An optimality theoretic approach to the coreference between NPs

The main goal of linguistics is to account for the specific properties of languages and, at the same time, the universal properties of language. Prince and Smolensky (1993) proposed Optimality Theory for this goal. Under Optimality Theory, all constraints are assumed to be both universal and violable. An optimal form among candidate forms is defined as the form which least violates constraints or violates constraints of less importance in a language. Candidates refer to possible structural forms which have the same semantic interpretation. Language variation, on the Optimality Theoretic view, is a result of different ranking of constraints.;The difference in the aspect of coreference is accounted for by different rankings of seven constraints (Thematic Hierarchy Constraint, Exclusive Antecedent Constraint, Binding Constraints, Reflexive Priority Constraint, Pronoun Constraint, R-expression First Constraint, and Anaphor First Constraint). Among them, the interaction between the Binding Constraints and the Reflexive Priority Constraint is crucial. As long as the Reflexive Priority Constraint is higher than the Binding Constraints, the use of reflexives is flexible. Both Korean and English allow two equal rankings of constraints (four possible rankings), while Chinese allows only one equal ranking of constraints (two possible rankings). Nevertheless, the use of the reflexives in English is strict because English does not allow the Binding Constraints to be higher than the Reflexive Priority Constraint. The use of reflexives in Chinese is more flexible than in English because Chinese allows the Reflexive Priority Constraint to be higher than the Binding Constraints.;This thesis concerns the theoretical question of how to account for the universal and specific characteristics of languages within the area of structural restrictions on the interpretation of pronouns and reflexives in Korean, Chinese and English. I propose an Optimality Theoretic account for the conference between NPs. I argue that the different hierarchies of constraints are closely related to cross-linguistic differences concerning coreference between NPs. I also argue that the relation between Binding Constraints and the other constraints is responsible for the flexibility in the use of reflexives across languages, more specifically in Korean, Chinese and English.