Towards a definition of SUBJECT in binding domains and subject-oriented anaphora

The question of subjecthood has dogged linguistic science since ancient times. However, in current versions of Minimalism, subjects do not have primitive status and can only be defined in derived terms. However, subjects and the broader theoretical notion of SUBJECT remain important in linguistic description. This paper develops a definition of SUBJECTHOOD in terms of set-theoretic notions of Functional Dependency: when a feature, say φ, determines the value of some other feature, say uφ. This notion is used to describe various phenomena where SUBJECThood has been invoked: anaphoric domains and subject-oriented anaphora.1 1 THE PROBLEM OF SUBJECTS This paper is concerned with the notion of SUBJECT and with providing a definition couched in Minimalist terms. SUBJECTs are indispensable for the Binding Theory where they define domains for anaphors and pronouns (Chomsky 1981). (1) a. i. Principle A: An anaphor must be bound within its governing category. ii. Principle B: A pronominal must be free within its governing category. iii. Principle C: An R-expression must be free (Chomsky 1981). b. B is a governing category for A if and only if B is the minimal category containing A, a governor of A, and a SUBJECT accessible to A (Chomsky 1981).