TOWARDS
AN ALTERNATIVE
THEORY OF BINDING |
Abhilasha
Jain
and
B.N. Patnaik |
| a) |
|
an anaphor in the subject position which
chooses as its antecedent the "subject"
of the embedded small clause. Although
the antecedent is still the subject,
this indeed does not count as supporting
evidence to the claim that subject must
be the antecedent of an anaphor because
when such as claim is made, it is made
with respect to the subject of the higher
clause. |
| |
|
|
| b)
|
|
an
anaphor choosing what would count as
the non-subject, as antecedent in sentences
which are probably subjectless. |
|
|
|
| c)
|
|
An
anaphor, in what counts as the subject
phrase, choosing an antecedent, which
would not be considered as the subject
phrase, in its own S. |
| |
|
|
| d)
|
|
An
anaphor choosing not only the subject
as its antecedent but also the non-subject
as such. |
| |
|
|
| e) |
|
a non-argument (henceforth N.A.) anaphor
choosing the non-subject as antecedent.
Although Hindi linguists in making the
claim that subject is the antecedent
of anaphors did not consider N.A. anaphors,
it may not be inappropriate to consider
cases of N.A. anaphors as well for the
present purposes. |
|
| |
| Below
we discuss instances of (a) - (e) above. |
| Consider |
| (16) |
|
ve ek dusre ko t khush lagte hai
i i
i
they
each other CM t happy appear copula
+ PRES
(They appear happy to each other)
|
| |
|
|
| (17)
|
|
voh
apni bibi to t khush lagta hai
i i
i
He selfs wife CM t happy appear copula
+PRES
(He appears happy to his wife)
|
|
(16)
and (17) have, essentially the same structure
for the point under discussion only the lexical
anaphors in them are different. The S-structure
representation of (16) is the following: |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
