Bound variable pronoun

Semantics is the branch of linguistics that examines the meaning of natural language, the notion of reference and denotation, and the concept of possible worlds.

One concept used in the study of semantics is predicate logic, which is a system that uses symbols and alphabet letters to represent the overall meaning of a sentence.

This indexing theory was used as a way to describe pronominal binding by Noam Chomsky, and expanded upon by James Higginbotham.

[14] Once the appropriate indices are determined, bound variable pronouns can be coreferenced with their antecedents, where possible, by applying a set of reindexing rules.

These phrases are unfolded and brought to the front of the form, leaving their (identically-indexed) traces behind to show where they would appear in the sentence.

[15] This is due to restrictions on the reindexing rule because of the referential index and set of anaphoric indices that exist for each noun phrase in the sentence.

[22] Reinhart states that previous analyses focusing primarily on coreference would determine the permissibility of examples (16)-(18) in three different ways.

She suggests that once the focus is shifted from coreference to bound anaphora, it would appear that the sentences groups in (16)–(18) would "not constitute grammatical or sentence-level classes.

Reinhart states that with the sloppy-identity test, "the distinction between bound anaphora and coreference in the case of definite NPs is not arbitrary.

"[25] In previous analyses, phenomena such as reflexivisation, quantified NP anaphora, and sloppy identity were treated as separate mechanisms.

"[25] From her analysis, Reinhart proposes a rule that captures anaphora as a mechanism which she argues is "governing the translation of pronouns as bound variables.

Because only coindexed pronouns are able to be interpreted in this way, then if an R-pronoun becomes uncoindexed, the sentence that arises as a result of this derivation will be uninterpretable.

[29] Kratzer brings up the topic of an embedded vP, which can be roughly defined as a verb phrase that projects a predicate that ends up "reflexivized".

"Reflexivized", as defined by Kratzer, is when a pronoun bound from v and an argument introduced by v have coreferential or covarying interpretations.

An embedded v would start with a relative pronoun in specifier position, which would later be followed by a bound variable interpretation.

Rullmann concludes that bound variable pronouns can refer to any singular entity, only if it's an unidentified individual such as "someone".

Plural pronouns can also refer to sets of singles, and this co-referential relationship is understood through examining the DP's semantics.

Since both (31i) and (31ii) are possible interpretations of the sentence "Only I got a question that I understood (nobody else did)", Déchaine and Wiltschko propose that the 1st person pronoun “I” must be capable of being both indexical and a bound variable.

Dechaine and Wiltschko (2014) introduced three essential conditions that a pronoun must follow in order to be considered bound variable anaphora.

Condition One states that there should be an association between the pronominal anaphor and its quantificational antecedent for bound variable anaphora to be possible.

[37] Example (34) below shows that a defining feature of bound variable anaphora (BVA) requires the presence of an overt quantificational operator.

This finding also supplements the theories of Rullmann (2004), which look at semantic accounts of number agreement in bound variable pronouns.

[38] Reinhart is quick to point out that the difference in available interpretations is not because the logical form of these sentences is impossible to describe.

In both of these instances, Reinhart claims that most people will find co-reference (and a "bound variable" interpretation) permissible.

[40] Similar to the problem with c-command stated above, issues with binding arise when the antecedent appears within a prepositional phrase (PP).

[44] There are cases in which Mandarin Chinese appears to differ from English with respect to pronouns being able to be interpreted as bound variables.

This differs from the English interpretation which can allow him to refer as a bound variable to whichever person everyone selects.

Kratzer mentions that due to the grammaticality of German, there is a "person feature clash between possessive and embedded verbs" in (49).

In this instance, a separate head would pop up between the VP and v, preventing the v from binding to a bound variable interpretation.

[48] In looking at the German examples, (51) is deemed ungrammatical due to the possessor-raising and misplacement of the pronoun maker, or lack of a bound variable interpretation.