Cours avec Pr. Gennaro Chierchia (Harvard)

Lieu: C228 Grand Labo du LLING

Title: Anaphora with and without C-command: where do we stand?

Abstract:

The debate on pronouns and binding has characterized the history of generative
grammar since its inception. The Binding Theory (BT), which focusses on C-command
anaphora, has acquired its currently stable form in the early 80’s. At around the same time, the
first robust exploration of non C-command anaphora came about, in the form of theories of
‘Indirect’ or 'E-type binding' (e.g. Evans 1980), Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp 1981,
Heim 1982, Ch. 2 ), Dynamic Semantics (Heim 1982, Ch 3); slightly later, Situation based
semantics flourished (e.g. Heim, 1990 Elbourne 2005). All these approaches sought to unify
views of anaphora and presupposition projection. Unlike the classical BT, the debate on non Ccommand
anaphora remains deeply divided. The research on C-command vs. non C-command
anaphora have intersected with each other in minimal part, something that I think has slowed
progress down. In the present minicourse, I will attempt a balance of where we stand in our
understanding of pronoun binding and sketch a path forward (“with the pessimism of the intellect
and the optimism of the will”).
Seminar I (Monday)
Part A: Reflecting on the empirical landscape. We will go over the classic data of non non Ccommand
anaphora, namely:
(1) a. everyone who has a cat pets it D(eterminer) quantifier- anaphora
b. A friend of mine lives in a village. It is pretty Discourse sequencing
c. If a friend of mine lives in a village, it is usually pretty A(dverb) quantifier anaphora
We will argue that a novel architecture suggests itself, namely that (1a) should be dealt with in
terms of a canonical, Tarskian theory of quantification + a theory of E-type anaphora, while (1bc)
calls for going beyond that (e.g., in the direction of DRT or Dynamic semantics).
Part B: We will go over the classical BT, especially crossover phenomena like those in (2)
(2) a. *He1 complained to every student1 Strong Crossover
b. Her1 mother burst into tears in front of every student1 Weak Crossover
We will try to make a case that every theory of non C-command anaphora that doesn’t deal with
phenomena such as those in (2) doesn’t stand much of a chance at getting a general enough
approach.
Seminar 2 (Wednesday)
Part A: we will informally sketch a ‘nimble’ dynamic semantics (NDS). Like classic dynamic
approaches, our NDS will provide a presuppositional account of pronouns, where impossible
anaphoric links amount to presupposition failures; but unlike the classic approach, NDS gives up
on the ambition of providing a unified theory of anaphora and presuppositions.
Part B: We will sketch how NDS accounts for the data outlined in Seminar I and compare the
results to whatever recent approach you’d care to discuss (e.g., Rothschild 2017, Mandelkern
2022, Spector 2024, Heim 2024, Chatain 2025, Anvari 2025 a.o.).
What is at stake in this inquiry is the very nature of the natural language counterpart of
quantification and variable binding, a fundamental plank of the capacity for logic gifted to us by
our language faculty.