지배-결속이론에서의 영어의 代用語에 관한 연구 = A Study on English Anaphor in GB Theory

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to examine the validity of Chomsky's Binding theory in determining the relation Between anaphor and its antecedent and to solve their problems on the syntactic level.
This relation is described by the binding theory, one of the Subsystems of Universal Grammar (UG: bounding theory, theta-theory, case theory, control theory, binding theory, government theory).
Chomsky's binding theory is originated Specified Subject Condition (SSC) and
Tensed-S Condition (TSC) imposed on movement conditions. He proposed to reformulate the SSC and TSC as the opacity condition and Nominative Island Condition, respectively along with the general of case assignment.
Chomsky basically supposes the notion of 'Subject' in determining the relation between nominal expressions and their antencedents. It is well manifested through the NIC and SSC of Chomsky (1980), the Governing Category with accessible SUBJECT in Chomsky (1981). On the basis of subject, Chomsky constructs an interpretive domain and tries to associate nominal expressions with their antecedent domain, by means of coreferentially in the case of anaphors and disjoint reference in the case of pronoun. The notion of accessible SUBJECT within governing category is very important to anaphor. However, using the notion of accessible SUBJECT gives wrong result.
In the searching for the solutions in these constructions, various view of the Binding Theory put forth by Manzini, Huang, and Bouahard are surveyed and the explanatory powers of the views are comared with example testings.
Particularily, Bouchard's binding theory has explanatory adquacy of anaphor.
He classified anphor into 3 levels: syntatic, semantic and morphological (true or false).
Anaphor has the following properties on a synatatic level.
1) have an antecedent
2) must be c-command by its antecedent
3) its antecedeent must be contained in some specific domain.
In this theses, I have presented three problems for the analysis of anaphor.
1) not all PPs are same with respect to accepting reflexives and pronouns
2) reflexives do not always pattern with reciprocal
3) using the notion of accessible SUBJECT gives wrong wrong result. So these
problems can be solved combining the two theories of Bouchard and Chomsky.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. 서 론..................................................................173
• 2. 결속이론 이전의 대명사 이론...........................................175
• 3. Chomsky 결속이론 제이론................................................181
• 참고문헌..................................................................196