Since SSC requires that pronouns not be bound and anaphors not be free in the domain of the most local subject, the local domain for sentences (1a-b) is the embedded NP because it contains the nearest subject my . The pronouns are free in this domain. SSC applies correctly. However the embedded NP in sentences (1c-d) has no subject, the nearest subject for the pronoun in (1c) is the matrix subject They . The local domain is the entire sentence in which the pronoun is not free; (1c), therefore, violates Binding Condition B and is correctly predicted ungrammatical. Nevertheless, sentence (1d), having the same structure except for having a different verb, is not as expected. Though the pronoun is not free in its local domain, the sentence is grammatical. To explain this problem, Chomsky suggests the following structures for (1c-d):

(2)

a.*They _i hold [ PRO _i stories about them _i ]

b. They _i heard [ PRO _j stories about them _i ]

The indexing tells us that in (2a) the stories are by the subject they ; in (2b) the stories are by someone outside the sentence. Under this explanation, SSC is then applicable as the embedded NP now has a subject PRO. Binding principle B is therefore consistent. Although Chomsky paid no attention to the role of the verb in binding (as the only difference between the two sentences is the matrix verb), sentences in (1c-d) raise the interesting question whether verbs play some sort of syntactic role in determining the binding relation; more precisely, whether the choice of the verb affects the pronoun's antecedent. In theory, such a possibility seems quite reasonable. As is well known, in certain cases the choice of one constituent may have some sort of effect on the choice of another. In theta theory, for example, the thematic role of the subject in a sentence is determined by the choice of the object. Compare, for instance:

(3)

a. Bill broke a hand yesterday.

b. Bill broke a window yesterday.

There are two reasons for preferring the verb-based alternative. First, the following sentences in (4) suggest that the verb hear in English may play a part in binding:

(4)

a.   *They _i discussed stories about them _i

b.  *They _i knew stories about them _i

c.   *They _i wanted stories about them _i

d.   *They _i liked stories about them _i

e.    *They _i read stories about them _i

f.   *They _i wrote stories about them _i

g. *They _i published stories about them _i

h. *They _i told stories about them _i

i.   They _i heard stories about them _i

Second, the idea that PRO in [Spec NP] position may serve as subject creates problems. For example, by adopting this proposal, (5a) below would have an incorrect syntactic representation something like (5b):

(5)

a. They _i heard [ _NP stories about each other _i ]

b.*They _i heard [ _NP PRO _j stories about each other _i ]

Clearly, (5b) is not consistent with Condition A. The reciprocal anaphor is not bound in the embedded NP (= its governing category), so the sentence is starred. Chomsky realizes this problem, and so suggests that the presence of PRO as subject inside NP _S is optional. When PRO is not present, the governing category for the reciprocal anaphor in (5a) is the entire sentence because it contains the most local subject they , and this is the domain where the anaphor is bound. The sentence is thus correctly predicted, as (6) shown:

(6)

[ _GC They _i heard stories about each other _i ]

Superficially, the problem seems to be plausibly resolved. However, Kuno (1987) points out certain problems concerning Chomsky's PRO suggestion and argues that the problem should be dealt with semantically rather than syntactically. For instance, Kuno (1987, pp. 171-172) indicates that Chomsky's  ‘PRO as subject in NP _S ’ assumption fails to explain why the sentences such as (7a) is unacceptable, whereas (7b) is nearly acceptable or acceptable:

(7)

a. *John _i wrote for Mary a profile of him _i ,
which was ten pages long.

b. \/ /?John _i wrote for Mary _i a profile of herself _i
for the application.

According to Chomsky, (7) would have the following syntactic representation in (8):

(8)

a.*John _i wrote for Mary [PRO _i 's profile of him _i ],
which was ten pages long.

b.\/ /?John _i wrote for Mary [PRO _i 's profile of herself _i ]
for the application.

That is, just like the verb tell , write must also assign subject control to the PRO so that the unacceptability of (7a) can be correctly explained, as shown in (8a). Yet this is not the case in (7b), which is not an unacceptable sentence, even though the binding between John , PRO, and herself clearly shows that the sentence should not be acceptable. Kuno, therefore, concludes that this suggests that the phenomenon requires a semantic explanation rather than a syntax one.

Note now what would happen in (1c-d) if we do not adopt Chomsky's ‘PRO as subject in NP _S ’ explanation. Suppose we assume Chomsky's (1996) binding theory, repeated here:

(9)

A.    An anaphor must be bound in a local domain.

B.    A pronoun must be free in a local domain.

That is, the governing category for the pronoun them is the entire sentence, since it contains the pronoun itself, its governor about , which is the head of the PP about them , and the most local subject they serving as the binder. In (11a) the sentence's ungrammaticality is precisely predicted by Condition B because the pronoun is not free in this domain. But the grammaticality of (11b) cannot be explained. Note that, however, the sentences shown in (4) suggest that the verb hear may be important in deciding the binding relation. A natural question to ask here then is: how can the verb affect the binding? A possible explanation may be that the sentences in (4) may have the following syntactic representations.

(12)

a. *[ _GC They _i discussed stories about them _i ]

b. *[ _GC They _i knew stories about them _i ]

c. *[ _GC They _i wanted stories about them _i ]

d. *[ _GC They _i liked stories about them _i ]

e. *[ _GC They _i read stories about them]

f .*[ _GC They _i wrote stories about them _i ]

g. *[ _GC They _i published stories about them _i ]

h. *[ _GC They _i told stories about them _i ]

i.*[They _i heard [ _GC stories about them ]

(12) suggests that sentences (a-h) involve unmarked structure, in which the governing category for each sentence is the root sentence; while sentence ( i ) has a marked structure in which the governing category for the pronoun them is the embedded NP. In other words, the determination of the governing category in these sentences is somehow determined by the verb. Based on this assumption, sentences (1c-d) may now be alternatively considered as having the following structures instead of the (2) or (11).

(13)

a. *[ _GC They _i told stories about them _i ]

b.   They _i heard [ _GC stories about them _i ]

In sum, the English data illustrated in this section proposes that verbs may be responsible for the determination of governing category. In that regard, I will present evidence found in Chinese in the following sections.

2. VERBS THAT AFFECT BINDING IN CHINESE

Aoun and Li (1988) claim that bound pronouns in Chinese can not appear in such a context as shown in (14).

(14)

Context Referential Pronoun

a. NP _i V  [ _s' NP _i V   NP]

b.  Zhangsan _i shuo  ta _i de   le            jiang

say   he   get   ASP     prize

"Zhangsan said that he got the prize."

_{Context Bound Pronoun}

c. NP _i V  [ _s' NP _i V   NP]                   *

d. *Meigeren _i dou  shuo  ta _i de       le       jiang

everyone    all     say   he   get     ASP  prize

"Everyone said that he got the prize."

In (14b) ta ‘him’ is a referential pronoun since it is coindexed with a name called ‘Zhangsan’, while in (14d) ta is a bound pronoun for its referent is ‘Meigeren’, a quantifier. As they point out, only referential pronouns, but not bound pronouns, can appear in the subject position of an embedded clause. Nevertheless, let's consider the following sentences that have the similar structures (i.e. they all comply with the context (14c)) except for having different verbs in place of shuo ‘say’.

(15)

a. Meigeren _i dou ziren ta _i hen     you    danliang

everyone     all   self-know   he  very   have     courage

"Everyone considered himself a courageous person."

b. Meigeren _i dou jiazhuang ta _i bu    zhidao  zhejian      shi

everyone      all      pretend    he not      know   this          matter

"Everyone pretended he didn't know the matter."

c. Meigeren _i dou fashi ta _i zaiyebu   zuo    huaishi          le

everyone      all     swear he    no more do      bad thing    ASP

"Everyone swore that he no more did the bad things."

d. Meigeren _i dou mengxiang ta _i jiushi    neige   baiwanfuweng

everyone       all       dream        he   is exactly  that      millionaire

"Everyone dreamed of being that millionaire."

Contrary to the prediction, the sentences in (15) are all perfectly acceptable. The bound pronoun ta in each sentence is in the subject position of the embedded clause, and is naturally interpreted as referring to the quantifier Meigeren ‘ everyone ’ . To see if verbs do possibly play a crucial role in the interpretation of pronoun reading, let ' s now replace the matrix verb in each sentence to see the result.

(16)

a. *Meigeren _i dou shuo ta _i hen   you   danliang

everyone    all       say     he     very  have  courage

"Everyone said that he was a courageous person."

b. *Meigeren _i dou zhidao ta _i bu   zhidao   zhejian     shi

everyone     all        know  he  not    know     this          matter

"Everyone knew that he didn't know the matter."

c. *Meigeren _i dou yiwei ta _i zaiyebu   zuo     huaishi        le

everyone     all       think       he     no more  do   bad thing      ASP

"Everyone thought that he no more did the bad things."

d. *Meigeren _i dou zhichu ta _i jiushi        neige   baiwanfuweng

everyone       all     indicate  he  is exactly    that        millionaire

(17)

Zhangsan _i chengren  ziji _i shuoguo     ta _i you   nü    pengyou

admit     self      have said     he   have  girl   friend

"Zhangsan admitted that he himself had said that he had a girl friend."

(18)

*Zhangsan _i shuo   ziji _i shuoguo   ta _i you    nü     pengyou

say    self     have said  he    have   girl       friend

"Zhangsan said that he himself had said that he had a girl friend."

How might we distinguish these two types of verbs semantically? One fundamental feature that SSO verbs have in common is that they seem to always report on the subject's actions with respect to a mental state, whereas WSO verbs seem to merely report on the mental state itself (however, the verb shuo ‘say’ is an exception to this generalization). In general, whether a verb has strong or weak subject orientation property is not evident if the embedded subject pronoun is referential. For instance:

(20)

a. Zhangsan _i shuo ta _i de    le              jiang (WSO)

say       he   get    ASP          prize

"Zhangsan said that he got the prize."

b. Zhangsan _i jiazhuang ta _i de    le        jiang (SSO)

Zhangsan      pretend    he    get    ASP     prize

"Zhangsan pretended that he got the prize."

As we can see, both types of verbs in (20) are possible. Nevertheless, this is not the case when a bound pronoun appears in the embedded subject position. More clearly, we find only SSO verbs may occur. Compare:

(21)

a. *Meigeren _i dou shuo ta _i de   le           jiang

everyone      all     say        he   get   ASP          prize

"Everyone said that he got the prize."

b. Meigeren _i dou jiazhuang ta _i de         le         jiang

everyone    all      pretend         he   get     ASP      prize

"Everyone pretended that he got the prize."

Based on the above observation, we seem to be able to give a schema to conclude the finding:

(22)

a. NP + V + [R-pronoun + V + NP]

Subject Orientation of the R-pronoun

SSO verbs ((20a))                        Yes

WSO verbs ((20b))                      Yes

b. NP + V + [B-pronoun + V + NP]

Subject Orientation of the B-pronoun

SSO verbs ((21a))                        Yes

WSO verbs ((21b))                       No

There seems to exist another difference between SSO and WSO verbs. Topicalization of the embedded subject bound pronoun is allowed by weak subject orientation verbs, but not SSO verbs. Compare, for example:

(23)

a.  ta _j ,     Meigeren _i dou shuo t _j de     le          jiang

he    everyone       all  say            get   ASP          prize

"He, everyone said that e got the prize."

b. * ta _i/j ,   Meigeren _i dou jiazhuang t _i/j de   le     jiang

he      everyone       all        pretend e    get   ASP    prize

"He, everyone pretended that he got the prize."

In (23a), the pronoun in the structure can only refer to someone outside the sentence. Therefore, topicalization of the pronoun from the embedded subject position to the highest C-specifier position is fine, as this does not violate Koopman and Sportiche's (1983) Bijection Principle, which requires that every variable be bound by exactly one operator, and every operator bind exactly one variable. Thus, the trace left by the pronoun is a variable, because the pronoun was moved to an A’-position. The trace is bound by one operator only. Consider now the LF representation of (23b) in (24):

(24)

*[ta _i/j ,   Meigeren _i [t _i/j dou jiazhuang [ t _i/j de le jiang ]]]

he     everyone             all   pretend           get ASP prize

The suggestion presented in this paper involves the idea that governing category is sensitive to verb class.

(25)

If a verb is SSO, the governing category for the
pronoun is the smallest S containing the pronoun.

Now let's see how this assumption works on the problems. Consider first the following sentence:

(26)

[ _GC Meigeren _i dou fashi     ta _i de    le         jiang]

everyone       all   swear he  get    ASP     prize

"Everyone swore that he got the prize."

According to Aoun and Li (1988), (26) must obey the A’-disjointness requirement, which requires that the pronoun have the entire sentence as its governing category.

(27)

The A’ -disjointness Requirement
A pronoun must be A ’ -free in the least CFC
containing a SUBJECT  and the pronoun

But since (26) involves an SSO verb, the pronoun ta ‘he’ must then be free in the smallest clause. This requirement entails that the governing category of the pronoun in (26) must be drawn back from the root sentence to the least clause domain, as illustrated in (28):

(28)

[ Meigeren _i dou fashi      [ _GC ta _i de         le   jiang]

| _GC ------ contract -------à | _GC

everyone all          swear he    get      ASP     prize

"Everyone swore that he got the prize."

Turn now to a sentence that involves no SSO, i.e. (29):

(29)

*[ _GC Meigeren _i dou    yiwei   ta _i de      le      jiang]

everyone all   think    he       get     ASP      prize

"Everyone thought that he got the prize."

Since sentence (29) has no an SSO verb in the matrix position, but rather a WSO, it obeys the A’-disjointness requirement, which will predict that the entire sentence is the governing category of the pronoun. The ungrammatical reading of the pronoun is thus correctly predicted. Now consider the following sentence.

(30)

Zhangsan _i chengren  ziji _i shuoguo   ta _i you   nü       pengyou

admit    self   have said   he  have      girl   friend

"Zhangsan admitted that he himself had said that he had a girl friend."

The pronoun ta ‘he’ in (30) is A-free in its smallest CFC domain, in accordance with the folllowing A-disjointness requirement suggested by Aoun and Li (1988):

(31)

The A-disjointness Requirement

A pronoun must be A-free in the least Complete
Functional Complex (CFC) in which it occurs

However, according to the A’-disjointness requirement, the pronoun should be A’-bound by ziji at LF in its binding domain, which, nevertheless, would bring an ungrammatical reading. To be in accord with (25), the governing category for the pronoun should be the smallest sentence as this sentence contains an SSO verb chengren ‘admit’. We therefore obtain the following correct result by retracting the governing category from IP2 to the smallest IP.

(32)

[ _IP1 Zhangsan _i chengren [ _IP2 ziji _i shuoguo [ _IP3 ta _i you nü pengyou]]]

| _GC -- contract --à | _GC

admit   self  have said   he  have girl   friend

"Zhangsan admitted that he himself had said that he had a girl friend."

5. CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

Aoun, Joseph (1985) A Grammar of Anaphora , Cambridge: MIT Press.

Aoun, Joseph (1986) “ Bound Pronouns in Chinese, ” in S. Berman, J. W. Choe, and J. McDonough, eds., Proceedings of the 16 ^th Annual Meeting of NELS, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li (1988) “ Minimal disjointness, ” paper from the Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 29-39.

Battistella, E. (1989) “ On the Distribution of PRO in Chinese, ” Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 3, 317-340.

Bickerton, D. (1987) “ He Himself: Anaphor, Pronoun, or ? ” Linguistic  Inquiry 18, 345-348.

Bouchard, D. (1985) “ The Binding Theory and the Notion of Accessible SUBJECT, ” Linguistic Inquiry 16, 117-133.

Chao, Yuen-ren (1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese , Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Chomsky, Noam (1980) “ On Binding, ” Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1-46.

Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding , Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of   Government and Binding , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam (1986a) Barriers , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam (1986b) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use , New York: Praeger.

Chomsky, Noam (1996) The Minimalist Program , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cole, P., and Sung Li-May (1990) “ Non-C-commanding Antecedents of Bound Anaphors and Feature Percolation in Government and Binding

Theory, ” Paper from Proceeding of the 9 ^th WCCFL, 523-533.

Cook V.J. (1988) Chomsky ’ s Universal Grammar: An Introduction , Basil Blackwell Inc. New York.

Eng, M. (1989) “ Pronouns, Licensing, and Binding, ” Natural Language and Liguistic Theory 7, 51-92.

Giorgi, A. (1987) “ The Notion of Complete Functional Complex: Some Evidence from Italian, ” Linguistic Inquiry 18, 511-518.

Haegeman, L. (1991) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory , Basil
Blackwell. Haik, I. (1984) “ Indirect Binding, ” Linguistic Inquiry 15, 185-223.

Higginbotham, J. (1980) “ Pronouns and Bound Variables, ” Linguistic Inquiry 11, 679-708.

Huang, C-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar , Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Huang, C-T. James (1983) “ A Note on the Binding Theory, ” Linguistic Inquiry 14.3.

Katada, Fusa (1988) “ LF-binding of anaphors, ” WCCFL 7, 171-186.

Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1983) “ Variables and the Bijection Principle, ” The Linguistic Review 2, 139-160.

Koster, J. (1984) “ On Binding and Control, ” Linguistic Inquiry 15.3, 417-459.

Kuno, Susumu. 1987 “ Functional Syntax ” The University of Chicago Press.

Lebeaux, David (1985) “ Locality and Anaphoric Binding, ” The Linguistic Review 4, 343-363.

Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality , Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Webelhuth, Gert (1995) Government and Binding Theory and the MinimalistProgram, Basil Blackwell Inc. Cambridge, Mass.

動詞與管轄範疇

吳黌銘

摘 要

本篇論文主要提出，中英文裡某些動詞在代名詞約束關係的詮釋上似乎扮演著重要的角色。我們發現，某些動詞可以改變子句裡主詞代名詞的約束關係，而此種約束現象的解釋似乎是Chomsky約束理論尚未著墨之處。本篇論文將要對此現象作一個觀察報告並提出管轄範疇改變的可能理論解釋：也就是說，某些動詞會影響代名詞的約束關係是因為這些動詞的出現，在句法結構上改變了它的管轄範疇所致。

關鍵詞：管轄範疇，代名詞，約束

HOME ． 回首頁