Advertisement

Comments on Solan

  • Daniel L. Finer
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 4)

Abstract

Experimental results are presented in Solan’s paper which demonstrate that there is a contrast between children’s interpretation of reflexives and pronouns and the interpretations that are assigned to these elements in the adult grammar. In brief summary, Solan found that both reflexives and pronouns are likely to end up bound in their governing categories — a situation what accords with Principle A of the Binding Theory (an anaphor is bound in its governing category), but that runs counter to Principle B (a pronominal is free in its governing category). In addition, Solan’s data also show violations of Principle A of the Binding Theory (anaphors were construed with an antecedent external to their governing category); these latter violations occurred more frequently in infinitival than in indicative clauses.

Keywords

Positive Evidence Intended Interpretation Binding Theory Possessive Pronoun Nominal Expression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach, E. and B. Partee: 1980, ‘Anaphora and semantic structure’, Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, CLS, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C. L.: 1983, ‘A revised theory of binding for definite pronouns, reflexives, and reciprocals’, ms., University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  3. Berwick, R. and A. Weinberg: 1984, The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Borer, H. (this volume), ‘Comments on Jakubowicz’ paper’.Google Scholar
  5. Bresnan, J. (ed.): 1982, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1984, Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins, and Use, ms. MIT (to be published by Praeger).Google Scholar
  8. Finer, D.: 1985, ‘The syntax of switch-reference’, Linguistic Inquiry 16(1).Google Scholar
  9. Finer, D. and E. Broselow: to appear, ‘Second language acquisition of reflexive binding’, in S. Berman et al. (eds.), NELS 16, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  10. Goggin, J.: 1982, ‘A non-sentential approach to “Clausal” NP’s’, Texas Linguistic Forum #21, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  11. Harbert, W.: 1982, ‘Should binding refer to Subject?’, in P. Sells and J. Pustejovsky (eds.) NELS 12, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  12. Jakubowicz, C: 1984, ‘Markedness and binding principles’, in C. Jones and P. Sells (eds.), NELS 14, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  13. Wexler K. and R. Manzini (this volume), ‘Parameters and learnability in binding theory’.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel L. Finer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations