Binding and ellipsis are empirically and theoretically symbiotic: each reveals otherwise hidden facts about the other. Here I investigate a case where a theory of binding is entwined with a problematic ellipsis-licensing mechanism, with the result that there are strong reasons to abandon both. The ellipsis-licensing mechanism in question is Referential Parallelism (Fox 2000), according to which a bound pronoun may support strict identity under ellipsis. Jettisoning this mechanism forces us to abandon theories of binding that involve what I call compulsory binding, which encode a grammatical preference for binding over coreference and for local over nonlocal binding (Reinhart 1983, Grodzinsky and Reinhart 1993, Fox 2000, Büring 2005). In their place, I suggest that we adopt what I call the violation equivalence approach to binding (Heim 1993, Reinhart 2006, Roelofsen 2010) and a Fox-style ellipsis-licensing mechanism based on formal alternatives (Katzir 2007, Fox and Katzir 2011).
Skip Nav Destination
November 28 2022
On Referential Parallelism and Compulsory Binding
In Special Collection: CogNet
Online ISSN: 1530-9150
Print ISSN: 0024-3892
© 2022 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Linguistic Inquiry 1–20.
Nicholas Fleisher; On Referential Parallelism and Compulsory Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 2022; doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00480
Download citation file: