Observações sobre análises minimalistas para vinculação

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2020v73n3p143

Palavras-chave:

Princípios de Ligação, Minimalismo, Forma Lógica, Sintaxe, Pragmática

Resumo

O presente artigo é uma reavaliação dos argumentos empíricos e teóricos apresentados por algumas das principais contas minimalistas para vinculação. Alguns se esses relatos assumem que os princípios de ligação são condições nas representações LF, outros argumentam que eles são derivados por cálculos de sintaxe restrita. Apesar disso, apresento algumas observações indicando que ainda não existe uma explicação minimalista satisfatória para a vinculação. A evidência acumulada indica que a ligação é derivacional. No entanto, a pragmática também parece engajada na construção da co-referencialidade.

Biografia do Autor

Cilene Rodrigues, Pontificial Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro

Deparmento de Letras, adjunct professor

Referências

Aoun, J. 2000. Resumption and last resort. DELTA 16, 13-43.

Asudeh, A. 2004. Resumption as resource management. Doctoral dissertation. Stanford University

Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. 1988. Psych verb and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291-352.

Beltrama, A., and Xiang, M. 2016. Unacceptable but comprehensible: the facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 29.

Chein, Y-C. and Wexler, K. 1990. Children's Knowledge of Locality Conditions in Binding as Evidence for the Modularity of Syntax and Pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1, 225-295.

Chomsky, N. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2, 303– 351.

Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and Representations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, N. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.

Chomsky, N. 1991. Some Notes on economy of derivation and representation In: Freidin, R. Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 417-454.

Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds. ) The view from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52.

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.1-52.

Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In: Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A. Sternefeld, W. and Vennemann, T. (eds.) Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 506-569.

Fiengo, R. and Higginbotham, J. 1981. Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis 7, 395-421.

Frampton, J. 1991. Relativized minimality: a review. The Linguistic Review, 81- 46.

Fox, Danny, & Jon Nissenbaum. 2004. Condition A and scope reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 475-0485.

Grodzinsky, Y. and Reinhart, T. 1993. The innateness of binding and of coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 69-101.

Heestand, D., Xiang, M., and Polinsky, M. 2011. Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 138-152.

Heinat, F. 2006. Probes, Pronouns, and Binding in the Minimalist Program. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.

Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In: Sauerland, Uli. and Percus, O. (eds.) The Interpretive Tract. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, MIT. 205-246.

Heycock, C. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103-138.

Hicks, G. 2009. The derivation of anaphoric relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hornstein, Norbert. 2000. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hornstein, Norbert. 2006. Pronouns in a minimalist setting. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 47–80.

Huang, C.-T. J. 1983. A note on the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 554-561.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Johnson, K. 2012. Pronouns vs. Definite descriptions. In: M. Becker, M. J. Grinstead, J. and Rothman, J. (eds) Generative linguistics and acquisition: studies in honor of Nina M. Hyams. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 157-184.

Johnson, K. 2019. Principle C. Unpublished manuscript. UMass. Available at https://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/PC_final.pdf.

Kayne, R. S. 1972. Subject inversion in French interrogative. In: J. Casagrande and B. Sacink (eds.) Generative Studies in Romance Languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 70-126.

Kayne, R. S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Kayne, R. S. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In: Epstein, S. D., and Seely, T. D. (eds.) Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program. Backwell. 133-166.

Lebeaux, D. 1998. Where does the binding theory apply? Technical Report 98-044, NEC Research Institute, Princeton.

Lees, R. B., and Klima, E. S. 1963. Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39,17-28.

Nissenbaum, J. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Nunes, J. N. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.

Patel-Grosz, P. 2015. Epithets in the syntax-semantics interface.Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Pesetsky, D. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In: Barbosa, P., Fix, D., Hagstrom, P., MacGinnis, M., Pesetsky, D. (eds.) Is the best good enough? Cambridge: MIT Press. 337-383.

Polinsky, M., Clemens, L. E., Morgan, A. M., Xiang, M., Heestand, D. 2013. Resumption in English. In: Sprouse, J, and Hornstein, N. (eds.) Experimental syntax and island effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 341-360

Reinhart, T. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.

Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface Strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reuland 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439-492.

Schlenker, P. 2005. Minimize restrictors! (Notes on definite descriptions, condition C and epithets) In: Maier, E., Corien Bary, C. and Huitink, J. (eds). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung. Nijmegen: NCS. 385-416.

Shlonsky, U. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 443-468.

Sportiche, D. 2006. Reconstruction, binding, and scope. In: Martin Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. (eds.) The blackwell companion to syntax, Volume IV. Oxford: Blackwell. 35-93.

Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 79-123.

Uchiumi, T. 2006. Binding and control: a unified approach. Doctoral dissertation. McGill University

Wasow, T. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Zwart, J.W. 2002. Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In: Epstein, S. D., and Seely, T. D. (eds.) Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Backwell. 269-304.

Publicado

2020-10-22