Binding Theory

Büring, Daniel

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802669

Cited by 215 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This notion of binding is what Heim and Kratzer (1998) and Büring (2005a) call semantic binding and what Reinhart (2006) calls A-binding. Notice that, according to this notion, [John] binds [his] in (4).…”

Section: Basic Terminology Notation and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Condition B effects in two simple steps

Roelofsen

2010

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with constraints on the interpretation of pronominal anaphora, in particular Condition B effects. It aims to contribute to a particular approach, initiated by Reinhart (Anaphora and semantic interpretation, 1983) and further developed elsewhere. It proposes a modification of Reinhart's Interface Rule, and argues that the resulting theory compares favorably with others, while being compatible with independently motivated general hypotheses about the interaction between different interpretive mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Basic Terminology Notation and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Condition B effects in two simple steps

Roelofsen

2010

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is highly influenced by Chomsky's Binding Theory (1981), which is not an AR method per se, but rather a set of constraints useful to exclude otherwise potential antecedents. These constraints follow two principles: Principle A states that reflexive and reciprocal pronouns find their antecedents within their governing category (the smallest clause that includes them); Principle B states that 3rd person personal pronouns find their antecedents outside of the clause that includes them (Reinhart, 1983;Büring, 2005). 4 Our strategy for anaphora resolution recalls in several ways the one used by Hobbs (1978) or Lappin & Leass (Lappin and Leass, 1994), adapted to the specific structures of the Fips parser.…”

Section: Binding Theory Armentioning

confidence: 99%

Rule-Based Pronominal Anaphora Treatment for Machine Translation

Loáiciga

Wehrli

2015

Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we describe the rule-based MT system Its-2 developed at the University of Geneva and submitted for the shared task on pronoun translation organized within the Second DiscoMT Workshop. For improving pronoun translation, an Anaphora Resolution (AR) step based on Chomsky's Binding Theory and Hobbs' algorithm has been implemented. Since this strategy is currently restricted to 3rd person personal pronouns (i.e. they, it translated as elle, elles, il, ils only), absolute performance is affected. However, qualitative differences between the submitted system and a baseline without the AR procedure can be observed.

show abstract

“…The basic case of partial binding in (4) can be accounted for straightforwardly by allowing pronouns to bear sets of indices (Büring 2005;Heim 2008;Higginbotham 1983;Rullmann 2003;Sportiche 1985). The idea is that if a pronoun has two or more indices, its denotation will be the sum of the values of these indices.…”

Section: Set Indicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dependent plural pronouns with Skolemized choice functions

Sudo

2014

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper discusses two interesting phenomena concerning phifeatures on plural pronouns: (i) plural pronouns that denote atomic individuals ('dependent plural pronouns'), and (ii) plural pronouns with more than one binder ('partial binding'). A novel account of these two phenomena is proposed, according to which all occurrences of phi-features are both semantically and morphologically relevant. For such a 'uniformly semantic account' of phi-features, dependent plural pronouns constitute a theoretical challenge, while partial binding is more or less straightforwardly accounted for. In order to make sense of the semantic effects of the phi-features on dependent plural pronouns, the following idea is pursued: the phi-features on a dependent plural pronoun reflect the range of values that the pronoun takes, rather than the particular value it denotes at a time. This idea is implemented in a compositional semantics by making use of (Skolemized) choice functions. An appealing feature of the present account is that, unlike its predecessors, it accounts for dependent plural pronouns without c-commanding antecedents in essentially the same way as for those with c-commanding antecedents. It is also shown how this account of dependent plural pronouns can straightforwardly be augmented with set indices to account for partial binding.

show abstract

Binding Theory

Cited by 215 publications

References 0 publications

Condition B effects in two simple steps

Condition B effects in two simple steps

Rule-Based Pronominal Anaphora Treatment for Machine Translation

Dependent plural pronouns with Skolemized choice functions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About