1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Uralic Linguistics
  4. Volume 4, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Binding conditions are usually modelled as a mapping from syntactic structures into sets of coreference relations expressed and represented by narrow syntactic devices such as indices and/or formal operations such as Agree. Here we consider an alternative based on binding data from Finnish and English in which the mappings are generated dynamically during left-to-right comprehension of an arbitrary number of sentences (“conversations”) at the language-cognition interface. The model assumes that binding regulates semantic assignment management at the language-cognition interface by blanking out portions of the transient discourse available for coreference computations at the hearer’s end. The hypothesis is tested by using the computational generative grammar methodology.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00043.bra
2025-10-24
2025-11-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jul.00043.bra
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou
    1998 Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, V movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16(3). 491–539. 10.1023/A:1006090432389
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
  2. Almor, Amit
    1999 Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review106(4). 748–765. 10.1037/0033‑295X.106.4.748
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, Stephen R.
    2005 Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279906.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279906.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aoshima, Sachiko, Masaya Yoshida & Colin Phillips
    2009 Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax12(2). 93–134. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2009.00123.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00123.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Ariel, Mira
    1990 Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Asher, Nicholas & Hajime Wada
    1988 A computational account of syntactic, semantic and discourse principles for anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics6(1). 309–344. 10.1093/jos/6.1.309
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/6.1.309 [Google Scholar]
  7. Badecker, William & Katheen Straub
    2002 The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition28(4). 748–769.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker, Mark C. & Shori Ikawa
    2024 Control theory and the relationship between logophoric pronouns and logophoric uses of anaphors. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory421. 897–954. 10.1007/s11049‑023‑09592‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09592-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barss, Andrew
    1986 Chains and anaphoric dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
  10. Brattico, Pauli
    2017 Null subjects and control are governed by morphosyntax in Finnish. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics61. 2–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2019 A computational implementation of a linear phase parser. Framework and technical documentation (version 19). Pavia.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2020 Finnish word order: does comprehension matter?Nordic Journal of Linguistics44(1). 38–70. 10.1017/S0332586520000098
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586520000098 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2021a A dual pathway analysis of information structure. Lingua1031561. 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103156
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103156 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2021b Null arguments and the inverse problem. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics6(1). 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2023a Computational analysis of Finnish nonfinite clauses. Nordic Journal of Linguistics1–40. 10.1017/S0332586523000082
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586523000082 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2023b Structural case assignment, thematic roles and information structure. Studia Linguistica77(1). 172–217. 10.1111/stul.12206
     https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12206 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2024 Computational generative grammar and complexity. Software documentation for Python scripts implementing computational generative grammars. Retrieved2. 6. 2025fromhttps://github.com/pajubrat/Templates/blob/main/docs/Computational%20generative%20grammar%20and%20complexity.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Brattico, Pauli & Cristiano Chesi
    2020 A top-down, parser-friendly approach to operator movement and pied-piping. Lingua2331. 102760. 10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102760
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102760 [Google Scholar]
  19. Brattico, Pauli & Saara Huhmarniemi
    2016 Finite and non-finite null subjects in Finnish. Manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bruening, Benjamin
    2021 Generalizing the presuppositional approach to the binding conditions. Syntax24(4). 417–461. 10.1111/synt.12221
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12221 [Google Scholar]
  21. Büring, Daniel
    2005 Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802669
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802669 [Google Scholar]
  22. Charnavel, Isabelle
    2020 Logophoricity and locality: A view from French anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry51(4). 671–723. 10.1162/ling_a_00349
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00349 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2021 Logophoricity, perspective, and reflexives. Annual Review of Linguistics71. 131–155. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑030220‑085846
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030220-085846 [Google Scholar]
  24. Chesterman, Andrew
    1991 On definiteness. A study with special reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519710
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519710 [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky, Noam
    1977 On wh-movement. InPeter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 1980 On binding. Linguistic Inquiry111. 1–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 1981 Lectures in Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 1982 Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard
    1977 Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry81. 425–504.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Clements, George N.
    1975 The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages101. 141–177.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Clifton, Charles, Shelia M. Kennison & Jason E. Albrecht
    1997 Reading the words her, his, him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and on structure. Journal of Memory and Language361. 276–292. 10.1006/jmla.1996.2499
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2499 [Google Scholar]
  33. Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff
    1995 “Something else” for the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry26(2). 249–275.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Cunnings, Ian & Claudia Felser
    2013 The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes28(1–2). 188–219. 10.1080/01690965.2010.548391
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.548391 [Google Scholar]
  35. Cunnings, Ian & Patrick Sturt
    2014 Coargumenthood and the processing of reflexives. Journal of Memory and Language751. 117–139. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Martina Wiltschko
    2002 Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry33(3). 409–422. 10.1162/002438902760168554
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168554 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2012 The heterogeneity of reflexives. Manuscript, retrieved fromhttps://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001665
  38. 2017 A formal typology of reflexives. Studia Linguistica71(1–2). 60–106. 10.1111/stul.12072
     https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12072 [Google Scholar]
  39. Dillon, Brian, Alan Mishler, Shayne Sloggett & Colin Phillips
    2013 Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language69(2). 85–103. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Fedele, Emily & Elsi Kaiser
    2014 Looking back and looking forward: Anaphora and cataphora in Italian. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics20(1). Retrieved fromhttps://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss1/10
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Fiengo, Robert & Robert May
    1994 Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Fischer, Silke
    2015 Theories of binding. InTibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax — Theory and Analysis. An international handbook, 1357–1399. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Frascarelli, Mara
    2018 The interpretation of pro in consistent and partial null-subject languages. InFederica Cognola & Jan Casalicchio (eds.), Null subjects in Generative Grammar: A synchronic and diachronic perspective, 211–239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Garrod, Simon C. & Anthony J. Sanford
    1994 Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. InMorton Ann Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 675–698. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Givón, Thomas
    1983 Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. InThomas Givón (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, 5–41. Berlin: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3.01giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3.01giv [Google Scholar]
  46. Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind A. Joshi & Scott Weinstein
    1995 Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics21(2). 203–226.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gröndahl, Tommi
    2015 Määräisyys funktionaalisena pääsanana suomen kielen nominilausekkeessa [Definiteness as a functional head of the Finnish noun phrase]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Master’s thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hankamer, Jorge & Ivan A. Sag
    1976 Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry7.31. 391–426.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Heim, Irene
    1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
  50. Heinonen, Tarja R.
    1995 Null subjects in Finnish: from either-or to more-or-less. SKY Journal of Linguistics81. 47–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Helke, Michael
    1971 The grammar of English reflexives. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
  52. Hellan, Lars
    1988 Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110849134
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110849134 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hicks, Glyn
    2008 Why the binding theory doesn’t apply at LF. Syntax11(3). 255–280. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2008.00115.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2008.00115.x [Google Scholar]
  54. 2009 The derivation of anaphoric relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.139
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.139 [Google Scholar]
  55. Holmberg, Anders
    2005 Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry36(4). 533–564. 10.1162/002438905774464322
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464322 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2013 The syntax of the Finnish question particle. InPeter Svenonius (ed.), Functional structure from Top to Toe, 266–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 2016 The syntax of Yes and No. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2021 Null subjects and null possessors in Finnish. InLeena M. Heikkola, Geda Paulsen, Katarzyna Wojciechowicz & Jutta Rosenberg (eds.), Språkets funktion. Festskrift till Urpo Nikanne på 60-årsdagen, 114–136. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Holmberg, Anders & Michelle Sheehan
    2010 Control into finite clauses in partial null-subject languages. InTheresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 125–152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hornstein, Norbert
    2001 Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Malden, USA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Huang, Yan
    2000a Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198235293.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235293.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2000b Discourse anaphora: Four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics32(2). 151–176. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00041‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00041-7 [Google Scholar]
  63. Huhmarniemi, Saara
    2012 Finnish A´-movement: Edges and Islands. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.
  64. Huhmarniemi, Saara & Pauli Brattico
    2015 The Finnish possessive suffix. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics4(1–2). 2–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Jackendoff, Ray
    1992 Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory101. 1–31. 10.1007/BF00135357
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00135357 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kaiser, Elsi
    2003 Encoding (non)locality in anaphoric relations. InDiane Nelson & Satu Manninen (eds.), Generative Approaches to Finnic and Saami Linguistics, 269–294. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 2011 Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes26(10). 1625–1666. 10.1080/01690965.2010.523082
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.523082 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kamp, Hans
    1981 A theory of truth and semantic representation. InJeroen Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 1–42. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Kanerva, Jonni M.
    1987 Morphological integrity and syntax: The evidence from Finnish possessive suffixes. Language63(3). 498–501. 10.2307/415003
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415003 [Google Scholar]
  70. Karlsson, Fred
    1977 Syntaktisten kongruenssijärjestelmien luonteesta ja funktioista [Properties and functions of syntactic agreement systems]. Virittäjä81(4). 359–391.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Karttunen, Lauri
    1976 Discourse referents. InJames D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 363–385. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368859_021
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368859_021 [Google Scholar]
  72. Kazanina, Nina, Ellen F. Lau, Moti Lieberman, Masaya Yoshida & Colin Phillips
    2007 The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language56(3). 384–409. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  73. Koorneef, Arnout & Eric Reuland
    2016 On the shallow processing (dis)advantage: Grammar and economy. Frontiers in Psychology71. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00082
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00082 [Google Scholar]
  74. Koster, Jan & Eric Reuland
    (eds.) 1991 Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627835
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627835 [Google Scholar]
  75. Laury, Ritva
    1997 Demonstratives in interaction — The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.7 [Google Scholar]
  76. Lebeaux, David
    2009 Where does binding theory apply?Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262012904.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012904.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  77. Lees, Robert B. & Edward S. Klima
    1963 Rules for English pronominalization. Language391. 17–28. 10.2307/410759
     https://doi.org/10.2307/410759 [Google Scholar]
  78. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1991 Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics27(1). 107–161. 10.1017/S0022226700012433
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012433 [Google Scholar]
  79. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    1994 Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry251. 609–665.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Loss, Sara Schmelzer
    2011 Iron range English long-distance reflexives. Minnesota: University of Minnesota dissertation.
  81. Malt, Barbara C.
    1985 The role of discourse structure in understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language24(3). 271–289. 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90028‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90028-2 [Google Scholar]
  82. Manzini, Rita & Ken Wexler
    1987 Parameters, Binding Theory and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry18.31. 413–444.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Murphy, Andrew & Savio Meyase
    2022 Licensing and anaphora in Tenyidie. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics7(1). 1–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Murphy, Gregory L.
    1985a Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language24(3). 290–303. 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90029‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90029-4 [Google Scholar]
  85. 1985b Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics9(6). 785–81. 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90004‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
  86. Nicol, Janet & David Swinney
    1989 The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research18(1). 5–19. 10.1007/BF01069043
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01069043 [Google Scholar]
  87. 2003 The psycholinguistics of anaphora. InAdrew Barss (ed.), Anaphora: A reference guide, 72–104. Malden, MA.: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470755594.ch3
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755594.ch3 [Google Scholar]
  88. Paparounas, Lefteris & Faruk Akkuş
    2024 Anaphora and agreement in the Turkish DP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory421. 633–700. 10.1007/s11049‑023‑09583‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09583-4 [Google Scholar]
  89. Parker, Dan
    2019 Cue combinatorics in memory retrieval for anaphora. Cognitive Science43(3). e12715. 10.1111/cogs.12715
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12715 [Google Scholar]
  90. Phillips, Colin
    1996 Order and structure. Cambridge, MA.: MIT dissertation.
  91. Pica, Pierre
    1987 On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. InProceedings of NELS 17, vol.21, 483–499. University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
    1980 The Finnish possessive suffixes. Language56(3). 603–621. 10.2307/414452
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414452 [Google Scholar]
  93. Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag
    1992 Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry23(2). 261–303.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Postal, Paul
    1971 Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Raposo, Eduardo
    1986 Some asymmetries in the binding theory in Romance. Linguistic Review5(1). 75–110. 10.1515/tlir.1986.5.1.75
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1986.5.1.75 [Google Scholar]
  96. Reinhart, Tanya
    1983 Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland
    1993 Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry24(4). 657–720.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Reuland, Eric
    2001 Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry321. 439–492. 10.1162/002438901750372522
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901750372522 [Google Scholar]
  99. 2006 Agreeing to bind. InHans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huijbregts, Ursula Kleinhenz and Jan Koster (eds.) Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 505–513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 2011 Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Rooryck, Johan & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
    2011 Dissolving Binding Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691326.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691326.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  102. Safir, Ken
    2004 The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166132.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166132.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  103. 2008 Construal and narrow syntax. Syntax111. 330–355. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2008.00117.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2008.00117.x [Google Scholar]
  104. Schlenker, Philippe
    2005 Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of Binding Theory. Natural Language Semantics 200513(1). 1–92. 10.1007/s11050‑004‑2440‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2440-1 [Google Scholar]
  105. Sells, Peter
    1987 Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry18.31. 445–479.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition. New York: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Sturt, Patrick
    2003 The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language481. 542–562. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00536‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00536-3 [Google Scholar]
  108. Thráinsson, Höskuldur
    1990 A semantic reflexive and the typology of NPs. InJoan Maling and Annie Zaenen (eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax, 289–307. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373235_012
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373235_012 [Google Scholar]
  109. 1991 Long distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. InJan Koster & Eric Reuland (eds.), Long-distance anaphora, 49–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627835.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627835.004 [Google Scholar]
  110. Toivonen, Ida
    2000 The morphosyntax of Finnish possessives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory18(3). 579–609. 10.1023/A:1006424127728
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006424127728 [Google Scholar]
  111. Trosterud, Trond
    1990 Binding relations in two Finnmark Finnish dialects: A comparative syntactic study. PhD thesis, University of Trondheim.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 1993 Anaphors and binding domains in Finnish. InAnders Holmberg & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, 225–243. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110902600.225
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110902600.225 [Google Scholar]
  113. Vainikka, Anne
    1989 Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish. University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
  114. Vainikka, Anne & Yonata Levy
    1999 Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory17(3). 613–671. 10.1023/A:1006225032592
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006225032592 [Google Scholar]
  115. van Steenbergen, Marlies
    1987 Binding relations in Finnish. University of Groningen dissertation.
  116. 1989 Finnish: Configurational or not?InLászló Marácz and Pieter Muysken (eds.), Configurationality: The typology of Asymmetries, 143–157. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110884883‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884883-008 [Google Scholar]
  117. 1991 Long-distance binding in Finnish. InJan Koster & Eric J. Reuland (eds.), Long-distance anaphors, 231–244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627835.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627835.012 [Google Scholar]
  118. Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander
    2001 On noun phrase architecture, referentiality, and article systems. Studia Linguistica55(3). 249–300. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00081
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00081 [Google Scholar]
  119. Vilkuna, Maria
    1989 Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 1992 Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa [Reference and definiteness in the interpretation of Finnish texts], Finnish Literature Society. Retrieved fromurn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:bib:me:I00071993200
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 1995 Discourse configurationality in Finnish. InKatalin É. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 244–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195088335.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195088335.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00043.bra
Loading
Binding in Finnish and the language-cognition interface
Journal of Uralic Linguistics 4, 269 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00043.bra
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00043.bra
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00043.bra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): binding; comprehension; computational generative grammar; computational linguistics; Finnish; picture nouns

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error