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

additional requirement of a Case-position for A in the determination of the Binding Domain for
A does not affect objects or oblique Arguments, for it is implicit in standard accounts that for
them the Case position is the position where they stand at S-structure. 81 Clitics (especially in
clitic doubling structures) could be a case where this is not true, but I assume that clitics involve
head Chains and head Chains as such are not subject to Binding Theory.
- it seems to me that, in the field of anaphora, there are two privileged, 'more central',
unmarked cases: these are subject-oriented anaphors and clause-bound anaphors. The binding-
theoretical account advanced above for I-subjects and anaphoric copulative constructions clearly
belongs to the field of subject-oriented clause-bound anaphors.
- The definition of Binding Domain we proposed does not make reference to accessible
SUBJECTS or to Complete Functional Complexes (see Chomsky (1981)/(1986-b)). Since any
FC (including CP) can be a Binding Domain, the traditional problem of excluding examples like:
(77) *I think that myself am sick
is solved provided we can assume that C o is an appropriate governor for this definition. 82 I think
that Accessible SUBJECT is a tricky notion, and that the notion of CFC cannot be used once we
assume the Internal Subject Hypothesis. We will discuss this issue in the next chapter in
connection with PRO.
So, the present proposal, although not intended to provide any new insight into the
standard cases of BT, seems to fit into it without problems.
81 Chomsky's (1992) proposal of movement of the object to an
AGR-Obj specifier does not challenge this idea: an object will
be anaphoric w.r.t. the external Argument in a domain where the
object has a case position, namely Spec of AGR-Obj.
82 A potential problem could be:
??They want very much for each other to be happy
If acceptable, CP does not count as a Binding Domain.
Perhaps the rather acceptable status of this sentence would be
due to the possibility for for each other to be interpreted as a
benefactive controlling the infinitive.
1