ࡱ > ) + & ' ( @ xQ bjbjqq 3Z 2
2
2
H
( J J J 8 JJ 6K t ( h K @ Q : 0R FR FR W n BZ | Z @ 8 $ . R n \ vW ^ W \ \ \
\
FR FR 0 v n n n \ : \
< FR FR $
n \ n n d ' | FR K J i i 0 k ( ( \
\
\
\
t Z L J[ 6 n [ , [ Z Z Z ( r $ 9 d n " ( ( J 7 Lecture 10. Pronouns and Reflexives II: Varieties of reflexives, varieties of binding theories
TOC \o "1-2" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc196549151" 1. Is the distribution of pronouns and anaphors complementary? PAGEREF _Toc196549151 \h 1
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc196549152" 1.1. Background (from the last two lectures) PAGEREF _Toc196549152 \h 1
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc196549153" 1.2. The complementarity question and domains PAGEREF _Toc196549153 \h 2
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc196549154" 2. Kinds of reflexives. PAGEREF _Toc196549154 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc196549155" 2.1. Logophoricity PAGEREF _Toc196549155 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc196549156" 2.2. Long-distance reflexives PAGEREF _Toc196549156 \h 7
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc196549157" 3. Reflexivity: Reinhart & Reuland, Pollard & Sag PAGEREF _Toc196549157 \h 8
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc196549158" References PAGEREF _Toc196549158 \h 11
Readings: Full references and links are in References at the end. These are all on the CD except for Kiparsky 2002, which is on the web.
(1) Bring ADDIN EN.CITE 2004984298426Bring, DanielBinding TheoryCambridge Textbooks in Linguistics2004CambridgeCambridge University Press(2004), Chapter 1.4 (Reflexive verbs and reflexive phraseologisms), Chapter 3 (Domains and orientation), Chapter 6 (The Coreference Rule), Chapter 11 (Exempt anaphora and reflexivity).
(2) ADDIN EN.CITE Testelets20059938993834Testelets, YakovBinding and Anaphora: Handouts for Five Lectures2005Handouts for a short course at NYInstitute in St Petersburg, July 2005(Testelets 2005), St.Petersburg Lectures on Binding Theory, Lecture 2: Domains, orientation, and a typology of pronouns and Lecture 3: Long-distance binding and Revisions of the Binding Theory
(3) ADDIN EN.CITE Reinhart19934548454817Reinhart, Tanya Reuland, EricReflexivityLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry657-72024BindingTheory1993(Reinhart and Reuland 1993) Reflexivity.
Optional readings:
(4) ADDIN EN.CITE Pollard19924381438117Pollard, CarlSag, Ivan A.Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding TheoryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry261-30323.2ReciprocalReflexive1992http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdfhttp://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdf(Pollard and Sag 1992) Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory.
(5) ADDIN EN.CITE Heim1998858485845Heim, IreneSauerland, UliPercus, OrinAnaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approachThe Interpretive Tract. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25205-2461998Cambridge, MA.http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zZkNzIzO/HeimMITWPL25.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zZkNzIzO/HeimMITWPL25.pdf(Heim 1998) Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach
(6) ADDIN EN.CITE Fischer20049921992117Fischer, SilkeOptimal bindingNatural Language & Linguistic TheoryNatural Language & Linguistic Theory481526222004(Fischer 2004) Optimal binding For next week
(7) ADDIN EN.CITE Kiparsky2002995599555Kiparsky, PaulKaufmann, IngridStiebels, BarbaraDisjoint reference and the typology of pronounsMore than Words179-226Studia Grammatica 53
2002BerlinAkademie Verlaghttp://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/anaph.hierarchies-t.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/anaph.hierarchies-t.pdf (Kiparsky 2002) Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns (not on your CD, but available on the web) For next week
Is the distribution of pronouns and anaphors complementary?
1.1. Background (from the last two lectures)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Syntactic binding: NP1 syntactically binds NP2 iff NP1 and NP2 are coindexed and NP1 c-commands NP2.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Binding conditions
Condition A: An anaphor must be bound in its local domain.
Condition B: A pronoun must be free in its local domain.
Condition C: An R-expression must be free.
These conditions rule out the impossible choices of co-indexing in examples like Lucie thought that Lili hurt her/ herself, and also account for the contrasts in the following.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Felixi invited himselfi.
b. *Felixi invited himi. (This is a condition B violation)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Luciei believes that we should elect heri.
b. *Luciei believes that we should elect herselfi. . (A condition A violation)
Our main issues:
How do the syntactic binding conditions relate to the semantics of anaphora? What happens when we distinguish bound variable anaphora from coreference and/or pragmatic anaphora?
More distinctions: different kinds of reflexives, various properties of anaphoric expressions in various languages. Whats the full range of syntactic anaphoric expressions, whats the full range of semantic (or semantic and pragmatic) varieties of anaphora, and how do syntax and semantics correlate cross-linguistically?
Conclusion argued for by Reinhart ADDIN EN.CITE Reinhart1983454745476Reinhart, TanyaAnaphora and semantic interpretation1983LondonCroom HelmReinhart19837614761417Reinhart, TanyaCoreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questionLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy47-8861983(Reinhart 1983a, Reinhart 1983b), Grodzinsky and Reinhart ADDIN EN.CITE 19932050205017Grodzinsky, YosefReinhart, TanyaThe Innateness of Binding and CoreferenceLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry69-10224LanguageAquisition1993http://freud.tau.ac.il/~yosef1/papers/grodzinsky_reinhart.pdfhttp://freud.tau.ac.il/~yosef1/papers/grodzinsky_reinhart.pdf(1993), Bach and Partee ADDIN EN.CITE 1980840284025Bach, EmmonPartee, Barbara H.Kreiman, JodyOjeda, Almerindo E.Anaphora and semantic structurePapers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora1-281980ChicagoChicago Linguistic Societyhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdf(1980), Pollard and Sag ADDIN EN.CITE 19924381438117Pollard, CarlSag, Ivan A.Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding TheoryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry261-30323.2ReciprocalReflexive1992http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdfhttp://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdf(1992), and discussed a bit last week:
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
Lets take some time to review what that means and what kinds of arguments help to establish it. Main tests for semantic binding: (i) Can have quantified antecedent like No student, Every student; (ii) Strict vs. Sloppy Identity tests; (iii) the interpretation of sentences with subjects like Only John. And what would be counter-evidence. This remains one of the strongest generalizations about anaphora!
1.2. The complementarity question and domains
So far we have not tried to be very precise about the notion of local domain in the statement of the binding principles A and B. The original idea was that there would be some clear syntactic definition of the relevant local domain, some more refined and precise definition of something analogous to the (minimal) clause (a verb together with all its arguments, for instance), and that Principle A and Principle B would apply in the same domain. If that were so, then the pronouns and anaphors would be in complementary distribution: where an anaphor is possible, a co-indexed pronoun is not, and vice versa. In simple cases, like ( REF FelixInvitedHimselfHim 3) and ( REF LucieBelievesWeShouldElectHerHerself 4) above, this is what we see.
Why anaphora is such a rich area of linguistic research: As researchers have looked more closely at anaphoric expressions (in the broad sense) within a given language, and especially across languages, it has become clear that (i) forms like reflexives and pronouns are very often NOT in complementary distribution; (ii) in order to develop a good account of the syntax and semantics of anaphora, its necessary to make progress on a whole range of important problems, working on syntax and semantics hand in hand, including:
what a clause is (or what analogs of the clause are relevant for the domains of anaphoric relations see Brings chapter 3 on domains and Testelets Lecture 2 on domains)
what the arguments of a predicate are, since co-argument status appears to be important for semantic binding ADDIN EN.CITE Montague1970391539155Montague, RichardVisentini et al., BrunoEnglish as a Formal LanguageLinguaggi nella Societ e nella Tecnica189-224Reprinted in Montague 1974, 188-2211970MilanEdizioni di ComunitBach1980840284025Bach, EmmonPartee, Barbara H.Kreiman, JodyOjeda, Almerindo E.Anaphora and semantic structurePapers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora1-281980ChicagoChicago Linguistic Societyhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdfReinhart19934548454817Reinhart, Tanya Reuland, EricReflexivityLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry657-72024BindingTheory1993Pollard19924381438117Pollard, CarlSag, Ivan A.Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding TheoryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry261-30323.2ReciprocalReflexive1992http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdfhttp://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdf(Montague 1970, Bach and Partee 1980, Pollard and Sag 1992, Reinhart and Reuland 1993)
what the typology of kinds of anaphoric expressions is, since the simple division into reflexives and pronouns isnt adequate for a good explanation (more on that today and more in the next two weeks)
whether Principle B belongs in the grammar or not; this leads to issues on the relation between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, with interesting ideas coming in from Optimality Theory ADDIN EN.CITE Bach1980840284025Bach, EmmonPartee, Barbara H.Kreiman, JodyOjeda, Almerindo E.Anaphora and semantic structurePapers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora1-281980ChicagoChicago Linguistic Societyhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Bach_Partee80_Anaphora.pdfReinhart19934548454817Reinhart, Tanya Reuland, EricReflexivityLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry657-72024BindingTheory1993Pollard19924381438117Pollard, CarlSag, Ivan A.Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding TheoryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry261-30323.2ReciprocalReflexive1992http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdfhttp://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/LI-binding.pdfFischer20049921992117Fischer, SilkeOptimal bindingNatural Language & Linguistic TheoryNatural Language & Linguistic Theory481526222004Kiparsky2002995599555Kiparsky, PaulKaufmann, IngridStiebels, BarbaraDisjoint reference and the typology of pronounsMore than Words179-226Studia Grammatica 53
2002BerlinAkademie Verlaghttp://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/anaph.hierarchies-t.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/anaph.hierarchies-t.pdf (Bach and Partee 1980, Pollard and Sag 1992, Reinhart and Reuland 1993, Kiparsky 2002, Fischer 2004) (more next week)
on what syntactic and semantic levels the conditions on anaphora apply. The notions of command, c-command, co-argument domain, governing category, binding category, and others have been developed in response to observations about the distribution of anaphoric expressions, going back to Langacker ADDIN EN.CITE 1969995699565Langacker, RonaldReibel, DavidSchane, SanfordPronominalization and the chain of commandModern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar160-2001969Englewood Cliffs, NJPrentice Hall(1969), who discovered one of the first constraints on the distribution of anaphora: A pronoun may not both precede and command its antecedent. And the study of anaphora has been a crucial part in the development of notions of logical form and the overall architecture of grammar, especially the syntax-semantics interface. And we already saw in Heims work how anaphora was central to one of the major innovations in semantic theory, from static to dynamic (context-change) theories of semantics. Bach and Partee (1980) argued that semantic function-argument structure was more important than syntactic constituent structure for constraints on bound-variable anaphora; more recent work on co-argument constraints develops and refines similar ideas.
Bring (Chapter 1, page 11) has a useful way of categorizing some of the main factors in the study of binding theory, although in this initial statement he does not include the semantic distinction of semantic binding vs. coreference. So the following should be taken to be about components of a theory of syntactic binding.
The general format of a Binding Condition can be schematized as in (1.33):
(1.33 ) A n N P o f c l a s s ( m u s t ( m u s t n o t ) b e c o i n d e x e d w i t h a c o m m a n d i n g N P w i t h i n i t s d o m a i n .
W h a t n e e d s t o b e m a d e p r e c i s e i n e a c h c a s e a r e t h r e e t h i n g s :
T h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f N P s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r c o r e f e r e n c e a n d b i n d i n g o p t i o n s . T h e c l a s s i c a l b i n d i n g t h e o ry has three classes: reflexives and reciprocals (anaphors), non-reflexive pronouns (pronominals), and non-pronominal or full NPs (r-expressions).
The identification of one of more domains within which binding requirements apply. In the simplest case, its the minimal clause.
The formulation of a proper notion of command or accessibility as prerequisite for, and source of, asymmetry in binding. In the chapter 1 version, its linear precedence and c-command.
Initial evidence of non-complementarity
One source of difficulty for Chomskys original Binding Theory is the fact that reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns are not actually in complementary distribution, even in English.
One problematic class of examples concerns picture nouns, and more generally the issue of binding inside an NP. First some examples that suggest that the NP itself can be a binding domain if it has a subject in the form of a possessor.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. John5 saw [ a picture of himself5 / *him5 ] (This NP has no subject, so domain = clause)
b. John5 saw [ Marys picture of ??himself5 / him5 ] (binding domain = NP in this case)
So the definition of local domain was amended early on to include the notion of subject:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Definition of governing category (See Testelets Lecture 2 for more details and for related Russian examples) (Bring p. 50; I dont know the original reference for this version.)
i s t h e g o v e r n i n g c a t e g o r y f o r N P , i f f i s t h e s m a l l e s t c a t e g o r y t h a t h a s a S u b j e c t a n d d o m i n a t e s
( a ) N P
( b ) N P s c a s e a s s i g n e r
( w h e r e a S u b j e c t i s e i t h e r a c l a u s a l s u b j e c t o r a p o s s e s s i v e )
B u t h e r e a r e s o m e e x a m p l e s w h e r e , u n e x p e c t e d l y , b o t h p r o n o u n and reflexive are possible for many speakers, contrary to what the definition in ( REF DefinitionOfGoverningCategoryBuringP50 6) would predict.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Hanna found Peters picture of her(self). (Bring p.51, from Keller and Asudeh ADDIN EN.CITE 2001995799575Keller, FrankAsudeh, AshConstraints on linguistic coreference: Structural vs. pragmatic factorsProceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society483-4882001Mahwah, NJLawrence Erlbaum Associates(2001)
b. John believes [that pictures of him/ himself are on sale] (Bring p.52)
Prepositional phrases.
Many well-known cases of non-complementarity concern prepositional phrases, and these have been a problem for theories of anaphora for decades. Since PPs pretty clearly dont have subjects, we expect in a simple sentence with a PP in it, a reflexive can be bound from outside the PP, and a non-reflexive pronoun would have to be free within the whole clause.
Sometimes this prediction is indeed borne out: it turns out that the prediction works well for PPs whose NP can be regarded as an argument of the verb, where the preposition itself is empty, and is simply selected by the verb. (These are the prepositions you learn to ignore when doing translations: just translate the verb and then do whatever the target language requires. For instance, in some languages, including Russian, the translation of ( REF JohnSentALetterToHimHimself 8a) below has no PP at all, but just an NP in the dative case.)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. John1 sent a letter to him*1/ himself1. (In these two, its as if the PP were just an NP)
b. John1 always relies on him*1/ himself1.
But there are many PPs which allow both pronouns and reflexives.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. John1 looked around him1/ himself1.
b. John1 pulled the blanket over him1/ himself1.
c. Muhammed1 hid the book behind him1/ himself1.
Such examples led various authors to propose that the domains for Condition A and Condition B are not the same. Bring summarizes the proposal of Hestvik ADDIN EN.CITE 19919958995817Hestvik, ArildSubjectless binding domainsNatural Langauge and Linguistic TheoryNatural Langauge and Linguistic Theory455-496931991(1991) as follows. First we define NPs coargument domain as the smallest XP that contains NP, NPs case assigner C, and all other arguments of C. Then the coargument domain for any argument of a verb will be its minimal clause. But since a preposition has only a complement and no subject, the coargument domain of an NP in a PP will be just the PP.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Binding conditions, Hestvik-style
(A) A reflexive must be bound within the smallest category containing it, its case assigner, and a Subject (its Governing Category)
(B) A non-reflexive pronoun must be free in its coargument domain.
With these conditions, one can account for the non-complementarity seen in ( REF JohnLookedAroundHimHimself \* MERGEFORMAT 9), but can no longer account for the complementarity seen in ( REF JohnSentALetterToHimHimself \* MERGEFORMAT 8).
What is the difference between the PPs in ( REF JohnSentALetterToHimHimself \* MERGEFORMAT 8) and those in ( REF JohnLookedAroundHimHimself \* MERGEFORMAT 9)? As hinted at above, the prepositions in ( REF JohnSentALetterToHimHimself \* MERGEFORMAT 8) are semantically empty, and function much like case markers; from a semantic perspective, these NPs are arguments of the verb, not of the preposition. Those in ( REF JohnLookedAroundHimHimself \* MERGEFORMAT 9), on the other hand, have real semantic content, and could be replaced by other prepositions with contrasting meaning s . S o t h e r e t h e N P i s r e a l l y a s e m a n t i c a r g u m e n t o f t h e p r e p o s i t i o n .
B a c h a n d P a r t e e ( 1 9 8 0 ) r e p r e s e n t e d t h i s d i f f e r e n c e a s a d i f f e r e n c e i n s e m a n t i c f u n c t i o n - a r g u m e n t s t r u c t u r e ; s y n t a c t i c i a n s d e s c r i b e i t u s i n g t h e n o t i o n o f a s s i g n m e n t o f t h e m a t i c r o l e s ( - r o l e s ) : i n t h e e x a m p l e s i n ( R E F J o h n S e n t A L e t t e r T o H i m H i m s e l f \ * M E R G E F O R M A T 8 ) , t h e N P g e t s i t s - r o l e d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e V , w h e r e a s i n ( R E F J o h n L o o k e d A r o u n d H i m H i m s e l f \ * M E R G E F O R M A T 9 ) , t h e N P g e t s i t s - r o l e f r o m t h e P . T h e n o t i o n o f - r o l e a s s i g n e r i s b a s i c a l l y t h e s a m e a s t h e n o t i o n o f s e m a n t i c p r e d i c a t e .
S o w e c a n i m p r o v e C o n d i t i o n B b y c h a n g i n g t h e n o t i o n o f C o a r g u m e n t d o m a i n : w e c a n r e p l a c e t h e n o t i o n o f c a s e a s s i g n e r b y t h e n o t i o n o f - r o l e a s s i g n e r . ( B r i n g p . 5 5 ) ( N o t e t h a t t h is notion is closely connected to what we have called function-argument structure.)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Revised definition:
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Binding conditions, Hestvik-style, just with new notion of coargument domain
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
Note that the coargument domain notion was more semantic than the earlier governing category notion, and that the replacement of case assigner by - r o l e a s s i g n e r i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f c o a r g u m e n t d o m a i n i s a l s o a m o v e t o w a r d a m o r e s e m a n t i c a l l y b a s e d d e f i n i t i o n .
W h a t i s s u r p r i s i n g n o w i s t h a t P r i n c i p l e A i s s t a t e d i n v e r y s y n t a c t i c t e r m s , a n d P r i n c i p l e B i n q u i t e s e m a n t i c t e r m s .
B u t f u r t h e r w o r k by Reinhart and others on long-distance reflexives, exempt reflexives, and semantic distinctions observable in some cases of non-complementarity has suggested that attention to semantics is needed for Principle A as well. And as we saw last week in the work of Grodzinsky and Reinhart, Reinhart has argued that all binding conditions should apply only to bound-variable anaphora, not to coreference.
Kinds of reflexives.
Chomskys binding theory says that anaphors (typically understood to mean reflexives and reciprocals) must be locally bound. But many languages have what are known as long-distance reflexives (LDRs) which can be bound by an antecedent in a higher clause. Some of these have properties that resemble the properties of logophors, and that term itself has been broadened in recent years in the course of work on kinds of anaphors, especially by Reinhart and Reuland.
2.1. Logophoricity
Logophors are oriented toward a semantically or pragmatically determined class of antecedents rather than a specifically syntactic domain. Various languages have a special set of pronouns used to refer to the source of an embedded statement. The following is from Ewe (from Bring, p.60, who got it from Sells ADDIN EN.CITE 19879959995917Sells, PeterAspects of logophoricityLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry445-479181987(1987)and Kuno ADDIN EN.CITE 1987321532156Kuno, SusumoFunctional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy1987ChicagoChicago University Press(1987), who both got it from Clements ADDIN EN.CITE 19759960996017Clements, George N.The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourseJournal of West African LanguagesJournal of West African Languages141-177101975(1975).)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. kofi1 be y1/*2/*s dzo. (The subscript s is for speaker)
Kofi say log left
Kofi said that he (Kofi) left (Logophoric)
b. kofi1 be e*1/2/*s dzo.
Kofi say he left
Kofi said that he (other) left (he)
c. kofi1 be me*1/*2/s dzo.
Kofi say I left
Kofi said that I left (I)
The pronoun y can only refer to the subject of be say, not to any other person, speaker or not. Pronouns like that are called logophoric. In Ewe, the subject of be happy, know, see can antecede logophoric pronouns; in Tuburi, the experiencer of a psychological verb (be afraid, be glad, hope) can bind a logophor (Bring, pp. 60-61, citing Sells (1987) and Hagge ADDIN EN.CITE 19749961996117Hagge, C.Les pronoms logophoriquesBulletin de la Societ de Linguistique de ParisBulletin de la Societ de Linguistique de Paris287-310691974(1974)).
To show that these logophoric pronouns are not just long-distance subject-oriented anaphors, Bring gives two examples with the Japanese logophoric pronoun zibun (from Sells 1987: 453ff).
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Takasi1 wa Taroo2 ni [ Yosiko ga zibun1/*2 o nikundeiru koto] o hanasita.
Takasi top Taroo dat Yosiko nom self acc be-hating comp acc told
Takasi told Taroo that Yosiko hated him (Takasi).
b. Taroo2 wa Takasi1 kara [ Yosiko ga zibun1/*2 o nikundeiru koto] o kiita.
Taroo top Takasi from Yosiko nom self acc be-hating comp acc heard
Taroo heard from Takasi that Yosiko hated him (Takasi).
If zibun were subject-oriented, we would expect it to refer to Takasi in ( REF TakasiTarooZibun \* MERGEFORMAT 14a) and to Taroo in ( REF TakasiTarooZibun \* MERGEFORMAT 14b). But it can refer only to Takasi in both; Takasi is the source of the embedded proposition in both sentences. In both cases, Takasi may have said to Taroo, Yosiko hates me.
Another property of logophoric pronouns is that they can sometimes occur with no sentence-internal antecedent at all. Example ( REF IcelandicLogophorExample 15) is from Icelandic; sr is the dative of the logophoric pronoun sig. (Bring p.62, from Sigursson ADDIN EN.CITE 1986996299625Sigursson, HaldorMoods and (long-distance) reflexives in IcelandicWorking Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 251986Trondheim(1986) via Sells (1987)).
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Formaurinn1 var skaplega reiur. Tillagan vri avvirileg.
the chairman became furiously angry the proposal was-subj outrageous
Vri henni beint gegn sr persnulega?
was-subj it aimed against self personally
The chairman became furiously angry. The proposal was outrageous. Was it aimed at him personally?
The second and third sentences are clearly reporting the chairmans thoughts. The choice of subjunctive helps to mark that. This allows the logophoric sr to be used with no sentence-internal binder.
All the examples with logophoric pronouns have paraphrases involving an embedded sentence containing a first-person pronoun, for instance as follows (Bring pp. 62-63):
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Kofi said, I left.
b. Takasi told Taroo, Yosiko hates me!
c. Taroo heard from Takasi, Yosiko hates me!
d. The chairman, furiously angry, thinks: The proposal is outrageous. Is it aimed at me personally?
Bring (p. 63) offers a rule of thumb (i.e. not a formal rule, but a pretty good guide) for logophoric pronouns:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) A logophoric pronoun can be used if it is embedded in a constituent c such that (i) c is embedded, (ii) c denotes a proposition p, which (iii) can be paraphrased as a mental state or reported utterance of the pronouns antecedent such that the paraphrase contains a first person pronoun in place of the given pronoun.
A potential antecedent of a logophoric pronoun is sometimes called a logophoric center.
Updated after the lecture: Note that a logophoric pronoun can be interpreted as a bound variable or as free (including coreferential). The examples above dont include any that are unambiguously bound variables, but they exist in the literature. For instance, for Japanese, Im quite sure that you can get an analog of ( REF TakasiTarooZibun \* MERGEFORMAT 14a) like Every girli told the teacher that Taroo was teasing zibuni, and the same for a bound variable analog of ( REF TakasiTarooZibun \* MERGEFORMAT 14b).
2.2. Long-distance reflexives
There are many languages in which reflexives do not need to be locally bound but can find an antecedent outside their minimal clause often the antecedent needs to be a subject or a logophoric center. The term long-distance reflexive (LDR) has become common for referring to such reflexives. The Latin reflexive se (acc.)/ sibi (dat.) can be bound by a non-local antecedent if it is the subject of a verb of saying (Bring p . 7 2 ) .
( L I S T N U M N u m b e r D e f a u l t \ l 1 ) I c c i u s 7 n kn t i u m m i t t i t , n i s i s u b s i d i u m s i b i 7 s u b m i t t t u r &
I c c i u s m e s s a g e s e n d s i f - n o t r e l i e f r e f l - d a t f u r n i s h e d - p a s s i v e
I c c i u s s e n d s a m e s s a g e t h a t u n l e s s r e l i e f b e g i v e n t o h i m s e l f .
There are two kinds of accounts offered in the literature, a movement kind of analysis and a logophor kind of analysis. The movement analyses involve covert movement of the LDR into the clause of its antecedent, after which it behaves according to Condition A. (Analogies have been made to clitic climbing; LDRs, like clitics, are often short, prosodically weak forms.)
As for the logophoric-style analyses, we will see an example in Section 3, since Reinhart and Reuland (and also Pollard and Sag) also divide English reflexives into two classes, treating one class as basically logophoric. Bring (pp. 73-4) shows how Maling ADDIN EN.CITE 19843598359817Maling, JoanNon-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern IcelandicLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy211-2427IcelandicLogophoricsAnaphoraReflexive1984(1984) make a convincing case that the long-distance reflexives in Icelandic are indeed logophoric. Bring himself does not feel that any of the existing accounts are fully satisfactory.
Updated after the lecture: One semantic argument in favor of the logophor account: Long-Distance reflexives can be bound variables or coreferential/free; local reflexives are always bound variables. This is discussed in Kiparsky ADDIN EN.CITE 2002995599555Kiparsky, PaulKaufmann, IngridStiebels, BarbaraDisjoint reference and the typology of pronounsMore than Words179-226Studia Grammatica 53
2002BerlinAkademie Verlaghttp://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/anaph.hierarchies-t.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/anaph.hierarchies-t.pdf (2002); Ill include some data next week.
3. Reflexivity: Reinhart & Reuland, Pollard & Sag
As Bring makes clear, there is a great deal of similarity between Reinhart and Reulands (R&R) account of reflexives and Pollard and Sags (P&S) account, although they use different terminology and different theoretical frameworks. Both start from the problem of complementary vs. non-complementary positions, that is, positions in which reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns are in complementary distribution and positions in which they are not.
Complementary positions: NOTE: These reflexives are always bound variables!
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Max criticized himself/*him.
b. Some people talk to themselves/*them.
c. Lucies pictures of herself/*her
Non-complementary positions: NOTE: These reflexives can be bound or free/coreferential!
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Lucie saw a picture of herself/ her.
b. Mary likes jokes about herself/ her.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Max keeps a gun near himself/ him.
b. Lucie counted five tourists in the room apart from herself/ her.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Max boasted that the queen had invited Lucie and himself/him for a drink.
A standard Binding Theory response to this problem is to try to adjust the domains for Conditions A and B so that the domain in which non-reflexives must be free is smaller than the domain in which reflexives must be bound.
R&R and P&S make a radical departure from standard Binding Theory. They both assume that there is instead a major difference between the reflexives in complementary positions (regular positions) and those in non-complementary positions (exempt positions), and that only the ones in complementary positions where they are interpreted as semantically bound (i.e. as bound variables) -- are subject to syntactic binding requirements at all.
Here is Brings paraphrase of Pollard and Sags proposal (Bring, p. 223)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Pollard and Sags Binding Theory
Binding Condition A: A reflexive/reciprocal must be bound by a less oblique coargument, if there is one.
Exempt Anaphor Condition: A reflexive/reciprocal that doesnt have a less oblique coargument must denote a designated participant.
Binding Condition B is then the complement of Binding Condition A; all examples of non-complementarity are held to involve exempt anaphors occurring in exempt positions.
These conditions can account for the examples above.
They can also account for the interesting observation that in all the positions that count as exempt, one can find examples where the reflexive doesnt have a local antecedent at all not c-commanding it, not even in the same clause. (Bring p. 224, from sources cited there.)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. It angered him that she tried to attract a man like himself.
b. Johns campaign requires that pictures of himself be placed all over town.
c. John was furious. The picture of himself in the museum had been mutilated.
What is a designated participant? That is not formally defined, but Bring summarizes what is said about it by P&S and by R&R as follows:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. First and second person exempt anaphors dont need linguistic antecedents at all; speaker and hearer are automatically designated participants.
b. Third person exempt anaphors need an antecedent.
First and second person examples:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. There were five tourists in the room apart from myself/ me.
b. Er waren vijf toeristen in de kamer behalve mezelf. (Dutch)
c. Physicists like yourself are a godsend.
d. She gave both Brenda and myself a dirty look.
Third person examples:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. ?* Mary tried to attract a man like himself.
b. It angered him that she . tried to attract a man like himself.
Note that in complementary positions, adding such an antecedent doesnt help at all.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. *She tried to attract himself.
b. *It angered him that she tried to attract himself.
Properties of exempt positions: pronouns in those positions do not have a higher coargument: either the predicate isnt accompanied by a higher coargument (pictures of, jokes about, with no possessive), or because it doesnt have one at all (near, apart from, in addition to, including, except, other than, like), or because the pronoun itself isnt an argument but only part of an argument (the coordination examples).
Extending the PP data from Chapter 3, Bring concludes that one can indeed distinguish between Ps whose NP argument is in a regular (complementary) position and those whose argument is in an exempt position (pp. 229-232); he concludes that reflexives within PPs are exempt anaphors in all cas e s e x c e p t f o r a r g u m e n t P P s h e a d e d b y s e m a n t i c a l l y i n e r t P s , a n d t h a t t h e n e e d e d n o t i o n o f h i g h e r c o a r g u m e n t f o r t h e b i n d i n g c o n d i t i o n s m u s t b e d e f i n e d a s i n c l u d i n g a l l a r g u m e n t s t o h e a d s t h a t a s s i g n e i t h e r c a s e o r a - r o l e t o t h e r e f l e x i v e .
R e i n h a r t &