Talk:Bound variable pronoun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Examples?

This article would greatly benefit from an example or two. At this point, I have no idea what it is. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Added example. Hope that helps. --Boson (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Links

Bibliography from 2010-2014:

Schwarz - Situation pronouns in determiner phrases
The main focus of this paper is on the situation pronouns inside of determiner phrases. Schwarz makes the argument that these situation pronouns are introduced as arguments of determiners, whereas verbal predicates are believed to not combine with situation pronouns. The value and significance of Schwarz’s work is relevant to our topic of study because Schwarz discusses the syntactic representation for situation pronouns, of which are inside of DPs as arguments of determiners. This will help further our understanding of our group’s topic as it goes deeper into bound variable pronouns. The point of view in which this paper is written in is in first person where Schwarz often addresses herself as “I,” and makes use of “we” as well. A shortcoming or bias in the work would be that Schwarz asserts not only her expertise, but also her opinion on the argument or example at hand. Although this might be useful to understanding what Schwarz is trying to relay to readers, but it could also make it difficult to look at the other side of the argument. My own impression for the work is that Schwarz offers a lot of useful examples, providing visual aids (eg. trees) and making it clear to readers exactly which example she is referring to.
Schwarz, F. (2012). Situation pronouns in determiner phrases. Natural Language Semantics, 20(4), 431-475. doi:10.1007/s11050-012-9086-1

Mayr - Focusing Bound Pronouns
The main focus and argument of the paper is based on focused bound pronouns and how these pronouns need both an operator interpreting focus and a semantic value for the contribution of focus. The suggested operator Mayr puts forward is the ~ operator where Mayr argues needs to be inserted into the scope of the quantifier. Mayr also proposes the concept of compositional reconstruction whereby the number of potential alternatives increases due to bound pronouns being able to contrast with other bound pronouns. How the value and significance of this work contributes to our topic is that it will give us a different perspective to looking at bound pronouns. Compared to what we learnt in class, the work offers a different insight and makes its case regarding: 1) alternatives for bound pronouns, 2) contrast for pronouns, and 3) optionality for focus bound pronouns. The point of view from which the work is written is in first-person (eg. “I,” “us,” etc) A possible shortcoming or bias in the work could arise due to Mayr’s strong stance on his arguments, as introduced above. Another possible shortcoming would be a personal one as some parts of Mayr’s study would prove to be difficult to comprehend due to the nature of Mayr’s work versus my own shortcomings in understanding, or lack of, regarding this topic. My own impression of the work is that some of Mayr’s arguments are dependent on other scholars’ work and that Mayr makes his case against or with them using examples and his own reasonings/explanations.
Mayr, C. (2012). Focusing bound pronouns. Natural Language Semantics, 20(3), 299-348. doi:10.1007/s11050-012-9083-4

--Millywkh (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography from 2000-2009:

Rullmann, H. (2004). First and Second Person Pronouns as Bound Variables. Linguistic Inquiry, 35(1), 159-168. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179267

Rullmann examines the bound variable interpretations in English 1st and 2nd person pronouns. Partial binding shows how “1st and 2nd person plural pronouns can function as bound variables” (p. 163) provided that at least one antecedent binds the pronoun. This article allows us to examine the use of 1st and 2nd person pronouns. This places emphasis on antecedents and how the pronouns are bound. It is written in third person with occasional first person comments. Rullmann references a lot of works by other people. The entire article takes a stance combining the biases seen in the referenced works. As such, Rullmann doesn’t have a very obvious bias. In my opinion, Rullman includes a lot of examples (both his own and the work of others) into his article. As such, at times it gets somewhat confusing due the sheer amount of examples and it is difficult to distinguish between examples and his opinion on the matter.

Kratzer, A. (2009). Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 187-237. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/lin/summary/v040/40.2.kratzer.html

Kratzer’s main discussion revolves around the binding strategies that create two types of bound variable pronouns. There is emphasis that bound variable pronouns may be confused with referential pronouns and she provides multiple examples along with linking her research to numerous other references. This article introduces two different types of bound variable pronouns and references the semantic of pronominal features along with syntactic derivation. It is written in first person. Kratzer holds a strong opinion on her article and seems to have a view preferring fake indexicals, citing their importance as being influences of pronoun properties. Kratzer’s article is long and detailed with numerous sources and examples listed. Her opinion is expressed clearly and concisely without the use of over-referencing other scholarly articles.

