Deep-Structure Binding of Pronouns and Anaphoric Bleeding

Akmajian, Adrian; Kitagawa, Chisato

doi:10.2307/413208

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As is obvious from the typological literature on relativization, the syntactic characteristics of RC's vary from language to language; in fact, they may vary even within the same language and dialect. There is thus little doubt that the above condition, which Akmajian and Kitagawa (1976) have named "relative clause binding," is what defines a clause as relative. Familiar structures of RC's set aside, it is the same "RC binding" principle which has guided my identification of constructions as relative or relative-like.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Restrictive Relativization in Gullah

Mufwene¹

1986

JPCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is argued in this paper that there are three kinds of relative clause (RC) strategies in Gullah: the deletion, WH-pronoun, and resumptive pro noun (RP) strategies. The deletion strategy applies to RC's beginning with a null (0) COMP or a purposive fuh, the WH strategy applies to Ø-COMP RC's, and the RP strategy applies to any of the above kinds. The latter actu ally complements the former two in allowing relativization where a gap is not permitted, viz., from the genitive function to the bottom of the KeenanComrie NP Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH). However, it is sometimes attested where a gap is permitted. The deletion and WH strategies are akin in allowing a gap under the same NPAH-based constraints, which is the opposite of the application of the RP strategy. But it is argued that Gullah's WH rel is only COMP-like but not a COMP itself. In a different vein, the question of the origin of these RC strategies is also addressed in this paper. The evidence points to the predominant role of English superstrate influence and to the restriction of possible, corroborative, African substrate influence only to the COMP-like interpretation of WH rel .

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Restrictive Relativization in Gullah

Mufwene¹

1986

JPCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Akmajian & Kitagawa, 1976;Kitagawa, 1982) or 'aboutness' relations (e.g. The relation of wa to the main clause may be characterized by 'pragmatic linking operations' (e.g.…”

Section: O'g Et Al's Japanese Study Of Children's Production Of Pronmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relation of wa to the main clause may be characterized by 'pragmatic linking operations' (e.g. Akmajian & Kitagawa, 1976;Kitagawa, 1982) or 'aboutness' relations (e.g. Kuno, 1973;Saito, 1985;Hasegawa, 1985).…”

Section: O'g Et Al's Japanese Study Of Children's Production Of Pronmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-linguistic studies of directionality in first language acquisition: the Japanese data – a response to O'Grady, Suzuki-Wei & Cho 1986

Lust

Mazuka

1989

J. Child Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elsewhere we have argued on the basis of cross linguistic studies of directionality effects on anaphora in child language, that there is no universal ‘forward directionality preference (FDP)’; rather such a preference is linked to languages with specific grammatical properties. Although such a preference has been attested in English acquisition, matched experimental designs in Japanese, Chinese and Sinhalese, for example, do not show this effect. In this paper we argue that current attempts to show that forward directionality effects can also be induced in Japanese acquisition do not succeed in supporting the FDP. Specifics of the design of stimulus sentences in these experiments vary previous cross-linguistic designs so as to favour forward directionality on independent grounds, and confound cross linguistic comparisons. They in fact support a universal structure dependence in children's hypotheses about directionality of anaphora’.

show abstract

“…No movement or deletion rules will have applied in (67): its surface structure is identical (for our purposes) to its deep structure. coreferential with) the head of the relative clause (see Akmajian & Kitagawa, 1976;Chomsky, 1977: 81 and 92;and Kayne, 1981, among others). 1976).…”

Section: Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Verb phrase deletion in English: a base-generated analysis

Napoli

1985

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sentences (1) and (2) have traditionally been related by a process that is called Verb Phrase Deletion (VPD).(1) If I wanted to collect bottles, I would collect bottles.(2) If I wanted to collect bottles, I would.The earliest analyses of this phenomenon suggested that (2) was derived from (1) by a syntactic deletion rule (hence the ‘deletion’ in the name of the process – cf. Ross (1969a)). Later (Jackendoff, 1972; Wasow, 1972; Fiengo, 1974; and Williams, 1977a, among others), it was suggested that a null anaphor was generated in the base followingwouldin (2), and that the semantic component read this anaphor as meaningcollect bottles, hence accounting for the synonymy of (1) and (2). A third possibility is that (2) is generated in the base with nothing followingwould, woulditself serving as a proform forwould collect bottles. And fourth, (2) could be derived from (1), leavingwouldas a proform, in a process resembling pronominalization more than deletion (perhaps ‘proverbalization’).

show abstract

Deep-Structure Binding of Pronouns and Anaphoric Bleeding

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

Restrictive Relativization in Gullah

Restrictive Relativization in Gullah

Cross-linguistic studies of directionality in first language acquisition: the Japanese data – a response to O'Grady, Suzuki-Wei & Cho 1986

Verb phrase deletion in English: a base-generated analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About