Advertisement

Bound and Referential Pronouns

  • Joseph Aoun
  • Norbert Hornstein
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 40)

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the behavior of bound pronouns (i.e. pronouns linked to quantificational noun phrases) in English, Chinese and Japanese. It is commonly assumed that these elements obey two distinct requirements. The first requires these pronouns to be in the scope of the quantificational NP they are coindexed with. The second states that these pronouns obey the same anti-locality condition as the one applying to referential pronouns: they must be A-free in the same environment as referential pronouns. That is, they obey principle B of the Binding Theory (see Chomsky 1981). In this paper, we will argue for two conclusions. First, whether referential or bound, pronouns obey two distinct anti-locality requirements rather than one. They must be A-free as well as A’-free in some local environments. Second, across languages, the environment in which a pronoun has to be A’-free need not be identical to the environment in which it has to be A-free; thus, corroborating the conclusion of Manzini and Wexler (1987) according to which the definition of locality is subject to variation.

Keywords

Local Environment Noun Phrase Linguistic Inquiry Embed Clause Matrix Clause 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoun, J.: 1985, A Grammar of Anaphora’, Linguistic Inquiry monograph 11, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, J.: 1986a, Generalized Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. Aoun, J.: 1986b, Bound Pronouns in Chinese’, NELS 16.Google Scholar
  4. Aoun, J. and Hornstein, N.: 1985, ‘Quantifier Types’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 623–637.Google Scholar
  5. Aoun, J. and Li, Y.: 1988, Two Case of Logical Relations’, ms. USC.Google Scholar
  6. Aoun, J. and Li, Y.: 1989, ‘Constituency and Scope’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141–172.Google Scholar
  7. Aoun, J. and Li, Y.: 1990, ‘Syntax of Scope’, MIT Press (to appear).Google Scholar
  8. Borer, H.: 1984, ‘Restrictive Relatives in Modern Hebrew’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 219–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N.: 1977, Essays on Form and Interpretation, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N.: 1986, Knowledge of Language, Praeger, New York, p. 169.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H.: 1977, ‘Filters and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 1–46.Google Scholar
  13. Finer, D.: 1985, ‘The Syntax of Switch-Reference’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 35–55.Google Scholar
  14. Higginbotham, J.: 1980, ‘Pronouns and Bound Variables’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 679–708.Google Scholar
  15. Hornstein, N.: 1984, Logic as Grammar, MIT/Bradford Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Huang, C.-T.: 1982, ‘Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar’, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Katada, F.: 1988, ‘What can Long-distance Anaphors Say about Operator Systems of Syntax’, NELS 195 (to appear).Google Scholar
  18. Kitagawa, Y.: 1986, ‘Subjects in Japanese and English’, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  19. Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D.: 1982, ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle’, The Linguistic Review 2, 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D.: 1987, ‘Subjects’, ms., University of California. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  21. Kuroda, S.Y.: 1985, ‘Whether We Agree or Not’, ms., University of California, San Diego, Linguisticae Investigationes (to appear).Google Scholar
  22. Lebeaux, D.: 1983, ‘A Distributional Difference between Reciprocals and Reflexives’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 723–730.Google Scholar
  23. Manzini, MR. and Wexler, K.: 1987, ‘Parameters, Binding Theory and Learnability’ Linguistic Inquiry 18, 423–444.Google Scholar
  24. May, R.: 1977. ‘The Grammar of Quantification’, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  25. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Montalbetti, M.: 1984, ‘After Binding’, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. MA.Google Scholar
  27. Reinhart, T.: 1983, Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, Croom-Helm, London.Google Scholar
  28. Raposo, E.: 1985, ‘Some Asymmetries in the Binding Theory in Romance’, ms. University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  29. Saito, M. and Hoji, H.: 1983, ‘Weak Crossover and Move-alpha in Japanese’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tang, C-C.: 1989, ‘Chinese Reflexives’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weinberg, A. and Hornstein, N.: 1986, ‘On the necessity of LF’, Linguistic Inquiry (to appear).Google Scholar
  32. Williams, E.: 1977, ‘Discourse and Logical Form’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139.Google Scholar
  33. Zagona, K.T.: 1982, ‘Government and Proper Government of Verbal projections’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Aoun
  • Norbert Hornstein

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations