Discourse model and coreference

As we have seen the in previous chapters, c-command is one of the requirements for the establishment of syntactic dependencies (chains) and semantic dependencies (variable binding). In these cases where the pronoun and the antecedent DP are not arguments of the same predicate and where the antecedent DP does not c-command the pronoun in question, a dependency between the two elements must be established at a different grammatical level. In the sentences tested in this experiment a dependency between the pronoun and an antecedent DP is established through discourse representation. Discourse is a linguistic level at which the information about referents and events is maintained by constantly keeping track of new information and updating the old information. In this section, I will first outline the discourse model that will be used throughout the rest of the study. Secondly, I will describe the way referential dependencies through coreference are created at the level of discourse.

The discourse model I will adopt here is based on Heim’s (1982) File

Change Semantics model and has been elaborated by Avrutin (1999,

2000c, 2004b). It is also known as the syntax-discourse model because it explains how the two linguistic modules, narrow syntax and discourse, communicate through the so-called syntax-discourse interface. This communication is essential for the transfer of information since the particular units of the computational system (narrow syntax) are

translated into units of discourse. The information units of discourse are

file cards, which correspond to functional categories in the syntactic

structure. Every time a new functional category is created in the syntactic representation, DP or TP, a new file card is created in the discourse representation. A DP in the syntactic representation initiates the creation of an individual file card and a TP triggers the creation of an

event file card. Here I will focus on individual file cards because

pronouns, which are the focus of my study, are generated in the D position of a DP in syntactic structure (Abney, 1987) and trigger the creation of individual file cards.3

Let us examine the structure of file cards and the way they are created and related to one another through the creation of discourse dependencies. According to Avrutin (2004b), each file card must have a

frame and a heading. An individual file card is exemplified in (14) and an

event file card in (15). (14)

3 _{According to Abney (1987), similar to the syntactic position of definite articles,}

pronouns are generated in the D position selecting a pro as a NP complement. They also resemble definite articles in their function within discourse; they do not introduce discourse-new topics but refer to an individual or an object already introduced in the discourse.

(15)

In an event card (15) a frame is introduced by a functional category To

(tense features) and in an individual file card (14) it is introduced by a functional category Do_{, which is the indefinite article a. A heading in an}

event card is introduced by a lexical category VP, a complement of To

(VP kiss), and in an individual card by the NP complement of Do _(NP man). Hence, the frame contains the information about the type of

discourse unit, and the heading provides the information about referential content of the unit (person, object, place, event etc.).

Given Heim’s (1982) assumptions about definiteness, an indefinite DP in the syntactic structure triggers the creation of a new file card (discourse-new information), which represents a unique discourse referent. A file card created by a definite DP, on the other hand, refers to discourse-old information and must be connected with an existing card, i.e. an existing discourse referent. This operation is referred to as

incorporation and it results in the updating of the information associated

with an existing file card.

(16) John saw a man. The man ran away. He was terrified.

In (16) the indefinite DP a man triggers the creation of a new file card, such as in (14), and becomes a unique discourse referent. The definite DP

the man refers to this particular discourse referent. The definite DP in the

second sentence in (16) triggers the creation of a file card with a frame marked for definiteness, see (17), which is a referentially deficient and weak frame. The first two sentences in (16) are represented in discourse by two event cards (event 1 and event 2), illustrated in (18). The heading

of the newly created individual card with a definite and weak frame initiates a search for a file card with a matching heading, which can be found in the previous event.4 _{The information on the new individual file}

card is then updated through incorporation. The information about the discourse referent a man, who was specified as having been seen by John, is now updated to having been seen by John & having run away.

(17)

(18)

4 _{In the case of an individual file card created by a definite DP both a heading and a}

frame are present so it might appear unclear why the file card created by a definite DP should be connected a file card created by an indefinite DP. It is beyond the scope of the present chapter to go into this matter in detail. I will limit myself to postulating that a definite DP triggers a creation of a referentially deficient (weak) card and needs support from a full-fledged individual card introduced by an indefinite DP.