Pronouns in a Minimalist Setting

Introduction This paper starts from the observation that the Binding Theory (viz. Chomsky 1981, 1986) is problematic from a minimalist perspective. More specifically, if one assumes that reflexives move, then principle A should be dispensed with. However, if one dispenses with principle A, then principle B becomes very problematic and should be rethought. This paper considers how to do this. The proposal advanced returns to the approach to binding developed in the standard theory by Lees and Klima (1963). This approach to binding has one commensible feature: it analyses binding as a competitive process. In particular, the rule that licenses reflexives in some position is preferred to the one that licenses a (bound) pronoun in that position and this preference is what blocks a (bound) pronoun from sitting where a reflexive can. So understanding the complementarity of bound pronouns and reflexives reflects an economy perspective that fits well with some leading ideas in both OT and Minimalism. This paper considers what this sort of approach “means” given common minimalist assumptions. In particular, the paper proposes that many features of the Lees-Klima approach follow from basic minimalist precepts. The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 describes the problems with principles A and B of the Binding Theory when appraised with a minimalist eye. Section 2 outlines an earlier approach to binding developed by Lees and Klima in the context of the Standard Theory. The aim is to limn the general features of this sort of analysis and consider how these features might be implemented in a more contemporary technology. Section 3 and 4 consider various kinds of supporting evidence. Section 3 concentrates on the interpretability of pronominal φ-features and the section 4 considers how pronoun use interacts with movement. The general thrust of the discussion is that pronouns are usable just in case movement is unavailable as a derivational option. Section 5 is a conclusion.