Volume 12, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


This study examined the interpretation of English anaphora by native Spanish speakers and potential transfer of Spanish pragmatic and lexical requirements into English. It further evaluated whether appropriate contextual information might prime the preferred English interpretation of such constructions. Pragmatic and lexical rules governing co-indexation in Spanish and English anaphora constructions differ substantially and operate quite differently in the two languages. Spanish pragmatic rules require obligatory disjoint reference for subject pronominals in finite complement subjunctive clauses and pre-posed adjunct clauses. The lexical properties of verbs and anaphora in reflexive, reciprocal, and intransitive constructions in Spanish require obligatory retention of the anaphora element. English has no such pragmatic or lexical requirements. The study appraised the effects of the different pragmatic co-indexation requirements and different lexical requirements on the interpretation of English anaphora by native Spanish speakers. An act-out task, a corresponding written task, and a grammaticality judgement task in English were administered to adult native English speakers and adult native Spanish speakers categorized as intermediate and advanced learners of English. Subjects were instructed to match pronominals with appropriate referents in English subjunctives and pre-posed adjuncts. They were further required to judge the acceptability of sentences containing anaphora elements in English reflexives, reciprocals, and intransitives. Results indicated that subjects in general ignored pragmatic and lexical requirements of the first language in favour of the second language requirements governing anaphora. Less proficient subjects apparently encountered some processing difficulty when interpretation of sentences with anaphora was required within limited time constraints. The use of contextual information was also evident in the interpretation of some constructions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Altmann, G
    (1988) Ambiguity parsing strategies and computational models. Language and Cognitive Processes3: 73-97. doi: 10.1080/01690968808402083
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968808402083 [Google Scholar]
  2. Borer, H
    (1984) Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. doi: 10.1515/9783110808506
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808506 [Google Scholar]
  3. Dalrymple, M
    (1993) The syntax of anaphoric binding. center for the study of language and information (CSLI).
  4. Freiden, R
    (1986) Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In B. Lust (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, volume 1. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Huang, Y
    (2000) Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jaeggli, O
    (1986) Arbitrary plural pronominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 43-76. doi: 10.1007/BF00136264
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136264 [Google Scholar]
  7. Lujan, M
    (1985) Binding properties of overt pronouns in null pronominal languages. (manuscript) The University of Texas.
  8. (1986) Stress and binding of pronouns. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Montalbetti, M
    (1984) After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. Ph.D. Dissertation, M.I.T.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Padilla, J
    (1990) On the Definition of Binding Domains in Spanish: Evidence from Child Language. Deventer: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2033‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2033-0 [Google Scholar]
  11. Pulleyblank, D
    (1986) Clitics in Yoruba. In H. Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Taraban, R. , and J. McClelland
    (1988) Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influence of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language27: 597-632. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(88)90069‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90069-1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Wexler, K. , and M. Manzini
    (1987) Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In T. Roeper , & E. Williams (eds.), Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 123-172.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Whitley, M.S
    (1986) Spanish/English Contrasts: A Course in Spanish Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error