Anaphoric Binding Research Articles

Satisfying the composite probe on the Topic head in Mandarin Chinese

AbstractThis paper investigates two puzzles concerning gapped topicalization in Chinese: (i) DPs are restricted from undergoing multiple gapped topicalization via Agree and movement, while prepositional phrases do not face this limitation; (ii) DP gapped topicalization, typically viewed as an instance of Ā‐movement, is able to feed anaphoric binding, a property conventionally associated with A‐movement. I propose that these two puzzles can be elucidated by adopting three hypotheses: (i) Van Urk's (2015) featural approach to A/Ā‐distinction, (ii) Coon & Bale's (2014) composite probing mechanism, and (iii) Deal's (2015, 2024) interaction/satisfaction model of Agree. I will also demonstrate how this proposal readily provides a systematically consistent derivational mechanism to generate successive‐cyclic topicalization in Chinese.

(Under)specification Counts: When Nonlocal Anaphors Are Not Exempt

We explore the proposal in Charnavel 2019, 2020 that nonlocal anaphor binding is only apparent and reduces to local binding by a silent pronominal element—prolog—as the subject of a logophoric operator OPLOG in the left periphery of the anaphor’s local domain. Like any pronominal, prolog can be valued by a distant antecedent and should license split antecedents and partial binding for the anaphor it binds. We show that ϕ-deficient anaphors in different language families allow nonlocal binding, while disallowing split antecedents and partial binding, contra the main hypothesis of the prolog approach. We describe a Multiple Agree–based analysis that accounts for the patterns observed.

Anaphora and agreement in the Turkish DP

AbstractWhether the operation Agree should be taken to underlie anaphoric binding has been the topic of much recent debate. In this paper, we provide a novel empirical argument in favor of the role of ϕ-features and Agree in binding. The argument revolves around the intimate relationship between agreement and anaphora in the Turkish nominal domain, where certain complex pronominals can agree only if they locally bind an anaphor or bound pronoun. We argue that these facts can be readily understood if ϕ-features are crucially implicated in the syntactic derivation of binding. At the same time, we argue that not all binding can be reduced to Agree, based on data from Turkish PPs.

Syntactic ergativity and the theory of subjecthood: Evidence from anaphor binding in West Circassian

Syntactic ergativity and the theory of subjecthood: Evidence from anaphor binding in West Circassian

Licensing and anaphora in Tenyidie

Tenyidie shows a typologically unusual pattern of φ-covarying agreement with anaphors, but not other arguments. We argue that this apparent agreement actually reveals the nature of anaphoric binding in the language, which involves an Agree relation between the anaphor and its antecedent mediated by a licensing head. The features on this mediating head are realized overtly in Tenyidie. This is not genuine φ-agreement, but rather a morphological reflex of the binding relation itself. We provide supporting evidence from a range of constructions and also show how this analysis accounts for restrictions on anaphora in double object constructions. Tenyidie therefore suggests that there is a close link between binding and Agree.

Understanding the Nature of 'Self': Binding and the OVS Word Order in Russian

abstract: Anaphor binding is a broadly-studied and widely-used diagnostic for syntactic structure across languages: since anaphors (which are subject to Principle A of the Binding Theory) require an antecedent that is local, c-commanding and in an A-position, the possibility of anaphor binding is commonly used as a diagnostic for both c-command (e.g. Barss & Lasnik 1986) and A- vs. A'- distinction. This use of anaphor binding as a syntactic diagnostic is not without problems, however, as evidenced from the debate surrounding the structure of OVS sentences in Russian. The goals of this paper are, thus, three-fold: (a) to gain a better understanding of anaphor binding as a syntactic diagnostic, (b) to shed new light on the long-standing and hotly-debated puzzle of OVS sentences in Russian, and (c) to explore the interaction of syntax and semantics, as concerns binding and thematic roles.

Korean Specificational Pseudoclefts as Caseless Focus Nominal Extraction*

AbstractKorean specificational pseudoclefts exhibit a paradox. On the one hand, anaphor binding facts indicate that the pivot (or an element co‐indexed with it) must originate in a position located within the presupposition CP. Nonetheless, specificational pseudoclefts appear to be island‐insensitive. To resolve this paradox, I propose an extraction analysis whereby only caseless focus nominals base‐generated in the complement position of verbs or in the left‐periphery of the presupposition CP may function as pivots, and reach their surface position. This proposal has several implications. First, caseless nominals are structurally reduced, when compared to case‐marked nominals containing a case projection. Second, caseless nominals base‐generated in the left‐periphery of CPs can be foci conveying contrastive (exhaustive) new information. Third, anaphor connectivity effects are tied to syntactic movement of focus phrases and reconstruction. Lastly, specificational pseudoclefts and copular constructions do not have the same underlying structure.

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

AbstractThis 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.

Bağlama Kuramı ve Türkçedeki Kendisi Artgönderimsel İfadesine Yakından Bakış

Turkish has two forms to express reflexivity in the third person singular: uninflected kendi and inflected kendi-si. Depending on their theoretical position, researchers have proposed different approaches to account for the local and non-local binding properties of these two expressions. In fact, their binding interpretation is also very much dependent on syntactic, semantic as well as discourse features of the adjacent clauses. A number of studies have claimed that Turkish inflected reflexive does not constitute an exception to the universals as they are logophoric elements rather than true long-distance reflexives (LDRs) and heads of DPs with the specifier pro. In order to better understand 3rd person singular anaphoric binding in Turkish, the present study (a) reviews previous literature on Turkish as well as other languages in which we observe similar phenomena, and (b) provides further evidence to support how the inflected form in Turkish shows both local and non-local binding properties when the reduplication and the scrambling effects are considered.

Kokborok and the simple-complex reflexive distinction

AbstractThis paper presents an in-depth investigation of the binding strategies in Kokborok and we will look more specifically how this sheds light on the theories of reflexivization. Kokborok, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Tripura, a state in the North-East of India, has two reflexives:sak sak‘self self’ andsak baithaŋ‘self self’. The formsak sak‘self self’ conforms to Principle A of classic Binding Theory, blocking long-distance binding, but this does not hold true forsak baithaŋallowing non-local binding. It is a well-established fact that some reflexives allow non-local binding, but it is generally assumed that this phenomenon is limited to a certain type of reflexive, morpho-syntactically ‘simple reflexives.’ The so-called ‘complex reflexives’ generally bar non-local binding, and the Kokborok reflexivesak baithaŋseems an exception to that. This paper explores the uniqueness involved in the nature of anaphoric binding in Kokborok.

Does prosody meet syntax? A case study on standard Italian cleft sentences and left peripheral focus

AbstractIn this work we deal with two structures that have a very similar pragmatic function in Italian and have been claimed to have similar semantic and syntactic properties, namely clefts and left peripheral focus. Since Chomsky (1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.),Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.) they have been both considered as instances of A’-movement and should therefore behave alike. Here we investigate their prosody and their syntax on the basis of three experimental studies and show that while the prosodic patterns found are indeed very similar, their syntax is less homogenous than expected if we apply general tests that have been traditionally used to distinguish A- from A’-movement. In particular, we will discuss three of these tests, namely parasitic gaps, weak crossover and anaphoric binding and show that the two constructions yield quite different results. We analyse the differences within the framework of featural relativized minimality originally proposed in Rizzi (2004. Locality and the left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.),Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) and subsequent work. On this basis, we conclude that there is no one to one match between prosodic and syntactic properties, since we observe differences in the syntactic behaviour of the two constructions that do not surface in the prosodic patterns. Indirectly, this study sheds new light on the interface between prosody and syntax and is a confirmation of a modular theory of the components of grammar: some specific syntactic properties have no reflex in other components of grammar and can only be detected through purely syntactic tests.

Binding in Turkish Nominal Phrases: A Phase-Sliding Account

There are studies within literature which claim that nominal phrases such as DPs also constitute phases in addition to v *Ps and CPs (Chomsky, 2006; Hiraiwa, 2005; Marantz, 2007; Ott, 2008 and Svenious, 2004 among others). Every phase is subject to a strict locality condition, i.e. Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky, 2001), which forms an opaque domain for external probes. As one of the phenomenon subject to this strict locality, anaphor binding is allowed only within a given phase, since each phase is a local domain for the binding to occur. However, binding in Turkish CPs and DPs behave differently from each other. While the former allows only local reflexive binding, the latter allows distant reflexive binding as well. If DPs are also assumed to be phases, then they must not allow distant reflexive binding. I claim that this problem is an extension of an operation referred to as phase-sliding. It is an operation that extends the phase boundary by pushing up the borders of a spell-out domain (Gallego, 2010). It occurs when a phase head H 0 is raised to another head X 0 to form a complex [H 0 +X 0 ]. This study aims to show that this operation accounts for the asymmetry between the binding behaviors of the two phases, i.e. DPs and CPs.

The Embedding Puzzle: Constraints on Evidentials in Complement Clauses

The Embedding Puzzle: Constraints on Evidentials in Complement Clauses

The Different Aspects between Anaphor Binding and Scope Interpretation in the Dative IO/CAUSEE Constructions

The Different Aspects between Anaphor Binding and Scope Interpretation in the Dative IO/CAUSEE Constructions

Integrating LFG’s binding theory with PCDRT

We provide a formal model for the interaction of syntax and pragmatics in the interpretation of anaphoric binding constraints on personal and reflexive pronouns. We assume a dynamic semantics, where e-type expressions introduce discourse referents, and contexts are assignments of individuals to discourse referents. We adopt the Partial Compositional Discourse Representation Theory (PCDRT) of Haug(2014b),which models anaphoric resolution in terms of a pragmatically-established relation between discourse referents. We integrate PCDRT into the constraint-based grammatical framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), and show how it is possible to state syntactic constraints on the pragmatic resolution of singular and plural anaphora within this framework.

Principle A and feature valuation

Traditional binding theory is largely incompatible with minimalist assumptions. In this paper I propose an analysis of anaphoric binding based on a feature-checking mechanism (Pesetsky and Torrego 2007), by introducing the feature ⟨ρ⟩, a formalization of the reflexivity proposal of Reinhart and Reuland 1993. I argue that the ⟨ρ⟩ feature is responsible for establishing coreference between an anaphor and its antecedent, by being present and valued on reflexives while being unvalued on a higher phrasal head. Valuation of ⟨ρ⟩ under Agree results in the introduction of a λ -operator, which binds the reflexive variable, thereby establishing the coreference between an anaphor and its antecedent. I further demonstrate how this revision of binding theory can derive subject orientation of monomorphemic anaphors, Barss- Lasnik effects, and restrict at which moment of derivation binding theory can apply. In conclusion I show some novel asymmetries observed in wh-dislocated reflexives in English vs. Russian indirect questions.

The grammar of binding in the languages of the world: A response to Reuland

Cole, Hermon, and Yanti (2015) argue that the empirical facts related to anaphoric binding in two dialects of Jambi Malay undermine the Classical Binding Theory. Reuland (2017) agrees with this conclusion but argues that the data are easily accounted for by his alternative Universal Grammar-based approach to Binding. In this response, we demonstrate that the alternative proposal for Jambi Malay rests on claims about the language that are incorrect. While we do not, indeed cannot, demonstrate that it is impossible for a Universal Grammar based proposal to account for the facts as outlined in CHY (2015), we conclude that those facts remain an outstanding challenge.

3. Two Types of Phases and Anaphor Binding

3. Two Types of Phases and Anaphor Binding

Getting Really Edgy: On the Edge of the Edge

The article argues that in constructions where there is more than one phrase at a phasal edge, only the highest edge is available for movement and anaphor binding. This shows that only the outermost edge counts as the edge of a phase for the Phase Impenetrability Condition ( PIC). The article also demonstrates that moving the element that counts as the phasal edge in multiple specifier/adjunct cases can affect the PIC status of the remaining edges. These conclusions provide a new argument for the contextuality of phasehood. A number of recent works have argued that the phasal status of a phrase can be affected by the syntactic context in which it occurs. This article goes one step further: it shows that the concept of phasal edge, more precisely the status of a specifier/adjunct regarding the PIC, can also be affected by the syntactic context in which the specifier/adjunct occurs. The article also discusses several issues regarding the syntax and semantics of adjectives, possessors, and demonstratives, including what Partee (2006) calls familiar demonstratives, as well as anaphor binding.

Anaphor Binding: What French Inanimate Anaphors Show

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.