Binding theory Condition A must be so formulated as to accommodate the range of behaviors exhibited by anaphors crosslinguistically. In this respect, the behavior of the Modern Greek anaphor o eaftos mu is theoretically important, as it has been reported to display a number of unusual distributional properties. This has led to treatments by Iatridou (1988) and Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) different from the treatment of standard anaphors represented by English himself , thus requiring a rethinking of the classic Condition A descriptive generalization and its theoretical derivation. This article revisits the distribution of this expression, documenting that previous discussions are subject to a confound as this expression (a) is not always a reflexive and (b) has logophoric uses. Controlling for the nonanaphoric use of o eaftos mu as well as for logophoricity and relying on new data surveys, we conclude that when anaphoric, it is in fact a well-behaved standard anaphor from the point of view of the standard Condition A (akin to the version in Chomsky 1986).

I discuss the phrase-structure-theoretic operation of Late Merge proposed in Lebeaux 1991 as it is used in late adjunct merger and wholesale late merger. I show that under current theoretical assumptions about the nature of the Merge and Move operations, Late Merge over-generates in ways that are difficult to overcome. Given that Late Merge is otherwise demonstrably computationally unparsimonious ( Kobele and Michaelis 2012 ), I conclude that it should not be an available operation and suggest Neglect ( Sportiche 2016 ) as an alternative to generate the needed Logical Form representations.

Owing to different ideas about what counts as an anaphor subject to Condition A, two influential but superficially incompatible versions of Condition A of binding theory have coexisted: Chomsky’s (1986) version, and versions of predicate-based binding theories defended by Pollard and Sag (1992) and Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and modified in various ways since ( Pollard 2005 , Reuland 2011 ). Using inanimate anaphors to independently control for sensitivity to Condition A without the confound of logophoricity, we show that Condition A must be checked at the syntax-interpretation interface and that Chomsky’s (1986) version (an anaphor must be bound within the smallest complete functional complex containing it and a possible binder) is nearly correct, with one amendment: a tensed TP boundary is opaque to the search for an antecedent. Given these results, we argue that Condition A should be reduced to phase theory and we outline how this can be done.

In reflexive constructions, two arguments corefer. This makes it hard to decide which argument bears which θ-role, and consequently to assess whether unaccusativity is involved. A new test is proposed using focus alternatives, which overcomes this difficulty and can also be used to assess reflexivity strength.

Starting from Kayne's (1976) motivation for the existence of the French que / qui rule based on the complementizer system of French relative clauses, I show that French in fact has a double paradigm of wh -elements, a weak one and a strong one, much like what is found in the (strong/weak) pronominal system. Although only French is discussed here in any detail, such a split seems to have much wider relevance, in other Romance languages, in some Germanic and Scandinavian languages, and beyond (Wolof). This split in turn shows that the que / qui rule (and its cognates) should be looked at differently—in particular, that they should be uncoupled from constraints on subject extraction.

Aoun, Benmamoun, and Sportiche (ABS, 1994) propose an analysis of first conjunct agreement in VS sentences in Lebanese Arabic and Moroccan Arabic. On the basis of the distribution of number-sensitive items, they argue that this type of agreement is due to clausal coordination. Munn (1999) argues against ABS's account and proposes that first conjunct agreement in the Arabic dialects arises because coordination of NP subjects is semantically plural but syntactically singular. In this reply we show that Munn's alternative analysis is empirically inadequate.