Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

2.3.3. On the Status of Binding Theory
We have proposed a definition of Binding Domain which is intended to cover two
empirical phenomena (the [±anaphoric] status of I-subjects and of copulative predicates) that, as
far as I know, had not been addressed in the literature thus far and were not even considered
relevant for Binding Theory.
Binding Theory has often been conceived of as a means for accounting for co-reference
restrictions between DPs having independent θ-roles: 79 in the above proposal, however, I-
subjects do not have independent θ-roles from their (possible) preverbal antecedents or, in the
case of copulative clauses, the post-copular element is not a referring entity (it is a predicate). So
they are not cases of co-reference in a reasonable sense of the term.
Then, if the above approach is on the right track, it strongly suggests that Binding Theory
is a purely formal device which blindly extends beyond the scope of co-reference.
A second issue to be addressed concerns the empirical complexity of Binding Theoretical
facts: recent research on a variety of languages has shown that Binding Theory is much more
complex than early studies about English and similar languages suggested (one has to face
complexities as long distance binding, subject (anti-)orientation, logophoricity, etc.). 80 Our
reformulation of Binding Theory does not say anything about these issues, and one might suspect
it is too naively tied to a simplistic view of classical Binding Theory.
Although I admit that a more comprehensive approach to Binding Theory is necessary, I
think the present proposal has several advantages:
view.
- as we pointed out, it is neutral w.r.t. the standard cases of Binding Theory: the
79 See for instance Reinhart & Reuland (1991) for such a
80 See for instance Hestvik (1990) and Vikner (1985) for
Scandinavian, Everaert (1986) for Dutch, Koster & Reuland (1991)
for long distance anaphora.
1