Generalized binding: The syntax and logical form of wh-interrogatives 9783111392851, 9783111030364

Citation preview

Generalized Binding

The Syntax and Logical Form of Wh-interrogatives

Studies in Generative Grammar The goal of this series is to publish those texts that are representative of recent advances in the theory of formal grammar. Too many studies do not reach the public they deserve because of the depth and detail that make them unsuitable for publication in article form. We hope that the present series will make these studies available to a wider audience than has hitherto been possible. Editors:

Jan Koster Henk van Riemsdijk

Other books

in this

series:

1. Wim Zonneveld

14. Denis Bouchard

A Formal Theory of Exceptions Generative Phonology

in

The Syntax

Syntactic Developments Phrase of Ecuadorian

in the Verb Quechua

3. Geert Booij

in Syntactic

Marked-

Principles

in on

Creole

Studies of

Aspect

on Government

and

Binding

10. Robert May and Jan Koster (eds.) of Syntactic

Representation

11. Luigi Rizzi Syntax

12. Osvaldo Jaeggli in Romance Syntax

on German

Syntax

Grammar

22. J. Guéron/H.G. Obenauer/ J.-Y.Pollock (eds.) Representation

23. S.J. Keyser/W. O'Neil Rule Generalization Language Change

and Optionality

24. Julia Horvath FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian

25. Pieter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk Features

13. Hagit Borer Parametric

Modularity

Grammatical

9. Noam Chomsky

Topics

Syntactic

21. Jindfich Toman

The Semantic Interpretation and Aktionsarten

in Italian

Morphology

Syntactic

8. Christer Platzack

Issues

the

20. Gabriella Hermon

Gapping

Levels

Branching

18. Sergio Scalise

A Unified Theory of Categories

7. Anneke Neijt

Lectures

and Binary

19. Joseph E. Emonds

Syntax

6. Pieter Muysken (ed.) Studies

Verbs

Connectedness

Generative

5. Jan Koster

Generative Languages

of

16. Richard S. Kayne

Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: Structure of Polish

4. Henk van Riemsdijk

Locality

Categories

17. Jerzy Rubach

Morphology

A Case Study ness

of Empty

15. Hilda Koopman

2. Pieter Muysken

Dutch

On the Content

and

Projections

in

Joseph Aoun

Generalized Binding

The Syntax and Logical Form of Wh-interrogatives

1986 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Riverton - U.S.A.

Published by: Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 AM Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sole distributor for the U.S.A. and Canada: Foris Publications U.S.A. P.O. Box C-50 Riverton N.J. 08077 U.S.A. CIP-data

ISBN 90 6765 108 7 (Bound) ISBN 90 6765 109 5 (Paper) © 1985 Foris Publications - Dordrecht No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

Contents

Introduction 0.1. A Historical Perspective 0.2. Non-overt Anaphors in Chamorro

VII VII XI

Chapter 1. Binding of nominals in Chinese 1.0. Presentation 1.1. Generalized Binding 1.2. A Significant Generalization in Chinese: the absence of the NIC 1.2.1. Connectedness and the Path Containment Condition 1.3. Adjuncts versus Non-Adjuncts 1.3.1. Binding of Adjuncts 1.4. Pronominal Binding 1.4.1. Binding in Noun Phrases 1.5. Pro-Drop 1.6. Summary Notes to Chapter 1

1 1 3

15 19 29 33 40 42 48 49

Chapter 2. Non-overt categories in COMP 2.0. Presentation 2.1. A-Anaphors in A-position 2.1.1. Reciprocals in Italian 2.2. A-Anaphors in A-position: Intermediate Traces in COMP. 2.2.1. Government of Intermediate Traces 2.2.2. Binding of Intermediate Traces Notes to Chapter 2

53 53 54 55 58 58 64 76

Chapter 3. Anaphoric binding 3.1. Anaphoric Binding 3.2. COMP Indexing: Domains of Application of the Binding Principles 3.3. Summary Appendix to Chapter 3: *That-t Effects and Subject-Aux-Inversion Notes to Chapter 3

81 81

9

87 104 105 107

VI

Generalized Binding

Chapter 4. Verb-Fronting and the Pro-Drop parameter 4.0. Presentation 4.1. Verb-Movement and Wh-Extraction in Spanish 4.2. Pro-Drop Languages and Post-Verbal Extraction 4.3. Conclusion Notes to Chapter 4

Ill Ill 112 126 138 140

Chapter 5. Verbal Anaphors 5.0. Presentation 5.1. Verbal A-Anaphors 5.2. Verbal A-Anaphors Notes to Chapter 5

144 144 144 153 163

References

167

Index

171

Introduction

0 . 1 . A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The Syntax and Logical Form (LF) interpretation of wh-interrogative constructions played a central role in the research program of generative grammar. It was recognized very early that the relation between a wh-element and the gap it is coindexed with obeys various locality requirements. Thus, in English, a wh-element and its gap cannot be "related" across a complex NP (such as a relative clause, as in (1), or across a sentence headed by another wh-interrogative, as in (2). (1)

*whOj did you see the man that gave a book to jc;

(2)

*whOi did you wonder [which book to give to x j where x is the gap related to the wh-element who

The locality requirements whose effect is illustrated in sentences (1-2) are referred to as the Complex NP Constraint and the Wh-Island Constraint (see Ross 1967 and Chomsky 1977b). A major step in the understanding of the nature of these various locality requirements was the one initiated in Chomsky (1977b). There, it was shown that these requirements can be subsumed under a general principle, the Subjacency Principle, which prevents wh-elements and their gap from being related across more than one bounding node. The set of bounding nodes for English was characterized as S and NP. Once Subjacency was introduced, it was no longer necessary to assume that the above-mentioned constraints constituted independent principles in the grammar. A confirmation of this approach was provided by the behavior of wh-interrogatives in Italian and in French, where sentences parallel to (2) are grammatical despite the fact that sentences parallel to (1) are not. It was argued in Rizzi (1982), then in Sportiche (1981) that the contrast between English on the one hand and Italian and French on the other can be traced back to the fact that NP and S - but not S - are taken to be the bounding nodes in Italian and French. The choice of bounding nodes thus appeared to be parametrized across languages. Turning to the Logical interpretation of wh-interrogatives, the term 'variable' has been introduced into recent linguistic usage, by analogy with

VIII

Generalized Binding

standard logic usage where x in (4) is called a variable bound by the quantifier everyone: (4)

[everyone^

likes basketball]

The gap coindexed with a wh-interrogative has been assimilated to variables in Chomsky (1977a). This move obviously embodies a strong empirical claim: it distinguishes a class of elements which should exhibit a set of characteristic properties. This is precisely the case with the so-called weak cross-over phenomenon: (5)

a. who does his mother love b. his mother loves everyone

In sentences (5a-b), the pronoun his cannot be bound by who or by everyone. The LF-representations of the bound reading of (5a-b) would be the following: (6)

a. who; [his; mother loves JC4] b. everyONEI [hiss mother loves JCJ

(6a) is identical to its syntactic structure, while (6b) would be generated by the LF rule of Quantifier Raising, which roughly préposés quantifiers to the front of the clause in which they occur (see May 1977). The jcs in (6a-b) are variables, a variable being an empty category in an A-position coindexed with an element in À-position, where an A-position is a position bearing a grammatical function (subject of, object of, etc.) and an Àposition is a position which is not an A-position. Representations such as (6a-b) were excluded in Chomsky (1977a) by the Leftness Condition: a variable cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun to its left. As with the Complex NP Constraint or the Wh-Island Constraint, the question arises whether the Leftness Condition should be stated as an independent constraint or derived from more general principles. This question, however, is not the focus of our presentation. See Higginbotham (1980) and Koopman & Sportiche (1982) for relevant considerations. Thus far, through the discussion of the Subjacency Principle and the weak cross-over phenomenon, our intention has been to highlight the importance of the role played by wh-interrogative constructions in generative grammar. Indeed, the thrust of most of this work is to establish a modular theory of syntax and a program of comparative syntax. The modular approach was illustrated via the discussion of the syntactic principle of Subjacency, which constrains the distribution of wh-interrogatives, and the LF Leftness Condition, which constrains their interpretation. It also seems

