Disjoint reference and wh-trace
This article explores the ramifications of an analysis of disjoint reference for the theory of core grammar.1 The analysis we will adopt accounts for coreference possibilities between pronouns and wh-traces and, following May (1981), also provides an explanation for the COMP-to-COMP condition on Wh Movement of Chomsky (1973). The central assumption of the analysis—that wh-trace binding is exempt from the Prepositional Island Condition (PIC) and the Specified Subject Condition (SSC)—allows for a simplification of the theories of binding and indexing, and also provides an argument that the Subjacency Condition is properly interpreted as a condition on representations rather than a condition on derivations.
The organization of this article is as follows. Section 1 deals with the theoretical framework presupposed in the discussion. Section 2 contains an explication of indexing and binding as applied to the various NP-types (e.g., lexical NP vs. NP-trace). This section gives the analysis of disjoint reference under which wh-traces must be exempt from the PIC and SSC.
The following discussion presupposes the general framework of the Extended Standard Theory as developed in Chomsky (1975c), Chomsky and Lasnik (1977), and Lasnik and Kupin (1977)—including in particular trace theory (see Chomsky (1980) and the references cited there). In addition, it will be assumed that the PIC and SSC constitute principles of binding (Chomsky (1980) and Freidin (1978)) rather than conditions on rules of grammar (Chomsky (1973; 1976)).
Following Chomsky and Lasnik (1977), the organization of core grammar is taken to be roughly as shown in (1).
(See Lasnik and Freidin (1981) for a discussion of how Case theory (as discussed in Chomsky (1980)) relates to this organization.) The components of (I) constitute “the Syntax”; those of (II), “the Phonology”; and those of (III), “Logical Form.” (I) maps base structures onto S-structures, the output of the transformational component.3 (II) maps S-structures onto phonetic representations; and (III) maps S-structures onto representations in logical form (LF), one aspect of semantic representation. According to (1), the rules of the phonology in no way determine semantic representations and the rules of LF in no way determine phonetic representations. (1) constitutes an empirical hypothesis and therefore comes with the usual caveats. We return to (1) in section 3.
With respect to indexing, we adopt part of the formalism given in Chomsky (1980). Every NP is assigned a referential index, consisting of a single integer i(i≥1). In addition, every nonanaphoric NP is assigned an anaphoric index, given as a set of integers which consists of the referential indices of all c-com-manding NPs. An index (i, {j}) indicates that an NP whose referential index is i may not have the same intended referent as an NP whose referential index is j. The relation between the referential and anaphoric indices of an NP is that of disjoint reference (DR). Anaphors are not assigned anaphoric indices; only nonanaphoric NPs enter directly into the relation of DR. Under this analysis, the (i)-examples of (2) would be assigned the indexed representations of the corresponding (ii)-examples.
