Charnavel, IsabelleSportiche, Dominique2016-02-222016Charnavel, Isabelle, and Dominique Sportiche. 2016. “Anaphor Binding: What French Inanimate Anaphors Show.” Linguistic Inquiry 47 (1) (January): 35–87. doi:10.1162/ling_a_00204.0024-3892http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:25506701Owing to different ideas about what counts as an anaphor subject to Condition A, two influential but superficially incompatible versions of Condition A of binding theory have coexisted: Chomsky’s (1986) version, and versions of predicate-based binding theories defended by Pollard and Sag (1992) and Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and modified in various ways since ( Pollard 2005, Reuland 2011). Using inanimate anaphors to independently control for sensitivity to Condition A without the confound of logophoricity, we show that Condition A must be checked at the syntax-interpretation interface and that Chomsky’s (1986) version (an anaphor must be bound within the smallest complete functional complex containing it and a possible binder) is nearly correct, with one amendment: a tensed TP boundary is opaque to the search for an antecedent. Given these results, we argue that Condition A should be reduced to phase theory and we outline how this can be done.en-USJournal Article2015-08-10Charnavel, Isabelle and Dominique Sportiche2016-02-2210.1162/LING_a_00204