|
Makale Özeti:
|
In this paper according to the Binding Theory of assumptions, 3 singular reflexive pronoun hiy and its inflected forms of possessives (hiyne, hiynçe, hiynçen) are observed in terms of distributional differences. Reflexive pronoun hiy obeys condition A of binding theory in some Chuvash sentences because it is bound by a c-commanding antecedent in its minimal/local domain. These local domains are restricted to transparent or opaque domain depending on their bounding properties. If the antecedent doesn’t agree with the anaphora, there will be a transparent domain. If the antecedent agrees with the anaphora, there will be an opaque domain. These local domains of attachment are seen in sentences, phrases, and sentences where the agreement relationship is seen. Also we can see that pronominal has an dual function. If the anaphora doesn’t bind with its antecedent in binding domain, it will have discourse function in narrative text context or it will be a pronominal. Then reflexive pronoun hiy obeys condition B of binding theory because it is not bound by a c-commanding antecedent in its minimal domain. If anaphora and antecedent bind in a sentence, we can say that this pronoun is Long-Distance Reflexive. In the same way determiner phrase/agreement phrase with [+agreement] feature/phi feature has an opaque domain. Also postposition phrases have minimal domain. Their binding domain has dual nature because of the agreement feature. Also we argue that nominalized clauses with infinitives, participles are complementiser phrases regarding the locality and the domain of complex sentences which have matrix clause and subordinate clause are binding domains. But these binding domains are different from each other. While {–mA} clauses have a transparent domain, {–ni}/{-n} participles with subject and syntactic nominalizer on its head have an opaque domain. Also 3 singular reflexive pronoun hiy can use repetitively in Chuvash sentences, but they are not a phrase and they bind in their minimal domain one by one.
|