Pragmatic Reduction of the Binding Conditions with respect to Anaphora Interpretations in English

Abstract

This paper argues in favor of using a set of Gricean maxims to account for preferred interpretations of English anaphora. The distribution of English reflexives has generally been explained in purely structural terms in Chomsky's binding theory. Chomsky's basic idea is that reflexives and pronouns are in complementary distribution. However, there has been a longstanding awareness of the fact that there are a large set of marginal occurrences of reflexives which are not directly predicted by the general typology of the binding theory. Well-known cases include picture-noun reflexives: 'long-distance reflexives: and 'reflexives with split antecedents.' In this paper, we will show why we need to resort to semantic/pragmatic considerations to weigh the acceptability of the problematic cases mentioned above. Specifically, we will endeavor to make the following points: (i) that syntax, semantics, and pragmatics are interconnected to determine the distribution and interpretation of English anaphora; and (ii) that the distinctive and mysterious behavior of the problematic English reflexives can be accounted for straightforwardly by the systematic interaction of neo-Gricean pragmatic principles, such as the Q-, I-, M-principles.