DOCSLIB.ORG

Binding Theory 23

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Binding Theory 23 Binbinka See: Wambaya. Binding Theory A Asudeh, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Binding Conditions M Dalrymple, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Binding theory is typically stated in terms of con- ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ditions that refer to three key aspects: the class of nominal involved, the syntactic region that constitu- What Is Binding? tes the domain of binding, and a structural condition on the syntactic relation between a nominal and its Binding theory concerns syntactic restrictions on potential binder. nominal reference. It particularly focuses on the pos- sible coreference relationships between a pronoun Classes of Nominals and its antecedent (the nominal that a nondeictic pronoun depends on for its reference). For instance, For the purposes of binding theory, nominals are tra- in (1a) himself must refer to the same individual as he. ditionally partitioned into several classes, as shown In contrast, in (1b) her cannot refer to the same indi- here: vidual as she. Instead, the sentence must mean that (4) some person voted for some other person. (1a) He voted for himself. (1b) She voted for her. Pronouns like himself or ourselves, which must corefer with some other noun phrase in the sentence, The first major division is between pronouns and are called reflexive pronouns or reflexives. Pronouns nonpronouns. Pronouns are then further subdivided like she, her, and us are called nonreflexive pronouns. into reflexives and reciprocals, which are collectively Two nominal expressions that corefer, or refer to the referred to as ‘anaphors,’ and nonreflexive pronouns, same individual or individuals, are annotated by iden- often simply called ‘pronominals’ or ‘pronouns’ (in tical subscripts; if two nominals do not corefer, they opposition to anaphors). We will here refer to non- are annotated with different subscripts: reflexive pronouns as ‘pronominals,’ reserving the (2a) Hei voted for himselfi. term ‘pronoun’ for the class that includes anaphors (2b) Shei voted for herj. and other pronouns. This yields three classes for the purposes of binding theory: anaphors, pronominals, In an example like He voted for himself , we say i i and nonpronouns. Each class is governed by its own that the reflexive pronoun himself is bound by he, and binding condition. that he is the binder of himself. Reciprocals like each other and one another must Binding Domains also be bound by a local antecedent and are grouped in binding-theoretic terms with reflexives: Traditional definitions of binding domains distinguish local from nonlocal domains. Consider the following (3a) Theyi voted for each otheri. sentence: (3b) * Ii voted for each otherj. (5) Bill said that [Gonzo voted for himself ] Reflexives and reciprocals are together called i j *i,j anaphors. The reflexive himself must be bound in its local do- Some major works on binding are Faltz (1977), main, here the subordinate clause Gonzo voted for Wasow (1979), Chomsky (1981, 1986), Reinhart himself. The only appropriate binder in this domain (1983), Dalrymple (1993), Reinhart and Reuland is Gonzo. The reflexive cannot be bound by the (1993), and Pollard and Sag (1994). Huang (2000) higher subject Bill, which is outside the reflexive’s contains a rich cross-linguistic survey of pronominal local domain. This is indicated by placing the marker systems. Bu¨ ring (2004) provides a recent comprehen- of ungrammaticality (*) beside the illicit index. sive overview of the syntax and semantics of binding A pronominal in the same position must not be and presents a new synthesis. bound in its local domain: 24 Binding Theory (6) Billi said that [Gonzoj voted for himi,*j] Variation in Structural Relation The local domain for the pronominal is also the sub- All versions of binding theory incorporate some notion ordinate clause, and it cannot be bound in this do- of structural domination or superiority as a component main. It can, however, be bound by the matrix of the binding relation. We referred to this relation subject, which lies outside the local domain. above as command. One commonly assumed version of command is the tree-configurational relation of Command c-command (Reinhart, 1983): Besides a syntactic domain condition, binding in- (9a) A c-commands B if and only if A does not volves the requirement that the binding nominal be dominate B and the first branching node in a structurally dominant position. This required dominating A also dominates B. relation between a pronoun and its binder is called (9b) ‘command’ and is defined in different ways in differ- ent theories. The structural condition on binding means that certain elements cannot be binders, even if they fall within the correct syntactic domain: In the tree in (9b), the first branching node dom- (7) Gonzoi’s friendj voted for himself*i,j. inating A, labeled X, also dominates B, and A does The entire subject Gonzo’s friend can bind the reflex- not dominate B. Therefore, A c-commands B. B does ive, but the possessor Gonzo cannot, because the not c-command A, because the first branching node possessor does not command the reflexive. dominating B is Y, and Y does not dominate A. We have thus far seen that anaphors must be bound Other tree-based definitions of command have within some local domain and that pronominals been proposed; in them, command is relativized to cannot be bound within some local domain. Nonpro- nodes other than the first branching node. For exam- nouns cannot be bound in any domain, whether local ple, the similar relation of m-command makes refer- or nonlocal: ence to the first maximal projection dominating A. Thus, in diagram (9b), A m-commands B if X is (8a) * Hei voted for Billi. a maximal projection (see X-Bar Theory). Notice also (8b) * He said that Gonzo voted for Bill . i i that if X is a maximal projection and Y is not a (8c) When he voted for George, Gonzo was drunk. i i maximal projection, then B also m-commands In (8a) and (8b), the pronoun is in the proper struc- A because the first maximal projection dominating tural relation to command the name. Since this results B dominates A and B does not dominate A. Some in the nonpronoun being bound, the sentences are literature on binding continues to use the term ungrammatical on the indexation indicated. In (8c), ‘c-command’ but defines it as m-command. by contrast, the pronoun is not in the proper structur- Other theories define a command relation on lin- al relation to command the name, because the pro- guistic structures other than trees. In lexical functional noun is too deeply embedded. Although the pronoun grammar (LFG), command is defined on f(unctional)- and the name corefer, as indicated by the coindexa- structures, which represent predicates and their tion, there is no binding relation, and the sentence is adjuncts and subcategorized grammatical functions. grammatical. The command relation relevant for binding in LFG is Bringing these ideas together, a typical statement of called ‘f-command’ and is defined as follows: binding conditions is as follows (based on Chomsky, 1981): (10a) An f-structure A f-commands an f-structure B if and only if A does not contain B and every A. An anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal) must be f-structure that contains A also contains B. bound in its local domain. (10b) B. A pronominal (nonreflexive pronoun) must not be bound in its local domain. C. A nonpronoun must not be bound. Following Chomsky (1981), these binding principles In the f-structure in (10b), the f-structure labeled A are often referred to as Principle A, the condition f-commands B: A does not contain B, and the on anaphors; Principle B, the condition on pronom- f-structure X that contains A also contains B. B does inals; and Principle C, the condition on nonpronouns. not f-command A because there is an f-structure Principles A, B, and C are also called Conditions A, Y that contains B but not A. Notice that in (10), B, and C. A and Y f-command each other, just as in a tree there Binding Theory 25 is mutual c-command between sisters. Since A can be on a thematic hierarchy, such as Agent > Goal > the subject and Y the object, we need an additional Theme (Jackendoff, 1972; Wilkins, 1988). principle to ensure that the subject binds the object but not vice versa. Otherwise a perfectly grammatical Variation in Binding Domain sentence like (11) would be a Principle B violation because the object reflexive would bind the subject Some theories assume that the local domain for the pronominal. anaphoric and pronominal binding conditions (Prin- ciples A and B) is the same: anaphors are required (11) Hei injured himselfi. to be bound in exactly the same domains in which pronouns are required not to be bound. For example, Cases of mutual f-command like the above occur not Chomsky (1981) proposed that the local binding just between subjects and objects but among all coar- domain for both anaphors and pronominals is the guments of a given predicate. Such cases are handled governing category, where a governing category for by an independently motivated relational hierarchy an element is the minimal domain containing a of grammatical functions based on the notion of subject and the head that selects the element. This obliqueness, in which the subject outranks the object, predicts that anaphors and pronominals are in com- which in turn outranks the other arguments. plementary distribution, a prediction that seems to In head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG), be borne out by examples like the following: grammatical functions are encoded on SUBCAT (subcat- egorization) lists, which are ordered according to the (13a) Gonzoi saw himselfi/*himi.
Recommended publications
  • Questions Under Discussion: from Sentence to Discourse∗

    Questions Under Discussion: from Sentence to Discourse∗

    Questions under Discussion: From sentence to discourse∗ Anton Benz Katja Jasinskaja July 14, 2016 Abstract Questions under discussion (QUD) is an analytic tool that has recently become more and more popular among linguists and language philosophers as a way to characterize how a sentence fits in its context. The idea is that each sentence in discourse addresses a (of- ten implicit) QUD either by answering it, or by bringing up another question that can help answering that QUD. The linguistic form and the interpretation of a sentence, in turn, may depend on the QUD it addresses. The first proponents of the QUD approach (von Stut- terheim & Klein, 1989; van Kuppevelt, 1995) thought of it as a general approach to the analysis of discourse structure where structural relations between sentences in a coherent discourse are understood in terms of relations between questions they address. However, the idea did not find broad application in discourse structure analysis, where theories aiming at logical discourse representations are predominantly based on the notion of coherence re- lations (Mann & Thompson, 1988; Hobbs, 1985; Asher & Lascarides, 2003). The problem of finding overt markers for QUDs means that they are also difficult to utilize for quanti- tative measures of discourse coherence (McNamara et al., 2010). At the same time QUD proved useful in the analysis of a wide range of linguistic phenomena including accentua- tion, discourse particles, presuppositions and implicatures. The goal of this special issue is to bring together cutting-edge research that demonstrates the success of QUD in linguistics and the need for the development of a comprehensive model of discourse coherence that incorporates the notion of QUD as its integral part.
  • Givenness and Its Realization in a Linguistic and in a Non- Linguistic Environment

    Givenness and Its Realization in a Linguistic and in a Non- Linguistic Environment

    VILNIUS PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY NATALIJA ZACHAROVA GIVENNESS AND ITS REALIZATION IN A LINGUISTIC AND IN A NON- LINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT MA Paper Academic advisor: prof. Dr. Hab. Laimutis Valeika Vilnius, 2008 VILNIUS PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY GIVENNESS AND ITS REALIZATION IN A LINGUISTIC AND IN A NON- LINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT This MA paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of the MA in English Philology By Natalija Zacharova I declare that this study is my own and does not contain any unacknowledged work from any source. (Signature) (Date) Academic advisor: prof. Dr. Hab. Laimutis Valeika (Signature) (Date) Vilnius, 2008 2 CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….4 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………...5 1. THE PROBLEMS OF THE INFORMATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE SENTENCE ……………………………………………………………….8 1.1. The sentence as dialectical entity of given and new……………………...8 1.2. Givenness vs. Newnness………………………………………………….11 1.3. The realization of Givenness……………………………………………..12 1.4. Givenness expressed by the definite article ……………………………..15 1.5. Givenness expressed by the indefinite article…………………………….19 1.6. Givenness expressed by semi-grammatical definite determiners and lexical determiners………………………………………………………..20 2. THE REALIZATION OF GIVENNESS IN A LINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT……………………………………………………………………21 2.1. Anaphoric Givenness………………………………………………………22 2.2. Cataphoric Givenness……………………………………………………...29 2.3. Givenness expressed by the use of the indefinite article…………………..30 3. THE REALIZATION OF GIVENNESS IN A NON- LINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT……………………………………………………………………..32 3. 1. The environment of the home……………………………………………...33 3.2. The environment of the town/country, world………………………………35 3.3. The environment of the universe…………………………………………....37 3.4. Cultural environment……………………………………………………….38 4.
  • Cross-Dialectal Variability in Propositional Anaphora: a Quantitative and Pragmatic Study of Null Objects in Mexican and Peninsular Spanish

    Cross-Dialectal Variability in Propositional Anaphora: a Quantitative and Pragmatic Study of Null Objects in Mexican and Peninsular Spanish

    CROSS-DIALECTAL VARIABILITY IN PROPOSITIONAL ANAPHORA: A QUANTITATIVE AND PRAGMATIC STUDY OF NULL OBJECTS IN MEXICAN AND PENINSULAR SPANISH DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Maria Asela Reig, PhD The Ohio State University 2008 Dissertation Committee: Professor Scott A. Schwenter, Adviser Approved by Professor Rebeka Campos-Astorkiza Professor Terrell Morgan Professor Rena Torres-Cacoullos ________________________ Adviser Graduate Program in Spanish and Portuguese ABSTRACT In this dissertation, I analyze the linguistic constraints that condition the variation in Spanish between the null pronoun and the clitic lo referring to a proposition. Previous literature on Spanish has analyzed null objects referring to first order entities, mostly in varieties in contact with other languages. This dissertation contributes to the literature on anaphora in Spanish by establishing and analyzing the existence of propositional null objects in two monolingual dialects, Mexican and Peninsular Spanish. A variationist approach was used to discover the significant constraints on the variation of the null pronoun and the overt clitic lo in Mexican and Peninsular Spanish. Following the generalizations from the previous literature on two separate areas of study, anaphora resolution and null objects (Chapter 2), several internal factor groups were included in the coding scheme. In Chapter 3, I provide an explicit statement of the envelope of variation and I specify the coding scheme employed. Chapter 4 offers the results of the multivariate analyses of Mexican and Peninsular Spanish. These results show that some of the linguistic constraints conditioning the variation are shared by both dialects (presence of a dative pronoun, type ii of antecedent, sentence type), suggesting that the null pronoun has the same grammatical role in both dialects.
  • Show Business: Deixis in Fifth-Century Athenian Drama

    Show Business: Deixis in Fifth-Century Athenian Drama

    Show Business: Deixis in Fifth-Century Athenian Drama by David Julius Jacobson A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Mark Griffith, Chair Professor Donald Mastronarde Professor Leslie Kurke Professor Mary-Kay Gamel Professor Shannon Jackson Spring 2011 Show Business: Deixis in Fifth-Century Athenian Drama Copyright 2011 by David Julius Jacobson Abstract Show Business: Deixis in Fifth-Century Athenian Drama by David Julius Jacobson Doctor of Philosophy in Classics University of California, Berkeley Professor Mark Griffith, Chair In my dissertation I examine the use of deixis in fifth-century Athenian drama to show how a playwright’s lexical choices shape an audience’s engagement with and investment in a dramatic work. The study combines modern performance theories concerning the relationship between actor and audience with a detailed examination of the demonstratives ὅδε and οὗτος in a representative sample of tragedy (and satyr play) and in the full Aristophanic corpus, and reaches conclusions that aid and expand our understanding of both tragedy and comedy. In addition to exploring and interpreting a number of particular scenes for their inter-actor dynamics and staging, I argue overall that tragedy’s predilection for ὅδε , a word which by definition conveys a strong spatio- temporal presence (“this <one> here / now”), pointedly draws the spectators into the dramatic fiction. The comic poet’s preference for οὗτος (“that <one> just mentioned” / “that <one> there”), on the other hand, coupled with his tendency to directly acknowledge the audience individually and in the aggregate, disengages the spectators from the immediacy of the tragic tetralogies and reengages them with the normal, everyday world to which they will return at the close of the festival.
  • Exophoric and Endophoric Awareness

    Exophoric and Endophoric Awareness

    Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume.8 Number3 September 2017 Pp. 28-45 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no3.3 Exophoric and Endophoric Awareness Mohammad Awwad Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences Lebanese University, Deanship Dekweneh , Beirut, Lebanon Abstract This research aims to shed light on the impact of exophoric and endophoric instruction on the comprehension (decoding) skills, writing (encoding skills), and linguistic awareness of English as Foreign Language learners. In this line, a mixed qualitative quantitative approach was conducted over a period of fifteen weeks on sixty English major students enrolled in their first year at the Lebanese University, fifth branch. The sixty participants were divided into two groups (30 experimental) that benefited from instruction on exophoric and endophoric relations and (30 control) that did not have the opportunity to study referents in the designated period of the research. The participants sat for a reading and writing pretest at the beginning of the study; and they sat again for the same reading and writing assessment at the end of the study. The results of the pre and post tests for both groups were analyzed via SPSS program and findings were as follows: hypothesis one stating that students who are aware of endophoric and exophoric relations are likely to achieve better results in decoding a text than are their peers who receive no referential instruction, was accepted with significant findings. Hypothesis two stating that students who are aware of endophoric and exophoric relations are likely to perform better in writing than their peers who receive no referential instruction , was accepted with significant findings.
  • CAS LX 522 Syntax I the Y Model

    CAS LX 522 Syntax I the Y Model

    CAS LX 522 The Y model • We’re now ready to tackle the most abstract branch of Syntax I the Y-model, the mapping from SS to LF. Here is where we have “movement that you can’t see”. θ Theory Week 10. LF Overt movement, DS Subcategorization Expletive insertion X-bar theory Case theory, EPP SS Covert movement Phonology/ Morphology PF LF Binding theory Derivations Derivations • We think of what we’re doing when we • The steps are not necessarily a reflection of what construct abstract structures of sentences we are doing online as we speak—what we are this way as being a sequence of steps. doing is characterizing our knowledge of language, and it turns out that we can predict our – We start with DS intuitions about what sentences are good and bad – We do some movements and what different sentences mean by – We arrive at SS characterizing the relationship between underlying – We do some more movements thematic relations, surface form, and interpretation in terms of movements in an order with constraints – We arrive at LF on what movements are possible. Derivations Derivations • It seems that the simplest explanation for the • Concerning SS, under this view, languages pick a complex facts of grammar is in terms of several point to focus on between DS and LF and small modifications to the DS that each are subject pronounce that structure. This is (the basis for) SS. to certain constraints, sometimes even things which • There are also certain restrictions on the form SS seem to indicate that one operation has to occur has (e.g., Case, EPP have to be satisfied).
  • Minimal Pronouns, Logophoricity and Long-Distance Reflexivisation in Avar

    Minimal Pronouns, Logophoricity and Long-Distance Reflexivisation in Avar

    Minimal pronouns, logophoricity and long-distance reflexivisation in Avar* Pavel Rudnev Revised version; 28th January 2015 Abstract This paper discusses two morphologically related anaphoric pronouns inAvar (Avar-Andic, Nakh-Daghestanian) and proposes that one of them should be treated as a minimal pronoun that receives its interpretation from a λ-operator situated on a phasal head whereas the other is a logophoric pro- noun denoting the author of the reported event. Keywords: reflexivity, logophoricity, binding, syntax, semantics, Avar 1 Introduction This paper has two aims. One is to make a descriptive contribution to the crosslin- guistic study of long-distance anaphoric dependencies by presenting an overview of the properties of two kinds of reflexive pronoun in Avar, a Nakh-Daghestanian language spoken natively by about 700,000 people mostly living in the North East Caucasian republic of Daghestan in the Russian Federation. The other goal is to highlight the relevance of the newly introduced data from an understudied lan- guage to the theoretical debate on the nature of reflexivity, long-distance anaphora and logophoricity. The issue at the heart of this paper is the unusual character of theanaphoric system in Avar, which is tripartite. (1) is intended as just a preview with more *The present material was presented at the Utrecht workshop The World of Reflexives in August 2011. I am grateful to the workshop’s audience and participants for their questions and comments. I am indebted to Eric Reuland and an anonymous reviewer for providing valuable feedback on the first draft, as well as to Yakov Testelets for numerous discussions of anaphora-related issues inAvar spanning several years.
  • Relative Clause Attachment and Anaphora: a Case for Short Binding

    Relative Clause Attachment and Anaphora: a Case for Short Binding

    Relative Clause Attachment and Anaphora: A Case for Short Binding Rodolfo Delmonte Ca' Garzoni-Moro, San Marco 3417, Università "Ca Foscari", 30124 - VENEZIA E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Relative clause attachment may be triggered by binding requirements imposed by a short anaphor contained within the relative clause itself: in case more than one possible attachment site is available in the previous structure, and the relative clause itself is extraposed, a conflict may arise as to the appropriate s/c-structure which is licenced by grammatical constraints but fails when the binding module tries to satisfy the short anaphora local search for a bindee. 1 Introduction It is usually the case that anaphoric and pronominal binding take place after the structure building phase has been successfully completed. In this sense, c-structure and f-structure in the LFG framework - or s-structure in the chomskian one - are a prerequisite for the carrying out of binding processes. In addition, they only interact in a feeding relation since binding would not be possibly activated without a complete structure to search, and there is no possible reversal of interaction, from Binding back into s/c-structure level seen that they belong to two separate Modules of the Grammar. As such they contribute to each separate level of representation with separate rules, principles and constraints which need to be satisfied within each Module in order for the structure to be licensed for the following one. However we show that anaphoric binding requirements may cause the parser to fail because the structure is inadequate. We propose a solution to this conflict by anticipating, for anaphors only the though, the agreement matching operations between binder and bindee and leaving the coindexation to the following module.
  • 8. Binding Theory

    8. Binding Theory

    THE COMPLICATED AND MURKY WORLD OF BINDING THEORY We’re about to get sucked into a black hole … 11-13 March Ling 216 ~ Winter 2019 ~ C. Ussery 2 OUR ROADMAP •Overview of Basic Binding Theory •Binding and Infinitives •Some cross-linguistic comparisons: Icelandic, Ewe, and Logophors •Picture NPs •Binding and Movement: The Nixon Sentences 3 SOME TERMINOLOGY • R-expression: A DP that gets its meaning by referring to an entity in the world. • Anaphor: A DP that obligatorily gets its meaning from another DP in the sentence. 1. Heidi bopped herself on the head with a zucchini. [Carnie 2013: Ch. 5, EX 3] • Reflexives: Myself, Yourself, Herself, Himself, Itself, Ourselves, Yourselves, Themselves • Reciprocals: Each Other, One Another • Pronoun: A DP that may get its meaning from another DP in the sentence or contextually, from the discourse. 2. Art said that he played basketball. [EX5] • “He” could be Art or someone else. • I/Me, You/You, She/Her, He/Him, It/It, We/Us, You/You, They/Them • Nominative/Accusative Pronoun Pairs in English • Antecedent: A DP that gives its meaning to another DP. • This is familiar from control; PRO needs an antecedent. Ling 216 ~ Winter 2019 ~ C. Ussery 4 OBSERVATION 1: NO NOMINATIVE FORMS OF ANAPHORS • This makes sense, since anaphors cannot be subjects of finite clauses. 1. * Sheselfi / Herselfi bopped Heidii on the head with a zucchini. • Anaphors can be the subjects of ECM clauses. 2. Heidi believes herself to be an excellent cook, even though she always bops herself on the head with zucchini. SOME DESCRIPTIVE OBSERVATIONS Ling 216 ~ Winter 2019 ~ C.
  • Japanese Zero Reference Resolution Considering Exophora and Author/Reader Mentions

    Japanese Zero Reference Resolution Considering Exophora and Author/Reader Mentions

    Japanese Zero Reference Resolution Considering Exophora and Author/Reader Mentions Masatsugu Hangyo Daisuke Kawahara Sadao Kurohashi Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University Yoshida-honmachi, Sakyo-ku Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan hangyo,dk,kuro @nlp.ist.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp { } Abstract For example, in example (1) , the accusative argu- ment of the predicate “食べます” (eat) is omitted .1 In Japanese, zero references often occur and The omitted argument is called a zero pronoun. In many of them are categorized into zero ex- this example, the zero pronoun refers to “パスタ” ophora, in which a referent is not mentioned in (pasta). the document. However, previous studies have focused on only zero endophora, in which Zero reference resolution is divided into two sub- a referent explicitly appears. We present a tasks: zero pronoun detection and referent identifi- zero reference resolution model considering cation. Zero pronoun detection is the task that de- zero exophora and author/reader of a docu- tects omitted zero pronouns from a document. In ment. To deal with zero exophora, our model example (1), this task detects that there are the zero adds pseudo entities corresponding to zero pronouns in the accusative and nominative cases of exophora to candidate referents of zero pro- “食べます” (eat) and there is no zero pronoun in nouns. In addition, we automatically detect the dative case of “食べます”. Referent identifica- mentions that refer to the author and reader of a document by using lexico-syntactic patterns. tion is the task that identifies the referent of a zero We represent their particular behavior in a dis- pronoun.
  • The English Referential System (A Tutorial) ! Natural Language Discourse Could Have Looked Like This: ! Andy Kehler Is Traveling to Stanford on Wednesday

    The English Referential System (A Tutorial) ! Natural Language Discourse Could Have Looked Like This: ! Andy Kehler Is Traveling to Stanford on Wednesday

    Discourse The English Referential System (a tutorial) ! Natural language discourse could have looked like this: ! Andy Kehler is traveling to Stanford on Wednesday. Andy Kehler will give a talk at Stanford. Andy Kehler’s talk at Stanford will be a tutorial on reference. Andy Kehler’s tutorial on reference will be at 4:30. Andy Kehler will give another talk on Thursday. Andy Kehler’s other talk on Thursday will be about pronoun Andrew Kehler interpretation. UCSD Linguistics Workshop On Context Dependence In Language And Communication, Stanford University, November 2, 2011. 1 2 Discourse Language gives us choices ! But instead it looks like this: ! Choices when expressing propositions ! ! Andy Kehler is traveling to Stanford on Wednesday. He will give a Active: Obama won the election tutorial on reference, which will be at 4:30. That talk will be ! Passive: The election was won by Obama followed by another on Thursday about pronoun interpretation. ! Clefts: It was Obama who won the election. ! Topicalization: The election, Obama won. ! Inversion: Winning the election was Obama. ! VP-Preposing: [Obama predicted he would win the election, and] - Win the election he did! 3 4 And more choices Outline ! Choices when referring to things ! Pinning down a few basics ! indefinite ‘a’: Congress passed a bill today. ! ! indefinite ‘this’: Congress passed this bill today. Taking inventory ! definite ‘the’: Congress passed the bill today. ! A few phenomena that I find interesting ! familiar ‘that’: Congress passed that bill today. ! Concluding thoughts ! demonstratives: Congress passed this/that? ! pronouns: Congress passed it! ! proper names: Congress passed House Bill 2356 today. 5 6 Outline Pinning down some terminology (Jespersen 1954) ! Pinning down a few basics If the baby does not thrive on raw milk, boil it.
  • Dissertations, Department of Linguistics

    Dissertations, Department of Linguistics

    UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3sv079tk Author Faltz, Leonard M Publication Date 1977 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph end reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will finda good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap.