Abstract
The grammatical constraints on anaphoric binding, known as binding principles, are observed to form a classical square of oppositions. These constraints are then analysed as the effect of phase quantifiers over reference markers in grammatical obliqueness hierarchies, and the resulting phase quantifiers are shown to be organised in a square of logical duality. The impact of this result on the distinction between quantificational and referential nominals as well as on the logical foundations of the semantics of nominals in general is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Branco, A., 1996, “Branching split obliqueness,” pp. 149–156 in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’96).
Branco, A., 2000, Reference Processing and its Universal Constraints, Lisbon: Edicões Colibri.
Branco, A., 2002a, “Binding machines,” Computational Linguistics 28, 1–18.
Branco, A., 2002b, “Without an index: A lexicalist account of binding theory,” pp. 71–86 in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG’2001), F. Van Eynde, L. Hellan, and D. Beermann, eds., Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Branco, A. and Marrafa, P., 1997, “Subject-oriented and non subject-oriented long-distance Anaphora: An integrated approach,” pp. 21–30 in Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 11), Byung-Soo Park e Jong-Bok Kim, eds., Seoul: Kyung Hee University.
Branco, A. and Marrafa, P., 1999, “Long-distance reflexives and the binding square of opposition,” pp. 163–177 in G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig and A. Kathol, eds.
Dalrymple, M., 1993, The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding, Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Everaert, M., 2000, “Binding theories: A comparison of ’,grammatical models’,” in Progress in Grammar: Articles at the 20th Anniversary of the comparison of grammatical models group in Tilburg. M. van Oostendorp and E. Anagnostopoulou, eds., Amsterdam: Meertens Institute, Electronic Publications in Linguistics, http://www.meertens.nl/books/
Golde, K., 1999, “Binding theory and beyond,” Doctoral dissertation, Ohio: The Ohio State University.
Heim, I., 1982, “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” Doctoral dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Hellan, L., 1988, Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar, Dordrecht: Foris.
Huang, C.-T. J. and Tang, C.-C. J., 1991, “The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese,” pp. 263–282 in J. Koster and E. Reuland, eds.
Iatridou, S., 1986, “An Anaphor not bound in its governing category,” Linguistic Inquiry 17, 766– 772.
Jackendoff, R., 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Kamp, H., 1981, “A theory of truth and discourse representation,” pp. 277–322 in Formal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Karttunen, L., 1976, “Discourse referents,” pp. 363–385 in Syntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, J. McCawley, ed., New York: Academic Press.
Kiss, T., 2001, “Anaphors and exemptness: A comparative treatment of anaphoric binding in German and English,” pp. 182–197 in Proceedings of the 7th International HPSG Conference, D. Flickinger and A. Kathol, eds., Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Kiss, T., 2003, “Die Genese der Aushahmeanapher,” pp. 157–188 in Arbeiten zur Reflexivierung, L. Gunkel, L. Müller and G. Zifonun, eds., Tübingen: Narr.
Koenig, J.-P., 1999, “Inside-out constraints and description languages for HPSG,” pp. 265–280 in G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig, and A. Kathol, eds.
König, E., 1991, “Concessive relations as the dual of causal relations,” pp. 190–209 in Zäfferrer, 1991.
Kordoni, V., 1994, “Reflexivization in Modern Greek: A modern approach,” MA Dissertation, Essex: University of Essex.
Koster, J. and Reuland, E., eds., 1991, Long-Distance Anaphora, Cambridge: CUP.
Kuno, S., 1995, Functional Syntax, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Larson, R. and Segal, G., 1995, Knowledge of Meaning, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Lasnik, 1989, Essays on Anaphora, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Levinson, S., 1991, “Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited,” Journal of Linguistics 27, 107–161.
Link, G., 1987, “Generalized quantifiers and plurals,” pp. 151–180 in Generalized Quantifiers, P. Gärdenfors, ed., Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Löbner, S., 1987, “Quantification as a major module of natural language semantics,” pp. 53–85 in Studies in DRT and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof, eds., Berlin: Foris.
Löbner, S., 1989, “German schon-erst-noch: An integrated analysis,” Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 167–212.
Löbner, S., 1999, “Why German schon and noch are still Duals: A reply to van der Auwera,” Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 45–107.
Manning, C. and Sag, I. 1999, “Dissociations between Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations,” pp. 63–78 in G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig, and A. Kathol, eds.
Manzini, M. R. and Wexler, K., 1987, “Parameters, binding theory and learnability,” Linguistic Inquiry 18, 413–444.
Neale, S., 1993, “Term limits,” Philosophical Perspectives 7, 89–123.
Piñango, M., 2001, Cortical Reflections of Two Pronominal Relations, Ms., New Haven: Yale University.
Pollard, C. and Sag, I., 1987, Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Pollard, C. and Sag, I., 1994, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Reuland, E., 2001, “Primitives of Binding,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439–492.
Richter, F., Sailer, M., and Penn, G., 1999, “A formal interpretation of relations and quantification in HPSG,” pp. 281–298 in Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Se-Mantics, G.-J. Kruijff, G. Bouma. E. Hinrichs, and R. Oehrle, eds., Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Seuren, P., 1985, Discourse Semantics, Oxford: Blackwell.
Smessaert, H., 1997, “Aspectual duality regained,” pp. 271–276 in Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker et al., eds., Amsterdam: ILLC.
ter Meulen, A., 1988, “The semantic properties of English aspectual verbs,” NELS 21, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
van Benthem, J., 1991, “Linguistic universals in logical semantics,” Zäfferrer, 1991, 17–36.
van Hoeck, K., 1997, Anaphora and Conceptual Structure, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Varlokosta, S. and Hornstein, N. 1993, “A bound pronoun in modern Greek,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 175–195.
Webelhuth, G., Koenig, J.-P., and Kathol, A., eds., 1999, Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Wechsler, S., 1999, “HPSG, GB, and the balinese bind,” pp. 179–196 in G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig, and A. Kathol, eds.
Xue, P., Pollard, C., and Sag, I., 1994, “A new perspective on Chinese Ziji,” Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 13, Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Zäfferrer, D., ed., 1991, Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics, Berlin: Foris.
Zribi-Hertz, A., 1989, “Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: Englsh reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse,” Language 65, 695–727.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Branco, A. Anaphoric Constraints and Dualities in the Semantics of Nominals. J Logic Lang Inf 14, 149–171 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-005-3231-x
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-005-3231-x