Rrrrrllllleeeee (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography from 1980s:

Barss, A., & Lasnik, H. (1986). A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 347-354. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178491

In this work, Barss and Lasnik explore sentences with two objects, and try to determine why there could be an asymmetrical relationship between the first and second object. The authors use many different examples to display this asymmetry, with quantified expressions and bound pronouns being one of the first sets of data presented. For example, they show that in the sentence "I denied each worker his paycheck", the pronoun "his" can be bound to the quantified expression "each worker", while in the sentence "I denied its owner each paycheck", the pronoun "its" cannot be bound to the quantified expression "each paycheck", illustrating an asymmetry (348). This work is useful for our discussion of bound variable pronouns because it provides us with an idea of how these types of pronouns may be useful in helping us understand other parts of language. For instance, the questions raised by these pronouns cause the author of this article to question how tree structures in general are formed, as well as how binding is defined. The author writes from the perspective of a researcher posing questions about types of data that previous theories of binding and structure cannot answer as-defined. This work does not provide a thorough investigation of modifications that should be made to the previous theories in order to allow them to account for the problematic data presented, and so it raises more questions than it attempts to answer. However, this work is useful in understanding how bound variable pronouns have helped spur on other developments in linguistic theory, and so will be a valuable resource.

Higginbotham, J. (1980). Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 679-708. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178189

In this work, Higginbotham explores the application of Chomsky's system of coindexing and contraindexing to quantified expressions. He puts forward a set of rules that remove certain indices from this set if the pronoun is free, nominative, or in a specific domain in order to allow coreference to occur. He also expands upon and adds conditions to reindexing rules to account for data that seems to invalidate some of Chomsky's theories when applied to quantified expressions. Higginbotham expands upon linguistic rules proposed by Chomsky and others in previous works, and provides a useful evaluation of these rules and their modifications as pertaining to quantified expressions. These expansions are useful since they provide us with an overview of the way binding can occur not only for normal pronouns but also for quantified expressions. This work is written from the perspective of a researcher expanding on the field of pronoun semantics. While this work is meant to address quantified expressions as a whole, there is a large focus on wh-expressions, so other types of expressions do not get as thorough of an explanation. In all, this is a useful work for understanding how pronominal theories can be modified and applied to quantified expressions.

--Vloewen (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography from 1970s:

Grover, D. L. (1972). Propositional quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1(2), 111-136. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/85473801?accountid=14656
In Grover’s philosophical analysis of the bound propositional variable, she introduces a parallel comparison between pronouns and prosentences. She argues that propositional variables are not ‘pronominal’. Instead, they have a ‘prosentential character─Thatt’ which have similar functions and usages with that of an anaphoric pronoun. Based on this distinction, she proposes the significant features of a bound variable pronoun: the sentential position in a sentence and the anaphoric coreferential behavior with its quantified antecedent. Moreover, she confirms the important role of a bound variable pronoun play in the scope of philosophy, semantics and syntax. Grover uses symbols of Quantified Logic to exemplify her ideas, which may seems not as comprehensive to readers who have little or no semantics background. Despite that, the use of excerpts in the article and the notion of similarity drawn between pronouns and prosentences have made this article interesting to read and follow.

Hintikka, J. (1977). Quantifiers in natural languages: Some logical problems II. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(2), 153-172. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/85501952?accountid=14656
From the philosophical and methodological perspective, Hintikka examines the complexity of natural-language quantifiers such as ‘every’ and ‘any’ by distinguishing the absolute and relative scope of the quantifier phrases. He argues that the difficulty to decide the appropriate semantical interpretation of complex sentences are due to the underdeterminacy of quantifier scopes. While explaining the behaviors of quantifiers in bound variable pronoun, Hintikka (1977) identifies the significant notion of compositionality in Linguistics, where “the meaning of a complex expression must be a function of the meanings of its components” (p. 155). He also mentions how the pronominal antecedents, wh-movement, and bound variables relate to the notion of locality. Hintikka compiles too much linguistics knowledge in this writing, making this article not very accessible to linguistics beginners. Nevertheless, his analogue approach of ‘game-theoretical semantics’ is well-formed and will surely be a great value to the readers.

--Fannyfish0224 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1990’s: Vivianne

Grodzinsky, Yosef, & Reinhart, T. (1993). The Innateness of Binding and Coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(1), 69-101.

This article argues that both the binding theory and the coreference rule are innate. It refers to an article by Grimshaw and Rosen (1990), and says that their findings do not lead to their conclusions. Rather, they support that binding and coreference are not governed by the same module. It also gives us an idea of the nature of the mechanisms that underlie bound variable pronouns. Bound variable pronouns could be innate or learned. Knowing this can change the ways speech pathologists treat agrammatic speech. Since the Wikipedia project is about contributing, understanding whether binding and coreferencing are innate or not contributes to treatment methods. The perspective of this article is like a review and a critique. It reviews the findings of the aforementioned article and points out any discrepancies between the findings and the conclusion. It could be that the authors of this article are believers of innate universal grammar. This could bias their interpretation of the findings of the other article. I think the way this article analyzes the findings of the other article is very convincing due to being the data being very well organized with many examples.

Reinhart, Tanya. (1997). Quantifier Scope: How labour is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(4), 335-397.

This article describes the scope of quantifiers. It examines how quantifiers are generated and what causes over or under generation, focusing on covert syntactic operations. Since the topic of our Wikipedia project is on bound variable pronouns which heavily depend on quantifiers, understanding how quantifiers work may contribute to our understanding of bound variable pronouns. We might be able to better understand the scope of such pronouns as well. The article is written from the perspective that agrees with how covert syntactic operations generate quantifiers. It claims that the overgeneration problem of quantifiers lie in indefinite NPs. The article doesn’t explain why covert syntactic operations was thought to be the cause of the overgeneration and why it is not. It only shows how indefinite NPs are the problem. Without a refute, both perspectives could be just as plausible. The article is convincing about how indefinite NPs overgenerate quantifiers, but it would be better if it also included a clean explanation on how convert syntactic operations overgenerate.

SakuraChii (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Technical Questions

• What is the best way to display a table in Wikipedia (to compare/contrast different theories)?

Vloewen (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you just want help on how to create table, see Help:Table.

General questions about how to use Wikipedia can be put at WP:Help desk.

It is often easiest to find an existing table somewhere on Wikipedia and copy and edit that.

--Boson (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Table of Contents

This is what we plan on writing about:

1. Introduction
   1. Description
   2. Examples
2. Theories
   1. Higginbotham
      1. Introduction
      2. Theory
      3. Pros/Cons
      4. Examples
   2. Reinhart
      1. Introduction
      2. Theory
      3. Pros/Cons
      4. Examples
   3. Kratzer
      1. Introduction
      2. Theory
      3. Pros/Cons
      4. Examples
3. Comparison of Theories (Table)
4. See Also
5. References
6. External Links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrrrrllllleeeee (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Theory Section: Higginbotham

I added a "Theories" section and started it off with the Indexing theory posed by Chomsky (1980) and Higginbotham (1980). Currently, only a broad description of the theory (and the rules it requires) is present. I will be adding examples and counter-examples soon. --Vloewen (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for improving this article.

As you further develop the article, could you pay particular attention to the goal of making Wikipedia understandable to the widest possible audience. No doubt some things will be easier to understand when you add the examples, but I thought some feedback from someone who is less immersed in the specific topic might help.

For instance, in my opinion, the following concepts need to be better introduced (in a way that does not put too much cognitive load on the lay reader):

• pronominal binding (and binding in general)
• index marking rules (the rules are discussed later, but the term is itself used as an explanation in the first sentence of the section).
• the same applies to coindexing, contraindexing, etc.
• c-command

The same may apply to a lesser extent to terms like

• non-anaphoric
• coreferencing (even the idea of referencing)

It might also be helpful if there were somewhere a better introduction of the relevance of individual parts of the article to bound variables: what is a quantified determiner phrase? The explanation should ideally permit the lay reader to understand, for instance, a discussion of when a first-person pronoun might occasionally be interpreted as a bound variable pronoun.

It might, of course, be best to get the theory explained correctly first and then add the clarifications for the more general reader.

--Boson (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. We'll definitely keep those improvements in mind as we continue working on the article. It may be best to add descriptions of some of those concepts to an introductory section, but I'll try to add more clarifications to this section as well (and I'll add links to the appropriate pages, where possible, which could help people orient themselves with certain concepts, as well).

--Vloewen (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I added an "Objections" subsection and started it off with an objection brought forward by Reinhart (1983). This section would probably benefit from some clarifications (see Boson's comment above) and examples, so I will continue to expand upon it.

--Vloewen (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Theory Section: Kratzer

I added a very basic outline of Kratzer's theory, along with several German examples. I plan on expanding the theory along with adding more English examples. Rrrrrllllleeeee (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Other Languages Section: Mandarin Chinese

I began a "Bound Variable Pronouns in Other Languages" section, and added Mandarin Chinese as a first example. It would be beneficial to add one or two more languages to this section, as well. --Vloewen (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Description Section Edited

I added a "Description" section and I will be putting up the diagrams and citations soon. --Fannyfish0224 (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Added 3 diagrams and cited the contents with footnotes. --Fannyfish0224 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Technical Questions Round#2

• Deleting the image in Commons, updating the image and how to change the name of the images (e.g, has a typo in the image name)
• How to cite in image caption, any format suggestion?

--Fannyfish0224 (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Theory section: Reinhart

I will be expanding on my points made in Reinhart's theory section by being more specific and giving more examples, as well as editing some wording as suggested by group D2 sometime this upcoming week. --Millywkh (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Addressing comments made on Reinhart section

I have expanded my points by elaborating on Reinhart's theory and gave more examples to help readers better understand her theory. I have also made some small editing changes with example sentences. --Millywkh (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the Kratzer section

Swapped translations

This section currently has


(4) *Wir sind die einzigen, denen du t unsere Röntgenbilder gezeigt hast.
    1PL be.1/3PL the.PL only.ones who.PL.DAT 1PL.POSS.ACC cat fed have.SG
    We are the only ones for whom you fed our cat.
    (Kratzer, 2009: 200 (25))

 (5) Wir sind die einzigen, denen du t unsere Katze gefüttert hast.
    1PL be.1/3PL the.PL only.ones who.PL.DAT 1PL.POSS.ACC X-rays shown have.SG
    We are the only ones who you showed our X-rays.
    (Kratzer, 2009: 200 (24))


The translations seem to have been swapped. It is also not clear to me which German example is meant to be marked as ungrammatical. The one that is currently marked as ungrammatical looks grammatical to me (but does not permit a bound variable interpretation). The one not marked as ungrammatical looks ungrammatical to me. It is generally not clear to me what these examples are meant to illustrate. Is the sentence with the cat meant to show a grammatical use of a bound variable pronoun?

While I'm here: If Kratzer is stating that the bound variable interpretation is valid for the examples with the first person plural, I think this should be stated clearly and better explained. I suppose an ambiguity could be argued, but it looks pretty iffy to me.

Unclear example

This section currently has


 (1)
    (a) I talked about myself.
    (b) I blamed myself.
    (Kratzer, 2009: 194 (15))


It is unclear what this is supposed to illustrate.

There is a later reference to "(1)" ("(1) illustrates how bound variable readings in German for any embedded possessives is not allowed. Should a bound variable cause ungrammaticality, like in (1), then a possessor-raising construction is required. ") but that is apparently intended to refer to (2). Problems with such referencing of examples are even more likely in Wikipedia, where several people may edit an article.

Introducing an ungrammatical "example" (2) first does not make it easier to understand the statement that the example is supposed to illustrate.

This section currently has


   *Ich bin der einzige, der t meinen Sohn versorg-t.


Is this meant to illustrate that "Ich bin der einzige, der meinen Sohn versorgt." is ungrammatical, or that it does not permit a bound variable interpretation – or something else? --Boson (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the detailed feedback!

Swapped Translations - I've fixed them (typographical error on my part) and attempted to add more details.

Unclear Example - I tried to add some more details to the English examples and added some more details to the German examples.

--Rrrrrllllleeeee (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Addressing comments for Higginbotham section and Mandarin data

I've added more examples to the Higginbotham section to clarify how the indexing rules are applied. I also better-explained the idea of C-Constraint, as suggested in the peer review comments. To solidify the concepts introduced in this section, I added an "Application to bound variable pronouns" section, which applies the rules introduced in the indexing theory step-by-step to an example including (potentially) bound variable pronouns. This section also acts as a summary, to show how the rules are concretely applied. I added trees to illustrate the examples that were not presented in bracket-structure, so that the form of those sentences will be clearer.

For the Mandarin Chinese section, I added morpheme glosses and English translations to the examples that were missing them. I also clarified what was meant by "ambiguity" in the second example. Moreover, I gave a better description of the first set of Mandarin data that behaves differently from the same English sentence, clarifying the underlying theory (according to Higginbotham, who posed that example) that causes these differences. I also added tree structures to the examples that did not already contain bracket structures. --Vloewen (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation from Group D2

Hello group D1 - we (group D2) really like how you've done your syntax trees - as it's been difficult for us to know how to upload a photo to wiki, can you tell us how you filled out the complicated form when you added your tree diagrams? Thank you!!!Alyson Budd (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. This is a great article so far, I like how you have lots of examples and consistency in your formatting. I have added some suggested edits by using strikethrough to delete, bold to add and square brackets for longer additions/edits. Alyson Budd (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Introduction/Description:

In paragraph 1

this sentence: In syntax, a branch of linguistics concerning the formation and structure of a sentence in natural language, as how a language is actually used, spoken, or written by its people; comparing to prescriptive grammar/prescription

lacks a subject and is incomplete - it should be changed to: Syntax is the branch of linguistics that deals with the formation and structure of a sentence in natural language. It is concerned with how language is actually used, spoken, or written by its users, unlike prescriptive grammar/prescription.

In paragraph 3 - deleted plural s:

For an anaphor (reflexive pronouns or reciprocals pronouns acting as DPs) to be bound, its referential DP antecedent has to be in the c-commanding domain, which is the smallest XP with a subject that contains the DP.[2]:168

Hope that helpful, thanks! Alyson Budd (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In Theories Section

I have added some suggested edits by, deleting, using bold to add and square brackets for longer additions/edits. Alyson Budd (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Reinhart[edit]

Introduction[edit]

Studies on anaphora focus on the conditions for definite NP anaphora and avoid the issues that the interpretation of pronouns brings to the anaphora theory [deleted plural markers on focus and avoid]. Reinhart’s analysis of the interpretation of pronouns and their referential interpretations [too many interpretations in this sentence] states that the “mechanism needed to handle anaphora is the one governing the translation of pronouns as bound variables.” (Coreference and Bound Anaphora, 47) Reinhart clarifies the difference between bound anaphora and coreference to conclude that the bound-anaphora conditions involve reflexivization, quantified NP anaphora, and sloppy identity. [this sentence does not adequately unpack the quote to explain to readers]

Theory[edit]

Previous studies on anaphora focused on coreference instead of bound anaphora, which dictatesd groupings of anaphora facts in a specific way. (Coreference and Bound Anaphora, 80). The first group allows definite noun phrase (NP) coreference, the second group states cases where coreference is impossible, and the third group focuses on quantified NP anaphora. These groupings led to complications in the anaphora theory, of which if the question of coreference is shifted to bound anaphora, then sentences (1)-(3) would not constitute well-formed sentences. [passive voice construction - could be improved by shifting the wording to this: These groupings led to complications in anaphor theory. If the question of coreference is shifted to bound anaphora, then sentences (1)-(3) would not constitute well-formed sentences.]

[deleted redundant sentence]

Only in cases of “genuinely quantified NP’s” is where bound anaphora is feasible because bound anaphora cannot involve reference or coreference.

The above examples, sentences (4)-(7), all show that bound anaphora are impossible. Coreference is possible in (4), but the opposite can be said for (5)-(7). In sentence (4), coreference is possible because of the distinction between bound anaphora and coreference, where the same referent can be selected by two given NP’s that are referential. Therefore, although in sentence (4), the pronoun her cannot be interpreted as a bound variable, it may still “choose its reference from a pragmatically determined set.,” in which case her has chosen Zelda. (Coreference and Bound Anaphora, 73) As for sentence (5), the noun phrase no president’s wife is not referential because it is “interpreted as an operator binding a variable.” (Coreference and Bound Anaphora, 73) Because the pronoun her cannot be coindexed with the noun phrase, there is no way for her to be assigned with the same meaning as the variable if the same operator bounds them. (Coreference and Bound Anaphora, 74) Alyson Budd (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Alyson Budd (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Review from Yimeng Wang:

Description & bound variables in English

This is only my opinion, I might be wrong, but at least this is how I think about this Wikipedia page. Overall this is a very good wikipedia article.

General definition part: The general definition of this concept is not very clear. If a person who doesn't have have background knowledge about linguistics, they probably would be confused. A more simple explanation of what this kind of pronoun this pronoun is and a very straight forward example would be more helpful to understand the concept.

Description section: For the description parts, there are four paragraphs, however, only the last paragraph is really relating the bound variable pronoun. All the other three parts, for me, seem like giving a very broad explanation for some sophisticated linguistics terminologies. I understand that this is trying to assist people who know nothing about linguistics to gradually get to the point of what bound variable pronoun is, but it may also cause some confusion because of these academic way of explaining linguistics. Moreover, those three example trees could be very helpful for understanding the bound variable pronoun but it will be better if there are explanations about these trees.

Distribution of English bound variable pronouns section: This section is very good and easy to understand. I found it very helpful to understand what bound variable pronoun is. It will be better if make the explanation more straight forward. For example, for the first sentence, it will be more clear to state that “everyone” is the bound variable pronoun first and then explain why it is. Imoe 5 (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sofia- Index theory

This section is pretty clear and straight to the point. The last example before the objections section might need a little more of an explanation. One who does not know anything about this topic may not understand it.

Hi Sofia, thanks for your feedback! I've added an explanation about this rule to make it easier for learners to understand. --Vloewen (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Kris- bound proN in Mandarin

I found the example (2) and (3) problematic because in Mandarin Shei does not mean everyone, it means who. And I don’t really get the example (3) in Mandarin that why him cannot be co-referred with everyone. It may be better to add a tree structure to explain why they cannot co-refer to the same person. Also, as claimed to have an ambiguous bound variable interpretation in example (2), maybe it is better to provide two possible ways to interpret the sentence.

There needs to be a word-to-word translation under the Mandarin data in example (1) and (3) (just to keep the form consistent).

The German examples under Krazer section may be taken out and reorganized into the Bound Pronoun Variables in Other Languages.

As in the section of Bound Pronoun Variables in Other Languages, there really needs to be more examples in other languages added to this section. Krissong1994 (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kris, thanks for the feedback. I've added the morpheme glosses and English translations in examples (1) and (3), marked as "adapted" (since the original paper did not include these glosses). I also tried to make the ambiguity in (2) a bit clearer, I hope it does.

I will take a look at the example (3) to see if a tree will help explain why co-reference is not possible, but I suspect there's something else grammatical at play there.

As for the use of "shei" in examples (2) and (3), using "shei" along with "dou" in a sentence gives the interpretation of "everyone" rather than "who", so the interpretations given should be alright.

--Vloewen (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've added an explanation as to why the example "shei de muchin dou kanjyan ta" cannot allow "ta" to be interpreted as being bound to "shei". I hope the explanation helps! --Vloewen (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Tanya- Section on Kratzer

1. In the introduction explain or link the term “feature transmission”and, “indexicals” incase people need further background information.
2. Clear definition of “reflexivized” and simple examples are a good illustration of the theory.
3. Elaboration of how the examples are representative of this theory would make the German examples more relevant and less intimidating to read.

Hi Tanya, thanks for your suggestions! I've identified "indexicals" in a better light but as I don't quite fully understand "feature transmission" just yet, I've left it blank for now so that anyone else (or me) can go back and add in some clarification.

I've moved the German examples to a different section, but in doing so, attempted to clarify their relation to the theory.

--Rrrrrllllleeeee (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

- Higginbotham's (1980) indexing theory:

1. Excellent chronology of steps involved in binding of pronouns. More examples that include indications of how each step occurs may be useful for the reader(learner).
2. A summary or conclusion would clarify the important key points of this section before the objections. Ttam1987 (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Ttam1987 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I've added more examples to the section, and created a subsection called "Applications to bound variable pronouns" that is meant to draw all the theory together into a concrete example. It can act as a summary, as well, since it shows all the rules in action. I hope that helps! --Vloewen (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Addressing comments for the Kratzer section and German data

I've moved the German section along with expanding more on the theory, adding in more English examples. I attempted to explain the use of third person features, but I think I may have confused myself along the way and am not that sure about fact stability. In following with the comments made, I described indexicals with a bit more detail along with clarifying the relation of the examples (English and German) to the theory.

In response to the comments on the German data, I cleared up some translation errors and added more detail to the examples in general. --Rrrrrllllleeeee (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Addressing comments for the Description section and Title section

I've edited the Description section and replaced the incomplete sentences and typos as suggested in the comments. I also added two sub-sections under the Description section categorizing the significance of bound variable pronoun from Syntax and Semantics perspectives. I also added some examples from journal articles and books published by the linguists. Moreover, I've added more details into the Title section of the page by briefly summarized the main concepts of BVA along with a simple BVA c-command diagram.--Fannyfish0224 (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of Format Updates

I've made some format-changing (as compared to content-changing) updates to the page recently. I readjusted the way the citations are done, putting the full citation in the "References" section and then adjusting each inline footnote to be in the short-reference style. This way, we can easily refer to different pages of the same piece of work.

