Semantic and Pragmatic Structures in Chomsky’s Binding Theory

  • Amjad Ali, Dr. Assistant Professor, Department of English, Islamia College Peshawar
  • Syed Shujaat Ali, Dr. Assistant Professor, Department of English, Kohat University of Science and Technology Kohat
  • Imran Ali Lecturer, Department of English, Kohat University of Science and Technology Kohat

Abstract

The central question that this paper attempts is to describe the conditions under which the anaphor can be determined grammatically or contextually. The issue at hand is whether anaphoric forms can be distinguished from indexical ones within Binding theory. The syntactic representation of bindees are characterized by the use of indices. But what role does the context play in assigning co-referential or non-coreferential properties to anaphors? Furthermore, ellipses are also context-bound. An elliptical structure is indexical, rather than anaphoric.


The study analyzes the syntactic structures of Chomsky’s Binding theory within Bolinger’s (1979) semantic model Meaning and Form. It seeks the support of other semanticists in order to fill possible semantic gaps in Binding theory. 


Keywords: binding theory, elliptical structures, meaning and form model

References

Bolinger, D. (1979). Meaning and Form. London and New York: Longman group.
Bolinger, D. (1980). Language-- the loaded weapon: The use and abuse of language today.
London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis group.
Carnie, A. (2000). Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Chafe, L. W. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Connecticut:
Praeger.
Fabb, N. (2002). Sentence structure. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis group.
Fiengo, R and May, R. (1994). Anaphora and Identity. The handbook of contemporary semantic
Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory. (2nd ed.). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Johnson, K. (2001). What VP Ellipsis can Do, and What it Can’t, but not Why. The handbook
of contemporary syntactic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Labove, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the black English vernacular.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lappin, S. (1996). The interpretation of ellipsis. The handbook of contemporary semantic
Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Palmer. F.R. (1979). Modality and the English modals. London and New York: Longman Group.
Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik (1972). A grammar of contemporary English.
London: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H., &Spencer, A. (2009). Linguistics: An
Introduction. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reuland,E and Everaert, M. (2001). Deconstructing Binding. The handbook of contemporary
syntactic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Ross, J. (1967). On the cyclic nature of English pronominalization. In to honor Roman
Jakobson. New York: Humanities.
Published
2021-12-30
How to Cite
ALI, Amjad; ALI, Syed Shujaat; ALI, Imran. Semantic and Pragmatic Structures in Chomsky’s Binding Theory. University of Chitral Journal of Linguistics & Literature, [S.l.], v. 5, n. II, p. 16-33, dec. 2021. ISSN 2663-1512. Available at: <https://jll.uoch.edu.pk/index.php/journal10/article/view/320>. Date accessed: 19 jan. 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.33195/jll.v5iII.320.