this paper. Towards that end, comments are welcome. 1 (1) S

This paper is drawn from my 1994 Stanford dissertation of the same name (copies of which are available from http://kinks.phil.cmu.edu/manning/papers/, or by contacting the author), which should be consulted for further information, acknowledgements and references.

Introduction 1 We present data showing that, unlike other long-distance anaphors widely documented in the literature, the Portuguese ele próprio is not subjectoriented. This supports a reformulation of Principle Z, encompassing subject-oriented and non subject-oriented long-distance anaphors, which shows up as the fourth binding principle. The striking internal congruence of the resulting four principle based Binding Theory cogently makes it apparent that the binding symmetries are far more rich than the distributional symmetry between anaphors and pronouns assumed to be the only one to hold by most of the research of the last three decades. In particular, adequate formalization of those symmetries 1 For helpful discussion, we are grateful to the participants of the 11th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, Kyung Hee Univ., Seoul, December 1996, the Long-Distance Reflexives Wor

1.1 Accounting for disjoint reference Obviation versus Blocking. Two approaches to the distribution of anaphors and pronominals have been explored in Binding Theory. The OBVIATION approach, originating in Lasnik 1976 and extensively developed in the GB tradition, posits autonomous disjoint reference principles which directly filter out illicit coindexations in certain structural domains. The BLOCKING approach treats disjoint reference derivatively, by making anaphors obligatory under coreference in the binding domain, and invoking a syntactic or pragmatic principle that forces disjoint reference pronominals in the “elsewhere ” case. 1 1 My interest in reflexive pronouns comes partly from historical syntax and partly from the Case theory that Dieter Wunderlich and I have been thinking about since 1991. The first version of this paper was written that year, and I was fortunate to be able to discuss it with Dieter at the time, who made insightful suggestions especially about the Swedish material. I then set it aside for some years, realizing that many of the things I was trying to do were being done in a more sophisticated way by Reinhart & Reuland and by Burzio. Still, my conclusions differed from theirs on some points, and so I returned to the paper in 1996, adding the OT analysis, which was presented at an OT syntax conference at Stanford, and revising it once more for this publication in honor of Dieter Wunderlich. I am grateful to Cleo Condoravdi for her detailed comments on several drafts of this paper and for her advice and encouragement over the years. Special thanks also to Annie Zaenen and Peter Sells for their guidance, and to Ekkehard König and Tomas Riad for the interest they have take in this work. Many people have been generous with their

This paper develops within HPSG a model of grammar with two syntactic levels, valence lists and argument structure, at which sentences may have different representations: syntactically ergative and Western Austronesian languages are distinctive by allowing different prominence orderings between the valence lists and argument structure, while forms like passives and causatives have nested argument structure lists. While binding theory and related phenomena have traditionally been described in terms of surface grammatical relations or configurations, we demonstrate that binding theory is actually correctly described in terms of argument structure configurations. Such an approach generalizes nicely over accusative and ergative constructions, correctly predicts binding patterns with causative and passive verbs, and supports the lexicality-preserving account of passives and causatives a...

this paper we will only propose them for universal principles, though there are some intriguing possibilities for language-particular application as well. But to make serious proposals along these lines, one would need to have a restrictive theory of what kinds of conditionals are found in natural-language grammars, something we will not attempt to provide here.

Abstract not found

The semantic treatment of anaphora using #-DRT with Glue which I present combines the strengths of both by assigning to each the task where it arguably fares best: Glue composes meanings and DRT deals with anaphoric resolution. Key to this approach is a simple first-order system for #-DRT that allows LFG syntactic constraints to be transferred into the dynamic representation language. This parallels the transfer of such constraints into Glue types. Whereas approaches treating anaphora using Glue context management take advantage of this transfer, an earlier approach also leaving the treatment of anaphora to a compositional variant of DRT failed to account for syntactically-motivated anaphoric resolution constraints. On the other hand, the existing Glue context management approaches come not only at the cost of coupling context management with meaning composition, but also at the additional cost of the various remedies to the problems this uneasy cohabitation results in. The best of these approaches and the one presented here are currently very similar with respect to the range of phenomena they can correctly account for, but there are reasons to believe the latter is more scalable.

Glue semantics provides a semantics for Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) that is expressed using linear logic (Girard, 1987; Dalrymple, 1999) and provides an interpretation for the f(unctional)-structure level of syntactic representation, connecting it to the level of s(emantic)-structure in LFG’s parallel projection architecture (Kaplan, 1987, 1995). Due to its use of linear logic for meaning assembly, Glue is resource-sensitive:

this paper that consideration of typologically diverse languages shows that this design decision in the architecture of Universal Grammar is mistaken. After outlining my approach to argument structure, I briefly present four situations in which there are mismatches between argument structure and grammatical relations and argue from that evidence that the core constraints of binding theory -- both the definition of binding domains and the relationship between an anaphor and its antecedent -- should rather be described in terms of argument structure configurations. I then outline what an argument-structure-based account of binding looks like, before concluding with some discussion about how far this account can be pushed -- about what other factors influence binding possibilities.