Binding, Phases, and Locality

Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9612.2008.00118.x

Cited by 33 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of these analyses have been based either on overt movement (Hornstein , Kayne ) or on covert movement and feature checking (Reuland ), and some of them have argued that (at least certain aspects of) binding can be derived from Agree (e.g., Chomsky ; Fischer ; Gallego ; Heinat ; Hicks ; Reuland , ; and Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd ). Finally, a number of authors have also suggested that local binding domains should be reduced to phases (e.g., Canac‐Marquis , Heinat , Hicks , Lee‐Schoenfeld , Quicoli , and Safir ).…”

Section: Binding and Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Phases, Reflexives, and Definiteness

Despić

2015

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates a puzzling correlation between two seemingly disparate phenomena: the crosslinguistic distribution of reflexive possessives and definiteness marking. As observed in Reuland 2007, 2011 and supported here by additional crosslinguistic evidence, reflexive possessives are available only in languages that either lack definiteness marking or encode definiteness postnominally. Languages that have prenominal (article-like) definiteness marking, on the other hand, systematically lack reflexive possessives. I argue that such facts support a particular approach to reflexive binding-specifically, one that has the following properties: (i) binding domains are stated in terms of phases, (ii) in addition to CPs and vPs, DPs are phases, and (iii) DP is not universal. I closely examine another robust crosslinguistic correlation regarding definiteness marking-Bo skovi c's (2008) Left Branch Extraction generalization-and show how it directly follows from the key assumptions of the analysis. I situate my proposals within a broader context of the phase theory, arguing that the syntactic representation of (in)definiteness is the crucial factor in determining the phasehood status of nominal categories. I extend my analysis to the clausal domain and discuss it in the context of languages that allow reflexives in the subject position.

show abstract

Section: Binding and Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, a number of authors have argued that local binding domains for anaphors are reducible to phases (e.g., Canac‐Marquis , Heinat , Hicks , Lee‐Schoenfeld , Quicoli , and Safir ). On such analyses, binding domains for local anaphors are CP and vP, because these are standardly assumed to constitute phases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phases, Reflexives, and Definiteness

Despić

2015

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of linguists argue for the reducibility of local binding domains to phases (Lee-Schoenfeld 2004, Canac-Marquis 2005, Quicoli 2008, Hicks 2009, Safir 2011, Despić 2011, Antonenko 2012, Charnavel and Sportiche 2016. Some assume that the binding domains for anaphors are CPs/TPs and vPs, drawing on Chomsky's (2001Chomsky's ( , 2008 proposal that CPs and vPs constitute phases, while some others further argue that PPs and/or DPs can also be phases (Lee-Schoenfeld 2008;Hiraiwa 2005;Bošković 2012Bošković , 2014Despić 2015). The basic idea behind phase theory is that a sentence is decomposed into syntactic domains called phases, each of which is spelled out and independently sent off to the interface levels, Logical Form (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF), which assign semantic and phonetic/phonological interpretations to the utterance.…”

Section: Anaphoric Binding: Tp and Vp Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The standard theory seems incapable of explaining why the reciprocal can surface but the reflexive cannot in such syntactic environments; this is because the two types of anaphors are predicted to appear in non-complementary positions, yet the reciprocal is licensed here but the reflexive is not. Such reflexive-reciprocal asymmetries, as I will show in sections 3 and 4, can be accounted for under three assumptions: the overt movement of the anaphoric distributor in reciprocals (see, for example, Heim, Lasnik, and May 1991, Carlson 1998, Büring 2005, which lends itself well to the copy theory of movement (Chomsky 1993); the binding-by-phase analysis (Lee-Schoenfeld 2004, 2008Quicoli 2008;Despić 2011Despić , 2015Antonenko 2012, among others); and the pronominal status of the reciprocal element indicating contrast, namely, the Arabic equivalent of the English other (Heim, Lasnik, and May 1991). I will also show that the phase-based model not only accounts for binding within possessive DPs or PPs, which will be argued to be phases, but also for binding within other phases like TPs or vPs (the phasehood of TP, which has been adopted from Antonenko (2012), will be discussed in the next section).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anaphoric binding in Modern Standard Arabic: A phase-based analysis

Al-Raba’a

2021

Can. J. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the distribution of Arabic reflexive and reciprocal anaphors in various structures as well as the syntactic environments in which such anaphors are (in)admissible. In particular, it examines the binding domains for reflexives and reciprocals and focuses for the most part on the asymmetries between these two types of anaphors in possessive DPs and PPs. It will be shown that the binding facts are better captured by reducing binding domains to phases, that DPs and PPs constitute a phase only when containing a possessive phrase, and that a reflexive and a reciprocal behave differently in such possessive structures in that the latter, unlike the former, undergoes overt movement. Accordingly, it will be argued that reflexive possessives are ungrammatical because they are left unbound in their DP/PP phase, while reciprocal possessives are grammatical since multiple copies of the distributor are created during the derivation due to movement, allowing it to seek an antecedent in the higher vP, its phasal binding domain. For this to hold, Principle A should apply cyclically at the end of each phase; that is, before the complement of the phase head is spelled out.

show abstract

“…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.…”

Section: Towards a Comprehensive Theory Of Bindingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is Reflexivity so Special? Understanding the World of Reflexives

Reuland

2017

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do so many languages employ special means to express reflexive predicates, and why can what languages do be so diverse, although the notion of a reflexive predicate appears to be so simple? What happens in languages that don't seem to do anything special? The contributions in this special issue all focus on the various ways in which natural languages express reflexivity, and how the challenges their diversity poses can be addressed. In this contribution I present and further develop my answers to these questions, showing that except for a definition of binding no principles specific to binding need to be assumed. Sections 3-7 provide an overview of issues against which the results of current binding research are to be interpreted. I briefly address the role of phases in the theory of binding and argue that phases are relevant only indirectly namely in so far as the operations involved in the encoding of binding dependencies are themselves sensitive to phase-hood. I also relate my account to current debates about the relation between syntax and morphology (as in Distributed Morphology), showing that a too loose connection between syntax and morphology leads to severe methodological problems. Section 8, presents an explicit derivation of the need for reflexivity to be licensed, addressing questions that have been raised since that idea was first presented. Section 9 provides a summary of the approach.

show abstract

Binding, Phases, and Locality

Cited by 33 publications

References 15 publications

Phases, Reflexives, and Definiteness

Phases, Reflexives, and Definiteness

Anaphoric binding in Modern Standard Arabic: A phase-based analysis

Why is Reflexivity so Special? Understanding the World of Reflexives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About