1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The domain of pronouns and backward binding
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines the relationships between personal pronouns and their nominal antecedents, focusing on the phenomenon of backward binding. Drawing primarily on data from English, Polish, and Czech, it demonstrates that such coreference relations are governed by three key conditions: (1) linear precedence, (2) a structural constraint known as phase command (Bruening 2014), and (3) the information structure status of the nominal antecedent, which must be [+backgrounded/+topic] (Reinhart 1976, 1983; Bianchi 2009; Biskup 2011, among others).

The findings reveal that personal pronouns cannot occupy more prominent (commanding) syntactic positions than the nominals they refer to within a given sentence. Notably, even when pronouns are embedded within prepositional phrases (PPs) in English and Polish, they still trigger Principle C effects. This suggests that while PPs are legitimate constituents, their boundaries do not constrain the pronoun’s command domain. Instead, the command domain is delimited by the boundaries of derivational phases (e.g., vP, CP). Consequently, a nominal antecedent coindexed with a preceding pronoun is most natural when positioned in a separate clausal domain, such as an adverbial clause.

Additionally, the analysis shows that right-peripheral adjunct clauses fall within the command domain of the subject pronoun but not the object pronoun. Crucially, the antecedent nominal phrase must be [+backgrounded/+topic] to establish a coherent coreference relationship.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.25001.wit
2025-11-14
2025-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.25001.wit
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Agnostopoulou
    1998 Parametrising AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1023/A:1006090432389
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barker, Chris
    2012 Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/ling_a_00108
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00108 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bianchi, Valentina
    2009 A note on backward anaphora. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Biskup, Peter
    2011 Adverbials and the phase model. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.177
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.177 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bošković, Željko
    2012 Phases in NPs and DPs. InAngel Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework, –. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110264104.343
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110264104.343 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruening, Benjamin
    2014 Precede-and command revisited. Language (). –. 10.1353/lan.2014.0037
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0037 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruening, Benjamin & Elia Al Khalaf
    2019 No argument-adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C. Journal of Linguistics. –. 10.1017/S0022226718000324
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000324 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chomsky, Noam
    1976 Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 1982 Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 1986a Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 1986b Barriers. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2000 Minimalist inquiries. InRoger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel J. Keyser, (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, –. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2001 Derivation by phase. InMichael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, –. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. InAdriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2008 On phases. InRobert Freidin, Caroline Otero & Maria-Luiza Zubizarreta (eds.). Foundational issues in linguistic theory, –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2013 Problems of projection. Lingua. –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999 Adverbs and functional heads: A crosslinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Citko, Barbara
    2014 Phase theory: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2000 On the syntax and semantics of Polish adjunct clauses. Journal of Slavic Linguistics. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fox, Danny
    1999 Reconstruction, binding theory and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/002438999554020
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554020 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2002 Antecedent Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/002438902317382189
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317382189 [Google Scholar]
  24. Franks, Steven
    2019 Binding and phasehood in South Slavic revisited. Studies in Polish Linguistics (). –. 10.4467/23005920SPL.19.014.11079
     https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.19.014.11079 [Google Scholar]
  25. Grodzinsky, Yosef & Reinhart, Tanya
    1993 The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry (). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Grohmann, Kleanthes
    2003 Prolific domains: on the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.66
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.66 [Google Scholar]
  27. Grzegorek, Maria
    1984 Thematization in English and Polish. A study of word order. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer
    1998 Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Heycock, Caroline
    1995 Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hornstein, Norbert
    2024 The Merge Hypothesis: A Theory of Aspects of Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009415750
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009415750 [Google Scholar]
  31. Junghanns, Uwe & Gerhild Zybatow
    1997 Syntax and Information Structure of Russian clauses. InWales Brown (ed.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting, –. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. King, Tracy H.
    1993 VP-internal subjects in Russian. InSergei Avrutin, Steven Franks & Lilijana Progovac (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The MIT Meeting, –. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Langacker, Ronald
