| Section
- V |
| We now turn to the issue of the binding domain.
Following traditonal grammars, we informally treat both
pronouns and anaphors as "substitute" terms;
in another terminology, as terms that do not have complete
independent, intrinsic reference and are dependent on
other terms for the same. Although both are dependent
elements, there is a difference between the two; an anaphor
must be bound within a very limited domain which must
be smaller than a tensed clause, whereas, a pronoun can
receive its antecedent even from outside the sentence,
in the discourse. The antecedent of the pronoun need not
even be explicitly mentioned; it may be part of the shared
knowledge of the speaker and the hearer. Or it can be
associated with a non-verbal behaviour, namely, pointing.
For example, voh akalmand hai (he is intelligent)
can associated with a deictic or the referrent of the
pronoun can be part of the shared knowledge of the interactants
or the sentence can be part of a discourse and the referent
of voh must be there in context. When none of these conditions
are satisfied the pronoun remains uninterpreted and the
sentence becomes ungrammatical. |
| A pronoun behaves differently from an element
bearing reference (an R-expression) in the following respect: |
| Ordinarily an R-expression is free, but,
as is well-known, can be repeated under certain circumstances
as in the sentence |
Mohan likes Mohan
i i
alone." However, a pronoun can never be repeated
in this manner as shown by the ungrammaticality of (130).
|
| (130) |
|
*voh usko (hi) accha lagta
hia
i
i
he him like-PRES |
|
|
| The ambiguity of a sentence like "Ram
believes that he is honest" is, as is well-known,
due to the fact that the pronoun can be interpreted as
having an antecedent within the sentence and as having
an antecedent outside the sentence, in the discourse.
As far as sentence grammar is concerned, in principle
there can almost always be a discourse in which a pronoun
can receive its antecedent. Hence although a dependent
element, a pronoun which does not receive reference within
a sentence, is not to be treated as an uninterpreted dependent
element. |
| Although a pronoun can get reference from
outside the sentence almost always, there are instances
one being (131), when the semantics of the sentence rules
out such a possibility. |
| (131) |
|
ram ne hari ko uske paise
lauta diya
i
i
ram CM hari CM his money return+PAST
(Ram returned hismoney to Hari.) |
|
|
| Owing to the semantics of the verb lauta
(return), the referrent of the pronoun has, of necessity,
to be the recipient of the money. |
| In sum, both, anaphors and pronouns are dependent
elements, although in different ways, and as far as sentence
grammar is concerned, except for instances like (131)
a pronoun may be considered to be a dependent element
that can find its antecedent outside its S and as such
a pronoun without an antecedent in the sentence is not
to be treated as an instance of a dependent element which
is uninterpreted. |
| If anaphors and pronouns are two different
types of referentially dependent elements, then this difference
can be expected to show up both in (a) the choice of the
antecedent and (b) the nature of the domain in which they
find their antecedents, i.e. the binding domain. As far
as the latter i.e. (b) is concerned, the problem of defining
a domain of anaphors boils down to specifying where an
anaphor must get its antecedent, a domain beyond which
it cannot look for an antecedent and, for pronouns, a
domain in which a pronoun must not look for an antecedent.
There cannot be a limiting domain for pronouns, since
they can have their antecedents from the discourse. |
| We know that mukhya is the antecedent
of anaphors and mukhya is the or one of the (if
there are more than one) arguments of the relevant predicate.
The smallest domain in which an anaphor must find its
antecedent is, thus, what we may call the proposition.
Is it, then also, the domain beyond, which an anaphor
cannot look for an antecedent? That is, is it necessary
to distinguish between a minimal domain in which an anaphor
finds its antecedent and the maximal domain beyond which
it cannot look for an antecedent? This distinction seems
to be necessary because of at least the following: |
| a) |
|
sometimes a propostion can be one
of the arguments of a predicate. One such argument
is the possessive phrase. |
| b) |
|
the theory is not constrained
so as not to allow an anaphor to be the mukhya
of a proposition. In such cases, the anaphor's antecedent,
of necessity, has to be outside its own proposition. |
|
|
| Let P be the domain in which the anaphor
would ordinarily find its antecedent and P we shall turn
soon to the precise characterization of P and P - the
domain in which it must find its antecedent. Is it posible
to merge the distinction by stating that an anaphor must
find its antecedent within P ? It really not, because,
if P has a mukhya which is distinct from the anaphor
and P has a mukhya, too, then, in order to achieve
the correct result the notion of proximity must be used
and if must be specified that the anaphor must choose
the most proximate mukhya as its antecedent. But
there is no real gain. Besides, as we shall see in the
cases of pronouns and PRO, P and P need to be distinguished
and therefore, the attempt to merge the distinction may
be abandoned. |
|
|
|
