| |
| | [No title] |
 | | \par \sect }\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {In this case, the individual in question, who is id entifiable by both parties as salient in discourse (whether he is John or not), is posited by the speaker as having met a criterion for being identified as 'John'. |
 | | \par }{\f2 \u9500\'2b\u9472\'2d\u9472\'2d\u9472\'2d\u9472\'2d\u9472\'2d\u9472\'2d\u9472\'2d\u9472\'2d\u9472\'2d\u9472\'2d\u9496\'2b}{ \par As I remarked at the outset, the dependency relation does not have to be licensed by c-command in my theory, so depen dence on a non-commanding antecedent is possible, as in (19a), as well as backwards dependency, as in (19b), although I shall reconsider the well-formedness of (19b) in 2.5. |
 | | \par Principle B as given in (31b) (Higginbotham (1985: 572)) would determine that }{\ul Jack}{ and }{\ul him}{ must be "obviative" in (33a), and Principle C determines that }{\ul Jack}{\~in object position i n both (33a) and (33b) is obviative with respect to the matrix subject }{\ul Jack}{. |
| ruccs.rutgers.edu /~safir/SOIfin-ms.rtf (14663 words) |
|