantically selective; they contain within themselves some referential element in terrrL"\ of which the item in question is to be identified. With the possessi.VC5, it is person: the :item is identified as belonging to, or associated -with, a recognizable participant - speaker, addressee or l!Ome person or object in the environment. With the demonstratives, it is prox- imity: the item is identified a5 present in the environment arul more, or less, remote. fu hoth these instances the environment, as we have seen, may be situational or textual; and when it is textual, this form of specifJ.Cation by reference becomes cohesive. The definite article has no content. It merely indicates that the item in question IS specific and identifiable; that somewhere the information necessary for identifying it is recoverable. Where is this information to be sought? Again, either in the situation or in the text. The reference is either exophoric or endophoric. If it is exophoric, the item is identifiable in one of two ways. {r) A particular individual or subclass is being referred to~ and that individual or subclass is identifiable in the specific situation. An ex- ample was [2.: 32] Don't go; the train•s coming, where the tr..:in :is interpreted as 'the train we're both expecting'- conttasted with Don"t go; a train's roming which would perhaps be a warning to avoid being run over. All immediate situational instances of the are exophoric in this way: mind the step; pass me the towel; the children are enjcying themselves; the mew's too deep; the journry's nearly vver, and. so on. (2) The referent is identifiable on extralinguistic grounds no matter what the situation. This has something in common with the generalized exophoric use of the personal forms, and it occurs under two conditions. It may arise, first, because there exists only one member of the class of objects referred to. for example the sun; or, at least. one member which will he assumed in the absence of specific indication to the conttary, for example the baby ('our baby'}, the govern- ment ('of our country'). the time ('now"). Secondly. it may arise because the reference is the whole class, eg: the- stdrs; or the individual considered as a representative of the whole class, like the child in As the child grows, he learns tg be independent, or the snail in The snail is wnsidered a great delicacy in this region. This type of exophoric reference, which does not depend on the specific situatio~ has been called H OMOPH o:a l c to distinguish it from the situationally specific type. Alternatively, the source of identification may lie in the text: what we

72- RBFERBNCB are calling enJophoricreference. In this case there are again two possibilities: reference forward, and reference backward. (3) Cataphoric or forward reference, with the~ is limited to the structural type. Un1ike the selective demonstratives (thU, the$e and here). the can never refer forward cohesively. It can only refer to a modifying element within the same nominal group as itsel£ Here are some examples: {z:6IJ a. The ascent of Mount Everest b. The party in power c. The people who predicted a dry summer d. The longest stretch e. The best way to achieve stability What is "the significance of the in such instances? It is, as always. a signal of identity; or rather~ of identifiability, showing that criteria for identifying WHICH ascent~ WHICH party etc is intended are recoverable - jn this instance, they are recoverable from the nominal group in which the the occurs. In other words the is a signal that the modifying elements are to be taken as defining; we are to understand only ruch members of the general class named by the Head noun as are specified in the Modifier. The defining elements are of Mount Everest, in power~ who predicted a dry summer, longest, and~ in (e). the discontinuous Modifier best . .. ro achieve stability. (4) Finally there is anaphoric reference, the only one of the four condi- tions in which the is cohesive. The clearest instances of this are those in which the item is actually repeated. eg: haU in [z.:6z] She fo-und herself in a long, low hall which was lit up by a row of lamps hanging from the roo£ There were doors all round the hall, but they were all locked. Ofi:en the reference is to a synonym or near-synonym, or to some other item which by its connotations provides a target for the anaphora; in rz:6JJ. the ers aoe clearly those of the Cat (and note the lexical cohesion between eyes and mouth) : [z.:63] ~How are you getting on?' said the Cat, as soon as there was mouth enough for it to speak with. Alice waited till the eyes appeared, and then nodded. This. shades into the sort of extended reference and text reference that we have found with it, this and that; for example the prospect in [2:64] 'A nice mess we're aU in. Pictures in the papers and reporters

2.4. DEMONSTRATIVE REFERENCE 73 coming round.' She paused. obviously visualizing the future in a series of crude, highly-coloured pictures. He thought that the 1 prospect was still not wholly unplcasing.* Once again, the signals identifiability~ but here the information about WHICH hall~ WlUCH eyes and wmcH prospect is to be recovered from the preceding text. This is what provides the • texture'. There is a commonly held belief that the typical function of the is the anaphoric one: that it invariably specifies by reference back in the text. Indeed it has sometimes been referred to as the • second mention article •. It should be stresse~ therefore, that anaphoric reference is only one means whereby th~ achieves specificity (and even wben it is anaphoric, more often than not there is no • second mention~ of the same noun). It is prob- ably true that purely anaphoric reference never accounts for a majority of instances: in pra.grnatic speech the is primarily exophoric, and in most other varieties of spoken and written English its predominant function is cataphoric. What must be recognized, however, is that these various types of reference are not mutually exclusive. A given occurrence of the might have any two or even three functions at the same time. Consider for example: [2:65] Last year we went to Devon for a holiday. The holiday we had there was the best we·ve ever had. Here the is both cataphoric, pointing forward to we had there. and also ana- phoric, referring the second occurrence of holiday back to that in the pre- ceding sentence; and it would be meaningless to argue that it must be just the one or the other. Now suppose the same example continues: {2:65] (cont'd) The people we stayed. with had four children. The eldest girl was a bout nine. The first the is cataphoric only, since there is no lexical rdation between people and anything in the preceding passage. The second is again both cataphoric and anaphoric: cataphoric. showing that eldest defines girl, and anaphoric because girl is related to children. We might even construct an example w:ith all three types of reference: {2: 66] Look at the moon! The daytime moon always seems so sad. Here the second occurrence of the is cataphoric to daytime. anaphoric to the earlier moon. and exophoric both in the 'homophoric' sense, since there is * Aga.th.a Christic, P«htjul .;if R~. Fontana Booh.

74 only one moon, and also in the situational scme since it is specifically an object of attention. Such instances of forufold reference are presumably f.tidv rare . The function of the definite article can be summed up by saying that it is an unmarked or non-selective referential deictic. Its meaning is. that the noun it modifies has a specific referent, and that the information required for identifying this referent is available. It does not contain that informa- tion in itself; it is the • definite article' in the sense that its function is to signal definiteness, without itself contributing to the definition. Nor does it say where the information is to be located. [t will be found somewhere in the environment, provided we interpret • environment' in the broadest sense: to include the structure, the text, the situation and the culture. Whenever the infurmation is contained in the text. the presence of the creates a link between the sentence in which it itself occurs and that con- taining the referential information~ in other words. it is cohesive. 2.4-3 Demr:mstrative adverbs There are four of these, hen:, there, now and then, although now is very rarely cohesive. Three of them need to be distinguished .from their homographs - other words written the same way but, now at least, having different fWlc- tions in the language. (I) Demonstrative there is to be distinguished from pronoun there as in there's a man fit the dtJor. (2) Demonstrative now is to be distinguished &om conjunction naw as in now what we• re gcing to do is this. (3} Demonstrative tht!n is to be distinguished from conjunction then as in then you've quite maJe up your minJ? As a general rule the non-demonstra- tive forms are phonoiogicaUy reduced, whereas the demonstratives are not reduced, though there may be no phonologica) difference in the case of then. (t is the demonstrativcs only 'Vo'ith which we are concerned here. As reference items, here and there closely parallel this and that, respec- tively. For example {2:67] 'Do you play croquet with the Queen today?' 'l should like it very much; said Alice. 'but I haven"t been invited.' • You'll sec me there: said the Cat, and vanished.. The meaning of there is anaphoric and Jocative; it refers to • playing cro- quet with the Queen'. Both here and there regularly refer to extended text, and then often with a meaning that is nor one of place but of~ respect •; 'in this respect'. 'in that respect •. For example

Z.4 DEMONSTRATIVE REFBRENCE 75 [2:68] "Of course it would be all the better~' said Alice: 'but ;, wouldn't be all the better his bemg punished.' 'Y ou• re wrong there. at any rate,~ said the Queen. In such contexts here, like this. may be cataphoric; in example [2.:33} this could be replaced by here and that could be replaced by~. The demon- stratives this, these and here provide, in bet, almost the ouly sources of cata- phoric cohesion: they are the only items in English which regularly refer fOrward TEXTUALLY, to something to which they are not linked by a structural relationship.* (An example of the cataphoric use of oompara- tives, which is much rarer, will be found in the next section.) The temporal demonstratives then and now are much more restricted in their cohesive function. The cohesive use of demonstrative then is that embodying anaphoric reference to time; the meaning is "at the time just referred to • : [2;:69] In my young days we took these things more seriously. We had different ideas then. The use of nPw is confmed to those instances in which the meaning is 'this state of affairs having come .about'. for example [2:7oa]; [2: 7ob] shows a comparable use of then: [2: 70] a. The plane touched down at last. Now we could breathe freely ag:un. b. Why not tell your parents? Then we can stop pretending. This is already approaching the use of then as a conjunctive; see 5·7 below. 2.4-4 A final nCJtt: on denwnstrativ~s There are very many expressions containing a demonstrative that occur as adjuncts, typically at the beginning of a clause; in general they come with- in the category often known as • discourse adjuncts •. Exampl6 are in that case, that being so. after that. at this moment, uruler these circumstances. In the present analysis, we are treating these as conjunctives. not as * They do also OCCU1' in a fonn of nructural cauphora,. ~pli:fied by ~!or in Lm:tkm. then tm tM cpptlrik p<:ge; rom.pare this and tJt.t in this mania for IWShing t4n, thM turirey Wl!' W f« Chli:stmm, and also the special ur.e of th.ut- in dwsr who. meaning 'the pt:ople who', ai in tlw~ whc pntliatd an or.uthquake. Like otha funnt. of ~ctutal ~on, these make no amtrihu- tioo to cohe$ion.

76 llEFERENCB- demonstratives; see Chapter 5 below. This is on semantic grounds: the principle is that any sem211tic relation which is itself conjunctive is treated as conjunctive in all its realizations. whether or not there is a demonstrative or other reference item present in its expression. This also avoids making - an awkward and artificial distinction between pairs of items such as as a result and as a result bfthis; both of these are interpreted in the same way~ as conjunctives. In fact. there is overlap between conjunction and reference at this point. and there would be no need in principle to force a classification in terms of just one or the other. But one of the purpmes of the present study is to make it easy to analyse and compare teXts in respect of their cohesive properties~ and for this reason, in all instances of indeterminacy we have taken a decision one way or the other. As far as possible the decision has fOllowed the line of semantic consistency. at the same time with an eye to applicability in pr-actice. 2. 5 Comparative reference The table of comparative reference items was given in 2.2 above (Tab1e 4). The system is as follows: compar- ison- -identity same etp~al identical, identically neral ---!-similarity (deictic) suck similar, so similarly likewise iffi:rence other different else, differently otherwise umerative more fewer kss further aJJitional; so- as- equaUy- +quantifier, eg: particular so many (non-deictic) pithet comparative adjectives and ad- verbs. eg: bettff; so- -as- more-less- equally- +comparative adjectives .and adverbs. eg: etJUally good By 4 general comparison~ is meant comparison that is simply in terms of

2.5 COMPARATIVE RBFE.R.ENCB 77 likeness and unlikeness. without respect to any particular property: two things may be the same, similar or d.Uferent (where • different• includes both 'not the same' and 'not similar•). General comparison is expressed by a certain class of adjectives and adverbs (separated from each other by a comma in the above lists). The adjectives function in the nom.inal group either as Deictic (eg: identiUJl in the identical two cards) or as Epithet (eg: identical in two identical caTds); it will be seen that these have different mean- ings (see 2.5.1 below). The adverbs function in the clau~ as Adjunct (eg: identiudly in the other-s performed identically). These are called ADJBCriV.l!.S OF COMPARISON. ADVERBS OF COMPARISON, to distinguish them from COMPARATIVE ADJECTIVES and COMPARATIVE ADVERBS, which are the comparative forms of ordinary adjectives and adverbs, eg: bigger, b,ttu,fastu, """' quiekly. 'Particular comparison' means comparison that is in respect of quantity or quaJity. It is also expressed by means of adjectives or adverhs; not of a special class, but ordinaty adjectives :md :adverbs in some comparative form. The adjectives function, as always. within the nominal group. but not as Deictic; they function either as Numerative (eg: more in mMecards) or as Epithet (t>g: better in better cards). The adverbs function in either of two ways: either as Adjnnct in the clause {eg: bnter in the others performed bett~) or as Submodi:fier. in which case they simply occur within an Epithet (eg; such in such good cards, iJentically in an identically designed house) ora Numerative(~: so in so many words). or within an Adjunct(eg: eiuaUy in tit< cthas P"formed equally badly). It makes no difference whether the comparative adjective or adverb is inflected (eg: slower, slowlier) or com- pounded (eg: more lengthy, more lengthily); the meaning and function are not affi:aed by this distin<tion. The same principles operate with comparison as with other forms of reference: it may be anaphoric, and therefore cohesive, or it may he cata- phoric or even exophoric. Ouly brief illustrations will be given of the non-anaphoric uses. General comparison is discussed in 2.:5.I and particular comparison in 2.j.2. 2.,5.1 General comparison General comparison expressc:s likeness between things. The likeness may take the form of identity, where 4 two things' :u-e,_ in fact. the s.ame thing, as in [2:71a]; or of similarity where two things are like each other. as in [2:7rb]. Each of these has its negative; there is non-identity. and non-

78 :REFERENCE similarity. But these two concepts are <:onflated, in the semantic system, into a single meaning, that of non-likeness, or difference, as in [2: 7I<:J.* [2: 71] a. It's the same cat as the one we saw yesterday. b. I( s a similar cat to the one we saw yesterday. c. It's a different cat from the one we saw yesterday. Liken~ss is a referential property. A thing cannot just he •like'; it must be 'Hke something •. Hence comparison is a form of reference, alongside personal and demoruttative reference; and it embraces the same set of possibilities. The referent of the comparison may be i.n the :situation, or it may be in the text. If it is in the text, the reference may be backwards or forwards, and it may be structura1 or non-structural (cohesive). With comparison, however, there is one further possibility: the comparison may be internal- the likeness expressed as mutua/likeness without a refer- ent appearing as a distinct entity. All the examples in [2:71] were cataphoric in the struc:tura1 sense; i."l each ~;:ase- the referent was the one we saw yesterday. and the comparatives same, similar and different were pointing forward to it in just the same way that those points forward to who predicted an earthquake. Other examples: [2::72] a. We have re-ceived exactly the same report as was submitted two months ago. b. There are other qualities than conviviality needed for this job. c. Find a nwnher equal to the square of the sum of its digits. The referents are [the cm: that] was submitted two months ago. convivifllity, and the square of the sum of its digits. Such cataphoric reference is .fully determined by the structure and therefore. as always. has no cohesive function. Instances of cohesive cataphoca, vo..Jth comparatives. ace not very COlll- mon.. but they do occur: [2:73] The other squirrels hunted up and down the nut bushes; but Nutkin gathered robin•s pincushions olf a briar bush. and stuck them full of pine-needle pins.. * There is probably a~ diWnction between the two in certain oont~ fox example wmt'-t>lll' othn th.m]uhrt 'not identical with•, ~tot dijformtfrom]ohn 'not similar to•. But dijjmnt is used in both semes. and there appears to be no comistent clistinct:ion in anapboric oeontens. An inteusting ~ of the remlring senunt:ic confusion occurs in the fol.lowing dialogue with a three-year-old: ailld: Wbo'5 Peter'J daddy? Mother: Peter"$ daddy ll Uncle Jaclt. Child: k my daddy quite: different fromPctes:'sdaddy? Mothm:: Oh -,a. Child: But he's got eyebrows. {it: there is at leart something in CO.mm.(IO ben\icc:n them..)

~-5 COMPARATIVE REF.BR.HNC.B 79 Here other is cataphoric to l\.IUtkin; although the two are separated only by a semicolon, the effect is cohesive, as they are not structurally related. Compare: [2:74] The blow would have knocked anyone else cold. The champ just leaned to one side, then straightened again. Examples such as those in [2:75] might be exophoric, the referent being retrievable from the situation~ [z:75] a. I was expecting someone different. b. Would you prefer the other seats? the first being interpreted as 'different from you' or • different from that person there', the second as 'other than those you see here'. Either how- ever might equally be anaphoric, given contexts such as: [2!76] a. Jenningsisheretoseeyou. -I was expecting someone different. b. They've given us speci.al pbces in the front row. Would you prefer the other seats ? Another example of anaphoric comparison is [2:77], where such refers back to the nominal group qualifier of mildly but per,dstently depressive temperament: [2:77} Gerald Middleton was a man of mildly hut persistently depres- sive temperament. Such men are not at their best at breakfast.* Again, as with other types of reference, the referent may be a passage of any extent, eg: so in [2:78a] and such in [2:78b}: [2:78] .a. 'Everybody says "Come in!" here,' thought Alice, as she went slowly after the Gryphon: • I never wa!> so ordered about in all my 1i:fe, never! • b. 'I see nobody on the road,' said Alice. • I only wish I had suc:h eyes; the King remarked, 'To be able to see nobody- and at that distance too! • Or it may be text treated as 'fact'. when an expression such as the same questicns arise . .. refers back to the whole of some previous discussion. All the above patterns of reference .are familiar from the personals and the demonstratives. But it should be noted that same. similar, identical, equal .and difforent do not necessarily imply reference of any kind: the compari-

&o lll!PiiRBNCB son may be purely internal, two or more things being compared with each other. For example {2:79] a, Most people have the same breakfast every day. b. The candidates gave three similar answers. c. All parries showed an identical reaction to the news. The first means •the same as every other day'. though with the possible ambiguity of' the same as each other'; the second 'similar to each other~. the third 'reacted in the same way as each other'. Here the comparatives are functioning not as Deictic but as Epithet, and therefore in this use they will FOLLOW any numeral that may be present. whereas in Deictic func- tion they prece-de it: contrastfz: 8oa], where different is Deicticand referen- tia4 with {z: Soh] where it is Epithet and non-referential: [2:8o] a. They were a different two colours. b. They were two different coloun. The firs.t means~ different from the two referred to', the second 'different from each other'. Usage is not totally consistent, however. and one not infrequently comes across the second type used in the first of the two me.mings. The w-ords other, adJitional and else oc.cur only i.n the refet:ential sense; equal, on the other hand. is normally not referential, and can be so on1y when modifying nouns such as number, amount and quantity. A brief comment on otlte,. and .else. Else is distinguished not only by its wllque position in .relation to what it modifies. following instead of pre- ceding. but also by the fact that i.t can accompany only the general nouns and adverbs som~one, nothing, everywhere etc. or the corresponding interro- gatives who. what, where etc. Ot!Kr has two meanings, 'di:ffi:rent' and 'additional'~ leading at times to uncertainty of interpretation: [2:8I J I need some other clothes. -As well, or instead? Z.j. 2 Patticular comparison Particular comparison expresses comparability between things in respect of a particular property. The property in question may be a matter of quantity or of quality. ( r) If the comparison is in terms of quantity, it is expressed in the Num- erative element in the structure of the nominal group; either (a) by a comparative quantifier, eg: more in more mistakes, or (b) by an adverb of comparison sub modifying _a quantifier, eg: as in as many mistahes.

2.j COMPARATIVE RBFERENCE. 81 (z) If the comparison is in terms of quality. it is expressed in either of two ways: (i) in the Epithet element in the nominal group. either (a) by a comparative adjective, eg: easier. more d#Jiicult in easier tasks, more difficult tasks, or (b) hy :m adverb of comp<J.riwn submodifying an adjective, eg: so in .so difficuh a task; {ii) as Adjunct in the clause, either (a) by a comparative adverb, ~g: faster in Cambridge rC/Wed faster, or (b) by an adverb of compari- son submodifying an :adverb. eg: as in she sang as sweetly. Particular comparison. like general comparison, is also referential; there must be a standard of reference by which one thing is said to be superior, equal. or inferior in quality or quantity. An example of the hearer's de- mand for a referent. when faced wi.th a comparative of this 1cind. is the well-known passage: [2:82] 'Take some more tea; the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly. 'fve had nothing yet/ Alice repl.:ied in an offended tone, 'so I can't take more.• The standard of reference may he another thing. eg; ""this tree is taller than that tree • • or a measure, eg: • this tree is taller than ten feet •. The other thing may he implicit, as in the ropy-writer•s formula for a tastier meal. use ••. , where the comparison is presumably with a meal prepared with- out the product. or perlups one prepared with • .Brand X·. It may be some generalized situational referent, as in (2: a3] We are demanding higher living standards. -presumably •than we have now'. The most generalized comparative is, actually, the superlative: highest means, simply. ~higher than any other'. Superlatives are non-referential because they are self-defining; and for this reason they regularly act as defining Modifier, being shown to be defining in the usual way by the presence of the definite article: so in the highest mountain in Euro_F. the shows that higkst •.. in Europe specifies which mountain (if[z:6Ie] above). In some ]anguages which, in this region of the grammar, have resources similar to English the superlative is. in fact,. the combination of the comparative with the definite article. English keeps comparison 2nd definiteness. form.aDy apart, and so has. on the one hand, generalized exophoric comparatives used as defining modifiers. as in the miLler tobaao ('than any'), and on the other hand non-defining superlatives such as a lawst notWn is . _ .• meaning • one of the latest notion$'. All the usual types of reference are found. For example. the following are cataphoric:

82. [ 2:84] a. There were twice as many people there as last time. b. He's a better man than I am. c. There are more things in heaven and earth. Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. [2:843-] is comparison of quantity, with a Numerative as comparative. and [the people who were there] last time as referent; (b) is quality, with an Epithet as the comparative, and I- or rather~ [the man that] I am - as referent. In (c). the referent is [the things that] are dreamt of in your philo- sophy; the comparison is again quantitative, hut the example shows that more has wme of the ambiguity that is present with other {see end of 2.5.1 above): we interpret Hamlet as meaning not just a greater quantity of things but things that are different in kind. All these represent structural cataphora; the referent is within the nominal group. Also structurally cataphoric are examples such as [2:85]. where the comparative 1s an Adjunct in the clause: [2: 85] The iittle dog barked as noisily as the big one. Here the referent is not a thing but a process: not the big one but the big one [barked). Examples [2: 84-] and [2:85] illustrate the point that the referent of :a cataphoric comparative is not necessarily made fully explicit in the structure. It may be, as in John is older t!Mn Perer, where the second term in the comparison presupposes nothing from tbe first; but in many instances the common element i.n the two terms is carried over by presupposition- this is what is shown in square brackets above. This phenomenon is out- side our present scope, since this feature has nothing to do with cohesion; but it is of considerable interest, and has been described and explained in a number of detailed studies. Other examples of cataphoric compar2rives: [ 2: 86] a. I have never seen a more brilliant performance than last night/ last night's. b. She has a similarly furnished room. to mine. We do find examples of particular comparison which are cataphoric but in the cohesive sense, such :as the following from A lice: [2: 87] She thought that in all her life she had never seen soldiers so un- certain on their feet: they were always tripping over something or other, and when_e,..·er one went down, several more always fell over him. ... The comparative dement is so uncertain on their feet; the text then has a colon as a signal that this is to be interpreted as pointing forward.

2.5 COMPARATIVE REF.BRENCB 83 It is: easy to think of exophoric examples:; one is the fisherman's so big with the arms held apan to indicate the size of the catch, another the hair- dresser's wcmld yf)u like the water cMkT? This type of exophoric comparative is a very commonly used form of instruction and observation in everyday life: we relate our wishes to the actual state of things., or relate what is there to what was there or what is somewhere else: not so much noise!, go slowlier!, I need a sharper one, mine was much prettier and so on. One of Alice~s comments on her experiences took such a comparative form: • Curiouser anJ. curiousal' As always, it is the anaphoric type that interests us. since this is what brings about cohesion in the text; examples are perhaps obvious enough: {2:88] a. Cassius: Ye gods, ye gods .. must [endure all this? Brutus ~ All this? Ay. more 1 Fret till your proud heart break. b. 'When £8,ooo is a minor matter. it must be really 1arge--scale crime that is in question?' 'Bigger rackets go on.' c. Apparently Brown resigned, when his proposal was rejected. -I wish he could have acted less precipitately. The anaphoric comparatives are more, bigger and less precipitately; and their referents are dearly identifiable as this, £8,ooo and resigned. As usual there is also extended reference to longer and. less clearly defined passages of text, for example so many in [2:89]: [2:89] Here the Red. Queen began .again. 'Can you answer useful questions?' she said. 'How is bread made?' •1 know that[' Alice cried eagerly. •you take some flour-' 'Where do you pick the flow et? • the White Queen asked. • In a garden, or in the hedges?' ·well, it isn't picked at an: Alice explained: 'it's ground_. 'How many acres of ground?' said the White Queen. 'You mustn't leave out so many things!' It is in the nature of comparatives that, of all the reference items. they are the ones that are most typically anaphoric rather than exophoric. This is to be expected. Personals and demonstrntives both involve a form of reference that is inherently extralinguistic, though it may be reinterpreted in linguistic terms: reference ro speech roles (the roles of the participants in the communication process), and to proximity to the speaker, is essen- tially reference to the situation~ and only the • third person' personals, whose situational definition is a purely negative one - person or thi.ug

84 ltBFl!RENCE O'l"HllR THAN speaker or addressee -. have the anaphoric function as the dearly predominant one, with exophoric reference being only secondary. With comparison, however. although the relationship is still clearly a referential one (in the sense in which we are using the term). the specific nature of this relationship. that of likeness or comparability between things, makes it more probable that the things which are being relate-d to one another should be at the same levd of abstraction; in other words. that both the comparative and its referent should be located at the semantic level (ie in the text) rather than the one in the text atid the other in the situation. Thus while there certainly is exophoric reference with the com- paratives-the sentence fOllowing [2:89} provides a nice example of it: [z:89] (cont'd) 'Fan her head!' the Red Queen anxiously interrupted. • She1l be feverish afier so much thinking! • -as a general rule they tend to be text-oriented, and to give the reader or hearer a strong sense of :fibres of .internal cohesion. Like general comparison, particular comparison may a1so be purely internal, and thus not referential at all; in this case it Is expressed by sul>-mod.i.Gen in -ly, nearly always equally: [z:goJ They asked me three equally difficult questions. As it .stands. this: is ambiguous:; it could be anaphoric. But in the sense of • each as difficult as the others.', it is non-referential~ like [:z.:79] above. 2.5.3 A nMe on Sf4 such anJ as Among the words of comparison. these require a brief special mention. In principle they can he regarded as variants of the same word, which takes the form such when it is an adjective, so when it is a free adverb and as when it is a hound. adverb. This is ~omething of an oversimplification, but it approximates to the facts; all have the same meaning of"similar(ly)', and the choice among them is largely a matter of grammatical function. We find so and such used simply as intensifiers. meaning 'extremely'. although perhaps even here there is a nuance of • such as you would never have imagined': (2:91) a. The war scenes in the film were so terrifying. b. Our neighbours are such a nuisance.

2.S COMPARATIVE REFERENCE 8s These become structurall)' cataphoric in [2:92]: [2:92] a. The war scenes in the film were so terrifying that many of the audience left. b. Our neighhour!t ace such a nuisance that we may have to move. Historically [2 :93] ace also cataphoric., though they are no longer felt to be "" : [2:93] a. He hid in the shed so that no one would find him.. b. Our fe<llc ofher was such that we dared not contradict her. Both [2:92] and (2:93] are unusual among instances of cataphora in that the referent is not part of the nominal group; in addition,. so. such and as all occur in the usual type of cataphora where the referent is a Qualifier. for example: [2:94-] Such an efficient man as John} So efficient a man as John is unlikely to be mistaken. A man sofas efficient as John Ex:ophorically we find such and so; as is unusual among reference items. in having no exophoric use - this is a corollary of its • bound • -ness. So if we were watching someone lifting a heavy weight we might say [z:gsa], but not [2:9sh], which could occur ouly anaphorically. fuUowing some- thing like I JUln' t expect John W beat Peter: {2:95] a. I never thought he was ro strong. b. I never thought he was as strong. Alternatively we could make the as in [2: 95b] cataphoric by adding as that at the end, with the exophoric reference carried hy the that. Another example of exophoric .w is. the Carpenter·s [2:96] I wish you were not quite so deaf -fve had to ask you twicel though that is simultaneously cataphoric to the socceeding line. None of these items, however, is as frequently used in exophoric contexts as the dernonstrarives are; as we have already remarked, comparatives as a whole are more text-oriented than demonstratives, and so~ such and 4S are quite typical in this respect. We have already cited examples of their anaphoric use, both indepen- dently, in general comparison (eg: [2:77], [2:78D, and"' Submodifien in particular comparison [2:89]. Three further examples:

86 r2:97] a. He seemed most upset.- I never knew he cared s.o. b. Let me have men a bout me that are fat! Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look. Such men are dangerous. c. ~Are five nights warmer than one night, then?' A lice ven- tured to ask. ~Five rimes as warm, of course.' We s.haU come across so and such in other cohesive functions. in sub- stitution (Chapter 3} and conjunction (Chapter 5). In particular, so has a wide range of uses, partly owing to its functioning freely both as Sub- modifier and as Adjunct. In this respect, it is resembled by more and less; to give one more example, they arc Adjunct in [2:98a], Submodifier in [2098b)o i2:98] a. He seemed most upset.- I never knew he cared so.- He used to care even more. h. He comes every week. - I never knew he came so often. - He used to come even more often. But more and less are only comparatives, whereas so is many other things besides, all of them cohesive in one way or another. Finally there are a number of expressions which resemble the compa:ra.- tives in meaning but are themselves constructed in other ways, exemplified in [2099>-e), [2:99] a. ~Oswyn then says that a well-drilled equerry took two steps forv.·.ard, received the picture from you, and took two steps hack. He was accustomed to the whole manoeuvre, that is to say. And then the vislt ended. Would you say that's right?' 'Nothing of the kind, my dear fellow.'* b. •If we'd gone on pretending long enough, I believe we might have been happy together, sometimes. It often works out like th.t.'t c. Walk right up, and take the box where everyone can see you. That way it. won't. look as though you're stealing. d. Edward ran up and vaulted the fence without effort. jo-lu1. tried to do likewise- with disastrous results. e. You don't seem to have got very far with all those jobs I asked you to do. And another thing - what have you done with the scissors? * Mi<.::bad Innes. A Fumity .Affair, Gollana. t J. B. Priertley. ~ C07'*r("l11.-. fuyxofJ. B. Priesdey. Vol.:~:), Heinemann.

2.5 COMPARATIVE REFERENCE 87 Expressions such as of the kind, like that, that way, do likewise, and another thing show a semantic 1ikeness to the comparatives which suggests that they might be treated under this heading, But it would not he easy to define or to list the set of expressions that were being included within this category. What is more important. they can all he identified in one way or other with other types of cohesion, either because they contain a demonstrative (the, this, that) or a substitute(do), or because they fall within one of the con- junctive categories {eg: the discourse adjuncts in addition, anJ arwt/m- thing. similarly, in other words, so Jar); and i.t is this that determines how they are used. It seems more satisfactory therefore to interpret them not as com- paratives hut as falling under those other headings, always bearing in mind that the different forms of cohesion are nowhere sharply !iet apart one from another.