Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 4:2 (2025) ► pp.269–319

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Binding in Finnish and the language-cognition interface

ORCiD logo with link | Independent researcher
Published online: 24 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00043.bra
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Language comprehension and binding
    • 1.2The hypothesis
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Procedure
    • 2.2Data
    • 2.3Algorithm
      • 2.3.1Introduction
      • 2.3.2Baseline algorithm
      • 2.3.3Implementation of the hypothesis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Observational adequacy
    • 3.2Descriptive adequacy
      • 3.2.1Deducing the binding conditions (English)
      • 3.2.2Conversations
      • 3.2.3Binding conditions A-C in Finnish
      • 3.2.4Restrictions on denotations and antecedents
      • 3.2.5Reconstruction
      • 3.2.6Null subjects and binding
      • 3.2.7Binding and infinitives
      • 3.2.8DP-internal binding and the picture nouns
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (121)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, V movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 491–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Almor, Amit. 1999. Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review 106(4). 748–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aoshima, Sachiko, Masaya Yoshida & Colin Phillips. 2009. Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax 12(2). 93–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Hajime Wada. 1988. A computational account of syntactic, semantic and discourse principles for anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 6(1). 309–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Cognition 28(4). 748–769.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Shori Ikawa. 2024. Control theory and the relationship between logophoric pronouns and logophoric uses of anaphors. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 421. 897–954. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Brattico, Pauli. 2017. Null subjects and control are governed by morphosyntax in Finnish. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 61. 2–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. A computational implementation of a linear phase parser. Framework and technical documentation (version 19). Pavia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Finnish word order: does comprehension matter? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 44(1). 38–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021a. A dual pathway analysis of information structure. Lingua 1031561. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021b. Null arguments and the inverse problem. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1). 1–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023a. Computational analysis of Finnish nonfinite clauses. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023b. Structural case assignment, thematic roles and information structure. Studia Linguistica 77(1). 172–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024. Computational generative grammar and complexity. Software documentation for Python scripts implementing computational generative grammars. Retrieved 2. 6. 2025 from [URL]
Brattico, Pauli & Cristiano Chesi. 2020. A top-down, parser-friendly approach to operator movement and pied-piping. Lingua 2331. 102760. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli & Saara Huhmarniemi. 2016. Finite and non-finite null subjects in Finnish. Manuscript.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2021. Generalizing the presuppositional approach to the binding conditions. Syntax 24(4). 417–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle. 2020. Logophoricity and locality: A view from French anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 51(4). 671–723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Logophoricity, perspective, and reflexives. Annual Review of Linguistics 71. 131–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1991. On definiteness. A study with special reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 111. 1–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures in Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 81. 425–504.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 101. 141–177.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Language 361. 276–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 1995. “Something else” for the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26(2). 249–275.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cunnings, Ian & Claudia Felser. 2013. The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(1–2). 188–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cunnings, Ian & Patrick Sturt. 2014. Coargumenthood and the processing of reflexives. Journal of Memory and Language 751. 117–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3). 409–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The heterogeneity of reflexives. Manuscript, retrieved from [URL]
. 2017. A formal typology of reflexives. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2). 60–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dillon, Brian, Alan Mishler, Shayne Sloggett & Colin Phillips. 2013. Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 69(2). 85–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fedele, Emily & Elsi Kaiser. 2014. Looking back and looking forward: Anaphora and cataphora in Italian. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20(1). Retrieved from [URL]
Fiengo, Robert & Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Silke. 2015. Theories of binding. In Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax — Theory and Analysis. An international handbook, 1357–1399. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2018. The interpretation of pro in consistent and partial null-subject languages. In Federica Cognola & Jan Casalicchio (eds.), Null subjects in Generative Grammar: A synchronic and diachronic perspective, 211–239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrod, Simon C. & Anthony J. Sanford. 1994. Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In Morton Ann Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 675–698. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Thomas Givón (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, 5–41. Berlin: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind A. Joshi & Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2). 203–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
Hankamer, Jorge & Ivan A. Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7.31. 391–426.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Heinonen, Tarja R. 1995. Null subjects in Finnish: from either-or to more-or-less. SKY Journal of Linguistics 81. 47–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helke, Michael. 1971. The grammar of English reflexives. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hicks, Glyn. 2008. Why the binding theory doesn’t apply at LF. Syntax 11(3). 255–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4). 533–564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The syntax of the Finnish question particle. In Peter Svenonius (ed.), Functional structure from Top to Toe, 266–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. The syntax of Yes and No. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Null subjects and null possessors in Finnish. In Leena 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Michelle Sheehan. 2010. Control into finite clauses in partial null-subject languages. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 125–152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Malden, USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000a. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000b. Discourse anaphora: Four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics 32(2). 151–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huhmarniemi, Saara. 2012. Finnish A´-movement: Edges and Islands. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.
