ࡱ > 0 2 - . / @ OY bjbjqq e 9 2
2
2
B
\ \ \ 8 ] ^ ^ e : e e e f j j T 8 8 $ R n
m f f m m R
R
e e 4 g~ g~ g~ m R
< e
e g~ m g~ g~ J Y
|
d e ^ `8 \ u x X D 0 _ z B _ d R
R
R
R
_
r d j k h g~ k T Fl [ j j j B / &B E~ " $ ? @ Lecture 9. Pronouns and Reflexives: Syntax and Semantics
TOC \o "1-2" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389111" 1. Review of Chomskys (syntactic) Binding condtions. PAGEREF _Toc195389111 \h 1
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389112" 2. Semantic binding vs. coreference. PAGEREF _Toc195389112 \h 2
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389113" 2.1. Basics of semantic binding PAGEREF _Toc195389113 \h 2
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389114" 2.2 The c-command requirement on semantic binding and why QNPs cannot be bound PAGEREF _Toc195389114 \h 5
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389115" 2.3. Binding vs. coreference with non-quantificational antecedents PAGEREF _Toc195389115 \h 5
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389116" 3. Grodzinsky and Reinhart on the scope of binding theory. PAGEREF _Toc195389116 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389117" 3.1. Acquisition Findings and Their Possible Interpretations. PAGEREF _Toc195389117 \h 7
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389118" 3.2. Anaphora. PAGEREF _Toc195389118 \h 8
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389119" 3.3. Cutting the experimental pie. PAGEREF _Toc195389119 \h 11
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389120" 4. Revision of next 3 weeks schedule. PAGEREF _Toc195389120 \h 11
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389121" Homework #4: Prepare a presentation for April 29. PAGEREF _Toc195389121 \h 12
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc195389122" References PAGEREF _Toc195389122 \h 12
Readings: Full references and links are in References at the end. These are all on the CD.
(1) ADDIN EN.CITE Reinhart1999982598255Reinhart, TanyaRobert A. WilsonFrank C. KeilBinding theoryThe MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences86-881999Cambridge Mass MIT Presshttp://www.let.uu.nl/~tanya.reinhart/personal/Papers/pdf/BINDIN-3.FIN.word.pdf(Reinhart 1999) Binding theory
(2) Bring ADDIN EN.CITE 2004984298426Bring, DanielBinding TheoryCambridge Textbooks in Linguistics2004CambridgeCambridge University Press(2004), Chapters 4 and 5, Binding vs. Coreference, Other Cases of Semantic Binding.
(3) ADDIN EN.CITE Testelets20059938993834Testelets, YakovBinding and Anaphora: Handouts for Five Lectures2005Handouts for a short course at NYInstitute in St Petersburg, July 2005(Testelets 2005), St.Petersburg Lectures on Binding Theory, Lectures 1 and 4.
Optional readings:
(4) ADDIN EN.CITE Chomsky19809270927017Chomsky, NoamOn bindingLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry1-46111980(Chomsky 1980) On binding; (5) ADDIN EN.CITE Bach1980840284025Bach, EmmonPartee, Barbara H.Kreiman, JodyOjeda, Almerindo E.Anaphora and semantic structurePapers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora1-281980ChicagoChicago Linguistic Societyhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdf(Bach and Partee 1980) Anaphora and semantic structure;
(6) ADDIN EN.CITE Reinhart19934548454817Reinhart, Tanya Reuland, EricReflexivityLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry657-72024BindingTheory1993(Reinhart and Reuland 1993) Reflexivity (for next week); (7) ADDIN EN.CITE Grodzinsky19932050205017Grodzinsky, YosefReinhart, TanyaThe Innateness of Binding and CoreferenceLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry69-10224LanguageAquisition1993http://freud.tau.ac.il/~yosef1/papers/grodzinsky_reinhart.pdfhttp://freud.tau.ac.il/~yosef1/papers/grodzinsky_reinhart.pdf(Grodzinsky and Reinhart 1993) The innateness of binding and coreference; (8) ADDIN EN.CITE Pollard19924381438117Pollard, CarlSag, Ivan A.Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding TheoryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry261-30323.2ReciprocalReflexive1992http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdfhttp://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdf(Pollard and Sag 1992) Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory (for next week); (9) ADDIN EN.CITE Fischer20049921992117Fischer, SilkeOptimal bindingNatural Language & Linguistic TheoryNatural Language & Linguistic Theory481526222004(Fischer 2004) Optimal binding
Review of Chomskys (syntactic) Binding condtions.
(Review from Lecture 5)
A central question is how to describe and explain the differences in distribution between plain pronouns like he, she, it (called pronominals, or pronouns, in Chomskian Binding Theory) and reflexive pronouns himself, herself, itself (anaphors in Chomskian Binding Theory), and similar forms in other languages. Reinhart (1999) begins as follows:
Binding theory is the branch of linguistic theory that explains the behavior of sentence-internal anaphora, which is labelled 'bound anaphora' . The sentences in ( REF LucieThoughtThatLiliHurtHer 1) each contain an anaphoric expression (she, herself), and a potential antecedent (Lucie or Lili).
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Lucie thought that Lili hurt her.
b. Lucie thought that Lili hurt herself.
c. *Lucie thought that herself hurt Lili.
The two anaphoric expressions have different anaphora options: In ( REF LucieThoughtThatLiliHurtHer 1a), only Lucie can be the antecedent; in ( REF LucieThoughtThatLiliHurtHer 1b), only Lili; in ( REF LucieThoughtThatLiliHurtHer 1c), neither can. This pattern is universal. ADDIN EN.CITE Reinhart19999825, p.8698255Reinhart, TanyaRobert A. WilsonFrank C. KeilBinding theoryThe MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences86-881999Cambridge Mass MIT Presshttp://www.let.uu.nl/~tanya.reinhart/personal/Papers/pdf/BINDIN-3.FIN.word.pdf(Reinhart 1999, p.86)
Binding Theory is concerned primarily with the differences between the distributions of pronominals like her and reflexive pronouns like herself.
What does binding mean in syntax?
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Syntactic binding: NP1 syntactically binds NP2 iff NP1 and NP2 are coindexed and NP1 c-commands NP2.
The Binding conditions proposed in ADDIN EN.CITE Chomsky1981746374636Chomsky, NoamLectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures1981DordrechtForis(Chomsky 1981) can be summarized as follows; what a local domain is must be specified; to a first approximation its a clause. These conditions (and alternatives to them) are known by these names, so one has to learn to associate Condition A with reflexives, Condition B with pronouns, and Condition C with full NPs.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Binding conditions
Condition A: An anaphor must be bound in its local domain.
Condition B: A pronoun must be free in its local domain.
Condition C: An R-expression must be free.
These conditions rule out the impossible choices of co-indexing in ( REF LucieThoughtThatLiliHurtHer 1), and also account for the contrasts in the following.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Felixi invited himselfi.
b. *Felixi invited himi. (This is a condition B violation)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Felixi heard himselfi sing.
b. *Felixi heard himi sing. . (A condition B violation)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Luciei believes that we should elect heri.
b. *Luciei believes that we should elect herselfi. . (A condition A violation)
It is argued that these conditions are universal, with parametric variation across languages (and perhaps even across particular subclasses of anaphors and pronominals within a language) on the relevant definition of local domain.
Issues to focus on, especially in a semantics course like this:
How do the syntactic binding conditions relate to the semantics of anaphora? What happens when we distinguish bound variable anaphora from coreference and/or pragmatic anaphora?
More distinctions: different kinds of reflexives, various properties of anaphoric expressions in various languages. Whats the full range of syntactic anaphoric expressions, whats the full range of semantic (or semantic and pragmatic) varieties of anaphora, and how do syntax and semantics correlate cross-linguistically?
Well begin looking at some of these today, especially at the significance of the distinction between semantic bound variable anaphora and coreferential or pragmatic anaphora, and how that leads to fundamental questions about what, if anything, the syntactic binding conditions apply to. The conclusion will be: semantic binding requires syntactic binding, but coreference does not.
Semantic binding vs. coreference.
Bach and Partee ADDIN EN.CITE 1980840284025Bach, EmmonPartee, Barbara H.Kreiman, JodyOjeda, Almerindo E.Anaphora and semantic structurePapers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora1-281980ChicagoChicago Linguistic Societyhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdf(1980); Bring ADDIN EN.CITE 2004984298426Bring, DanielBinding TheoryCambridge Textbooks in Linguistics2004CambridgeCambridge University Press(2004), Chapter 4, Binding vs. Coreference, pp. 81-96, Chapter 5, Other Cases of Semantic Binding, pp. 104-117; Reinhart ADDIN EN.CITE 1999982598255Reinhart, TanyaRobert A. WilsonFrank C. KeilBinding theoryThe MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences86-881999Cambridge Mass MIT Presshttp://www.let.uu.nl/~tanya.reinhart/personal/Papers/pdf/BINDIN-3.FIN.word.pdf(1999).
2.1. Basics of semantic binding
Bach and Partee (1980) summarize a number of different places where coindexing is used in the literature:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) (i) The same pronoun appears in several places in a sentence:
He said he was OK.
(ii) A pronoun appears together with a referring NP:
John said that he was OK.
(iii) A pronoun appears together with a quantificational NP:
No woman doubts that she is OK.
(iv) A pronoun appears in a relative clause:
the woman who said that she had found the answer.
(v) A reflexive or other obligatorily bound pronoun appears in a sentence:
John loves himself.
Oscar is out of his head. (idiom meaning is crazy; *Oscar is out of your head.)
Bach and Partee: It is really only in situation ( REF BachParteeExamples 7i) (in some sentences) and ( REF BachParteeExamples 7ii) that it seems appropriate to talk about coreference. In every other case coindexing a pronoun with some other expression is a shorthand way of saying that the pronoun in question is being interpreted as a bound variable. The same point is emphasized by Reinhart ADDIN EN.CITE 19827613761317Reinhart, TanyaPragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topicsPhilosophicaPhilosophica53-942719821983454745476Reinhart, TanyaAnaphora and semantic interpretation1983LondonCroom Helm19837614761417Reinhart, TanyaCoreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questionLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy47-8861983(1982, 1983a, 1983b).
As Bring (2004, p. 82) notes, when we replace the pronouns in ( REF BachParteeExamples 7ii) and ( REF BachParteeExamples 7iii) by copies of their antecedent NP, we get very different results.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) John said that John was OK.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) No woman doubts that no woman is OK.
Sentence ( REF JohnSaidThatJohnWasOK \* MERGEFORMAT 8) is (usually said to be) anomalous because of its Condition C violation, but at the same time it is a semantically accurate paraphrase of ( REF BachParteeExamples \* MERGEFORMAT 7ii).
Sentence ( REF NoWomanDoubtsThatNoWoman \* MERGEFORMAT 9), on the other hand, is not syntactically anomalous at all it does not seem to be a Condition C violation but it has a very different meaning from ( REF BachParteeExamples \* MERGEFORMAT 7iii). The pronoun in ( REF BachParteeExamples \* MERGEFORMAT 7iii) in no way corefers with its antecedent; the antecedent no woman is not a referring expression at all.
So in ( REF BachParteeExamples \* MERGEFORMAT 7iii) we have semantic binding as well as syntactic binding: but what is it that binds the bound-variable pronoun? Think back to how the Quantifying In rule works, and the examples in Homework 2. As weve discussed before, when quantified NPs interpreted as Generalized Quantifiers are Quantified In (or QRd in a Chomskian LF), the NP itself does not bind a coindexed pronoun, but rather a lambda abstractor is adjoined to its sister clause-constituent. The index on the quantified NP signals which variable we lambda-abstract on.
Take Brings example (4.9) (p. 84):
(4.9) Every tenor2 thinks that he2 is competent.
By Montagues Quantifying In rule (see handout, Lecture 3), or very similarly by Mays Quantifier Raising ADDIN EN.CITE May19773684368432May, RobertThe grammar of quantification1977MITPh.D:1985368536856May, RobertLogical Form: Its Structure and Derivation1985Cambridge, MAMIT Press(May 1977, 1985) if augmented as argued by Heim and Kratzer ADDIN EN.CITE 1998801580156Heim, IreneKratzer, AngelikaSemantics in Generative Grammar1998LondonBlackwellhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Heim%26Kratzer.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Heim%26Kratzer.pdfIn Ontology paper(1998), the semantically relevant syntactic structure is as follows:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) S
3
NP S*
6 3
every tenor 2 S
3
NP VP
| 3
he2 thinks S
t2 6
that he2 is competent
The interpretation of the quantified NP has nothing in it with the index 2! Quantified NPs are semantically closed expressions: all of their variables are bound internally to the NP interpretation.
If we treat Heimian indefinites as type <,t>, this would not be true of them. A generalized quantifier interpretation of Heimian a cat3 would be P ( c a t ( x 3 ) & P ( x 3 ) ) ( n o t e ) . B u t i t i s e q u a l l y t r u e i n t h i s c a s e t h a t w h e n s u c h a n i n d e f i n i t e i s a n a n t e c e d e n t o f a p r o n o u n , t h e i n d e f i n i t e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e a n y o p e r a t o r t h a t c o u l d s e m a n t i c a l l y b i n d t h e p r o n o u n . S i m i l a r l y f o r d e f i n i t e N P s . S o w e a r e f a c e d with the following paradox:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Syntactic - Semantic binding paradox: Syntactic binding corresponds to semantic binding only in the case of bound variable pronouns, but an NP antecedent to a bound variable pronoun never binds it!
The resolution of the paradox is seen in the extra node in the tree in ( REF TreeForEveryTenorThinks 10): the adjoined 2 is interpreted as x 2 , a n d i t i s t h a t l a m b d a - o p e r a t o r t h a t s e m a n t i c a l l y b i n d s b o t h t h e t r a c e o f t h e Q R d s u b j e c t e v e r y t e n o r ( h e 2 i n M o n t a g u e s w a y , o r t 2 i n a C h o m s k i a n L F ) a n d t h e c o i n d e x e d p r o n o u n h e 2 , b o t h o f t h e m i n t e r p r e t e d a s b o u n d v a r i a b l e s x 2 .
( L I S T N U M N u m b e r D e f a u l t \ l 1 ) I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e t r e e i n ( R E F T r e e F o r E v e r y T e n o r T h i n k s 1 0 ) : T R ( e v e r y t e n o r ) ( x 2 T R ( h e 2 t h i n k s t h a t h e 2 i s c o m p e t e n t ) )
( B r i n g d o e s t h e d e t a i l s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t l y i n h i s b o o k ; h e l e t s t h e a d j o i n e d b i n d e r , w h i c h h e c a l l s ( 2 , a d j o in to the VP, and it simultaneously puts on a subject argument and accomplishes the lambda abstraction. But there is no real disagreement between what he does, what we have been doing, and what is done in the Heim and Kratzer textbook. All formal semanticists are in basic agreement on this issue, at least for the standard cases of quantified NPs like every tenor.)
Lets refer to the adjoined operator as a binder prefix: its represented as 2 in tree ( REF TreeForEveryTenorThinks 10), a s x 2 i n o u r L e c t u r e 3 f r a g m e n t , a n d a s ( 2 i n B r i n g . I l l f o l l o w B r i n g a n d u s e ( a s a n i c e m n e m o n i c f o r b i n d e r .
( L I S T N U M N u m b e r D e f a u l t \ l 1 ) S e m a n t i c b i n d i n g : A b i n d e r p r e f i x ( s e m a n t i c a l l y b i n d s a n N P i f a n d o n l y i f :
( a ) ( a n d N P a r e c o i n dexed
(b) ( c-commands NP
(c) there is no binder prefix ( which is c-commanded by ( which meets (a) and (b).
If an NP is not bound by any binder prefix ( in a structure P, we say that NP is semantically free in P.
A derivative notion of semantic binding: Since it is the index 2 on every tenor2 that determines the choice of index on the binder prefix (, we also say that in a derivative sense, the NP every tenor semantically binds the pronoun he. Once we admit this way of speaking, there is no longer any paradox.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Vacuous binding. A binder prefix that has no bound variables in its c-command domain doesnt bind anything. In such a situation we speak of vacuous binding.
