Argument structure as a locus for binding theory

Argumentstructureasalo cusforbindingtheoryChristopherD.ManningUniversityofSydneycmanning@ucc.su.oz.au1Lo catingbindingrelationshipsThecorrectlo cus(orlo ci)ofbindingtheoryhasb eenamattermuchdiscussion.Theoriescanb eseenasvaryingalongatleasttwodimensions.The rstiswhetherbindingtheorycon gurationallydetermined(thatis,thetheoryexploitsgeometryofaphrasemarker,ap-p ealingtosuchpurelystructuralnotionsasc-commandandgovernment)orwhetherthetheorydep endsratheronexaminingtherelationsb etweenitemsselectedbyapredicate(whereselectionIamintendingtocovereverythingfromsemanticdep endenciessyntacticsub cat-egorization).Thesecondisthelevelofgrammaronwhichbindingde ned.Attemptingtoroughlyequatelevelsacrossdi erenttheories,suggestionshaveincludedthesemantics/lexicalconceptualstructure(Jackendo 1992),thematic1972,Wilkins1988),ar-gumentstructure/D-structure/initialgrammaticalrelations(Manning1994,BellettiandRizzi1988,Perlmutter1984),surfacesyntax/grammaticalrelations,logicalform,linearorder,prag-matics(Levinson1991),anddiscourse(Iida1992).Thedataissucientlyvariedcomplexthatmanytheoriesendupasmixtures,variouslyemployingacombinationofelementsalongb othdimensions(forinstance,Chomsky(1986)reliespurelyoncon gurationalnotionsfortherelationshipb etweenananaphoranditstecedent,butusesconceptsfromselectioninthede nitionofthebindingdomainananaphor).LFGhasalwaysrejectedcon gurationalaccountofbinding.Forinstance,Simpson(1991)arguesthatacon gurationaltheoryofbindinginWarlpiricannotb emaintained,amongotherreasonsb ecause niteclauseslackaVP.Thesuggestionisratherthatbindingcanb eaccountedforatthelevelofgrammaticalrelations,bynotingthatsub jectscanbindob jects.IacceptargumentsofBresnan(lectures,1985{93),Wilkins(1988),Dalrymple(1993)andPollardSag(1994)infavourofatheorybindingbasedonselectionratherthancon gurations,butIwillhavelittlemoretosayonthismatter(sincenothinginparticularnewadd).Instead,Iwanttoconcentrateontheseconddimension.Thedominantraditionwithingenerativegrammarhasb eentoassumethatthenotionofsurfaceobliquenessidenti esthesub jectofaclause(whethercon gurationallyorbyanorderingondep endents)isalsousedforthecoreconditionsonreexivebinding.InLGB(Chomsky1981),bindingtheoryisde nedonS-structure,sothatin(1),Nancycanbindherselfduetothec-commandingcon gurationthatalsomakesNancythesub ject.(1)IPNPNancyiVPVgaveNPherselfiDetaNraise1

[1]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing , 1988 .

[2]  E. Keenan,et al.  Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar , 2008 .

[3]  David R. Dowty.  Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[4]  Alex Alsina,et al.  Predicate composition : a theory of syntactic function alternations , 1993 .

[5]  Maria Bittner,et al.  Case, scope, and binding , 1993 .

[6]  Paul Kroeger,et al.  Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog , 1992 .

[7]  Jane Simpson,et al.  Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax , 1991 .

[8]  A. Belletti,et al.  Psych-verbs and θ-theory , 1988 .

[9]  Robert D. Van Valin,et al.  Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar , 1984 .

[10]  K. Mohanan.  Grammatical relations and anaphora in malayalam , 1981 .

[11]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[12]  R. Oehrle,et al.  Books Awaiting Review , 1984, CL.

[13]  Sarah Johanna Bell,et al.  Cebuano subjects in two frameworks. , 1976 .

[14]  Miriam Butt.  The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu , 1995 .

[15]  김상혁.  영어의 능격성(Ergativity) , 2003 .

[16]  R. Jackendoff.  MME. Tussaud meets the binding theory , 1992 .

[17]  益子 真由美.  Argument Structure , 1993, The Lexicon.

[18]  Wendy K. Wilkins,et al.  Thematic Structure and Reflexivization , 1988 .

[19]  Mary Dalrymple,et al.  The syntax of anaphoric binding , 1993 .

[20]  Masayo Iida.  Context and binding in Japanese , 1996 .

[21]  Jerrold M. Sadock,et al.  Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation , 1980 .

[22]  Anthony C. Woodbury.  Greenlandic Eskimo, Ergativity, and Relational Grammar , 1977 .

[23]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[24]  Smita Joshi,et al.  Selection of grammatical and logical functions in Marathi , 1993 .

[25]  S. Pinker.  Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure , 1989 .

[26]  J. Runner.  Ergativity : Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations , 2000 .

[27]  Paul. Schachter,et al.  Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects , 1977 .

[28]  A. Andrews.  The major functions of the noun phrase , 2007 .

[29]  S. Levinson.  Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited , 1991, Journal of Linguistics.

[30]  Lars Hellan,et al.  Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar , 1988 .

[31]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .