Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-m259h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T05:32:34.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Binding and non-distinctness: a reply to Burzio1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Steven Franks  and
Linda Schwartz
Steven Franks
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Linda Schwartz
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A serious and widely recognized problem of the standard Binding Theory is that it has no non-circular definition of the crucial notions ‘anaphor’, ‘pronoun’ and ‘R-expression’. Burzio (1991) proposes a significant new characterization of these notions, based on their absolute and relative morphological content. Specifically, he proposes that different NP types can be distinguished by their Θ-feature content: anaphors lack Θ-features altogether, pronouns have Θ-features and no other features, and R-expressions have Θ-features plus referential information, as in (1). The Binding Theory can then be regarded as a single principle, stated in (2).

Information

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 227 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aoun, J. (1985). A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. (1992). LF movement of anaphaors and the acquisition of embedded clauses in Russian. Language Acquisition 2, 307–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguislique générate. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1990). On the non-existence of disjoint reference principles. Rivista di grammatica generativa 14, 3–27.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1991). The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27. 81–105.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1992). On the morphology of reflexives and impersonals. In Laeufer, Ch. & Morgan, T. (eds.) Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics: selected papers from the Nineteenth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 399–414.Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G. & Sung, L.-M. (1990). Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 1–22.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1985). Matrices and indices: some problems in the syntax of case. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1986). Case and the structure of NP. In Brecht, R. & Levine, J. (eds.) Case in Slavic. Columbus: Slavica. 220–243.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (in press). Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, S. & Connell, P. (in press). Binding, movement and the acquisition of anaphora. Journal of Child Language.Google Scholar
Franks, S. & Hornstein, N. (1993). Secondary predication in Russian and proper government of PRO. In Larson, R. et al. (eds.) Control and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1–50.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1987). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 23. 379–434Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27. 107–161.Google Scholar
Manzini, R. & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 413–444.Google Scholar
Pica, P. (1984). On the distinction between argumental and non-argumental anaphors. In de Geest, W. & Putseys, Y. (eds.) Sentential complemention. Dordrecht: Foris. 185–193.Google Scholar
Pica, P. (1987). On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. Proceedings of NELS 17. 483–499.Google Scholar
Progovac, Lj. (1992). Relativized SUBJECT: long distance reflexives without movement. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 671–680.Google Scholar
Progovac, Lj. & Franks, S. (1991). Relativized SUBJECTs for reflexives. Proceedings of NELS 22. 349–363Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MITGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T. (1972). Anaphoric relations in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–238.Google Scholar