LEADER 07673nam 2200745Ia 450 001 9910973083703321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a9786612105005 010 $a9781282105003 010 $a1282105000 010 $a9789027290007 010 $a9027290008 024 7 $a10.1075/la.139 035 $a(CKB)1000000000722894 035 $a(OCoLC)646801395 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebrary10279952 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000136936 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11144307 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000136936 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10087898 035 $a(PQKB)11750213 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC622435 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL622435 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10279952 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL210500 035 $a(DE-B1597)721629 035 $a(DE-B1597)9789027290007 035 $a(EXLCZ)991000000000722894 100 $a20081023d2009 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 14$aThe derivation of anaphoric relations /$fby Glyn Hicks 205 $a1st ed. 210 $aAmsterdam ;$aPhiladelphia $cJohn Benjamins Pub. Co.$d2009 215 $a1 online resource (327 p.) 225 1 $aLinguistik aktuell =$aLinguistics today,$x0166-0829 ;$vv. 139 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 311 08$a9789027255228 311 08$a9027255229 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aThe Derivation of Anaphoric Relations -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Table of contents -- Acknowledgments -- Notes for the reader -- Introduction -- 1.1. The classical binding theory -- 1.1.1. Referential properties of DPs -- 1.1.2. The distribution of anaphors and pronouns -- 1.1.3. The binding conditions -- 1.2. Theoretical context of the research -- 1.2.1. A brief history of the binding theory -- 1.2.2. Current theoretical challenges -- 1.3. Organisation of the book -- Binding theory and the Minimalist programme -- 2.1. Introduction -- 2.2. Binding theory in Principles and Parameters -- 2.2.1. Chomsky (1973, 1976) -- 2.2.2. Chomsky (1980) -- 2.2.3. Chomsky (1981) -- 2.2.4. Chomsky (1986b) -- 2.2.5. Summary -- 2.3. The Minimalist programme -- 2.3.1. Core Minimalist assumptions -- 2.3.2. The Derivation by Phase framework -- 2.3.3. Theoretical problems for Derivation by Phase -- 2.3.4. Summary -- 2.4. Binding in Minimalism -- 2.4.1. Theoretical challenges -- 2.4.2. Chomsky (1993), Chomsky & -- Lasnik (1993) -- 2.4.3. Remaining problems for the Minimalist binding theory -- 2.5. Conclusion -- The binding theory does not apply at LF -- 3.1. Introduction -- 3.2. Evidence for a syntactic binding theory -- 3.2.1. Theoretical arguments -- 3.2.2. Empirical evidence for a syntactic Condition B -- 3.2.3. Empirical evidence for a syntactic Condition A -- 3.3. Counter-evidence 1: Trapping effects -- 3.3.1. Condition C interacting with anaphor binding -- 3.3.2. Quantifier scope interacting with A-movement across an anaphor -- 3.4. A modification to the analysis of Condition A effects -- 3.5. Counter-evidence 2: Idiom interpretation -- 3.5.1. Subjectless picture-DP idiom chunks -- 3.5.2. Picture-DP idiom chunks containing subjects -- 3.6. Counter-evidence 3: Reconstruction with expletive associates. 327 $a3.7. Counter-evidence 4: Reconstruction with bound pronouns -- 3.8. Conclusion -- Eliminating Condition A -- 4.1. Introduction -- 4.2. Encoding binding relations -- 4.2.1. Binding relations derived by movement: Hornstein (2000) -- 4.2.2. Binding relations derived by merger -- 4.2.3. Binding relations derived by Agree -- 4.2.4. Features involved in binding -- 4.3. Implications for the domain problem -- 4.3.1. Phases as local binding domains -- 4.3.2. Some preliminaries on probing -- 4.3.3. Binding in finite clauses -- 4.3.4. Binding in non-finite clauses -- 4.4. Binding at longer distance -- 4.4.1. Teasing apart nonlocal and local binding configurations -- 4.4.2. Complications with picture-DPs -- 4.4.3. Non-binding-theoretic constraints on reflexives -- 4.5. Binding into picture-DPs -- 4.5.1. Binding into a subjectless picture-DP within the same clause -- 4.5.2. Are DPs (LF-)phases? -- 4.6. Anaphor connectivity -- 4.6.1. The interaction of binding and A'-movement -- 4.6.2. The interaction of binding and A-movement -- 4.7. Conclusion -- Eliminating Condition B -- 5.1. Introduction -- 5.2. Empirical evidence for the local domain -- 5.2.1. vP as the local domain -- 5.2.2. DP/nP as a local domain -- 5.2.3. PP as a local domain -- 5.2.4. Implications for non-complementarity -- 5.2.5. Is the PF-phase really relevant? -- 5.3. Motivating Condition B effects -- 5.3.1. Improving on the Minimalist Condition B -- 5.3.2. Possibilities for a reanalysis of Condition B -- 5.4. Condition B as an economy violation -- 5.4.1. Why PF-phases are local domains -- 5.4.2. Is Condition B derivable from Agree after all? -- 5.4.3. Deriving Condition B from other principles -- 5.4.4. Remaining issues -- 5.4.5. Summary -- 5.5. Conclusion -- Extensions to other Germanic languages -- 6.1. Introduction -- 6.2. Dutch -- 6.2.1. Anaphors and pronouns in Dutch. 327 $a6.2.2. Analysis of Dutch anaphors and pronouns -- 6.2.3. Explaining the distribution of SE and SELF anaphors -- 6.2.4. Problems with zich -- 6.2.5. Summary -- 6.3. Norwegian -- 6.3.1. Anaphors and pronouns in Norwegian -- 6.3.2. The basic distribution of anaphors and pronouns -- 6.3.3. Extended binding domains and orientation -- 6.3.4. A note on reciprocals -- 6.3.5. Summary -- 6.4. Icelandic -- 6.4.1. Anaphors and pronouns in Icelandic -- 6.4.2. The distribution of sig -- 6.4.3. Problems with pronouns -- 6.4.4. Summary -- 6.5. Conclusion -- Conclusions -- 7.1. Summary of the book -- 7.2. Final thoughts -- Bibliography -- Index -- The series Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. 330 $aThe Derivation of Anaphoric Relations resolves a conspicuous problem for Minimalist theory, the apparently representational nature of the binding conditions. Hicks adduces a broad variety of evidence against the binding conditions applying at LF and builds upon the insights of recent proposals by Hornstein, Kayne, and Reuland by reducing them to the core narrow-syntactic operations (specifically, Agree and Merge). Several novel and independently motivated claims about syntactic features and phases are made, not only explaining the previously stipulated roles played by c-command, reference, and locality, but furnishing the dervational binding theory with sufficient flexibility to capture some long-problematic empirical phenomena: These include connectivity effects, 'picture-noun' reflexives in English, and anaphor/pronoun non-complementarity. Specific proposals are also made for extending the derivational approach to accommodate structured crosslinguistic variation in binding, with thorough expositions and analyses of the Dutch, Norwegian, and Icelandic pronominal systems. 410 0$aLinguistik aktuell ;$vBd. 139. 606 $aAnaphora (Linguistics) 606 $aGovernment-binding theory (Linguistics) 606 $aReference (Linguistics) 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general 615 0$aAnaphora (Linguistics) 615 0$aGovernment-binding theory (Linguistics) 615 0$aReference (Linguistics) 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general. 676 $a401/.456 700 $aHicks$b Glyn$01799646 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910973083703321 996 $aThe derivation of anaphoric relations$94346613 997 $aUNINA