<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="J02-1001">
  <Title>Binding Machines</Title>
  <Section position="9" start_page="16" end_page="16" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
6. Conclusions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Departing from the coindexation-driven approach for encoding anaphoric dependencies in grammatical representations, we have proposed an alternative methodology where binding constraints are viewed as contributing to circumscribing their contextually determined semantic value. This semantics-driven approach allows a principled integration of binding constraints into grammar that supports both a specification format and a verification methodology free from previous difficulties. Importantly, it also permits a neat interface between the grammatical module of binding and systems of reference processing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Appendix In this article, we consider the version of binding constraints formulated within Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard and Sag 1994, Chapter 6). Recent developments indicate that there are four binding constraints (Xue, Pollard, and Sag 1994;  Computational Linguistics Volume 28, Number 1 Branco and Marrafa 1999). Here, the definition of each binding constraint is followed by an illustrative example.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  These constraints are defined on the basis of some auxiliary notions. The notion of local domain involves the partition of sentences and associated grammatical geometry into two zones of greater or lesser proximity with respect to the anaphor. The exact definition of the boundary separating the local from the nonlocal domain may vary from language to language. Typically, the local domain tends to correspond to the structure in the grammatical representation that is affected by the selectional capacity and requirements of a predicator.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> O-command is a partial order under which, in a clause, the subject o-commands the direct object, the direct object o-commands the indirect object, and so on, following the usual obliqueness hierarchy of grammatical functions, while in a multiclausal sentence, the upward arguments o-command the successively embedded arguments.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The notion of o-binding is such that x o-binds y iff x o-commands y and x and y are coindexed, where coindexation is meant to represent anaphoric links.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>