The grammar of binding in the languages of the world: A response to Reuland

- We and Reuland are in agreement that the Classical Binding Theory is inadequate.
- Reuland proposes a reanalysis of our data based on the framework of his 2011 book.
- We cannot evaluate his general framework in the context of a reply.
- His analyses for the languages discussed in CHY are flawed, e.g. for Jambi Malay.
- We therefore do not believe that his reanalysis supports his theoretical claims.

Cole, Hermon, and Yanti (2015) argue that the empirical facts related to anaphoric binding in two dialects of Jambi Malay undermine the Classical Binding Theory. Reuland (2017) agrees with this conclusion but argues that the data are easily accounted for by his alternative Universal Grammar-based approach to Binding. In this response, we demonstrate that the alternative proposal for Jambi Malay rests on claims about the language that are incorrect. While we do not, indeed cannot, demonstrate that it is impossible for a Universal Grammar based proposal to account for the facts as outlined in CHY (2015), we conclude that those facts remain an outstanding challenge.