Abstract for John Bailyn's talk

Three binding paradoxes (and their derivational, Move-F resolution)
John Bailyn (Stony Brook University)
November 2, 2006 (Thursday)
4:15 PM - 6:00 PM; Room 6417, The CUNY Graduate Center

Binding Theory, the component of grammar responsible for determining when two potentially co-referent elements can and cannot co-refer, has been central to generative grammar at every stage of its development. Recently, however, binding has fallen on hard times, primarily because of difficulty in determining the level at which it applies, a question central to minimalist claims about the form of the grammar itself, especially with regard to claims about the (lack of) existence of any intermediate levels such as DS and SS.

In this talk I present 3 binding paradoxes (data taken from English, Russian and Japanese) and show that their resolution leads us to significant conclusions about movement, about levels and about the form of the binding principles themselves. The paradoxes are as follows: (i) Different kinds of movement (A vs. A') have different effects on binding, although A and A'-movement have no status in current theory (resolved by a particular view of what triggers overt movement). (ii) Principle A appears to apply both derivationally (happy if satisfied at any stage of the derivation) and only at LF (only happy if satisfied at LF, and not before) depending on which anaphor binding facts you look at (resolved by a particular view of covert movement and of spell-out). (iii) The resolution of (ii) requires Principle A to be derivational, yet Principle B appears resistant to a derivation resolution; the facts indicate that it must apply at LF only (resolved by a new view of Principle B). Along the way, I will also argue against antecedent-movement views of binding such as Hornstein 1995, Kayne 2002 and Zwart 2002.