The primary research question addressed by this paper is: Is there a universally valid principle for pronoun reference in English and can we compare that principle to Turkish? Featherson and Sternefeld (2003) point out the significance of binding: Binding is more than only a subarea of linguistics dealing with pronouns and anaphors, as it provides more information about language than expected. The binding phenomena reveals several other aspects of the human language, such as its complexity and its dynamic interaction of syntax and context.
Since the pioneering Pisa Lectures on Government and Binding by Noam Chomsky (1981, 1986), it has commonly been assumed that a single theoretical apparatus, such as the Binding Theory, universally determines the interpretation and distribution of pronouns and anaphors in English. The Binding Theory proposed by Chomsky expresses a generalization about syntactic relationships by using three principles and has been criticized, refined and modified over the past few decades. In particular, the revision proposed by Moskovsky (2004) attempts to provide remarks and improvements for the existing version of Chomsky’s classical Binding Theory. This is the reason why it is interesting to do more research on binding.
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION
2 RESEARCH: BINDING IN ENGLISH
2.1 CHOMSKY
2.2 MOSKOVSKY
3 EXPERIMENT ENGLISH
3.1 MOTIVATION AND DESIGN
3.2 METHOD
3.3 PARTICIPANTS
3.4 PREDICTIONS
3.5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4 RESEARCH: BINDING IN TURKISH
4.1 EXISTING LINGUISTIC ANALYSES IN TURKISH
4.2 ÖZBEK AND KAHRAMAN
5 EXPERIMENT TURKISH
5.1 MOTIVATION AND DESIGN
5.2 METHOD
5.3 PARTICIPANTS
5.4 PREDICTIONS
5.5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
5.6 FURTHER THOUGHTS
6 STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES
7 CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Themes
This thesis examines the universality of binding principles in English and Turkish. It aims to determine whether Chomsky's classical Binding Theory, with potential refinements by Moskovsky, provides a sufficient framework for pronoun and reflexive interpretation across different person categories, subsequently comparing these findings with structural linguistic properties of Turkish.
- Theoretical evaluation of Binding Theory (Chomsky) and its critique (Moskovsky).
- Experimental analysis of pronoun reference in English across grammatical persons.
- Linguistic overview and experimental testing of binding relations in Turkish.
- Comparative analysis of syntactic structural differences between English and Turkish.
- Investigation of the role of pragmatic factors in binding phenomena.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 CHOMSKY
In this section, I will illustrate Moskovsky’s criticism on Chomsky’s classic Binding Theory. Therefore, the basic principle of Noam Chomsky’s Binding Theory will be clarified first.
The classic Binding Theory describes the conditions on the structural relations between nouns and deals with three specific types of noun phrases (NPs), namely R-expressions, pronouns and anaphors. Chomsky’s classic Binding Theory consists of the following three principles as in (1):
(1) BINDING THEORY
(A) An anaphor is bound in its local domain.
(B) A pronominal is free in its local domain.
(C) An R-expression is free. (Chomsky 1988:188)
A local domain, which can be also called “binding domain”, is the smallest IP (Inflectional Phrase) containing the NP (Noun Phrase). For the case of Principle A of the Binding Theory, the binding domain is the smallest IP containing the anaphor and its antecedent. I will explain this more precisely by using three example sentences:
(2) a. [IP Lillyj danced with herselfj ].
b. [IP Cameroni said [CP that [IP Lillyj danced with herselfj ]]].
c. *[IP Cameroni said [CP that [IP Lillyj danced with himselfi ]]].
Summary of Chapters
1 INTRODUCTION: Outlines the significance of binding phenomena in linguistics and establishes the research question regarding universal principles for pronoun reference in English and Turkish.
2 RESEARCH: BINDING IN ENGLISH: Provides the theoretical background of Chomsky's Binding Theory and Moskovsky's critique concerning third-person effects and pragmatic factors.
3 EXPERIMENT ENGLISH: Details the design, methodology (Thermometer Judgement), and results of the experimental study conducted on English native speakers.
4 RESEARCH: BINDING IN TURKISH: Surveys existing linguistic literature on Turkish binding, focusing on different theories regarding reflexives kendi and kendisi.
5 EXPERIMENT TURKISH: Presents the motivation, design (Likert scale), and results of the experiment conducted with Turkish native speakers.
6 STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES: Compares the syntactic and morphological differences between English and Turkish, specifically focusing on agglutination, word order, and verbal projections.
7 CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the results from both experiments, evaluating the validity of Binding Theory and the comparability of binding principles across the two languages.
Keywords
Binding Theory, Pronoun Reference, Anaphor, Pronominal, Moskovsky, Chomsky, Turkish Linguistics, Reflexive Pronouns, Kendi, Kendisi, Syntax, Pragmatics, Experimental Linguistics, Thermometer Judgement, Agglutinative Language
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research paper?
The paper investigates the principles governing pronoun and reflexive binding in English and Turkish, evaluating whether a universal syntactic rule exists or if pragmatic factors are required.
What are the primary themes addressed?
The study centers on the Binding Theory (Principles A, B, and C), the impact of grammatical person on binding, the distinct reflexive forms in Turkish, and the structural differences between analytic (English) and synthetic (Turkish) languages.
What is the central research question?
The primary research question is whether there is a universally valid principle for pronoun reference in English and whether this principle can be compared to the binding phenomena found in the Turkish language.
Which scientific methods were applied?
The research employs experimental case studies. The English experiment utilizes the "Thermometer Judgement" method, while the Turkish experiment uses a "Seven-Point Likert Scale" to evaluate sentence naturalness.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main sections include theoretical foundations, experimental setups and item design, data analysis via SPSS for both language experiments, and a comparative structural analysis of the two languages.
Which keywords define this work?
Key concepts include Binding Theory, Reflexives, Kendi, Kendisi, Pragmatics, Syntax, and comparative linguistics.
How does the "Avoid Ambiguity Principle" impact the results?
Moskovsky’s principle suggests that speakers prefer unambiguous structures. The research explores if 1st and 2nd person pronouns behave differently than 3rd person pronouns regarding binding due to their inherent unambiguity.
What makes the binding behavior of the Turkish reflexives "kendi" and "kendisi" unique?
The study highlights that unlike English, binding in Turkish is heavily influenced by non-syntactic factors like context and pragmatic inference, with "kendisi" showing more flexibility than the bare form "kendi".
What did the comparative analysis conclude about English and Turkish?
It concluded that comparing the two is challenging because their structural properties (e.g., SOV vs SVO word order, agglutination) present significant differences that prevent a simple application of a single, universal binding scheme.
- Citar trabajo
- Anonym (Autor), 2020, The Binding Theory. Pronoun Reference in English and Turkish, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/538021
