This chapter deals with two phenomena, i.e., backward binding and copy reflexivization in Japanese, to support the A-movement analysis of the sort Hornstein (Move!: A minimalist theory of construal. Blackwell, Oxford, 2001) proposes, according to which identical copies are produced by A-movement. It is argued that backward binding is a case in which the bottom copy of the resulting A-chain is pronounced, whereas copy reflexivization is a case in which both copies are pronounced. While backward binding involves a normal case of an A-chain in the sense that only one member is pronounced, copy reflexivization is exceptional in this respect. This is attributed to its role of reflexive-marking a predicate in the sense of Reinhart and Reuland (Linguistic Inquiry 24:657–720, 1993). Further, it is argued that the requirement of identical copies imposed on reflexive-marking via copy reflexivization has its parallel even in the semantic component, that is, that the relevant identical copies must be identical in meaning. This suggests that phonological information affects semantic interpretation, a point that may require us to reconsider the relationship between the PF and LF interfaces.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The A-Movement Analysis of Backward Binding and Copy Reflexivization in Japanese

  • Jun Abe

摘要

This chapter deals with two phenomena, i.e., backward binding and copy reflexivization in Japanese, to support the A-movement analysis of the sort Hornstein (Move!: A minimalist theory of construal. Blackwell, Oxford, 2001) proposes, according to which identical copies are produced by A-movement. It is argued that backward binding is a case in which the bottom copy of the resulting A-chain is pronounced, whereas copy reflexivization is a case in which both copies are pronounced. While backward binding involves a normal case of an A-chain in the sense that only one member is pronounced, copy reflexivization is exceptional in this respect. This is attributed to its role of reflexive-marking a predicate in the sense of Reinhart and Reuland (Linguistic Inquiry 24:657–720, 1993). Further, it is argued that the requirement of identical copies imposed on reflexive-marking via copy reflexivization has its parallel even in the semantic component, that is, that the relevant identical copies must be identical in meaning. This suggests that phonological information affects semantic interpretation, a point that may require us to reconsider the relationship between the PF and LF interfaces.