| { |
| "paper_id": "C98-1027", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:30:31.840192Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "The Logical Structure of Binding", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ant6nio", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Branco", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": ")FKI and Univ. of Lisbon l)ep. Inform~itica", |
| "institution": "", |
| "location": { |
| "postCode": "1700", |
| "settlement": "Campo Grande, Lisboa", |
| "country": "Portugal" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Antonio", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Brancoodi", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": ")FKI and Univ. of Lisbon l)ep. Inform~itica", |
| "institution": "", |
| "location": { |
| "postCode": "1700", |
| "settlement": "Campo Grande, Lisboa", |
| "country": "Portugal" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [ |
| "Ul" |
| ], |
| "last": "Fc", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": ")FKI and Univ. of Lisbon l)ep. Inform~itica", |
| "institution": "", |
| "location": { |
| "postCode": "1700", |
| "settlement": "Campo Grande, Lisboa", |
| "country": "Portugal" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pt", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": ")FKI and Univ. of Lisbon l)ep. Inform~itica", |
| "institution": "", |
| "location": { |
| "postCode": "1700", |
| "settlement": "Campo Grande, Lisboa", |
| "country": "Portugal" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "A logical recasting ol' Binding Theory is perIbmaed as an efilmncing step for the purpose (>fits l'ull and lean declarative lmplementation. A new insight on sentential anaphoric processes is presented whmh may suegestively be captured by fhe slogan binding co'hglitions are the e[/ect of phase qtumtificatio, on the uniw'rs'e ofdiscourkb r@,ients.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "C98-1027", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "A logical recasting ol' Binding Theory is perIbmaed as an efilmncing step for the purpose (>fits l'ull and lean declarative lmplementation. A new insight on sentential anaphoric processes is presented whmh may suegestively be captured by fhe slogan binding co'hglitions are the e[/ect of phase qtumtificatio, on the uniw'rs'e ofdiscourkb r@,ients.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": ".Duq to. its central role in natural lan-uage and .its mtm,mmg properties, relerence and an@]'-~or resolutton has been a central topic for NLP research. Given the intensive attentkm devoted to this subject, .it can however be said that sentential anaphor processing has been quite overlooked, when conmared to the amount of research effort put in tackling non sentential anaphoric dependencies. This tends to be so because there seems to be a more or less implicit assumption that no substantial difference exists between the two ocesses 1. hile this may be arguably ttue for the heuristics involved in picking out a given antecedent lronl a list of suitable candidates, a more subtle point asks itself to be made when we locus on the syntactic conditions which sentential anal~horic relations comply with but from which non senfential ones are exempt. In theoretical linguistics these grammatical conditions arc grouped under the heading of Binding Theory. in computational linguistics however, though there haye been a few lmpers directly concerned with tim iinplementation of tiffs theory, mainstream resemch ten?.ts to disregard its conceptual, granmmtical or practical modu'larity. When it comes to define the algorithm for settin~ up the list of suitable candidates fi'~3m which the antecedent shoukl be chosen binding eonditkns holdin~ lust at the sententml level, ae most often put on ~a par with any other kind of conditions, naorphological semantic, pragmatic, etc.. which hold 1'o1 anaphoric relations at botll sententia[ and non sentential level.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The interesting point to be made in this connection is that, if the modularity of grammatical knowledge is to be ensured in a sound reference resoh, tion system, more attention should be paid to previous attempts of im/)lementing Binding Theory. it would then become evident that this theory, in its current formulation, appears as a piece of fornmlised ~rammatical knowledge which however escapes a fuIl and lean declarative implementation. I In fact, implementation efforts concerning Binding Theory 2 bring to light whatotend .to. be e.clipsed by. malnstreanl clean tlleoretlcal Iormulatlons el It. HelIlII(I the apparent declarative aspect of its definition under the form of a set of binding principles (plus definitions of associated concepts, e.g. o-comnmnd, o-bound, local domain, etc.), there is a set of procedures which turn out to be an essential part of the theory: after parsing beinf: completed, (i) imlexation: assign radices to NPs; (ii) filteri,g: store the indexed tree if the mdexation respects binding principles, reject otherwise; (iii) recursion: repeat (i) with a new assignment until all possible asslgmnents are exhausted. Fhis sort of resislance to dechuative encompassine is also aplmrent when one considexs how Binding Th&)ry is MnHled in gralnnmtical theories developed on top of constraint based formalisms and lmrticularl,\u00a2 concerned with computational implementat\"fility, lil~'e LFG or HPSG. As to HPSG, it has passed quite unnoticed that its ,Binding Theory is the oJlly piece, of th.e grammar liniital'i~m of the formalism' might have been 'l:eached and that ItPSG Binding Theory is still waitin~ to be accommodated into tlPSG grammars. As to the I,FG formulation of Binding Theory, it requires the integration of inside-out equatmns a special purpose &tension to the eeneral dechuative formalism. And even though initiaF scepticisnl about their tractability was d~ssipated by Kaplan and Maxwell .(88) , the recent survey of Backofen et al. (96) reports that I1O implemented fornmlism, and no implemented gramnmr, is known to handle LFG Bindin ~ The(n'y. 11> tiffs ~:onnection the central aim of the research to be l~resented here is to render possible a lean declarative mplementation of Bindimz Theory in constraint based fofinalisms without res6rtine to specific complex nmchanisms. This involves tw~o steps. First, as a sort of enhancing step back a new account of Bindine Theory is set up. Second, by the exhibition of al-i example, the new shape of the theory is shown to SUl~port full declarative implementatioffin basic HPSG formalism. Due to space constraints, this patter is mostly concerned wiih the first while tHe'latter recmves just a rough sketch in last section, being develope~l in future papers. ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 1912, |
| "end": 1936, |
| "text": "Kaplan and Maxwell .(88)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1960, |
| "end": 1980, |
| "text": "Backofen et al. (96)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "C: contrary A: x is free", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4/\\4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "x is locally bound This new perspective on long-distance reflexives had an important nnpact in the whole shape of Binding Theory. Branco and Marra[h noted still that the four principles can be an'anged in a classical Aristotelian square of oppositions, as in (2). This suggests that the Binding Theory may have an unsuspected underlying quantificational structure. The present paper aims at showing that there is such structure and at determining its basic lines.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4/\\4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Barwise and Cooper (81) seminal work gave rise to a fruitful research tradition where Generalised Quantifier Theory has been applied to the analysis ot\" natural language quantification. These authors suggested that a universal charaeterisation of NL nominal quantification could be formally given by means of ,formal prop,,erties defined in that theory. The property to live on was postulated as being the most prominent one, admittedly constituting the common specific nature of all nominal quantifiers. Later, Loebner (87) suggested a criterion to ascertain the quantificatmnal nature of natural language expressions in general. That is the property that, for a one place second order operator Q expressecl by a given exRression, there be a corresponding dual operator Th]s'duality based perspective on the essence of natural I~,~, ~,~ lan.ua,.e quantit'icatmn permitted to extend quffnti0cation well beyond the classic eases of nominal quantification supported by the determiners all, some, most, man~,, etc., nmnely by covering also the realms of tempor,'ihtv and rmsslbiIity. Moreover, items like still/ ah-eady, and others (enough~too, scaling adjectives, many~few, etc.) though they do not len~ themselv.es to b6 straightforwardly analysed in terms of set .quantification, they can also be arranged in a square of duality. The formalization of the semantics of these aspectualitems by Loebner led to the enlarging of the notion of quantification through the introduction of the new concept of phase quantification. He noted that still and already express duals and that they a~;e corners,of a square of duality. Let P be \"she is asleep and -P 'she is awake', durative propositions which are the arguments of the semantic operators corresponding to aTready and still. Then:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Phase Quantification", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) She is already asleep iff it is not the case that she is still awake. ALREADY P iff -STILL ~P Further similar tests can be made in order to show that these aspectual items enter the following square of duality: 4 In order to get a formalization of (4), Loebner noted that alread~ should be taken as conveying the informatioff that there is a phase of not-P which has started before a given rel~rence time tO and might be followed by at most one phase P which reaches till tO. This can be displayed in a time axis by means of the diagram in (5). no longer P already P Similar diagrams for the meaning of the other aspectual phase quantifiers of this square of duality mc easily intergretable, hmer negation results in exchanging the positive and the negative semitghases, while outer negation concerns the decision whether the parameter tO falls into the first or the second semiphase. Phase quantifiers in general (already, scaling a.djectives, etc.) were thus characterised as requiring two ingredients: (i) a property P, which defines a positive phase in a sequence of two opposite phases; (ii) a parameter point. The four types of quantifiers just ~liffer in presupposing that mtl'mr the positive or the negative semipliase comes first and in stating that the parameter point falls into the first or into the second semiphase. Next Loebner showed that the semantics of phase quantifiers sketched in the diagrams above can be lormalised in such a way that ~ a square of duality formed b~. the generalised ouantifiers XX.some'(D,Xy XX.every (D,X) turns out to'be subjacent to the square of duality of already~still. In order to do it, he just needed the auxiliary, notion of startin~ point of the relevant semiphase. This is rendered as'fhe infimum of the set of the closest predecessors of the parameter point pt which form an uninterrupted linear secluence with property P, or ~P (termed GSI(R,pt) by Loebner):", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Phase Quantification", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(6) GSI(R,pt) =df inf{x I x<pt & R(x) & Vy(x<y<pt & R(y) ~ 'V'z(", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Phase Quantification", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "x<z<y -~R(z)))} The semantics of the lout phase quantifiers above can then be rendered in the following way, making pt=tO for the parameter point and R=P or R=-P: (7) still: ),,P.every'()x x.(GSI(P,a)<x<t0),P) already: ~,P.some'(~,x.(GSI(-P,a)<x_<t0),P) not yet: ),P.no'(),x.(GSI(~P, a) < x < t0),P) nolonger: 5,P.not every'(~.x.(GSI(P,a)<x<t0),P)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Phase Quantification", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Faking, Loebners wew on quantlflcatmn, our goal m this section is to make apparent the quantificational structure of binding by showing that on a par with the square of opposition of (2) binding principles form a square of dtialitv. We are going thus to argue that binding principles are but~the=reflex of th'~ phase quantificational nature of con'esponding nominal expressions: reflexives, pronouns, lon~-distance reflexives and R-expressions'will be shown l\"6 express phase quantifiers acting on the grammatical obliqueness axis. k 1 m Note also that lhe relation \"less oblklue thim\" may not be lmeav:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Binding", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(9)Kim said I,ce, who saw Max, hit Norma.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Binding", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "0 - -O - 0 k 1 n 0 --() 1 Ill", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Binding", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The sequence of two Ol)l)osite semiohases is defined by a property P. Contrarily to what happens with aheadv, where operator (quantifier) and operarid (durativc tiruposition} arc rendered by different expressions m binding phase cluantihcation tim operand 1' is a so conlrdmted by the nonfinal expressing the operator, i.e. expressing the binding phase quantifier. For a eiven nominal N P is determined by tile relative positi('~ of N 'n tic \"scale\". F(u a discomse reterenl r corresponding to N, semiDhase P is a linear stretch containine ofily elements that arc less than or e ual to r in the ~bliquencss order, that is discourse re~erents cortes ~ondin-to non|inals o-commanding N Moreover, if semlphasc t is presupposed to precede semiphase ~P, P is st,ch thai the last successor m it is local wrt to r; and if semiDhase -P is presupposed to precedes sennphase P, P is such that the first predecessor in it is local wrt to r. in both cases the closest t' nei~hbour of sclniphase -P has to be local wrt r, where flw notion of locality has the usual sense given in the definition of binding principles:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Binding", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(10) P(x) iffdef x ~< r & Vy[(-P(y)&", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Binding", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(x--<y or y-<x)) -->x is local wrt rl As to the l)arameter l)oint, in binding phase quantification, it is the discourse referent a \",~hich is tile antecedent of r.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Binding", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We can now fornlalise phase quantil:ication subiacent to nominals. Let us start with an anaphoric expression N like himselfi N can thus be interpreted as presupposing that a semip.hase -P precedes a semiphase P and requiring that the paranmter point occurs in the latter, that is, the antecedent a is to be found in semiphase P among the discourse referents corresponding fo the local ocommanders of r, the disc referent corresponding to NL This is captured by the definition of the phase quantifier QA. Satisfaction of QA(P) obtains iff between the bottom of the unmtemlpted linem\" sequence ~P most close to the parameter polnffantecedent a and a inclusive there is at least one discourse referent in P. Given-P.P, this amounts to requiring that a be in P, and that a be a local ocommander of r. 3 Next, it is then easy to see how the phase \u00a2luantificational force of a l)ronominal expressmn N s]lould be formalised: Here tile parameter point a occurs in semiphase ~1 ), which amounts to the antecedent being picked outside the set of local o-commanders. OB(P) ts satisfied iff no discourse referent between the bottom of the tmintermpted linear sequence -P more close to the parameter |soint/ antecedent a and a inch|sive is in P. Given ~P.P, this amounts to requirin~ that a be in semiphase -q', and that a he not a h)ca'[ o-connnander oft. Like in diagram of (1 1), ~P is taken here its the complcment set of P. All discourse referents which me not local o-commanders of r are in it, either ocommanding r or not. Notice that set ~P includes also discourse referents Xl...x n introduced by previous sentences or the extra-lin.euistic context, which in constructions similar to (F2)b. accounts for possible deictic readings of the pronoun. Below, when studying R-expressions, wc will see why. the possible nGi lmearity of the obliqueness or~ler will led us to consider that ~P is slightly more complex than just the complement set of 15. Comin,, now to long-distance reflexives, ruled Here, like for short-distance reflexives in (11), a is required to occur in P though the p.resupposition now is that semiphase P is followed by semiphase -P. Taking. into account the definition of P in (10), the antecedent of N is thus required to be an o-commander ~ocal or not) of N. The semantics of pha.se quantit!er .QZ is such that, for Qz(P) to be satisfied, 0etween the tmttom of tlae uninterrupted linear sequence P more close to the parameter point/antecec'tent a and a inclusive every ..discourse referent is in P. This amounts to requmng that a be in semiphase P, and that a be an o-commander of r. Finally R-expressions call to be formalised as the fourth phase quantifier of (7): ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Binding l)hase quantiliers", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "a |", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Binding l)hase quantiliers", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The parameter point a is required to occur in -P, which means that a cannot be an o-commander (local or not) of r. This renders the same condition as expressed by Principle C, that R-expressions be free, though it also encodes an uncommon assumption about the referential autonomy of R-expressions. Here, like for other more obvious dependent reference nominals, the interpretation of R-expressions is taken as being dependent on the interpretation of other expressions or on the salience of.discourse referents made available by the commumcatlve context. Taking an extreme example in order to support the plausibility of this view and awkwardly abbreviate a deep philosophical discussion, one should notice that even a proper name is not a unique label of a ~iven individual, once knowing who is the person called John (out oI those we know that are named John) depends on the context. Note that like in previous diagrams, ~P is taken in (14) just as the complement set of P. However, OC asks finally for a serious ponderation of this and-a more accurate definition of -P tbr phase quantification in non linear orders, where it is possible that not all elements are comparable. For Qc(P) to be satisfied, between the bottom of P and the parameter point/ antecedent a inclusive not every discourse referent is in P. Since we have here the presupposition P.-P, andviven P is an uninterrupted linear sequence, this woulffamount to requiring ttiat a be in -P. It is worth noting then that if we keep -P simply as the complement set of P, the interpretation of Rexpressions is however not adequately predicted by Qc(P). complement set. We arc thus tau~,fit that negatmn ot P involves also the lifting of the complement set o~ P, P_l_, with _1_ equal to r, the top of P, when P.-P . It is easy to check with diagram (15)c. that this specilication of ~P makes it possible to satisfy Qc(P) in exactly the correct constructions.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Binding l)hase quantiliers", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Following Loebner's claim that logical duality is the cardinal property to recognise t'fm quantihcational", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Binding Square of Duality", |
| "sec_num": "2.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\" P\" t ,", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Binding Square of Duality", |
| "sec_num": "2.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "anteccdent a it is wi~]l no surprise that we get the following square of duality for binding quantifiers\" This new conception of binding seems to have important consequences not only-in terins of the understandintz of de~ndent relerence mechanisms captured by Binding Theory but also in terms of our conception of generalised quantification in natural language, of lhe twofold semantic capacity, of nominal expressmns, referential and quantificational, and maybe even of the nature of grammar devices. Here we cannot do but to limit ourselves to hint how a few central issues ustmlly associated to binding are handled under this new viewpoint, before we proceed to briefly consider its consequences for the implementation of Binding Theory in constraint based grammars.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Binding Square of Duality", |
