Bob Yates 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. There are many possible counterexamples to such a claim. For example, from _Discourse Analysis for Teachers_ (p. 41), quoting the opening lines of a news article, McCarthy (the author) gives this example: "She claims Leo Tolstoy as a distant cousin. Her grandfather was Alexie Tolstoy--the famous 'Red Count' who sided with Lenin's revolutionaries. Now, Tatyana Tolstaya has put pen to paper, in her case to demonstrate that someone from the family can write compactly...." (Newsweek 21 Sept. 1987, 12). As McCarthy points out, the function of such above-the-sentence- level cataphoric reference is "to engage and hold the reader's attention with a 'read on and find out' message." ********************************************************************** R. Michael Medley VPH 211 Ph: (712) 737-7047 Assistant Professor Northwestern College Department of English Orange City, IA 51041 **********************************************************************