Cover not available

In:Footprints of Phrase Structure: Studies in syntax in honour of Tim Stowell
Edited by María J. Arche, Jan-Wouter Zwart, Hamida Demirdache and Hagit Borer
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 288] 2025
► pp. 142–169

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Binding conditions and point of view

 | University of California, Los Angeles
Published online: 2 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.288.08spo
Abstract
I first show a set of binding problems noted in Heim (1994) and treated in Heim (1994) or Sharvit (2011) appealing to intermediate de se read binders, is neither necessary nor sufficient. To solve these puzzles, I capitalize on the proposal that the Binding Conditions A and B should be relativized: the semantic covaluation they require (or prohibit) must (resp. can’t) hold in the same world(s), that is for (a) particular thinker(s) /attitude holder(s) whose point of view is adopted. Thus, by using a reflexive or a pronoun, a speaker encodes that in their local binding domains, reflexives whether plain or exempt must be locally covalued for these thinkers (in their modal worlds), and pronouns can’t be locally covalued for these thinkers. Such a thinker can be the speaker of the utterance, or a logophoric center whose point of view is adopted to convey attitude content.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Heim’s 1994 puzzling reflexive pronouns in de se reports
    • 2.1The Heim/Sharvit proposal
    • 2.2Intermediate de se not necessary: Generalizing Heim (1994), Sharvit (2011)
      • 2.2.1Inanimate cases
      • 2.2.2De re cases
    • 2.3Intermediate de se binders not sufficient: De se non de re cases
    • 2.4Conclusion
  • 3.Binding theory
    • 3.1How to satisfy conditions A and B
    • 3.2Formulating the binding conditions
    • 3.3Detecting logophoric contexts
  • 4.Back to the initial puzzles
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (34)
References
Buring, Daniel. 1998. Identity, modality, and the candidate behind the wall. In Proceedings of SALT VIII, Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds), 36–54. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charlow, Simon. 2010. De re anaphors. Abstract. SALT 20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle. 2012. On her own — parsimonious compositionality: Probing syntax and semantics with French propre. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
. 2019a. Apparent exemption from condition A: a perspective-based theory. Available at [URL]
. 2019b. Locality and logophoricity: A theory of exempt anaphora. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Apparent exemption from condition A: a perspective-based theory. Linguistic Inquiry 51:671–723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle & Sportiche Dominique. 2016. Anaphor Binding: what French inanimate anaphors show. Linguistic Inquiry 47:35–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Taking a strong position on strictly read reflexives. In the forthcoming proceedings of the 42nd meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 42), University of Arizona.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. Unifying intensifiers ourselves. In 52nd North East Linguistics Society meeting proceedings, Breanna Pratley, Özge Bakay, Eva Neu & Peyton Deal (eds). A longer more detailed version is available at [URL]
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11:337–362.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef & Reinhart Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24:69–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, Stokhof Martin & Veltman Frank. 1996. Coreference and modality. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, Shalom Lappin (ed). Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1993. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. SfS-Report 7–93, Universitat Tubingen, Germany.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Puzzling reflexive pronouns in de se reports. Unpublished Handout.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Forks in the road to rule I. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eigth Annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (Ottawa: KS), Martin Walkow, Muhammad Abdurrahman & Anisa Schardl. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 2003. Remembering, imagining, and the first person. In Epistemology of language, Alex Barber (ed), 496–534. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Pietroski Paul. 2010. Obligatory control and local reflexives. Movement theory of control 154:67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1972. Naming and necessity. In Semantics of natural language, Donald Davidson & Gilbert H. Harman (eds). Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1972. Linguistics and natural logic. In Semantics of natural language, Donald Davidson & Gilbert H. Harman (eds), 545–665. Reidel Publishing Company, Dorcrecht. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Major, Travis. 2021. On the nature of ‘say’ complementation. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Pearson, Hazel Anne. 2012. The sense of self: Topics in the semantics of de se expressions. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Percus, Orin & Sauerland Uli. 2003. On the LFs of attitude reports. In Proceedings of the Conference Sinn und Bedeutung 7. Matthias Weisgerber (ed). Arbeitspapier Nr. 114, FB Sprachwissenschaft., Universität Konstanz, Germany. Available at [URL]
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris. 2008. Anaphora resolved. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Condition B effects in two simple steps. Natural Language Semantics 18:115–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2013. Presuppositions and the alternative tier. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory, volume 23, 156–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
. 2005. Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of binding theory. Natural Language Semantics 13:1–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2004. Free indirect discourse and ‘de re’ pronouns. In Proceedings of SALT XIV, Robert B. Young (ed), 305–322. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 31:353–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Covaluation and unexpected BT effects. Journal of Semantics 28:55–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Sneaky derivations sneak rule I in: A reply to Heim’s ”forks in the road to rule I. MITWPL 2:101–121.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2022. Constraints on reflexivization. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. Available at [URL]
. 2024. How (not) to control PRO. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. Available at [URL]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue