Binding Theory And Chinese Reflexives

Among the major results of the principles and parameters(P&P) framework developed in Chomsky(1981) is the conception of Binding Theory. In this framework, Binding Theory is one of the six subsystems of core grammar. It is concerned with the relations of nominal expressions with possible antecedents. An element bound by an antecedent depends on the latter for its interpretation. An element that is not bound is free. With respect to binding, it is assumed that nominal expressions fall into the following categories: (i)anaphors, (ii)pronominals, and (iii)R-expressions. Chomsky develops a theory of their anaphoric relations taken as syntactic dependencies, which has since set the standard. A preliminary formulation is given in 1.2.These conditions are referred to as 'binding conditions/principles A, B and C'.The standard Binding Theory has such a significant degree of empirical adequacy for English and some other languages that it has proved an extremely useful tool of analysis for nearly a decade. Yet the very facts uncovered by the theory of binding have in turn brought to light its limitations. There is by now an extensive literature on long-distance anaphora in a wide range of languages.The present thesis is a qualitative study on long-distance binding with Chinese reflexives. The aim lies mainly in offering a detailed description of reflexive forms in modern Chinese, and in discussing the validity of Binding Principle A in modern Chinese. In Chapter 1 the Binding Theory will be presented in technical detail and briefly reviewed. Subsequently, Chapter 2 describes the main characteristics of the bare reflexive ziji in Chinese and some of the ways to deal with it. For a proper understanding of the core issues of debate, it is necessary to discuss the definition of reflexive and the morphological basis of ziji, as is done in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4 the issues of some compound reflexive forms are discussed. In Chapter 5 we make a tentative classification of some NPs in Chinese and argue that the standard Binding Theory is still a perfectly viable descriptive account of nominal elements' behavior under binding in most languages which exhibit lexicalized anaphors.