Anaphor Binding Domains
Isabelle Charnavel, Dominique Sportiche
December 2014

For twenty years or so, two influential but superficially incompatible versions of condition A (CA) of the Binding Theory (BT) have coexisted: Chomsky’s 1986 version which we call the classical condition A, and versions of predicate based binding theories of Condition A defended in Pollard and Sag (1992) or Reinhart and Reuland (1993) modified in various ways since (Pollard, 2005, Reuland, 2011). These two approaches make substantially different predictions regarding the distribution of anaphors. We argue that Chomsky’s 1986 descriptive generalization (anaphors must be bound within the smallest complete functional complex containing it and a possible binder) is basically correct, with one amendment: a tensed TP boundary is opaque to the search for antecedent. Given this descriptive generalization, we argue that the locality imposed on anaphor/antecedent relations by Condition A should be reduced to Phase theory and we outline how this can be done.
Format: [ pdf ]
Reference: lingbuzz/001742
(please use that when you cite this article)
Published in: Linguistic Inquiry 47-1 (2016)
keywords: binding theory, condition a, anaphor, logophor, phase theory, syntax
previous versions: v5 [January 2015]
v4 [February 2014]
v3 [August 2013]
v2 [August 2013]
v1 [January 2013]
Downloaded:3528 times


[ edit this article | back to article list ]