Binding and Morphology Revisited

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
This Chapter is currently unavailable for purchase.

One of the earliest and most compelling observations to emerge in response to Chomsky&#8217;s binding theory was the suspicious cross-linguistic correlation between the morphological structure of anaphors and their interpretive potential. Specifically, morphologically simplex anaphors (e.g. Russian <i>sebja</i>) are subject-oriented and can be bound by more distant antecedents than complex anaphors (e.g. English <i>himself</i>), which generally require local antecedents, the grammatical function of which is not restricted to Subject. This dependence, however, was inconsistent with the GB architecture of the grammar, in which PF and LF were mediated by S-structure and, under Minimalism, is incoherent: meaning/LF cannot <i>in principle</i> be read off of morphology/PF. Instead, it must be the anaphor&#8217;s LF &#8220;morphological&#8221; structure that somehow determines its binding properties. This paper therefore explores Slavic data for which PF and LF morphology diverge and argues that it is invariably the anaphor&#8217;s presumed LF morphology that is relevant for binding. Keywords: anaphora; binding; Logical Form (LF); morphology; parameter


This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address