Phases and binding of reflexives and pronouns in English
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a distinct approach to local binding effects for reflexives and pronominals in English whereby the nature of local binding domains is a by-product of the incremental interpretation of syntactic derivations (Uriageraka 1999, Chomsky 2000, 2001), emphasizing the role of the Conceptual /Intentional interface and the computational system (i.e. bare output conditions) in shaping general principles of grammars. A significant development of the Minimalist framework is the proposal that derivations operate through phases or multiple spell outs, which allows to reduce the strict cyclicity of derivations, and related locality effects of movement, to interface (bare output) conditions and economy conditions. In this paper I propose that incremental interpretation can further capture local binding domains effects of conditions A and B of Chomsky's (1981, 1986) Binding Theory. Basically, local binding domains are shown to correspond to accessible phase domains. Our proposal hence contrasts with standard analyses (e.g. Reinhart and Reuland 1993, Pollard and Sag 1992) that define co-argumenthood as the core factor from which binding conditions are developed. Our proposal also provides a new perspective on the core contrasts between A-chain and A-bar chain w.r.t. binding and scope reconstruction effects and argues that checking of the uninterpretable feature Case is what defines potential phase domains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it