<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W06-1509">
  <Title>Binding of Anaphors in LTAG</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Binding Theory (B&amp;quot;uring, 2005; Reuland and Everaert, 2001) is an issue at the interface of syntax and semantics which has previously been avoided in the LTAG literature. While LTAGs were initially concerned only with the syntax of natural languages, recent accounts of semantic computation in the LTAG framework (Kallmeyer and Joshi, 2003; Kallmeyer and Romero, 2004) allow us now to tackle interface phenomena. An appropriate formulation of Binding Theory (BT) is needed to explain the pattern exhibited in (1-3).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  (1) Johni likes himselfi.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> (2) * Johni likes herselfi.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> (3) * Himselfi likes himselfi / Johni.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  Due to the incredible complexity of the data in question, we will focus here on English reflexives (himself, herself) and reciprocals (each other), typically subsumed under Condition A (Chomsky, 1981).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> This paper proposes a new two-component lexical entry for reflexive pronouns that takes care of the syntactic and semantic dependencies involved in binding (agreement and coreference). In this approach, different binding options (e.g., in a ditransitive sentence) follow from different derivations. In section 3, we show how our analysis extends straightforwardly to reciprocals. Section 4 presents the extension of our account to anaphors with nonlocal antecedents, such as the experiencers of raising verbs, and ECM subjects. Further issues, including extraction, are discussed in section 5. Section 6 concludes.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>