Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:23:57.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Remarks on the Government-Binding Theory and Anaphors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Milan Bilý
Milan Bilý
Affiliation:
Slaviska institutionen, Uppsala Universitet, Box 513, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden.
Get access

Abstract

The Government-Binding theory cannot account for reflexives in Slavic languages. We may guess that the more a language differs from English with its quite rigid word-order, the worse are the predictions made by the theory.

One cannot exclude Slavic reflexives as non-anaphors in a non-arbitrary way while keeping the spirit of Chomsky et al. The Slavic reflexives behave “as they ought to” in tensed clauses, too. An attempt to exclude them would also be another step on the self-destructive path that started by excluding the Japanese reflexives in order to cope with the facts clashing with the Government-Binding theory. Many interesting cases of English reflexives would also have to be ignored for the sake of the theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , June 1983 , pp. 37 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Anward, J. 1974: Swedish Reflexivization. In Dahl Ö. (ed.), Papers from the First Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 17–33.Google Scholar
Bilý, M. 1976: Pronominalization Rules (Coreference Rules) Described in Terms of Functional Sentence Perspective. In Karlsson F. (ed.), Papers from the Third Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 51–62.Google Scholar
Bilý, M. 1978 a: Some Thoughts about Functional Sentence Perspective, Empathy, and Reflexives. Working Papers 15, Phonetics Laboratory, General Linguistics, Lund University, 5–18.Google Scholar
Bilý, M. 1978 b: Reflexives and the Subjective (‘Empathie’) Side of Functional Sentence Perspective. In Gregersen K. et al. (eds.), Papers from the Fourth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 227–233.Google Scholar
Bilý, M. 1981: Intrasentential Pronominalization and Functional Sentence Perspective (in Czech, Russian, and English). Lund.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1977: “Pronouns and Repeated Nouns”, reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1979: Pronouns in Discourse. In Givon T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12, 289–309.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1981: Consonance, Dissonance, and Grammaticality: the Case of ‘Wanna’. Language and Communication, 1/2–3, 189–206.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1978: On Binding (Xeroxed first draft).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1979: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory, ms.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980 a: Rules and Representations, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980 b: On Binding, Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980 c: = Bennis H. and Groos A. (eds.): The Government-Binding Theory: An Overview. GLOW Newsletter 5, 7–31. (Recording of Chomsky's lecture given in Pisa 1979).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982: Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 6. Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, N. 1981: The VP Complement and ‘Control’ Phenomena: Beyond Trace Theory, Linguistic Analysis 7/1, 85–120.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.S. 1972: Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1975: Three Perspectives in the Functional Approach to Syntax, Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Chicago Linguistic Society, 276–336.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1976: Three Perspectives in the Functional Approach to Syntax. In Matejka, L. (ed.). Sound, Sign and Meaning, Quinquagenary of the Prague Linguistic Circle, Michigan Slavic Contributions 6, Ann Arbor, 119–190.Google Scholar
Kuno, S., Kaburaki, E. 1975: Empathy and Syntax. In Kuno, S. (ed.), Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics 1, 1–74.Google Scholar
Kiss, K.E. 1981: Structural Relations in Hungarian, a ‘Free’ Word Order Language. Linguistic Inquiry 12/2, 185–213.Google Scholar
Nilsson, B. 1978: Textual Factors that are Relevant for the Use of Pronouns in Turkish. In Gregersen K. et al. (eds.), Papers from the Fourth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 255–261.Google Scholar
Postal, P.M.Pullum, G.K. 1978: Traces and the Description of English Complementizer Contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 9/1, 1–29.Google Scholar
Pullum, G.K., Borsley, R.D. 1980: Comments on the Two Central Claims of the ‘Trace Theory’. Linguistics 18, 73–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van. 1980: The Theory of Categories and the Neutralization of Syntactic Features. Paper read at the Fourth Groningen Round Table, 4–8 July, 1980.Google Scholar