Abstract
AbstractWhether the operation Agree should be taken to underlie anaphoric binding has been the topic of much recent debate. In this paper, we provide a novel empirical argument in favor of the role ofϕ-features and Agree in binding. The argument revolves around the intimate relationship between agreement and anaphora in the Turkish nominal domain, where certain complex pronominals can agree only if they locally bind an anaphor or bound pronoun. We argue that these facts can be readily understood ifϕ-features are crucially implicated in the syntactic derivation of binding. At the same time, we argue that not all binding can be reduced to Agree, based on data from Turkish PPs.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference122 articles.
1. Adger, David. 2010. A minimalist theory of feature structure. In Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, eds. Anna Kibort and Greville G. Corbett, 185–220. London: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577743.003.0008
2. Adger, David, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10(1): 2–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00095.x
3. Ahn, Byron Thomas. 2015. Giving reflexivity a Voice: Twin reflexives in English. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
4. Ahn, Byron Thomas. 2019. Reflexive binding without phi-feature matching. Conference presentation, 2019 annual meeting of the LSA, New York, NY.
5. Akkuş, Faruk. 2020. On Iranian case and agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(3): 671–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-019-09457-8
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献