ANAPHORA IN NATURAL LANGUAGE

1. ANAPHORA IN NATURAL LANGUAGE Aránzazu San Ginés Ruiz IHPST/U.Granada

2. GTS: MOTIVATION

3. GTS: MOTIVATION HINTIKKA: • It is a mistake to submit language theory to the “recursive paradigm” (rule-governed process). • There are semantic attributes without any corresponding sign in syntax (informational independence phenomena).

4. GTS: MOTIVATION • How to interpret the sentences in which these attributes are present? • It is in the very interpretative process that these semantic attributes come up. The sentence processing has in itself expressive power. • Hintikka’s GTS: It is achieved a explicit expression of a part of the process, the one responsable of dependencies.

5. PTQ approach: de re reading de dicto reading GTS approach: de re reading de dicto reading GTS: MOTIVATION John seeks an actress

6. PTQ approach: de re reading de dicto reading GTS approach: de re reading de dicto reading a new reading GTS: MOTIVATION Every director seeks an actress PTQ is not able to effectively deal with the dependence relation between director and actress which makes the latter a new reading. That is, as Hintikka points out, because dependence is not directly codified in natural syntax.

7. ANAPHORA AND GTS Anaphoric pronouns: • One of the most expanded conception (traditionally): Considers pronouns as bound variables. • It raises problems. Ex. (Donkey sentence): If John owns a donkey, then John feeds it. • Lepore&Garson/Hintikka: Understand the problem as a confusion about the quantifier scope notion.

8. ANAPHORA AND GTS • Pronouns as bound variables: Problematic because of being so strict. Freedom • Restrict the possible options of reference. • Two ways to do that: • One uses the information in the pronoun itself, the clues that it gives in the research of its antecedent. • The other one encodes the idea that the reference of pronouns moves over a set of accessible information having been introduced in a previous moment of discourse.

9. ANAPHORA AND GTS Problems for GTS: • Every student must read a book. He can pick anyone he likes. (Accessibility problem) • If a man can find the money to pay for it, he will buy for a fancy car. (Backward pronominalization)

10. ARBITRARY OBJECTS • Every student must read a book. He can pick anyone he likes. Two arbitrary objects are introduced, both linked by the dependence relation. Problem: How could we now justify the agrammaticality of, for example: Every student must read a book. He is handsome*

11. ARBITRARY OBJECTS • If a man can find the money to pay for it, he will buy a fancy car. We assume the hypothesis that all anaphoric pronoun (including backwards pronominalization) have an antecedent in discourse that could be not directly explicited. In the example, it will have to be given by a previous element. It is not only identified the reference of the pronoun but also established a dependence relation between a man and a fancy car.