NonRedundancy and Backward Anaphora

About This Presentation

Title:

NonRedundancy and Backward Anaphora

Description:

Backward anaphora falls in the realm of pragmatics. ... Extending Schlenker's system, backward anaphora can shown to be constrained by ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:43

Avg rating:3.0/5.0

Slides: 130

Provided by: ciscl9

Category:

more less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: NonRedundancy and Backward Anaphora

1
Non-Redundancy and Backward Anaphora

Valentina Bianchi
University of Siena

2
What I am aiming at

Reinhart (1983-) binding vs. accidental
coreference. Backward anaphora falls in the realm
of pragmatics.
Schlenker (2005) a semantic approach to
A-binding in a dynamic top-down system.
Extending Schlenkers system, backward anaphora
can shown to be constrained by the Principle of
Non-Redundancy

3
Four observations about backward anaphora

i) Backward anaphora is blocked when the
R-expression bears (new information) focus
(1) a. (As for John, who does his wife really
love?)
His wife loves JOHN
Sua moglie ama GIANNI
Backward anaphora is possible when the
R-expression is destressed
(1) b. (-As for John, I believe his wife hates
him. -You're wrong)
His wife LOVES John
Sua moglie AMA Gianni

4
Four observations about backward anaphora

ii) Focus doesn't block coreference when the
co-referring terms are both pronominal
(2) (Who does your/my/his wife really love?)
a. My wife loves ME Mia moglie ama ME
b. Your wife loves YOU Tua moglie ama
TE
c. His wife loves HIM Sua moglie ama
LUI

5
Four observations about backward anaphora

iii) Focus does not block coreference when the
co-referring terms are both R-expressions
(3) (Context who does John's wife really love?)
John's wife loves JOHN
La moglie di Gianni ama GIANNI

6
Four observations about backward anaphora

iv) Focus is irrelevant in configurations of
Principle C violation
(4) a. John/he claims that Mary hates JOHN
Gianni/lui dice che Maria odia
GIANNI
b. John/he claims that Mary HATES John
Gianni/lui dice che Maria ODIA Gianni

7
Four observations about backward anaphora

In conclusion, we observe the interplay of two
factors
the placement of (new information) focus
the intrinsic content of the coreferring DPs
(i) Focus effect in pro R configurations
(ii) Focus irrelevant in pro pro
configurations
(iii) Focus irrelevant in R R configurations
(iv) Focus irrelevant in pro/R R ..
configurations

8
My reconstruction of the standard account

(1) a. His wife loves JOHN.
b. His wife LOVES John.
Focus movement in (1a) creates a WCO
configuration
(5) FocP JOHNi IP hisi wife loves ti
? The WCO constraint rules out binding.
In fact, a bound interpretation of (2) is
impossible
(2) a. My wife loves ME Mia moglie ama
ME
a. The x such that x's wife loves x is
me (sloppy)
b. The x such that my wife loves x is
me (strict)

9
My reconstruction of the standard account

(5) FocP JOHNi IP hisi wife loves
ti (LF)
(7) Pronoun binding can only take place from a
c-commanding A-position. (Büring 2004, 24, after
Reinhart 1983)
? (5) is not a possible binding configuration
? Reinhart's Rule I does not exclude coreference
in (5).
Focussed phrases can establish coreference
relations
(8) Only Joel voted for his proposal. (Büring
2005, 262)
a. Joel is the only x such that x voted for
x's proposal (sloppy)
b. Joel is the only x such that x voted for
Joel's proposal (strict)

10
My reconstruction of the standard account

(1) a. His wife loves JOHN.
b. His wife LOVES John.
What excludes coreference in (1a), as opposed to
(1b)?
(9)Topic-antecedent constraint (Reinhart
1986,138 2000) Backward anaphora is possible
only if the antecedent is in sentence-topic
position. (Sentence-topic defined as in Reinhart
1981).
(10) a. When he entered the room, vMax greeted
vBill.
b. When he entered the room, vMax was greeted
by Bill.
? (9) is satisfied in (1b), not in (1a).

11
My reconstruction of the standard account

The Topic-antecedent constraint does not extend
to (2)
(2) a. My wife loves ME.
b. Your wife loves YOU.
c. His wife loves HIM.
or, even more strikingly, to (3)
(3) John's wife loves JOHN.
The Topic-antecedent constraint
does not apply to all pairs of co-referring terms
is crucially sensitive to directionality

12
Schlenker (2005) on A-binding

The sequence of evaluation of a sentence
represents the linguistic context w.r.t. which a
constituent is evaluated. It includes
a) those objects that are given by the mere
existence of the speech act, i.e. the speaker and
an addressee,
b) the objects that have been linguistically
introduced ,i.e. which are the denotation of the
terms that have already been processed.
The sequence of evaluation represents a state of
a memory register, which is constructed as a
sentence is processed, top down, in accordance
with specific rules.

13
Schlenker (2005) on A-binding

(i)R-expressions (proper names, demonstrative
pronouns and definite descriptions) when an
R-expression is processed, its denotation is
added at the end of the register. (Demonstr.
pronouns bear a positive index).
(ii) Indexical and bound pronouns bear negative
indices, which indicate how far back in the
sequence the denotation is to be found. When a
non-demonstrative pronoun is processed, some
element in the register is recovered and moved to
the end of the register, leaving an empty cell
() in the original position.
(iii) The speaker/authorA and the
addressee/hearerH are always the first elements
of any sequence (e.g. jAmH)

14
Schlenker (2005) on A-binding

(iv) An n-place predicate is evaluated w.r.t. the
last n elements of the sequence (i.e., it is
interpreted after all its arguments, in the
lowest position of the VP shells.)
(12) Ann hates Bill (said by John to Mary)
?(12)?w, jAmH 1 iff
(Step 1 subject processed) ?hates Bill?w,
jAmHa 1, iff
(Step 2 object processed) ?hates?w, jAmHab
1, iff
(Step 3 predicate evaluated) ab ? Iw(hate)
Bill told Ann that he-2 runs (said by John to
Mary) jAmH ?
jAmHb (subject processed) ?
jAmHb a (first object processed) ?
jAmHbap, with p?w. ?he-2 runs? w,
jAmHb a ?
?w.?runs ? w, jAmHab ? ?w.b? Iw(run)

15
Non-Redundancy

Non-Redundancy No object may occur twice in the
same sequence of evaluation.
(14)a. John is happy (said by John to Mary)
jAmHj ( NR)
b. Mary is happy (said by John to Mary)
jAmHm ( NR)
(15) Bill/ he1 likes Bill
jA mHbb ( NR Principle C effect)
Apparent violations of NR are due to different
guises (cf. Heim 1998 see also Schlenker 2006)

16
Backward anaphora configurations

(17) Bill's teacher likes Bill.
The key is that the VP hates Bill is evaluated
under a sequence that contains Bills teacher
but not Bill himself, with the result that
Non-Redundancy is satisfied. (Schlenker 2005,
16)
? The subject NP is evaluated w.r.t. a different
sequence from that of the matrix predicate.
Problem 1. This crucial locality of the sequences
of evaluation should be made explicit in the
system.

17
Backward anaphora configurations

(18) His1 teacher likes Bill.
Schlenker (2005, fn. 15) His is a demonstrative
pronoun (positive index), not an anaphoric one
(negative index).
? Schlenker essentially reproduces in his system
the bound/free dichotomy in terms of
demonstrative/non-demonstrative pronouns.
Problem 2. Coreferring pronouns are not properly
characterized in Schlenkers (2005) system.

18
A revision of Schlenkers system

I propose the following two amendments
The semantic computation must be made sensitive
to phases. Each phase has a local sequence of
evaluation (as is already implicit in Schlenker
s system).
In addition to local sequences, there is also a
global memory register, which keeps track of
potential antecedents a pronoun can retrieve an
element either from a local sequence (A-binding)
or from the global one (coreference).

19
Local sequences of evaluation

(19) Bill likes Eds teacher (said by John to
Mary) jAmH ?
jAmHb ?
jAmHbe ?
jAmHbed (es teacher)
?like?w jAmHbed wrong truth conditions!
?like?w jAmHbd, where d ?Eds teacher?w s??
? The object DP must be evaluated w.r.t. a
separate sequence, and returns to the matrix
sequence the result of the evaluation (d).
(20)Bill likes his-1 teacher.
?like?w jAmHbt, where t ?his-1 teacher?w
jAmHb
? In order for his to recover its antecedent, the
sequence of the object DP must inherit what is
contained in the matrix clause sequence.

20
Local sequences of evaluation

(21) Bill likes Bills teacher
?like?w jAmHbt, with t ?the Bill teacher?w
jAmHb ?
?teacher? jAmHb b (NR)
? NR is violated because the object DP inherits
the content of the matrix clause sequence, which
already includes b.
(17) Bill's teacher likes Bill
?like Bill?w jAmHt, with t ?the Bill
teacher?w jAmH
?like?w jAmHt b (Schlenker 2005, 16)
? the matrix clause sequence does not inherit
what is contained in the subject DP sequence.

21
Local sequences of evaluation

In sum
Sequences of evaluation must be local for any
argumental constituent - minimally, CP and DP.
The sequences are linked by inheritance relations
which capture the effects of c-command the
sequences of the embedded constituents inherit
the content of the matrix sequence, but only
transmit back to it the result of their semantic
computation.

22
Top-down phases

Chesi (2004a,b) proposes a syntactic top-down
system in which the computation is divided in
phases
A phase is the minimal part of a top-down
computation in which all the functional and
selectional specifications associated to a given
lexical phase head (minimally, N or V) are
satisfied (cf. Grimshaw 1991).
A phase n gets closed when the last selected
position of its head is processed the last
complement constitutes the sequential phase n1.
Any DP or CP which is not the lowest complement
is a computationally nested phase (nn ), which
must be computed while the computation of phase n
is still open.

23
Top-down phases

(22) sellO S
sell sell O S
Phase n
the boys sellO
Phase n1
the book
Phase n corresponds to an incomplete subtree,
with a top-down expectation for a complement
phase (O).

24
Phase-local sequences of evaluation

(23) Each CP or DP phase has a local sequence of
evaluation.
i. A sequential phase n1 inherits the local
sequence of the immediately preceding phase n.
ii. A nested phase nm also inherits the local
sequence of the superordinate phase n (in the
state it has reached when the computation of nm
begins) nm does not transmit back its local
sequence with any elements added to the
superordinate phase n, but only the result of the
computation.

25
Phase-local sequences of evaluation
26
Phase-local sequences of evaluation
27
Phase-local sequences of evaluation
28
Phase-local sequences of evaluation
29
Phase-local sequences of evaluation
30
Phase-local sequences of evaluation
31
Phase-local sequences of evaluation
32
The global memory buffer

In addition to local sequences, a global memory
buffer, accessible from any phase, stores the
contextually available elements and keeps track
of the potential antecedents for inter-sentential
anaphora.
(25) At any given point of the computation, the
global buffer contains
i. the discourse referents for the speaker and
addressee(s)
ii. The salient familiar discourse referents
(Roberts 2003, 320-337 discourse referents
pertaining to the immediate question
under discussion in the hierarchical discourse
structure, cf.Roberts 1996).

33
The global memory buffer

Non-salient familiar discourse referents, as well
as novel referents, get to be stored in the
global buffer only if they satisfy the following
necessary condition
(26) Only a DP bearing new information focus can
introduce an element in the global buffer.
? The effect of a DP on the global buffer depends
both on its intrinsic content (negative vs.
positive/no index) and on its status w.r.t. the
Information Structure of the clause.

34
The global memory buffer

The global memory buffer is not directly used to
evaluate truth-conditions it is a repository of
discourse referents, probably placed at the
interface between semantics and the
pragmatic/discourse level
various pragmatic/discourse factors may
determine the relative prominence of the
discourse referents in the global buffer and
their decay (e.g. distance effect on salience
Roberts 2003, Reinhart 2004)
there may be a designated position in the
global buffer encoding the current topic or
center (Grosz et al. 1995 di Eugenio 1990
Frascarelli 2006)

35
The global memory buffer

(i') An anaphoric pronoun retrieves an element
from within the local sequence of the current
phase and moves it to the last position
(binding), or it copies an element from the
global buffer into the last position of the local
sequence (coreference).
(ii') A focussed R-expression introduces an
element both in the local sequence and in the
global buffer.
(iii') A non-focussed R-expression introduces an
element in the local sequence, but not in the
global buffer.
? Anaphoric destressing signals that an
R-expression does not modify the global buffer.

36
The global memory buffer

By Schlenkers (iv), the predicate must be
interpreted after all of its arguments this
requires that the semantic computation of a phase
contrary to the syntactic computation include
its lowest complement, which will be a
semantically nested phase.
Alternatively, we might perhaps assume an
incremental interpretation along the lines of
Carlson (1984). In the following discussion, I
represent the lowest complement as a non-nested
phase.

37
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt (As for John, who does his
wife really love?)

