원문정보
초록
영어
Many different approaches have been proposed to overcome the flaws of Chomsky’s (1981, 1986) standard binding theory. One representative alternative to the latter is provided by Reinhart and Reuland (1993, henceforth R&R). R&R’s reflexivity theory has greater explanatory power than the standard binding theory in that it clarifies the problem of the labor division between syntax and pragmatics concerning binding. In her recent article, however, Fischer (2004) argues that R&R cannot account for crosslinguistic variation of reflexives. Instead, based upon the observation that binding conditions are violable, she proposes an Optimality-theoretic account. She claims that interactions between the anaphoricity constraints and markedness constraints explain crosslinguistic variation of reflexives. The present study points out some empirical as well as conceptual problems with Fischer’s analysis. In addition, it postulates a new constraint Refl.CONTR and shows that the empirical problem can be solved by incorporating the constraint into Fischer’s analysis. It is also argued that the concept of contrastiveness unifies all uses of reflexives and is useful for explaining the historical development of English reflexives.
목차
II. Fischer's Optimality-Theoretic Account
III. The Problematic Data and Refl.CONTR(ASTIVE)
Works Cited
Abstract