Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 149–171 | Cite as

Anaphoric Constraints and Dualities in the Semantics of Nominals

  • António Branco


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.


Anaphora binding principles duality natural language semantics quantification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Branco, A., 1996, “Branching split obliqueness,” pp. 149–156 in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’96).Google Scholar
  2. Branco, A., 2000, Reference Processing and its Universal Constraints, Lisbon: Edicões Colibri.Google Scholar
  3. Branco, A., 2002a, “Binding machines,” Computational Linguistics 28, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Dalrymple, M., 1993, The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding, Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. 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,
  9. Golde, K., 1999, “Binding theory and beyond,” Doctoral dissertation, Ohio: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  10. Heim, I., 1982, “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” Doctoral dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Hellan, L., 1988, Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar, Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Iatridou, S., 1986, “An Anaphor not bound in its governing category,” Linguistic Inquiry 17, 766– 772.Google Scholar
  14. Jackendoff, R., 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Kiss, T., 2003, “Die Genese der Aushahmeanapher,” pp. 157–188 in Arbeiten zur Reflexivierung, L. Gunkel, L. Müller and G. Zifonun, eds., Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. König, E., 1991, “Concessive relations as the dual of causal relations,” pp. 190–209 in Zäfferrer, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. Kordoni, V., 1994, “Reflexivization in Modern Greek: A modern approach,” MA Dissertation, Essex: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  23. Koster, J. and Reuland, E., eds., 1991, Long-Distance Anaphora, Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  24. Kuno, S., 1995, Functional Syntax, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Larson, R. and Segal, G., 1995, Knowledge of Meaning, Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lasnik, 1989, Essays on Anaphora, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Levinson, S., 1991, “Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited,” Journal of Linguistics 27, 107–161.Google Scholar
  28. Link, G., 1987, “Generalized quantifiers and plurals,” pp. 151–180 in Generalized Quantifiers, P. Gärdenfors, ed., Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Löbner, S., 1989, “German schon-erst-noch: An integrated analysis,” Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Löbner, S., 1999, “Why German schon and noch are still Duals: A reply to van der Auwera,” Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 45–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. Manzini, M. R. and Wexler, K., 1987, “Parameters, binding theory and learnability,” Linguistic Inquiry 18, 413–444.Google Scholar
  34. Neale, S., 1993, “Term limits,” Philosophical Perspectives 7, 89–123.Google Scholar
  35. Piñango, M., 2001, Cortical Reflections of Two Pronominal Relations, Ms., New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar
  36. Pollard, C. and Sag, I., 1987, Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Pollard, C. and Sag, I., 1994, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Reuland, E., 2001, “Primitives of Binding,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Seuren, P., 1985, Discourse Semantics, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Smessaert, H., 1997, “Aspectual duality regained,” pp. 271–276 in Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker et al., eds., Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  42. ter Meulen, A., 1988, “The semantic properties of English aspectual verbs,” NELS 21, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  43. van Benthem, J., 1991, “Linguistic universals in logical semantics,” Zäfferrer, 1991, 17–36.Google Scholar
  44. van Hoeck, K., 1997, Anaphora and Conceptual Structure, London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Varlokosta, S. and Hornstein, N. 1993, “A bound pronoun in modern Greek,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Webelhuth, G., Koenig, J.-P., and Kathol, A., eds., 1999, Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Wechsler, S., 1999, “HPSG, GB, and the balinese bind,” pp. 179–196 in G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig, and A. Kathol, eds.Google Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Zäfferrer, D., ed., 1991, Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics, Berlin: Foris.Google Scholar
  50. Zribi-Hertz, A., 1989, “Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: Englsh reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse,” Language 65, 695–727.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations