Binding, Relativized
Dominique Sportiche
August 2020
 

To handle a set of binding problems noted in Heim (1994) and discussed in Sharvit (2011), I capitalize on the proposal that the Binding Conditions A and B should be relativized: the semantic covaluation they require or prohibit must be relativized to (a) particular thinker(s) /attitude holder(s). Thus, by using a reflexive or a pronoun, a speaker encodes that in their local binding domains, reflexives whether plain or exempt must be locally covalued for some thinkers (in their modal worlds), and pronouns can’t be locally covalued for any thinker. For reflexives, depending on the sentence, such a thinker can be the speaker of the utterance, (one of) the attitude holder(s) whose thoughts are reported, as e.g. in Free Indirect Discourse contexts as in Sharvit (2011), (and/)or more generally, the Logophoric Center in logophoric contexts (Charnavel (2013), Charnavel (2019b)) I take Free Indirect Discourse to be a special subcase of. In effect then, this generalizes the treatment of Free Indirect Discourse proposed in Sharvit (2011). Before showing how this can handle Heim’s initial cases, Sharvit’s Free Indirect Dis- course cases as well as various other cases, I show why the generalization Heim (1994) or Sharvit (2011) assume - appealing to intermediate de se read binders - is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Format: [ pdf ]
Reference: lingbuzz/005487
(please use that when you cite this article)
Published in: UCLA ms.
keywords: binding theory, semantics, syntax
Downloaded:176 times

 

[ edit this article | back to article list ]