Integrating LFG’s binding theory with PCDRT

• Autorzy: Dalrymple M. , Haug D. T. T. , Lowe J. J.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v6i1.204

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We provide a formal model for the interaction of syntax and pragmatics in the interpretation of anaphoric binding constraints on personal and reflexive pronouns. We assume a dynamic semantics, where type e expressions introduce discourse referents, and contexts are assignments of individuals to discourse referents. We adopt the Partial Compositional Discourse Representation Theory (PCDRT) of Haug (2014b), whereby anaphoric resolution is modelled in terms of a pragmatically-established relation between discourse referents. We integrate PCDRT into the constraint-based grammatical framework of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), and show how it is possible to state syntactic constraints on the pragmatic resolution of singular and plural anaphora within this framework.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

anaphora; binding theory; Lexical Functional Grammar; Partial Compositional Discourse Representation Theory

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 6, No. 1
• Strony: 87--129
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 49 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Dalrymple M.

• Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, University of Oxford

autor

Haug D. T. T.

• Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo

autor

Lowe J. J.

• Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, University of Oxford

Bibliografia

• [1] Ash Asudeh (2011), Towards a unified theory of resumption, in Alain Rouveret, editor, Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces, pp. 121-187, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
• [2] Ash Asudeh (2012), The logic of pronominal resumption, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [3] Ash Asudeh and Gianluca Giorgolo (2012), Flexible composition for optional and derived arguments, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, pp. 64-84, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [4] Ash Asudeh, Gianluca Giorgolo, and Ida Toivonen (2014), Meaning and valency, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference, pp. 68-88, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [5] David I. Beaver (1992), The kinematics of presupposition, in Paul Dekker and Martin Stockhof, editors, Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
• [6] David I. Beaver (2002), Presupposition projection in DRT: a critical assessment, in David I. Beaver, editor, The construction of meaning, pp. 23-43, CSLI Publications, Standford, CA.
• [7] Oleg I. Belyaev and Dag T. T. Haug (2014), Pronominal coreference In Ossetic correlatives and the syntax-semantics interface, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference, pp. 8-109, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [8] Stephen Berman and Arild Hestvik (1997), Split antecedents, noncoreference, and DRT, in Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica, and Johan Rooryck, editors, Atomism and Binding, pp. 1-29, Foris, Dordrecht.
• [9] Tina Bögel, Miriam Butt, Ronald M. Kaplan, Tracy Holloway King, and John T. Maxwell III (2009), Prosodic phonology in LFG: a new proposal, In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, pp. 146-166, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [10] Joan Bresnan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen, and Stephen Wechsler (2016), Lexical-functional syntax, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, second edition. First editio by Joan Bresnan, 2001, Blackwell.
• [11] Joan Bresnan, Per-Kristian Halvorsen, and Joan Maling (1985), Logophoricity and bound anaphors, unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.
• [12] Daniel Büring (2005), Binding theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [13] Gennaro Chierchia (2004), Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface, in Adriana Belletti, editor, Structures and beyond: the cartography of syntax structures, vol. 3, pp. 39-103, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [14] Noam Chomsky (1973), Conditions on transformations, in Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, editors, A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
• [15] Noam Chomsky (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding: the Pisa lectures, Foris, Dordrecht.
• [16] Mary Dalrymple (1993), The syntax of anaphoric binding, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [17] Mary Dalrymple (2001), Lexical Functional Grammar, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
• [18] Mary Dalrymple and Louise Mycock (2011), The prosody-semantics interface, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, pp. 173-193, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [19] Mary Dalrymple and Irina Nikolaeva (2006), Syntax of natural and accidental coordination: evidence from agreement, Language, 82 (4): 824-849.
• [20] Mary Dalrymple and Irina Nikolaeva (2011), Objects and information structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [21] Yehuda N. Falk (2001), Lexical-Functional Grammar: an introduction to paralel constraint-based syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [22] Robert Fiengo and Robert May (1994), Indices and identity, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [23] Gianluca Giorgolo and Ash Asudeh (2011), Multimodal communication In LFG: gestures and the correspondence architecture, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, pp. 257-277, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [24] Dag T. T. Haug (2013), Partial control and the semantics of anaphoric control in LFG, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, pp. 274-294, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [25] Dag T. T. Haug (2014a), The anaphoric semantics of partial control, Proceedings of SALT, 24: 213-233.
• [26] Dag T. T. Haug (2014b), Partial dynamic semantics for anaphora: compositionality without syntactic coindexation, Journal of Semantics, 31 (4): 457-511, first published online August 24, 2013. DOI: 10.1093/jos/fft008.
• [27] Irene R. Heim (1982), The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• [28] James Higginbotham (1983), Logical form, binding, and nominals, Linguistic Inquiry, 14 (3): 395-420.
• [29] Ray Jackendoff (1992), Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10 (1): 1-32.
• [30] Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle (1993), From discourse to logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
• [31] Hans Kamp, Josef van Genabith, and Uwe Reyle (2011), Discourse Representation Theory, in Dov M. Gabbay and Franz Günthner, editors, Handbook of philosophical logic, pp. 125-394, Springer, Dordrecht, secondo edition.
• [32] Ronald M. Kaplan (1989), The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar, in Chu-Ren Huang and Keh-Jiann Chen, editors, ROCLING II: Proceedings of the Computational Linguistics Conference, pp. 3-18, The Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (ACLCLP), Tapei, also published in Journal of Information Science and Engineering 5 (1989), pp. 305-322, and in Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell III and Annie Zaenen, CSLI Publications, 1995, pp. 7-27.
• [33] Ronald M. Kaplan and Joan Bresnan (1982), Lexical-Functional Grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation, in Joan Bresnan, editor, The mental representation of grammatical relations, pp. 173-281, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [34] Edward L. Keenan and Bernard Comrie (1977), Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar, Linguistic Inquiry, 8 (1): 63-99.
• [35] Paul Kiparsky (2002), Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns, In Ingrid Kaufmann and Barbara Stiebels, editors, More than words: a Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, pp. 179-226, Akademie Verlag, Berlin.
• [36] Miltiadis Kokkonidis (2008), First-order Glue, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 17: 43-68.
• [37] Howard Lasnik (1989a), On the necessity of binding conditions, in Essays on anaphora, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
• [38] Howard Lasnik (1989b), On two recent treatments of disjoint reference, In Essays on anaphora, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
• [39] Howard Lasnik (1989c), Remarks on coreference, in Essays on anaphora, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
• [40] Howard Lasnik (1989d), A selective history of modern binding theory, In Essays on anaphora, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
• [41] Godehard Link (1983), The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach, in Rainer Bäuerle, Chirstoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, editors, Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, pp. 303-323, de Gruyter, Berlin.
• [42] Emar Maier (2009), Presupposing acquaintance: a unified semantics for de dicto, de re and de se belief reports, Linguistics and Philosophy, 32: 429-474.
• [43] Reinhard Muskens (1996), Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation, Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 143-186.
• [44] Louise Mycock and John J. Lowe (2013), The prosodic marking of discourse functions, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, pp. 440-460, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [45] Rick Nouwen (2003), Plural pronominal anaphora in context, Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.
• [46] Karen Park (2012), The selective properties of verbs in reflexive constructions, D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.
• [47] Tanya Reinhart and Eric Reuland (1993), Reflexivity, Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 178-187.
• [48] T. Daniel Seeley (1993), Binding plural pronominals, in Katherine Beals, Gina Cooke, David Kathman, Sotaro Kita, Karl-Erik McCullough, and David Testen, editors, CLS29: papers from the 29th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. II, pp. 305-317, University of Chicago, Chicago.
• [49] Thomas Wasow (1972), Anaphoric relations in English, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.