Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 37–48 | Cite as

Discourse subordination and logophoric binding

Original Paper
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

This paper considers intersentential binding of logophoric expressions, using Japanese zibun as a test case. It is shown that such binding is only possible between discourse segments connected by a subordinating discourse relation. A variant of dynamic predicate logic is proposed to analyze these facts.

Keywords

Logophoricity Dynamic semantics Discourse structure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anand P., Nevins A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Proc. of SALT XIV, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  2. Asher N., Lascarides A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher N., Vieu L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 115, 591–610Google Scholar
  4. Bresnan J. (2001), Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson G., Spejewski B. (1997). Generic passages. Natural Language Semantics 5, 101–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, ForisGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckardt R. (2001). Reanalysing selbst. Natural Language Semantics 9, 371–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirose Y. (1997). Hito o arawasu kotoba to syoo’oo. In: Nakau M. (eds), Sizi to Syoo’oo to Hitei. Tokyo, KenkyushaGoogle Scholar
  10. Iida M. (1996). Context and binding in japanese. Stanford: CSLI. Ph.D Thesis, Stanford University, 1992Google Scholar
  11. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht, Reidel, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  12. Mann W., Thompson S. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9, 57–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin S. (1975). A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven, Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. McCready, E. (2003a). The dynamics of a Japanese reflexive pronoun. K. Hasida, K. Nitta (Eds.). In New frontiers in artificial intelligence: Joint proceedings of the 17th and 18th annual conferences of the Japanese society for artificial intelligence Lecture Notes in Computer Science series. Berlin: Springer Verlag (in press).Google Scholar
  15. Oshima, D. (2004). Zibun revisited: empathy, logophoricity, and binding. In: Proc. University of Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Washington, pp. 175–190.Google Scholar
  16. Schlenker P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 29–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sells P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 445–481Google Scholar
  18. Wang L., McCready E., Asher N. (2006). Information dependency in quantificational subordination. In: von Heusinger K., Turner K. (eds), Where semantics meets pragmatics: The Michigan papers. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 268–304Google Scholar
  19. Webber B., Stone M., Joshi A., Knott A. (2003). Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics 29, 545–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yu X. (1992). Challenging chinese reflexive data. Linguistic Review 9, 285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhu, S. (1997). A dynamic semantic theory of Chinese anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  22. Zribi-Hertz A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65, 695–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishAoyama Gakuin UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations