Towards a definition of SUBJECT in binding domains and subject-oriented anaphors

The question of subjecthood has dogged linguistic science since ancient times. However, in current versions of Minimalism, subjects do not have primitive status and can only be defined in derived terms. However, subjects and the broader theoretical notion of SUBJECT remain important in linguistic description. This paper develops a definition of subjecthood in terms of set-theoretic notions of functional dependency: when a feature, say φ, determines the value of some other feature, say uφ. This notion is used to describe various phenomena where subjecthood has been invoked: binding domains and subject-oriented anaphors.1 1 THE PROBLEM OF SUBJECTS This paper is concerned with the notion of SUBJECT and with providing a definition couched in Minimalist terms. SUBJECTs are indispensable for the Binding Theory where they define domains for anaphors and pronouns (Chomsky 1981). (1) a. i. Principle A: An anaphor must be bound within its governing category. ii. Principle B: A pronominal must be free within its governing category. iii. Principle C: An R-expression must be free (Chomsky 1981). b. B is a governing category for A if and only if B is the minimal category containing A, a governor of A, and a SUBJECT accessible to A (Chomsky 1981). In the remainder of this paper, I will use the neutral term ‘binding domain’ rather than governing category for two reasons. First, technical term of governing category is no longer operative in Minimalist syntax. However, it is worth noting that a fully fledged binding theory is still lacking in the Minimalist programme. As such, it is still necessary to these invoke older, pre-Minimalist notions in order to discuss binding phenomena. The second reason is that ‘governing category’ only refers to the domain in which reciprocals and local, English-type himself anaphors are bound – it does not include the larger domain characteristic of subject-oriented anaphora (see section 4). Consequently, I will use the more theoretically neutral term ‘binding domain’ for the remainder of this paper I take the two terms to be broadly equivalent (although I redefine the notion of ‘binding domain in (13)). It is hoped that one of the contributions of this paper will be to provide a framework from which a Minimalist notion of ‘binding domain’ can be developed in future research. The following pair of examples shows that anaphors must be bound, and that pronouns must be free, within a domain delimited by a subject (2) a. The twinsi said that ||Sub he liked *each otheri/themi b. He said that ||Sub the twinsi liked each otheri/*themi The paradigm can be extended to binding within DPs. A possessor defines a binding domain. When the possessor is present (3a) then the anaphor must be bound within the DP – and the pronoun must be free within the DP. When the possessor is absent (3a), then the anaphor must be bound in the domain defined by the clausal subject – and the pronoun must be free in this domain. (3) a. The twinsi liked [||SubJohn’s pictures of *each otheri/themi] b. The twinsi took [||Sub ∅ pictures of each otheri/*themi] Thus, the possessor counts as a SUBJECT as far as the Binding Theory is concerned. 1.1 The difficulty of defining subjecthood The problem with using SUBJECT as a primitive of the Binding Theory is that it is difficult to define adequately – a problem that stems from the difficulty of defining subjecthood more generally.2 Although subjecthood is an essential descriptive device in linguistics, it is not clear what it is derived from at a theoretical level. Over the years, various prototypical, nonexclusive properties of subjects have been proposed. None are either necessary or sufficient. The following is a non-exhaustive list that illustrates the extent of the problem. Subjects may: (4) a. be involved in predication b. be agents c. determine agreement on a predicate d. be located in SpecTP e. have Nominative case f. be linked to EPP phenomena g. be the highest argument of a VP (i.e. there is only one of them, it will typically precede other arguments etc.) h. be antecedents for subject-oriented anaphors (SOAs) (e.g. Maling (1984)). However, none of these diagnostics appear to be necessary or sufficient – there are putative counter examples to all of them. One of the oldest notions of subjecthood was its link to predication. However, not all predication structures are domains for Binding Theory. Example (5) contains a small clause predication structure. The anaphor can be bound by the clausal subject i.e. the subject of the small clause predicate does not appear to be a domain for binding. (5) Dr. Robert Bruce Banneri considered [SC the Incredible Hulk (to be) a clone of himselfi/*himi] Similarly, subjects also cannot be defined purely in semantic terms. Although subjects are often agents, there are examples where they are not. In many Bantu languages, a semantic object may occur in subject position and determine agreement. Also, in the following English passive sentence, the subject is a Theme.