English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt: Personal dative constructions (PDCs) are problematic from a syntactic perspective because they seem to violate Condition B of Binding Theory without leading to ungrammaticality. Condition B states that a pronoun should be locally free. Therefore, by allowing a pronoun to be coreferential with a local c-commanding antecedent, PDCs are expected to induce a violation, but they don’t. How can syntactic theory account for these facts in a principled way? I explore two approaches, focusing on Southern American English and Lebanese Arabic, both of which indicate that PDCs fall outside the constraints of Binding Theory, which explains why their realization as free pronouns does not lead to ungrammaticality.

Binding as Co-indexing vs. Binding as Movement: Evidence from Personal Datives