Whether vacuous binding should be syntactically prohibited or not is debatable. We wont prohibit it, and assume that interpretations involving vacuous binding are simply avoided for Gricean (pragmatic) reasons.
2.2 The c-command requirement on semantic binding and why QNPs cannot be bound
Bring shows very nicely how two central aspects of the binding behavior of quantified NPs follow directly from their semantics.
First of all, why does semantic binding require c-command, while coreference does not?
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. The secretary he8 hired thinks that Siegfried8 is despotic. (Bring (4.20), p. 90)
b. *The secretary he8 hired thinks that each of the tenors8 is despotic.
We could just stipulate it, as in Reinhart (1983a):
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Bound Anaphora Condition (BAC) (Reinhart 1983a, 122, 137)
Quantified NPs and wh-traces (ignore the latter for now BHP) can have anaphoric relations only with pronouns in their c-command syntactic domain.
This rules out ( REF TheSecretaryHeHiredThinks \* MERGEFORMAT 15b) all right, since each of the tenors doesnt c-command he. And it leaves ( REF TheSecretaryHeHiredThinks \* MERGEFORMAT 15a) alone, since Siegfried is a referential expression and not a QNP.
But as Reinhart argues (see also Heim and Kratzer 1998, p. 264), since we know that QNPs do not refer, and therefore dont allow coreference, the only way they can enter anaphoric relations is via semantic binding. So the BAC can be reduced to the following restriction:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Semantic binding requires syntactic binding (i.e. that the binder be coindexed with and c-command the pronoun.)
This is enough to distinguish between ( REF TheSecretaryHeHiredThinks \* MERGEFORMAT 15a) and ( REF TheSecretaryHeHiredThinks \* MERGEFORMAT 15b), since ( REF TheSecretaryHeHiredThinks \* MERGEFORMAT 15a) can just be coreference and therefore doesnt require syntactic binding.
And we can go even further in getting rid of the stipulation, because ( REF SemanticBindingRequiresSyntacticBinding \* MERGEFORMAT 17) actually follows from the definition of semantic binding and the way its semantics works. If a coindexed pronoun is outside of the c-command domain of a QNP, coindexing between them will be semantically vacuous. Why?
Semantic binding involves adjunction of a semantic binder prefix (. Coindexed pronouns are interpreted as bound variables only within the c-command domain of that prefix. And the c-command domain of ( equals the c-command domain of the QNP before the prefix was added. Taken together this gives a theorem.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Theorem: Coindexing between a QNP and a pronoun results in semantic binding only if the QNP c-commands the pronoun.
A syntactic issue remains: since ( REF TheSecretaryHeHiredThinks \* MERGEFORMAT 15b) can be interpreted only as involving a free-variable (pragmatic, or referential) interpretation for the coindexed pronoun, i.e. as involving vacuous binding, should it be ruled out syntactically? Different researchers have made different decisions; its not easy to find evidence. Bring argues for allowing it, and letting pragmatics explain why we wouldnt use it. (See the end of Section 2.1.)
2.3. Binding vs. coreference with non-quantificational antecedents
(See Bring Chapter 5.) As we illustrated in Lecture 5, we can distinguish between binding and coreference even when the antecedent is a referential expression. In Lecture 5 we used the strict vs. sloppy identity contrast to show the distinction, using examples like the following.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) John loves his wife and so does Bill [love his wife]. Possible interpretations:
(i) John loves Maxs wife, and Bill loves Maxs wife. (strict identity, coreference)
(ii) John loves Johns wife, and Bill loves Johns wife. (strict identity, coreference )
(iii) John loves Johns wife, and Bill loves Bills wife. (sloppy identity, binding )
There are no mix and match readings, with coreference in one conjunct and binding in the other. This is like VP-ellipsis with quantificational subjects, where either both pronouns are bound or both are referential, and if both are referential, they must have the same referent.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Every woman in Culver City [hates her neighbor], but no woman in Los Feliz does [hate her neighbor].
(i) strict identity, a free-variable her identified pragmatically: its all about Ms. Joness neighbor, for instance.
(ii) sloppy identity, i.e. strict semantic identity via binding: Every woman in C.C. hates her own neighbor, but no woman in Los Feliz hates her own neighbor.
Other kinds of constructions also make it clear that referential NPs can stand in binding relations to pronouns. Focus constructions are another good example.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) I only said that Tatiana should stay in her room.
(i) I didnt say that anyone other than Tatjana should stay in Tatjanas room. (coreference; may involve one single room.)
(ii) I didnt prohibit anyone other than Tatjana from leaving his/her room. (Binding by binding prefix associated with Tatiana.)
(iii) I didnt say that anyone other than Tatjana should stay in Marinas room. (Unbound, non-coreferential pronoun, refers pragmatically.)
We can see in these cases as well that semantic binding requires syntactic binding, but coreference does not.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Zelda bought Siegfried a present on his wedding day, and Felix too. (i.e. she bought Felix a present on his wedding day). Can be SLOPPY or STRICT.
b. Zelda thought [about Siegfried] on his wedding day, and Felix too. STRICT only.
Grodzinsky and Reinhart on the scope of binding theory.
Grodzinsky and Reinhart ADDIN EN.CITE 19932050205017Grodzinsky, YosefReinhart, TanyaThe Innateness of Binding and CoreferenceLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry69-10224LanguageAquisition1993http://freud.tau.ac.il/~yosef1/papers/grodzinsky_reinhart.pdfhttp://freud.tau.ac.il/~yosef1/papers/grodzinsky_reinhart.pdf(1993) The innateness of binding and coreference.
Summary: This is a reply to Grimshaw and Rosen ADDIN EN.CITE 19902038203817Grimshaw, Jane; Rosen, Sarah ThomasKnowledge and Obedience: The Developmental Status of the Binding TheoryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry187-22221BindingTheoryLearningChildLanguage1990(1990). [Unlike the authors, I will use G&R for Grodzinsky and Reinhart, not for Grimshaw and Rosen!] Grimshaw and Rosen argued that the standard binding theory, as formulated in GB, is innate, in spite of some apparent counterevidence in acquisition experiments. G&R argue that the data are more supportive of Reinharts long-standing claim that the principles that govern binding are distinct from the principles that govern coreference, which are indeed innate. Both Grimshaw and Rosen and G&R appeal to the need to carefully distinguish grammatical knowledge from performance/processing facility, and both claim that children innately have some knowledge which they have trouble applying, but the accounts of what the principles are and what the processing problems are differ.
This paper is interesting in two different ways: (1) Support from acquisition data for an interesting theoretical claim about separating different sorts of anaphora (binding and coreference; in Reinhart ADDIN EN.CITE 1995713371332Tanya ReinhartInterface Strategies1995OTS, Utrecht University.(1995) this is modified, following suggestions of Heim, to binding and covaluation; and (2) a sample of the kind of work on anaphora which could be done by someone interested in working on acquisition.
Key definitions.
GB Binding Theory: ADDIN EN.CITE Chomsky19809270927017Chomsky, NoamOn bindingLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry1-461119801981746374636Chomsky, NoamLectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures1981DordrechtForis(Chomsky 1980, 1981)
Condition A: An anaphor is bound in its governing category. [e.g. reflexive pronouns.]
Condition B: A pronoun is free in its governing category. [e.g. plain personal pronouns.]
Condition C: An R-expression is free. [e.g. names.]
Reinharts Binding Theory: ADDIN EN.CITE Reinhart19834547, pp. 86,9145476Reinhart, TanyaAnaphora and semantic interpretation1983LondonCroom Helm(Reinhart 1983a, pp. 86,91) ADDIN EN.CITE Reinhart19934548before 454817Reinhart, Tanya Reuland, EricReflexivityLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry657-72024BindingTheory1993(before Reinhart and Reuland 1993)
a. Definition:
A node A is bound by a node B iff A and B are coindexed and B c-commands A.
b. Conditions:
A. An anaphor is bound in its governing category.
B. A pronoun is free in its governing category.
c. Translation definition:
An NP is a variable iff either
i. it is empty and A-bar bound, or
ii. it is A-bound and lacks lexical content.
Other cases of NP coindexation are uninterpretable.
[Conditions A and B will later be replaced with Reinhart and Reulands Reflexivity Conditions.]
Basic assumption: the only interpretation of coindexation is the bound variable one.
Coreference Rule: Rule I: Intrasentential Coreference. ADDIN EN.CITE Reinhart19834547, p.9145476Reinhart, TanyaAnaphora and semantic interpretation1983LondonCroom Helm(Reinhart 1983a, p.91) [p79]
NP A cannot corefer with NP B if replacing A with C, C a variable A-bound by B, yields an indistinguishable interpretation.
3.1. Acquisition Findings and Their Possible Interpretations.
Children seem to know the conditions concerning bound variable anaphora much earlier than they master the conditions concerning coreference.
Test for condition A: find high performance. G&R believe its because tests are done with anaphors like reflexives which have only bound-variable interpretation.
Test for condition B: find mixed results.
Sentence type (1a): Oscar touches him. Performance: 50% of the time him = Oscar.
Sentence type (1b): Every boy touches him. High performance.
Reinharts earlier conclusion: Condition B is a condition on variable binding, and children know it. They dont know all about coreference, or have some problems with it.
Alternative interpretation: Grimshaw and Rosen 1990. Distinguish knowing a rule from obeying it. Some new experiments, some reinterpretation of older ones.
Patterns of typical test data:
(2) a. This is A. This is B. Is A washing him?
OPTIONS
b. A washes A.
c. A washes B.
(3) B says that A should touch him.
OPTIONS
b. A touches A.
c. A touches B.
Types of task: Act - out, or grammaticality judgment does this sentence correctly describe this picture?
Grimshaw and Rosens observation: Performance at 50% for (2b), near 100% for (2c). If they dont know condition B, why should there be such a difference? Grimshaw and Rosen claim they do know Condition B, and offer independent reasons for why they perform better on Condition A and on variable-binding cases of Condition B, than on the coreference cases.
G&Rs competing conclusion: (2b) and (2c) are not related by any linguistic rule. We review Reinharts analysis (Sec. 2 of G&R) in Section 3.2 below; objections raised by Grimshaw and Rosen are addressed in 3.2.4 (their 3.2). Section 3.3 (their Sec 3) returns to experimental findings and argues for G&Rs interpretation of them.
3.2. Anaphora.
3.2.1. Binding and coreference.
(4) a. Luciei adores heri friends.
b. Alfredi thinks hei is a great cook.
(5) a. Most of heri friends adore Luciei.
b. A party without Luciei annoys heri .
(6) a. *Every actressi adores heri .
b. Every scholari thinks that hei is a great cook.
(7) a. *Most of heri friends adore every actressi .
b. *A party without every actressi annoys heri .
Contrast (5) and (7): environments allowing coreference are not identical to those that allow bound variable anaphora. The latter is more restricted, as shown by (7). Standard Binding Theory adds extra conditions to account for (7), which it takes as the marked case.
But pronouns are the exceptional case, compared with the real anaphoric elements: reflexives, wh-traces, NP-traces, PRO. Pronouns can choose their reference freely from discourse; the others cant.
(8) a. Luciei adores herselfi . (reflexive)
b. Whoi ti smiled? (wh-trace)
c. Felixi was fired ti . (NP-trace)
d. Alfred promised PROi to cook well. (PRO)
Generalization for all anaphors except the pronouns: (p73) Except for (referentially used) pronouns, all anaphoric elements share the same syntactic generalization: to be interpretable at all, they must be syntactically bound, that is, coindexed with a c-commanding antecedent.
All the anaphoric elements in (8) are interpreted as bound variables. Reinharts conclusion: Binding conditions regulate only bound variable anaphora.
Pronouns fall under the binding condition only when they are interpreted as bound variables. Ambiguity evidence, even when antecedent is a name: strict/sloppy identity facts. (p74).
Pronouns may be bound variables in all and only the environments where the binding conditions allow them to be syntactically bound, regardless of the semantics of the antecedent.
(9) Alfred thinks he is a great cook.
a . A l f r e d ( x ( x t h i n k s x i s a g r e a t c o o k ) )
b . A l f r e d ( x ( x t h i n k s h e i i s a g r e a t c o o k ) )
( 1 0 ) . . . , a n d F e l i x d o e s t o o .
T h i s i s j u s t l i k e w h a t w e s a w a t t h e e n d o f S e c t i o n 2 i n o u r e x a m p l e s w i t h s t r i c t / s l o p p y i d e n t i t y a n d f o c u s e d a n t e c e d e n t s .
3 . 2 . 2 . T h e Binding Theory.
See Reinharts definitions given at the beginning of Section 3 of this handout.
Effect: Coindexation that cannot be interpreted as bound variable anaphora has no interpretation.
Examples (5) and (7) above both excluded; the pronouns in (5) must be interpreted referentially, choosing some reference from the context, which might be Lucie. This possibility isnt open in (7); a QNP cant be coreferential with anything.
3.2.3. The Coreference Rule.
Coindexation in the GB binding theory can be interpreted as either bound variable interpretation or coreference. For Reinhart it can mean only bound variable interpretation. How to capture coreference?
Generalizations to capture:
(i) no essential difference between how a pronoun gets its value from the non-linguistic context and how it gets its value from the linguistic context.
(ii) coreference is part of discourse-level anaphora; binding is part of sentence-level anaphora. Discourse level anaphora shouldnt be sensitive to sentence-level syntactic conditions.
So: coreference is the assignment of identical values to NPs with distinct syntactic indices. [regardless of whether they occur in the same sentence or not.]
Not explained by anything so far: No coreference possible in the following: (p78)
(18) a. Luciei adores herk .
b. Hei adores Alfredk .
c. He/Alfredi thinks that Alfredk is a great cook.
d. Alfredi thinks that the guyk is a great cook.
This is what Conditions B and C were for. But there are problems for conditions B and C, in particular problems concerning coreference (not binding).
(19) a. (Who is this man over there?) He is Colonel Weisskopf.
b. Only Churchill remembers Churchill giving the speech about blood, sweat, toil, and tears. ADDIN EN.CITE Fodor1975832583256Fodor, Jerry A.The Language of Thought1975Cambridge, MAHarvard University Press(Fodor 1975).
c. Everyone has finally realized that Oscar is incompetent. Even he has finally realized that Oscar is incompetent. ADDIN EN.CITE Evans19806437643717Gareth EvansPronounsLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry337-362111980(Evans 1980).
d. I know what Ann and Bill have in common. She thinks that Bill is terrific, and he thinks that Bill is terrific. ADDIN EN.CITE Evans19806437adapted from 643717Gareth EvansPronounsLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry337-362111980(adapted from Evans 1980).
e. I dreamt that I was Brigitte Bardot and that I kissed me. (Lakoff)
f. *Oscar is sad. He thinks that Oscar is incompetent.
Attempts to amend conditions to account for these are unsatisfactory. E.g. Evans accounts for (19c,d) by saying that nondependent coreference is possible when there is a previous antecedent in the discourse. But then why is (19f) bad? Some have tried to eliminate all negative conditions on the interpretations of pronouns, but Reinhart believes that covaluation (coreference, suitably generalized) is definitely part of the linguistic meaning of sentences like those in (19) on their intended interpretations, and that there are indeed constraints on when it is possible.
Constraint: Condition I (see page 7, just before Section 3.1.) Look at how it rules out the examples in (18), and why the ones in (19) are OK.
Intuitive characterization: In the standard cases the easiest way to express coreference is by means of binding. When this option is avoided without the relevant motivation, lack of coreference intention is inferred.
3.2.4. Objections and replies.
Frequent mistaken objection:
Shouldnt rule I block anaphora of the pronoun in (22), where bound anaphora is possible?
(22) a. John enjoys most stories about him/himself.
b. She pulled the blanket over her/herself.
Reply: In this case the pronoun is also interpreted as a bound variable; quantified antecedents are possible. This is a case that argues for a more sophisticated binding theory, not any problem concerning rule I. See e.g. Reinhart and Reuland 1993. Similar issues for long-distance anaphors.
Grimshaw and Rosen: Wouldnt Rule I incorrectly allow coreference in (24a)?
(24) *a. Many students expect them to leave.
b. Many students expect themselves to leave.
c. M a n y s t u d e n t s ( x ( x e x p e c t s x t o l e a v e ) )
d . M a n y s t u d e n t s e x p e c t t h a t t h e y w i l l l e a v e .
T h e a r g u m e n t r e s t s o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i v e v s . c o l l e c t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n ( a n a m b i g u i t y i n ( 2 4 d ) ) i s r e d u c i b l e t o t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n r e f e r e n t i a l a n d bound pronouns. In that case, Rule I should allow coreference in (24a) on the collective interpretation, since replacing the pronoun with an anaphor gives the distributive reading only.
But is the distributive/collective ambiguity equivalent to bound/referential? No.
(25) a. Ben and Lucie consider themselves a perfect couple.
b. Ben and Lucie expect themselves to be a perfect couple.
c. Ben and Lucie consider themselves a perfect couple and Max and Lili do too.
Collective and bound. So (24b) above actually must be ambiguous. So (24a) has no reading that (24b) doesnt have, so Rule I disallows (24a).
3.3. Cutting the experimental pie.
3.3.1. Pronouns and roses: irrelevant comparisons.
Theory dependence of experimental design. Many standard experimental patterns compare sentences involving different principles. E.g. review the paradigm in (3). (But (2) is relevant.)
3.3.2. Knowledge of binding.
(29) BT-grammatical sentences:
a. Oscari touches himselfi .
b. Berti said that hei ran behind the box.
c. Berti said that Gert touched himi .
Results: 29a close to 100% correct, also 29b, and with hedges, 29c.
(30) BT-ungrammatical sentences:
a. *Oscari said that Bert touches himselfi .
b. *Every boyi touches himi .
These are the right examples to compare with the good examples of (29), because in these sentences, coreference is not an option, so we are testing only the Binding Theory. Results: again close to 100% performance.
So if the division of labor is done right, kids turn out to know the binding theory perfectly well.
Evidence to the contrary came from bad binding theory being tested.
3.3.3. Knowledge of coreference.
(31) Rule I ungrammatical.
a. *Oscar touches him.
b. *He touches Oscar.
c. *He said that Oscar touches the box.
Poorer performance, though better on Condition C violations like (31b,c). Think about what is involved in executing Rule I. Trans-derivational comparison. Work out two derivations and test whether the results are semantically equivalent. Heavy demand. Reasonable to suppose that this accounts for difficulty of children, and also of agrammatic aphasics for whom similar results have been reported.
Revision of next 3 weeks schedule.
Next week, April 15, Lecture 10: we will focus on pronouns vs. reflexives and on different kinds of reflexives (and possibly different kinds of pronouns.) Well begin to get into typological issues, and well make the issues of Homework 4 clearer.
Heres one example of a possible generalization about pronouns vs. reflexives in English, probably too simple: Reflexive pronouns, with certain exceptions, always express bound variables; they are always bound by (the ( prefix of) their antecedent. Plain pronouns may express bound variables or be referential. (Test with strict/sloppy identity.) Affixal reflexives are never referential. Logophoric pronouns (which well include next week) may be referential.
April 22, Lecture 11: Typological issues
April 29, Lecture 12: Student presentations.
(May 6: no class)
May 13, 20, 27, June 3: Other topics to be chosen, for instance some of: Nominal and Temporal Anaphora; Pragmatics and "Pragmatic Anaphora"; Verb Phrase anaphora, anaphora involving other categories (sentential, common noun phrase, adjectival and adverbial anaphora). Participants are invited to send me e-mail telling your preferences.
Homework #4: Prepare a presentation for April 29.
Look at issues of pronouns and reflexives in Russian and/or in other language(s) that you know, and prepare to give a very short presentation in class, with a short handout, April 29. Due April 29. It would probably be a good idea to consult with me in advance and send me a draft of your handout to look at. Ill work on preparing a list of questions to help guide your presentation: Ill send that around before the April 15 class, so that we can also discuss this in Seminar on the 15th and on the 22nd.
References
ADDIN EN.REFLIST Bach, Emmon, and Barbara H. Partee. 1980. Anaphora and semantic structure. In Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, eds. Jody Kreiman and Almerindo E. Ojeda, 1-28. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. [Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 122-152]. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdf
Bring, Daniel. 2004. Binding Theory: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11:1-46.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11:337-362.
Fischer, Silke. 2004. Optimal binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22:481526.
Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grimshaw, Jane; Rosen, Sarah Thomas. 1990. Knowledge and Obedience: The Developmental Status of the Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21:187-222.
0 8 9 : ; R S T U q r s t v w Ȳۮx^SH9H j h2z' UmH nH uh2z' mH nH u h2z' CJ mH nH u2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u h2z' mH nH uh1l h2z' 0J mH nH u$j h1l h2z' 0J UmH nH u hy j hy UhH +hi hi 5CJ \aJ fH q
%hi 5CJ \aJ fH q
hi hH 5CJ aJ hi hi 5CJ aJ hi h^ 5CJ aJ 9 : 4 (
* a @
n ( * gdM gd<
[$
[$
[$
gdH $a$gd> V X BY NY . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 R S T U t ·©©{{j·©P© 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u jw h xr UmH nH u h2z' mH nH u 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u h2z' mH nH uh1l h2z' 0J mH nH uh2z' CJ mH nH u$j h1l h2z' 0J UmH nH u h1n mH nH u j h2z' UmH nH u j} h xr UmH nH u t u v
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
F
G
H
I
淬{j淬P 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u jk h xr UmH nH u 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u h2z' mH nH uh1l h2z' 0J mH nH uh2z' CJ mH nH u$j h1l h2z' 0J UmH nH u h1n mH nH u jq h xr UmH nH u j h2z' UmH nH uh2z' mH nH u I
$ % & ' ( ) * + , H I רziר j_ h xr UmH nH u 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u h2z' mH nH uh2z' CJ mH nH u$j h1l h2z' 0J UmH nH u h1n mH nH u je h xr UmH nH u j h2z' UmH nH uh2z' mH nH u h1l h2z' 0J mH nH u I J K źӄ{aźPӄ{ jS h xr UmH nH u 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u h2z' mH nH uh2z' CJ mH nH uh1n mH nH u jY h xr UmH nH u j h2z' UmH nH uh2z' mH nH u h1l h2z' 0J mH nH u$j h1l h2z' 0J UmH nH u 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u > ? @ Z [ \ ^ _ ` a b c ăz`O jG h xr UmH nH u 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u h2z' mH nH uh2z' CJ mH nH uh1n mH nH u jM h xr UmH nH u j h2z' UmH nH uh2z' mH nH u $j h1l h2z' 0J UmH nH u 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u h1l h2z' 0J mH nH u
9
:
;
=
>
?
@
A
B
^
_
`
a
k
l
m
ӰᙎncIӎ 2j
h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u h1n mH nH u jA
h xr UmH nH u j h2z' UmH nH uh2z' mH nH u ,h1l h2z' 0J fH mH nH q
u 2j h1l h2z' >*B*UmH nH ph u h2z' mH nH uh1l h2z' 0J mH nH u$j h1l h2z' 0J UmH nH u h2z' CJ mH nH u
n ·ssg[WOWOWOW j h1a Uh1a h< fH q
h1a fH q
h fH q
j h UfH q
hK)` fH q
h< h 2 hH 5hH j hy CJ Uh2z' CJ mH nH u$j h1l h2z' 0J UmH nH u h1n mH nH u j h2z' UmH nH u j; h xr UmH nH u n r s j k { | & ' ( * , -
& ' 3 D F H J K $ $ 0$ 1$ [$ ]$ _$ a$ b$ +( ,( B( C( w( ( ( ( ( ( * * * * * %+ &+ '+ >+ ʺ hG h CJ aJ h CJ aJ j h4 Uh4 hM hXoI h j h Uhux9 h< 5\ hK)` 5\ j h>w Uh>w E* '+ ?+ , , - . D. r. 2 2 S3 x3 4 <7 r7 h^h`gd( gdi~ $ ] ^a$gdi~
x ^gdXoI ^gdi~ ]^gdi~ $x 7$ 8$ H$ ]^a$gdXoI gdi~ gdM
& F
8 x gd >+ ?+ + + + + + + + + , +, ,, 4, Q, R, e, , , ,- -- .- 0- A- B- d- e- f- g- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . D. G. r. . . ʺʭʜʜʜʜʭ h YC hi~ j hi~ Uh YC hi~ >*B*ph h1n j hi~ B*Uph hXoI B*ph hi~ B*ph h YC hi~ B*ph hXoI hi~ CJ aJ hXoI h hi~ h hi~ 6 hi~ 6hi~ h 7. . . . . . . / / (/ )/ */ +/ 4/ 8/ >/ ?/ a/ b/ c/ d/ / / / 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 #3 )3 ,3 03 13 I3 P3 Q3 R3 w3 y3 z3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 h( H* h( 5j h( Uh8 h( 6hi~ h( hXoI hi~ B*CJ aJ ph h YC hi~ >*B*ph h YC hi~ B*ph h1n j hi~ B*Uph hi~ B*ph = 4 4 4 $4 %4 5 5 6 6 #6 (6 96 u6 ;7 =7 >7 \7 ]7 _7 r7 s7 ~7 7 7 7 7 Y8 Z8 |8 }8 ~8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 69 89 99 W9 X9 Z9 [9 c9 d9 r9 t9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ˿÷ííííå÷ííííå h.6 B*ph hi~ B*H*ph h1a B*ph h1n hi~ B*ph j hi~ B*Uph h8 hi~ 5 hi~ 6h.6 j hi~ Uhi~ h8 h( h( Ar7 7 7 8 8 8 79 z9 9 : `: J; ; E< = = ? +? I I 6J gd gd gd
& F
8 x gdZE gd-
& F gd<
& F gd-x: gdM gdi~ gdi~ ( gdXoI 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 : : : : =: >: ?: _: J; T; \; ; ; = = = > ? ? (? )? *? +? ;? c ?c oc pc {c }c c c c d d
e e e e f f $f &f 6f 8f "h #h Ah Bh Eh Hh ph [i \i zi {i }i ~i j j j j h1n hc j hc U h 5h= j h 0J U h H* h 6H* h 6h^j> h 6
h H*aJ h OJ QJ aJ
h aJ h^j> h aJ h OJ QJ j h Uh 8Db fb }b b b b c Pc }c c c d !h i k "m qo p q r r xr r t t u ( x ^gd 0^`0gd= gd gd j j j j k k k pk tk vk k k k k k k k l l `l bl l l l l l l l l l l l l l l m m m m m co oo o o o o o o p
p Pp Rp Tp p p p p p p ǿǿ hk h j bh h- h H* h H* h- h h- h 5h1n hc j hc Uj h U h2M h h 6H* h 6h2M h 6H* h2M h 6h :p *q ,q 0q 2q Tq vq xq zq q q q r r Br Cr ]r ^r r r r r &s 1s 2s ls ms s s s s t t 4t 5t 7t 8t Gt t t u u v v v v v v v v w
w w
w )w *w ew fw hw iw w w w w w w w w w w j h9' Uh9' h H*h3h h$w h 0J$ h CJ aJ h 6H* h 6 j bh h 5h= j h Uh Eu u |v v Pw w w 2x x y z z{ | ~ 9 gd` p gd` p 0^`0gdAs gdAs 0^`0gd9' gd9' gd3h 0x ^`0gd9' gd9' x gd3h gd x gd gd gd w x Jx Lx x x x
y y y y %y 7y Jy Ly ]y ^y y y y y y y y y z z { { y{ z{ { { { { { { { { | | | | | | O| P| R| S| | | | | &} '} )} *} F~ G~ ~ ~ 9 : ; Y Z j hAs UhAs j bh3h h h9' h9' j h9' U h3h h3h h3h 6h1n j h3h Uh3h h9' 6h9' h9' 5 C $ % ' ( 7 ! " @ A I i v x I J ݅ ޅ 1 B K ( R Y c d $ % 9 @ ԹԹȵȵȭȭȣȟȟԌ ho 6 h\ h\ hdW h\ h\ hjz hjz 7aJ j hjz UhdW h] ho hjz hjz 7hjz j ho Uho h$ hV h) X h` p CJ aJ hAs h1n j h` p Uh` p 5 J E d Z Z W ( gd\ 0x ^`0gddW 0( ^`0gddW ( gdjz x gdo gdo
& hL
\ l @ gdo gdo Y Z X Y w x . 7 < ? Q V i j w x ~ ۏ # $ , - d e u v < о h h 1 CJ aJ h' j h' Uh 1 h' 5\ j h' 5U\ h 1 5\ hG h 1 CJ aJ h 1 CJ aJ h\ h\ h\ 6h\ h\ 6j h\ Uh\ ho hu 9W j , - d e v T ; < y y y 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgd 1 .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gd 1
& F
8 x gd 1 x gdo `x ^``gdV < = Q R S < V W X 7 8 S T U V K L n o p ܣ ߣ ] ^ ǧ ȧ ާ ߧ b d / 0 D ҩ ө ӿӿ뚓ӏy h1 hOq CJ aJ h1 h1 CJ aJ hOq hOq 5\ hdW hOq CJ aJ hdW h 1 CJ aJ hdW h1 h 1 6] h' \ hOq \ h \ h'~ \j h' U\ h\ 5\ h 1 5\ h 1 h\ h' j h' U /< q ͣ ܣ > Y x ɤ m d d m m m m " ^gd1 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ `gd 1 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgd 1 .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gd 1 ] ^ b m ; 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgdOq 6
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ !@^!`@gdOq .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gd 1 b / 0 ҩ ө P ; ` 6
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ H^H`gdOq 6
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ x^x`gdOq .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq gd1 ө ; < ܫ ݫ 3 R S c u w ~ s t ʮ C E H T ^ ` a o ί Я % & J K _ ` z { а Ѱ 8 9 D E hOq H*h1 hOq CJ aJ h1 h1 CJ aJ h$ hOq 6] hdW hdW hOq CJ aJ hOq hOq 5\L; < ܫ ݫ , 4 C R S w s 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgdOq .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq s t ί 8 b H I U V 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgdOq x gd1 gd1 .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq E H I U V , - < = ? M Y Z \ ] e i k r s { | ų Ƴ dz ݴ u v 0 2 p r v x μ hdW hOq 5CJ \aJ hGF4 h2z' hM0 CJ aJ hGF4 hOq H*hGF4 hOq 6] hGF4 hOq h$ hOq h$ 6h$ hOq H* hOq 6] h2z' hOq CJ aJ hOq ; N s Ƴ dz ݴ u v , X 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgdOq .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq a b ĺ ӻ T 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgdOq x gd1 .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq 2 ` a b ӻ > D d k m # % & 4 5 8 = F G Z [ m r x y 7 8 _ a e v $ % ƻƻ殪 h' j h' U hOq H*hc hOq 56] hOq 6] j h$ 0J UhdW hOq CJ aJ h1 hOq h1 hOq CJ aJ h1 h1 CJ aJ C 8 m 7 8 x @ \ \ 6
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ 8^8`gdOq .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq `gd1 6
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ 8^8`gdOq
% 0 1 = > @ E . 0 7 9 D J Y [ h m ~ N O * + - J & ' N O $ & 6 : T X ˼h1 hOq CJ aJ h1 h1 CJ aJ hdW hdW hOq CJ aJ h2z' hOq CJ aJ hKFU hOq 6] h1 hOq j h' Uh' F@ D ~ N O * + J g x gd1 .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq 6
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ 8^8`gd1 & ' N O i i i i i i i .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgd1 6
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ 8^8`gdOq R K r x gd1 gd1 .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgdOq r t s u
) * - . r s w ` b û hG h- CJ aJ h- CJ aJ hc CJ aJ hdW hOq H* hOq 6] h1 hOq CJ aJ h1 h1 CJ aJ hOq hdW hOq CJ aJ E - . r s ` x gd1 .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgdOq p q . ~ $ ^ a$gdA+ gdc
& F
8 x gd- .
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ gdOq 2
P 0 h8p @ xHP !$ h`hgdOq z { % o p q % & - . ; > ^ _ õõä|l\l h # CJ aJ fH q
hM` CJ aJ fH q
%hM` hM` CJ aJ fH q
h h hc \fH q
h h \fH q
hA+ \fH q
h \fH q
hdW h>w CJ aJ h j bh$ 5 h$ 5hdW h$ CJ aJ h>w h$ . ` [ f - < { - Q Q Q BR 7S S S zT T V kV V W h^h`gdA+ h^h`gdc x gd< gdM` gdM` _ ` $ & F G I W Y Z [ f g y z z C Q ' [ m ¶¶}ncnXLXLXLXLXLXLX hA+ h>w 6CJ aJ hA+ h>w CJ aJ hA+ h< CJ aJ j hA+ h< CJ UaJ h< h< CJ aJ h # h # H*fH q
h6n h6n H*fH q
h6n fH q
hM` fH q
h # fH q
h # 5\fH q
hM` 5\fH q
%hM` hM` CJ aJ fH q
P XP jP vP wP P P P Q Q ,Q KQ Q %R R R R R S S S 5S 6S S S S S UT oT T U fU gU U U U V V KV ]V V V V ~ h< h< j hA+ h< CJ UaJ #j
hA+ hXoI CJ UaJ #j hA+ hXoI CJ UaJ hA+ h>w 0J CJ aJ #j hA+ hXoI CJ UaJ j hA+ h>w CJ UaJ UhA+ h>w CJ aJ hA+ h>w 6CJ aJ 1Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Tanya Reinhart. 1993. The Innateness of Binding and Coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24:69-102. HYPERLINK "http://freud.tau.ac.il/~yosef1/papers/grodzinsky_reinhart.pdf" http://freud.tau.ac.il/~yosef1/papers/grodzinsky_reinhart.pdf
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. London: Blackwell. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Heim%26Kratzer.pdf
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification, MIT: Ph.D.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23.2:261-303. HYPERLINK "http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdf" http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdf
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27:53-94.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983a. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983b. Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora question. Linguistics and Philosophy 6:47-88.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface Strategies. OTS, Utrecht University.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1999. Binding theory. In The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, eds. Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil, 86-88. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press. HYPERLINK "http://www.let.uu.nl/~tanya.reinhart/personal/Papers/pdf/BINDIN-3.FIN.word.pdf" http://www.let.uu.nl/~tanya.reinhart/personal/Papers/pdf/BINDIN-3.FIN.word.pdf
Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657-720.
Testelets, Yakov. 2005. Binding and Anaphora: Handouts for Five Lectures.
For reasons I cannot understand, my bibliography program (EndNote) refused to work when I had normal brackets in this lambda expression, so I had to replace them by parentheses. Its a mystery why just this time?
Bring argues that there is no need to syntactically exclude coindexing in (5) or (7), since its vacuous in both cases. The sentences in (5) will have the same interpretive possibilities whether the indices are same or different, if indexing is meaningful only for binding.
Formal Semantics and Current Problems of Semantics, Lecture 9
Barbara H. Partee, RGGU, April 8, 2008 p. PAGE 8
FILENAME RGGU089.doc PAGE 8
V V W W X X X X X Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 'Y (Y 3Y 4Y 5Y 6Y Y ?Y @Y AY BY MY NY ս{qkq`q\ hsu h_ 0J mH nH u
hXoI 0J j hXoI 0J U
hXoI aJ h1n aJ mH nH uh;g hXoI aJ j h;g hXoI UaJ h_ 0J 5aJ mH nH u h? hXoI 0J 5aJ j h? hXoI 0J 5UaJ
hXoI 5aJ h? hXoI 5aJ h_ h$ j h$ 0J UhXoI j hXoI 0J U !W X X X Y Y Y @Y AY BY CY DY EY FY GY HY IY JY KY LY MY NY OY h^h`gdA+ $a$gd;g NY OY h< h< 1 0 &P P :p_Q . A!"#$0% LP |W A r b o r W i n R e g u l a r > A l t s y s F o n t o g r a p h e r 4 . 1 1 2 / 7 / 9 4 A r b o r W i n BSGP ' KDbAOFr!ܝm)bBLy|82ڕ2XVJlRZ"gJmfЁQpeZ;qlX걤 ^NQx=6-$gȢXn\Df!z#rt1n:M3nmdrK@YOo #R#Ks&b_!~ 4} D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 1 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 1 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 2 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 2 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 3 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 3 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 4 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 4 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 5 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 5 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 6 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 6 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 7 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 7 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 8 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 8 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 9 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 9 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 0 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 0 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 1 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 1 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 2 } D y K _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 2 D y K y K h t t p : / / f r e u d . t a u . a c . i l / ~ y o s e f 1 / p a p e r s / g r o d z i n s k y _ r e i n h a r t . p d f yX; H,]ą'c D y K y K h t t p : / / l i n g o . s t a n f o r d . e d u / s a g / p a p e r s / L I - b i n d i n g . p d f yX; H,]ą'c ' D y K y K h t t p : / / w w w . l e t . u u . n l / ~ t a n y a . r e i n h a r t / p e r s o n a l / P a p e r s / p d f / B I N D I N - 3 . F I N . w o r d . p d f yX; H,]ą'c % @ @ @ G N o r m a l CJ _HaJ mH sH tH Z @ Z H H e a d i n g 1 $ < @& 5CJ KH OJ QJ \^J aJ \ @ \ H H e a d i n g 2 $ < @& 56CJ OJ QJ \]^J aJ V @ V ^ H e a d i n g 3 $ < @& 5CJ OJ QJ \^J aJ D A@ D G D e f a u l t P a r a g r a p h F o n t V i V G T a b l e N o r m a l :V 4 4
l a ( k ( G N o L i s t @ &@ @ G F o o t n o t e R e f e r e n c e H* 8 @ 8 G H e a d e r
! CJ 8 @ 8 G F o o t e r
! CJ . )@ !. ? P a g e N u m b e r * @ * G T O C 1 CJ 2 @ 2 G T O C 2
^ CJ 6 U@ Q6 G H y p e r l i n k >*B*ph 2 2 G T O C 3
^ CJ > @ r> `f
F o o t n o t e T e x t CJ aJ O $ G B n o r m a l Y
G h8p @ xHP X x 7$ 8$ H$ H OH G b i b l i o h 1$ ^h` aJ h 2 2 G T O C 4
^ CJ O G S t y l e G l o s s e s + 1 1 p t
@ h@`80Pp
@ `
0xPp H @`0Pp @ ` 1$ CJ aJ h O G G l o s s e s + 1 1 p t
@ h@`80Pp
@ `
0xPp H @`0Pp @ ` 1$ CJ aJ h O G G l o s s e s
@ @`0Pp
@ `
0Pp @`0Pp @ ` 0!!P""p# $ aJ H H G B a l l o o n T e x t CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ B ' B G C o m m e n t R e f e r e n c e CJ aJ < < G C o m m e n t T e x t CJ aJ @ j @ G C o m m e n t S u b j e c t ! 5\. O ". L3 B N o r m a l " aJ P O 2P 1 L e v e l 1 ( #
& F 1$ 7$ 8$ @& H$ ^` H O AH $w B n o r m a l C h a r CJ _HaJ mH sH tH 5]
` % % x+ + + . 4 9 F CT ^ j p w < ө E % _ V NY OY s v w x y z { | } * r7 6J Db u W < b ; s @ . W OY t ~ NY u : R S s / 1 2 4 T u # % & ( H % ' ( * J ? [ ^ _ a : = > @ ` l r j
{
,
& J 0 a + B " " A% d% f% % % & & & ' (' *' >' a' c' ' * * y+ + $, - . =/ \/ Y0 |0 ~0 0 0 81 W1 1 1 ;7 "< )< 3< /> 6> > A A 8B WB D D D
E $E &E 4F *L ?L L L L L L L M .M NM mM M M M ]N N N N N N fO O O O O O KP uP wP TS V V V Y Y Y Z <^ [^ u_ _ _ ` ` `
a a c c c (d Gd f f i i j j k k k l @l Cl m m Sn n n n n n n o o o o o q r r r r u u px x z z
} )} m~ ) 0 ΅ Յ H O ; y Y f o ' : E @ F 7
X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%̕QQQQQQQQQZQZ QZZZZQQQZQZZQQZZZZZZZZ Z ZZ Z Z QQQQQQQQQQQXXXĕi p r v ! ! @ @ 0 (
B
S ? H 0 (
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 1 L u c i e T h o u g h t T h a t L i l i H u r t H e r
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 2
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 3 B a c h P a r t e e E x a m p l e s J o h n S a i d T h a t J o h n W a s O K N o W o m a n D o u b t s T h a t N o W o m a n T r e e F o r E v e r y T e n o r T h i n k s
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 4 T h e S e c r e t a r y H e H i r e d T h i n k s ' S e m a n t i c B i n d i n g R e q u i r e s S y n t a c t i c B i n d i n g
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 5 J o h n L o v e s H i s W i f e A n d S o D o e s B i l l
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 6
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 7
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 8
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 9
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 0
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 1
_ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 2 " % 7 A 8B M NM Y \h i m qt u ~ q 3 A
%# % )7 A XB /M nM Z h i m t u S~ Q U d &
|/ / gA djA lA iA sA dhA deA gA x x O| O| ' ' , x x U| U| + . . urn:schemas:contactsSn 8 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate 9
*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace 8 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity 200848DayMonthYear
~
# ## % % % % &
& 0& 4& k& o& 4' 8' + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ^1 d1 k1 s1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 62 >2 ,< 2< B B [B \B vE E GL ML O O Q Q Q Q R R \ \ ] ] ` ` d` m` Pa Va c c c c d d ?h Fh h h h h i i j j l l n
n =p Fp |p p p q r "r Is Rs s t t t Hv Iv x x x x y y { { 6{ ={ M{ V{ { { 8| ?| ~ &~ U~ _~ z
! ) 6 > Q T a j " * + = I
ʟ \ d & + ѡ ١ R W Ƣ ͢ բ آ ' - 5 9 J R [ _ k s ƣ h j ٥ ߥ
( . 9 ; ] a e n ũ ǩ $ 0 w x ï ɯ ѯ կ ݯ , 3 D H ' 0 ظ Ͽ ѿ Y _ w
E J j o 9 u | Q [ (
R2 S2 l3 w3 7 )7 _B bB tC zC C C fD kD Q Q R R Z Z <[ ?[ [ [ \ \ ] ] ] ^ a a d d d d d d f f f f \h dh
j
j p p u *v v v v v Mw Vw x y {y y ^{ i{ z| | u} x} } } } } ~ ~ ~ S~ ' C F * 0 R T / @ S Ϟ О ǡ ͡ 5 ; J Z ȣ # 9 = z | ( 2 ѯ ׯ Z h Ŀ w L M A d : 5 a ) A j 9 ( 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 : A% g% & & ' +' >' d' y+ + Y0 0 D D
E 'E L L L L M M ]N N N N fO O O O KP xP u_ _ ` a c c oi oi k k l Dl m m Sn n n n n o o o q r r r u u w w w w w w px x z z
} *} " " × ͗ _ e x | ! p p $ = I o w 3 3 V V B B ` ` ! ! B B A A ' ' 7 7 8 9 ( /!~ 2< V#z ?PijҠ
v kz 2]
Ĭ_ t". Q n"蜼 ^,
E75DV& U: j ZH+Atb bY*CPxf .#H̑ hUJ| 3
MjҠ j MD 2RlPk rTp{ @YrH l}T^ ~di.P hinA j . [F < fN ^ c ( A e g rJ J 2 $8 = 9+ @ J ! 2" }# $ 9' 2z'
N* - P- . X. R/ Q/ c0 1 2 )z2 53 L3 |3 T 4 X74 GF4 .6 7 07 @ 9 ux9 8: -x: R*< ^j> w? y}@ xA 6D VE F pI XoI IK
nM &N #O P ~UP _Q
R jS KFU dW ) X @X xX KY <Y X2^ _ K)` g` @uc u_e `f g h .
j Bn o ` p Oq Ir @`r xr S}s su v w $w l>w '~ i~ # V' [6 H : $ ( \
* i T >w M0 Gq E K (Q ' " > ? : =r . \ As [ z B K jz ~ ' O1 y 1 ) < G 4 ' 1 G j k IA % ?[ . Q ] 3h - V ;g
t M L K 1n A # * M` y t 8 C& c u 2M V ZE m I ] 1a i \ Q) V 8 >W ~ W ' A+ y O }
a A ` ` ( ;[0;[0;[0;[0i0 E N . I n s t a n t F o r m a t E N . L a y o u t h E N . L i b r a r i e s h# w < E N I n s t a n t F o r m a t > < E n a b l e d > 0 < / E n a b l e d > < S c a n U n f o r m a t t e d > 1 < / S c a n U n f o r m a t t e d > < S c a n C h a n g e s > 1 < / S c a n C h a n g e s > < / E N I n s t a n t F o r m a t > i< E N L a y o u t > < S t y l e > L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y p l u s L i n k s < / S t y l e > < L e f t D e l i m > { < / L e f t D e l i m > < R i g h t D e l i m > } < / R i g h t D e l i m > < F o n t N a m e > T i m e s N e w R o m a n < / F o n t N a m e > < F o n t S i z e > 1 2 < / F o n t S i z e > < R e f l i s t T i t l e > < / R e f l i s t T i t l e > < S t a r t i n g R e f n u m > 1 < / S t a r t i n g R e f n u m > < F i r s t L i n e I n d e n t > 0 < / F i r s t L i n e I n d e n t > < H a n g i n g I n d e n t > 7 2 0 < / H a n g i n g I n d e n t > < L i n e S p a c i n g > 0 < / L i n e S p a c i n g > < S p a c e A f t e r > 0 < / S p a c e A f t e r > < / E N L a y o u t > ^ < E N L i b r a r i e s > < L i b r a r i e s > < i t e m > B H P a l l - C o n v e r t e d - S a v e d A p r 0 8 . e n l < / i t e m > < / L i b r a r i e s > < / E N L i b r a r i e s > @Adobe PDF Ne02: Adobe PDF Converter Adobe PDF Converter A d o b e P D F d A 4 PRIV ''' ' 0 \K hC _ 0 EBDA S t a n d a r d A d o b e P D F d A 4 PRIV ''' ' 0 \K hC _ 0 EBDA S t a n d a r d е ] ^ _ ` a c d @ f @ j l @ p @ t@ @ @ U n k n o w n G z T i m e s N e w R o m a n 5 S y m b o l 3& z A r i a l 9 A r b o r W i n 5& z a T a h o m a ; W i n g d i n g s ?5 z C o u r i e r N e w @
3` " A h KfKfKf p p !
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ 8
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , : 1 4 5 6 7 9 R o o t E n t r y F 83
D a t a
1 T a b l e W o r d D o c u m e n t e S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n ( D o c u m e n t S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n 8 l C o m p O b j & j
! " # $ % ' Oh +'0 (
D P \
h t | September 17, 1998 Barbara Normal.dot Barbara 2 Microsoft Word 10.0 @ F# @ h t t p : / / f r e u d . t a u . a c . i l / ~ y o s e f 1 / p a p e r s / g r o d z i n s k y _ r e i n h a r t . p d f = D _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 2 = > _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 1 = 8 _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 2 0 = 2 _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 9 = , _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 8 = & _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 7 = _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 6 = _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 5 = _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 4 = _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 3 = _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 2 = _ T o c 1 9 5 3 8 9 1 1 1
F Microsoft Word Document
MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 9q g:bnqqBc&xHL
`-nᎋ:T!E( Y YUcIY &=- ܿ::b:!¼炠QCFX H(Վ!Z4d`g"T+0!h
4:+x J5+^ЀIvIF
yϖ-go2M1VkqJ=A 4*am}UU1K+0o-\84Y_xPJMyEp <Ib E49ôM\:&0>SO# d p .qs #`fHۄïӱ^ B7G' 5
u #P,- F*HƒkzJYG _k!2~:yQ Wnl XJ"td4d = c8VN[ K ԄR)Hd3CMcmX UεCHc,T!pUr9s"uۥ sO
4tz4Y? Uȥ)e`p
C i3fH=DNe
O?
m =%Q 2A #H% Zg/8D x x d 3q ) ? 9+ S e p t e m b e r 1 7 , 1 9 9 8 B a r b a r a B a r b a r a