Anaphoric binding

2000

ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, 1984

This article claims that the system of thematic structure determines the structural relation between an anaphor and its antecedent and the local domain in which the relation of anaphoric binding may take place. For the theory of anaphoric binding which is based on such configurational notions as c-COMMAND and ACCESSIBILITY, and some problems with this latter approach will be discussed.

Binding theory (BT) is a kind of syntactic module which contains three principles (A, B, C) governing reflexive pronouns (e.g., himself), non reflexive pronouns (e.g., him) and referential expressions (e.g., the boy). Each one of these principles states some structural configurations in which such elements admit, require or exclude a term of the same reference. Previous logical accounts of BT use extended directional systems such as Lambek calculus and its extensions. They all propose to enhance the core logic with new connectives (e.g., control operators, discontinuity connectives) in order to deal with some phenomena inherent to binding such as locality constraints and discontinuity. Our research work aims at formalizing BT principles in a compact and elegant fashion using an undirected logical grammar called: Logical Grammars with Labels (LGL). The relevance of this formalism stems from its ability to constrain the use of hypothetical reasoning and its ease to handle resource sharing.

2006

1992

Since the pioneering work of Lees and Klima (1963), it has commonly been assumed that a single generalization determines the possible antecedents of anaphors (reflexive and reciprocal expressions) in English.

2010

In type logical categorial grammar the analysis of an expression is a resource-conscious proof. Anaphora represents a particular challenge to this approach in that the antecedent resource is multiplied in the semantics. This duplication, which corresponds logically to the structural rule of contraction, may be treated lexically or syntactically. Furthermore, anaphora is subject to constraints, which Chomsky (1981)[1] formulated as Binding Principles A, B, and C. In this paper we consider English anaphora in categorial grammar including reference to the binding principles. We invoke displacement calculus, modal categorial calculus, categorial calculus with limited contraction, and entertain addition of negation as failure.

In this paper we will critically revisit generative Binding Theory, one of the foundational stones of the GB model, and a stronghold of orthodox approaches to semantics and Logical Form within the Minimalist Program. The theory assumes a typology of referential expressions, based on distributional constraints given by two properties, anaphoric and pronominal. In this work, we will conceive a maximally simplified lexicon containing only lexical type-variables -instantiated as tokens in a particular derivation- and procedural elements, and attempt to: (a) derive distributional constraints over referential expressions, including verbs (eventive entities) and nouns (sortal entities), from more basic principles of grammar, and (b) derive the materialization (Spell-Out) of variables corresponding to those types of entities from local relations between tokens of lexical variables in a syntactic-semantic construal, and functional-procedural nodes. Our objective is to question the consideration of the typology of referential entities in Mainstream Generative Grammar (MGG) as primitives of Binding Theory, as part of an eliminative program for linguistic theory.

Tony Marmo, 2020

In the following, we discuss whether binding theory in generative grammar provided good and falsifiable hypotheses for the facts it aimed to explain. The main underlying issue is the confusion between natural language statements being true and being well formed. In our analyses, we consider the theories of Universal Grammar as metalanguages for natural languages.