Anaphora

Post Reply New Topic

Does anybody else have problems understanding anaphora in speech or in writing? Anaphora are words that are used to refer to something/someone mentioned elsewhere in the person's speech or writing, instead of directly specifying the actual something/someone over and over -- "he" "she" "they" "that" "do" are anaphora.

I don't usually have too much trouble with the ones that refer to people ("he" "she" "they"), unless more than one person is being discussed at the same time -- and even when I do have trouble with the anaphora that refer to people, I picked up the phrase, "Who's [he/she/they]?" a long time ago so I do have a way of asking for clarification that works in a lot of situations -- but I regularly struggle to figure out what people are talking about when they refer to other types of things using words like "that". When people use anaphora to refer to parts of situations or ideas, it's especially hard for me to understand what they mean because there can be so many pieces to situations/ideas.It's very frustrating, especially since it's so hard to explain/ask about what I don't understand -- it's impossible in speech, and just very difficult in writing...I've never noticed anybody else ask similar questions so I have no pre-made language structures to use.

Being unable to figure out anaphora is one of several reasons I sometimes ramble on and on in response to other people's comment or questions....with anaphora, I'm not sure exactly what the other person is saying or asking but I might know the things they mentioned before and after they used the anaphoric word, so I try to figure out which of the before-/after-things (or combination of them) might be/be-connected-to the anaphoric word and usually end up trying to respond to each possibility just in case (the more things have been talked about/mentioned, the bigger the response needs to be to cover each possibility and the more complicated and frustrating it becomes).

Anyways, I just wondered if other people had similar problems with understanding referents/anaphora? Or with explaining/asking questions about whatever referent-/anaphoric-word they don't understand?

Ehhhh.....maybe.

We don't hold people to formal rules of english/american composition here, and the use of pronouns requires following a convention of who you are refering to. If that convention breaks down (which is pretty much the norm), you're reduced to context clues to figure out what's being said.

I'm not sure if that's the same issue as what you're discusing.

I have the same problem regardless of whether or not the text/speech is grammatically correct, or conventionally vs. awkwardly formatted -- although probably to different degrees, since unconventionally formatted text/wording can add another dimension of difficulty to the whole process of comprehension...depending on the specifics of it.

I think it's the responsibility of the speaker/writer to ensure that what a word/phrase is referring to is clearly understood by the listener/reader, eliminating the possibility of misunderstanding. However, such misunderstandings happen very often because the speaker/writer often only thinks from his/her own perspective and simply assumes what he/she is thinking is obvious to other people, too. So I don't blame you for often getting confused and feeling frustrated.

I know someone who does it very often. He talks about a woman (say Rebecca), and then he starts saying "she" is blah, blah, blah... From the context I get confused because what he is saying doesn't sound like about Rebecca. So I ask him what he's talking about. He, in an annoyed manner, responds to me, "of course I'm talking about Linda!" He seems to think because he has something/someone in his mind, I automatically read his mind and know what/whom he's talking about without him clearly mentioning what/who it/he/she is. This is an extreme example, but many people seem to do this to some extent. I find it very annoying.

English, sometimes. In my Mother Tongue, not so much.

Sometimes. Pronouns must be used clearly to make any sense. If the speaker (or writer) begins talking about Person A, then uses a pronoun in subsequent sentences, I assume that pronoun is still referring to Person A. If a sentence describes Person A and Person B, then uses a pronoun that could match either of them ("he" for two males, for example), then the speaker or writer had better clarify who is being referred to by that pronoun.

Never heard the term "anaphora" before, btw--thanks.

My mother did do this while talking, using pronouns when it not clear to what/who she was referring to, then get mad what i asked for clarification. Such as she would ask me "Did he go there?" Then i would reply "did who go where?" then she would get mad at me for not knowing what she meant.

Thanks for the responses, everyone!

I'm not sure how much of the problem is other people being unclear vs. me having issues with linking anaphora to whatever other words they're supposed to refer to.

I have never met anyone who could carry on a conversation and make sure every pronoun was correct. Without a professional writer/checker, not that many people can write a long article/post and have every pronoun correct (congrats to those who can).

I'd say this relates more to the non-Aspie style of conversion, where more communication is based on social interactions, expressed in this case through the "crooked timber" of common-place verbal/non-verbal communication.

Did that make any sense?

My husband uses anaphorae all the time when he goes on his weird rants and I can't figure out who or what he's talking about. When I ask for an explanation he changes the subject.

I don't usually have problems with text, because if I'm unsure I can usually ferret it out by whatever was written previously. In person it can be a lot harder, but I'll just ask the speaker. It feels a little awkward asking someone "Did you mean X, Y, or Z?", but a need for clarification overrides it.

It becomes a major issue when trying to work in a technical field, where the details are literally everything. Thankfully, there you can usually ask for clarification without people taking offense.

Usually.....

I understand the bigger part of your point -- that you're saying Aspie-style communication differs from NT-style communication, and that the difference in communication style causes the problem. I'm not sure which differences you're referring to, though, and I don't understand what you're saying about verbal/non-verbal communication....what does "crooked timber" mean? I'm sorry I don't get it, I would like to understand, if you wouldn't mind trying to explain the communication-difference that creates the problem in more detail?




I have fewer problems with text for what I think is a similar reason -- it's all there as a map of words that I can see, and I have time to try to figure out how all the pieces of the map are connected -- but I still have problems.

I ask for clarification, too, when I can -- but there are a lot of times when I can't. Sometimes I'm totally baffled and I don't even have guesses X,Y, and Z, but usually the problem for me is just that I can't explain my guesses; It's rare that I have enough time to find try to find the words to ask for clarification in a verbal conversation, and even with written conversations there are times where it turns out I just can't find the words at all. Sometimes the only way I can respond when I don't understand what people mean is by trying to write (or talk) about things I associate with some of what they said... I used to do this a lot but do it less and less because my experience is that people don't often see the associations I make, and as a result they don't understand that I've started rambling or repeating odd phrases and pieces of books because I can't turn all that associated stuff I thought about in trying to understand their words into a question about what they meant (understandably -- I don't expect anybody to understand that I'm trying to ask a question if I'm not actually asking a question...although there was a time when I did because I had poorer language skills), they get frustrated and/or upset with me because they think I'm going off on a tangent or that I'm deliberately trying not to answer their question or respond to their comment.

In short, most informal offline communication is imperfect anyway, but it's going to be very hard to follow if you're somewhere on the spectrum.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying

animalcreackers, thank you for posting this thread . The term anaphora is new and yes , especially lately . Am currently digesting the term and your post and will post more shortly as this topic is of particular interest at the moment.

Prefacing a convo is important , it can be challenging to understand someone if their topic of speech has not been prefaced and challenging to always remember to preface ones own speech during convo . Having to ask for a conversation to be prefaced when anaphoras are a particular challenge can be very difficult on both parties involved , as well as not prefacing oneself and not helping others understand and follow along .

When writing , lately at least , making a particular effort to use the name or even an initial as a specific signifier can go a long way in following a train of thought . Especially at a later date and time . Having an auditory processing issue and an issue with concentration/memory using a signifier throughout a real time conversation can both greatly add to the following of my own thoughts , making them at least slightly less tangential but also aid the other person in general especially when my own conversation tends to disintegrate into a ramble or are idiosyncratic in nature.

Last edited by nansnick on 10 Apr 2013, 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.