Remarbom(Non- )Cor renee:

AMi mi maI i stPerspecti veof theBi ndi ngTheory*

HarumaSaMi yashi ta, TerueNakato, Tsuyoshi Sawada&Masaki Ohno
Uni versl tyOf Tokyo
l . I ntroducti on
I ti snear1yf brtyyearSSi nce(ref trenti al )i ndi ceswerei ntroducedi ntothesyntacti c
representati onf orthe
f i rst
ti mei n
Chomsky(1965), and
the
way
they
are
used
has
undergone
vari ous modi cati onsi n accordanCe Wi th
the
devel opment
of
Generati ve
Grammar. Undertheearl i erversi onof theBi ndi ngTheoryproposedbyChomsky(1980),
f bri nstanCe, i ndi ces
are
merel y
used
f brassl gnl ngi nterpretati ons
or, mOre
PreCi sel y,
semanti cval uestoanqphori cexpressi ons: eXpreSSi onsbearl ngthesamei ndexareaSSl gned
thesamesemanti cval ue(i . e. coref erence)bythei nterpreti veru1e; eXPreSSi onsbeari ngthe
di f f trenti ndexareaSSi gnedthedi f f brentsemanti cval ue(i edi Oi nt_ref trence)l when
the
speaker
utters
a
sentence
contai ni ng nomi nal expressi ons
bearl ngi ndi ces, hi snl er
i ntenti onconcern1ngtheref trenti al rel ati oncanbecapturedbyi ndi cesamOngthemI n
otherwords, thespeaker, si ntenti ontoexpresstheref brenti al possi bi l i ti esastowhetheror
nottheydenotethesameref trenti sref l ectedonthei ndi ces(Or, broadl yspeaki ng, Onthe
syntacti c
representati on). Thi s
use
of thei ndexi sf undamental l y
carri ed
over
toi ts
succeedi ngversi onproposedbyChomsky(1981), butthei ndexhascometopl ayanOther
rol ei nthi sf tamework: i tdetermi nesthesyntacti cdi stri buti onof nomi nal swi ththeai dof
the
Bi ndi ng
Condi ti onsThati s, the
nomi nal s are eel y
assl gnedi ndi cesand
thei r

Thi snotebenenedI argel yf romthedi scussi onduri ngthecl ass

semi nar(Li ngui sti cTheory
andLanguageAcqui si ti onVI )atUni versi tyof Tokyo. Wewoul dl i ketothankour 1l owstudents
whoattendedthesemi narwi thusandgaveushel pf u1commentsandsuggesti onsNeedl esstosay,
al l remal nl ngi nadequaci esareourown.
1I nthi snote, WeWi l l taci tl yassumethedevi cef brsemanti ci nterpretati onproposedbyLarson
&Segal (1995). Accordi ngtothei rtermi nol ogy, thesemanti cval ueassi gnedtothepronomi nal
COrreSPOndstoi tsref trenti ntheactuaI worl dUnderthei rproposal , mOreOVer, theassl gnmentOf a
semanti cval uei si mpI ementedbychoosl ngaref brentf romthesetthatconsi stsof i ndi vi dual si nthe
di scourse(i . e. G- SequenCe). Thi s
assl gnmenti s cal l ed"val uati on"
More
preci sel y, the
i ndi vi dual si nthedi scourseareorderedi ntheo- SequenCe, andthei ndexassi gnedtoapronomi nal
correspondstotheposi ti oni nthecF- SequenCeThus, thei ndi vi dual assi gnedtothatposi ti onwi l l be
theref brentof thepronomi nal Fori nstance, i f thepronomi nal bearsani ndex2thenthei ndi vi dual
assi gnedtothesecondposi ti oni ntheo- SequenCeWi l l betheref trentof thepronomi nal Adopti ng
thi si nterpreti vedevi ce, Wetakcf br$rantedthatther rentf branaphori cexpressi onsi sdetermi ned
byval uati on
185
di stri buti oni srestri ctedbytheBi ndi ngCondi ti onsSobythi sti me, thei ndexhascometo
Pl ay
two
rol esi nthe syntacti c representati on: i tdetermi nes the
di stri buti on
of nomi nal
expressi onsandexpressesthespeaker' si ntehti onaboutth i nterpretati onof i ndi ces.
AstheMi ni mal i stProgrami sadvocatedbyChomsky(1993)l andl aterdevel opedby
Chomsky(1995, 1998, 1999), thesemanti ci nterpretati onhascometobedetermi nedbythe
SyntaCti crepresentati ohwi thoutthemedi ati onof i ntermedi atel i ngui sti cl evel s (i . e. D- and
S- StruCtureS)Thus, the
Bi ndi ng Condi ti ons have come to be
appl i ed sol el y
at
LF
(Chomsky(1993: 43)), andhaveul ti matel ycometobedef i nedi ni nterpreti vetermS, Wi th
i ndi ces di spensed
wi th. Gi ven
thei nterpreti ve
versi on of the
Bi ndi ng Condi ti ons, the
i nterpretati onof theref trenti al possi bi l i tyof nomi nal s, butnotthei rdi stri buti on, hascome
tobei nl f bcusI notherwords, theBi ndi ngCondi ti onsassl gnani nterpretati ontonomi nal s
Whi ch
sati sf ythe
c- COmmandand
domai n
restri cti ons. Thus, under
the
mi ni mal i st
assumptl On, - i ndi cespl ay
norol ei nbi ndi ng, Si ncef reei ndexi ng, Whi chi ntroduces
new
el ements
duri hg
the
course
of
deri vati ons, WOul d
vi ol ate
thei ncl usi veness
condi ti on
(Chomsky(1995: 228)). Nowi f i ndi cesareabandonedi ntheMi ni mal i stProgram, One
maywonderhowtherol esi ndi cespl ayedshoul dbecarri edovertootherdevi cesThena
questi onari sesastowhetherornotthespeaker' si ntenti onrepresentedbyi ndi cescanal so
bedi spensedwi th, thati s, Whetherornotthespeaker' si ntenti onshoul dberepresentedi n
thesyntacti crepresentati on. Thi si soneof thequesti onsthi snoteaddresses.
Wi th
respect
to
the
case
of coref erence, Fi engo&May(1994)i ntroduces
a new
COnCePtaboutthei ndex, namel yi ndexi cal type. Theoccurrenceof ani denti cal i ndexi s
di vi dedi nto two
types: - OCCurrenCeSand - OCCurrenCeS. Fi engo&May
rel ate
thi s
di f f trencei nthei ndexi cal typetOthedi f f trencei nthewayof val uati on(i . e. assi gnmentof a
Semanti c val ue
to
nomi nal s). Val uati on
of
theanaPhori c
expressi on
beari ng
a -
OCCurrenCeOf acertai ni ndexi sdependentonthe(grammati cal )su ectwhi chbearsthe
Samei ndex; Val uati onof the
anaphori cexpressi onbear1ngan - OCCurrenCeOf acertai n
i ndexi si ndependentof thesuq. ect. 2
Thi sdi f f brencei ntheval uati oncanbef urtherrel ated
tothedi f f brencei nthesuqect, sawareneSS. 3I f thesubj ecti sawareOf theref trentof the
anaphori cexpressi on, i tsval uati oni sdependentonthesu ect. Conversel y, i f thesu ect
i snotawareOf theref trentof theanaphori cexpressi on, i ti sassl gnedasemanti cval ue
i ndependentl yof thesuqect. Thus, thedi f f brencei nthesuqect' sawarenessi sref l ectedi n
thedi f f brencei nthei ndexi cal typeAtthi spol nt, anOtherquesti onari sesastowhetheror
2
Accordi ngtoFi engo&May(1994), Val uati oni snotal waysdependentonthegrammati cal
Subj ect, butonthenomi nal si ngeTTeral asl ongasi tmeetscertai n
condi ti onsButsi nceweare
deal i ngwi thawareness, Whi chi si nherenttothegrammati cal suqect, Wel i mi tourattenti ontothe
CaSeOf }dependencyonthegrammati cal su ect.
3J Thecorrel ati onbetweenthe' va)uati onandthesubj ect' sawarenessseemsvagueandi ti snot
expl i ci tl ystatedi nFi engo&May(]994). Neverthel ess, Wehavereachedaconsensusi nthec)ass
di scussi onthattheyarei ndeedcorrel ated, andwewi l l taci tl yassumethi scorrel ati on
186
notthe, di sti ncti oni Hthesu 6ct?sawareneSSCanal sobedi spenSedwi thi nnarrOWSyntaX,
thati s 1Whetherornotthe- su ect, s
awareness
shoul dberepresentedi nthe
syntacti c
representati oni Thi si san0therof =thequesti onsthi snOteaddresses
Theai mof thi snotei storevi ewthechangeSi ntheBi ndi ng- Theoreti ctreatmentof the
speaker, si ntenti onandthesubi ect, sawareness, anddi scusstheprobl emsrel atedtothe
statusof thespeaker, si ntenti onandthesuqect, sawareneSSi ntheMi ni mal i stProgramI n
parti cul ar, thi snotei sconcemed
wi ththecorrel ati ohbetween
thesedi sti ncti ons and
Condi ti onB, andtri estoprovi deanswerstothequesti onsposedaboveSpeci f i cal 1y, thi s
notearguesthatnei therthespeaker, si ntenti onnorthesubj ect' sawareneSSi srepresentedi n
narrowsyntax, andshowsthatcertai nl i ngui sti cphenomena, Whi chhavebeenexpl ai ned
wi ththeuseof i ndi ces, Canbedeal twi thi ntheMi ni mal i stProgramWi thoutrecourseto
i ndi ces. Si nceboththespeaker, si ntenti onandthesuqect' sawarenessareCl osel yrel ated
totheBi ndi ngTheory, thi snoteal soconsi derswhethertheyshoul dberef l ectedi nthe
Bi ndi ngTheory
2. I nterpreti vePossi bi l i ti es
Whenapronomi nal appearsi nthesamesyntacti cenvi ronmentwi thi tspotenti al
antecedent, eSpeCi al l ywhenapronomi nal f b1l owsi tspotenti al anteCedent, i thasvari ous
i nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti eswi threspecttoi tssemanti cval ue, Whi chcanbedi vi dedi ntotwo
mqorcl asses: Whetherornotthesbeakeri scomi ttedtodeci di ngtheref trentof the
pronomi nal 4I f thepronomi nal f ol l owsanothernomi nal outsi deof i tsI ocal domai n(i ei n
thenon- l ocal domai n), f ori nstance, i tcanref trtothei ndi vi dual denotedbythi snomi nal or
someotheri ndi vi dual . Thati s, i tcanbeei thercoref trenti al wi ththi snomi nal ordi Oi nt
omi t: 5
(1)a. Pi cardthi nksthathewi l l wi n
b. Kl i ngonsthi nkthathewi l l wi n
4
wewi l l tentati vel yf b1l owKayne(1994)i nassumi ngthatprecedencei sde edi ntermsof the
hi erarchi cal noti on"(asymmetri c)c- COmmand"nl uS
X
precedes
Yi f f X
asymmetri cal l y
c-
commandsY(i . e. Xc- COmmandsYandYdoesnotc- COmmandsX); Xc- COmmandsYi f f (i )the
nrstbranchi ngnodedomi nati ngXdomi natesY, (i i )Xdoesnotdomi nateY, and(i i i )Xi snotequal
toY. Note, however, thatKayne, s
ongl nal versi on of LCAi s
nottenabl ei h
the Mi ni mal i st
Pr9gram becausei t
cruCi al l y rel i es
on
non- branchi ng
prqi ecti on(and
the
di sti ncti on betwecn
teTmi nal and
non- termi nal )I thas
tobemodi dto ttheMi ni mal i stProgram, aStheone
proposedbyChomsky(1995)
5
Thenoti on
of al ocal domai n
f bran
anaphori c expressi oni sequartothatof agovernl ng
GategOryhereManyproposal shavebeenmadef bri tsde i ti on, butf ol l owi ngChomsky(1986),
we
tentati vel y
assume
that the
governl n$CategOry
f br an
anaphori c expressi oni s
a
mi ni mal
Compl eteFuncti onal Compl ex(CFC)thatcontai nsi t
187
I n(1a), hecanref brtoei therPi card(i . e. coref trenti al wi thPi cat4)orsomei ndi vi dual other
thanPi card(i edi Oi nti nr rencef bmPi caf d)Concemi ng(1b), Si nceKl i ngons
denotesthepl ural numberof i ndi vi dual s, thestateof af f ai rsi sal i ttl ebi tmorecompl i cated
thani n(1a)I f i twerethecaseof coref brence, thesetdenotedby i ngonswoul dbe
enti rel yi denti cal wi ththeonedenotedbyhe, Whi chi si mpossi bl ei n(1b)si ncethi si s
i ncompati bl ewi ththei ntri nsi cl exi cal meanl ngOf Kl i ngonsI nthecaseof di Oi nt
ref trence, thesetdenotedbyKl i ngonsi stotal 1ydi f f brent mtheonedenotedbyhe
Moreover, (1b)hasanOtheri nterpnti vepossi bi l i ty: hecanparti al 1yref ertoKl i ngons(i . e.
OVerl apref trence)Thus, thesetdenotedbyhecanref ertoapropersubsetof theset
denotedbyKl i ngonsThosel ogi cal i nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti esi n(1b)canbeschemati zedas
f bl l ows:
(2)aCoREFERENCE
b. DI SJ OI NTREFERBNCE
C. OvERLAPREFE NCE
g( /
Thus, Whenthespeakeruttersthesentencesi n(1a), he/ shei ntendsthecoref trenceordi Oi nt
rehrenceof pronomi nal sWhentheanteCedentnomi nal denotesthepl ural numberof
i ndi vi dual s, aSi n(l b), thespeakeronl yi ntendsthedi Oi ntref erence(Seebel owf broverl ap
re nCe).
I f thepronomi nal f bl l owsanOthernomi nal i ni tsl ocal domai n, Ontheotherhand, i t
CannOtbecoref trenti al wi ththi snomi nal Moreover, i thastobedi Oi nti nref erence:
(3)a.
Pi cardl oveshi m.
b. Kl i ngonsl ovehi m.
I n(3), tWOi nstanCeSOf hi mcannOtbecoref trenti al wi thPi cadnorKl i ngons, Si ncebothof
the(potenti al anteCedent)nomi nal sarei nthel ocal domai nof pronomi nal s. I n(3a)hi mhas
toref ertosomei ndi vi dual otherthanPi card, andi n(3b)hi mal sohastoref ertosome
i ndi vi dual otherthantheonedenotedbyKl i ngonsThus, Whenthespeakeruttersthe
SentenCeSi n(3), he/ shei ntendsthedi Oi ntref brenceof pronomi nal s.
I tshoul dbenotedherethatthetwoi nstancesof hi mi n(3)canref ertoPi cardoroneof
i ngonsunderacertai nci rcumstance. Andthi sci rcumstanCei sf ere renceunderwhi ch
thespeakercanbeuncommi ttedtodeci di ngtheref erentof thepronomi nal andi ti sl ef topen
tothehearerSupposethespeakeri snotsureabouttheref brentsof thetwoi nstancesof hi m
i n(3), andhe/ shel eavesthemopentothehearerThenthehearermayacci denta11yconsi der
hi mi n(3a)toberef brri ngtoPi cardandhi mi n(3b)toberef erri ngtoKl i ngons. Thi si swhat
188
Rei nhart(1983)cal l sacci dental coref trence. Thus, COref trenceoroverl apref trenceof the
pronomi nal i sactual 1ypossi bl ei n(3), tOO: al thoughthespeaker' si ntendedcoref brencei s
i mpossi bl e, theacci dental cQref trenceandoverl apref brenceunderf reeref brenceareal l owed
onthehearer, ssi de. FurthermOre, theacci dental coref trenceandoverl apref erenceunder
f ree
ref trenceare
al sopossi bl ei n(1a)and(1b)respecti vel y
eventhoughthei ntended
coref brencei sal soal l owedi nthef ormercase. 6
Notethatf reeref erencei stheonl yway
overl ap
ref erencei nterpretati on
obtai ns(but
see
f botnote8)I n
other words, OVerl ap
ref trencei sal ways acci dental , butnoti ntendedNoteal so
thatthe
subcl asses
of f e
ref brencearethedi sti ncti onmadebythehearer, Si ncethespeakerl eavestheref brentopentO
thehearerandhe/ shei stheonewhodeci destheref trentof thepronomi nal Thus, besi des
i ntendedcoref trenceanddi 01ntre rence, f reeref trencei sthesol eopti onavai 1abl etothe
Speaker, butnoti tssubcl asses
Thusf ar, Wehaveseenthattherearethreei nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti esf brpronomi nal s: (i )
(i ntended)coref trence, (i i )di Oi ntref trence, and(i i i )f f eeref brence(i ncl udi ngacci dental
coref trence, aCci dental di Oi ntref trenceandoverl apref trence)Theyaredependentonthe
syntacti cenvi ronmentandthespeaker, si ntenti on: Whetherapotenti al anteCedentappearsi n
thel ocal domai noroutsi deof i tandwhi chi nterpretati onthesp keri ntends
Whenpronomi nal sareal l owedtobecoref brenti al wi ththeprecedi ngnomi nal that
resi desoutsi deof i tsl ocal domai n, thei rsemanti cval uecanbedetermi nedi ntwodi sti nct
ways: theval uati oni sdependentori ndependent(Cf . Larson&Segal (1995); al soseef botnote
l ). Underthewayval uati oni sdependent, thepronomi nal i sval uedbythe(grammati cal )
suqectandi ti sgl Veni tssemanti cval uebythesubj ect: theval uati onof thepronomi nal i s
dependentonthesuqect(Seef botnote2). Underthewayval uati oni si ndependent, Onthe
other
hand, the
pronomi nal i s val ued
by
contexts
andi ti s gl Veni ts
semanti c val ue
pragmati cal 1y: theval uati onof thepronomi nal i si ndependentof thesubj ectConsi derthe
1l owl eXampl e:
(4)Worf l oveshi smother.
Theval uati onof hi si n(4)canbeei therdependentonWb Ori ndependentof i tWhen
Worf i sawarethattheonehel ovesi shi sownmother, thesemanti cval ueof thepronomi nal
i sgi ven
by
Wb
When Worf i s
not
aware
whose mother
hel oves
but
the
speaker
6
Theremaybeasubtl edi f f trencei nmeanl ngbetweeni ntendedandacci dental coref trenceof
pronomi nal sEveni f i texi sts, i ti stri vi al and
ourargumentdoes nothi ngeonthi sdi sti ncti on
Hence
we
wi l 11eavei t asi dei n
thi s
noteThe onl y
di f f brence betweeni ntended
and acci dental
coref trenceseemstobethatthef brmeri sarepresentati ononthespeaker, ssi dewhi l ethel atteri sa
consequenceof thehearer, sdeci si oni nchoosl ngaref trentthati sl ef topenbythespeaker
189
recognl ZeS thatWorf l oves
hi sOWn
mOther, the semanti crval ue
of pronomi nal i sgl Veh
pragmati cal 1y, butnotvi aWb
Noteworthi l y, thespeakerh StObeal soawarethattheone
Worf l ovesi shi sownmotheri nthef brmerCaSe, Otherwi sethedi Oi n Or eref erence, Wi l l
resul tThus, Whenthepronomi nal i scoref trenti al wi ththesu ect, i tsval uati oncanbe
; ei ther- (i )dependentonthesu ector(i i )i ndependentof i t.
Tosumup, Wehaveseeni nthi ssecti onthatthreetypesof i nterpretati onsarepossi bl e
f br
pronomi nal s
wi th respect
to
the
speaker' si ntenti on: (i )(i ntended)coref trence, (i i )
(i ntended)di Oi nt
ref trence, and(i i i )f ree
ref brence(i ncl udi ng
acci dental coref trence,
acci dental di Oi ntre renceandoverl apref trence). Avai 1abi l i tyof thesei nterpretati ons
hi ngesontheenvi ronmentwherethepronomi nal appears(i . e. i ni tsl ocal domai nornon- l ocal
domai n)Wehaveseen, mOreOVer, thattwotypesof (i ntended)coref trencearepossi bl e
Wi th
respect
to
the
su ect' s
awareness: When
the
pronomi nal i s coref trenti al wi th
the
(grammati cal )su ect, i ts val uati on canbe
ei ther(i )dependent
on
the
su ect
or(i i )
i ndependentof i tI nthesubsequentsecti ons, WeWi l l turntothewaythesedi sti ncti onshave
beendeal twi thi nthedomai nof theBi ndi ngTheory.
3TbeRepresemtati onof theSpeaker, sI mtenti on
We have
seeni n
the
previ ous secti onthat
vari ousi nterpreti ve possi bi l i ti es of
PrOnOmi nal s whi ch ref l ect speaker' si ntenti onand
su ect' s
awareneSS. Si nce semanti c
i nterpretati oni si mpl ementedonthebasi sof syntacti crepresentati ons(OrLFrepresentati ons),
OnemayWOnderwhethersuchvari ousi nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti esaredi f f trenti atedatsyntacti c
representati onsAndwhentheyare, OnemayWOnderhowtheyarerepresentedI nthi s
SeCti on, WeWi l l takeabri ef l ookatthreeproposal smadef ortherepresentati onof speaker' s
i ntenti on, andsummari zethei rtheoreti cal di f f brences.
j . . 0 (J 0
Uti l i zi ngi ndi cesi nhi spaper"OnBi ndi ng"(hencef brth, OB), Chomsky(1980)proposes
asetof ru1esi nordertoaccountf brthei nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti esof pronomi nal sshowni nthe
PreVi oussecti onUndertheOBapproach, anaphorsareCOi ndexedwi thi tsanteCedentby
rul esof construal , Whi chi snotourprl maryCOnCemhere. Whatweareconcernedabouti s
thei ndexi ngof nonanaPhorssuchaspronomi nal s(apartf romtheboundi di oms)andl exi cal
NPsAf tertheru1esof construal areappl i edtoanaphorsi nthei nterpreti vecomponent,
nonanaPhorssti 11remai ntobeassl gnedi ndi ces. Thus, thei ndexi ngrul ei sappl i edtothef u11
SentenCe"f romtoptobottom"toassl gni ndi cestotheremai nl ngNPs.
Thei ndexof eachnonanaphori sapal rOf theref brenti al i ndexandtheanaphori ci ndex
190
i nthi s>Order; Thef ef trenti al i n Xi sani ntegerandl theanaphori ci ndexLi saSetOf i ntegers
I f thenonanaPhori nqueSti oni sal readyassl gDedani ndexbyamovementrul eth si nde
wi l l bei tsref brenti al i ndex; Otherwi se. i twi 11beassl gnedsomenewref trenti al i ndexThe
anaphori ci ndexi tsel f consi stsof theref trenti al i ndexof NPsC- CO andi ngthenonanaphorl
SoundertheOBapproach, thesentences, i n(1)wi l l beassi gned; i ndi cesi nthef o1l owi ng
way 7
(5)a. Pi card2thi nksthathe(, , (21)Wi l l wi n
bmi ngons2thi nkthatbe(3, 12))Wi l l wi n
Thei ntegeri ntheanaphori ci ndexmeansthatthepronomi nal i sdi Oi nti nr rencef romthe
NPwhi chbearSi tasaref brenti al i ndex. Forexampl e, hei n(5a)andhei n(5b)aredi Oi nt
f romPi cardandKl i ngons, reSpeCti vel y, andhence, therepresentati onsi n(5)yi el dthe
di Oi ntref trence8
Thus, - thespeaker, si ntenti ontoexpress(i ntended)di Oi ntref trencei s
successf u11yrepresentedundertheOBapproach
I tremai nstoderi vethecoref trenceandf reeref trence. I nordertoaccountf orthef ree
ref trenceundertheOBapproach, Chomsky(1980)proposesopaci tyrul esappl yi ngtothe
outputsof thei ni ti al i ndexi ngrul esWhenapronomi nal i sf tee(i )i nanOpaquedomai n, i i s
del etedf romi tsanaphori ci ndex, Where"f be(i )=meanS"notc- COmmandedbyNP]"andthe
opaquedomai nsarethec- COmmandi ngdomai nof asuqectandnomi nati veNPAf terthe
appl i cati onof theopaci tyrul e, (5)wi 11havethef bl l owi ngrepresentati ons:
(6)r a. Pi card2thi nksthathe(3, 0)Wi l l wi n
b- Kl i ngons2thi nkthathe(3, @)Wi l l wi n
I n(6), nei therof thetwoi nstancesof hebearStheanaPhori ci ndex, andhencebothof them
aref reetoref brtoanyi ndi vi dual . Thentheyaref teeto(parti al l y)rel brtothesubi ecttOO
Thespeaker, si ntenti ontoexpressf reeref trencei sal sosuccessf ul l yrepresentedunderthe
OBapproach, eSpeCi al l yi nthi scasethei ntendedmeani ngof (l b)(i eOVerl apref trence)i s
properl yrepresentedNotethati n(3)thetwoi nstanCeSOf hi mcannotbef ree(i ), Si nce
nei therof themi si ntheopaquedomai nandthei ranaphori ci ndi cescannOtbedel eted
7
wi thi ntheOBf ramework, thei ntegerl i sreservedf brarbi traryref trenceHencethei ndexi ng
tononanaph9rSStartS omthei nteger2
g
The
noti on
of overl ap
ref trencei s not
subsumed
underthatof di oi ntref trencei n
thi s
approachI ti s
rathersubsumedunder
the
noti on of f ree ref brenceForthe
way
how
the
i nterpretati onof overl apref brencei srepresented, Seethedi scussi onbel owNotehowever, thati ti s
subsumedunderthenoti onof di ?j oi ntref trencei nthef rameworkof Chomsky(1993)See 33f br
thi schangei nthenoti on
191
UndertheOBapproach, thespeaker' si ntenti ontoexpress(i ntended)coref trenceand
OVerl apref erencecanberegardedasthe pl i cati onof ru1esof construal , buttheycanbe
appl i edonl ytoanaPhors, andpronomi nal sareeXempted mthei rappl i cati onThus, the
COref trenceandoverl apref erenceof pronomi nal sarel ef tf orthnOti on"f ree(i ), "andthe
SPeaker' si ntenti ontoexpressthemi snotrepreseptabl eI notherwords, Onl ytheacci dental
toref erenceandoverl apref trencearerePreSentedasf beref trencei nthi sqpproach, butnot
thei ntendedcoref trenceI tshoul dbenoted, mOreOVer, thatacci dental di Oi ntref erencei s
al sopossi bl eunderf beref trence, Whi chamountstosayl ngthatacci dental di Oi ntref trenc
i sal sorepresentedasf reeref brenceThus, i ntendeddi Oi ntref erencei sdi sti ngui shedf bm
acci dental di Oi ntref erencei nthi sapproach.
j 2 0 rJ
Retai nl ngtheuseof i hdi cesbutl argel ysi mpl i f yi ngthemechani smi nhi sbookLectures
OnGovernmentandB di ng(hencef brth, LGB), Chomsky(1981)proposesthef o1l owi ng
Bi ndi ngCondi ti ons: 9
(7)BI NDI NGCoNDI TI ON
AAnanaPhori sboundi ni tsgovernl ngCategOry
BAprohomi nal i sf reei ni tsgovernl ngCategOry
CAnr- eXpreSSi oni sf ree
(Chomsky(198l : 188))
Thechangef romtheOBapproachtotheLGBapproachi stakenmerel yf orthetechni cal
Si mpl i ncati on(al soseeLasmi k(1989))Thus, theanaphori ci ndexi sabandoned, andonl y
theref trenti al i ndexi sretai nedUnderCondi ti onBi n(7), f ori nstanCe, thesentencesi n(1)
and(3)wi 11berepresentedi nthef bl l owi ngway:
(8)aPi card. thi nksthathe. / 2Wi l l wi n.
bKl i ngons)thi nkthathel / 2Wi l l wi n
(9)aPi card)l oveshi m. . / 2.
bKl i ngons)l ovehi m"/ 2.
I n(9), tWOi nstanCeSOf hi mareC- COmmandedbyPi ca7dandKl i ngonsrespecti vel yi nthei r
governl ng
CategOri esTheref ore, they
must
bear
ani ndex
di sti nct )m Pi caTd
and
9
Asmenti onedi nf botnote2, thedenni ti onof agovemi ngcategoryi nChomsky(1981)i s
SOmeWhat di f f trentf rom
what
we are
assuml nghereButf brthe
ease
of exposi ti on, We Sti I I
COnti nuetoassumethegovernl ngeategOrytObeami ni mal CFC.
192
Kl i ngons, reSPeCti vel y; Otherwi setheywoul dbeboundi nthei rgovernl ngCategOry, andthe
Pri nci pl eBvi ol ati onwoul dresul t. I n(8), Ontheotherhand, tWOi nstanCeSOf hearec-
commandedf romtheoutsi deof thei rgovern1ngCategOri es; theycanbeexemptedf bm
Condi ti onBi n(7)eveni f theyarebecoi ndexedwi ththeNPsc- COmmandi ngthemThey
canal sobearani ndexdi sti nctf romthatof Pi caTdandKl i ngons, Si ncethecontrai ndexi ng
doesnothi ngeonCondi ti onBi n(7)
UndertheLGBapproach, thespeaker, si ntenti ontoexpresspronomi nal coref trencei s
: e C ; St: ;
acci dental coref erence, aCCi dental di Oi nt
ref trenceand overl ap
ref erencei s vaguel y
representedbycontrai ndexi ng, Si ncethi si si mpl ementedi nasl ngl esyntacti crepresentati on
Speci cal l y, i f pronomi nal sbearani ndexdi sti nctf romthatof c- COmmandi ngNPs, they
i ndi catethe(i ntended)di qi oi ntref trenceorf teeref trence, th 1atterhavi ngapossi bi l i tyf br
acci dental coref er?nCe, aC6i dental di Oi ntref erenceandoverl apref trenceThenrsttwo
i nterpretati onsarei ndeedpossi bl ewi th(1a)and(3a), andthel asttwoi nterpretati onsare
POSSi bl ewi th(1b)and(3b), aSrePreSentedi n(8)and(9)
UndertheLGBf rameWOrk, OVerl ref brencesti l l remai nssubsumedunderthe ee
ref brence. Thus, OVerl apref brencei sal waysacci dental i nsomesenserundertheLGB(and
OB)approach, Si ncei tobtai nsonl yunderthe eeref brenceI f thi si nterpretati onwere
consi dered
as
thei ntended
one, aSi n
Lasni k(1989), the
theory
equi pped
wi th
a
si ngl e
occurrenceof thei ndexwoul dhavetomakesomesti pul ati ontoru1ei nthepossi bi l i tyof
overl apref trencei n(1b)andru1eouti tsi mpossi bi l i tyi n(3b)atthesameti meThus,
overl apref erencetannotbei ntended10
j . j . C 0 (J j
Asthel i ngul Sti ctheorydevel ops, therol eof theBi ndi ngTheoryal sochangesThi si s
j ustwhattookpl ei ntheMi ni mal i stProgram(hencef brth, MP)Asthesi gni f i canCeOf the
10
Butsee
Chomsky&Lasni k(1993). They
propose
the
noti on
of seti ndi ces
tohandl e
the
possi bi l i tyof i ntendedoverl apref trencei n(l b)andi tsi mpossi bi l i tyi n(3b)T71eSeti ndi cesconsi st
of (more
than
two)pri mi ti vei ndi ces, and
by
thi s notati on, the pl ural i ty
of the ref trent
can
be
expressedasasetof i ndi vi dual sassi gnedtotheposi ti onsi ntheo- SequenCethatcorrespondtothe
t)ri mi ti vei ndi ces. Thus, the
possi bi l i ty
of the(i ntended)overl api nterpretati on
of (1b)andi t
i mpossi bi l i tyi n(3b)canberepresentedasf bl l ows:
(i )a.
Kl i ngons=. 2. 3. . . . , nl thi nkthathe- Wi l l wi n
b *Kl i ngonstI , 2. 3, . . . . n)l ovehi ml
Theoverl apref trencei n(i b)i sproperl yrul edoutsi ncei tvi ol atesCondi ti onBI tseemsthatthe
noti onof seti ndi cescancapturethepossi bi l i ty/ i mpossi bi l i tyof the(i ntended)overl apref brence, but
WeWi 11notpursuethi smatterf branexposi toryreason
193
l i ngui sti cI evel comesLtOberestri ctedtoLF(andPF), theBi ndi ng(Condi ti ons, haveco etO
beappl i edatthe- LFi nterf ace, andul ti matel ytheyhavecometobe}def i nedi ni nterpreti ve
terrns, Thef bl l owi ngi s
thedenni ti on
of theBi ndi ngCondi ti ons(D, therel evantl ocal
domai n)proposedbyChomsky(' 1993):
(10)BI NDI NGCoNDmON
AI f i sananaphor, i nterpreti tascoref trenti al wi thac- COmmandi ngphrase
i nD.
BI f i sapronomi nal , i nterpreti tasdi Oi ntf romeveryc- CO l mandi ng
Phrasei nD.
CI f i sanr- eXPreSSi on, i nterpreti tasdi Oi nt omeveryc- COmmandi ng
phrase.
(Cbomsky(1993: 43))
Si ncei ntroduci ngnewel ementsi nthecourseof deri vati on(i . e. computati on)vi ol atesthe
i ncl usi venesscondi ti on(Chomsky(1995: 228)), theMPapproachcannotresorttoi ndi cesto
accountf brthethreetypesof i nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti esf brpronomi nal svi s- a- Vi sthespeaker' s
i ntenti on(i eCOref trence, di Oi ntref brenceandf reeref trence). Thus, underCondi ti onBi n
(10), thesentencesi n(3)wi l l recei veonl yadi Oi nti nterpretati on. Therei snoroomf br
(3a)torecei veanacci dental coref trencei nterpretati onandf br(3b)torecei veanoverl ap
ref brencei nterpretati on. Thesentencesi n(l ), Ontheotherhand, CanreCei veanyki ndof
i nterpretati on, Si nce
Condi ti on
Bi n(10)says nothi ng aboutthe rel ati on
between
the
PrOnOmi nal andthec- COmmandi ngDPoutsi deof therel evantl ocal domai n. Thati s, any
i nterpretati oni sal l owed. For(1a), boththeacci dental coref erenceandacci dental di Oi nt
ref trencearepOSSi bl e. For(l b), theoverl apref brencei sal l owedaswel l asthe(acci dental )
di Oi ntref trence. Note
thati n the
MP f rameWOrk
the
acci dental overl ap ref erencei s
i ncorporatedi nthedomai nof di Oi ntref brencei nthesenseof di sti nctref erence(Chomsky
(1993: 43)).
Thus, under
the
MP
approach, prOnOmi nal s c- COmmanded
by a DP
wi thi ni tsl ocal
domai n bearOnl y a
di goi nti nterpretati on, Whereas pronomi nal s c- COmmanded
by a DP
OutSi de of i tsl ocal domai n al l owanyi nterpretati on asl ong
as
the
c- COmmandi ng
DPi s
COmpati b1 Wi ththei nterpretati on. Consequentl y, thei ntendedcoref erencedoesnotobtai n

webe]i evethattheassumpti onmadebyChomsky(1993)i smai ntai nedi nhi ssubsequentwork

(i . e. Chomsky(1995))andi ntheI argel ymodi dversi onof theMi ni mal i stProgram(i . e. Chomsky
(199i , 1999)). I f
we
adopt thel atterf ramework, the rel evantl ccal domai n
may
be de ned
deri vati ona11y, namel yi n terms
of (StrOng)phases. Butthi sde i ti on
mayposeaprobl em
tothe
Vi ewthatconsi derstheDPasarel evantl ocal domai n. See 5aswel l .
194
i nthi sapproach, andonl ytheacci dental coref trenceprevai l sMoreover, thi s aPPrOaCh, i n
ef f bct, hasrei ntroducedanOtherdi sti ncti o i ntended: di Oi ntref trenceandacci dental di Ol nt
ref etence(underf reeref trenCe). I hthi srespeet, theMPapproachendsupretumi ngtothe
OBapproach, aSChomsky(1993)notesTheMPapproach, however, di f f trs omtheOB
approachi nthatunderthef brmerapprOaChnoneof theref brenti al possi bi l i ti esnotedabove
cannOtberepresentedi nnarrowsyptaxsi ncethi spapproachabandonstheref brenti al i ndex
enti rel yI notherwords, thespeaker, si ntenti oncannotberepresentedundertheMP
approach
j . 4. d
Wehavethusf arSeenthechangeSi ntheBi ndi ng- Theoreti ctreatmentof thewaythe
speaker, si ntenti ontoexpresstheref trenti al possi bi l i ti esof pronomi nal si srepresented
UndertheOBapproach, (i - ntended)di Oi ntref trencei srepresentedbyusi ngtheanaphori c
i ndex. Del eti onof thi si ndexbyopaci tyrul esmakesi tpossi bl etorepresentf bere rence;
acci dental coref trence, aCCi dental di Oi ntref erenceandoverl apref trencecanbecapturedas
we11. Notethatopaci tyrul esdonotappl ytothepronounc- COmmandedbytheNPi ni ts
l ocal domai n, hencef ree
ref brencei si mpossi bl ei n
thi s case, Moreover, i ntended
coref trencecannotberepresentedi nthi sapproachOverl apref brencei ssubsumedunder
f reeref trence, hencethi si nterpretati oni sal sotreatedbydel eti onof theref erenti al i ndexby
OpaCl tyru1es
UndertheLGBapproach, thei ntendedcoref trencei srepresentedbytheuseof the
ref trenti al i ndexandi sconstrai nedbyCondi ti onB. The(i ntended)di Oi ntref trenceand
thef reeref trence(i ncl udi ngacci dental coref brence, di Oi ntref erenceandoverl apref erence)
arecapturedi nthesamesyntacti crepresentati onThus, thedi sti ncti onbetweenthei ntended
andacci dental di 01ntref trencecannotbemadei nthi sapproachMoreover, i ntended
overl apref brence(i f possi bl e)cannotberepresentedadequatel ywi thoutrecoursetothe
noti onof seti ndi ces(Seef ootnotel O).
UndertheMPapproach, di Ol ntref erencei sdi sti ngui shedf bmotheri nterpretati ons
onl yi nthecasewherethec- COmmandi ngDPi si nthel ocal domai nof pronomi nal sWhen
thec- COmmandi ngDPi soutsi deof thel ocal domai nof pronomi nal s, Onl ythef reeref brence
i s
possi bl e; thereby
acci dental coref trence, aCCi dental di goi nt
ref trence, and
overl ap
ref trenceareal l owed. Asi ntheOBapproach, i ntendedcoref trencei snotrepresentabl ei n
thi sapproachAsthef reeref brencecomestobedetermi nedbyCondi ti onB, OVerl ap
ref trencehasbecomeasubcaseof di Oi ntref trencei nthesenseof di sti nctref brenceNote
however, thatnoneof thesei nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti esi sexpl i ci tl yrepresentedi nnarrOW
syntaxundertheMPapproachsi ncethenomi nal i sa?Sl gnedi tssemanti cval uewi thout
195
recoursetothei ndi ces.
Thi stheoreti cal modi f i cati onof theBi ndi ng- Theoreti ctreatmenti ssurrmari zedasi n
(11)f brthepronomi nal i nthel ocal domai nandasi n(12): f orthepronomi nal i nthenon- l ocal
domai nbel ow. 12
(11)REPRESENTATJ ONANDI NTERPRETAT10NOFPRONOMI NALSI NTHELocALDoMAI N
SYNTACrl CREPRESENTATI ON SEM^NTI CI NTERPRETATI ON
OB
*Nomi n Pronomi nal #i ntended oref trence
M i ntendeddi Oi ntref erence
*Nomi nal 2Pronomi nal (3, 0)
(#)acci dental coref trence
(#)acci dental di Oi ntref erence
(#)0Verl apre nCe
LGB
*Nomi n Pronomi nal
#i ntendedcoref trence
Nomi nal )Pronomi nal 2
(i ntended)di Oi ntref erence
acci dental coref trence
(acci dental )di Oi ntref erence
OVerl apref erence
MP
Nomi nal . . . Pronomi nal
#i ntendedcoref erence
i ntendeddi Oi ntref trence
(#)acci dental coref erence
(#)acci dental di qi oi ntref trenc?
(#)overl apref trence
12
Theasteri sk(*)i ndi catesthatthesyntacti crepresentati oni nquesti oni sru1edoutbysome
SyntaCti c reasonThe
sharp( i ndi cates
thatthei nterpretati oni n
questi oni s unavai l abl e. The
Sharpi n
the
parentheses((#))i ndi cates
that
thei nteq)retati on cannot
be
represented under
the
f hmeworki n
questi onTYl e term
Hi ntended/ acci denta]Mi n
the
parenthesesi ndi cates
that the
di sti ncti oni nthei nterpretati oni snotrepresentabl e
196
(12)REPRESENTATI ONANDI NTERPRETATI ONOFPRONOMI NALSI NTHENoN- LocALDoMAI N
SYNT^CTI CREPRESENT^T10N SEMANTI CI NTERPRETATI ON
0
*Nomi nal . . . Pronomi nal
(#)i ntendedcoref trence
Nomi nal 2Pronomi nak
i ntendeddi Oi ntref erence
Nomi nal 2Pronomi nal (3, )
acci dental coref trence
acci dental di goi ntref erence
OVerl apref erence
LGB
Nomi nal . . . Pronomi nal i ntendedcoref trence
Nomi nal l Pronomi na12
(i ntended)di Oi ntref trence
acci dental coref trence
(acci dental )di Oi ntref trence
OVerl apref trence
MP Nomi nal Pronomi nal
(i ntended)coref trence
(i ntended)di Oi ntref brence
(acci dental )coref trence
(acci dental )di Oi ntref brence
OVerl apref trence
UndertheOBandLGBapproaches, thei mpossi bi l i tyof i ntendedcoref brencei nal ocal
domai ni sduetothei l l - f brmednessof syntacti crepresentati on, Whi chi srul edoutbythe
SyntaCti cprl nCi pl e. I notherwords, SOmeref brenti al possi bi l i ti esareeXCl udedi nsyntax
Thei mpossi bi l i ty
of i nterpretati oni s attri buted
to
thei l l - f brmedness
of
the
syntacti c
representati on underthesetwo
approaches. Underthe
MP
approach, On
theotherhand,
SyntaCti c prl nCi pl esarei rrel evant
to
thei mpossi bi l i ty
of i ntended coref trenceThe
i mpossi bi l i tyof thi si nterpretati oni saresul tof theappl i cati onof thei nterpreti veversi onof
theBi ndi ngCondi ti onsatLFUndertheMPapproach, thei ntendedcoref trencei sru1edout
i ndependentl yof thewel l - f ormednessof thesyntacti crepresentati on.
Concern1ng
thei ntended
di 01nt
ref brencei n al ocal domai n, the
OB
and
MP
approachesdi sti ngui shi tf f omotheri nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti es. Underthef brmerapproach, i t
i srepresentedby
thecombi nati onof ref trenti al and
anaphori ci ndi ces. Underthel atter
approach, i ti stheonl yonepermi ssi bl ei nterpretati ondetermi nedbythei nterpreti veversi on
bf Condi ti onB. UndertheLGBapproach, thei ntendeddi 01ntref trencei srepresentedby
COntrai ndexi ng.
However, i ntendeddi Ol ntref brencecannotbedi f f trenti atedf f omf reeref trenceunder
the
LGB
approach, Si ncethey
are
capturedi n
the same
syntacti c
representati on(i e
COntrai ndexi ng). Freeref trenceundertheOB
approachi sunavai l abl ebecauseof thei l l -
f brmedness
of the
rel evant syntacti crepresentati on. I ti s al sounavai l abl e
underthe
MP
197
apprOaCh, Si ncethei nterpreti veversi onof Condi ti onB
f brcesthepronomi al i nthel ocal
domai n
torecei ve
adi Oi ntref brencei nterpretati on. Thus, under boththe
OBandMP
approaches, SOmej Of thel ogi cal 1y possi bl ei hterPretati ons
are
unavai 1abl ef ora
syntacti c
reasonorf oraBi ndi ng- Theoreti cr9aSOn, reSPeCti vel y.
Fo the
correspondence
between' syntacti c
representati onsandl ogi cal 1y
possi bl e
Semanti ti nterpretati onsof pronomi nal si nthenon- l ocal domai n, thereadershoul dref trto
tabl e(12)and. di scussi onabove.
Nowonemaywonderwhetherthosei nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti esdi scussedaboveshoul dbe
real l y representedi n
narrOW
SyntaXOr^LFunderthe
mi ni mal i stapproach. Orone
may
COrtj ecture
that they
shoul d
be
representedi f
the
representati on
has
canprOVi de
an
expl anati onf brsomesyntacti cphenomena. Wewi l l getbacktothi si ssuei nS5.
4. TheRepresentati onof theSut t, sAwareneSS
LetusturnnowtoanOtherdi sti ncti oni ntroducedbyFi engo&May(1994)Wehave
Seeni n 2that
when pronomi nal sare COref trenti al wi th
the
precedi ng nomi nal , thei r
Val uati oni s ei ther
dependent
on the
nomi nal ori ndependent
of i t. When
val uati oni s
dependent, thepronomi nal i sval uedi naccordancewi ththeval ueof theprecedi ngnomi nal
Fromthespeaker' spol ntOf vi ew, thi sval uati oni ndi catesthatthei ndi vi dual denotedbythe
PreCedi ngnomi nal i sawareOf whothepronomi nal ref trsto, thati s, thathehi msel f i sref trred
tobythepronomi nal . Whenval uati oni si ndependent, Ontheotherhand, thepronomi nal i s
Val ued
by
contexts
andi ti s gl Veni ts semanti c val ue pragmati cal 1yI n
thi s
case, the
i ndi vi dual denotedbytheprecedi ngnomi nal i snotawarethathehi msel f i sref trredtobythe
pronomi nal .
Fi engo&May(1994)rel atesthi sdi f f trencetothedi sti ncti oni nthei ndexi cal type
Whentheval uati onof thepronomi nal i si ndependent, i tbearsan OCCurrenCeOf i ndi ces.
Wheni tsval uati oni sdependent, i tbearSa - OCCurrenCeOf i ndi ces. Thus, thesentencei n
(4)canberepresentedi nthef o1l owi ngway, dependi ngonthewaythepronomi nal i s)al ued:
(13)a. Worql oveshi s mother.
b. Worql oveshi s?mother.
I n(13a), hi sbearSan - OCCurrenCeOf thei ndex, andhencei tsval uati oni si ndependentof
Wb4Worf i snotawarethathehi msel f i sref brredtobyhi s. I n(13b), Ontheotherhand, hi s
bear a - OCCurrenCeOf thei ndex, andhencei tsval uati oni sdependentonWb Worf i s
awarethatheh sel f i sref trredtobyhi s. Asi s' obvi ousf romtherepresentati onsi n(13),
thedi sti ncti oni ntheval uati on, namel ythedi sti ncti oni nthesu ect' sawarenessi smadei n
198
thqsyntacti crepresentati on
Representati onof thesuqect' sawarenessyi el dsvari ousconsequencesOneof them(i s
an
expl anati on
f bci nterpreti ve- possi bi l i ti es
of thePrOnOmi nal i nvoI vedi nVP el l i psI S
Consi derthef bl l owl ngeXampl e:
(14)Ki rk, SaWhi mother, andSpock- di d, tOO.
(14)i s ambi guous: i t
can
recei ve
a
stri ct
or
sl oppyi nterpretati onUnder
the
stri ct
i nterpretati on, (14)meanSthatKi rksawhi sownmotherandSpocksawKi rk' smothertoo
Underthesl oppyi nterpretati on, (14)meanSthatKi rksawhi sownmotherandSpocksawhi s
ownmothertooFi engo&Mayattri butesthi sa bi gul tytOthedi f f trencei nthewayof
al uati on, namel ythe di sti ncti oni nthetypeOf i ndi cesForeaseof exposi ti on, 1etus
assumethatVPel l i psI Si sadel eti onprocedurethattakespl acei nthePFcomponent13
Fol l owl ngFi engo&May, WeaSSumef urtherthatthei denti tybetweenanteCedentandel i ded
VPsi nthesemanti cval ueof pronomi nal s(f or - OCCurrenCeS)ori nthedependencyof
val uati on(f or - OCCurrenCeS)i srequi redf brVPe11i psi sThus, therepresentati onof (14)
bef bretheappl i cati onof thedel eti onprocedurecanbei l l ustratedasf bl l ows:
(15)a. Ki rkTsawhi sTmother, andSpock SaWhi sTmother, tOO
b. Ki rkTsawhi sPmother, andSpock SaWhi s mother, tOO
Asthedependencyof val uati onf brthepronomi nal beari nga - OCCurrenCeOf i ndi cescannOt
bei ntersententi al buthastobei ntrasententi al (Fi engo&May(1994: 54)), theval uati onf br
hi si ntheel i dedVPof (15b)hastobedependenton OCk: i ttakesSpockasi tsantecedent,
therebyyi el di ngasl oppyi nterpretati onAndsi ncethedependencyof hi si ntheel i dedVP
i si denti cal tothatof hi si ntheantecedentVP, VPel l i psi si spossi bl ei n(15b)Ontheother
hand, hi si ntheel i dedVPof (15a)bearSan - OCCurrenCeOf thei ndex, hencei tsval uati oni s
i ndependentof thei ntrasententi al suqectandi tcanbecoref trenti al wi thei therR7rkorSbock
Butf ortheVPel l i psi stobepossi bl ei n(15a), hi si ntheel i dedVPmusthavethesame
semanti eval ueashi si ntheanteCedentVP, andhencei ttakesKi rkasi tsanteCedent, thereby
yi el di ngastri cti nterpretati onThus, theambi gui tybetweenstri ctandsl oppyi nterpretati ons
13
Fi engo&May(1994)areneutral i ndetermi ni ngthestatusof VPe11i psi sSi ncetheyadvance
thei rargumenti ntheGBf ramework, thel evel sreI evanttoi nterpretati onareD- andS- StruCtureSand
LF. I n
thi sf ramework, therepresentati onsof LFandPFdonoti nteractwi theachotherThe
outcomeof PFoperati ondoesnothaveanyef f tctonsemanti ci nterpretati onSi mi l arl y, theoutco e
of LFopcrati ondoesnotaf f bctthephonol ogl Cal matri xThus, VPe11i ps!SCanbeconsi deredei ther
asadel eti onprocedurei nthePFcomponentorasareconstruCti oni ntheLFcomponent
199
i nVPel l i psi scanbeexpl ai nedi ntermsof thedi sti ncti onbetweenthe - and - OCCurrenCeS
Of i ndi ces.
Tosumup, undertheproposal of Fi engo&May(1994), the(grammati cal )suqect, s
awareneSSOf pronomi nal s, anteCedentcanbeal socapturedi nthesyntacti crepresentati on
wi ththei ndexi cal type, namel y - and - OCCurrenCeS. Thedi sti ncti oni nthei ndexi cal type
Can
aCCOunt
f brvari ous
syntacti cphenomenasuchas the
ambi gui tyof thei tri ct/ sl oppy
i nterpretati oni ntheVPel l i psI SCOnteXt
5. I ssues
We have
seeni n 3how
the
speaker' si ntenti oncanbecapturedi nthe
syntacti c
representati onandhowi tstreatmenthasdevel opedasthef tameworkof generati vetheoryhas
Changed(Cf OB, LGBandMP)Wehaveal soseeni n 4howthesu ect, sawarenesscan
berepresentedNow, i f bneacceptstheMPproposedbyChomsky(1993, 1995, 1998,
1999), thereari sesaprobl emastowhetherthesedi sti ncti onsarereal l ycapturedi nthe
SyntaCti c representati onAsthe
de ni ti on
of
the
Bi ndi ng Condi ti ons
underthe
MP
approachvi rtual l ydoesnotrepresentordi sti ngui shthei nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti es(See(11)and
(12)), theanswerturnsouttobenegati ve. Eveni f thedi sti ncti oni ni ntenti onandawareneSS
i snotconsi deredasvi rtual - COnCePtual necessl ty, thedi sti ncti onneedstoberepresentedi n
narrOWSyntaXi f somesyntacti cphenomenacanbeadequatel yaccountedf bri ntermsof the
representati onof thedi sti ncti ons.
Asf arasthei ntenti oni sconcemed, i tappearsthati tsdi sti ncti ondoesnothavetobe
representedattheLFi nterf aceundertheearl i erversi onof theMPapproach(Chomsky(1993,
1995)): tOthe
bestof ourknowl edge, rePreSentati onof the
di sti ncti on
pl ays norol ei n
accountl ngf branysyntacti cphenomenonotherthanref brenti al possi bi l i ti esAswehave
Seeni n 33, mOreOVer, thepronomi nal c- COmmandedbyaDPoutsi deof i tsl ocal domai ni s
gi venonl ythef reeref erencebecausethei nterpreti veversi onof Condi ti onB(Cf . (10))al l ows
i ttorecei veanyl nterPretati onwi threspeCttOthec- COmmandi ngDPI nsomecases, eVen
theref erenti al possi bi l i ti esdonothavetoberepresented: theyarel ef topenf brpragmati cs
Thus, i ti s hi ghl y
unl i kel y
that the
speaker, si ntenti oni s capturedi n
the
syntacti c
representati onattheLFi nterf ace, andhencei ti spossi bl etosaythatthei nterpreti veversi on
Of theBi ndi ngCondi ti onsi ssupported.
Concemi ng
the
awareneSS, We have
seeni n 4that
Fi engo&May(1994)makes
di sti ncti oni nthesyntacti crepresentati onsoastoaccountf brvari oussyntacti cphenomena
SuChasthestri ct/ sl oppyambi gui tyl ntheVPe11i psI SCOnteXt. Recal 1, however, thatunder
themi ni mal i stassumptl Oni ntroduci ngnewel ementsei theri nthel exi con
oi duri ngthe
deri vati onl eadstoavi ol ati onof thei ncl usi venesscondi ti on(See 3. 3). Theref ore, ' i ndexi cal
200
typesaswel l asi ndexi cal occurrencescannOtbecarri edovertothemi mi mal i stassumptl On
Moreover, thedi sti ncti oni nawareneSSal waysentai l s thatthepronomi nal i scoref trenti al
Wi th
some
nomi nal , but
as we have
menti oned above, the coref trencei nterpretati on of
PrOnOmi nal si n non- l ocal contexts
cannOt
be
expl i ci tl y
represented atthe
LFi nterf ace
Hence, eVenthenoti onof thesuqect' sawarenessneednotbeavai l abl ei nnarrOWSyntaXOrat
theLFi nterf aceunderthemi ni mal i stassumptl On. r
Tomai ntai ntheMPapproachandtoaccountf brthei nterpreti vepo$Si bi l i tyl ntheVP
e11i psI SCOnteXtwi thoutrecoursetothei ndexi cal typeorthei ndexi cal occurrenceLetus
SeeFox' s(2000)proposal . HeproposesthatVPel l i psi sobserveSthef o1l owi ngpri nci pl e:
(16)NPPARALLELI SM
NPsi ntheantecedentandel i dedVPsmustei ther
a.
havethesameref trenti al val ue(Ref trenti al Paral 1el i sm)or
b. bel i nkedbyi denti cal dependenci es(Structural Paral l el i sm)
(Fox(2000: 117))
UnderFox' sappr?aChPemi ssi bl e/ unavai 1abl ei nterpretati onsof (14)canbecorrectl y
expl ai nedbythepri nci pl ei n(16). Foreaseof exposi ti on, 1etusagai nassumehereaswel l
thatVPel l i psi si sadel eti on, PrOCedurethati sappl i edi nthePFcomponent(Seef botnote12)
Then, the
rel evant
representati on
of (14)bef bre
the appl i cati on of
VP
e11i psi s canbe
i l l ustratedasf bl l ows: 14, 15
(17)a.
STRI CrI NTERPRETATI ON
Ki r d 1
SKI RKmOther. Spocksawhi sK[RKmOther.
t
b. SLOPPYI NTERPRETAT10N
Ki SMKmOther. Sp ]SspocKmOther'
r4
Foreaseof exposi ti on, erepresentthesemanti cval ueof pronomi nal swi ththecapi tal subscri pt
i ni tal i cs. Butnotethatthi srepresentati oni snothi ngmorethananotati ona]devi ceandi tdoesnot
bearanytheoreti cal meani ng: i ti smerel yanotati onal vari ant. Noteal sothatFox(2000)adoptsthe
notati onusedi nHi ggi nbotham(1983)f brtherepresentati onof dependency. Wetaci tl yassumethi s
notati onaswel l .
15
Al thoughFox' sapproach(2000)canadequatel yaccountf brthei nterpreti vepossi bi l i ti esi nthe
VPe11i psI SCOnteXtundermi ni mal i stassumpt10nS, i ti snotwi thoutaprob]emei therThus, Whenthe
del eti on
procedure appl i esi n
the PFcomponent, i thas
to haveaccess
to thei nf brmati on on the
ref trenti aI val uebf pronomi nal si nordertoobserve(16), butthi si si mpossi bl esi ncePFandLFdonot
i nteract
each
other. Our
wi l d guess suggests
that the
ref brenti al val ue
of pronomi na)s
has
to
be
detemi nedpri ortoSpel l - Outsothati tcanbef bdtothePFcomponent
201
C. UNAVAI LABLEI NTERPRET^T10N
mother. J Spocksawhi ssc7TmOther.

Thepronomi nal si n(17a)observetheRef brenti al Paral l el i smi n(16a), andhenceVPel l i psi s
i sl i ci ti nthi scontext, Whi chl eadstoastri cti nterpretati onSi mi l arl y, thepronomi nal si n
(17b)observe
theStruCtural Paral 1el i smi n(16b), andthusVPel l i psi si s al sol i ci ti nthi s
COnteXt, therebyyi el di ngasl oppyi nterpretati on. Conversel y, thepronomi nal si n(17c)do
notobservenei thertheRef trenti al Paral l el i smnortheStruCtural Paral l el i sm, Whi chpmakes
VPel l i psi si nthi scontexti l l i ci t. (17c)i srul edoutby(16). Thus, Fox' s approachcan
COrreCtl yderi vethe ambi gui tyof thestri ct/ sl oppyl nterPretati oni ntheVPe11i psI SCOnteXt
under
the
mi ni mal i st
a sumptl On, eSPeCi al 1y
wi thout
recourse to
the
di sti ncti oni nthe
i ndexi cal type(i e - / P- OC?ur nCeSOf i ndi ces)16I f thi sapproac i sontheri ghttrack, the
awareness does
not
have
any sl gmi f i canCe atl easti n accountl ng
f br
the stri cusl oppy
i nterpretati onambi gui tyl ntheVPel l i psI SCOnteXt, andi tdoesnothavetobecapturedi nthe
SyntaCti crepresentati on.
Wehavearguedthusf arthatundertheMPqpproachthedi sti ncti oni nthei ntenti oni s
Vi rtual l y
abandonedi n
narrow
syntaxand
thatthe
di sti ncti oni n awareneSS
Canbeal so
di spensedwi thi nnarrowsyntaxThi sshowsthatwecanmai ntai nthei nterpreti veversi on
Of theBi ndi ngCondi ti onsi n(10)i ntheMPapproach. Oneremai ni ngi ssuetobeaddressed
Wi threspectto(10)atthi spoi ntconcernSthedef i ni ti onof therel evantl ocal domai n, D
Undertheearl i erversi onof theMPapproach(Chomsky(1993, 1995)), theBi ndi ng
Condi ti ons
appl y
to
the(Si ngl e)LFrepresentati on, and
D, Whi ch
canbe regarded
as a
mi ni mal CFC contai ni ng
the
anaphori c
expressi on(Seef ootnote5), i s
de nedatthe LF
i nterf ace.
Underthestrongderi vati onal approachof theMPadvocatedbyEpstei netal (1998),
however, Dcannotbedef i nedattheLFi nterf acebecausesuchrepresentati oni sunavai 1abl e
underthei rproposal : theappl i cati onof thestructure- bui l di ngoperati ons(SuChasMergeand
Move)createssyntacti crel ati ons(SuChasc- COmmandandsi sterhood)deri vati onal l y, and
uponthi screati on, thoserel ati onsenteri ntothei nterpreti veprocedureswi thoutmedi tati onof
16
Therearesubcasesof theambi gul tyi ntheVPel l i psI SCOnteXtthathavetobeexp)ai nedunder
the
approach
of Fox(2000)wi thout
recourse
to
thei ndexi cal typeOrthei ndexi cal occurrence
AmongthemarewhatFi engo&May(1994)ca11many- PrOnOunSPuZZl e, many- Cl ausespuzzl eand
Dahrspuzzl eI naccordancewi ththeMPapproach, Foxi ssuccessf uI i naccountl ngf brthef i rst
puzzl e
byi ntroduci ng
the
Rul e H
ori gi na11y
proposed
by
Hei m(1998)(i eOne Of
the
economy/ opti mal i typri nci pl esunderFox' sapproach). Theremai ni ngtwopuzzl es
shoul dal so' be
expl ai nedwi thoutrecoursetothei ndexi cal typeorthei ndexi caI occurrence, Whi chwi I )bethetopI COf
Ourf uturestudy.
202
; 1i ngui sti cl evel s. I n: Otherwords, i nterpreti veproceduresare pl i edderi vati onal 1y(atevery
poi ntof thederi vati on), andthe_StruCture- bui l di ngprocedureprOVi desi nf brmati ondi rectl yto
- thei nterf acel SyStemS: Assuml ng)SO, Epstei netal gOOntOarguethatthei nterpreti ve
versi onof the
Bi ndi ng Condi ti onsRappl y. wi thi nthe
deri vati onal processi tsel f , andthey
proposethatthederi vati onal appl i cati onof the8i ndi ngCondi ti onsi sconstrai nedby(18):
(18)The Pl i cati onof "di ?j oi nt"i nterpreti veproceduresoccuTSateVeryPOi ntof the
deri vati on, Whereastheappl i cati onof ``anaPhori cMi nterpreti veproceduresoccurs.
atanysl ngl epol ntOf thederi vati on.
(Epstei netal (1998: 62))
I f theBi ndi ngCondi ti onsareappl i edderi vati onal 1y, OnemayWOnderhowDi sde nedor
computedI tcannotbecomputedderi vati onal l y, Si nceeveryi nf brmati oni sprovi dedtothe
i nterf acesystemsdi rectl ybef brei ti senti rel ycomputedThestrongderi vati onal model
mustguaranteethatthederi vati oncanstorei nf brmati onatl eastf brde i ngorcomputl ngD
bef oretheBi ndi ngCondi ti onsareappl i edButi ti snotatal 1cl earhowthi si sguaranteed
underthestrongderi vati onal approach
Thi sprobl emi sparti al l ysoI vabl eundertheweakderi vati onal approachadvocatedby
Chomsky(1998, 1999), Wherethenoti onof mul ti pl eSpel Outi s
adoptedUnderthi s
approach, thederi vati onproceedsby(StrOng)phase(i eCPorv*P), andSpel l - Outtakes
pl aceatthephasel evel
Thati s, i nterpretati on/ eval uati oni si mpl ementedatthephase
l evel Thus, WeCanregardthephaseasD, Si ncebothCPandv*PareCOmParabl etothe
CFCi nthatbothof themreal i zeal l grammati cal f uncti onscompati bl ewi ththei rheads: both
CPandv*Preal i zethesuqectandtheobj ect. Consequentl y, theBi ndi ngCondi ti onscanbe
appl i cabl e
to CP or
v*P, andthei ri nterpreti ve versi oni s
sti l l tenabl eunderthe weak
deri vati onal approachI f DPal socountsasphase, mOreOVer, i tcanbeDaswe11Thus,
thenoti onof thephasewi threspecttoDi scomparabl etothatof CFCThi si ndi catesthat
def i ni ngDi nterms
of the phasecomportswi ththei nterpreti veversi onof theBi ndi ng
Condi ti ons, andthattheyaresti l l tenabl eundertheweakderi vati onal approach
6. Concl udi ngRemarks
Wehaveseeni nthi snotehowthedi sti ncti onsi nthespeaker' si ntenti ontoexpress
coref trence/ di Oi ntref erence/ f reeref trenceandi nthe(grammati cal )suqect' sawarenessof
the
ref trent
of anaphori c expressi onsi s capturedi n
the syntacti c representati on
7
I nChomsky(1999), V*i sdi sti ngui shedf rom
v: V*i s- COmPl etei naconstruCti on
wi thf u1l
argumentstruCtureWhi I evi snot
203
Speci f i cal 1y, Wehaveshownthatthei ntenti onandawareneSSCanberepresentedi ntermsof
i ndexi cal occurrencesandi ndexi cal typeS, reSPeCti vel y: Di spens1ngWi ththedi sti ncti onsi n
thei ntenti on
and
awareness, the
MP
approach(Chomsky(1993, 1995, 1998, 1999))has
presentedani nterpreti veversi onof theBi ndi ngCondi ti ons. Thi srevi si oni sprl maf aci e
PrObl emati ctoexpl ai ni ngcertai nsynt?Cti cphenomena, butwehavedemonstratedthatthey
Canbeexpl ai nedwi thoutrecoursetothei ndexi cal occurrencesandi ndexi cal types
Re rences
Chomsky, Noam(1965)Aspectsqf theTheo17qf Syntax, MI TPress, Cambri dgeMass
Chomsky, Noam(1980)"OnBi ndi ng, ' ' Li ngui sti cI nqui ryl l , 1- 46.
Chomsky, Noam(1981)LecturesonGovernmentandBi ndi ng, Fori s, Dordrecht
Chomsky, Nbam(1986) owl edi eqf ' Language: J ture, Ori i i nandUi e, Praeger, New
York.
Chomsky, Noam(1993)"A
Mi ni mal i st
Programf brLi ngui sti cTheory, "neewj h)m
Bui l di ng20; Essaysi nLi ngui sti csi nHonorqf Syl vai nBI Vmberger, edbyKenneth
Hal e&Samuel J ayKeyser, 1- 52, MI TPress, Cambri dgeMass.
Chomsky, Noam(1995)772eMi ni mal i stPTVgTtZm, MI TPress, Cambri dgeMass
Chomsky, Noam(1998)``Mi ni mal i stI nqui ri es: TheFramework: ' MI TOccasi onal PqpeTTi n
Li ngui sti cs15, MI T, Carhbri dgeMass.
Chomsky, Noam(1999)"Deri vati onbyPhase, "MI TOccasi onal PqpeTTi nLi ngui sti cs18,
MI T, Cambri dgeMass.
Chomsky, Noam&Howard
Lasni k(1993)"TheTheory of Pri nci pl esand
ParameterS, ' '
Syntax: AnI ntemati onal Ltandbookqf Conte OTtl TyResearch, edbyJ oachi mJ acobs,
Arni mvon
Stechow, Wol f gang
Sternef tl d&TheoVennemann, 506- 569, Wal terde
Gruyter, Berl i n.
Epstei n, Samuel Davi d, Eri chM. Groat, Ruri koKawashi ma&Hi satsugi Ki tahara(1998)A
Deri vati ona14pproachto ntacti cRel ati ons, Oxf ordUni versi tyPress, Oxf brd
Fi engo, Robert&RobertMay(1994)I ndi cesanduenti ty, MI TPress, Ca bri dgeMass
Fox, Danny(2000)EconomyandSemanti cI nteTPretati on, MI TPress, Cambri dgeMass
Hei m, I rene(1998)``AnaphoraandSemanti cI nterpretati on: ARei nterpretati onof Rei nhart' s
Approach, MMI TWbT*i ngPqpersi nLl i ngui sti cs25: 771eb2teTPreti veT ct, edbyUl i
Sauerl and&Ori nPercus, 205- 246, MI T, Ca bri dgeMass.
Hi ggi nbotham, J ames(1983)"Logi cal Form, Bi ndi ngandNomi nal s, "Li ngui sti cI nqui Ty14,
395- 420.
Kayne, Ri chardS. (1994)771eAnti symmetryqf Syntax, MI TPress, Cambri dgeMass
204
Larson, Ri chard&Gabri el Segal (1995) owl edge
qf - Meani ng, MI TPress, Cambri dge
Mass.
Lasni k, Howard(1989)Ei saysonAnqphotu, Rei del , Dordrecht.
Rei nhart, Tanya(1983)AnLPhoTtZandSemanti ch2teTPretati on, CroomHei m, London
205