Introduction

IX

accurate to say that the concept of parameters - a central concept in the generative program of comparative syntax - originated in the contrastive study of wh-interrogatives (see Rizzi 1982). Wh-interrogatives not only played a major role in the formulation of the various modules of the grammatical theory, but also contributed to a radical change in the overall model assumed in generative grammar. Indeed, in the so-called (Revised) Extended Standard Theory, the elements we referred to as variables were assimilated to sentential anaphors such as reciprocals and reflexives. It is well known that sentential anaphors require an antecedent (cf. (7)) and that the anaphor and the antecedent must both occur in a given local domain, sometimes referred to as an opaque domain (cf. (8)). (7)

^

a.

themselves each other b. „ ,

* they; said that

left f themselves; 1 [each other; J I t ^ ie " lse ^ ves i I Leach other; J

like bananas

For the purpose of the present discussion, and distorting the reality somewhat, we will assume that the opaque domain in which the anaphor must find its antecedent is the minimal clause in which it appears; a more accurate characterization of the opaque domain will be provided in chapter 1. Returning to the parallelism between anaphors and variables, it is to be noted that variables, like anaphors, require an antecedent: the wh-interrogative in a sentence like (9) serves as the antecedent for the variable. (9)

whoj did you see xt

It also appears to be the case that the antecedent of the variable has to occur in a given local domain. In (10), for instance, assuming that the whelement has been raised successive-cyclically via the embedded COMP (as in Chomsky 1980), the antecedent of the variable would be the intermediate trace in COMP: (10)

whOj did you think [§ t; [5 John saw xj]

The claim of the Revised Extended Standard Theory, according to which variables are to be assimilated to anaphors, amounts to saying that the opaque domain in which variables must have their antecedent is similar to the domain in which anaphors must have theirs. In (10), the variable is bound in the minimal clause in which it occurs.

X

Generalized Binding

The assimilation of variables to anaphors faced various problems, however. In languages where S, but not S, is taken to be a bounding node Italian for instance - it was shown that in multiple interrogative constructions, such as (11), the wh-element a cui "to whom" is raised to COMP in a single step rather than successive-cyclically. The resulting structure violates the opacity requirement, since the variable x{ is bound outside the minimal clause in which it occurs (cf. Rizzi 1982): (11)

tuo fratello, a cuij mi domando [che storie abbiano raccontato x j , era molto preoccupato *your brother, to whomj I wonder [which stories they told jtJ, was very troubled

The Strong Cross-over phenomenon discussed in Wasow (1972, 1979) raised further problems with respect to the assimilation of variables to anaphors. With respect to this phenomenon, variables seemed to behave like names rather than anaphors: like names, variables must not have a c-commanding antecedent in A-position: (12)

a. *he; likes Joh^ b. *whOi did he, like x{

Furthermore, in Freidin & Lasnik (1981), it is pointed out that Strong Cross-over does not respect the opacity requirements: the prohibition against a c-commanding antecedent in A-position holds even when this antecedent would occur outside the minimal clause - opaque domain containing this variable: (13)

a. *he; said [Mary kissed John;] b. *whOj did he; say [Mary kissed Jtj

The facts illustrated in (11) and (12) played a major role in the reshaping of the Revised Extended Standard Theory (or what is sometimes referred to as the On-Binding framework) and its replacement by the GovernmentBinding framework formulated in Chomsky (1981). In Government-Binding, variables were assimilated to names rather than anaphors, as evidenced by the extraction facts of Italian and by the Strong Cross-over phenomenon. That is, the notion of opaque domain was no longer taken to be relevant for variables. As for the locality requirements constraining these variables which were accounted for by Opacity, a separate principle - the Empty Category Principle - was introduced to deal with them. Roughly, this principle requires variables to be a complement of the lexical category such as V (13a) or to have a local antecedent (13bc):

Introduction (13)

XI

a. whOj do you think [t; that [John saw *;]] b. whOj do you think [t; [x{ left]] c. *whOj do you think [tj that [*; left]]

In (13a), the variable is a complement of a lexical category, the verb saw. In (13b), the variable has a local antecedent, the intermediate trace in COMP. In (13c), however, the presence of the complementizer that prevents the intermediate trace from counting as a local antecedent for the variable. Not having a local antecedent and not being a complement of a lexical category, this variable will violate the Empty Category Principle. In Aoun (1981, 1985), while the assimilation of variables to names was maintained, it was suggested that these variables are also to be treated as anaphors. Recall that as name-like expressions, variables have to be Afree, i.e. must not have a c-commanding antecedent in an A-position (cf. examples (12a-b)). Anaphors, such as reciprocals and reflexives, on the other hand, must have an antecedent in A-position. In a sentence like (14), the wh-element cannot serve as an antecedent for the reciprocal, because it is in an A-position (COMP): (14) *which menj did [each other's sisters] see The assumption that variables are anaphors as well as name-like expressions means, once again, that they must have an antecedent and that the notion of Opacity is relevant for these elements: there may exist an opaque domain in which these variables have to be bound. To reconcile the seemingly paradoxical assumption that variables are anaphors and that they are also name-like expressions, the notion of A-anaphora was introduced. It was argued that there are two types of anaphoric relations: anaphoric relations which hold between an anaphor and an antecedent in an A-position (A-anaphoric relations), and anaphoric relations which hold between an anaphor and an antecedent in an A-position (A-anaphoric relations). Anaphors which require an antecedent in an A-position were referred to as A-anaphors, and those which require anaphors in an A-position as Aanaphors. Thus, two anaphoric systems were distinguished and it was argued that the two systems are symmetric: for each A-anaphor, there corresponds an A-anaphor. The two anaphoric systems were also shown to obey Opacity, i.e. a generalized version of the binding principles of Chomsky (1981).

0 . 2 NON-OVERT ANAPHORS IN CHAMORRO

In the subsequent chapters, we will present the two types of anaphoric sys-

XII

Generalized Binding

tems and the generalized version of the binding theory in detail. A prior knowledge of the above mentioned references will not be necessary. For the moment, I would like to illustrate the type of evidence that one may seek to show that variables are to be assimilated to anaphors. In order to do that, the following considerations concerning non-overt elements are necessary. In Government-Binding, the existence of four types of empty elements is acknowledged: NP-traces (gaps left by NP-movement), whtraces (gaps left by wh-movement), PROs (which occur in control constructions such as John¡ tried PRO¡ to win) and pros (the non-overt pronominal elements which occur in subject-missing languages such as Italian). Among the four types of empty categories, two will be treated as anaphoric (NP-trace and PRO) and two as non-anaphoric (wh-trace and pro) in case wh-traces are not considered to be A-anaphors. In case wh-traces are considered to be A-anaphors, three empty categories will be treated as anaphoric (NP-trace, PRO, and wh-trace) and one as non-anaphoric (pro): Characterization of non-overt elements with respect to the features [± anaphor]: (15)

in an analysis where wh-traces are not anaphors: + anaphor: NP-trace, PRO — anaphor: wh-trace, pro

(16)

in an analysis where wh-traces are anaphors: + anaphor: NP-trace, PRO, wh-trace - anaphor: pro

One way of distinguishing between the two characterizations is to find a process which is triggered by non-overt anaphors. According to (15), this process should be triggered by NP-traces and PROs, and according to (16), by NP-traces, PROs, and wh-traces. Such a process can be found in Chamorro and seems to favor (16). I would like to thank S. Chung for her help concerning the Chamorro phenomenon presented in this introduction. In Chamorro, a Western Austronesian language, there is an inflection maker -um- which replaces the ergative agreement in the realis mood. This inflection marker occurs when the subject is raised as in (17): (17a) indicates that "begin" in Chamorro is a raising verb and (17b) illustrates the occurrence of -um- in raising constructions: (17)

a. ha -tutuhun INFL(3s) -begin 'it began to rain'

umuchan rain

Introduction

XIII

b. ha -tutuhun si Miguel t-um-aitai INFL(3s) -begin UNM Miguel INFL-read 'Miguel began to read the book'

i the

lepblu book

The -um- marker occurs when the subject is questioned. Sentence (18a) is in the irrealis mood and sentences (18b-c) in the realis mood: (18)

a. hayi para u-taitai i who will INFL(3s)-read the 'who is going to read the book?' b. *hayi ha-taitai i lepblu who INFL(3s)-read the book 'who read the book?' c. hayi t-um-aitai i lepblu who INFL-read the book 'who read the book?'

lepblu book

The -um- marker also occurs when the subject is relativized, as in (19a), or when it is focused, as in (19b): (19)

a. i taotao ni t-um-aitai the person COMP INFL-read 'the person who read the book' b. guahu t-um-aitai i lepblu I INFL-read the book 'I read the book' (/ is focused)

i the

lepblu book

Finally, it occurs with the subject of an infinitival clause, which is always non-overt, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (21b). The embedded clauses of (20a) and (21a) are tensed, and the embedded clauses of (20b) and (21b) are non-tensed: (20)

a. ma'a'nao

yu'

na

bai u-atsa

esti na kahun

INFL(s)-afraid I COMP INFL(ls)-lift this box 'I'm afraid that (=lest) I lift the box' b. ma'a'nao yu' (*na) um-atsa esti na kahun INFL(s)-afraid I COMP INFL-lift 'I'm afraid to lift the box'

this box

XIV (21)

Generalized Binding a. ma'a'nao yu' na u-atsa INFL(s)-afraid I COMP INFL(3s)-lift na kahun box 'I'm afraid that (=lest) Mary lift this box' b. *ma'a'no yu' um-atsa si Mary INFL(s)-afraid I INFL-lift UNM Mary 'I'm afraid for Mary to lift the box'

si Mary esti UNM Mary this

esti this

na kahun box

The -um- marker does not occur when the subject is overt, however, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (22b). (22a-b) are to be contrasted with (22c), where the subject is focused. (22)

patgun i sena a. ha-fa'tinas i INFL(3s)-make the child the dinner 'the child made dinner' b. *f-um-a'tinas i patgun sena INFL(3s)-make 'the child made dinner' I sena c. i patgun f-um-a'tinas the dinner the child INFL-make 'the child made dinner' (the child is focused)

Nor does the -um- marker occur when the subject is dropped: (23)

a. ha-taitai i INFL(3s)-read the 'he read the book' b. *t-um-aitai i INFL-read the 'he read the book'

lepblu book lepblu book

In brief, assuming that focus involves wh-movement (cf. Chomsky 1977b), it appears that the -um- marker occurs with NP-traces, wh-traces, and PROs but not with pros and lexical subjects. Suppose that the characterization according to which wh-traces are not anaphors were to be assumed (cf. (15)). We would be forced to claim that the -um- marker occurs with nonovert anaphors (NP-trace, PRO) and wh-trace. These elements surely do not form a natural class. In our characterization of wh-traces as non-overt anaphors (cf. (16)), on the other hand, no such problem arises, and the generalization is quite obvious: the -um- marker appears with non-overt anaphors (NP-trace, PRO, and wh-trace). Insofar as this generalization is

Introduction

XV

more naturally expressible in an approach where wh-traces are treated as anaphors, it provides evidence for this approach. The Chamorro material, originally discussed in Aoun (1985), was used to illustrate the type of evidence one can use to support the claim that the relation between a wh-element and its gap is an anaphoric relation. Throughout this book, we will discuss and try to account for the distribution and LF interpretation of wh-interrogatives in various languages. In the first chapter, we will contrast the behavior of wh-interrogatives in three language types: languages (like English) where a wh-interrogative must be fronted in Syntax, languages (like Chinese or Japanese) where it may not be fronted in Syntax, and languages (like French) where syntactic fronting is optional. A unified account of the cross-linguistic variations concerning wh-interrogatives will be provided in terms of selectional restrictions and binding. In this presentation, we have assumed the existence of two anaphoric relations: the A-anaphoric and the Â-anaphoric relations. Each anaphoric relation is characterized with respect to the position in which the antecedent of the anaphors occurs: the A-anaphors and the A-anaphors require antecedents in A-positions and A-positions, respectively. As for the position of the anaphor itself, it is generally assumed that anaphors occur in A-positions. It will be argued in chapter 2 that anaphors - wether A-anaphors or Â-anaphors - may in fact occur in either A- or Â-position. Four types of anaphoric configurations will be shown to occur:

a. b. c. d.

Antecedent A-position A-position A-position A-position

Anaphor A-position Â-position A-position Â-position

Wh-interrogatives are relevant for the characterization of anaphoric configurations (c) and (d). That is, a variable coindexed with a wh-element will be an instance of (c), and an intermediate trace in COMP coindexed with a wh-element will be an instance of (d). The discussion of the opaque domain in which variables have to occur, presented in chapter 3, will bear on the characterization of the binding theory. In particular, it will be argued that the binding theory conflates two requirements which should be distinguished: the requirement that an anaphor should be bound and the requirement concerning the domain in which it should be bound. It will be suggested that the first requirement follows from a general theory of anaphora. What the binding theory should determine is the domain, if any, in which an anaphor must be bound; this domain is defined by the binding theory in terms of governing category.

XVI

Generalized Binding

In chapter 4, we will account for the various asymmetries that may arise between the various wh-interrogatives. Four types of wh-interrogatives will be distinguished: subjects, objects, referential and non-referential adjuncts. Cross-linguistic variations will be shown to affect subjects and objects but not the two types of adjuncts: referential adjuncts will never have an opaque domain in which they must be bound, and non-referential adjuncts will always have an opaque domain in which they must be bound. As for subjects and objects, three types of (a-)symmetries may occur between them: a subject/object asymmetry, an object/subject asymmetry, or the absence of any asymmetry. Subject/object asymmetry occurs in a language where the subject - but not the object - has to be locally bound, and object/subject asymmetry in a language where the object - but not the subject-has to be locally bound. The absence of any asymmetry is instantiated in languages where subjects and objects behave alike with respect to binding. Examples will be drawn from Romance languages and an Arabic dialect. Finally, in chapter 5, we will discuss the possibility of extending the two anaphoric systems to cover verbal elements and will contrast the effect of V-fronting on the distribution of wh-elements in various languages (such as Spanish and the Kru languages). As we said earlier, our central goal in this book will be to account for the syntactic as well as the LF behavior of wh-interrogatives from a comparative point of view. It is clear that a somewhat modified version of Government-Binding (GB) will be assumed, the one we referred to as Generalized Binding. Since the publication of Lectures on Government and Binding in 1982, many variants of the GB-framework have been put forward by various authors; see Williams (1984) for a relevant presentation of these variants. In this respect, one may wonder whether any such thing as GB-theory exists. The answer given to this question in Williams (1984:401) is a propos: "I believe that a GB methodology exists, whose identity rests not on the details that distinguish different versions of the theory, but on the search for a modular [and parametrized - J.A.] theory of grammar". In this book, I will assume not only the methodology but very often the letter of the GB-framework formulated in Chomsky (1981) and (1982). My intellectual debt to N. Chomsky will be clear in every page of this book. I started writing this book when I was visiting Beirut in the spring semester of 1983. There, the presence of N. Chomsky expressed in various letters was a great help during difficult moments. I also wish to acknowledge the help of many friends: H. Borer, S. Chung, R. Clark, J. Emonds, D. Finer, J. Higginbotham, J. Huang, N. Hornstein, O. Jaeggli, M. Kenstowicz, H. Koopman, J. Koster, H. Lasnik, A. Li, D. Lightfoot, D. Pesetsky, L. Rizzi, H. van Riemsdijk, M. Saito, D. Schlindwein, D. Sportiche, T. Stowell, A. Weinberg and E. Williams. My friends and colleagues at the Linguistics

Introduction

XVII

Department of U.S.C. should be thanked for their constant encouragement and stimulating challenge. Special thanks go to Zeina, Karim, and Marwane. Los Angeles, July 20, 1984

Chapter 1

Binding of nomináis in Chinese

1.0. PRESENTATION

This chapter deals with the distribution of the various nominal expressions - anaphors, pronouns, and variables - in Chinese and its theoretical implications. In the first section, a comparison between an approach where variables are treated as anaphors and an approach where they are not will be outlined. In the former approach, the distribution of variables will essentially be accounted for by the (generalized) binding theory, and it will follow that variables - like anaphoric reciprocals and reflexives - obey the Nominative Island Condition which is subsumed under the binding theory. In the latter approach, variables will not obey this condition. Thus, in Generalized Binding, both (la) and (lb) violate the Nominative Island Condition: (1)

a. *theyj b. *whOj did

said [that [each other; left]] they say [t; that ft left]]

In an approach where variables are not anaphors, sentence (la) violates the Nominative Island Condition and sentence (lb), which illustrates a *that-t effect, violates the Empty Category Principle (ECP). With respect to a language where the Nominative Island Condition does not apply, the two approaches make different predictions. Generalized Binding predicts that both (la) and (lb) will be grammatical in such a language. The approach according to which variables are not anaphors predicts that only (la) will be grammatical. In case (lb) turns out to be grammatical, it would have to be so for independent reasons. The language in question is Chinese. The Nominative Island Condition is irrelevant in this language: both (la) and (lb) are grammatical. We claim that this state of facts represents a significant generalization which can only be captured in a generalized binding framework (section 1.2). In section 1.2.1, we will discuss two other approaches - the connectedness approach of Kayne (1983) and the Path theory of Pesetsky (1982) - and will show that they are not able to capture this generalization. In section 1.3 we will turn to another aspect of the behavior of variables,

2

Generalized Binding

i.e. of the gaps coindexed with wh-elements. Assuming a distinction between adjuncts (elements other than subjects not dominated by VP) and non-adjuncts (subjects and complements), it will appear that the gap left by the extraction of a wh-element (2)

a. has to be bound in the minimal clause in which it appears if it is in subject position; b. does not have to be bound in the minimal clause in which it appears if it is in object position; c. has to be bound in the minimal clause in which it appears if it is in adjunct position.

The behavior of the various wh-operators will be straightforwardly accounted for by the Generalized Binding theory. Specifically, it follows from this theory that: (3)

a. The trace of wh-elements in subject position obeys the Nominative Island Condition, and thus has to be locally bound. b. The trace of wh-elements in object position escapes the Specified Subject Condition, and thus does not have to be locally bound. c. The trace of wh-adjuncts obeys the Specified Subject Condition, and thus has to be locally bound.

The locality requirement concerning variables in subject position is thus accounted for by the Nominative Island Condition, whereas the locality requirement concerning variables in adjunct position is accounted for by the Specified Subject Condition. Both conditions are subsumed under the binding theory. Once again, Chinese will allow us to test this analysis. As expected, in this language where the Nominative Island Condition is irrelevant, the gap left by the extraction of a wh-subject need not be locally bound. The gap left by the extraction of a wh-adjunct has to be locally bound. In other words, the absence of the Nominative Island Condition affects (3a) but not (3c), as predicted by the generalized binding approach. Another aspect of the distribution of wh-adjuncts concerns the fact that in English and French, contrary to Chinese, they cannot remain in situ. The difference between English and French on the one hand and Chinese on the other will be traced back to the COMP indexing rule formulated in Aoun, Hornstein & Sportiche (1981), the main effect of which is to identify a COMP as a [+wh] COMP, and hence to allow this COMP to count as an antecedent for the variable. In English and French, where the COMP indexing rule applies in Syntax, wh-adjuncts will have to move in Syntax;

Binding of nomináis in Chinese

3

otherwise, the gap they are coindexed with will be left free. In Chinese, where the COMP indexing rule applies in LF, wh-adjuncts may remain in situ: they will be raised in LF and their gap may be locally controlled. The application of the COMP indexing rule will be related to selectional restrictions. In a language where selectional restrictions are satisfied at Sstructure, the COMP indexing rule applies in Syntax. A consequence of this analysis will concern wh-movement. It will become apparent that if selectional restrictions apply in Syntax in a language, this language will have syntactic wh-movement. Pursing the study of the various nominal expressions in Chinese, we will turn to the distribution of pronominals. The governing category for these elements in Chinese does not refer to the notion of accessible SUBJECT; cf. Chomsky (1981). They have to be bound in the minimal clause or NP containing them. This analysis will account not only for the distribution of overt pronominal elements (sections 1.4 and 1.4.1) but also for that of nonovert pronominal elements. The pro-drop principle will be reconsidered in section 1.5 in the light of the proposal concerning the governing category for pronominals.

1 . 1 . GENERALIZED BINDING

In a given domain, anaphors - such as reciprocals, reflexives, and NP-traces - must be bound, i.e. must be c-commanded by an antecedent in an argument position (A-position). In the same domain, pronouns must be free, i.e. must not be c-commanded by an antecedent in an A-position. Roughly, an A-position is a position which receives a grammatical function (subject, object, etc.). An A-position (non-argument-position), on the other hand, does not receive a grammatical function. According to this characterization, COMP position is an Ä-position. Thus, consider the following sentences: (1)

a. John; likes himself; b. *which manj does himself like

t;

In (la), the anaphoric relation between the reflexive himself and the name John is licit since the antecedent is in an A-position. In (lb), the anaphoric relation between the reflexive and which man is illicit since the wh-element is in an A-position. The opaque domain referred to above, in which an anaphoric element must be bound and a pronominal free, is defined by the binding theory in terms of governing category. A governing category may informally be characterized as the minimal clause or noun phrase containing the ana-

4

Generalized Binding

phoric expression or the pronominal and a subject - this is the so-called Specified Subject Condition - or an agreement marker which in English occurs in tensed clauses only; this is the so-called Nominative Island Condition. To illustrate, consider the following sentences: (2)

a. John wants [PRO; to see himself;] b. *John wants [PRO; to see him;]

In (2a) and (2b), the governing category containing the anaphoric element in (2a) or the pronominal element in (2b) and containing the subject (PRO) is the embedded clause in which these elements appear. Thus, himself must be bound in this category, which it is. But him must be free, which it is not. Sentence (2b) will violate the binding requirements. Consider now the following contrast: (3)

a. *theyi said that each other; AGR left b. they; said that they; AGR left

In (3a-b), the grammaticality judgments are reversed, as expected. The nominal clause containing the reciprocal in (3a) or the pronoun in (3b) and the agreement marker is the embedded clause. In this governing category, the anaphor each other must be bound, which it is not, and the pronoun must be free, which it is. Thus (3a), but not (3b), will violate the binding requirements formulated in (4): (4)

Binding Principles: A. An anaphor must be bound in its governing category. B. A pronominal must be free in its governing category.

To the above principles, we should add a principle which applies to names and to empty elements coindexed with wh-phrases (wh-traces or variables). It requires these elements to be free: (4)

C. An R-expression must be free.

Notice that this principle is distinct in its formulation from the first two principles (4A-B) in that it is not formulated in terms of governing category. Actually, there are proposals which dissociate this principle from the other binding principles. They question its existence as an independent principle in the grammar and try to derive its effects from various rules and considerations; cf. Chomsky (1982) and Higginbotham (1983). As will become clear in the subsequent discussions, it is the effects of this principle rather than its status which will concern us. To use the cur-

Binding of nomináis in Chinese

5

rent terminology, it is irrelevant for our purpose whether this principle is characterized as an axiom or as a theorem. As a consequence of this principle, neither the name in (5a) nor the variable in (5b) can be construed as coreferential with the pronoun he: (5)

a. he said John likes beer b. which man; did he say jcj likes beer

The binding principles thus constrain the distribution of the various nominal expressions discussed so far. Furthermore, a subset of these nominal expressions - NP-traces and wh-traces - is constrained by the Empty Category Principle (ECP), which requires these empty elements to be properly governed. Roughly, an empty element is properly governed if it is a complement of a lexical category such as V or if it is c-commanded by a local antecedent. 1 In (6), for instance, the variable is properly governed by the embedded predicate: (6)

whoj do you think that Bill saw x{

Similarly, in (7a), the variable is c-commanded by a local antecedent - the empty element in COMP; hence it is properly governed. (7)

a. whOi do you think [