    1969 Language and its Structure: Some Fundamental Linguistic Concepts. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Lasnik, Howard
    1989 Essays on anaphora. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2542‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lebeaux, David
    1988 Language acquisition and the form of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  37. 1991 Relative clauses, licensing and the nature of the derivation. InSamuel Rothstein (ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure: heads and licensing, –. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373198_011
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373198_011 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lenertova, Denisa
    2008 On the syntax of left-peripheral adverbial clauses in Czech. InGerhild Zybatov, Luka Szukcsich, Uwe Junghanns & Roland Meyer (eds.), Formal Description of Slavic Languages. The Fifth Conference Leipzig, –. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Merchant, Jason
    2001 The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Muller, Gereon
    2004 Argument encoding and the order of elementary operations. Ms. IDS Mannheim.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Nunes, Jairo
    1995 The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
  42. Pescarini, Diego
    2021 Romance object clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198864387.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198864387.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pesetsky, David
    1995 Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Pesetsky, David & Ester Torrego
    2001 T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. InMichael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, –. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT press. 10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0014
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  45. Philips, Colin
    2003 Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/002438903763255922
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903763255922 [Google Scholar]
  46. Reinhart, Tanya
    1976 The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
  47. 1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica (): –. 10.21825/philosophica.82606
     https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82606 [Google Scholar]
  48. 1983 Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2011 Processing or pragmatics. Explaining the coreference delay. InEdward A. Gibson & Neal J. Pearlmutter (eds.), The Processing and Acquisition of Reference, –. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/8957.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8957.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  50. Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric
    1993 Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Riemsdijk, Henk van
    1978 A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberts, Ian
    2010 Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation and defective goals. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Safir, Kenneth
    1999 Vehicle change and reconstruction in A-bar chains. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/002438999554228
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554228 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schlenker, Philippe
    2005 Minimize restrictors!Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Sportiche, Dominique
    2019 Sombre prospects for Late Merger. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/ling_a_00306
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00306 [Google Scholar]
  56. Stepanov, Artur
    2001 Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure. Syntax. –. 10.1111/1467‑9612.00038
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00038 [Google Scholar]
  57. Stowell, Tim
    1981 The Origins of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
  58. 1982 Conditions on reanalysis. InAlec Maranz & Tim Stowell (eds.), Papers in Syntax: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, –. Cambridge: MA.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Sugisaki, Koji & William Snyder
    2002 Preposition stranding and the Compounding Parameter: A developmental perspective. InBarbora Skarabela, Sarah Fish & Anna H.-J. Do (eds.), BUCLD 26: Proceedings of the 26th Boston University Conference on Language Development, –. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Tajsner, Przemysław
    1998 Minimalism and functional thematization. Poznań; Motivex.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 2008 Aspects of the grammar of focus. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Tajsner, Przemysław and Piotr Cegłowski
    2006 Topicalization and object fronting in Polish. A view from a minimalist perspective. InDziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (ed.) Ifatuation: A life in IFA. A festschrift for Jacek Fisiak. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Takahashi, Satoshi, & Sara Hulsey
    2009 Wholesale late merger: beyond the A/A’ distinction. Linguistic Inquiry. –. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387 [Google Scholar]
  64. Williams, Edwin
    1997 Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Willim, Ewa
    1989 On word-order: A government-binding study of English and Polish. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Witkoś, Jacek
    2003 Movement and Reconstruction: Questions and Principle C Effects in English and Polish. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 2021 Possessive pronouns, Condition C and Anti-Cataphora Effects. Lingua. 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103109
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103109 [Google Scholar]
  68. Yadroff, Michael
    1999 Formal Properties of Functional Categories: The Minimalist Syntax of Russian Nominal and Prepositional Expressions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana.
  69. Yadroff, Mark & Steven Franks
    2001 The origin of prepositions. InGerhild Zybatov, Uwe Junghanns, Georg Mehlhorn & Luka Szucsich (eds.), Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics, –. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.25001.wit
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: phase-command ; backward binding ; Cataphora ; discourse continuity ; c-command ; Principle C

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error