Anaphor Binding: What French Inanimate Anaphors Show

Abstract

Owing to different ideas about what counts as an anaphor subject to Condition A, two influential but superficially incompatible versions of Condition A of binding theory have coexisted: Chomsky’s (1986) version, and versions of predicate-based binding theories defended by Pollard and Sag (1992) and Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and modified in various ways since ( Pollard 2005 , Reuland 2011 ). Using inanimate anaphors to independently control for sensitivity to Condition A without the confound of logophoricity, we show that Condition A must be checked at the syntax-interpretation interface and that Chomsky’s (1986) version (an anaphor must be bound within the smallest complete functional complex containing it and a possible binder) is nearly correct, with one amendment: a tensed TP boundary is opaque to the search for an antecedent. Given these results, we argue that Condition A should be reduced to phase theory and we outline how this can be done.

Why is Reflexivity so Special? Understanding the World of Reflexives

“…Since Chomsky () introduced the notion of a phase as the key to our understanding of locality a variety of proposals have been presented exploiting this notion for an understanding of locality on binding, for example Lee‐Schoenfeld (), Quicoli (), Despić (), Charnavel & Sportiche (). Phases are local domains.…”

“…The CBT assumed that the English anaphor himself is just one single element that as a whole qualifies as an anaphor. Although already challenged by Helke (), and later by Jayaseelan (), this assumption still underlies a considerable body of current work in binding theory, notably Safir (), Hicks (), Rooryck & VandenWyngaard (), and also Charnavel & Sportiche (), though not, for instance Boeckx, Hornstein & Nunes (). To account for the logophoric use of himself , which we saw exemplified in (4), it is then assumed that English also has another, homonymous, expression, him + intensifier.…”

“…Despić (), for instance, develops a very insightful phase based analysis of cross‐linguistic variation in the distribution of dedicated anaphoric possessives. His analysis is quite easily compatible with an implementation in terms of a basic syntactic operation such as Agree. Charnavel & Sportiche () propose that, generally, the locality requirement expressed by Condition A of the canonical binding theory can be reduced to Phase Theory. To this end they present the following reformulation of Condition A:…”

“…Charnavel & Sportiche () propose that, generally, the locality requirement expressed by Condition A of the canonical binding theory can be reduced to Phase Theory. To this end they present the following reformulation of Condition A:…”

Anti-reflexivity and logophoricity: an account of unexpected reflexivization contrasts

“…A minimal condition on logophoric reflexives is that they should refer back to animate discourse antecedents (cf. Sells 1987;Charnavel & Zlogar 2015;Charnavel & Sportiche 2016). Crucially, that condition is not met for (1) -as Kuno & Kaburaki (1977) first hinted at.…”