English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article is a critical examination of Dik’s (1997b: ch. 10) account of discourse anaphora, within the framework of the theory of Functional Grammar (but it highlights features of anaphora theory which hold more generally). I show first that Dik’s definitions of the phenomenon involve two contradictory conceptions of this discourse procedure (the anaphor refers to a mental representation of its referent within a mental model of the ongoing discourse, yet at the same time needs first to connect up with a segment of co-text - its linguistic antecedent); second, that Dik’s account of the relationship between given (pronominal) anaphor types and the “entity-order” of their potential referents is both too rigid and too narrow; and third, that his description of the underlying structure of anaphors, which includes both the referential index of their actual referent/antecedent and a variable specifying the latter’s entity-order, does not allow for the necessary flexibility and dynamic character of anaphor use and interpretation. A discursively more realistic account of discourse anaphora needs to specify the necessary interaction between ‘bottom-up’ factors of these kinds, on the one hand, and ‘top-down’ relationships involving the wider discourse context, on the other. This is what I briefly outline at the end of the article.

Anaphora: lexico-textual structure or means for utterance integration within discourse? A critique of the functional-grammar account