Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Barriers and the Theory of Binding

  • Chapter
Representation and Derivation in the Theory of Grammar

Part of the book series: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory ((SNLT,volume 22))

  • 201 Accesses

Abstract

In the past ten years, considerable progress has been made towards the goal of unifying the locality conditions of various subsystems of UG. At present, three major approaches may be distinguished within this research programme: while the theories developed by (1983), Koster 1984a, 1987 and (1982) express generalizations about local domains in terms of quasi-geometric properties of tree configurations and directionality of government, local domains are fixed in terms of specific properties of subtrees in the two approaches implicit in the Barriers-framework, viz. the status of L-marking of a given category (cf. Chomsky 1986a), and extensions of a relativized concept of minimality (cf. Rizzi 1990, Fanselow 1988a, 1989a).

This article is a completely rewritten version of the talk presented at the Oberkirch workshop. For helpful comments, I am indebted to Sascha W. Felix, Peter Staudacher, and two anonymous reviewers for the present volume. A more elaborate treatment of anaphoric binding in terms of relativized minimality can be found in Fanselow (1990b).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abraham, W., & S. de Meij, eds. (1986) Topic, Focus, and Configurational-ity. Amsterdam, Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, A. (1982) ‘The representation of Case in modern Icelandic’. In: J. Bresnan (1982): 427–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoun, J. (1985) Generalized Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belletti, A. & L. Rizzi (1988) ‘Psych-Verbs and θ-Theory’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, D. (1984) On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J., ed. (1982) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos, H. (1989) ‘Modern Greek and CP transparency’. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 321–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1980) ‘On Binding’. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1986a) Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1986b) Knowledge of Language. London: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1988) ‘Some Remarks on the Economy of Derivation and Representation’. Ms., MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik (1977) ‘Filters and Control’. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everaert, M. (1986) The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht, Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everaert, M. (1988) ‘Nominative Anaphors in Icelandic: Morphology or Syntax?’. Ms., Univ. Tilburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. (1985) Deutsche Verbalprojektionen und die Frage der Universalität konfigurationaler Sprachen. Diss., Univ. Passau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. (1988a) ‘Kasusminimalität und L-Markierung’. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 29: 114–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. (1988b) ‘German Word Order and Universal Grammar’. In: U. Reyle & C. Rohrer (1988): 317–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. (1989a) ‘Features, parameters, and relativized minimality’. Paper, presented at the 1989 GLOW conference, Utrecht, April 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. (1990a) ‘Scrambling as NP-movement’. In: G. Grewendorf & W. Sternefeld (1990): 113–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. (1989b) ‘Konkurrenzphänomene in der Syntax: eine nichtpragmatische Reduktion der Prinzipien B und C der Bindungstheorie’. Linguistische Berichte 124: 385–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. (1990b) Minimale Syntax. Habilitation Thesis, Univ. Passau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewendorf, G. (1989) Ergativität im Deutschen. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewendorf, G., & W. Sternefeld, eds. (1990) Scrambling and Barriers. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider, H. (1988) ‘Pro pro-drop Drop’. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 42/43: 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, N. (1984) Logic as Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, N. & A. Weinberg (1981) ‘Case Theory and Preposition Stranding’. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J.T. (1982) ‘Move WH in a Language without WH-movement’. The Linguistic Review 1: 369–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R. (1981) ‘On Certain Differences between French and English’. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 349–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R. (1983) ‘Connectedness’. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, K. É. (1986) ‘The Order and Scope of Operators in the Hungarian Sentence’. In: Abraham & de Meij (1986): 181–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, J. (1984a) ‘Global Harmony’. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 61. Tilburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, J. (1984b) ‘On Binding and Control’. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 417–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, J. (1987) Domains and Dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, R.K. (1988) ‘On the Double Object Construction’. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H. & M. Saito (1984) ‘On the nature of proper government’. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maling, J. (1984) ‘Non-Clause Bound Reflexives in Icelandic’. Linguistics & Philosophy 7: 211–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, R., & K. Wexler (1987) ‘Parameters, Binding Theory, and Learn-ability’. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 413–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R. (1985) Logical Form: its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass., MIT-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montalbetti, M. (1984) After Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns. PhD-diss., MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muysken, P. & H. v. Riemsdijk (eds.) (1985) Features and Projections. Dordrecht, Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, D. (1982) Paths and Categories. PhD-diss., MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1987) ‘The Theory of Empty Categories and the Pro-Drop-Parameter in Modern Greek’. Journal of Linguistics 23: 289–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) ‘Verb movement, UG, and the structure of IP’. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, M. (1976) ‘Reflexivierung in deutschen AcI-Konstruktionen. Ein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma.’ Papiere zur Linguistik 9: 5–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyle, U., & C. Rohrer, eds. (1988) Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rigau, G. (1988) ‘Strong Pronouns’. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 503–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1986) ‘Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro’. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT-Press, Cambridge, Mass..

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, I. ‘NP-Movement, Crossover and Chain-Formation’, this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudin, C. (1988) ‘On multiple questions and multiple WH-fronting’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 445–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure. PhD-diss., Cambridge, Mass., MIT.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Gisbert Fanselow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for German Linguistics, Stuttgart University, Germany

    Hubert Haider

  2. DFKI, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Klaus Netter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fanselow, G. (1991). Barriers and the Theory of Binding. In: Haider, H., Netter, K. (eds) Representation and Derivation in the Theory of Grammar. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3446-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3446-0_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5524-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-3446-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation