1. Introduction Binding theory originates with the attempt to account for the interpretations of ordinary and reflexive pronouns. However, binding theory has also been extended to the analysis of a range of data beyond those that originally motivated it. Switch-reference, a grammatical phenomenon found in many Native American and Papuan languages, is one such domain. In this paper, I will argue for three universal properties of switch-reference (hereafter SR) systems. First, SR is based upon the configurational properties of the sentence in which it appears; it is best explained through appeal to notions like }-status and command rather than notions like argument or agency. Second, due to the configurational nature of SR, it is only found in subordinate clauses. Third, SR is always local and never long-distance. My arguments are based primarily on the Muskogean languages Choctaw and Chickasaw, but I believe that the properties described for these languages are characteristic of SR in general. I will argue that these conclusions for SR systems have implications for the structure of binding theory. The interpretation of the pronominal data that originally motivated binding theory
[1]
Pierre Pica.
On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle
,
1987
.
[2]
Ken Safir,et al.
Semantic atoms of anaphora
,
1996
.
[3]
G. Broadwell.
Speaker and Self in Choctaw
,
1991,
International Journal of American Linguistics.
[4]
Nathan Salmon,et al.
Reflexivity
,
1986,
Notre Dame J. Formal Log..
[5]
J. Roberts.
Amele switch-reference and the theory of grammar
,
1988
.
[6]
George Aaron Broadwell.
Extending the binding theory : a Muskogean case study
,
1990
.
[7]
Noam Chomsky,et al.
Lectures on Government and Binding
,
1981
.
[8]
William D. Davies,et al.
Choctaw verb agreement and universal grammar
,
1985
.
[9]
A. Hestvik.
LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation
,
1992
.
[10]
M. F.,et al.
Bibliography
,
1985,
Experimental Gerontology.
[11]
Rita M. Manzini,et al.
Parameters, binding theory and learnability
,
1987
.