Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Why the binding theory doesn’t apply at LF

By Glyn Hicks


This article argues that the relegation of the binding theory to the C-I interface (LF) is theoretically undesirable and empirically unwarranted. Recent Minimalist research has sought to eliminate the binding theory from UG by reducing its conditions to narrow-syntactic operations (Hornstein 2000, 2006; Reuland 2001, 2006; Kayne 2002; Zwart 2002, 2006; Hicks 2006). This approach remains controversial since the canonical Minimalist binding theory (Chomsky 1993; Chomsky and Lasnik 1993) views the binding conditions as interpretive rules applying at LF, supported by evidence that Condition A interacts with other interpretive phenomena assumed to be determined at LF (Lebeaux 1998; Fox and Nissenbaum 2004). While the interaction of anaphor binding and scope relations in particular is not disputed, I show that it is attributable to factors outside the binding theory, namely the requirement that variables (including anaphors) must be c-commanded by their binders at LF. Deprived of its strongest empirical argument, the LF binding theory can then be picked apart

Topics: P1
Year: 2008
OAI identifier:
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles


  1. (1998). A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations.
  2. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In
  3. AgainsttheGF-notion‘subject’: EliminatingtheEPPand successive cyclic A-movement. Ms.,
  4. (2006). Agreeing to bind. In
  5. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation.
  6. (1988). Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar.
  7. (1991). Anaphors and logophors: an argument structure perspective. In
  8. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory.
  9. (1995). Asymmetries in reconstruction.
  10. (2006). Baker’s generalization in a derivational theory of binding. Ms.,
  11. (1995). Bare phrase structure.
  12. (2006). Binding and Control: A Unified Approach. Unpublished thesis,
  13. (1995). Categories and transformations.
  14. (1999). Chains of arguments. In
  15. (2004). Condition A and scope reconstruction.
  16. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In
  17. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions.
  18. (2001). Deconstructing binding. In
  19. (2000). Economy and Semantic Interpretation.
  20. (1986). Fundamental issues in the theory of binding.
  21. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar.
  22. (2001). Implicit arguments.
  23. (1992). Indefinites.
  24. (2002). Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In
  25. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use.
  26. (1988). Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar.
  27. (1990). LF Movement of Pronouns and the Computation of Binding Domains.
  28. (1995). Logical Form: from GB to Minimalism.
  29. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In
  30. (1999). Modals, raising and A-reconstruction. Paper presented at the
  31. (2000). Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal.
  32. (1995). On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In
  33. (1982). On the logical nature of the binding principles: Quantifier lowering, double raising of ‘there’, and the notion empty element.
  34. (2001). Primitives of binding.
  35. (1994). Pronouns and case: On the distribution of Frisian harren and se ‘them’.
  36. (2002). Pronouns and their antecedents. In
  37. (2006). Pronouns in a minimalist setting.
  38. (1988). Psych-verbs and theta-theory.
  39. (1999). Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains.
  40. (2006). Reconstruction, binding, and scope.
  41. (1996). Reflexives, pronouns and subject/verb agreement in Icelandic and Faroese. In
  42. (2001). Scope reconstruction and A-movement.
  43. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding.
  44. (2003). Steps toward a minimal theory of anaphora. In
  45. (1998). Structural conditions on chains and binding. In
  46. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax.
  47. (1998). The correlation between scope reconstruction and connectivity effects. In
  48. (2006). The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations.
  49. (1995). The Minimalist Program.
  50. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora.
  51. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In
  52. (1999). Vehicle change and reconstruction in A-chains.
  53. (2002). When minimalism isn’t enough: An argument for argument structure.
  54. (1998). Where does the binding theory apply?

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.