Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T05:50:49.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stephen C. Levinson
Stephen C. Levinson
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of CambridgeMax Planck Research Group for Cognitive Anthropology, Wundtlaan I, NL 6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an earlier article (Levinson, 1987b), I raised the possibility that a Gricean theory of implicature might provide a systematic partial reduction of the Binding Conditions; the briefest of outlines is given in Section 2.1 below but the argumentation will be found in the earlier article. In this article I want, first, to show how that account might be further justified and extended, but then to introduce a radical alternative. This alternative uses the same pragmatic framework, but gives an account better adjusted to some languages. Finally, I shall attempt to show that both accounts can be combined by taking a diachronic perspective. The attraction of the combined account is that, suddenly, many facts about long-range reflexives and their associated logophoricity fall into place.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 107 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Adams, M. (1987). From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1986). The typology of anaphoric dependencies. In Mellan & Koch Christensen. 65–102.Google Scholar
Andronov, M. (1969). A standard grammar of modern and classical Tamil. Madras: New Century Book House.Google Scholar
Asher, R. (1985). Tamil. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Cole, P. (ed) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 1–61.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1989). Topic/comment, presupposition and logical form: the case of focal adverbs only and also. Paper presented to the Fokus Workshop, Stuttgart, 30 06 1989.Google Scholar
Austin, P. (1987). Cases and clauses in Jiwarli, Western Australia. MS, La Trobe University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Battistella, E. (1985). On the distribution of PRO in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 19–37.Google Scholar
Battistella, E. (1989). Chinese reflexivization: a movement to INFL approach. Linguistics 27. 987–1012.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. (1983). On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, T. & Emeneau, M. (1961). A Dravidian etymological dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1991). The morphological basis of anaphora. This volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bishop R. (1961) [1856]. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian family of languages. Madras: Madras University Press. [Originally London: Harrison.]Google Scholar
Cantrall, W. R. (1973). Why I would relate own, emphatic reflexives, and intensive pronouns, my own self. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 57–67.Google Scholar
Cantrall, W. R. (1974). Viewpoint, reflexives, and the nature of noun phrases. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carden, G. & Stewart, W. (1986). Binding theory, bioprogram and creolization: evidence from Haitian creole. Paper presented at LSA annual meeting. To appear in Journal of Pidgin &Google Scholar
Carden, G. & Stewart, W. (1987). Mauritian creole reflexives – an alternative historical scenario. MS, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Carden, G. & Stewart, W. (1988). Binding theory, bioprogram and creolization: evidence from Haitian Creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 3. 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carden, G. & Stewart, W. (1989). Mauritian Creole reflexives: a reply to Corne. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 4. 65–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1989). On the notion ‘null anaphor’ in Chamorro. In Jaeggli & Safir. 143–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corne, C. (1988). Mauritian creole reflexives. Journal of Pidgin & Creole Languages 3. 69–94.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1973). Emphatic and reflexive in English and Dutch. Leuvense Bijdragen 63. 285–299.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1980). The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1981). Wargamay. In Dixon & Blake. Vol. 2. 1–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1983). Nyawaygi. In Dixon & Blake. Vol. 3. 431–525.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1988). A grammar ofBouma'a Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, B. (1979–1983). Handbook of Australian languages. Vols 1–3. Canberra: ANU Press and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (1979). Gumbaynggir. In Dixon & Blake. Vol. 1. 245–361.Google Scholar
Edmondson, J. A. & Plank, F. (1978). Great expectations: an intensive self analysis. Linguistics & Philosophy 2. 373–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, M. (1986). The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faltz, L. M. (1977). Reflexivization: a study in universal syntax. PhD thesis, U.C. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Faltz, L. M. (1985). Reflexivization: a study in universal syntax. (Revised version of Faltz, 1977.) New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Farmer, A. & Harnish, M. (1987). Communicative reference with pronouns. In Papi & Verschueren.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. LIn 6. 353–375.Google Scholar
Foley, & Van Valin, (1983). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. (1972). Logic matters. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, E. (1987). The typology of reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. Unpublished manuscript of the William James Lectures, Harvard University; later published in Grice, 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hagège, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris. 69. 287–310.Google Scholar
Harbsmeier, C. (1981). Aspects of Classical Chinese syntax. London: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. B. (1979). Guugu Yimidhirr. In Dixon & Blake. Vol. 1. 27–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1986). A comparative typology of English and German. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hellan, L. & Koch Christensen, K. (eds) (1986). Topics in Scandinavian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, L. (1986). On anaphora and predication in Norwegian. In Hellan & Koch Christensen. 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, L. (1988). Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1980). Pronouns and bound variables. LIn 11. 679–708.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1983). Logical form, binding and nominals. LIn 14. 395–420.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1986). Japanese. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1970). On attributions of ‘self-knowledge’. The Journal of Philosophy 67. 73–87.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form and use in context. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 11–42.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C-T. J. (1983). A note on the Binding Theory. LIn 4. 554–561.Google Scholar
Huang, C-T. J. (1984). On the distribution & reference of empty pronouns. LIn 15. 531–574.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (1989). Anaphora in Chinese: towards a pragmatic analysis. Unpublished Ph.D, Linguistics Dept, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (1990). Anaphora in Chinese: towards a neo-Gricean pragmatic analysis. MS, University of Cambridge Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. (1986). An anaphor not bound in its governing category. LIn 17. 766–770.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (eds) (1989). The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (1984). On markedness and binding principles. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 14.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927). A Modern English grammar on historical principles Part III (Syntax, second volume). Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1987). Even. Berkeley Cognitive Science Report No. 50. Institute of Cognitive Studies, U. C. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1988). On semantics and the binding theory. In Hawkins, J. (ed.) Explaining language universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 105–144.Google Scholar
König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: a comparative perspective. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1986). Domains and dynasties: the radical autonomy of syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1989). Language learning and language change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12. 348–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1968). Pronouns and reference. Mimeo. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. & Munro, P. (1975). Passives and their meaning. Lg 51. 789–830.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1987a). Minimization and conversational inference. In Papi & Verschueren. 61–129.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1987b). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. JL 23. 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman's concepts of participation. In Drew, P. & Wootton, A. (eds) Erving Goofman: exploring the interaction order. Cambridge: Polity Press. 161–228.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1989). Relevance. JL 25. 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (in prep) Generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. & Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1989). The child's trigger experience: degree-O learnability. (With open peer commentary.) Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12. 321–375.Google Scholar
Lust, B. (ed.) (1986). Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, J. (1984). Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 211–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English syntax. Vol. 1. Concord, the parts of speech, and the sentence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A. (1972). Some cross-linguistic generalizations about intensifier constructions. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 271–277.Google Scholar
Moyne, J. A. (1971). Reflexive and emphatic. Lg 47. 141–163.Google Scholar
O'Connor, K. (1987). Disjoint reference & pragmatic inference: anaphora & switch reference in N. Pomo. Paper presented to Wenner–Gren Conference on ‘The role of theory in language description’, Jamaica, 11 1987.Google Scholar
Papi, M. & Verschueren, J. (eds) (1987). The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pica, P. (1984). On the distinction between argumental and non-argumental anaphors. In de Geest, W. & Putseys, Y. (eds) Sentential complementation. Dordrecht: Foris. 185–194.Google Scholar
Pica, P. (1987). On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 17.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. (1987). The Scandinavian languages and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 377–401.Google Scholar
Read, C. & Hare, V. C. (1979). Children's interpretation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Ekman, F. R. & Hasting, A. J. (eds) Studies in first and second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1986). Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In Lust. 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1989). On the format for parameters. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12. 355–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds) (1987). Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham: Ginn. 222–272.Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. LIn 18. 445–479.Google Scholar
Sells, P., Zaenen, A. & Zec, D. (1987). Reflexivization variation: relations between syntax, semantics and lexical structure. In Iida, M., Wechsler, S. & Zec, D. (eds) Working papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sigurjonsdottir, S. & Hyams, N. (1988). The acquisition of reflexives and pronouns by Icelandic children. Papers and reports on child language development 27. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1987). Parameter setting and the development of pronouns and reflexives. In Roeper & Williams. 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stirling, L. (1988). Switch-reference and logophoricity in Discourse Representation Theory. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Syromiatnikov, A. (1981). The ancient Japanese language. Moscow: Nanka.Google Scholar
Tryon, D. T. (1970). Conversational Tahitian. Canberra: ANU Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ureland, S. (1981). The development of Dutch & West Frisian reflexives between 1879 & 1979. In Gerritsen, M. (ed.) Taalverandering in Nederlandse dialekten. Muiderberg: Coutinho. 250–263.Google Scholar
Vaccari, O. & Vaccari, E. (1948). Japanese conversation-grammar. Tokyo: Vaccari.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (1990). Functionalism, anaphora and syntax. A review article on Susumo Kuno, Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse and empathy. Studies in Language 14, 169–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, N. (1989a). Observing obsolescence. Behavioral and Brain Science 12. 360–361.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (1989b). Constituentization. Paper delivered at the Ninth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 08 1989.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963). An historical syntax of the English language. Part One. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Manzini, M. R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds). 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, D-W. (1983). The extended binding theory of anaphors. Language Research 19. 169–192.Google Scholar