Binding Theory Essay

Inadequacies of Binding Theory
Somasekhara varaprasad K
Abstract
Classical/Standard Binding Theory was inadequate to handle the differences in the way anaphoric relations are expressed across languages. So, the present study examines anaphora in Telugu and English and makes a modest attempt to address some of the issues that could not be handled satisfactorily either within the GB theory or within the Minimalist framework.
Keywords: Government & Binding Theory, anaphor, logophor, Specified Subject Condition and Tensed S condition.
Introduction
The GB theory was considered significant enough to provide the core of the syntactic framework for the Binding theory. However, within Minimalism, Binding theory has not received the attention that it deserved. Moreover, several revisions were done within the minimalist theory. It remains unclear how the empirical facts previously captured by the Binding Conditions under the GB framework could be handled within the Minimalist assumptionsgiven that many of the concepts central to the Binding theory have been done away with.
Earlier, in GB theory, there were four levels of

The logophoric pronouns found in these languages are morphologically differentiated and show a distribution which is distinct from that of other pronouns. This topic of logophoricity has also been widely used in accounting for Long distance reflexives occurring in many languages such as Korean, Japanese, Icelandic, Telugu and Kannada etc. All most in all these languages, logophoricity may be expressed morphologically and syntactically by one of the following mechanisms. 1. Logophoric pronouns, which may take free forms e.g. DonnoSo (which is Dogon language spoken in Mali and Burkina Faso) or be cliticized to the verb (e.g. Ewe). 2. Logophoric verbal affixes (e.g. Gokana), and 3. Long-distance reflexives (e.g. Korean, Japanese, Icelandic, Kannada and