Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences

Abstract

This paper takes a its point of departure the hypothesis that surface structures directly receive a model theoretic interpretation, without being mapped into (or derived from) a mediating level such as deep structure or LF. In particular, I am concerned with those cases centering around binding which are often thought to necessitate some kind of abstract level. Note that the standard view of bi ing and binding constraints is that there are two items- a bind r and a bindee- and that these have to be in some particular syntactic relationship in order for binding to take place. It is, however, well known that there are many cases where on the surface the two items are not in fact in the appropriate configurational relationship- the usual solution is thus to posit some abstract level at which they are. But an alternative solution is to reject the idea that binding is a relationship between two NPs in a given syntactic configuration, and this is the view which will be taken here. In this paper, I will concentrate on one instance of (apparently) unexpected binding effects found in specificational copular sentences. Copular sentences are particularly illuminating in this regard since they in fact exhibit a variety of connectivity effects; a few of these are sketched in (1). (1) a. Binding of reflexive within predicative constituent What John is is proud of himself. (Higgins, 1973, etc.) b. Binding of reflexive within an NP What John hated was the picture of himself in the yearbook.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 147 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.