{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024539877300613498, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00408997955010225, 'mean_word_length': 4.897590361445783, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Anaphor Binding Domain

The focus of this article is Condition A: how to formulate it and where the locality requirement it imposes comes from. In recent years, there have been several attempts to implement minimalist guidelines by eliminating condition A of the Binding Theory (see Drummond et al., 2011 for a review) as an independent condition surely a desirable objective. As a preliminary step to such attempts however, it must be known what the correct descriptive generalization for Condition A is. In fact,there is no consensus about this. As we will argue below, a central confound on the way to determining the descriptively adequate generalization (which ultimately needs to be explained) has to do with where for a given anaphor, the boundary lies between conditions under which it is subject to Condition A and thus behaves like what we will call a “plain” anaphor, and conditions under which it is “exempt” from it. To illustrate, consider the following sentences: