In the last thread, we started to discuss whether afturvísun should be translated "cataphora" and framvísun as "anaphora", or vice versa. I'm splitting this discussion off into a new thread. Alxmrphi wrote, I don't understand the explanation given in the section you quoted: My translation attempt: "'Framvísun" would mean a reference to something that comes earlier in the text, whereas 'afturvísun' is the opposite of this and refers to the text behind (it) [?]" Both fyrr and (fyrir) aftan refer to something earlier/preceding, as far as I can tell from the (Wisconsin) dictionary, whereas the cata-/ana- prefixes in cataphora/anaphora refer to opposite directions (of reference). I also found the following: Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur 1990. "Um orðaröð og færslur í íslensku" Málfræðirannsóknir 2. Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, Reykjavík. If hann is the "persónufornafn" being referred to here, it seems to be functioning cataphorically in the example sentence, which suggests that ... þarf ekki að vera afturvísandi means "... does not need to be anaphoric". Since I've found at least two references that state or suggest that afturvísun means "anaphora", and since the source you quoted is the only one I can find thus far that translates it as "cataphora" (or framvísun as "anaphora"), I can't help but wonder if the passage you quoted contains a mistake. I'm not insisting that it's wrong to translate afturvísun as "cataphora" and framvísun as "anaphora", but I think it's worth asking an Icelandic grammarian/syntactician to confirm it for us.