<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-2158">
  <Title>Anaphor Resolution and the Scope of Syntactic Constraints</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="937" end_page="938" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Constraints and Preferences
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="937" end_page="937" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.1 Morphosyntactic Agreement
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> A quite strict constraint requires the pronoun to agree with its antecedent in person, number, and gender. In example 1 (1) The father visited his daughter.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> She had invited him on Sunday.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> the antecedents for hint and size are identified uniquely as father and daughter', respectively.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="937" end_page="938" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.2 Syntactic Constraints
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The following data substantiate the syntactic restrictions which are to be employed:  (2a) The barbe~ shaves hirnselfi.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (2b) * The clienti appreciates that the barbcr shaves himselfi.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> These examples suggest that reflexive pronouns choose their antecedents in some kind of local domain. On the other hand, examples (3a) * The barberi shaves himi.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> (3b) The elienti appreciates  that the barber shaves himi.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> indicate that the admissible structural positions of antecedents for nonretiexive pronouns are distributed complementarily, i.e. these pronouns choose their antecedents outside of their local domain. An even more stringent restriction holds for nonpronominal nouns: (/ta) * The barber) shaves the barberi. (~b) * The client,i appreciates that the barber sttaves the clicnt,i.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> But even here, configurations exist in which intrasentential antecedents are possible: *The examples are given in English. The phenomena and its implications translate directly to German. (4c) The barber who shaved the clienti told the elienti a story.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> Ctlomsky provides a formal description of these observations as part of his Government and Bindlug (GB) Theory (Chomsky, 1981; Chomsky, 1986). Binding Theory (BT) distinguishes three types of NP, namely type A ('anaphor', comprising reflexives and reciprocals2), type B (nonreflexire pronouns), and type C ('referring' expressions, comprising common nouns and names). The restrictions are stated as binding principles: Definition 1 (binding principles)  (A) An anaphor is bound in its binding category. (B) A pronominal is free (i.e. not bound) in its binding category.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> (C) A referring expression is free (i.e. not bound)  in any domain.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> where binds is a relation which is defined on the NP nodes of the (surface) phrase structure tree: Definition 2 (the binding relation) Node X binds Node Y if and only if X and Y arc coindexed and X e-commands Y.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> where (definitions vary slightly): Definition 3 (the c-command relation) Node X e-commands node Y if and only if the next b~nnehing node which dominates X also dominates Y and neither X dominates Y, Y dominates X nor X=Y.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> The central part of the Binding Theory develops the notion of local domain to which binding principles A, B, and C refer as binding category: Definition 4 (binding category) Node X is binding category of node Y if and only if X is the next node which dominates Y, and which contains a subject that e-commands Y.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> Due to these definitions, the acceptability judgements for the data presented above are reproduced by binding principles A, B, and C. For each example, the subject demarcating the (local) binding category is just the ordinary subject of the subordinate clause. (One has to recall that, in phrase structure trees, the subject c-commands the content of the VP.) The notion of subject, however, is a more general one, applying also to some kinds of nominal phrase attributes, in particular certain variations of genitives and possessives:  (,5) Peter listens to Sam'si story about himself. 2In this paper, the notion of anaphor is used more generally. When referring to anaphor in the Chom~ skyan sense, the notion reflexive/reciprocal (pronoun) is used.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="938" end_page="938" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.3 Antecedent Predictability
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> For eataphorie pronominal resumptions, a constraint is applied which has l)een described l)y  Kuno (Kuno, 1987). According to (6@ The barber who shaved himi told the: client |a story.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (6b) * The barber who shaved him|  told a clienti a story.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> a dcJiniteness requirement has to be fulfilled, ruling out antecedents which are not predictable, i.e. not a.lready introduc, ed in the. discoursedeg</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="4" start_page="938" end_page="938" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.4 Case Role Inertia
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> in g(meral, the constraint applicatioil will not single out a uifique antecedent. Depending on the tyl)e of anaphor to be resolved, preferenc(,s are applied, coinprising the rather superficial and selfexf)lanatory criteria of recen(:y, cataphor penalty, and sul)ject preference. The case role inertia criterion, which proved to/)e very useful in practice, is explainal)h; by the following examt)le: (7) Peter visited his brvther.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> lte showed him his ne'.w car.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Unless given further information, there see, ms to I)e a strong tendency to choose the antecedents in a way that the, syntactic and/or semantic case roles of the pronouns re, produce the corresponding roles of the, it antecedents. Thus, the pre, ference rule suggests Peter as the, ~mtecedent for lie, and brother as the antecedent for him. As can t)e demonstrated by fllrth(,'r e, xamples (e.g. changing from active, to passive voice or vice versa), retaining the semanti(: case role should outvote retaining the synta(:tic (:as(; role. In cases in whi(:h semantic (:ase is not available, however, promoting syntactic (:as(', t)arallelism serves as a good at)proximal|on.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> In its effect, this prefl;rence rule al)proximat(;s the' often suggested heuristic of ke, eping rather then shifting ret?;rential focus (of. (Sidner, 1983)).</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>