The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

115
As is well known, the standard formulation of the binding conditions (Chomsky
1981) entails strict complementarity between anaphors and pronoun. Although this is
indeed true in many contexts, there are contexts, where complementarity breaks down;
most notably with Locative PPs (see the English gloss of (5a)) (Hestvik 1991, Reinhart
and Reuland 1993). 3 Therefore, I will examine the binding facts attested in the Locative,
Directional and Dative constructions, using the approach to binding developed in
Reinhart and Reuland 1993 (“Reflexivity”, henceforth).
In order to make the following discussion as clear as possible, a short summary of
the relevant parts of “Reflexivity” is necessary.
The central claim advanced in “Reflexivity” is that the binding conditions (A and
B) should be conditions on the well-formedness and the interpretation of reflexive
predicates, rather than on syntactic structure. Further, “Reflexivity” draws a distinction
between semantic and syntactic predicates, and argues that while condition B applies to
semantic predicates, condition A applies to syntactic ones. Conditions A and B are
given in (8) and (9), respectively. They are followed by the necessary definitions.
(8) Condition A
A reflexive-marked syntactic predicate is reflexive.
(9) Condition B
A reflexive semantic predicate is reflexive-marked.
(10) Definitions
a. The syntactic predicate formed of (a head ) P is P, all its syntactic arguments,
and an external argument of P (subject).
The syntactic arguments of P are the projections assigned θ-role or Case by P.
b. The semantic predicate formed of P is P and all its arguments at the relevant
semantic level.
c. A predicate is reflexive iff two of its arguments are coindexed.
d. A predicate (formed of P) is reflexive-marked iff either P is lexically reflexive
or one of P’s arguments is a SELF anaphor.
3 I have no explanation as to why in Hebrew the anaphor in (5a) is much worse than in its English
counterpart.