16.161, Diss: Syntax: Fischer: 'Towards an Optimal Theory ...'

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-161. Wed Jan 19 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.161, Diss: Syntax: Fischer: 'Towards an Optimal Theory ...'

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Collberg, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Takako Matsui <tako at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.


===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 19-Jan-2005
From: Silke Fischer < silke.fischer at ifla.uni-stuttgart.de >
Subject: Towards an Optimal Theory of Reflexivization 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:02:15
From: Silke Fischer < silke.fischer at ifla.uni-stuttgart.de >
Subject: Towards an Optimal Theory of Reflexivization 
 


Institution: University of Tübingen 
Program: Department of Romance Languages 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2004 

Author: Silke Fischer

Dissertation Title: Towards an Optimal Theory of Reflexivization 

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Subject Language(s): Dutch (DUT)
                     English (ENG)
                     Faroese (FAE)
                     German, Standard (GER)
                     Icelandic (ICE)
                     Italian (ITN)


Dissertation Director(s):
Gereon Müller
Wolfgang Sternefeld
Sten Vikner
Arnim von Stechow

Dissertation Abstract:

Based on the observation that the standard approaches to binding (Chomsky
(1981)/Reinhart & Reuland (1993) and subsequent work) suffer from empirical
inadequacies and have difficulties to account for crosslinguistic
variation, this thesis sets out to develop an alternative binding theory
which captures these shortcomings. The languages that are discussed include
English, Dutch, German, Italian, Icelandic, and Faroese. 

Furthermore, since it can be shown that a local derivational framework (cf.
Chomsky (2000, 2001)) should be adopted for both conceptual and empirical
reasons, the thesis investigates the question of whether binding can be
successfully integrated into a derivational theory and explores the
theoretical consequences of such an enterprise. Hence, after considering a
global variant, the theory that is put forward in the end is a derivational
approach to binding. 

The underlying idea of the derivational analysis is that binding is encoded
as feature checking with the antecedent acting as probe which selects the
element it binds as goal. In the numeration it is only specified that there
will be a binding relation between the designated antecedent and an element
x; the concrete realization of the bound element x is determined in the
course of the derivation. In the beginning, x is equipped with a
realization matrix, which contains its possible realizations (anaphoric or
pronominal specifications). After the completion of each phrase,
optimization takes place and might restrict x's realization matrix by
deleting the most anaphoric form it contains (depending on the respective
language and the domain that has been reached). The result is the
following: the longer x remains unbound, the less probable it is that x
will be realized as an anaphor, because the anaphoric forms are gradually
deleted from the realization matrix in the course of the derivation and x
must eventually select one of the remaining forms. When x is finally bound
(i.e. when checking takes place), the most anaphoric specification that is
left in the optimal realization matrix determines the vocabulary item that
is chosen for Late Insertion (cf. Halle & Marantz (1993) and subsequent
work on Distributed Morphology).

Technically, the optimal realization matrix is determined by two different
kinds of violable constraints (cf. Prince & Smolensky (2004)): On the one
hand, there is a version of Principle A constraints which are sensitive to
domains of different size and which are violated by the anaphoric forms if
x is still free in the respective domains. On the other hand, there are
faithfulness constraints that punish any reduction of the realization
matrix and might therefore delay the deletion of realization possibilities.
The two groups of constraints are ordered in two universal subhierarchies;
different interactions between these two hierarchies account for
crosslinguistic variation, while universal properties of binding (like the
fact that anaphors are used if the binding relation is relatively local and
pronouns if it is less local) are captured due to the relative
restrictiveness of the system. 




-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-161