Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding
Jan-Wouter Zwart
Here are some comments and questions that I had about your work. I could be mixedup in my interpretation in some places, sorry if that’s the case. I wrote comments in
the margins, and an R.A. typed up the comments as sentences. If the tone of any of
the comments comes off as strange, that’s probably the reason why. The comments
are listed in order of appearance by page, paragraph, and line of the version that I
received. The more important comments are denoted with NB. All comments are
intended SOLELY to be helpful— Hope they are! Thanks again for being part of this
project.
NB1 p. 10, Sec. 3.3 “An anaphor must be bound…”
Wout: Are there derivations where X acts like a pronoun through part of the
derivation, then gets Merged with its antecedent and then in the middle of the
derivation—‘changes to’ a pronoun?
NB2 p. 10, Sec. 3.3, ln 2 “anaphoricity is an acquired property”
Should this instead be “anaphoricity is a non-lexical, syntactically induced, or
transformationally-induced property”? Or a “derivationally-induced property”?
NB3 p. 10, Sec. 3.4, para 2, ln 1 “the structure (21)”
As opposed to the MERGER OPERATION that creates the output structure? I.e.
Merge is an OPERATION that relates two categories?
NB4 p. 13, last line of Sec. 3.6 “On our theory, the locality of anaphor binding is
likewise a result of Greed.”
So CONDITION A is deduced, i.e. it follows from (21), GREED, and the
DERIVATIONAL Approach, yes? As opposed to non-explanatorily defining
GOVERNING CATEGORY on tree representations?
NB5 p. 13, Footnote 27
Please put the material in this footnote in the text!
NB6 p. 13, Footnote 27
This is also CYCLIC—i.e. strongly derivational with RIGID RULE Application
Order. NOT Move-alpha and FILTERS.
NB7 p. 13, Footnote 27
This is strongly derivational! I.e. one no longer has the Y-model with just a single LF
and PF representation; rather there are multiple Spellouts to PF and LF
THROUGHOUT the DERIVATION (AS IN DASR).
NB8 p. 20, Footnote 38, ln 4 “but John himself would.”
WOUT—Sorry. I don’t understand when [John him] does or doesn’t get a theta-role
in its original position?
1
NB9 p. 24, para 2, ln 2 “[+coreferential] PRONOUN”
So is it the case that Spellout needs to know if something is +coreferential? IF SO, LF
notions like coreferentiality must be indicated BEFORE Spellout. This is NOT
possible if the LF representation is reached only after all transformations are applied
and the DERIVATION is complete. Does this imply the abandonment of the Ymodel, and the use of DASR architecture?
NB10 p. 24, para 3, ln 4 “in case of nonreciprocity as zichzelf”
Again—must the LF interpretation be known to the Speller-outer? I.e. do semantic
property determine the PHONETIC form?
NB11 p. 25, para 2, ln 1-2 “In our theory, de ander would be the form returned by
Morphology when encountering a RECIPROCAL that was never merged with an
antecedent”
WOUT: Again, what architecture captures this syntax (21), semantics (reciprocal
versus non-reciprocal interpretation), and phonology (Spell out as X not Y)? Would
the Standard Y-model work here?
NB12 p. 25, para 2, ln 2 “RECIPROCAL”
Is this a semantic notion?
NB13 p. 25, para 1, ln 2 “never merged with”
Is this a Derivational-History, i.e. Transformational-Rule notion?
NB14 p. 26, para 2, ln 3 “morphology-after-syntax”
Please clarify the architecture here.
NB15 p. 28, Sec. 5, para 1, ln 4-5 “coreference is established once and for all at the
moment of merger of the antecedent and the dependent element.”
Please see DASR p. 14, ex. D and p. 63, Sec 2.4.
NB16 p. 28, Sec. 5, para 1, ln 4-5 “coreference is established once and for all at the
moment of merger of the antecedent and the dependent element.”
Does this require that LF looks in throughout the DERIVATION—as opposed to LFinterpretation happening only after all Transformations apply, as in the Y-model? I.e.
are you arguing against the Y-model? Do you have evidence for incremental
interpretation?
NB17 p. 28, Sec. 5, para 2, ln 5 “[+coreferential], which leads to spell-out as an
anaphor at PF”
See DASR Chapter 2? What is the architecture assumed here, what is the relation
between PF and LF? [+coreferential] is an LF notion/feature which feeds spell-out.
So, this is NOT the Y-model, right?
2
NB18 p. 30, para 3, ln 6 “that the ‘positive’ binding condition Principle A applies at
LF”
Please see DASR p. 62, ex. 49; i.e. it does not say ‘Principle A’ at LF, it says “at any
point”.
NB19 p. 31, para 2, ln 5-6 “until the interface levels PF/LF”
What does it mean to say COREFERENCE, i.e. a semantic relation, is established
BEFORE LF (i.e. semantic interpretation) is performed? Please see DASR p. 14 ex
D—is it relevant to this?
NB20 p. 31, para 2, ln 7 “various factors”
Are these Transformational Operations that relate two elements by Merging them?
NB21 p. 31, para 3, ln 3 “anaphoric relation established at LF”
I thought the anaphoric relation was ESTABLISHED by MERGE, i.e. NOT AT LF?
NB22 p.31, para 3, ln 3-6 “an anaphoric relation established at LF would have the
effect that an element not spelled out as an anaphor at PF (i.e., an element spelled out
as an ordinary pronoun) be interpreted as an anaphor at LF. Indeed, evidence showing
that anaphoricity can be established at LF appears to be hard to come by.”
What is the architecture assumed here? The Y-model? DASR? Something else?
1) Question p. 21 re Experiencers—see Torrego paper to appear in this volume?
2) How many pages is this single-spaced ms? Do the book-length restrictions require
shortening it? Could the Notes in Section 4 (Consequences) be shortened
perhaps?
3) p. 1, Title “Issues relation to a derivational theory of binding”
Would it be OK if this were changed to “A derivational theory of anaphora”?
4) p. 1, para 1, ln 1 “see Epstein 1995”
Please also cite here Epstein 1999, UN-Principled Syntax and the Derivation of
Syntactic Relations, in Working Minimalism, Epstein and Hornstein eds., MIT Press.
5) p. 1, para 1, ln 4-10 “In many cases, it appears to be impossible…”
Yes: Sisterhood is simpler than C-command.
6) p. 1, para 4 “In (3), the interpretive relation between who and <who> (namely that
one is a ‘trace’ of the other) is not a function of the merger of who to <who>, but
of merger of who to a constituent containing <who>.”
Groat and Epstein et al said this is sisterhood. In (3), where sisterhood is symmetric ccommand, C c-commands who before who moves. Then who moves and who c-
3
commands C. Thus C and who (derivationally) c-command each other. But this is
sisterhood, i.e. X c-commands Y and Y c-commands X. This “DERIVATIONAL
sisterhood”, since X c-commands Y and Y c-commands X, “happens” at two different
points in the DERIVATION. We seek to derive the Proper Binding Condition and the
Spec-Head relation from DERIVATIONAL SISTERHOOD.
7) p. 2. para 1, ln 3 “if we consider who to be a single element which is merged more
than once”
DASR postulates “REMERGE”.
8) p. 2, para 1, ln 11 “chain”
And as Epstein and Seely note: chains are NOT “syntactic objects” as restrictively
defined so as to satisfy Inclusiveness.
9) p. 2, (6a) “He loves John”
Is it OK to call ‘John’ the “dependent element” in the binding relation?
10) p. 2, para 4, ln 3 “ensues if and only if”
Would you perhaps want to replace ‘ensues’ with ‘is possible’? I.e. the b) examples
do NOT require coreference, but instead allow it.
11) p. 2, para 5, ln 3 “out of reach before”
Maybe you should replace with “to elude satisfying explanation thus far”?
12) p. 2, Footnote 3, ln 3 “ca”
Please replace with ‘can’.
13) p. 2, Footnote 3
WOUT: We’ve been working on deducing the PBC. Shall I send you the ms? It’s
easy to read and will be part of Epstein and Seely.
14) p. 3, (7) “Fundamental questions of binding theory”
Should you perhaps change this to Some fundamental questions of binding theory?
15) p. 3, (7b) “Why is there a morphological distinction…”
Should you perhaps change this to “Why is there an overt morphological
distinction...”
16) p. 3, para 4, ln 6 “and no information can be gathered from these entities.”
Maybe replace with “and no derivational information can be representationally
encoded into these Inclusiveness-violating entities”?
17) p. 3, para 5, ln 8 “discuss”
Please replace with ‘discusses’.
18) p. 3, sec. 2, ln 1 “it is taken for granted that there are”
4
Maybe you should replace this with “it is taken for granted that in the lexicon there
are”?
19) p. 3, sec. 2, ln 2 “three types of noun phrases”
Perhaps replace this with “three types of noun phrases (i.e. feature-bundle types)”?
20) p. 4, para 1, ln 4 “was directed towards”
Change to ‘addressed’?
21) p. 4, para 1, ln 6 “and onwards”
Please add the citations here.
22) p. 4, (13) “What makes an element an…”
Should you perhaps replace this with “What is an…”?
23) p. 4, para 2, ln 1 “relatively easy to answer”
Is this true, given the (somewhat) unspecified answer?
24) p. 4, para 2, ln 2-4 “represent some concept, some projection… lexico-semantic
features of some kind”
Are these clear notions?
25) p. 4, Footnote 5, ln 2 “their own systematicity”
Maybe replace with “a unique distribution and interpretation”?
26) p. 4, Footnote 5, ln 3 “anaphora”
Please put scare quotes around anaphora (‘anaphora’) to introduce it as a new term.
27) p. 4, Footnote 6, ln 3 “on reflexives”
Please replace ‘on’ with ‘of’.
28) p. 4, Footnote 7, ln 1 & para 1, ln 7 “c-commands it and corefers with it” &
“apply at LF”
This is not a standard interpretation of a binder. Is coreference represented inside the
syntactic derivation? With LF ‘looking in’? Or does coreference occur only at the LF
representation or later?
29) p. 4, Footnote 8, ln 1 “A projection is created by the mind on the impulse of
sensory data or thought processes”
Is this intended in a behavioristic, stimulus-response sense?
30) p. 4, Footnote 8, ln 1-3 “The linguistic entities that have referential properties are
taken not to refer to real world entities, but to projections, which may or may
not be based on real world entities.”
5
Sorry, I don’t understand how, if the entities with referential properties do not refer to
real world entities, projections can be based on real world entities? Also, what is the
relation between ‘referring’ and ‘being based on’.
31) p. 5, (14) “Overt Anaphoric Pronominal”
Is this deducibly non-existant since [-gov] implies [-Case]?
32) p. 5, para 1, ln 2 “maximally opposed to each other”
Please change to “maximally distinct in feature-value specifications”.
33) p. 5, para 1, ln 4-5 “as anaphors are either pronouns with added focus markers”
This is a phono-morphological observation or an analysis,. But you state it as a selfevident truth. “Anaphors are…” ?
34) p. 5, (15) “anaphor him-self”
himself (?)
/ \
/
\
Pronoun Focus-marker
him
self
Is ‘addition’ a derivational process/rule of morphology? This is an
analysis/hypothesis.
35) p. 5, (16)
WOUT: This may cause terminological confusion, i.e. PRONOUN vs. pronoun.
36) p. 6, para 2, ln 1 “[variable referential] elements”
Maybe change to “[+variable +referential] elements”?
37) p. 6, para 2, ln 4-7 “Since pronouns are the underspecified category…”
Should you say the following? So the basic idea is that these features are not lexically
stipulated but are syntactically deducible. Is this a little like Functional Determination
in Chomsky 1982, i.e. features are deducible from Phrase-Structure geometry—like
[p] versus [ph] is syllabically determined?
38) p. 6, para 3, ln 3 “Sylla”
This author is not in the references. Please check all your citations!
39) p. 6, (17) “Fulani”
Please place parentheses around ‘Fulani’.
40) p. 6, para 4, ln 4 “property”
Is anaphoricity a feature or just a configuration?
41) p. 6, Footnote 11, ln 4 “kataphoric”
6
Please define this term.
42) p. 6, Footnote 11, ln 8 “recording of her speech”
Should you perhaps change this to “recording of her own speech”?
43) p. 7, (18) & para 3, ln 2 “coreferential with” “invariably spelled out and
interpreted as an anaphor”
Please explain the difference here.
44) p. 7, (19)
Are there traces? Chains? How does theta-role assignment work? Does John move to
a [+theta] position from a [–theta] position?
45) p. 7, para 3, ln 3 “feature [+coreferential]”
Does this violate Inclusiveness?
46) p. 7, para 4, ln 2 “involving”
Replace this with “including”?
47) p. 7, para 4, ln 6 “return”
What does it mean for the Morphology to ‘return’ an anaphor?
48) p. 7, para 4, ln 6 “would interpret the PRONOUN as an anaphor and return and
anaphor instead of a pronoun.”
So this would incorrectly generate the morphological anaphoric form, i.e. we
overgenerate *John think that I like himself.
49) p. 7, sec. 4, ln 2 “anaphors are merged with their antecedent”
Maybe replace with “an anaphor is syntactically derived from a transformational
operation whereby a pronoun is merged with its antecedent”?
50) p. 7, Footnote 14, ln 3 ‘anaphoricity”
Should you perhaps replace this with “overt anaphoricity”?
51) p. 7, Footnote 14
Is this a case of overt versus ‘Abstract’? Like overt Case versus Abstract Case?
52) p. 7, Footnote 14, (i), (ii), (iii)
Please place the names of the languages in parentheses.
53) p. 8, para 1, ln 2 “preceded/c-commanded by”
Please explain exactly what this means?
54) p. 8, (22b) “*I expect himself to like John”
7
Is this a violation of Condition C, versus a violation of Condition A, versus a
violation of both conditions?
55) p. 8, para 2
I’m not sure the internal structure of (21) is clear. (?)
56) p. 8, para 2, ln 3 “merging”
Maybe change this to “Re-merging”?
57) p. 8, Sec 3.2, para 1, ln 3 “together in a constituent”
Maybe change this to “together yielding a representation like (21)”?
58) p. 8, Sec 3.2, para 1, ln 4-5 “can only be interpreted as coreferential by accident”
Maybe change this to “can be interpreted as coreferential only by accident”?
59) p. 8, Sec 3.2, para 1, ln 5 “fact of grammar”
Is an interpretation ‘a fact of grammar’?
60) p. 8, para 6, ln 1 “neither instance of John is a variable referential element”
I’m confused about the lexical versus syntactic aspects of the account of disjoint
reference.
61) p. 9, (26)
What if you don’t move?
62) p. 9, para 3, ln 1-4 “The relevance of these examples…”
Jan-Wouter—can you PLEASE expand this? I’m not sure how compelling this
important argument is.
63) p. 9, para 5, ln 4 “likes John”
Should this be “like John”, as in (28a)?
64) p. 9, para 5, ln 7 “do we seem to get”
Please delete ‘do’.
65) p. 9, para 5, ln 9 – p. 10, para 1, ln, 7 & Footnote 18
I think somehow the font size on the above text passage was made the same as the
Footnote font size.
66) p. 10, sec. 3.3, ln 3 “anaphoricity is an acquired property, acquired only by a
variable referential element (a PRONOUN) when merged with an antecedent (as
in (21)).”
Maybe you should change to “anaphoricity is a property acquired by a variable
referential element (a PRONOUN) only by virtue of undergoing a particular
transformational operation, i.e. Merger with an antecedent (as in (21)) in the course of
the derivation”?
8
67) p. 10, (30)
Please put a space between this line and the next.
68) p. 10, sec 3.4, para 2, ln 2 “the structure (21), which”
Does this involve a constraint on REPRESENTATIONS, or is it deducible from the
form of RULES that create representations?
69) p. 10, Footnote 19, ln 3 “although John may like John, the information that John
is a ‘self-lover’ is not conveyed.”
I don’t understand this—sorry. Also, should ‘self-lover’ be changed to ‘self-liker’?
70) p. 10, Footnote 20, ln 5-7 “I now believe that the strongest implementation of the
derivational approach to binding should eliminate Principle C altogether, and
should not involve any mechanism of reference assignment other than the
mechanism yielding coreference discussed here.”
This point is very important. Can it be made more salient—i.e. NOT in a footnote—
and DISCUSSED MORE?
71) p. 11, Footnote 21
Maybe make the example sentence into numbered example (i)?
72) p. 11, sec 3.6, para 1, ln 2 “strikingly similar”
But not identical, e.g. the English sentences:
a. *John seems that [pictures of t] are on sale.
b. Johni said that [pictures of himself] are on sale.
Should you add a)? Is b) a long-distance, not (21)-type anaphor? See your Footnote
34 below (OK—it’s addressed below).
73) p. 11, sec 3.6, para 2, ln 3 “grammatical function”
Please clarify what you mean by this?
74) p. 12, para 1, ln 3-4 “the relevant noun phrase movement must be A-movement.”
What about the stranded anaphor’s Case and theta properties? What about (21)
itself—is it [+/-theta]? [+/-Case]? [+/-Agr]? [/- ref]?
75) p. 12, para 2, ln 3 “made up by”
Maybe change to “composed of”?
76) p. 12, (34)
Why is there a space between ‘zag’ and the rest of the sentence? Where does the
second ‘Marie’ go?
77) p. 12, para 3, ln 3 “Mary”
9
Maybe change to “Marie”?
78) p. 12, (35)
Please illustrate this with a tree?
79) p. 2, Footnote 24, ln 1 “such as default or inherent Case assignment, which…”
Please note: in Baker (1988) incorporation of HEADS (including bare pronouns)
exempts the ‘clitic’ from the Case Filter.
80) p. 12, Footnote 26
Please see Lasnik and Saito’s (1991) CLS paper “On the subject of infinitives”.
81) p. 14, para 2, ln 1 “In our theory, since there is no Principle C, (39) is
unproblematic.”
But is there a Condition A? I.e. haven’t you entirely deduced “an anaphor must be
bound in domain (35)”?
82) p. 14, para 2, ln 3 “may”
Should you change this to ‘must’?
83) p. 14, (42b)
This is remnant movement. See Epstein 2001/in progress, Epstein and Seely, which
say that there is NO Proper Binding condition on REPRESENTATIONS but rather
“movement must be to a c-commanding position”, and this follows from the
GENERAL theory of relations which entails that an Attractor is in a relation ONLY
to its sister/Mergee, so it can Attract things only out of its sister, i.e. “c-command.
The resulting representation—as in Remnant Movement or Head-adjunction—is
irrelevant, i.e. we don’t care if there’s no c-command in REPRESENTATIONS.
84) p. 14, para 4, ln 5 “(or by any other operation)”
Is improper movement, i.e. the following structure, relevant?
Whoi ti is likely [ti [ti will go]]?
85) p. 14, para 6, ln 3-4 “I suggest that nothing else is wrong with (40)/(43).”
Is this like the Referential Hierarchies of BINDER-BINDEE (Lasnik?)?
86) p. 14, (44)
Please move (44) so it isn’t cut by the page break.
87) p. 15, (46)
I keep worrying that there might be a Bach-Peters-type infinite regress if an anaphor
is derived from a pronoun. How about: Which pilot who shot at himself hurt himself?
I could be way off-track here.
88) p. 16, para 1, ln 3-4 “This leads me to believe that the coreference of John and he
in (48) is in fact accidental.”
10
And certainly not obligatory. Do the obligatory coreference cases ever occur long
distance? E.g. “John took a knife with him” seems local. Is there ever intersentential
obligatory coreferenced pronouns? Footnote 34 might be relevant to this, re: longdistance anaphors, not 21-type?
89) p. 16, (50)
Is the format on this OK?
90) p. 16, para 5, ln 1 “only succeed”
Please change to “succeed only”.
91) p. 16, para 5, ln 2 “retains access to a position in which it may”
Maybe you should change this to “can move (escape?) to a position in which it can”?
92) p. 16, Footnote 31, ln 1 “my notes of Kayne (2000)”
Your notes on K vs. K’s notes that he gave to you?
93) p. 17, para 1, ln 1 “a thematic role.”
So given (21), there is no Theta Criterion as a FILTER on DS REPRESENTATIONS,
rather features are derivationally acquired. (DASR has no levels of representation).
94) p. 17, para 3, ln 2 “remarked”
Maybe replace with ‘mentioned’ or ‘discussed’ or ‘noted’?
95) p. 17, Footnote 33, ln 4 “I leave this a subject”
Please delete ‘a’.
96) p. 18, para 1, ln 1 “in line with”
Maybe change to ‘consonant with’?
97) p. 18, sec. 4
Can you omit Sec 4, or reduce it? How long are pages 1-18, which look singlespaced?
98) p. 18, para 1, ln 1 “a noun phrase”
Is this explained too? I.e. that an antecedent is an NP, not, e.g., a VP?
99) p. 18, para 2, ln 3 “grammatical function”
Please clarify what you mean by this notion?
100) p. 18, para 3, ln 3-4 “because the antecedent in (21) needs to move to an Aposition”
Please add at the end of this sentence “and stop moving (Greed).”
101) p. 18, para 3, ln 5 “coincide”
11
This is not the same as ‘strikingly similar’ on p. 11, i.e., I think ‘coincide’ means
equivalent, OK?
102) p. 18, para 4, ln 1 “circumstance”
Maybe replace with ‘fact’?
103) p. 18, para 4, ln 4 “equally straightforward”
Are sections 1-3 really “straightforward”, versus a good deduction—it’s explanation
seeking through highly abstract theories that invariably confront a million questions?
What’s exciting (to me anyway) about your work is that the questions are revealed
(e.g. Why A-binding?) and the answer seems highly plausible and deductive.
104) p. 18, para 6, ln 6 & Footnote 35, ln 1 “representational noun phrase”
Versus a derivational noun phrase?
105) p. 19, para 6, ln 3 “inescapable”
Maybe replace with “obligatory”?
106) p. 19, Footnote 36, ln 5 “properties”
Does this mean ‘features’? See Boscovic and Takahashi’s Last Resort article in LI
where elements start off in a scrambled position, and undergo Greed-consistent
movement to get a theta role.
107) p. 21, (62b) “no idiomatic reaching”
Maybe replace with “(62b) disallows an idiomatic reading”?
108) p. 21, para 4, ln 1 “the antecedent to a reciprocal experiencer”
Please change ‘to’ to ‘of’.
109) p. 21, para 5 “This would be accounted for if seem loses its raising
characteristics when an experiencer PP is present.”
When an Experiencer PP is present or when an Experiencer PP containing an anaphor
is present?
110) p. 21, para 5, ln 8 “external argument to seem”
WOUT: Are there any independent tests supporting the hypothesis that in these cases
there is indeed ‘Agentivity’?
111) p. 21, para 6, ln 3 “Indoeuropean”
Please change to “Indo-European”.
112) p. 21, para 6, ln 3 “the the past”
Please delete the second ‘the’.
12
113) p. 22, para 3, ln 1 “synthetic”
Versus analytic? Please define this. I’ve never encountered this terminology, sorry.
114) p. 22, para 3, ln 3 “in the generalization”
Please delete this.
115) p. 22, para 3, ln 4 “according to which”
Please change to “according to whom”.
116) p. 22, (67)
I think the format on this example was obscured.
117) p. 22, Footnote 39, ln 2 “standard assumption”
Please give a citation and illustrate this assumption.
118) p. 23, para 2, ln 6 & para 3, ln 2 “anaphora”
Please change to ‘anaphors’.
119) p. 23, para 2, ln 6 “cannot be”
Maybe replace this with “is not in fact”?
120) p. 23, para 4, ln 1 “true anaphor”
What is the definition of this? Does true anaphor mean a 21-type anaphor?
121) p. 23, para 5, ln 1 “the anaphor is”
Should you replace ‘is’ with ‘denotes’ perhaps? (I.e. word vs. object.)
122) p. 23, para 5, ln 2 “on”
Please replace with ‘of’.
123) p. 23, para 5, ln 2-4 “The anaphor in (21) heads a noun phrase independently of
the antecedent, which sits in the specifier position of the noun phrase but must collect
its thematic role and grammatical function elsewhere.”