I also added anchors to the examples so that, in the body of the article, a reference to a specific example can be linked directly back to it.

The example numbers have also been reformatted so that they start at (1) at the beginning of the article and progress incrementally throughout it. --Vloewen (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed title/subsection names for Reinhart

Changed title to something more specific so easier for readers to grasp the concept at a quick glance. --Millywkh (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Distribution of English BVP moved

Moved from further down article to near top of page. --Millywkh (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

More on the Reinhart section

I will try to simplify and clarify anything that can be simplified to make it easier for people with no linguistic background to understand. I will also provide ungrammatical examples as to compare and contrast with the grammatical examples. SakuraChii (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing Reinhart's Section

1. I think the following sentence needs to be simplified: Reinhart’s analysis of the interpretation of pronouns and their referential interpretations states that the “mechanism needed to handle anaphora is the one governing the translation of pronouns as bound variables.” I don't understand My edits on this section will mostly focus on easiness to read and understand for readers. Any edit I make in this section, aside from adding to the Objections section will be for this purpose. After reading the article, I believe this sentence is not needed.

SakuraChii (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Example in the lead

The lead should give an unequivocal example of a bound variable pronoun. The current example is "Gossip about every business man harmed his career." In my opinion this example is, at best, ambiguous. I, personally, find the bound-variable interpretation barely acceptable, and (without more context) would attempt to interpret "his" as a reference to an unknown person mentioned in a previous sentence. This would be different if the antecedent ("every business man") were the subject (rather than part of a prepositional phrase), and it might be different if the verb were an experiential present perfect, but I find it difficult to come up with an unambiguouly acceptable sentence without changing it completely. It would also be different if "gossip . . ." were the antecedent (e.g. "Gossip about every business man has harmed its target."). Having given the source only a cursory glance, I am not sure where the example originated and what exactly Reinhart is trying to say. --Boson (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the example to something that hopefully has a more acceptable bound variable interpretation (it does for me, at least). Upon a closer reading of Reinhart's paper, I noticed the previous example was used to suggest that c-command didn't necessarily best capture these sorts of interpretations (since the antecedent is in the prepositional phrase, although the interpretation is still acceptable to some people). I have, however, moved it to the English data section, since I think it's still a useful topic to explore in a bit more depth. I hope that makes the lead section clearer. --Vloewen (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding Content on 1st and 2nd Person Pronouns

I will be adding information from Dechaine and Wiltschko (2010) that covers when and why 1st and 2nd person pronouns can be bound variable pronouns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by tecsonr (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding Content under Theories: Déchaine and Wiltschko (2014)

I will be adding information from Rose-Marie Déchaine and Martina Wiltschko (2014) that covers the topics on the three conditions for Bound Variable Anaphora, the distribution and binding-theoretic status of co-varying anaphoric expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziyuy (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is too long and detailed. It is not appropriate for a general audience. The content in Wikipedia should be accessible to a wide audience, and it should not be overly promoting one type of account. It should remain more descriptive. Theoretical accounts of syntactic phenomena should be more suggestive than worked out and presented in detail. --Tjo3ya (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please respond to my comment about the length and detail of this article. And please comment about the problem I am pointing to, namely that the students of a particular linguist, who have minimal qualifications as linguists, are likely promoting their instructor's work in Wikipedia. If there is no response here, I will likely remove the section again, which brings us close to an edit war. --Tjo3ya (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback about appropriate of length and depth. I agree that it is not appropriate to promote a particular scholar's work without providing a broader context. Do you have constructive suggestions, other than deleting, about how to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM Dechaine (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is too technical; it is not accessible to a general audience. It is loaded with GB/MP terms, notions, and history. It is far too long, and your students seem to want to make it longer. My concrete suggestion is to cut its length in half, to basically start over. Remove the textbook introductions to GB/MP notions, e.g. what semantics is, what syntax is, what a binding domain is, what c-command is, etc. Remove much (not all) of the history. The article should be more descriptive, and descriptive in a neutral way. I fear that this message is not what you want to hear. What your students are doing is not making Wikipedia better. They are overloading Wikipedia articles with stuff they think is going to make their instructor happy. They are not yet qualified to write good articles about syntax, especially about complex and dense phenomena such as bound variables.--Tjo3ya (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)