Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:39:31.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A condition on circular chains: a restatement of i-within-i1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Jack Hoeksema  and
Donna Jo Napoli
Jack Hoeksema
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Donna Jo Napoli
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Chomsky's (1981) i-within-i condition (also written as i/i) blocks co-indexation of a phrase with one of its proper subconstituents:

(I) *[…a1…]i

We argue here that the i-within-i condition as stated in (I) and used in current work is both empirically inadequate and theoretically incoherent.2 Many of the data that the i-within-i condition has been taken to account for should, instead, be accounted for by a range of unrelated constraints. However, a condition on the interpretation of the reference of free pronominals and anaphors - which we state as a definition of circular chains - is, in fact, motivated and will adequately account for the data involving referential circularity that have previously been accounted for with the i-within-i condition.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , September 1990 , pp. 403 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aoun, J. (1985). A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. (1986). Paper presented at the University of Washington, Seattle, Wa.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. (1987). Do antecedent-contained deletions exist? LIn 18. 579–596.Google Scholar
Brody, M. (1982). On circular readings. In Smith, N. V. (ed.), Mutual knowledge. New York: Academic Press. 133–146.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Doron, E. (1988). The semantics of predicate nominals. Linguistics 26. 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D., Wall, R., & Peters, S. (1981). Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht & Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Haik, I. (1983). Indirect binding and referential circularity. The Linguistic Review 2. 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haik, I. (1984). Indirect binding. LIn 15. 185–224.Google Scholar
Haik, I. (1987). Bound VPs that need to be. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Hellan, L. (1986). On anaphora and predication in Norwegian. In Hellan, L. & Koch Christensen, K. (eds), Topics in Scandinavian syntax. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1983). Logical form, binding, and nominals. LIn 14. 395–420.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1988). On the varieties of cross-reference. In Cardinaletti, A., Cinque, G., & Giusti, G. (eds), Constituent structure. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 123–142.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. & May, R. (1981).Crossing, markedness, pragmatics. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L., & Rizzi, L. (eds), Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. 423–444.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. & Napoli, D. J. (1989). What is wrong and what is right with i-within-i. CLS 25.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1984). Logic as grammar. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1983). A note on the binding theory. LIn 14. 554–61.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. (1980). The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1987). Against the notion ‘SUBJECT’. LIn 18. 354–61.Google Scholar
Jullens, J. (1983). Over het pronominale er. TABU 13–1. 26–34.Google Scholar
Kamp, J. A. W. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J. et al. (eds), Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (1988). Complex anaphors and bind alpha. CLS 24. 216–232.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1982). Problems of co-reference and logical form: Comments on Brody's paper. In Smith, N. V. (ed.), Mutual knowledge. New York: Academic Press. 159–174.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
May, R. (1985). Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Milner, J. C. (1978). De la syntaxe à l' interpretation. Quantités, insultes, exclamations. Travaux linguistiques. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1974). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Thomason, R. (ed.), Formal philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press. 247–70.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1989). Predication theory: a case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. (1976). Montague grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1987). Specifier and operator binding. In Reuland, E. & ter Meulen, A. (eds), The representation of(in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 130–167.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. & Chametzky, R. (1985). A string based reformulation of c-command. NELS 15. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts GLSA. 332–361.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1983). Structural invariance and symmetry in syntax. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. (1974). French relative clauses. Doctoral dissentation, MIT.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. LIn 11. 203–238.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1982). The NP cycle. LIn 13. 227–295.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1983). Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 423–446.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.-L. (1982). On the relationship of the lexicon to syntax. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Zwarts, F. (1976). Over de Disjunctie Conditie op Anafora. TABU 6–4. 35–39.Google Scholar