Abstract
We provide a formal model for the interaction of syntax and pragmatics in the interpretation of anaphoric binding constraints on personal and reflexive pronouns. We assume a dynamic semantics, where e-type expressions introduce discourse referents, and contexts are assignments of individuals to discourse referents. We adopt the Partial Compositional Discourse Representation Theory (PCDRT) of Haug(2014b),which models anaphoric resolution in terms of a pragmatically-established relation between discourse referents. We integrate PCDRT into the constraint-based grammatical framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), and show how it is possible to state syntactic constraints on the pragmatic resolution of singular and plural anaphora within this framework.
Highlights
Pronouns are among the most frequently occurring words in many languages, including English, and speakers find no difficulty in using them and, for the most part, determining their reference in a particular context
In this paper we provide a formal model for the interaction of syntax and pragmatics in the interpretation of anaphoric binding constraints on personal and reflexive pronouns
We implement the model using Partial Compositional Discourse Representation Theory (PCDRT) as the semantic framework, but the only information that needs to be available at the syntax-pragmatics interface is a function that takes anaphoric expressions to their antecedents
Summary
We adopt the binding theory of Dalrymple (1993, 2001), who builds on original work by Bresnan et al (1985) in proposing four domains which are relevant for anaphoric binding: the Root Domain, i.e. the domain consisting of an entire sentence or utterance; the Minimal Finite Domain, i.e. the minimal syntactic domain containing a finite element; the Minimal Complete Nucleus, i.e. the minimal syntactic domain containing an argument with the grammatical function subject; and the Coargument Domain, i.e. the minimal domain defined by a predicate and the arguments it governs. These examples illustrate the differing nature of the binding constraints on English personal and reflexive pronouns, encoded in Chomsky’s Principles A and B as the difference between bound and free anaphoric elements. The index of the coargument is properly included in the index of the pronoun: [Alani (and Bertiej)]i/i+j like(s) themi+j+k. B. The index of the pronoun is properly included in the index of its coargument: [Alani, Bertiej, and Charliek]i+j+k like himi/themi+j. The large number of acceptable examples of Pattern A indicate that syntactic constraints do not rule out this pattern, but that unacceptable examples are ruled out by some combination of semantic or pragmatic conditions Several instances of this pattern reported in the literature involve first-person singular subjects with a coargument first-person plural personal pronoun:. I really like us. (Kiparsky 2002, 19) For reasons that are not clear to us, reported judgements of the reverse pattern (We...me) are more often judged as unacceptable, as we discuss below
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
