Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T11:16:40.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The morphological basis of anaphora1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Luigi Burzio
Luigi Burzio
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Chomsky (1981: 188, 220; 1986a: 166) formulates the Binding Theory essentially as in (1).

(1) (A) An anaphor must be locally bound

(B) A pronoun must not be locally bound

(C) An R-expression must not be bound

The notion ‘bound’ is defined as ‘c-commanded by a co-referential element’. As for the notion ‘locally’, that of Chomsky (1986a) differs somewhat from that of Chomsky (1981), and much recent literature addresses the issue, especially in connection with the phenomenon of ‘Long Distance Anaphora’. (For relevant discussion see Burzio (1989c and references therein) and also Levinson, this volume.) For most of our purposes, it will be sufficient to assume Chomsky's (1981: 188) ‘within its [i.e. the anaphor's/pronoun‘s] governing category’, or even the formally simpler (though empirically less adequate) ‘within the same minimal clause’. The empirical effects of the Binding Theory in (1) can then be illustrated as in (2a, b, c) – instances of local binding, non-local binding, and no binding respectively. In each case the connecting line expresses intended co-reference, much as co-indexation in later examples. Each ungrammatical case is accounted for by the principle indicated in parentheses.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 81 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. (1986). The typology of anaphoric dependencies: Icelandic (and other) reflexives. In Hellan, L. & Koch, K. Christensen (eds) Topics in Scandinavian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966). Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe. In Benveniste, E., Problèmes de linguistique générale, Paris: Gallimard. 225–236.Google Scholar
Bertocchi, A. & Casadio, C. (1980). Conditions on anaphora: an analysis of reflexive in Latin. Calboli, G. (ed.) Papers on grammar I, Bologna: CLUEB. 1–46.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: a Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. (1989a). Work in progress. Ms. Harvard.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1989b). On the non-existence of disjoint reference principles. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 14. 3–27.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1989c) The role of the antecedent in anaphoric relations. To appear in the Proceedings of the second Princeton workshop on comparative grammar.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1989d). On the morphology of reflexives and impersonals. To appear in the Proceedings of LSRL XIX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Calabrese, A. (1984). Una differenza sintattica fra il salentino e l'italiano: la complementazione frasale. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 8. 195–203.Google Scholar
Calabrese, A. (1989). The lack of infinitival clauses in Salentino. To appear in the Proceedings of LSRL XIX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1988). On si constructions and the theory of Arb. LIn 19. 521–581.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, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, S. & McCloskey, J. (1987). Government, barriers and small clauses in Modern Irish. LIn 18. 173–237.Google Scholar
Eck, L. (1988). Papiamentu morphosyntax and anaphora. Ms Harvard.Google Scholar
Everaert, M. (1986). The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A. (1987). The notion of complete functional complex: some evidence from Italian. LIn 18. 511–518.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. LIn 16. 547–593.Google Scholar
Huang, J. (1983). A note on the Binding Theory. LIn 14. 554–561.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. (1983). The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (1989). Directionality of government and nominative Case assignment in Romanian. In Carl, K. & DeCesaris, J. (eds) Studies in Romance linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 208–224.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1988). Binding conditions and crossover phenomena. Ms, Harvard University. To appear with The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. & Tonfoni, G. (1987). Crossover in Italian. Ms Harvard University and University of Bologna.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1989) Essays on anaphora. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, Binding Theory and learnability. LIn 18. 413–444.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. (1973). Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indoeuropéennes. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Pica, P. (1984). Liage et contiguité, Milner, J. C. (ed.) Recherches sur l'anaphore, Paris VII. 119–164.Google Scholar
Pica, P. (1986). De quelques implications théoriques de l'étude des relations à longue distance. In La grammaire modulaire, Ronat, M. & Couquaux, D. (eds) Paris: Minuit. 187–210.Google Scholar
Rappaport, G. C. (1986). On anaphor binding in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1968). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Vol 2. Morfologia. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Ronat, M. (1982). Une solution pour un apparent centre-example à la théorie du liage. Linguisticae Investigations. 6. 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, T. (1983). Subjects Across Categories. The Linguistic Review 2. 285–312.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A. (1979). Reflexivization and the cycle in Russian. LIn 10. 109–141.Google Scholar
Tekavčić, P. (1980). Grammatica storica dell'italiano. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. (1985). Parameters of binder and of binding category in Danish, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, no. 23, University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1980). Coréférences et pronoms réflechis: notes sur le contraste lui/lui-même en français, Linguisticae Investigationes 4. 131–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar