Glyn Hicks

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations

This thesis develops an analysis of the binding theory within the Minimalist approach to the architecture of the language faculty. As an expression of the principles governing the distribution and referential dependencies of reflexives, pronouns, and referential expressions, the binding theory has proved a highly successful and influential outcome of the generative programme. However, given the central Minimalist conjecture that the computational system is strictly derivational (non-representational), the binding theory has become one of the most problematic modules of the grammar, relying crucially on syntactically active constraints defined over representations of sentences. I aim to capture a range of crosslinguistic empirical facts previously attributed to Conditions A and B of the binding theory, armed only with purely derivational concepts and a generalised derivational domain: the ‘phase’. It is argued that binding relations are essentially determined in the computational component of the grammar, and substantial evidence is provided against viewing the binding conditions as interpretive instructions applying at LF. I argue that the binding conditions’ effects can instead be determined by the core operations Agree and Merge, with previously stipulated constraints on binding, including c-command and locality, falling out naturally from this analysis. Moreover, the strategy of reducing the local binding conditions to more general mechanisms leads to an elimination of the binding theory as a component of Universal Grammar. Independently motivated modifications to the canonical implementation of the Minimalist model are shown to furnish the approach with sufficient flexibility to account for some long-problematic empirical phenomena. This includes a complete treatment of ‘picture-noun’ reflexivisation in English and an account of the syntactic environments giving rise to non-complementarity between anaphors and pronouns. Finally, proposals are made for extending the approach to accommodate structured crosslinguistic variation in binding domains and orientation phenomena, with particular focus on Dutch, Norwegian, and Icelandic pronominal systems.

Tough-Constructions and Their Derivation

This article addresses the syntax of the notorious tough(-movement) construction (TC) in English. TCs exhibit a range of apparently contradictory empirical properties suggesting that their derivation involves the application of both A-movement and -movement operations. Within previous principles-and-parameters models, TCs have remained unexplained and in principle unexplainable (Holmberg 2000:839) because of incompatibility with constraints on -role assignment, locality, and Case. This article argues that the phase-based implementation of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004) permits a reanalysis of null wh-operators capable of circumventing the previous theoretical difficulties. Essentially, tough-movement consists of A-moving a constituent out of a complex null operator that has already undergone -movement, a smuggling construction in the terms proposed by Collins (2005a,b).

Untangling Locality and Orientation Constraints in the L2 Acquisition of Anaphoric Binding: A Feature-Based Approach

This study offers a Minimalist analysis of the L2 acquisition of binding properties whereby cross-linguistic differences arise from the interaction of anaphoric feature specifications and operations of the computational system (Reuland 2001, 2011; Hicks 2009). This analysis attributes difficulties in the L2 acquisition of locality and orientation properties in binding to problems reanalyzing the features responsible for reflexivization in the target language. Such an approach is shown to predict, in contrast to previous accounts, that if the locality and orientation behavior of English reflexives arise due to syntactic operations on their features (Agree), acquisition of locality cannot be achieved unless orientation is also acquired; a picture verification task completed by 70 Korean L2 speakers of English fully bears out this prediction. We show that for independent reasons, Korean speakers could still behave apparently nativelike for locality (by means of L1 transfer), but not for orientation. Crucially, this analysis can explain how two properties traditionally subsumed under the same Universal Grammar (UG) principle can appear to pose different learning difficulties to L2 speakers.