Rose-Marie Dechaine and Martina Wiltschko (UBC)

Dissolving Condition A
Rose-Marie Déchaine & Martina Wiltschko; UBC
dechaine@interchange.ubc.ca; wmartina@interchange.ubc.ca
1. The residue of Binding Theory: Condition A. Classical binding theory (Chomsky 1981) posits
three binding conditions to account for the resolution of referential dependencies. While Conditions B
and C have been argued to be the effect of independent factors -- see Burzio 1989 and Reinhart 1986
respectively – Condition A still remains a primitive in the theory. The classical formulation of Condition
A requires that “anaphors” be locally bound. In addition, it defines anaphors as including both reflexives
and reciprocals. These definitions are problematic for two reasons.
(i) local binding as a primitive: Most current analyses still posit local binding as a primitive: for
example, Reinhart & Reuland 1993, Safir 2003 still retain a version of Condition A. Such approaches
fail to account for the heterogeneity of reflexive expressions both within and across languages.
(ii) stipulated parallelism between reflexives and reciprocals: Lebeaux (1983) observes that
reciprocals occur in a wider range of environments than reflexives; this remains unexpected under the
standard account.
2. Proposal. We argue that just as Condition B and C effects are derivative, so too are Condition A
effects. In particular, we propose that Condition A effects are accounted for if we assume that binding
properties are in part determined by syntactic category. In particular, we adopt the D/φ/N- distinction as
in (1) where D is an R-expression, φ a variable and N a nominal constant (Déchaine&Wiltschko 2002a).
(1) [ DP [D] [ φP [φ] [ NP [N]]]
We further propose that reflexives and reciprocals differ such that reflexives display structural variance
and consequently local binding is derived in different ways. In contrast, we argue that reciprocals are
always associated with a DP-structure due to the semantics of reciprocal construals.
3. The structural variance of reflexives. We argue that there are (at least) three types of reflexives:
D-, φ-, and N-reflexives (Déchaine & Wiltschko 2002b), as summarized in (2).
(2) Reflexive typology
category D = R-expression φ = variable N = constant
binding mechanism R[x,y] x=y OPx [x…(x)…] R[x,x]
assigned coreference bound variable anaphora thematic binding
local binding possessor syntax reflexive; reciprocal; co-argument binding,
valency reduction N-syntax
non-local binding reflexive logophor long distance reflexive --
predication emphatic reflexive emphatic reflexive --
Under this analysis, the categorical analysis of reflexive expressions accounts for their heterogeneity as
well as for the fact that there are no dedicated reflexives. As summarized above, binding properties of
reflexives are determined by their category in the following way.
3.1 D-reflexives. As R-expressions, D-reflexives are able to mark the reflexive relation by being
assigned coreference: R(x,y) x=y. The local binding of reflexive pro-DPs follows from the syntax of
inalienable possession (Helke 1970, Pica 1987). The logophoric use of reflexive pro-DPs in contexts
where local binding is prohibited follows from blocking (Williams 1997).
3.2. φ-reflexives function as variables. Consequently, coreference is a by-product of operator
binding: OPx R(x,x). We propose that Romance s- is best analyzed as a φ-reflexive and as such as a
bound variable (Manzini 1986). Spanish/Italian s- is bound by ∃; French s- is bound by ∀: some/all
member(s) of the ordered pair named by R are bound.
3.3. N-reflexives. As NPs, N-reflexives are interpreted as constants. Consequently, coreference is
determined by theta-binding: R(x,x) (see Williams 1994). We expect that reflexive pro-NPs have the

distribution of N, e.g. the occurrence of English self in compounding. Languages which have noun
incorporation also have incorporated reflexive pro-NPs; this a predictable by-product of their N-syntax.
4. The structural invariance of reciprocals. Heim, Lasnik & May 1991 argue that a reciprocal
construction involves at least 4 parts: a plural antecedent, a distributor, a reciprocator, and a predicate, as
in (3).
(3) a. The men saw each other.
b. [ S [ NP [ NP the men i ] each 2 ] [ S e 1 [ VP [ NP e 2=VBL other] 3 [ VP saw e 3 ]]]]
GROUP DISTRIBUTOR RECIPROCATOR PREDICATE
In a similar vein we argue that the syntax of a reciprocal expression (defined as the linguistic element
which marks the reciprocal relation, e.g. each other in English) derives from independently motivated
properties. We claim that there is a transparent relation between the semantics and the syntax of
reciprocals, such that the distributor corresponds to a syntactic D-position, the plural variable induced
by the distributive operator corresponds to a syntactic φ-position, and the reciprocator (a kind of disjoint
anaphor) corresponds to a syntactic N-position. This is illustrated in (4):
(4) syntax/semantics mapping for reciprocals
distributor D = distributor (derives effect of ∀)
plural variable φ = plural variable (Déchaine & Wiltschko 2002)
plurality is forced by distributor which in turn forces plural antecedent via
agreement
local disjointness N = reciprocator (a kind of disjoint anaphor; cf. Saxon 1984, 1986)
Consequently, argument-type reciprocals are invariantly realized as DPs - language internally as well as
cross-linguistically. We analyze apparent surface differences in the overt realization of reciprocal
expressions as reflecting which part of the DP-structure is spelled out. We will show that this proposal
solves some long-standing problems in the syntax and semantics of reciprocals.
4.1. Non-parallelism between reflexives and reciprocals. Under our account the distributional
differences between reflexives and reciprocals follows from two factors. First, reciprocals are always
DPs whereas reflexives can be DPs, φPs or NPs. In addition, we argue that non-local binding of
reciprocals is possible because there is no other way of expressing the reciprocal relation (i.e. there is no
blocking). Conversely, the occurrence of reflexives in the same context is blocked by the existence of
the more highly specified form his own (Williams 1994).
Moreover, in languages that permit long-distance binding of reflexives, we observe the absence of
long-distance reciprocals. We take this to reflect the fact that reciprocals are always evaluated w.r.t to
the most accessible antecedent. Under the proposed analysis, this follows from the status of the
reciprocator as a disjoint anaphor, which according to Saxon 1984, is always disjoint in reference from
the most locally accessible antecedent.
4.2. Absence of dedicated reciprocals. Our proposal further predicts that there are no dedicated
reciprocals, which we take to be a welcome result, given the goal of the principles and parameters
framework to get rid of construction specific notions. We observe that the elements which make up a
reciprocal expression occur in non-reciprocal contexts. The syntactic analysis proposed here predicts
that when the reciprocal construal is not forced, then the overt element(s) of the reciprocal expression
are construed in terms of their inherent semantics. Thus, the distributor/D component is interpreted as a
pure distributive operator in non-reciprocal contexts (e.g. in Madurese). The variable/φ component is
interpreted as a pure variable in non-reciprocal contexts (e.g. Romance se). The reciprocator/N
component is interpreted as a pure disjoint anaphor in non-reciprocal contexts (e.g. Plains Cree).
5. Consequences. In this talk we show that just like Condition B and C can be derived, so can
Condition A. Consequently, with this analysis in place we can dispense with binding theory as a separate
module of grammar. This is a welcome result given the general goals of recent theorizing (i.e. the
minimalist program).