| Section
V: a |
| (150) |
|
ram ne hi mohan ko larne ke liye uksaya
ram CM EMPH mohan CM fight+Nom CM instigate+PAST
(Only Ram instigated Mohan to fight) |
| (151) |
|
ram ne mohan ko hi larne ke liye uksaya
ram CM mohan CM EMPH fight+Nom CM instigate+PAST
(Ram instigated only Mohan to fight.) |
| (152) |
|
ram tak
se ye sawal nahi hua
ram EMPH CM this question NEG be+PAST
(Even Ram could not solve this question.) |
| (153) |
|
ram se ye sawal tak nahi hua
ram CM this question EMPH NEG be+PAST
(Ram could not solve even this question.) |
| (154) |
|
*hi ram ne mohan ko larne ke liye uksaya
EMPH ram CM mohan CM fight+NOM CM instigate +PAST
|
| (155) |
|
*tak ram se ye sawal nahi
hua
EMPH ram CM this question NEG be+PAST |
|
|
| In (150), the emphatic hi relates
to ram which is the NP immediately preceding it.
In (151), it relates to mohan and not to ram
since mohan is the NP immediately preceding it.
In (152) the emphatic tak relates to ram,
the NP immediately preceding it. In (153), tak
relates to sawal for the same reason. In (154)
and (155), there is no preceding NP or CP to which hi
and tak, respectively, can relate. Hence, the sentences
are ungrammatical. |
| From the point of view of their dependency
and the way they have to relate to NPs, etc., svayam,
hi and tak form a natural group. We could perhaps
lebel l these "emphatics" and distinguish them
from the genuine anaphors, which are governed by (140)
a reasonable step, considering too that semantic interprestation
assigns a different reading to them. They are assigned
the reading of emphasis where seminar analysis are assigned
the reading, roughlyspeaking of being identical to their
anteatents. |
| Section
V: b |
| We turn to pronouns now. The GB literature
is concerned with the issue of disjoint reference with
respect to the pronoun and not with the issue of the choice
of antecedent of the same. If at all, the concern with
the way a pronoun is bound is only through default, if
one might say so. In contrast, we here are concerned directly
with the issue of antecedent choice of the pronoun within
the sentence. Besides, if PRO is a pronominal anaphor,
then in its antecedent-choice, one would justifiably except
it to demonstrate its pronoun and anaphor - like behaviour.
But then, the binding theory as stated in LGB and subsequent
modifications of it does not apply to PRO at all in the
relevant respect. The control theory is hardly anything
more than a set of stipulations and descriptive statements.
The binding theory under reference which defines the binding
domain in terms of governing category cannot apply to
the antecedent choice of PRO. But a different binding
theory as the one proposed here, which does not define
the binding domain in terms of the governing category
may not be restricted in the same way. We feel that the
question of the antecedent choice of PRO deserves to be
looked into from the point of view outlined above. It
being so, the question of antecedent choice of the pronoun
within S legitimately falls within the scope of the binding
theory. |
| As mentioned already, both anaphors and pronouns
are referentially dependent elements but while an anaphor
must receive an antecedent within the smallest possible
domain, pronouns, on the contrary, can receive reference
from a very wide domain. This we have treated to be definitional
in character. That is, pronouns and anaphors can be defined
and thereby distinquished this way. |
| We know how anaphors receive antecedents.
Since pronouns and anaphors have contrastive features,
what can we say about the way pronouns get antecedents
in sentence grammar? From our knowledge of anaphors what
hypothesis about the antecedent choice of pronouns in
sentence grammar can we have constoruct? |
| If the anaphor has to receive its antecedent
in the smallest possible domain, then we would expect
the pronoun not to receive an antecedent in that domain.
Recall that P is the domain in which the anaphor most
ordinarily receives its antecedent. Therefore P is the
domain in which the pronoun must not receive its antecedent. |
| There are exceptional cases in which the
anaphor receives its antecedent in P or P', theones in
which the mukhya itself is an anaphor. It is reasonable
to think of these as exceptional cases, at least partly
because here a mukhya which ordinarily is the antecedent,
now has to look for an antecedent. Thus, although ordinarily
P is the smallest domain of anaphor binding, P does become
the smallest domain in some as mentioned above. We would
expect a pronoun to receive an antecedent in P' but since
in P' the anaphor can also get its antecedent, we would
expect the pronoun to choose an antecedent which is not
mukhya (henceforth non-mukhya). Since ananaphor
cannot receive antecedent from beyond the P or the CP*,
we can expect the pronoun to freely choose its antecedent
outside P' or CP* but within the root S (where root S
> CP*). |
|
|
|
