MIKE MEDLEY wrote:
>
> > Obviously, there are many constraints that operate at the sentence level
> > that don't operate above the sentence level.
> >
> > I think of some of the relationships of pronouns that really are only
> > captured by the concept of the sentence.   Although she is before Monica
> > in both (1) and (2), in (1) she can not refer to Monica but, all else
> > being equal, she refers to Monica in (2).
> >
> > 1) She needs to make money, and Monica was interviewed on TV tonight.
> > 2) Because she needs to make money, Monica was interviewed on TV
> > tonight.
>
> The type of pronoun-antecedent relationship illustrated in sentence
> #2 is what Halliday and others refer to as "cataphoric reference."
> Bob's initial comments (quoted above) seems to indicate that this
> kind of cataphoric reference can only operate at the sentence level.

I did not mean to give the impression of the last sentence with ONLY.

Given both of the sentences 1 and 2 without any other context, I note
that she in (1) will never be interpreted as referring to Monica.  In
(2), without any other context, she can be interpreted as referring to
Monica.

For those committed to seeing grammar as strictly functional, this may
be a very uninteresting trivial observation.  However, those differences
in interpreting (1) and (2) are directly related to why most grammatical
descriptions of English label the two clauses in (1) differently than
the two clauses in (2).

All catephoric reference is blocked in (3).

3) She was interviewed on TV because Monica needs to make money.


Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University