Skip to main content

Fundamental Issues in the Theory of Binding

  • Chapter
Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 2))

Abstract

Within the current framework of the Extended Standard Theory of generative grammar, the Government-Binding theory (henceforth GB) of Chomsky 1981, two lexical NPs are interpreted as having the same intended reference if they bear the same index. Under an optimally simple formulation, coindexing is achieved by a rule “index NP”. Thus there is no special rule of coindexing or any special prohibition against coindexing by the basic indexing rule (see Freidin and Lasnik 1981 for discussion). This rule generates representations of sentences where lexical NPs are interpreted as coreferential as in (1–3).

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

Access this chapter

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

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

  • Aoun, Y. and D. Sportiche: 1983, ‘On the formal theory of government’, The Linguistic Review 2, 211 - 236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H.: 1979, ‘Empty subjects in modern Hebrew and constraints on thematic relations’, in J. Jensen (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, pp. 25 - 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, D.: 1982, On the Content of Empty Categories, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, M.: 1984, ‘On contextual definitions and the role of chains’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 355 - 380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1973, ‘Conditions on transformations’, in S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 232 - 286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1976, ‘Conditions of rules of grammar’ Linguistic Analysis 2, 303 - 351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1977, ‘On Wh-movement’, in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1980a, ‘On binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1 - 46.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiengo, R. and J. Higginbotham: 1981, ‘Opacity in NP’Linguistic Analysis 7, 395 - 421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidin, R.: 1978, ‘Cyclicity and the theory of grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 519 - 549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidin, R.: 1983, ‘X-bar theory and the analysis of English infinitivals’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 713 - 722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidin, R. and W. Harbert: 1983, ‘On the fine structure of the binding theory: Principle A and reciprocals’, in P. Sells and C. Jones (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 63 - 72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidin, R. and H. Lasnik: 1981, ‘Disjoint reference and Wh-trace’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 39 - 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, L. and J. Kornfilt: 1981, ‘Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish’, in F. Heny (ed.), Binding and Filtering, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbert, W.: 1982a, ‘In defense of tense’, Linguistic Analysis 9, 1 - 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbert, W.: 1982b, ‘Should binding refer- to subject?’, in J. Pustejovsky and P. Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 116 - 131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbert, W.: 1983b, ‘On the definition of binding domains’, in D. Flickinger (ed.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics II, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1980a, ‘Anaphora and GB: Some preliminary remarks’, in J. Jensen (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 9, 223 - 236, Ottawa, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1980b, ‘Pronouns and bound variables’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 679 - 708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1983, ‘Logical form, binding, and nominals’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 395 - 420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C.-T.J.: 1983, ‘A note on the binding theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 554 - 561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R.: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H.: 1976, ‘Remarks on coreference’, Linguistic Analysis 2, 1 - 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H.: 1981, ‘On two recent treatments of disjoint reference’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 48 - 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H. and R. Freidin: 1981a, ‘Core grammar, case theory, and markedness’, in A. Belletti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebeaux, D.: (to appear), ‘Locality and anaphoric binding’, The Linguistic Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, M. R.: 1983b, Restructuring and Reanalysis, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R.: 1977, The Grammar of Quantification, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T.: 1976, The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T.: 1981a, ‘Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 605 - 636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riemsdijk, H. van and E. Williams: 1981, ‘NP structure’, The Linguistic Review 1, 171 - 217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L.: 1981, ‘Nominative marking in Italian infinitives and the nominative island constraint’, in F. Heny (ed.), Binding and Filtering,, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouveret, A.: 1980, ‘sur la notion de proposition finie’, Language 60, 75 - 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouveret, A. and J. Vergnaud: 1980, ‘Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 97 - 202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solan, L.: to appear, ‘Parameter setting and the development of pronouns and reflexives’, Proceedings of University of Massachusetts Amherst Conference on Parameter Setting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sportiche, D.: 1983, Structural Invariance and Symmetry in Syntax, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, T.: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1986 D. Reidel Publishing Company

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Freidin, R. (1986). Fundamental Issues in the Theory of Binding. In: Lust, B. (eds) Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4548-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4548-7_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-277-2122-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-4548-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics