Branching Split Obliqueness 
at the Syntax-Semantics Interface 
Antdnio H. Branco 
l)ept, of Computing, University of Lisbon 
l,'acuMade de Ci6neias, Campo (.{rande 
11700 I,isboa, Portugal 
Antonio.Branco@di.fc. ul.pt 
Abstract 
In this paper it is argued that the, 
accuracy of the syntax-semantics interfhce 
is improw',d by adopting u non-linear 
obliqueness hierarchy \[br subcategorized 
arguments. 
0 Introduction 
In the context of the emerging research area o\[' 
computational semantics, topics related to the 
syntax-semantics interfime have deserved special 
attention. One such topic is the SUBCAT fbature 
and the inIbrmation encoded in it. 
In IIPS(\] framework, this Ibatuce has been shown 
to be a critical point of articulation t)etween highly 
autononmus principle-based syntax and semantics 
cmnponents (vd. a.(). Frank and l{(',yl(; 1995). ()n 
the one hand, the SU//CAT list records in\[brnmtion 
about strict subcategorization properties of the 
corresponding predicator through the nature and 
number of its elements. On the other hand, by 
means of' the linear order hierarchy assigned to 
these elements, syntactic generalizations concerned 
with word order, binding, alternations, etc. are also 
regist, ered (I)ollard and Sag 1987, Ch. 5). 
Recent research, namely by lida, Manning, 
()'Nell and Sag (1994) and Sag and (iodard (1994), 
brought t;<) light evidence that, contrary Lo what 
was originally assumed in (l'ollard and Sag 1987; 
1994), those di\['ferent syntactic generalizations may 
not be encoded by one and the same ordering of the 
subcategorized elements. This issue was directly 
addressed by Manning and Sag (1995), who 
proposed to recast the SUBCAT intbrmation into 
two diffi;rent lists. 
()ne of the lists displays the subcategorized 
elements according to an order relevant to their 
linear surl~tce concatenation. This "valence" list 
results from the append of S\[}BJ, SPEC and 
(X)MI)S lists, which are but the result of a previous 
segmentation of the SUB(',AT list proposed by 
Borsley (1987) and taken u I) by Pollard and Sag 
( 1994, ('J~. 9). 
The other list, in Lurn, orders the subcategorized 
elements uccm'ding to a hierarchy relewmt U) se\[ 
up the binding relations between them. This 
"argument" list is the value o\[' the new ARG-S 
fbature. 
In this connection, the crucial point i want to 
m'gue li)r in this paper is that, in order to increase 
the syntax-semantics interface accuracy, the 
reshutIling of the old SUBCAT list must be \[hrther 
extended. In particular, on a par with its 
segmentation, into sub-lists and its splillin4; into 
possibly different ot)liqueness hierarchies, a 
branch, in, g ol)liqueness ordering should be also 
admitted. 
This paper is deveh)ped along three parts. Fi,'st, 
the mat n art u merits ef Mann i ng and Sag (1995) fi)r 
the dissociation between the ordering flu' linear 
surface concatenation and the ordering tbr binding 
are briefly reviewed. Second, I present empirical 
justification \[i)r the adoption of a non-linear order 
/'or the ARG-S wflue. Third, the definition of 
e-command is specified lbr this new obliqueness 
\[brmat. 
1 Empirical Motivation for Split 
Obliqueness 
The main arguments presented by Manninv and 
Sag (1995) for splitting obliqueness into valence 
obliquene.ss and binding obliqueness rest on the 
analysis of two linguistic phenmnena: reflexives in 
Toba Batak, a western ausLrenesian language, and. 
reflexives in Japanese causative constructions. 
1.1 Toba Batak reflexives 
The pair <)t' senLences in (1) illustrates tile 
distinction between the objective voice, in (l)a., 
149 
expressed by the di- verbal prefix and used in 
unmarked contexts, and its active voice 
counterpart, in (1)b., expressed by the mang- 
prefix (Manning and Sag 1995, (16)). 
(1) a. di-ida si Torus si Ria. 
ov-see PM Torus PM Ria 
'Torus sees/saw Ria.' 
b. mang-ida si Ria si Torus. 
nv-see PM Ria PM Torus 
'Torus sees/saw Ria.' 
In Toba Batak there is strong evidence that, in 
transitive constructions, a verb and the following 
NP form a VP constituent regardless of the voice 
chosen. Therefore, the constituent structure of 
(1)a. and b. is presented in (2)a. and b., together 
with the corresponding lexical entry of the verb 
(Manning and Sag 1995, (21), (20)). 
(2) a. Objective voice: 'Torus saw Ria.' 
S 
VP 
V NP I I 
di-ida Torus 
-PHON 
SUBJ 
COMPS 
SUBCAT 
CONT 
NP 
I 
Rht 
(di - ida) <D> 
<m> 
(mNPj, DNPi> 
I SEER 
b. Active voice: 'Torus saw Ria.' 
S 
VP 
V NP 
mang-ida Ria 
PHON 
SUBJ 
COMPS 
SUBCAT 
CONT 
NP I 
Torus 
(mang - ida} <\[\]> 
<\[\]) 
(\[~\] NPi, I-Y\] NPj> 
ISEER 
SEEN ijl 
Now, the examples in (3) show all the possible 
occurrences of one reflexive NP in the basic 
transitive structures illustrated in (1). In (3)a. and 
a'., the reflexive occurs in objective constructions, 
respectively, as an immediate constituent of VP 
and as an immediate constituent of S. The 
corresponding active constructions are displayed in 
(3)b. and b'. (Manning and Sag 1995, (22), (23)). 
(3) a. *di-ida diri-na si John. 
\[saw himselflvp John 
'*Himself saw John.' 
PHON (di-ida} \] 
NP: nproj /SUBCAT , NP:anai > 
\[CONT \[SEER \[SEEN ijl 
a'. di-ida siJohn diri-na. 
\[saw John\]vp himself 
'John saw himself.' 
PHON (di-ida) \] 
SUBCAT (NP:anaj, NP:npro i ) 
CONT I SEER \[SEEN ij\] 
b. mang-ida diri-na si John. 
\[saw himself\]vp John 
'John saw himself.' 
\] 
PHON (mang - ida) \] 
SUBCAT (NP: nproi, NP: anaj ) 1 
CONT LSEEN 
b'. *mang-ida si John diri-na. 
\[saw Johnlvp himself 
'*Himself saw John.' 
\] 
PHON (mang- ida) \] 
SUBCAT (NP: anai, NP:nproj ) I ' 
ISEER i\] / 
CONT L SEEN JJ J 
The pair of grammatical constructions (3)a'./(3)b. 
confirms that binding principles cannot be defined 
in terms of linear word order or c-command. In 
(3)a'. the antecedent precedes the reflexive, but in 
(3)b. it is the reflexive that precedes the 
antecedent; in (3)b. the antecedent c-command the 
reflexive, but in (3)a'. it is the other way around. 
However, contrary to the assumptions of the 
Binding Theory of Pollard and Sag (1994), also the 
150 
definition of binding principles cannot be based on 
the SUBCAT valence order. This is made evident 
by (3)a. and (3)a'., whose grammatical status is not 
correctly predicted. In (3)a., the reflexive is bound 
by a less oblique element in the SUBCAT list, in 
accordance with Principle A, but the construction is 
not acceptable. In (3)b., the reflexive is bound by a 
more oblique element in the SUBCAT list, in 
violation of Principle A, but the construction is 
acceptable. 
The solution adopted by Manning and Sag (1995) 
consists of a three step move: i) to keep the Binding 
Theory unchanged; ii) to create a new list of 
subcategorized elements, which is named ARG-S 
(from argument structure); iii) to define o-command 
relations on the basis of the obliqueness hierarchy 
established on this new list, which may be different 
from the obliqueness hierarchy established in the 
SUBCAT list. 
Let us then see how this solution works for the 
problematic examples in (3). In (4) we find the 
lexical entries of (3) after their reshut~ing 
according to Manning and Sag's proposal (for the 
sake of readability, the representation of SUBJ and 
COMPS features is omitted). 
(4) a. PHON 
SUBCAT 
ARG - S 
CONT 
a'. \[PHON 
SUBCAT 
ARG - S 
CONT 
b' IPHON 
SUBCAT 
ARG - S 
CONT 
b'. I-PHON 
SUBCAT 
ARG - S 
CONT 
(di- ida) \] D/> 
(E\] NP: ann, \[\] NP: np,'o) 
SEER 
L SEEN ij\] 
(di-ida) 1 <\[\]j, L\]i) 
(\[2\]NP:npro, \[\]NP:ana) 
\[SEER i 1 
LSEEN ,\] ~ 
(mang- ida> \] 
<\[\]NP:npro, F\]NP:ana) 
SEER ;1 
(mang- ida> 1 
<UNP:ana, NNP:npro) 
ISEER ;.1 
It is easy to check that the correct predictions are 
made if the relevant o-command relations are 
established on the ARG-S list: the reflexive is now 
coindexed with a more oblique element in 
(3)a./(4)a., and with a less oblique antecedent in 
(3)a'./(4)a'. 
1.2 Reflexives in Japanese causatives 
The other linguistic evidence put forward to 
support this obliqueness split is the behavior of 
reflexives in Japanese causative constructions, as 
originally argued for by Iida, Manning, O'Neil and 
Sag (1994). 
The analysis of case marking, agreement and 
word order phenomena in Japanese causatives 
reveals that this construction exhibits properties of 
a single clause sentence. 
As to the Japanese reflexive zibun, like English 
reflexives, it must be locally o-bound, with some 
particulars, as for instance its being subject- 
oriented, that is it can be bound only by a subject. 
Now, the example of (5) illustrates that, in the 
context of causatives, zibun is not restricted to 
being bound by the subject of its clause (Manning 
and Sag 1994, (44)). 
(5) a. Tarooi ga Zirooj ni aete 
zibun-zisini/j o hihans-ase-ta. 
Taroo NGM Ziro DAT purposefully 
self ACC criticize-CAUS-PAST 
'Tarooi purposefully made Zirooj criticize 
himselfi/j.' 
Also, pronouns exhibit a special behavior in the 
context of causatives. Contrary to the 
requirements of Principle B, in such contexts 
pronouns may be bound by an antecedent occurring 
in the same clause, but only if it is the subject of 
the causative construction. This is illustrated in (6) 
(Iida et al. 1994, (17)). 
(6) Tarooi wa Zirooj ni karei / ~)' o 
bengos-ase-ta. 
Taroo TOP Ziroo DAT he AOC 
defend-CAUS-PAST 
'Tarooi made Zirooj defend himi / ~:\].' 
The solution proposed in (lida et al. 1994) for 
accounting for the apparent peculiar properties of 
binding constraints in causatives relies on the 
assumption that the derived lexical representation 
of a causative verb, like tazune-sase ('made sb. 
visit'), has the form sketched in (7), where tazune is 
the verb 'to visit' and -sase the causative suffix 
(lida et al. 1994, (25)). 
151 
(7) 
PHON 
SUBCAT 
ARG - S 
CONT 
-PHON 
SUBCAT 
ARG - S 
CONT 
V 
/ \[~ NP \[nom\]: nproi, \[\] NP \[dat\]: nproj, 
\\[~ NP \[acc\]: ana k 
cause(i, j, visit(j, k ) ) 
V -sase 
(tazune) \] 
(DNP\[nomlj, D} 
<D, D> 
visit(j, k) I 
tazune 
Consequently, this solution relies also on the 
three basic assumptions adopted fbr the analysis of 
Toba Batak reflexives: i) the principles of Binding 
Theory remain invariant; ii) a new list of 
subcategorized elements, termed ARG-S, is 
adopted; iii) o-command relations are defined on 
the basis of the obliqueness hierarchy established 
in this new list. Moreover, there is a fourth 
assumption which proposes that Principles A and B 
should be validated in at least one of the two 
ARG-S features occurring in the derived lexical 
entry of a causative verbal lbrm. 
Looking at the lexical representation of causative 
verbs in (7) and the examples (5) and (6), it is easy 
to check that Principle A is satisfied in the lower 
ARG-S list for the binding Ziroo/himself, where 
Ziroo is the subject, and in the upper ARG-S for the 
binding Taroo/himself, where Taroo is now the 
subject. As to the contrast in (6), Principle B is 
satisfied in the lower ARG-S list, where the 
pronoun is locally o-tYee. 
2 Empirical Motivation for 
Branching Obliqueness 
Once the binding obliqueness is unpacked from 
the valence list and gets an autonomous status, it 
becomes easier to increase the empirical adequacy 
of Binding Theory, in particular, and the syntax- 
semantics accuracy, in general. In this section I 
argue this can be done by letting the ARG-S value 
have a non-linear ordering. 
2.1 Subject-oriented reflexives 
There are languages in which the reflexives, 
though they must be locally-bound, can be bound 
only by a subject. Examples of such languages are 
Malayalam and Hindi, IYom India, Lango ti'om 
Uganda, Bahasa fi"om Indonesia, Japanese, Korean 
and Russian (vd. (Pahner 1994, p. 100if) and 
(Manning and Sag 1995)). Example (8) is taken 
fYom Lango (Pahner 1994, p. \] 01). 
(8) 6k616 i 6kwh6 ~klbfi/ pIrl~ kEn~i/,~l.. 
Okelo asked Alaba about self 
'Okelo i asked Alabaj about himselfi/*j.' 
The solution put forward in (Manning and 
Sag 1995, (6)) to account tbr this particular sort of 
reflexives is to fbrmulate a new binding principle, 
the A-Subject Principle, where an a-subject is 
defined as the "entity that is first in some ARG-S 
list": 
(9) A-Subject Principle 
Anaphors must be a-subject-bound (in 
some languages). 
Deciding whether the Binding Theory should 
include Principle A or A-Subject Principle depends 
thus on the language which it is being applied to. 
The alternative solution I propose does not 
involve different formulations for binding 
principles or additional principles. In this solution, 
the Binding Theory is kept invariant. One simply 
has to state that, for those languages, like Lango, 
that have subject-oriented reflexives, the binding 
obliqueness hierarchy is not as sketched in (10)a., 
but as in (10)b.. In other words, languages may 
vary with regards to the configuration given to the 
ARG-S value. 
(10) a. 
b. 
\[ARG - S 
• ....... O 
argt arg2 
\[ARG-S ( argl, 
,/a~g2 
argl arg3 
arg n 
(argl, arg2, arg3,..., argn)\] 
• -- ''' " --0 
arg3 arg n 
{arg2, a,743,..., argn})\] 
2.2 Chinese long-distance subject- 
oriented ziji 
Chinese ziji is a subject-oriented reflexive 
pronoun which does not obey either Principle B or 
Principle A. As illustrated in (11), ziji may be 
bound by an antecedent from outside or inside its 
152 
clause, but it cannot he bound by an antecedent 
which is not a subject (Xue et al. 1994, (2)). 
(11) Zhangsani cong Lisij chu tingshuo 
Wangwu k bu xihuan zijii/j/, k. 
Zhangsan from l,isi place hear 
Wangwu not like self' 
'Zhangsani beard from Lis!j \[Wangwu k 
does not like himi/;~ j/himsel\[),\].' 
Xue, Polard and Sag (1994) discussed at, length 
the properties of this anaphor. The authors 
elucidated its particulars, namely that zUi is 
inherently animate, and ambiguous between a 
discourse pronoun and a (syntactic) z-pronoun. As 
at z-pronoun it obeys Principle Z (Xue at al. 1994, 
(38)): 
(12) Princi~ 
Zq)rmmuns must be o-bound. 
Nevertheless, the authors oflbre(t no solution tbr 
accounting tbr the thct that syntactic ziji is subject- 
oriented. That solution tbllows now naturally and 
iinmediately from the assumption that the 
elements of each ARG-S value receive the non 
linear order of (10)b.. Principle Z alone is thus now 
enough to make the correct predictions about ziji as 
soon as the o-command relations arc established 
over the binding obliqueness hierarchy of multi- 
clausal sentences displayed in (1;{), typical of 
languages with subject-oriented reflexives. 
(13) /2 
art\] 1 
\ \ /L 
argl n \ 
Any node in the hierarchy is preceded only by 
subjects because in each (clausal) AR(\]-S value only 
subjects can be less oblique than any other 
argument. 
2.3 Reflexives in Russian passives 
Binding Theory predicts that binding" constraints 
on subcategorized elements may change by virtue 
of' the application of lexical rules. The correctness 
of this prediction is cont\]rmed, for instance, by 
English passives (Pollard and Sag 1994, 
(\]h. 6, (111)). In (14)a., John cannot bind himself. 
I~ ut after tim reordering of subcategorized elements 
by the passive rule, John can now bind himself, as 
shown in (14)b.. The contrast of(14) is correctly 
accounted t'or because John is less oblique than 
himself in (14)b., but it is more oblique in (14)a.. 
(1.4) a. *Himselfshaved,}ohn. \[suI ,;AT 
b. John was shaved by himseH: 
ISUBCAT (NP:,,#,'o, NI':ana}\] 
In cennection with this possibility for lexical 
rules to change obliqueness relations, it would be 
interesting to lind cases where lexical rules change 
o-command relations in a way that the result 
requires a branching configuration. This would be 
an interesting empirical confirmation of the need 
ibr non-linear obliqueness. 
One such case can be fbund in the context of 
Russian passives. Russian sebe is a subject- 
oriented refle, xive. In active constructions it may 
he bound only by the subject. Nevertheless, in the 
context of a passive sentence,, like (15), sebe can 
also be bound by the by-phrase (Manning and Sag 
1994, (9)). 
(15) l'gta kniga byla kuplena Borisomi 
dlja sehjai. 
this 1)eok.NOM was bought Boris.INSTR 
tbr self 
'This book was bought by Boris/ {br 
himself}5' 
The subject-oriented behavior of sebe in active 
sentences results, like in other languages with 
subject-oriented reflexives, from the non-linear 
ordering of the elements of ARG-S value, with all 
argi (2 _<_ i _< n) being preceded by art1. As to 
passives in Russian, the lexical rule, among other 
things, must give a new ordering to the ARG-S 
wdue where all ar~i (3 _< i _< n) are preceded only by 
argl and art2. 
(1.6) Passive Rule (partial def.) 
\[Am~-s (\[~, ~J, {\[~,..., \[2101 
153 
2.4 Reflexives in Portuguese oblique 
complements 
Another problematic case for the current Binding 
Theory comes from Portuguese as it fails to make 
the correct predictions for binding patterns 
involving reflexives in the context of verbs with two 
oblique complements. One such verb is 
falar_com_acerca ('talk to about'): 
(17) a. A Maria falou com o Pedro acerca 
do novo Director. 
the Maria talked with the Pedro about 
of_the new Director 
'Mary talked to Pedro about the new 
Director.' 
a'. A Maria fhlou acerca do novo 
Director com o Pedro. 
the Maria talked about of the new 
Director with the Pedro 
'Mary talked about the new Director to 
Pedro.' 
Given the linear order for the ARG-S value the 
current theory assumes, it is predicted that if a 
reflexive occurring as the oblique complement Y is 
grammatically bound by an antecedent occurring 
as the oblique complement X, then X is less oblique 
than Y. Moreover, it is also predicted that the 
reversed binding configuration, where the reflexive 
would occur as the oblique complement X, will be 
ungrammatical. These predictions are sketched in 
the following contrast schemata, where si prSprio is 
a reflexive ruled by Principle A: 
(18) a. A Maria falou \[PREP-X o Pedroi\]oBL. x 
\[PREP-Y si pr6priOi\]oBL_ Y. 
b. *A Maria falou \[PREP-X si p.rSprioi\]OBL_ x 
\[PREP-Y o Pedroi\]OBL_ Y 
The failure of these predictions is illustrated in 
(19), which presents the instanciation of schemata 
(18). In (19)a./a'., PREP-X is made equal to corn ('to') 
and PREP-Y to acerca de ('about'); in (19)b./b'. it is 
the opposite. The pairs a./a', and b./b', simply 
exhibits different surfhce orders of the oblique 
complements in the sentence, a grammatical 
possibility illustrated in (17)a./a'.. In all examples 
the binding of the reflexive is ungrammatical 1. 
1 Vd. Pollard and Sag (94), p. 264, n. 17, for a related 
issue in English. 
(19) a. *A Maria falou corn o Pedro/ acerca de si 
pr6prioi. 
Maria talked to Pedro/about himself'/ 
a'. *A Maria falou acerca de si prSprioi com o 
Pedro/. 
Maria talked about himself/to Pedro/ 
b. *A Maria falou consigo pr6prioi acerca do 
Pedro/. 
Maria talked to himself/about Pedro/ 
b'. *A Maria thlou acerca do Pedro/ consigo 
pr6prioi. 
Maria talked about Pedro/to himselt~ 
This is another puzzle for the current Binding 
Theory which receives a neat solution with a 
branching hierarchy for the ARG-S value. In 
particular, the data presented in (19) receive an 
adequate account if the ARG~S feature of verbs like 
falar_com_acerca is as follows, where the two PP 
complements do not precede each other and a 
reflexive occurring in one of them cannot be bound 
by an expression occurring in the other: 
(20) a. 
\[ARG-S (NP, {PP\[com\]:npro, PP\[acerca de\]:ana}}\] 
b. 
\[ARG-S (NP, {PP\[com\]:ana, PP\[acercade\]:npro})\] 
3 Non-linear O-command 
All the solutions proposed for the above binding 
puzzles are similar in the sense that they rest upon 
the same two very simple assumptions. First, the 
Binding Theory remains unaltered, as defined by 
Pollard and Sag (1994, Ch. 6) with the subsequent 
specifications, put forward by Iida, Pollard and 
Sag (1994) and Manning and Sag (1995), that the 
binding principles must be validated on at least one 
of the relevant ARG-S features. Second, the 
elements of ARG-S value may have a non-linear 
order. 
Giving some attention to the first of these two 
assumptions, it is worth noting that not only the 
binding principles remained unchanged, but also 
the formal notions used in its make-up, (e.g. the 
relations of o-command and o-binding) were kept 
unaltered. This worked fine in the examples 
tackled above, but it is expected that a notion like 
o-command, ultimately defined on the basis of the 
precedence relation, may need some further 
specification. This is so because, given the second 
assumption that non-linear ordering~; are 
acceptable, new cases must be taken into account, 
154 
namely those where the relevant elements do not 
precede each other in the hierarchy. 
Consider the definition of o-command tbr linear 
obliqueness (simplified version, (Xue et al. 1994, 
(35)): 
(21) (Linear) O-command 
X O-COMMANDS Y iffX is a less oblique 
coargmnent of Z that dominates Y. 
\[n case Z=Y, X is said to LOCAI,LY 
o-command Y. 
where X is less oblique than Y iff X precedes Y in 
an ARG-S lisL 
This definition was shown to be adequate for the 
data considered so thr. Notice, however, that in the 
examples above we were mainly concerned with the 
validation of Principle A. Consequently, in those 
examples one was checking only whether a given X 
preceded a certain Y. For this kind of cases, having 
a linear or a branching obliqueness makes no 
difference tbr the definition of o-command as such. 
Now, when it is Principle B that must be 
validated, it must be checked whether a given 
element X does not locally o-cemmand another 
element Y. :If X and Y are not in the same ARG-S 
list, they do not locally o-command each other, 
irrespective of the option tbr a linear or a non- 
linear obliqueness. However, if' they are in the 
same list, assuming a linear or a branching 
obliqueness hierarchy makes a difference. 
In a linear order, two cases occur: either X 
precedes Y or Y precedes X. 'l'heretbre, X does not 
o-command Y iff Y precedes X. (i.e. Y is more 
oblique than X). In a branching order, however, a 
third case also occurs: X is as oblique as Y (they do 
not precede each other). Therefore, we would like 
to have an empirical basis to ascertain whether X 
does not o-command Y in this case. 
Suitable empirical evidence fbr settling this issue 
comes from the counterparts of the Portuguese 
examples in (19), where the rellexive is replaced by 
tlhe pronoun ele, ruled by Principle B. (22) presents 
examples where the pronoun and its antecedent 
occur in the same ARG-S list and they are equally 
oblique. 
(22) a. *A Maria falou corn o Pedro/acerca delei. 
Maria talked to Pedro/ahout him/ 
a'. *A Maria t'alou acerca delei corn o Pe.dro i. 
Maria talked about him/to Pedro/ 
b. *A Maria lhlou cem ele i acerca do Pedro/. 
Maria talked to him/ahout l'edro i 
b'. *A Maria thlou acerca do l~edroi corn ele i. 
Maria talked about Pedro/to him/ 
The ungrammatically of these examples shows 
that the pronoun is not locally o-free there and, 
consequently, it is not the case that the local 
antecedent does not o-command it. 
The data fi-om (19) and (22) present thus the 
empirical basis for a proper definition of 
o-command in non-linear obliqueness hierarchies. 
(19) shows that, when X and Y are equally oblique, 
it is not the case that X o-commands Y. (22), in 
turn, shows that, under the same circumstances, it 
is also not the case that X does not o-command Y. 
Consequently, the definition of the o-command 
relation must be adequately specified fbr branching 
obliqueness hierarchies as tbllows (italics indicates 
the specification added to (21)) 2 . 
(23) \[Non-linear~ O-command 
• X ()-COMMANDS Y iff X is a less oblique 
coargument of Z that dominates Y; 
X LOCALLY o-commands Y if Z=Y. 
• X DOES NOT O-COMMAND Y iff X is not a 
less oblique coargument of Z that 
dominates Y and is not as oblique as Y; 
X does not I,OCALI,Y o-commands Y if 
Z=Y. 
Conclusions 
It is was shown that the accuracy of the syntax- 
semantics interface in HPSG grammars, in general, 
and the empirical adequacy of Binding Theory, in 
particular, are improved by allowing the 
ohliqueness hierarchy to have a branching 
configuration. 
Data involving subject-oriented rellexives, both 
in active and passive constructions, subject- 
oriented reflexive pronouns, and reflexives in 
double oblique constructions presented difficult, 
apparently unrelated, puzzles tbr the current 
Binding Theory which received a neat and unified 
solution under the present account. 
Acknowledgments 
i am grateful to Hans Uszkoreit and Pahnira 
Marrafa for their advice. 
This research was supported in part by the 
PRAXIS XX1 l'rogram of the Portuguese Ministry 
of Science. 
2 Due to space, constraints other cases where X and 
Y do not precede each other but one is not as oblique 
as the other were not discussed in this paper. But it 
will be easy to check that (23) is adequately defined 
tbr such cases, t:br whose current analyses the 
improvements proposed here have no impact. 
155 
References 
Borsley, R. (J987). Subjects and Complements. Technical 
report CSLI-107-87. Stanfbrd: CSLI Publications. 
Frank, A. and Reyle, U. (1995). "Principle Based 
Semantics for HPSG." In Proceedings, 7th Conference 
of the European Chapter of the Association for 
Computational linguistic.% Dublin. 9-16. 
Iida, M., Manning, C., O'Neil, P. and Sag, i. (1994). The 
Lexical Integrity of' ,Japanese Causatives. ms., 
Stanford University, paper presented at the 68th 
Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. 
Manning, C. and Sag, I. (1.995). Dissociations between 
Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. 
ms., paper presented at the Tfibingen Workshop on 
HPSG, July 21-23. Tfibingen. 
Palmer, F. (1995). Grammatical Roles and Relations. 
London: Cambridge University Press. 
Pollard, C. and Sag, Ii. (1987). Information-based Syntax 
and Semantics. Stan\[brd: CSLI Publications. 
PolLard, C. and Sag, l. (1994). Head-driven Phrase 
Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 
Sag, I. and Godard, l). (1994). "Extraction of de-phrases 
f~om the French NP." In Proceedings of the North 
Eastern Linguistics Society, edited by Gonzhlez. 
Vol. 24, 519-541. 
Xue, P., Pollard, C. and Sag, I. (1994). "A New 
Perspective on Chinese Ziji." in Proceedings of the 
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 
Vol. 13, x-y. Stanfbrd: CSLI Publications. 
156 
