CAPÍTULO III: ESTUDIO DE CASO, RELATO Y ANÁLISIS III 1 Sanción y suspensión de la Ley 12.607 de la provincia de Buenos
III. 4 Identificación de las prioridades de gestión
I w ill firstly explain the pro n o m in alizatio n rules C arden (1986) proposes. The
rules are supposed to be the “sentence-level rules equivalent to the classical rules for
backw ards an aphora” , w hich he claim s to be needed “even in a discourse g ram m ar”
(C arden, 1982:385). In C arden (1982:379), he says:
In the structurally-governed type, the pro form precedes its antecedent in the sam e sentence, and obeys a structural condition along the lines p roposed by L angacker (1969)/R oss (1969).
A s m en tio n ed in the above passage, the pron o m in alizatio n rules C arden proposes are
based originally upon the basic insight o f R oss (1967), stating th at backw ards
coreference is possible only w hen the p ronoun is in a subordinate position. L angacker
(1969) form alises this condition, often cited as ‘Precede and C o m m an d ' or
‘P re ce d e /C o m m a n d ’, w hich C arden (1986:) re-form ulates as b elo w j8:
(6) The P recede/C om m and C ondition: A pronoun m u st not b oth precede and com m and its antecedent.
(7) D efinition: N ode X "com m ands" node Y iff39 the first "bounding node" B above X dom inates Y. .
T he definition (7) tells that the dom ain o f ‘co m m an d ' is determ ined by the definition
o f “bounding node". Langacker (1969) defines "S' (clause) as the “bounding node".
D ue to his definition, in the follow ing sentences,
38 As C arden notes, this form ulation is different from L an g ack er’s definition in that C a rd e n 's form ulation does not include co-ordinate cases, such as:
Penerope cursed P eter and slandered h im .
(taken from Langacker, 1969:162)
39 ‘i f f is a standard abbreviation for i f and only i f , indicating the necessary and sufficient condition in logic.
(52-1) H is m other loves John.
(cited from C arden, 1986:322)
(52-2) In his m essage to C ongress, C arter said ... (cited from the A T [A021 6])
b oth H is and Jo h n in (52-1) com m and each oth er since both are d om inated by their
first boun d in g node ‘S ’; hence they cannot be coreferential w ith each other, because
the p ro n o u n H is both precedes and com m ands J o h n, as show n in F igure (5.2.2).
B y the sam e token, since the pronoun his b o th precedes and com m ands C arter in (52-
2), L a n g a ck e r’s ‘P recede/C om m and’ rule does n o t allow those N P s to be coreferential
w ith each other.
F igure (5.2.3): The tree representation o f (52-2)40.
For these particular sentences (52-1) and (52-2), how ever, coreference can actually be
allow ed betw een the preceding pronoim s and the follow ing full N Ps. T o take account (5.2.2)
S
SPE C N V N P
H is m other loves John.
S
PP N P V P
P N P
In his m essage to C ongress, C arter s a i d ...
o f the possibility o f coreference in such exam ples as (52-1) and (52-2), p roposals are
m ade that not only S but also N P count as bounding nodes in the d efin itio n o f
‘co m m a n d ’ (7)41. D ue to this m odified definition, in (52-1) and (52-2), the first
bounding nodes w hich dom inate the 3PPs are not S nodes but N P nodes (H is m other
(52-2) and his m essage to C ongress in (52-2)), hence these 3PPs no longer com m and
the supposed antecedent N P s; thus coreference can be allow ed b etw een them .
T his m odified definition o f ‘C o m m an d ’ (called ‘k o m m a n d ’ o r ‘K -co m m an d ’),
how ever, still has problem s in dealing w ith w h at C arden calls ‘blo ck ed forw ard
co referen ce’, in w hich “only backw ards coreference is p o ssib le ” (C arden, 1986:320),
as in (52-3) and (52-4):
(52-3) N ear John, he saw a snake. (John & he) (52-4) N ear him , John saw a snake. (John = him )
(5.2.4): The tree representation o f (52-3)
N ear John, he saw a snake.
In (52-3), the ‘P reced e/K -C o m m an d ’ rule assigns coreference b etw een J o h n and he
since coreference is alw ays allow ed w hen the supposed antecedent full N P precedes
the pronoun. T his prediction, how ever, does not accord w ith the actual blocked-
forw ard coreference o f (52-3). In (52-4), the first bounding node above the preceding
3PP (N Ppro in the Figure (5.2.5)) is the S node w hich dom inate the m ain subject
J o h n;
(5.2.5): T he tree representation o f (52-4)
PP N P a VP
N ear him , John saw a snake.
hence the Precede/K -com m and rule does n ot allow coreference b etw een him and
J o h n, pred ictin g again the opposite o f the coreference actually observed.
A possible solution o f this ‘blocked forw ard c o referen ce’ pro b lem w ith in the
transform ational approach can be described as follow s:
(i) (52-5) and (52-6) are assum ed to be the representations o f (52-3) and (52-4) (respectively) at the abstract structure level:
(52-5) He saw a snake near John. (John * he) (52-6) John saw a snake near him. (John = him )
(ii) B efore the A dverb preposing rule is applied to (52-5) and (52-6), relevant
coreferential rules are applied to (52-5) and (52-6) at the level o f abstract structure, resulting in co-indexed (52-7) and (52-8) respectively.