| "sec_num": "2.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It is well known that though binding principles are assumed to hold universally m all languages, final \"grammatical geometry\" 0ctwcen nominals and their antecedents may be different from language to language. Daliymple (93) pointed out that this is due to language soecffic conditmns impinging (i) on the eligibihty of the antecedent (whether it is a Subicct or not) and(ii) the range of the local domain (whether it IS finite, tensed, etc.). As to (i), Branco and Marrala (97) showed that it is a consequence of a lexical property of the oredicates, whose oblklueness hierarchy nmy be either linear or non linear. A~s to OiL this variation may Lv accommodated in the definitmn 5)f property P in (10), in particular in the definition of local wrt to r', to tie provide for each particular language. Both solutions are perfectly conlluent with the UG standpoint that binding variations across language are the result of ]~ ararneterlzatlt)n.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 454, |
| "end": 477, |
| "text": "Branco and Marrala (97)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Parameterization", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ",exieal cads 4 It is also well known that although the four bi'fidl~g l~rinciples are claimed to be universal there arc languages which have not all tile corresponding fonr ty 9e of nominals. For instance, English is not known ~o have long-distance retlexives. The answer tor this becomes now quite simole: like what happens in otber squares of duality, it is \"possible that not every corner of the square ts lexmalized. Loebner (87) discusses at length the issue. In English, for instance, it is noted that the square of duality concernimz deontic possibility inw)lving right happens to have only two lexicalized corners, right and duty,.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Parameterization", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "and logoohoricity Also v~orth considering here is the bordcrline case where the maximum shrink of selniphase P occurs, i.e. when P is the singleton whose sole clenlent is r, the discourse referent \u00a2vhose interpretation is to bc anchored by finding an antecedent for it. Given the definition of binding phase, quantifiers~ the maximum shrink of P into a singleton affects significantly only the quantiliers where the parameter Doinl/antecedent a is to be found in P, namely QA and QZ. In these cases, for a to he in P an~l\" the qufintification to be satisfied, a can only be r, r being thus its own antecedent. Consequently, although the quantification is satisfied a \"meaningful\" anchoring of the discourse referent r is still to be accomplished smce by the sole effect of quantification satisfaction r is just anchored to itself. Adlniltedly an overarching interpretability requirement imposes that the significant anchorin~ of nominals be consutnmated. which induces in present case an exceptional loeoohoric effect: for the anaphor (short or long-dis~ahce) to bc interpreted, and given that satisfaction of its binding constraint is ensured, it should thus !\".'ee!y . find an antecedent outside any specific restrtctton. This constitutes thus an exphmation for the excmotion restrictions in the definitions of Principles A and Z and so called logophoric effects associated to exempt anaphors. RestrLctions which appeared until now to be mere stipnlations receive in tins approach a principled j ustification.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Exemption", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The new corleeption of Binding Theory presented in this paper is currently being intcgratecr in an HPSG grammar imolemented in ProFIT 1.54. Space limits restrict us here to a very. brief rationale of that implementation, which will be fully presented in future papers. The interestin,, 3oint to note in tiffs connection is that the new msl~at into binding phenomena ehmted by the discoverv~of their qua!ltihcation.al nature see,.ns to constitute a breakthrough lor the dgstdqratt[nt of gtvlng Binding Theory a lean declarattve, tmplen)entatlqn. Adooting a prmciDle based scmantles m line w~tll Fran'k and Reyle (95) , the central goal is not anymore to filter coindexations between NPs in post-processing but rather to identify the relcwmt sets ol discourse referents against which satisfation of the binding phase quantificatmn expressed by NPs is checked.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 605, |
| "end": 615, |
| "text": "Reyle (95)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": ".... for a lean implementation", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In practical terms that involves first collecting discourse referents into set values of soecific features, requiring a minor extension to \"HPSG feature declaration. Second, given the possible non local nature of the elements of a given set, in order to awhd termination pr9blems ' solne mechanism of delaying constraint satisfaction Ires to be ensured.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": ".... for a lean implementation", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The research reported here present a cogent argtnnent for the quantificational nature of sentential dependent reference relations among nominals. This radically new conception ot' binding appears as a decisive step towards a full lean declarative enconlpassing of Binding Theory in constraint based ,,~ratnnmrs. It may have a'lso opened new intriguing ~lirections for the research on natural langtm.ge generalised quantification, on the apparent twolold semantic capacity of nominals, referential and quantificational, or on the nature of gralrnnar devices.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusions", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Though it is cmpixically not necessary, [or the sake of uniformity, when -P.P, the order-theoretic dual of this specification of -P can be assumed.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Special thanks me due to Palmira Mamd'a and Hans U'szkoreit for their advice and discussion and to Berthokl Crysmann for his detailed comments.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Acknowledgements", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Lectures m~ (;overmnent and Birding", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Cholnsky", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Cholnsky (81), Lectures m~ (;overmnent and Birding, Finis, Dordrecht.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "A Binding Rule for Govcrmnenl-binding Parsing", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Corrca", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "COLING'88 Proceedil~gs", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Corrca (88), \"A Binding Rule for Govcrmnenl-binding Parsing\", COLING'88 Proceedil~gs.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Oepen and Uszkoreit (96), Final Report of EAGI.ES Formalisms Working Group", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Becket", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Calder", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Capstick", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Erhach", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Manandhar", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "'", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Mineu", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Van Noord", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "l~ackofcn, Becket, Calder, Capstick, 1)ini, I)6rrc, Erhach, Estival, Manandhar, Mineu,', van Noord, Oepen and Uszkoreit (96), Final Report of EAGI.ES Formalisms Working Group.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Generalized Quantifiers and Natural I.anguage, L&I' 4", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Cooper", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Barwisc", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "159--219", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Barwisc and Cooper (81), Generalized Quantifiers and Natural I.anguage, L&I' 4, 159-219.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Proceedings of I)iscottrse Anaphora and Resolution Colloquium", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Botlcy, Glass, McEncry and Wilson, eds. (96), Proceedings of I)iscottrse Anaphora and Resolution Colloquium, Lancaster UlfiVcrsity.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Long-l)istance Ret]exives and the Binding Square of Opposition", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Marrafa", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hranco", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "4th International Conf. on HPSG", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Hranco and Marrafa (97), \"Long-l)istance Ret]exives and the Binding Square of Opposition\", 4th International Conf. on HPSG.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Towards a Binding Theo W ./m' HI'S(;, Phi) dissertation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Brcdenkamp", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Brcdenkamp (96), Towards a Binding Theo W ./m' HI'S(;, Phi) dissertation, Univ. of Essex.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "The Syntax qf Amqflu)ric Binding, CSLI, Stanford. l:rbach (95), l'rol'7T 1.54 User's Guide, DFKI. Forig (90)", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dahymple", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of ACL MeetiJlg", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "105--110", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dahymple (93), The Syntax qf Amqflu)ric Binding, CSLI, Stanford. l:rbach (95), l'rol'7T 1.54 User's Guide, DFKI. Forig (90), \"Free lndcxation: Colnbinatorial Analysis and a Compositional Algorithm\", Proceedings of ACL MeetiJlg, 105- 110.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Prillciple Based Semantics lot IIPSG", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "'", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Reyle", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Proceedings o1' EA C1.'95 Meeting", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "t,'rank and Reyle (95), \"Prillciple Based Semantics lot IIPSG\", Proceedings o1' EA C1.'95 Meeting.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "A Computational Approach to P, inding Theory", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Pianesi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Giorgi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Satta", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Proceedings o[ COIdN(;'90", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "1--6", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Giorgi, Pianesi and Satta (90), \"A Computational Approach to P, inding Theory\", Proceedings o[ COIdN(;'90, 1-6.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "C'omputatiotml Linguistics 2 l. lngria and Stalhml (89), A Computational Mcchanism for Pronominal Reference", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Joshi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Grosz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Wcinstein", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of ACL Meeting", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "262--271", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Grosz, Joshi and Wcinstein (95), \"Centering: A Framework for Modelling the Local Coherence of Discourse\", C'omputatiotml Linguistics 2 l. lngria and Stalhml (89), A Computational Mcchanism for Pronominal Reference, Proceedings of ACL Meeting, 262-271. Kaplan and Maxwell (88), \"An Algorithm for Functional Uncertainly\", I'roc. ql COLING'88.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Quantification as a Major Modttle of Natural l:mguagc Selnantics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Loel~nct", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Studies in DR7\" and the Theory ~)", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Loel~nct J (87), \"Quantification as a Major Modttle of Natural l:mguagc Selnantics\", it', Croenendijk, Jongh and Stokhof, eds., Studies in DR7\" and the Theory ~)['(;eneralized Quant~fimw. D'oris, l)ordreeht.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Indexing and Referential l)ependencics within Binding Theory", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pianesi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Proceedings q/ F.ACI, ('ot!l~erence", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "39--44", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Pianesi (91), \"Indexing and Referential l)ependencics within Binding Theory\", Proceedings q/ F.ACI, ('ot!l~erence, 39-44.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Head-Driven t'hrase Structure Gl'a/itnlar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Sag", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pollard", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Pollard and Sag (94). Head-Driven t'hrase Structure Gl'a/itnlar, CSLI, Stanford.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "A New Pe,spective on ('hincse Ziji", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Pollard", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Xuc", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Sag", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Proceedings q[ the West Coast Cot([orence on l:ormal Linguistics", |
| "volume": "13", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Xuc, Pollard and Sag. (94), \"A New Pe,spective on ('hincse Ziji\". Proceedings q[ the West Coast Cot([orence on l:ormal Linguistics, vol. 13, CSLI, Stantord.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "95) and Botley et al. (96). 2Vd. Chomsky(81 ), Corrca(88), Ingfia el al (89), Fong (90), Giorgi e/al. (90), Piancsi (91 ).", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "ll)Kim said Lee thinks Maxi hit himself/. *Kim said l~eei thinks Max hit himsell'i. QA: XP.s\u00b0mc'(Xx'(GSI(-P,a)<x<~a)", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "12) *Kim said Lee thinks Max/hit him/. Kim said Lee/thinks Max hit him/. QB:XP.no'(Xx.(GSI(M ), a) < x _< a),P)", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">2.1 Phase quantilication</td><td>ingredients</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">(51' conmarahility with diagrams (5) involving time arrow, Hasse dtaognnns for obliqueness are displayed with a turn of 90 right):</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">(8) Kim said l.ee saw Max.</td></tr><tr><td>(D-</td><td>0</td><td>O</td></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "In order to show that the above rot'rated nominals express phase quantifiers the relevant comppnents involved in phase quantification should |50 identltied. The relevant scale here is not the continuous linear order of nloments of lime, as for stilllab'eady, hut a discrete partial order made of discourse referents (cf. DRT) arranged according to the relative obliqueness of grammatical functions. Note that in multiclausal constructions there is the corresponding subordination of different chmsal obliqueness hmrarchles (for the sake" |
| }, |
| "TABREF6": { |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td>p</td><td>~P</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>i:J:</td><td>l</td><td>m</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">a_...~ I \\o I</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Let D be ix: GSI(P,a)<x_<. a}, t.he domain of QC. \"I'akin~: (15)b., it is easy to check tlmt in constructions like ([5)a., D is always empty. In fact, it is not the case that GSI(P,a)_<a as a=x [is not comparable to any element of P, and afortiori it is not comparable to the bottom.of P. Consequently, every(D,P) is trivially true wllatever discourse referent xn we take as antecedent for r, and not every'(D,P) is trivially false. The interpretation of (15)a. sketched in (15)b. would thus be incorrectly ruled out. What these considerations seem then to suggest is that, when phase quantification operates on non linear orders, negation of the operand P is slightly, more complex tSan simple Boolean negation renderinz the</td></tr><tr><td/><td>or</td><td/><td>'</td><td>~</td><td>,</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>~P</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>a.__.~ I o [ xn</td><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "John said Kimj thinks Lee saw Max." |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
