TTR Underspecification -> Anaphora Data #
@cite{chomsky-1981} @cite{cooper-2023} @cite{kanazawa-1994}
Connects TTR's localization (donkey anaphora) and binding theory
(reflexivization, anaphoric resolution) from
Theories.Semantics.TypeTheoretic.Underspecification to the empirical
data in Phenomena.Anaphora.DonkeyAnaphora and
Phenomena.Anaphora.Coreference.
Per-datum verification: each theorem verifies one data point from the Phenomena files against TTR predictions.
Per-datum verification: TTR predictions match empirical data #
Connect the TTR localization analysis to the theory-neutral donkey
anaphora data in Phenomena.Anaphora.DonkeyAnaphora. Each theorem
verifies one data point: the empirical datum records a reading as
available, and TTR produces a witness for that reading.
Changing a Ppty (e.g., making beats asymmetric) will break exactly
the theorems whose empirical predictions depend on it.
Geach donkey: weak reading available -- TTR predicts checkmark.
geachDonkey.weakReading = true and TTR produces a weak (localize) witness
for both farmers in the scenario.
Geach donkey: strong reading available -- TTR predicts checkmark.
geachDonkey.strongReading = true and TTR produces a conditional
strong witness for both farmers.
Geach donkey: bound reading -- TTR confirms the pronoun depends on the indefinite via parametric background (the donkey is the Bg).
Strong dominant: both readings TTR-available (consistent with
strongDominant recording both as available with strong preferred).
Per-datum verification: binding predictions match coreference data #
Connect TTR's reflexivization and anaphoric resolution to the theory-neutral binding
data in Phenomena.Anaphora.Coreference.
@cite{cooper-2023} Ch8 section 8.3 gives a type-theoretic account of @cite{chomsky-1981}'s binding conditions:
- Condition A (reflexives must be locally bound): reflexivization forces argument identity
- Condition B (pronouns must be locally free): anaphoric resolution with disjoint reference
- Complementary distribution: reflexivization vs anaphoric resolution for the same position
Each theorem verifies one empirical pattern from Coreference.lean.
Changing reflexivize or anaphoricResolve will break these bridges.
TTR's reflexivization predicts Binding Condition A:
reflexives require a local antecedent because reflexivization forces argument
identity within the local clause.
Cooper Ch8, eq (84) + (88): reflexivization at VP level binds reflexive to subject.
Matches reflexivePattern from Phenomena.
TTR predicts Binding Condition B:
pronouns allow disjoint reference via anaphoric resolution with a
constant function (the assignment provides the referent from
non-local context). Cooper Ch8, eq (28).
Matches pronounPattern from Phenomena.
Complementary distribution: reflexive and pronoun are predicted
by different TTR mechanisms (reflexivization vs anaphoric resolution).
Cooper Ch8, eqs (67)-(73): "Sam likes him" is NOT appropriate for
"Sam likes himself" -- reflexivization must be used instead.
Matches complementaryDistributionData from Phenomena.
The main bridge theorem (bridge theorem 3): TTR's reflexivization predicts the binding data.
- Reflexivization forces local coreference (Condition A): Cooper eq (84)
- Anaphoric resolution allows disjoint reference (Condition B): Cooper eq (28)
- The empirical coreference patterns match: @cite{chomsky-1981}
- Reflexivization = anaphoricResolve with id: reflexivization is a special case