Toward a Feature-Movement Theory of Long-Distance Anaphora

A number of recent versions of binding theory have been based partly on notions like Shortest Move and Economy. According to binding theories of this kind, anaphors enter into some movement-like relation with their antecedents; Shortest Move is taken to account for locality restrictions on binding 1. Furthermore, some notion of representational economy is invoked to account for Condition B; pronouns are taken to be less economical than anaphors, and are thus to be avoided whenever possible 2. This paper will concentrate on two difficulties posed by long-distance anaphora for binding theories of this kind; these will be cases in which full obedience to Shortest Move and Economy appears to be optional. I will argue that these difficulties are only apparent and that binding theories can in fact be formulated along Minimalist lines. The use of Shortest Move to define binding domains leads us to expect that an anaphor ought to only have one possible In particular, see much of the recent work of Burzio (1989, 1991, to appear) for proposals along these lines.