Perhaps illustrate this with a tree?
124) p. 23, para 6 “anaphors”
Versus “true anaphors”?
125) p. 24, para 1, ln 1 “this shows”
How so? Explain a little how the data bears on the constituent structure analysis.
126) p. 24, para 1, ln 1 “is not necessarily”
Versus “is not”?
13
127) p. 24, para 4, ln 3, 4 “case”
Please change to ‘cases’.
128) p. 25, para 6, ln 2 “true anaphors”
This means 21-type anaphors, yes?
129) p. 25, para 6, ln 3 “true pronouns”
What is the definition of this?
130) p. 25, para 6, ln 4 “picked up in the course of a derivation”
Is there an issue concerning Move-Attract versus Merge?
131) p. 26, para 1, ln 2 “Sells 1987”
There’s a learnability issue here. If (35) is universal, maybe a child can syntactically
bootstrap when s/he hears lexically dependent elements with no antecedent within the
domain of (35). Maybe this could be a nice argument for syntactic bootstrapping?
132) p. 26, para 5 “It is a consequence of our theory that the coreferential
interpretation in (78) is accidental as well, even if much easier to obtain than in local
contexts like (79).”
Note that the relevant SYNTACTIC PRINCIPLE or LAW, namely Principle B (in
GB) is INapplicable to (78). Thus far as SYNTAX is concerned, you “can do”
whatever you want in interpreting he morphemes given their lexical semantics.
133) p. 26, para 6, ln 3 “the speaker uttering…the creator (owner)”
These are clearly not mechanisms within CHL. Please delete ‘owner’.
134) p. 26, Footnote 44 “Other languages, like Dutch (anaphor zichzelf, logophor
‘mzelf) and Malayalam (anaphor tanne-tanne, logophor tanne (ACC)) do.”
Perhaps change this to “Other languages, like Dutch, do (anaphor zichzelf, vs.
logophor ‘mzelf) and Malayalam (anaphor tanne-tanne, vs. logophor tanne (ACC))”?
135) p. 27, para 2, ln 3 “antecedent”
Add ‘at S-structure’?
136) p. 27, (82),(83)
Do you want to make these two examples into minimal pairs, i.e. make the predicate
in (82) “likes him”?
137) p. 27, para 5, ln 1& para 6, ln 11 “coreference”
Note that coreference is not variable binding; it’s not “for any X, if X is a man then X
will think X is a genius”. This isn’t reference at all (maybe—depending on what (the
hell!) reference is!
138) p. 27, para 5, ln 1 “case apart”
14
Maybe replace this with “separate phenomenon”?
139) p. 27, para 6, ln 3 “the differences are clear”
Is this true?
140) p. 27, para 7, ln 2 “anaphora”
Please change this to “anaphors”.
141) p. 28, para 2, ln 9 “determined by its derivational history”
This is a nice phrase. Could you use it in the intro?
142) p. 29, para 2, ln 3 “restore John in a position”
Please change ‘in’ to ‘to’.
143) p. 29, (89a,b)
Is a minimal pair with this wording semantically possible? Should you change “want
us to invent” to “most object to”?
144) p. 29, para 4, ln 5 “allowing for (89a) a reading”
Maybe change this to “allowing a reading of (89a)”?
145) p. 29, para 4, ln 6 “hark back at”
Please change to “’hark back’ to”
146) p. 2, Footnote 49, ln 10, 12 “effected”
Should this be ‘affected’?
147) p. 29, Footnote 49, ln 12 “do not again supports”
Please change to “do not, again supports”.
148) p. 30, (90)
Please fix the format here.
149) p. 31, para 2, ln 3 “established by merging”
Should you change this to “established only by merging”?
150) p. 31, para 2, ln 3 “PRONOUN) in a constituent”
Perhaps you should change this to “PRONOUN) yielding…”? Also, should
‘constituent’ be changed to ‘representation’?
151) p. 31, para 3, ln 1-3 “excludes… as argued in Branigan (2000)…”
This seems ambiguous: does Branigan include or exclude?
152) Make footnotes into ENDNOTES—I think??
15