(52-7) He/ saw a snake near John/'^/'. (52-8) John/' saw a snake near him/=y.
(iii) T hen, the A dverb preposing rule is applied to (52-7) and (52-8), deriving (52-9) and (52-10) at the surface structure, w hich accord w ith the coreference o f (52-3) and (52-4) actually observed.
(52-9) N ear John/V/, he/ saw a snake. (John * he) (52-10) N ear him /= /, John/ saw a snake. (John = him )
rule in dealing w ith (52-11) and (52-12):
(52-11) A fter John finished breakfast, he w en t to school. (John = he) (52-12) H e w ent to school after John finished breakfast. (H e * John)
I f w e assum e that coreference rules are applied to the abstract structure before the
A dverb preposing, he and Jo h n in (52-11) h ave to have the sam e coreference pattern
as he and Jo h n in the unpreposed version (52-12), but in fact (52-11) and (52-12)
ex h ib it different coreferential patterns.
T aking account o f the above problem s for the P recede/K -com m and rule,
C arden (1986) proposes to assum e a reflexive rule in the follow ing way:
(a) T he required reflexive rule assigns coreference to reflexive p ro nouns as w ell as to
certain kind o f non- required reflexive pronouns.
(b) The required reflexive rule defines a set o f relevant potential antecedents. The
potentially coreferential N P s are assum ed to be clausem ates so th at the reflexive
rules can be applied to 3PPs and John in (52-5) and (52-6) but cannot be applied to
H e and Jo h n in (52-12).
(52-5) He saw a snake near Jo h n . (52-6) John saw a snake near h im .
(52-12) He w ent to school after John finished breakfast.
T he rule needs to exclude typical objects o f p repositions from potential
antecedents, e.g. John in (52-13).
(52-13) Bill talked about John to him self.
(h im self = Bill. * John)
f
( c l ) to specify that the reflexive m orphology is obligatory for coreference w ith
certain kinds o f potential antecedents such as direct objects or indirect objects;
so that the rule blocks coreference for certain non-reflexive pronouns such as
betw een Jo h n and him in (52-14).
(52-14) John/' shot h imi?j.
(c-2) to specify that the reflexive m orphology is not obligatory but optional for
coreference w ith certain kind o f objects o f prepositions; so th at the rule assigns
coreference to non-reflexive pronouns such as Jo h n and him in (52-8):
(52-8) John/' saw a snake n ear him /=y.
C arden calls this required reflexive rule the "E xtended R eflexive" rule (ER).
O nce the "E xtended R eflexive" rule (ER ) is stated, the overall steps o f
C a rd e n ’s approach to coreference can be described as below :
(1) To the representation o f a sentence at the abstract level, apply the E xtended
R eflexive(E R ) rule to assign coreference o r non-coreference to reflexives o r n o n
reflexive pronouns as w ell as identifying the potential antecedent full N Ps.
(2) A pply the A dverb preposing rule to the rep resentation o f sentence at the abstract
level, deriving the representation o f sentence at the surface level.
(3) To the representation o f the sentence at the surface level, apply the Precede/K -
com m and rule to assign coreference or non-coreference to N P s w hich have not
been assigned coreference.
coreference rule (ER) apply to an abstract structure distinct from surface structure.”
(C arden, 1986:324).
The A bstract M odel deals w ith those problem atic cases for the P recede/K -
com m an d rule, (52-3), (52-4), and (52-11), in the follow ing ways:
F or (52-3): N ear John, he saw a snake. (John * he)
A ssum ing (52-3a) as the representation o f (52-3) at the abstract level:
(52-3a) H e saw a snake near John.
E R is applied to (52-3a), resulting (52-3b):
(52-3b) Hez saw a snake near J o h n /> l
T he A dverb P reposing rule is applied to (52-3b), resulting (52-3c) at the surface level, w hich accords w ith the coreference p attern o f (52-3).
(52-3c) N ear Johnj ^ i , he/ saw a snake.
F or (52-4): N ear him , John saw a snake. (John = him )
A ssum ing (52-4a) as the representation o f (52-4) at the abstract level:
(52-4a) John saw a snake near him .
E R is applied to (52-4a), resulting in (52-4b): (52-4b) John/ saw a snake near him /.
T he A dverb P reposing rule is applied to (52-4b), resulting (52-4c) at the surface level, w hich accords w ith the coreference pattern o f (52-4).
For (52-11): A fter John finished breakfast, he w en t to school. (John = he)
A ssum ing (52-1 la ) as the representation o f (52-11) at the abstract level:
(52-1 la ) H e w ent to school after John finished breakfast.
E R is applied to (52-1 la ), resulting in (52-1 lb ) w ith o u t assigning coreference, since H e and John are not clausem ates.
(52-1 lb ) H e w ent to school after John finished breakfast.
T he A dverb P reposing rule is applied to (52-1 lb ), resulting (52-1 lc ) at the surface level:
(52-1 lc ) A fter John finished breakfast, he w ent to school.
Since coreference has not been assigned in (52-1 lc ), th e P recede/K -com m and rule is applied to (52-1 lc ), resulting in (52-1 I d ) , w h ich accords w ith the coreference pattern o f (52-11).