earticle

영어

The purpose of this paper is to discuss binding conditions-the structural requirements governing certain anaphoric relations. Huang(1982, 1983) suggests that when anaphors and pronominals are not in complementary distribution, they can be in non-complementary distribution if they have a different governing category of the binding theory (A) and (B). However, Huang's modified governing category has some problems. Chomsky's (1986a) binding theory that anaphors undergo LF movement to the INFL position, or to VP by adjunction shows that LF anaphor movement can not be motivated because it can violate the Empty Category Principle and the Adjunction Principle. It also shows that the long - distance binding cannot simply be characterized as subject - oriented. Williams' (1989)-binding theory can solve the problem of the cases of reconstruction, which can not explain the problem caused by not establishing the governing category and LF anaphor movement. Only the structural patterns such as Chomsky's, (1981, 1986) binding theory, Williams'(1989) 0 -binding theory, Belletti & Rizzi's (1988) S-structure and D-structure level, and so on can not solve the problems of the binding theory. Under the Attract-F, Minimalist framework, we will capture the anaphora binding in English. We suggest a lexical condition for the anaphora, which says an anaphor must be moved in logical form by feature checking under the Attract-F approach. Given this condition, we can provide an explanation for why LF anaphora movement is forced and can get rid of condition (A) from the Binding Theory.