In many unrelated languages, the same anaphor is either subject to Condition A of the binding theory, or exempt from it but with specific interpretive properties. On the basis of French data and crosslinguistic comparisons, I first show that such exempt anaphors must be anteceded by logophoric centers. Elaborating on but modifying Sells 1987 , I provide specific tests to argue that these logophoric antecedents can be classified into two kinds of perspective centers, attitude holders and empathy loci, thus reducing logophoricity to mental perspective. Next, I propose to derive the logophoricity of exempt anaphors from the following hypothesis: seemingly exempt anaphors are in fact bound by silent logophoric pronouns introduced by syntactically represented logophoric operators within their local domain. Crucially, this hypothesis, which is independently supported by exhaustive coreference constraints on locally cooccurring exempt anaphors, also accounts for their apparent exemption from Condition A, reanalyzed here as local binding by a silent logophoric binder.

This article aims to show that (one of) the main argument(s) against the presuppositional account of person is not compelling if one makes appropriate assumptions about how the context fixes the assignment. It has been argued that unlike gender features, person features of free pronouns cannot yield presupposition failure (instead, can yield only falsity) when they are not verified by the referent. The argument is flawed, however, because the way the referent is assigned is not made clear. If it is assumed to be the individual that the audience can recognize as the referent intended by the speaker, the argument is reversed.

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.