Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to show that the inherent feature classification of nominals suggested in Chomsky (1981) is inadequate to capture cross-linguistic similarities between Marathi a:pan, Dravidian ta:n and Mizo ama:h. We shall show that they are not anaphors as they are not bound in the core local domain and they allow split antecedents. In view of their occurrence in the quantified and interrogative antecedent contexts and their inability to be coindexed freely, we argue that they are not regular pronouns. We propose that they be analysed as bound pronouns and point out that the binding conditions be stated differently. The fact that these bound pronominals, when used in the forbidden local domain, require reduplication or another anaphor or the presence of a verbal reflexive, provide further support to our claim that these be treated as bound pronominals.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
