Coreferentiality considered from a cognitive perspective

Abstract

We propose an explanation of the observations of Leddon and Lidz that the predictions of binding theory are not always borne out by the facts. More specifically their participants did not always interpret bound pronouns in line with government and binding principles. Our analysis is based on a paper by Buffart and Jacobs where they recognized structures and substructures in languages in accordance with Focus theory. In the theory, every element in a structure, and thus an anaphor as well, is bound to it. In the absence of a reference within the main- or substructure, an anaphor may refer to an element in the related sub- or main structure. We show how preference works in case of duality of interpretations.