Huhmarniemi, Saara & Pauli Brattico. 2015. The Finnish possessive suffix. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 4(1–2). 2–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1992. Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 101. 1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2003. Encoding (non)locality in anaphoric relations. In Diane Nelson & Satu Manninen (eds.), Generative Approaches to Finnic and Saami Linguistics, 269–294. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(10). 1625–1666. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 1–42. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kanerva, Jonni M. 1987. Morphological integrity and syntax: The evidence from Finnish possessive suffixes. Language 63(3). 498–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1977. Syntaktisten kongruenssijärjestelmien luonteesta ja funktioista [Properties and functions of syntactic agreement systems]. Virittäjä 81(4). 359–391.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. In James D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 363–385. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Language 56(3). 384–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koorneef, Arnout & Eric Reuland. 2016. On the shallow processing (dis)advantage: Grammar and economy. Frontiers in Psychology 71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koster, Jan & Eric Reuland. (eds.) 1991. Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. & Edward S. Klima. 1963. Rules for English pronominalization. Language 391. 17–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 107–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 251. 609–665.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loss, Sara Schmelzer. 2011. Iron range English long-distance reflexives. Minnesota: University of Minnesota dissertation.
Malt, Barbara C. 1985. The role of discourse structure in understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 24(3). 271–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzini, Rita & Ken Wexler. 1987. Parameters, Binding Theory and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18.31. 413–444.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, Andrew & Savio Meyase. 2022. Licensing and anaphora in Tenyidie. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 7(1). 1–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1985a. Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 24(3). 290–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1985b. Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 9(6). 785–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicol, Janet & David Swinney. 1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18(1). 5–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. The psycholinguistics of anaphora. In Adrew Barss (ed.), Anaphora: A reference guide, 72–104. Malden, MA.: Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paparounas, Lefteris & Faruk Akkuş. 2024. Anaphora and agreement in the Turkish DP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 421. 633–700. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parker, Dan. 2019. Cue combinatorics in memory retrieval for anaphora. Cognitive Science 43(3). e12715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Cambridge, MA.: MIT dissertation.
Pica, Pierre. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In Proceedings of NELS 17, vol. 21, 483–499. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The Finnish possessive suffixes. Language 56(3). 603–621. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2). 261–303.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo. 1986. Some asymmetries in the binding theory in Romance. Linguistic Review 5(1). 75–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 657–720.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 321. 439–492. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Agreeing to bind. In Hans 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2011. Dissolving Binding Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Construal and narrow syntax. Syntax 111. 330–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of Binding Theory. Natural Language Semantics 2005 13(1). 1–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18.31. 445–479.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sturt, Patrick. 2003. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 481. 542–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1990. A semantic reflexive and the typology of NPs. In Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen (eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax, 289–307. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Long distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Jan Koster & Eric Reuland (eds.), Long-distance anaphora, 49–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toivonen, Ida. 2000. The morphosyntax of Finnish possessives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18(3). 579–609. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trosterud, Trond. 1990. Binding relations in two Finnmark Finnish dialects: A comparative syntactic study. PhD thesis, University of Trondheim.
. 1993. Anaphors and binding domains in Finnish. In Anders Holmberg & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, 225–243. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish. University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
Vainikka, Anne & Yonata Levy. 1999. Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(3). 613–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Steenbergen, Marlies. 1987. Binding relations in Finnish. University of Groningen dissertation.
. 1989. Finnish: Configurational or not? In László Marácz and Pieter Muysken (eds.), Configurationality: The typology of Asymmetries, 143–157. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Long-distance binding in Finnish. In Jan Koster & Eric J. Reuland (eds.), Long-distance anaphors, 231–244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 2001. On noun phrase architecture, referentiality, and article systems. Studia Linguistica 55(3). 249–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa [Reference and definiteness in the interpretation of Finnish texts], Finnish Literature Society. Retrieved from [URL]
. 1995. Discourse configurationality in Finnish. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 244–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue