(1)[Zhangsan] zhidao [ta] zuo de dui. Zhangsan know he do right
(2)??[Zhangsan] zhidao [ta] zuo le zhejian shiqing. Zhangsan know he do ASP this thing
Anyway, he thinks there is a pro dropped in the embedded clause of (1). The predicate logic is shown below,
ZHIDAO[zhangsan, ZUO(ta, DUI(e))]
ZHIDAO[zhangsan, ZUO(ta, zhejian shiqing)]
In (1), can “ta” be a binder of pro and also be a bindee of Zhangsan? Or it can be analyzed that pro is bound by Zhangsan and ta is also bound by Zhangsan. Here comes up another question, can a binder bind two bindees? I am not sure about the theory itself. So I am wondering if you know anything of it? Does English have this similar phoenonemon? The pro is in third predicate and the secondary predicate of the embedded clause, so which one is its binder?
I guess for English, it is not that complex since the reflexive can not be subject because of the morphology. "John knows he is full" and "John knows he has done it." The pronoun can corefer in both sentences. But in Chinese, if we use "zuo de dui", it is very likely to corefer while if there is no secondary predicate in embedded clause, it is marginal.