CPltgt
38
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1
DPltgt
CPltgt
39
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1
DPltggt
CPltgt
40
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
DPltggt
CPltgt
41
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
DPltggt
CPltgt
42
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
DPltggt
CPltmgt
43
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
ama
DPltggt
CPltmgt
44
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
ama
DPltggt
CPltmgt
45
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
ama
DPltggt
CPltmgt
DPltmgt
46
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
ama
GIANNI
DPltggt
CPltmgt
DPltmggt
47
Analysis of (1a)

(1) a. CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmg ggt Non-Redundancy(ii)

Sua-1 moglie
ama
GIANNI
DPltggt
CPltmgt
DPltmggt
48
Analysis of (1b)

(1) b. CP DP Sua-1 moglie AMA DP Gianni
Gl ltsAaHmggt (-As for John, I believe his
wife hates him.-No,)

49
Analysis of (1b)

(1) b. CP DP Sua-1 moglie AMA DP Gianni
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
AMA
DPltggt
CPltmgt
DPltmgt
50
Analysis of (1b)

(1) b. CP DP Sua-1 moglie AMA DP Gianni
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
AMA
Gianni
DPltggt
CPltmgt
DPltmggt
51
Analysis of (1b)

(1) b. CP DP Sua-1 moglie AMA DP Gianni
Gl ltsAaHmggt Global buffer unaffected (iii)

Sua-1 moglie
AMA
Gianni
DPltggt
CPltmgt
DPltmggt
52
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt (Who does your wife really love?)

CPltgt
53
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt

Mia-3
DPltgt
CPltgt
54
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt

Mia-3
DPltsAgt
CPltgt
55
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt

Mia-3 moglie
DPltsAgt
CPltgt
56
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt

Mia-3 moglie
DPltsAgt
CPltgt
57
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt

Mia-3 moglie
DPltsAgt
CPltmgt
58
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt

Mia-3 moglie
ama
DPltsAgt
CPltmgt
59
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt

Mia-3 moglie
ama
DPltsAgt
CPltmgt
60
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt

Mia-3 moglie
ama
DPltsAgt
DPltmgt
CPltmgt
61
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt

Mia-3 moglie
ama
ME-3
DPltsAgt
DPltmsAgt
CPltmgt
62
Analysis of (2a)

(2) a. CP DP Mia-3 moglie ama DP ME-3
Gl ltsAaHmgt Global buffer unaffected (i)

Mia-3 moglie
ama
ME-3
DPltsAgt
DPltmsAgt
CPltmgt
63
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmgt (Who does John's wife
really love?)

CPltgt
64
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmgt

La moglie di Gianni
DPltgt
CPltgt
65
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmgt

La moglie di Gianni
DPltggt
CPltgt
66
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmgt

La moglie di Gianni
DPltggt
CPltgt
67
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmgt

La moglie di Gianni
DPltggt
CPltmgt
68
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmgt

La moglie di Gianni
ama
DPltggt
CPltmgt
69
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmgt

La moglie di Gianni
ama
DPltggt
CPltm(iii)gt
70
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmgt

La moglie di Gianni
ama
DPltggt
CPltmgt
DPltmgt
71
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmgt

La moglie di Gianni
ama
GIANNI
DPltggt
DPltmggt
CPltmgt
72
Analysis of (3)

(3) CP DP La moglie di Gianni ama DP GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHmggt

La moglie di Gianni
ama
GIANNI
DPltggt
DPltmggt
CPltmgt
73
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt

CP1ltgt
74
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt

Gianni
CP1ltggt
75
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt

Gianni sostiene
CP1ltggt
76
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt

Gianni sostiene
CP1ltggt
77
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt

Gianni sostiene
CP1ltggt
CP2ltggt
78
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt

Gianni sostiene
che Maria
CP1ltggt
CP2ltgmgt
79
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt

Gianni sostiene
che Maria odia
CP1ltggt
CP2ltgmgt
80
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt

Gianni sostiene
che Maria odia
CP1ltggt
CP2ltgmgt
81
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt

Gianni sostiene
che Maria odia
CP1ltggt
CP2ltgmgt
DPltgmgt
82
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHggt
Non-Redundancy

Gianni sostiene
che Maria odia
GIANNI
CP1ltggt
CP2ltgmgt
DPltgmggt
83
Analysis of (4a)

(4) a. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria odia
GIANNI
Gl ltsAaHgggt Non-Redundancy
Non-Redundancy

Gianni sostiene
che Maria odia
GIANNI
CP1ltggt
CP2ltgmgt
DPltgmggt
84
Analysis of (4b)

(4) b. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria ODIA
Gianni
Gl ltsAaHggt

CP1ltgt
85
Analysis of (4b)

(4) b. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria ODIA
Gianni
Gl ltsAaHggt

Gianni sostiene
che Maria ODIA
CP1ltggt
CP2ltgmgt
DPltgmgt
86
Analysis of (4b)

(4) b. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria ODIA
Gianni
Gl ltsAaHggt
Non-Redundancy

Gianni sostiene
che Maria ODIA
Gianni
CP1ltggt
CP2ltgmgt
DPltgmggt
87
Analysis of (4b)

(4) b. CP1 Gianni sostiene CP2 che Maria ODIA
Gianni
Gl ltsAaHggt Global buffer unaffected
Non-Redundancy

Gianni sostiene
che Maria ODIA
Gianni
CP1ltggt
CP2ltgmgt
DPltgmggt
88
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmg gt

CPltgt
89
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmg gt

Sua-1
DPltggt
CPltgt
90
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmg gt

Sua-1 moglie
DPltggt
CPltgt
91
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmg gt

Sua-1 moglie
DPltggt
CPltgt
92
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmg gt

Sua-1 moglie
DPltggt
CPltmgt
93
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmg gt

Sua-1 moglie ama
DPltggt
CPltmgt
94
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmg gt

Sua-1 moglie
ama
DPltggt
CPltmgt
95
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
ama
DPltggt
DPltmgt
CPltmgt
96
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmggt

Sua-1 moglie
ama
LUI
DPltggt
DPltmggt
CPltmgt
97
Further predictions demonstrative pronouns

(28) CP DP Sua-1 moglie ama F DP LUI1!
Gl ltsAaHmgggt Non-Redundancy

Sua-1 moglie
ama
LUI
DPltggt
DPltmggt
CPltmgt
98
Further predictions indefinite antecedents

A novel discourse referent is not already
included in the global buffer, hence it cannot be
retrieved from it by a backward pronoun
(29) a. His wife loves a judge.
b. His wife said that a judge was corrupt.
(30) When she was five years old, a child of my
acquaintance announced a theory that she was
inhabited by rabbits. (Reinhart 2004, 296)
?The Thema has scope over clause-initial adjuncts
(Calabrese 1986 cf. the possibility of reversing
the order). Some reconstruction mechanism is
required. BA should be impossible when the novel
antecedent is not the Thema.

99
Concluding remarks

Binding retrieving a local antecedent from
within the sequence of evaluation
Coreference retrieving a non-local antecedent
from the global buffer
Directionality effects support a top-down,
left-to-right semantic computation
The top-down semantic computation of anaphoric
relations may be closely parallel to the
syntactic computation, both divided in phases
Handout available at http//www.ciscl.unisi.it/bi
anchi/

100
Selected references

Chesi, C. 2004a. Phases and Cartography in
Linguistic Computation. Doct diss., University of
Siena.
Chesi, C. 2004b. Phases and Complexity in Phrase
Structure Building. (http//www.ciscl.unisi.it/d
oc/doc_pub/)
Frascarelli, M. 2006.Subjects, topics and the
interpretation of referential pro. An interface
approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Ms.,
University of Rome III.
Grosz, B., Joshi, A.K., Weinstein, S. 1995.
Centering a framework for modelling the local
coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics
21.2, 203-225.
Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic
Interpretation. Chicago The University of
Chicago Press.
Reinhart, T. 1986. Center and periphery in the
grammar of anaphora. In B. Lust (ed.), Studies in
the Acquisition of Anaphora, vol I, 123-150.
Reinhart, T. 2000. Strategies of anaphora
resolution. In Bennis, H., Everaert, M.
Reuland, E. (eds.), Interface Strategies,
Amsterdam, North Holland.
Schlenker,P.2005. Non-redundancy towards a
semantic reinterpret-ation of binding theory.
Natural Language Semantics 13, 1-92.
Williams E. 1997. Blocking and anaphora.
Linguistic Inquiry 28, 577-628.

101
Principle B effects

(31) Bill likes him-1
jA mH ?
jA mHb ?
jA mHb
?like? w, jAmHb the interpretation of the
2-place predicate w.r.t. the last two cells is
undefined

102
Principle A effects

(32) a. Ann hates herself-1 ((39) p. 27)
a. Ann SELF1/2-hate her-1
?a? w, jAmH ? SELF1/2-hate her-1 ? w,
jAmHa ?
? SELF1/2-hate? w, jAmH a ?
1 iff a a ? Iw(hate)

103
The strict/sloppy ambiguity

(33) Bill claims that he-1 runs, and Sam does
too. (pp. 31-)
Sloppy reading ?ltclaims that he-1 runsgt ? w
jAmHs the pronoun will retrieve s from the
local sequence
Strict reading the pronoun adds to the sequence
the value that its antecedent had recovered from
the sequence in the course of the interpretation
of the antecedent clause, i.e. b.

104
Semantically nested complement