Syntax and Semantics Volume 33: Long Distance Reflexives

SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS VOLUME 33 EDITORIAL BOARD Series Editors BRIAN D. JOSEPH AND CARL POLLARD Department of Linguis...

Author: Peter Cole | C.T. James Huang | Gabriella Hermon

113 downloads 1037 Views 8MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS VOLUME 33

EDITORIAL BOARD

Series Editors BRIAN D. JOSEPH AND CARL POLLARD Department of Linguistics The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

Editorial Advisory Board JUDITH AISSEN University of California, Santa Cruz

PAULINE JACOBSON Brown University

PETER CULICOVER

MANFRED KRIFKA University of Texas

The Ohio State University

ELISABET ENGDAHL University of Gothenburg

WILLIAM A. LADUSAW University of California, Santa Cruz

JANET FODOR City University of New York

BARBARA H. PARTEE University of Massachusetts

ERHARD HINRICHS University of Tubingen

PAUL M. POSTAL Scarsdale, New York

A list of titles in this series appears at the end of this book.

SYNTAX and SEMANTICS VOLUME 33 Long-Distance Reflexives Edited by Peter Cole Department of Linguistics University of Delaware Newark, Delaware Gabriella Hermon Department of Linguistics University of Delaware Newark, Delaware C.-T. James Huang Department of Linguistics University of California Irvine, California

ACADEMIC PRESS San Diego London Boston New York Sydney Tokyo Toronto

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2001 by Academic Press All Rights Reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Publisher. The appearance of the code at the bottom of the first page of a chapter in this book indicates the Publisher's consent that copies of the chapter may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay the stated per copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923), for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. Copy fees for pre-2000 chapters are as shown on the title pages. If no fee code appears on the title page, the copy fee is the same as for current chapters. 0092-4563/00 $35.00 Explicit permission from Academic Press is not required to reproduce a maximum of two figures or tables from an Academic Press chapter in another scientific or research publication provided that the material has not been credited to another source and that full credit to the Academic Press chapter is given.

Academic Press A Harcourt Science and Technology Company 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495 http://www.academicpress.com

Academic Press Harcourt Place, 32 Jamestown Road, London NWI 7BY, UK http://www.academicpress.com Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 0092-4563 International Standard Book Number: 0-12-613533-9 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00 01 02 03 04 05 SB 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS

Contributors Introduction

xi xiii

Grammatical and Discourse Conditions on Long Distance Reflexives in Two Chinese Dialects

1

PETER COLE, GABRIELLA HERMON, AND CHER LENG LEE 1. Introduction: Approaches to Long Distance Reflexives 2. Logophoric Conditions on LD Reflexives in Mandarin and Teochew 3. Subcommanding Antecedents of LD Reflexives and SOURCE/SELF Requirements on Antecedents 4. Modifying Phrases as Tests for SOURCE/SELF 5. Additional Evidence on the Role of SELF 6. Pivot Restrictions 7. Logophoricity and Attitudes De Se 8. The Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Attitudes De Se 9. The Binding Theoretical Status of LD Reflexives 10. The C-Command Requirement 11. VP Ellipsis 12. The Blocking Effect Revisited 13. Counter Examples to the Grammatical Account of the Blocking Effect 14. Conclusion Acknowledgments Notes References

v

1 4 6 8 10 11 16 19 23 25 26 28 35 36 38 39 44

Vi

Contents

Long-Distance Anaphors in Hindi/Urdu: Syntactic and Semantic Issues ALICE DAVISON 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction: Nonlocally Bound Anaphoric Expressions Lexical Forms of Anaphors and Inflectional Morphology Overview of Binding Relations A Head-Raising Account for Long-Distance The Functional Projection Host for Reflexives Syntactic/Semantic Factors Summary and Conclusion Appendix: Object Agreement and Subject Orientation Acknowledgments Notes References

Reflexive Anaphor or Conjunctive Operator: Riau Indonesian Sendiri DAVID GIL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Why Do Only Some Languages Have Long-Distance Reflexives? Riau Indonesian Sendiri as a Reflexive Anaphor Sendiri as a Conjunctive Operator Generalizing to Other Forms Acknowledgments Notes References

Syntactic vs. Logophoric Binding: Evidence from Norwegian Child Language ARILD HESTVIK AND WILLIAM PHILIP 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction Local vs. Nonlocal (Logophoric) Binding Using Child Language as Evidence: Avrutin and Cunningham (1997) Experimental Evidence from Norwegian Child Language Conclusion References

47

47 48 52 56 60 68 75 77 78 78 81

83

83 85 88 98 106 111 112 114

119

119 120 126 128 138 139

Contents

Logophoricity, Attitudes, and Ziji at the Interface C.-T. JAMES HUANG AND C.-S. LUTHER LIU 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

vii

141

Introduction Previous Analyses Ziji as a Logophor Ziji as a (Syntactic) Anaphor The Long Distance Ziji: Syntax and Semantics Summary Acknowledgments Notes References

141 143 154 166 174 184 185 185 192

Local and Long-Distance Reflexives in Turkish JAKLIN KORNFILT

197

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction: Types of Morphologically Free Reflexives Differences Between the Bare and the Inflected Reflexive The Nature of the Inflected Reflexive: A LD-Reflexive or a Pronoun? Elements of a Third (or Fourth?) Kind The Bare Reflexive: Anaphor or Emphatic Pronoun? Complex Reflexives Conclusion Acknowledgments Notes References

Anti-Antilocality JEFFREY LIDZ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Introduction Anaphora in Kannada Why Apparent Antilocality is not Syntactic Predictions of Condition R Alternative Analyses Conclusion Acknowledgments Notes References

197 200 201 205 212 217 219 220 220 224

227

227 229 232 237 242 250 251 251 253

viii

Contents

Long-Distance Reflexivization in Chechen and Ingush

255

JOHANNA NICHOLS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction Local Reflexivization Logophoric Reflexivization Ordinary Long-Distance Reflexivization Conclusion Acknowledgments Notes References

Why the Blocking Effect?

255 257 259 261 274 275 276 277 279

HAIHUA PAN 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction The Blocking Effect The Blocking Effect is not Symmetrical Previous Analyses and their Limitations Self-Ascription and Long-Distance Bound Ziji Discussion Conclusion Acknowledgments Notes References

Syntactic and Nonsyntactic Constraints on Long-Distance Reflexives

279 280 282 286 293 305 308 309 309 314 317

CARL POLLARD AND PING XUE 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Syntactic and Nonsyntactic Reflexives Nonsyntactic Conditions on Ziji Conclusion Acknowledgments Notes References

317 320 328 335 338 338 340

Contents

Anaphors, Logophors, and Binding

ix

343

ERIC REULAND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Introduction Interpreting Sig Non-C-Commanding Antecedents The Interpretive Process What Makes a Pronominal Interpretation of Sig Logophoric? Summary and Conclusion Acknowledgments Notes References

Index

343 346 348 350 357 363 364 364 368 371

This page intentionally left blank

CONTRIBUTORS Numbers in parantheses indicate the pages on which author's contributions begin.

Peter Cole (xiii, 1), Department of Linguistics, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716 and Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany Alice Davison (47), Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 David Gil (83), Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig 04103, Germany Gabriella Hermon (xiii, 1), Department of Linguistics and School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716 and Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany Arild Hestvik (119), Department of Linguistics and Comparative Literature, University of Bergen, N-5007 Bergen, Norway C.-T. James Huang (xiii, 141), Department of Linguistics, University of California, Irvine, California 92697 Jaklin Kornfilt (197), Department of Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244 Cher Leng Lee (1), Department of Chinese Studies, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260 Jeffrey Lidz (227), Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 C.-S. Luther Liu (141), Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, National Chi-Nan University, Puli, Nantou, Taiwan Johanna Nichols (255), Department of Slavic Languages, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720 Haihua Pan (279), Department of Chinese, Translation, and Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

xi

xii

Contributors

William Philip (119), Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Carl Pollard (317), Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 Eric Reuland (343), Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Ping Xue (317), Applied Research and Technology, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington 98124

INTRODUCTION LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVES: THE STATE OF THE ART

1. LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVES AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR The papers in this volume examine the locality conditions on reflexives across languages. In languages around the world the distribution of anaphoric elements appears roughly like that found in English: certain forms occur only with antecedents that c-command them and occur in the same local domain (roughly, clause) as the anaphoric elements, while other forms cannot have c-commanding antecedents within that same domain. The occurrence of many genetically unrelated and typologically dissimilar languages with anaphoric elements that conform to the same distributional restrictions constituted powerful early support for universalist, generative approaches to the syntax of what has come to be known as Binding. While a universalist approach to Binding as instantiated in the Binding Theory has provided strong support for Universal Grammar, it has long been known that in many languages some forms that can be used as local reflexives can also take antecedents outside their local domain (hereafter, long-distance reflexives). For instance in Chinese, the reflexive ziji in (1) can be interpreted as referring to the matrix subject, the intermediate subject or the lowest subject: xiii

xiv

Long-distance Reflexives: The State of the Art

(1) Zhangsani renwei Lisij zhidao Wangwuk xihuan ziji i/j/k Zhangsan think Lisi know Wangwu like self 'Zhangsan thinks Lisi knows Wangwu likes self.' The question naturally arises whether these "exceptions" to Binding Theory are arbitrary (thereby seriously undercutting the universality of Binding Theory and leaving unexplained why so many anaphoric forms in unrelated languages show the same distribution), or whether violations of Binding Theory occur in a delimited domain, calling for the refinement and revision of the Binding Theory rather than its total abandonment.

2. TYPOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVES Approaching the problem from the perspective of syntax, it was soon noticed that long-distance reflexives appear to share a number of characteristics across languages (Pica, 1987):1 (2) Apparent Typological Characteristics of Long-Distance Reflexives: a. Long-distance reflexives are monomorphemic. b. They take subject antecedents. c. Their occurrence can, in many languages, be restricted to environments in which the antecedent and reflexive are found in specific domains (i.e., specific types of IPs such as infinitival or subjunctive). Furthermore, it was noted in the Chinese literature (Y.-H. Huang, 1984; Tang, 1985,1989) that long-distance reflexives are subject to a "Blocking Effect": When the subjects of the matrix and the subordinate clauses share features for person, either NP is a possible antecedent for ziji. When, however, the subjects of these clauses differ in person, only the subject of the subordinate clause is a possible antecedent for ziji: The subordinate subject blocks the matrix subject (and any higher subject regardless of person) from anteceding ziji: (3) Zhangsani renwei woj zhidao Wangwuk xihuan ziji*i/*j/k. Zhangsan think I know Wangwu like self 'Zhangsan thinks I know Wangwu likes self.' In (3) the presence of third-person Wangwu as subject of the lowest clause blocks ziji from referring to either the intermediate subject wo or the main clause subject Zhangsan.2 No similar restriction was noted in the literature on European languages with long-distance reflexives. This raised the question of how the cross-linguistic variation with respect to the existence of the Blocking Effect should be explained and of whether Blocking correlates

Introduction

XV

with any property of the languages in which it occurs or of the forms that are subject to Blocking, a question to which we shall return below. In addition to the restrictions just mentioned, which were widely interpreted as syntactic in nature, many authors noted that long-distance reflexives are frequently limited to taking antecedents that are "prominent" in the discourse. The discourse requirements appeared to vary from language to language, to at least some extent, but they could, in most cases, be reduced to what came to be referred to as "logophoric" requirements, on analogy with the system of logophoric pronouns occurring in some African languages. This raised the question of how logophoricity should be related to long-distance reflexives. Are long-distance reflexives simply logophoric pronouns masquerading as reflexives, or is the relationship between logophoricity and long-distance reflexives more complex than simple equivalence?

3. THE GRONINGEN AND CORNELL WORKSHOPS In order to assess the current state of knowledge and provide an impetus for the further study, a workshop on long-distance anaphors was held by the Department of Linguistics of Groningen University in June of 1987. This workshop resulted in a volume that appeared in 1991 (Koster and Reuland). While there was considerable diversity in the interests of the contributors to that volume, two themes preoccupied many of the authors: 1) What is the nature of the domain restriction on long-distance reflexives? 2) What sorts of logophoric or other discourse conditions are necessary for long-distance anaphora? While there was some brief discussion of Asian languages in several of the chapters in the volume, with the exception of the extended discussion of Mandarin in Huang and Tang (1991), nearly all of the detailed analysis was of European languages. This, of course, reflected the fact that in the 1980s most of the research on long-distance anaphora had been on European languages (especially Italian and Scandinavian languages). The present volume grows out of the explosion of interest in long-distance anaphora that followed the publication of Koster and Reuland. A workshop similar to the Groningen workshop was organized at the Cornell LSA Linguistic Institute in July of 1997 to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Groningen workshop and to assess progress over the last ten years. The contributions to the Cornell workshop provided the basis for most of the chapters in this volume. How do the results of the Cornell workshop differ from those ten years earlier? The most obvious difference between the 1991 volume and this volume is that the focus in the present volume is on the anaphoric systems of languages that had received little or no attention in the literature ten years earlier. In addition to this volume's four chapters containing extensive discussions of Mandarin (Cole, Hermon, and Lee; Huang and

xvi


Liu; Pan; and Pollard and Xue),3 there is a chapter comparing a variety of Mandarin with a southern Chinese dialect (Teochew) and (to a lesser extent) with Malay (Cole, Hermon and Lee), and chapters on Hindi-Urdu (Davison), Riau Indonesian (Gil), Turkish (Kornfilt), Kannada (Lidz), Chechen and Ingush (Nichols). In fact, the only languages discussed in this volume that figured prominently in Koster and Reuland are Norwegian (Hestvik and Philip) and Icelandic (Reuland). Not surprisingly, the long-distance reflexives found in the languages described here are considerably more diverse than those that were the focus of research of Koster and Reuland; but, despite the diversity, the major themes of the earlier volume are prominent in this volume as well.

4. PRONOUN OR BOUND ANAPHOR A fundamental and recurring topic in many of the chapters in this volume is whether the "long-distance reflexives" in the language under study have the distribution of pronouns or of bound anaphors. While in a number of studies it is taken as a given that long-distance reflexives are anaphors (e.g. Lidz), the question is in fact a difficult one. The study of the typological characteristics of long-distance reflexives has been frustrating because every proposed characterization of the construction appears to have many counterexamples. If, however, "long-distance reflexives" are not a single type of morpho-syntactic entity, it would not be expected that they would have the same properties or the same analysis across languages. In fact, a comparison of the papers in this volume suggests that long-distance reflexives are, in fact, several different sorts of entities, which differ with regard to whether they have the distribution of bound anaphors or of pronouns.4 If this is correct, it is not surprising that they differ in both syntactic and discourse properties: Bound anaphors are generally assumed to require (or strongly favor) a binding relationship with their antecedents, thereby explaining why they require c-commanding antecedents, do not allow extra sentential antecedents, and require (or strongly favor) sloppy readings in VP ellipsis. In contrast, pronouns are assumed to enter into both binding and coreference relations. Thus, c-command is not required, extra sentential antecedents are possible, and both strict and sloppy readings are easily available under VP ellipsis. It may be useful to illustrate the range of variation found in the languages discussed in this volume. Inflected reflexives in Turkish (Kornfilt this volume and 1997) provide an example of a form that can be used as a reflexive within the local domain, but which is a pronominal when used beyond that domain. Another such example is Malay (Cole and Hermon, 1998a, 1998b; and, to a lesser extent, Cole, Hermon, and Lee, this volume). In these lan-

Introduction

xvii

guages apparent long-distance reflexives show none of the characteristics of bound anaphors: outside of the local domain the antecedent does not need to c-command the "reflexive," extra sentential antecedents are possible, and strict readings are easy to come by under VP ellipsis. This is illustrated from Malay: (4) Ahmadi tahu Salmahj akan membeli baju untuk diri-nyai/j/k.5 Ahmad know Salmah will buy clothes for self-3SG 'Ahmad knows Salmah will buy clothes for him/herself.' (5) a. [NP Bapa Sitij]i tidak suka dirinyai/j/k. father Siti not like self.3SG 'Siti's father does not like her/himself/him.' b. [NP Ibu Alijli telah mengenalkan dirinyai/j/k. mother AH already introduce self.3SG kepada kawan-kawan saya. to friends my 'Ali's mother has introduced him/herself/her to my friends.' In (4) dirinya can be interpreted either as a local reflexive, as referring to the matrix subject, or as referring to some third individual in the discourse. The examples of (5) show that a c-commanding or non-c-commanding antecedent, or an extra sentential, discourse antecedent are all possible. Turning to VP ellipsis, we see that dirinya allows both strict and sloppy readings, even in local contexts, as is expected with a pronoun: (6) John nampak dirinya di dalam cermin; Frank pun. John see self-3psg at inside mirror Frank also 'John saw himself/him in the mirror and Frank did too .' (='Frank saw Frank in the mirror' or 'Frank saw John in the mirror') (7) AH cukur dirinya di dalam bilik air; Bill pun. Ali shave self-3psg at inside bathroom Bill also 'Ali shaved himself/him in the bathroom. Bill did so too.' (='Bill shaved Bill' or 'Bill shaved Ali') To conclude, the relationship between the seeming long-distance reflexive and its antecedent in Malay would appear to be either coreference or binding, as is the case for personal pronouns.6 In contrast, in Kannada long-distance reflexives require c-commanding antecedents, cannot take extra sentential antecedents, and require sloppy readings under VP ellipsis (Lidz, this volume; and Amritavalli, 1999). Similar facts are found in Hindi-Urdu (Davison, this volume, and 1999). Example (8) illustrates the VP ellipsis facts in Hindi-Urdu (Davison, 1999): (8) Guatami [apnee (aapj-koo caalaak] samajhtaa hai, aur Guatam self's self-dat smart consider-Impf is and

xviii


vikramj bhii f. Vikram also 'Guatam considers himself smart, and so does Vikram' (=Vikram considers Vikram smart; *Vikram considers Guatam smart) In these languages long-distance reflexives have the properties associated with bound anaphors, and, like other bound anaphors, appear to require a binding relationship with antecedents. The situation is more complex in Icelandic (Reuland, this volume). In Icelandic the reflexive form sig can occur with long-distance antecedents in both infinitival and subjunctive clauses. However, sig has different properties in each environment: When sig and its antecedent are found within an infinitival clause, sig behaves like a bound anaphor, but when the domain is a subjunctive clause, it behaves like a pronominal. Thus, in some environments sig must be related to its antecedent by binding, while in other environments a relationship of coreference is possible. Finally, in Chinese (both Mandarin and Teochew) the simplex reflexive (ziji in Mandarin/kaki in Teochew) normally shows the distribution of a bound anaphor: The antecedent must c-command (or subcommand) the reflexive, and VP ellipsis yields only (or predominantly) sloppy readings, as in Hindi-Urdu (Cole, Hermon, and Lee, this volume; and Huang and Liu, this volume; as well as earlier works by many authors). However, in limited discourse contexts ziji can take extra sentential discourse antecedents, as is illustrated in (9), taken from Pollard and Xue (this volume):7 (9) Zhangsarii zhidao neijian shi yihou hen qifen; Lisii shuo Zhangsan know that-CL thing after very angry Lisi say neixie hua mingming shi zai he ziji i/j zuodui. those word obviously is being with self against 'Zhangsani was very angry when he learned that. By saying those words Lisij was obviously acting against himselfjj/himi.' The Icelandic and Mandarin facts suggest that the same reflexive form can be a bound anaphor in one grammatical and discourse context and a "free anaphor" with pronominal properties in another. To summarize, there appear to be at least the following types of "longdistance reflexives": 1) long-distance bound anaphors, which show the distribution of bound variables (illustrated by Chechen/Ingush, Chinese, Hindi-Urdu, Kannada), 2) forms which are used as reflexives locally and as pronominals non-locally (illustrated by Turkish and Malay) and 3) forms that are "primarily" bound anaphor reflexives, but which can be used nonlocally in specific syntactic and discourse contexts (Chinese "free anaphors," Icelandic subjunctives and long-distance uses of English reflexives

Introduction

xix

(Zribi-Hertz). If "long-distance reflexives" do in fact display the diversity just claimed, several conclusions follow: 1) The distribution and properties of each type of "long-distance reflexive" (anaphor, pronominal, mixed) need to be investigated separately. 2) The factual contradictions both in and across languages may be resolved by distinguishing properly the various types of "long-distance reflexives." 3) A major problem in understanding the phenomenon of long-distance anaphora is the determination of the grammatical and discourse conditions that license each type of longdistance anaphor. The successful solution to this problem may provide the basis for the development of a theory of long-distance anaphora with sufficient power to predict the properties of a reflexive from its grammatical and discourse context. We shall return in Section 10 to a consideration of what might constitute the basis for such a theory.

5. THE ROLE OF DISCOURSE 5.1. Variation among Languages and Dialects with Bound Anaphor long-distance Reflexives A second theme that recurs in many of the chapters is an attempt to characterize the role of discourse/pragmatics versus syntax in the licensing of Long-distance reflexives. While many aspects of the problem remain unclear, many new facts about the relationship of discourse factors and long-distance reflexives emerge in the contributions to the volume. First of all, the role of discourse varies considerably from language to language and from form to form within some languages. Nichols shows that Chechen and Ingush exhibit bound anaphor-type long-distance reflexives. In these languages, however, there is no requirement that the antecedent satisfy logophoric or other discourse conditions. In many other languages discourse adds restrictions over and above those of the grammar. For instance, Amritavalli (1999) notes that in Kannada (which also exhibits bound anaphor long-distance reflexives) the antecedent for the reflexive tannu must be aware of the state or event described, leading to a preference for the pronoun avannu over the long-distance reflexive tannannu in sentences like (10) (Amritavalli's 119): (10) Sittei j ?tannannuii*j*k/avanannui kaaNalu bandaaga Sita self-ace he-acc to see came then raajui sattu hoogidda Raju was dead 'Rajuj was dead when Sitaj came to see ?selfij*j*k / hinij.'

XX


Even within the same language, different dialects and varieties may vary with regard to the discourse properties of long-distance reflexives. For example, Cole, Hermon, and Lee (this volume) show that there is considerable variation in the discourse conditions on long-distance reflexives in the Chinese dialects of Singapore. In these dialects (in most contexts) the reflexive has the distribution of a bound anaphor, but the logophoric conditions on Singapore Teochew are much stricter than those on Singapore Mandarin: In Teochew the antecedent of a long-distance reflexive must be aware that he, himself, is carrying out the action described (a de se requirement), while in Singapore Mandarin self-awareness on the part of the antecedent is not required. However, weaker "PIVOT" conditions (Sells, 1987) hold in both Singapore Mandarin and Singapore Teochew. Turning to other chapters that deal with Mandarin in the volume, Huang and Liu claim that a de se requirement constrains the relationship between matrix subject antecedents and object ziji in complement clauses. In contrast, Pollard and Xue claim that such examples (illustrated by (11)) are not subject to logophoric requirements:8 (11) Zhangsarii zhidao \Lisi-j renwei [Wangwuk zui xihuan ziji i/j/k ]]. Zhangsan know Lisi think Wangwu most like self 'Zhangsanj knows that Lisij thinks that Wangwu likes himself/himi/j most.' Pollard and Xue explicitly claim with respect to (11) that "the key fact about such cases is that any commanding subject qualifies as the antecedent for ziji on the strength of its syntactic prominence alone [emphasis ours]." We take such apparent factual contradictions among authors writing about Chinese as indicative of the fact that the discourse conditions vary in subtle ways from dialect to dialect, and from speaker to speaker within a single dialect. It would appear that the extent of the variation has not been recognized adequately in the literature. 5.2. Absence of Logophoric Conditions on Pronominal Long-distance Reflexives A second fact about discourse that emerges from the chapters in this volume is that, while logophoric conditions may (but need not) restrict bound anaphor-type long-distance reflexives, they do not affect pronominal longdistance reflexives. Thus, in Malay "long-distance" dirinya does not require any special perspective or self-awareness (Cole and Hermon, 1998a, 1998b; and Cole, Hermon and Lee, this volume). Rather, it has the same discourse properties as a personal pronoun. We believe that a similar lack of logophoric restrictions occurs for long-distance inflected reflexives in Turkish

Introduction

xxi

(as shown by Kornfilt, this volume, and 1997, as well as for Middle English and Old English pronouns (Keenan, 2000 and 1976), which, as discussed in footnote 6, can also be used for local coreference). Thus, forms that are indeterminate between pronouns and reflexives do not seem to be subject to logophoric conditions. 5.3. Logophoric "Conversion" of Reflexives to Pronominals In contrast to the situation in Malay and Turkish, as well as to that in Chechen/Ingush, Hindi-Urdu, Kannada etc., in languages like English, and in Icelandic subjunctives, a form that in most environments is exclusively a bound anaphor is given special license by a combination of syntax and discourse to function as a pronominal. As was shown by Reinhart and Reuland (1993 and earlier works) and by Zribi-Hertz (1989), this occurs mostly when a reflexive occurs in a non-argument position (though the syntactic conditions vary greatly from language to language) and when the antecedent satisfies logophoric conditions:9 (12) a. Philipj was supposed to be fooling (...), because Desiree (...) had undoubtedly explained to them the precise nature of her relationship with himself. (Zribi-Hertz 1989: (43b)) b. But Rupert; was not unduly worried about Peter's opinion of himselfi. (Zribi-Hertz 1989: (46b)) In the examples of (12) the reflexive occurs in a position in which it is not an argument of the verb. From a discourse perspective, the sentences present the situation as pictured in the mind of the antecedent for the reflexive: the use of the reflexive indicates to the reader that the scenes are being viewed from Philip and Rupert's perspective. Note that in the case of sentences like (12b) VP ellipsis allows either a strict or a sloppy interpretation:10 (13) Rupertj was not unduly worried about Peter's opinion of himself; nor was Fredj. The elliptical clause of (13) can be understood to mean either (14) or (15): (14) Nor was Fred unduly worried about Peter's opinion of Rupert (strict reading). (15) Nor was Fred unduly worried about Peter's opinion of Fred (sloppy reading). The fact that both strict and sloppy interpretations are easily available shows that in English, as Icelandic, the reflexive form has taken on the referential properties of a pronoun.

xxii


Although the reflexives show the distribution of a pronoun in both Malay and English, the use of reflexives differs in an important way. In English and in Icelandic subjunctives, as discussed by Reuland (this volume), a reflexive can only be used as a pronominal in the specific licensing environments just described, while in Malay, Turkish, etc. no special licensing conditions are necessary. This suggests that the Malay/Turkish and the English/Icelandic cases should not be conflated, and that the English/Icelandic type of long-distance reflexive might usefully be viewed as a reflexive that is "converted" to a pronominal under special syntactic and discourse circumstances,11 while the Malay/Turkish cases are inherently pronominal (or are indeterminate between an anaphor and a pronominal). (We will discuss and extend Reuland's analysis of the Icelandic facts further in Section 10.)

6. LOGOPHORIC PRONOUNS AND LOGOPHORIC RESTRICTIONS ON LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVES We have seen that the various types of long-distance reflexives (bound anaphor, pronominal, and "de-anaphoric" pronominal reflexives) differ with regard to whether special discourse conditions apply to their use: bound anaphors may be subject to "logophoric" discourse requirements but need not be, pronominal (or indeterminate) forms are not subject to these requirements, and "converted" reflexives are (we hypothesize) always subject to such requirements. We would like to turn to an examination of whether the logophoric requirements on long-distance reflexives are the same as those on logophoric pronouns. The term "logophoric pronoun" was coined by Hagege (1974) to describe a special subgroup of personal pronouns used in reported speech in some African languages to refer to the individual whose speech is reported or to the addressee of that speech. For example, in Mupun, as described by Frajzyngier (1993), there are three sets of personal pronouns as well as a set of reflexive anaphors:12 (16) Personal Pronouns in Mupun

Set A 3MSG 3FSG 3PL

Subj wu wa mo

Set B Obj wur war

Subj. cfi de du

Set C

Obj. din de dun

Subj. gwar paa nuwa

Introduction

xxiii

(17) Reflexives in Mupun Singular Plural Ip sen sun 2M sak suk 2F sik 3M sin sut 3F set In complements of the verb sat, pronouns of Set A indicate disjoint reference with the subject of the matrix clause: (18) wu/wa/mo sat n wu/wa/mo ta dee n-jos. he/she/they say COMP he/she/they stop stay PREP-Jos 'Hel/shel/theyl said that he2/she2/they2stopped over in Jos.' In contrast, the Set B pronouns are used in indirect speech to indicate coreference with the matrix subject:

(19) wu sat n di n nas an 3M say COMP 3M FUT beat 1SG 'Hel said he1 will beat me.' Set C is used to indicate that the pronoun refers to the addressee of the matrix clause. If the reference is to other persons, the pronoun must be drawn from Set A: (20) a. n- sat n-wur na wur ji ISG-say PREP-3SG COMP 3SG come 'I told himl that he2 should come.' b. n-sat n-wur ns gwarji ISG-say PREP-3SG COMP 3SG come 'I told him! that hej should come.' The logophoric pronouns are used to indicate coreferentiality or disjoint reference with the subject or addressee of superordinate verbs of speaking. Whenever coreference is within the same clause, a reflexive pronoun is employed: (21) n-seet nfaar n-sen ISG-buy shirt PREP-REFL:1SG 'I bought a shirt for myself.' (22) mu-sdrep nhsr-mo n-sun IPL-buy-PL shirt-PL PREP-REFL:1PL 'We bought shirts for ourselves.'

xxiv


(23) wu cet mbise n-sin 3M cook food PREP-REFL:3M 'He cooked for himself.' To summarize, in a "classic" logophoric system like that described by Frajzyngier for Mupun, logophoricity is a property of pronouns rather than of bound anaphors, and is licensed by whether the matrix verb is a verb of saying: In Mupun verbs of thinking like pan 'think, remember' do not permit Set B and C (logophoric) pronouns, but rather require pronouns from Set A (non-logophoric): (24) wu ben «9 wu pan an 3M think COMP 3M remember 1SG 'He thinks he remembers me.'

According to Frajzyngier (1993, chapter 20), Set A pronouns are required in (24), and can be used to indicate either coreference or disjoint reference. This is unlike the case when the matrix verb is a verb of saying. In that case, the use of a Set A pronoun indicates disjoint reference:

(25) wu sat ns wu nas an he said COMP 3M beat 1SG 'Hel said that he2 beat me' According to Frajzyngier, the same pattern obtains with Set C pronouns, but examples showing the distinction between verbs of saying and verbs of mental activity like 'think' are not provided in the grammar.13 Logophoric conditions on long-distance reflexives differ in a number of ways from classic logophoric pronominal systems like that illustrated by Mupun. First, as was shown above, the elements in question belong to different grammatical classes. Pronominal long-distance reflexives (like those in Malay and Turkish) are not subject to logophoric requirements. Thus, it cannot be true that when reflexive forms have "pronominal" usage, they become logophoric pronouns. The logophoric requirements appear to be optionally present for bound anaphor long-distance reflexives and obligatorily present for reflexives that have undergone "conversion" to pronominals, as in the case of Icelandic subjunctives and English long-distance reflexives. Second, the discourse restrictions on reflexives are different from those on true logophoric pronouns. The choice of logophoric pronouns is determined by whether the higher verb is a verb of saying and whether the antecedent is the subject of that verb or the addressee. In contrast, long-distance reflexives are well formed when the higher predicate is one of saying or of thinking. While a special set of pronouns (Set C) exists in Mupun to indicate coreference with the addressee, no such possibility exists in the case of long-distance reflexives: long-distance reflexives never indicate coreference

Introduction

XXV

with the addressee. These facts suggest that the analogy between long-distance reflexives and logophoric pronouns collapses when the two are compared in a fine grained fashion, and the origin of the discourse conditions on long-distance reflexives is distinct from that of logophoric pronouns. Furthermore, there will be separate sources for the "logophoricity" of bound variable and "conversion" long-distance reflexives. These questions are explored in Section 10. To conclude this section, while the term "logophoricity" appears to be too well established to banish it from discussions of long-distance reflexives, it is important to recognize that there is strong evidence against the hypothesis that long-distance reflexives are covert logophoric pronouns. Furthermore, the system of logophoricity found with "classic" logophoric pronouns is quite different from that found with longdistance reflexives of various types.14

7. LOGOPHORICITY AND ATTITUDES DE SE We would like to turn now to the question of whether there appears to be any unified use of the concept of logophoricity with respect to bound variable long-distance reflexives. Sells (1987) claims expressly that the term has been used for three different though related concepts. Sell's SOURCE is similar to the use of "logophor" in the literature on logophoric pronouns. The SOURCE is the source of speech, e.g., the subject of a higher verb of saying. Sell's second type of logophoricity, SELF, is the individual whose mental state the sentence describes (subject of verbs of thinking), and PIVOT is the center of deixis or perspective for the sentence (the reference point for indexicals). What these notions share is that they refer to the individual whose point of view or general state of consciousness is expressed by the sentence. According to Sells, languages differ with regard to which type of logophoricity licenses long-distance reflexives, though there are claimed to be implicational relations among different types of logophoricity. In the spirit of Sells (1987), Huang and Liu attempt a unified treatment of these types of logophoricity in the domain of long-distance reflexives by proposing that the core meaning of logophoricity is SOURCE. This can be extended in some languages to also include SELF and in other languages to PIVOT as well: (26) SOURCE C SELF C PIVOT Thus, in some languages only SOURCE will license the use of a longdistance reflexive (e.g., with verbs of saying); in others both SOURCE and SELF will license long-distance reflexives (with verbs of saying or verbs of thinking); in yet others PIVOT, in addition to SOURCE and SELF, may

xxvi


also license long-distance reflexives (e.g., with the aid of deictic expressions like come, go, here, there, etc.). According to Huang and Liu, the logophoricity condition (being a SOURCE, SELF, or PIVOT as required in a given language) is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the antecedent of a long-distance reflexive. Thus, as noted by Pollard and Xue (this volume), there are instances of SOURCE that do not license long-distance ziji in Chinese: (27) Zhangsarii cong Lisi} chu tingshuo Wangwuk bu xihuan zijii/*j/k. Zhangsan from Lisi place hear Wangwu not like self 'Zhangsanj heard from Lisij that Wangwuk does not like himi/*j/himselfk.' In (27) Lisi is the SOURCE of communication, but this is not sufficient to permit the use of long-distance ziji. According to Huang and Liu, the relation of a long-distance reflexive to its antecedent is mediated through a structure of predication that normally requires the reflexive to be c-commanded by the antecedent. In (27) the SOURCE Lisi does not license the long-distance ziji because it does not stand in a predication relation with a suitable predicate that includes the reflexive. The range of cross-linguistic variations allowed for under (26) is illustrated by the two Chinese dialects presented in Cole, Hermon, and Lee. Cole, Hermon, and Lee show that, whereas in the Teochew dialect spoken in Singapore, the long-distance ziji requires its antecedent to be SOURCE or SELF, in the Mandarin spoken in the same city PIVOT alone may license long-distance reflexives. Huang and Liu try to unify the various types of logophoricity by taking them to represent a progressive liberation of the notion of 'core logophoricity'—SELF being an extended (or "virtual") SOURCE, and PIVOT being an extended (or "virtual") SELF. This view they share, in part, with Cole, Hermon, and Lee, and with Pan. All these authors explore the possibility that SOURCE and SELF (and for Huang and Liu, also PIVOT) can be reduced to the notion of de se. Developing an idea suggested by Chierchia (1989) for Italian, Huang and Liu note that the restriction on ziji in the variety of Mandarin they report on, is not merely that the antecedent for ziji must be the SOURCE of communication or the individual whose mind the sentence describes (SELF), but, rather, there is a stronger requirement: The individual in question must be aware that the sentence is a description of an event in which he himself is a protagonist (a de se restriction), or more precisely, that the individual actually ascribes, or is disposed to ascribe, to himself/herself the property denoted by the predicate containing the reflexive. Following Chierchia, the de se restriction is taken to be applicable to long-distance reflexives generally. For instance, Chierchia exam-

Introduction

XXV11

ines the distinction between long-distance reflexives and pronouns in Italian, and notes that sentence (28) is a contradiction, while (29) is not: (28) Pavarotti crede che i propri pantaloni siano in fiamme. Pavarotti believes that the self pants are in flame Ma non si e' accorto che i pantaloni sono i propri. but not realize that the pants are the own 'Pavarotti believes that self's pants are on fire, but he hasn't realized that the pants are his own.' (29) Pavarotti crede che i suoi pantaloni siano in fiamme. Ma Pavarotti believes that the his pants are in flame but non si e' accorto che i pantaloni sono i propri. not realize that the pants are the own 'Pavarotti believes that his pants are on fire, but he hasn't realized that the pants are his own.' The contradictoriness of (28) disappears when the personal pronoun suoi is substituted for proprio. That is, the use of the long-distance reflexive proprio requires that Pavarotti realize that it is his own pants that are on fire. No such requirement holds for the personal pronoun suoi: In (29) Pavarotti must realize of a certain individual that the individual's pants are on fire. It is not necessary, however, that Pavarotti identify that individual with himself. A de se restriction similar to (28) applies in Mandarin, as discussed by Huang and Liu and by Pan, as well as in Teochew discussed by Cole, Hermon, and Lee. The existence of a de se restriction in Italian and in certain Chinese dialects suggests that neither SOURCE nor SELF adequately characterizes the discourse requirement in these languages. Rather, an apparent SOURCE/SELF discourse restriction may in fact be an artifact of a stronger de se requirement. While the chapters in this volume show that languages differ with respect to whether bound anaphor long-distance reflexives are subject to a de se restriction, the presence of such a restriction may explain instances of apparent SOURCE/SELF restrictions in languages in which they occur. We shall return to the origin of de se below.

8. THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOCAL AND LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVES We will turn now to a new topic, one which figures in several of the chapters. It is taken as given in discussions of long-distance reflexives that there is a well defined notion of what constitutes a local reflexive and what anaphoric

xxviii


relations are non-local. There are in fact two widely held notions of locality in the generative literature on reflexives. The traditional Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1981, and subsequent works) treats the local domain ("governing category") as, roughly, consisting of the clause plus the subject of a non-finite complement clause. In a radical departure from the Chomskyan approach, Reinhart and Reuland (1993 and earlier work) have argued that the core use of reflexives is to mark coargumenthood, not intraclausal coreference.15 Thus, the expected division would be between anaphors used to mark coargumenthood and other anaphors, rather than between clause internal (or governing category internal) and clause external (or governing category external) anaphora. Reinhart and Reuland's proposal is provided immediate support by the fact that many Germanic languages distinguish between different anaphoric forms along the lines predicted by Reinhart and Reuland's theory. For example, in Dutch zichzelf 'himself' is restricted to coargument positions:16 (30) Max haat zichzelf. Max hates selfself 'Max hates himself.' (31) *Max haat zich. Max hates self 'Max hates himself.' (32) Max hoorde mij over zich praten. Max heard me about self talk 'MAX heard me. talk about him '

(33) *Max hoorde mij over zichzelf praten. Max heard me about selfself talk 'Max heard me talk about him.' (34) Jan{ zag Pietj de spullen naast zich{ / *zichzelf i neerleggen. Jan saw Piet the gear next to self selfself put 'Jan saw Piet put the gear next to him.' Examples (30)-(34) show that the "true reflexive" zichzelf 'himself is restricted to coarguments while the "pronominal reflexive" zich is permitted for both intraclausal non-coargument reflexives and for long-distance reflexives. Similar facts occur outside Germanic as well. See Lidz (this volume and 1996). While the pattern just illustrated appears to provide prima facie support for Reinhart and Reuland's division of anaphora into coargument and non-coargument anaphora, the authors of several chapters provide arguments against the definition of locality in terms of co-argumenthood. First, Lidz argues from Kannada examples much like (30)-(34) that the distinc-

Introduction

xxix

tion between zich and zichzelf-type anaphors is not a distinction between coargument and non-coargument anaphora. Rather, the two types of anaphors differ in meaning. The apparent anti-locality of the zich-type anaphor is due to a distinction between "pure reflexivity" (zich-type) and "near reflexivity" (zichzelf-type). Lidz argues that pure reflexives are compatible only with inherently reflexive predicates or with predicates that have been marked as reflexive by a verbal reflexive marker (as in Kannada). Thus, zich-type reflexives are predicted to occur only with reflexive predicates like 'shave' or in cases of non-coarguments, for which the distinction between pure reflexivity and near reflexivity is not relevant. Lidz argues that this semantic distinction removes an apparently strong empirical support for the division between coargument and non-coargument anaphora. In evaluating the force of Lidz's arguments, it is not clear that the facts he adduces are not tangential to the issue of the nature of locality. In any case, Lidz provides additional evidence that the distinction between zich-type and zichzelf-type anaphors is not devoid of semantic content. The question of whether the dividing line between local and non-local should be the governing category or the coargument/non-coargument distinction is considered in two additional chapters. Hestvik and Philip present evidence from Norwegian child language that binding of non-coarguments within the simple clause (locative PPs and possessive reflexives) constitutes an instance of "core binding" while binding into picture NPs is an instance of "logophoric" binding. Thus, on the assumption that "core binding" is equivalent to the local domain, from the perspective of child language the local domain appears to include non-coarguments within the simple clause. A similar point is made by Huang and Liu, who show that "local" reflexives in Mandarin are not subject to any logophoric restrictions (neither de se requirements nor PIVOT-based restrictions like the Blocking Effect). What counts as "local" for this purpose includes not only non-coarguments like locatives and benefactives, but also reflexives with subcommanding rather than c-commanding antecedents in the same clause: In both Mandarin and other Chinese dialects, when the head of a noun phrase is inanimate (and, hence, in Chinese, not a potential antecedent for a reflexive), the specifier of that noun phrase can serve as antecedent for the reflexive: (35) Zhangsani de jiaoao ziji-le ziji^. Zhangsan's DE arrogance hurt-ASP self 'Zhangsanj's arrogance harmed himi;.' In (35) the non-coargument Zhangsan is the antecedent for ziji. There is, however, persuasive evidence that ziji does not need to meet any logophoric restrictions: In (35) the antecedent is neither SOURCE nor SELF. Furthermore, the Blocking Effect is not exhibited:

XXX


(36) Zhangsani de biaoqing gaosu wo-j [ziji i/*j shi wugude]. Zhangsan DE expression tell me self is innocent 'Zhangsan's expression tells me that he is innocent.' Thus, the absence of logophoric effects provides strong reason to believe that the relationship between ziji and its antecedent is local—despite the fact that Zhangsan is not an argument of the same predicate as ziji. We conclude that the contributions to this volume provide arguments that there is a division between local and long-distance reflexives along the lines of the locality domain as defined in Chomsky (1981) and related work, the traditional notion of "governing category." We would emphasize, however, that evidence for the need for the notion governing category does not in itself provide evidence against the relevance of co-argumenthood for explaining the distribution of zich and zichzelf-type reflexives, as proposed by Reinhart and Reuland (1993). Thus, the evidence discussed in this section does not constitute a general argument against the use of coargumenthood to define one type of locality. It does, however, appear to show that coargumenthood does not constitute a replacement for the notion of the governing category.

9. TYPOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVES We would like to turn now to a review of the status of the typological properties traditionally associated with long-distance reflexives: monomorphemicity, c-command/subject orientation and the Blocking Effect. 9.1. Monomorphemicity It was noted early in the literature that long-distance reflexives are typically monomorphemic while local reflexives tend to consist of more than one morpheme (Pica, 1987): (37) Credo [che Marioi sostenga [che tu abbia parlato di I-believe that Mario claims that you have spoken of set e delta sua famiglia in TV]]. self and of-the his family on TV 'I believe that Mario claims that you spoke about him and his family on TV (Giorgi 1984) (38) *Giannii pensava [che quella casa appartenesse Gianni thought that that house belonged

Introduction ancora a se

XXXI stessoi].

still to self self 'Gianni thought that that house still belonged to him.' (Giorgi 1984) In (37) from Italian the monomorphemic reflexive se takes a long-distance antecedent while in (38) the bimorphemic se stesso is ill formed with a long-distance antecedent. Similar facts continue to be discovered as new languages are examined. For instance, Davison (1999) summarizes the facts of Hindi-Urdu as follows: "If the simple reflexive [apnee] is contained within a nonfinite embedded clause, it may be coindexed with subject antecedents in higher clauses or with the local subject. ... In a nonfinite clause, the complex reflexive apnee aap and the reciprocal have only a local c-commanding subject antecedent. ..." There are, however, a variety of counterexamples to the claim that only simplex reflexives can have long-distance interpretations. For instance, the Malay reflexive dirinya consists of two morphemes, diri- and a third-person marker -nya. Yet, as was seen above, long-distance interpretations are possible. Similarly, the inflected reflexives kendis Ikendileri in Turkish (Kornfilt, this volume, and 1997) are clearly bimorphemic, consisting of kendi 'self plus -si 'third-person singular" or -led 'third-person plural'. Furthermore, long-distance uses of English reflexives are clearly bimorphemic. We do not, however, interpret such examples as counterexamples to Pica's generalization regarding the monomorphemicity of long-distance reflexives. Rather, we take examples of this type to show that the generalization that long-distance reflexives are monomorphemic applies only to those "long-distance reflexives" that are bound anaphors, and not to those that are pronominals. To the best of our knowledge, all bound anaphor longdistance reflexives are monomorphemic.17 It does not, however, appear to be true that all monomorphemic reflexives are long-distance. For example, the German reflexive sich consists of a single morpheme like the Icelandic reflexive sig or the Italian reflexive se. While these forms are all restricted to third-person antecedents, there does not appear to be a division into two morphemes, one meaning 'self and the other 'him' as is the case for English himself or Malay dirinya. However, German sich is local while Icelandic sig and Italian se take long-distance antecedents. Thus, monomorphemicity appears to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for bound anaphor long-distance reflexives. 9.2. C-command and Subject Orientation We saw earlier that c-command and subject orientation are restricted to bound anaphor long-distance reflexives. It has been noted in the literature (e.g., Xu, 1994 inter alia and Yu, 1996 inter alia) that there are a variety of

XXxii


apparent counterexamples to subject orientation. Such counterexamples might be taken to indicate that subject orientation has a functional rather than a grammatical explanation. In this section we would like examine four questions related to this general issue: (1) Is subject orientation derivable from logophoric discourse conditions on long-distance reflexives, or does it appear to be a grammatical requirement? (2) Can subject orientation be reduced to a requirement that (bound anaphor) reflexives refer to the noun phrase with the highest rank on the following thematic hierarchy? (39) Thematic Hierarchy Agent < Experiencer < Theme < Other (3) In the event that the answer to (2) is negative, can subject orientation be reduced to the requirement that (bound anaphor) long-distance reflexives refer to the noun phrase with the highest grammatical function on a hierarchy of grammatical functions? (40) Hierarchy of Grammatical Functions Subject < Direct Object < Indirect Object < Oblique (4) In the event that these functional explanations fail, can subject orientation can be reduced to c-command? We shall argue that there is evidence against (1) and (2) and (3), but that (4) is consistent with the available evidence, at least if c-command is understood as c-command/subcommand. The main evidence that subject orientation is not reducible to a discourse requirement is typological. We saw earlier that languages with bound anaphor long-distance reflexives differ regarding whether and which logophoric requirements are respected. Thus, in the languages discussed in this volume, Chechen and Ingush (Nichols) do not manifest any logophoric requirements. In contrast, in Teochew (Cole, Hermon, and Lee, this volume) there are strong logophoric restrictions on the relationship between the reflexive and its antecedent. Despite this striking difference between Chechen/Ingush and Teochew, both manifest subject orientation. A similar point can be made on the basis of the comparison of Singapore Teochew and Mandarin in Cole, Hermon, and Lee (this volume and 2000). Although Singapore Mandarin and Teochew differ greatly in the nature of the logophoric requirements found, long-distance reflexives are subject oriented in both cases. Thus, there is no correlation between the existence of subject orientation and logophoric requirements. We turn next to the question of whether subject orientation could be reduced to the requirement that bound anaphor long-distance reflexives must refer to the noun phrase that is highest on the thematic hierarchy in the domain chosen. (We assume that in a multiclausal structure the choice of the

Introduction

XXX111

clause in which the antecedent occurs is independent of the choice of which noun phrase in that clause serves as antecedent.) This hypothesis is given some support from the fact that non-nominative experiencers can serve as antecedents for bound anaphor long-distance reflexives. There is, however, clear evidence that this hypothesis cannot be correct, at least for Mandarin: Cole and Wang (1996) show that while objects in postverbal position cannot serve as antecedents for long-distance ziji, preverbal objects are possible antecedents. (41) Wangwui shuo Zhangsan j zengsong gei Lisik yipian guanyu Wangwu say Zhangsan give to Lisi one about zy/i/j/*k de wenzhang. self DE article 'Wangwu says that Zhangsan gave an article about him/himself to Lisi.' (42) Zhangsan^ yiwei Lisi^ hui ba Xiao Mingk dai hui Zhangsan thought Lisi will BA Xiao Ming take back zijimde jia. self's DE home 'Zhangsan thought Lisi would take Xiao Ming back to his home.' Example (41) shows that ziji cannot refer to the addressee, the postverbal object of zengsong gei 'give', but rather only to the matrix subject, Wangwu, or the complement subject, Zhangsan. In contrast, in (42), in which the theme occurs in preverbal position, ziji can refer to the matrix subject, Zhangsan, the complement subject, Lisi or the theme, Xiao Ming. The fact that within the domain of the complement clause either the agent or the theme can be the antecedent for ziji shows that "subject orientation" cannot be reduced to a requirement that the antecedent must be the highest noun phrase on the thematic hierarchy. The same examples provide evidence against the proposal that subject orientation can be reduced to the requirement that the reflexive must refer the highest noun phrase on a hierarchy of grammatical functions (at least for Mandarin). In (42) the complement subject, Lisi, outranks the complement object, Xiao Ming, on a hierarchy of grammatical functions. Despite that fact, the object is a possible antecedent for ziji. Turning now to the hypothesis that subject orientation can be reduced to c-command, there appears to be evidence that this is the case. Under current analyses of the ba 'preverbal object' construction, ba is a functional head and the "object" of ba is the specifier of the maximal projection which is the complement of ba, as shown in the tree (adapted from Cole and Wang, 1996) below:

XXxiv


(We show the complement of ba as AgrP for the sake of concreteness, but the choice of projections is not relevant to our point here. Another possibility is PREDP.) We shall assume for the moment 1) that TP is the local domain in which Binding is determined, and 2) that some version of the movement theory of long-distance reflexives applies, under which the reflexive moves to a position in which its antecedent is within the local domain of the reflexive. We shall also, for the moment, assume 3) that ziji adjoins to the head of AgrP (as in Cole and Wang, 1996), though this assumption will be dispensed with below:

Given the resulting tree (roughly (44)), c-command alone would predict that the possible antecedents for ziji are the subject (the specifier of Tense/ AspectP) or the specifier of AgrP (the noun phrase immediately following ba). Thus, both subject orientation and the failure of subject orientation in

Introduction

XXXV

examples like (42) can be shown to be predicted from c-command alone if a movement analysis for ziji is assumed. Furthermore, these predictions are not dependent on the assumption that ziji adjoins to the head of AgrP (the head movement analysis). If, instead, it is assumed that ziji adjoins to VP, the same predictions are made:

Thus, we conclude that under either version of the movement analysis of bound anaphor long-distance reflexives, the reduction of subject orientation to c-command makes more accurate predictions about the distribution of ziji than does an analysis in which subject orientation is a primitive (but see Pollard and Xue, this volume, for an analysis in which subject orientation is argued to be a primitive). We shall discuss the status of the movement analysis in Section 10 below, but clearly the facts just reviewed constitute an argument in favor of movement for Chinese. It remains to be seen, however, whether the argument can be generalized to bound anaphor long-distance reflexives in other languages. 9.3. The Blocking Effect The existence of a Blocking Effect based on person has been discussed primarily in the literature on long-distance reflexives in Chinese. Although the Blocking Effect was analyzed as syntactic in nature in most early studies of Chinese reflexives (e.g., Battistella, 1989; Cole, Hermon, and Sung, 1990; Huang and Tang, 1991; Sung, 1990). It was originally noted by Y.-H. Huang (1984), who suggested that Blocking has a functional origin. The controversy regarding Blocking continues in this volume. While there is general agreement that the Blocking Effect is due, at least in part, to discourse/semantic/pragmatic factors, it remains controversial whether there is a grammatical component to Blocking.

xxxvi


In particular, one question that has been left open by the functional/ discourse account is why the Blocking Effect is observed only in some languages (e.g., Mandarin and Teochew) but not in others (e.g., Chechen/ Ingush, Kannada, Hindi-Urdu, Icelandic or Norwegian). Is it a typological difference in the discourse structure among languages that accounts for the cross-linguistic variations, or is it a typological difference in syntax? Proponents of the functional account have not touched upon this issue. There is some prima facie strong evidence that syntax plays a significant role in accounting for the cross-linguistic distribution of the Blocking Effect, as shown by Cole, Hermon, and Lee (this volume), who relate Blocking in Chinese to the fact that Chinese lacks verb agreement. We will not examine the Chinese internal evidence for and against the agreement theory of Blocking here. This topic is debated in detail in several papers in the volume (Cole, Hermon, and Lee; Huang and Liu; Pollard and Xue; and Pan). We also will not review technical details here. There is, however, a typological prediction made by the agreement theory of Blocking that we would like to examine on the basis of the known cross-linguistic data: The agreement theory of Blocking predicts that syntactic Blocking will be found only in languages with bound anaphor long-distance reflexives that lack verb agreement. This typological prediction is not, to the best of our knowledge, made by any other theory of Blocking. The typological prediction is corroborated by Chinese languages, which lack agreement and manifest Blocking. It is also corroborated by HindiUrdu, Icelandic, Italian, and Kannada, which have verb agreement and, as predicted, lack Blocking. Furthermore, strong support is provided by a comparison of Kannada (Amritavalli, 1999; and Lidz, this volume, and 1996) and Malayalam (Jayaseelan, 1999). The facts regarding long-distance reflexives in these two languages are very similar except that Malayalam has lost verb agreement. As predicted by the agreement theory of Blocking, Malayalam manifests a Blocking Effect like that seen in Chinese, while none is found in Kannada or any of the other Dravidian languages, none of which, other than Malayalam, has lost verb agreement. Thus, the Dravidian facts suggest that the absence of agreement and presence of Blocking in Chinese are not coincidental. While the Dravidian facts provide corroboration for the agreement theory of Blocking, other languages present problems for the theory. First, the Mainland Scandinavian languages have lost verb agreement, but long-distance reflexives are not subject to Blocking. This would appear to be a strong counterexample to the agreement theory. This evidence, however, is not as persuasive as might appear. As is pointed out in Sung (1990), the Mainland Scandinavian languages exhibit agreement in predicate adjective constructions:18

Introduction

XXXV11

(46) Predicate Adjective Agreement a. Gutten er stor. the boy is big 'The boy is big.' b. Huset er stort. the house is big 'The house is big.' c. Husene/Guttene er store. 'The houses/boys are big.' We assume that agreement in predicate adjective constructions is indicative of the presence of agreement features on AGR, which are then transmitted to the predicate adjective. Thus, the Mainland Scandinavian languages do not appear to constitute a genuine counterexample to the agreement theory of Blocking. Finally, Korean may constitute an additional language in which verbs do not agree with their subjects, but for which Blocking is absent.19 However, Korean exhibits honorific agreement: (47) atu-nim-i ttokttokha-si-ta. son-NOM smart-HON-Decl 'The son is smart.' Sentence (47) illustrates obligatory honorific agreement in Korean. As in the case of Mainland Scandinavian predicate adjective agreement, honorific agreement may indicate that abstract agreement features are present on AGR. The presence of such features would be expected to result in the absence of syntactic Blocking in the language. While the apparent counterexamples to the agreement theory of Blocking are inconclusive, it must be recognized that the typological argument in favor of the agreement theory is not entirely convincing. So far the only languages that illustrate the correlation between the absence of verb agreement and the Blocking Effect are Chinese and Malayalam. The empirical evaluation of the hypothesis, therefore, must await the examination of additional languages that lack verb agreement and that exhibit bound anaphor long-distance reflexives. We conclude that Blocking clearly has a discourse component, but the typological facts are not yet available that would determine whether Blocking has a syntactic component as well.

10. THEORIES OF LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVES We would like to end this chapter by examining the ways in which the facts described in previous sections might contribute to our understanding

XXXviii


of how long-distance reflexives fit into the anaphoric possibilities for natural language. We have seen that there appear to exist three kinds of entities that might be considered "long-distance reflexives" in a pre-theoretical sense: long-distance bound anaphors, forms that are indeterminate between local reflexives and pronouns, and reflexives that undergo "conversion" from bound anaphor to pronominal in specific syntactic and pragmatic contexts. Reuland (this volume) discusses two types of reflexives (local reflexives and those that have undergone "logophoric conversion" to pronominals), and notes that they are in complementary distribution: local reflexives undergo "conversion" to pronominals when 1) anaphoric binding is blocked in the syntax and 2) they satisfy certain logophoric conditions. This distribution suggests that local reflexives are given pronominal interpretation only if, given the specific syntactic properties of the language in question, they lack an eligible local antecedent as bound anaphors (e.g., per Reuland, binding is blocked by subjunctive mood in Icelandic). That is, the complementarity derives from a principle of Avoid Pronoun, which requires that a form inherently capable of interpretation as either a pronominal (i.e., by coreference) or as an anaphor (by binding) must receive interpretation as a bound anaphor in contexts where an anaphoric interpretation is possible. Why might such a preference for anaphoric interpretation exist? Reuland argues that the complementarity can be explained if we assume that local reflexives constitute a chain, a single syntactic object, perhaps as a result of movement of the reflexive to an inflectional projection. Reuland proposes that interpretation in which syntax and semantics work in tandem (i.e., by chain formation, in which a binding relationship is forced by the existence of the chain) is inherently "cheaper" than interpretation by coreference (in which real world information plays a role in the interpretive process).20 Thus, whenever a single form can either form a chain (and, hence, receive a bound anaphor interpretation) or be interpreted pronominally, the possibility of the more economical chain interpretation should eliminate the possibility of pronominal interpretation. Pronominal interpretation should occur only when, for some reason, chain formation is blocked.21 We would like to extend this proposal from local reflexives to bound anaphor long-distance reflexives. Let us assume that this type of long-distance reflexive is derived by movement. (We abstract away from the issue of whether the movement is head movement or phrasal movement, whether it is adjunction to IP or to AGR and what drives the movement. These questions are dealt with in some detail in Cole, Hermon, and Lee and Huang, and Liu and in the references cited in those chapters.)22 If bound anaphor long-distance reflexives are derived by movement, chain formation must also occur in the case of bound anaphor long-distance reflexives. This predicts that in languages in which long-distance chain formation is possible, a

Introduction

XXXIX

c-command relationship would hold between the reflexive and its antecedent and the reflexive would receive a sloppy rather than a strict interpretation under ellipsis. This extension of Reuland's analysis would predict that only when chain formation is somehow blocked a pronominal interpretation would become possible. This prediction appears to be correct, at least with respect to Chinese. As was pointed out by Yu (1992,1996) and others, when ziji is unbound syntactically it receives a pronominal interpretation that is subject to logophoric requirements:23 (48) Bu qingchu ziji shenme shihou neng qu Meiguo nian shu; not clear self when can go U.S. read book Xiao Li ye zheme juede. little Li also thus feel 'It is not clear when I can go to the U.S. to study. Little Li feels the same way.' In (48) there is no syntactic binder for ziji. As predicted, the absence of a syntactic binder allows ziji to receive a pronominal interpretation, as is shown by the fact that the elliptical clause can receive either a strict or a sloppy interpretation ('Xiao Li says it is unclear when I can go' or 'Xiao Li says it is unclear when he can go').24 Thus, Reuland's theory of economy together with the movement theory of bound anaphor long-distance reflexives predicts that both local and bound anaphor long-distance reflexives will be able to receive a pronominal interpretation only when there is no syntactic binder available. We will next examine the predictions of Reuland's analysis with regard to long-distance reflexives like those in Malay and Turkish forms that are interpreted as pronominals when they are long-distance. Are such forms counterexamples to Reuland's theory of economy? In the context of Reuland's theory, the fact that such forms have the properties of pronominals rather than bound anaphors tells us that, unlike bound anaphor longdistance reflexives, chain formation must be impossible. There is, in fact, evidence with respect to local uses of Malay dirinya that chain formation has failed to apply. Example (49) shows that even in a local context c-command is not required for dirinya: (49) [NP Bapa Siti^ tidak suka dirinyai/j//k. father Siti not like self.3SG 'Siti's father does not like her/himself/him.' Examples with dirinya are to be contrasted with the complex reflexive dirinya sendiri, which requires a local antecedent and which is ill-formed when the potential antecedent does not stand in a c-command relations to the reflexive:

xl


(50) [Ibu Alijli telah menyiramair di dirinya sendirii/*j. mother Ali already splash water on self.3SG alone 'All's mother already splashed water onto herself.' We, therefore, conclude that dirinya, unlike dirinia sendiri, cannot participate in chain formation.25 Since chain formation is blocked with this form, there will not be competition between pronominal and anaphoric dirinya. Thus, it is expected that apparent long-distance reflexives employing forms like dirinya will have the distribution of a pronominal rather than that of a bound anaphor. We have shown that an extension of Reuland's analysis successfully predicts the syntactic properties of each type of apparent long-distance reflexive. We will turn now to the discourse properties. We shall start with bound anaphor long-distance reflexives. These have been argued to consist of chains between the surface site of the anaphor and a position in which a c-commanding antecedent is located within the local domain (roughly, the governing category) of the reflexive. Such a chain may be long-distance (interclausal) when otherwise permitted by the structure of the language and by principles of universal grammar (such as principles of chain formation).26 The problem raised by discourse for this analysis is why logophoric conditions might apply to the relationship between the head of the chain and the antecedent, with variation from language to language. We would like to suggest that the answer may be provided by viewing the chain as uninterpretable unless it is related to an antecedent by a predication relation along the lines suggested in Huang and Liu's contribution to this volume. While a variety of technical problems remain unsolved with respect to this proposal, we propose that discourse principles, which may vary from language to language, determine whether the predication relationship would be subject to logophoric requirements. Thus, in the case of bound anaphor long-distance reflexives, logophoricity may restrict the relationship between the chain and the ultimate antecedent. However, the relationship between the head and tail of the chain would be a syntactic relation that would not be subject to logophoric requirements. In Huang and Liu's terms, predication of a chain structure on the ultimate antecedent establishes a relation at the interface level between syntax and discouse. It is then natural that such a mediation process is subject to both discourse and syntactic restrictions. But the relation between elements internal to a chain structure would be strictly syntactic, not subject to extra-sentential considerations. We turn next to those reflexives that can be used long-distance only when they lack a c-commanding antecedent in their local domain (e.g., English and Icelandic subjunctives). Why are such reflexives obligatorily subject to logophoric requirements when logophoric requirements are optional in the case of movement chains (predication, according to Huang and Liu) and ab-

Introduction

xli

sent entirely in the case of the Malay/Turkish type of reflexive, in which chain formation is blocked? Reuland proposes that the answer can be found by examining the fundamental semantic content of pronouns. The semantic contribution of pronouns is to express orientation vis-a-vis the speech act (speaker, perceiver). This orientation is the lexical content of personal pronouns like / and you. In the case of anaphors that undergo "conversion" to pronominals, orientation is not lexically specified since these forms are radically deficient in lexical content. While "classical" personal pronouns express only speech act orientation, "de-anaphoric" pronouns lack even that lexical content. In order to be well formed, they must take their orientation from the context. That is, they must satisfy conditions of logophoricity. Turning, finally, to "pronominal" long-distance reflexives like those found in Malay and Turkish, Reuland's theory would predict that, unlike sig, they must include a specification of orientation in their lexical content, as must third-person personal pronouns. It is not immediately apparent how the specification of orientation could be demonstrated without circularity, so we will leave this question open for future discussion. To conclude, we have argued that the properties of "long-distance reflexives" derive from a variety of sources, and that economy considerations are, as Reuland (this volume) suggests, responsible for the partial complementary distribution of the forms. We have also argued that "logophoricity" does not have a unified origin. First, the logophoricity found with longdistance reflexives is entirely separate from that found in classical logophoric pronoun systems (Frajzyngier, 1993). Second, bound anaphor long-distance reflexives manifest logophoricity due to de se restrictions, which may themselves be reducible to discourse constraints on predication. Third, the logophoric restrictions on "conversion" long-distance reflexives may be due to the need for pronominals to include a specification of orientation along the lines discussed by Reuland. If this is correct, we would expect that a fine-grained comparison of the conditions on bound anaphor and conversion long-distance reflexives would show that they do not have identical logophoric conditions. Such a study could be conducted fruitfully in Chinese dialects that have both "free anaphor" ziji and de se conditions on the use of ziji as a bound anaphor long-distance reflexive.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Martin Everaert, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, David Gil, Eric Reuland, and Li-May Sung for their very helpful comments and suggestions regarding various parts of this chapter. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (grants SBR-9729519, INT-9423291 and BCS-9121167), by the

xlii


Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig) and by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to the University of Utrecht.

NOTES 1

See Cole and Hermon (1998a) for a summary of the typological characteristics of long-distance reflexives. 2 It is a matter of controversy in the Chinese literature whether a third-person subject blocks reference to a first- or second-person subject, or whether blocking occurs only when the intervening subject is first- or second-person. (It is uncontroversial that the Blocking Effect is stronger when the blocker is first- or second-person.) For differing positions on the facts, see Cole, Hermon, and Lee (this volume) on the one hand, and Huang and Liu (this volume) and Pan (this volume) on the other. 3 These chapters display the diversity of views on both the facts and the analysis of Mandarin. 4 But note that this position is denied by Pollard and Xue, who argue against a division between anaphors and pronouns, at least with respect to Chinese ziji. 5 The index k on dirinya indicates that dirinya can refer to someone in the discourse other than Ahmad or Salmah. 6 It is argued in Cole and Hermon (1998b) that dirinya is not lexically specified as either a pronoun or an anaphor. Rather, dirinya lacks specification for the feature [aanaphor]. The existence of forms that are not specified as either pronominal or anaphoric is not unique to Malay. Keenan (1976 and 2000) argues that in both Old English and Middle English there is only a single form that is used for local and interclausal anaphora: (i)

Beowulf line 1473 c.750 sy Pan he hine to gu ege gyred hcefde once hei(nom) hinii (ace) for battle girded had 'Once he had girded himself for battle.'

(ii)

Chaucer, "The Knight's Tale", verse 1384 At Thebes, in his contree, as I sayde, Upon a nyght in sleep as hej hynij leyde

Similarly, in Javanese, while there exist forms that are exclusively used as local reflexives, the personal pronouns can be employed either for clause-internal anaphora (including coarguments) or for interclausal anaphoric reference. 7 This is example (6) in Pollard and Xue. 8 Example (1) in Pollard and Xue (this volume). 9 The following examples are from Zribi-Hertz (as cited by Pollard and Xue (this volume)). The nature and origin of the logophoric conditions are discussed in greater detail in Section 10.

Introduction

xliii

We would like to emphasize that the syntactic environments making possible a free interpretation of anaphoric forms may be quite different cross-linguistically. As was pointed out to us by Eric Reuland, whereas in English the relevant condition is whether the anaphor is a syntactic argument of a predicate, in Icelandic the crucial factor is whether sig is in the domain of a subjunctive verb. As discussed in Reuland's contribution to this volume, the crucial factor is whether something prevents the anaphor from being hooked up to its antecedent by a syntactic process. In Icelandic this is the blocking of chain linking by the subjunctive. In English, this could be, according to Reinhart and Reuland (1993), the impossibility for SELF to covertly move to the predicate from a non-argument position. (Of course, to obtain well-formedness, appropriate discourse requirements must be met as well.) 10 There seems not to be any way to construct an analogous test sentence in the case of (lla). n lt is not important for us whether or not the pronominal reflexive is literally "converted" from an anaphoric reflexive by a process analogous to derivational morphology, or whether this is simply a marked use of the reflexive form. We shall use the term "converted" simply to mean that the pronominal use of the reflexive is somehow regarded as "marked" or "secondary." 12 These tables are adapted from Frajzyngier (1993). All Mupun examples are taken from Frajzyngier as well. Some of the discussion of the examples is based on a presentation made by Frajzyngier at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig and on personal communications. 13 Examples are, however, provided for verbs of perception: (i)

n-naa wur wur ps ddm n-kaano ISO-see 3sg 3sg PrEP go PREP-K. 'I saw him going to Kano.'

Note that a Series A pronoun wur is used despite the fact that the two instances of wur are coreferential. 14 A very similar point is made by Culy (1997), who argues that true logophoric pronouns are primarily devices for indirect discourse and that the representation of point of view is not a central use of these forms. 15 Our presentation is a considerable simplification of Reinhart and Reuland's position. See Reinhart and Reuland (1993) for a full exposition of their proposal. 16 Examples (29)-(32) are from Lidz this volume. Example (33) is from Everaert (1991). 17 In some cases it is not clear if a form is a bound anaphor reflexive or a pronominal. The string ta ziji in Mandarin appears to be ambiguous between a local bound anaphor and a pronoun ta modified by an emphatic reflexive ziji. Thus, Tang (1985, 1989), Sung (1990) and others have argued that all instances of apparent longdistance ta ziji are in fact instances of the^pronoun ta modified by an emphatic reflexive rather than a complex anaphor. Ittnust be recognized, however, that there are no completely convincing syntactic tests that demonstrate that all cases of apparent long-distance ta ziji are really the pronoun ta modified by ziji. One argument in favor of the proposal that long-distance ta ziji involves pronominal ta, is found in Cole, Hermon, and Lee (2000), published in Chinese, who show that long-distance ta ziji (and its Teochew counterpart i kaki) manifest the

xliv


discourse conditions of the personal pronouns ta and i, and not those of the longdistance reflexives ziji and kaki: While ziji and kaki are subject to various logophoric conditions (see Cole, Hermon, and Lee, this volume), no such conditions apply to long-distance ta ziji and i kaki. This state of affairs would be expected if ta ziji and i kaki are really the third-person pronoun modified by an intensive reflexive, but not if they are bound anaphor long-distance reflexives. (Similar considerations apparently hold for Cantonese as well.) 18 Example (77), from Norwegian, was provided to Li-May Sung by Arild Hestvik (personal communication). 19 The facts about Blocking in Korean are less clear than those regarding Blocking in Chinese. While some speakers have told us that Blocking occurs with the reflexive casin, others have disagreed. Contrary to earlier work on this topic by Cole, Hermon, and Sung (1990) and subsequent papers, we assume here that Blocking does not hold in Korean. 20 Reuland phrases his account in terms of cross-modular operations. A syntactic chain requires only two cross-modular operations while coreference requires four. See Reuland (this volume) for the details of how the evaluation is conducted. 21 There is a point of similarity here in Pollard and Xue (this volume), who propose that reflexives are interpreted on discourse/pragmatic considerations once they are not "bound" syntactically. 22 There are a number of technical problems with the movement analysis of long-distance reflexives, the most troubling of which is the fact that the distribution of reflexives, at least in Chinese, does not respect islands. For possible solutions to this problem for various versions of the movement analysis, see Huang and Liu (this volume), Cole and Sung (1997), and Sung (1990). 23 The presence of logophoric requirements does not distinguish "conversion" long-distance reflexives from bound anaphor long-distance reflexives in those varieties of Chinese in which roughly the same logophoric requirements apply to bound variable ziji as to the use of ziji as a free anaphor as in (79). However, it is notable that even in Singapore Mandarin, the use of ziji as a free anaphor is subject to logophoric interpretation. 24 The presence of the two readings is especially clear if the following dialog is imagined: Speaker: Bu qingchuziji shenme-shihou neng qu Meiguo nian shu. not clear self when can go U.S. read book Xiao Li: Wo ye yi-yang. I also the same Sentence (79) reports this dialog. Reuland speculates that number plays a critical role in determining whether a form is able to undergo chain formation, and, hence, show the distribution of a bound anaphor. Dirinya appears to be a counterexample to the proposal that number is the only feature that could block chain formation: While the reflexive root din- is inflected for person, inflection for number is not possible. It should be noted that number appears to distinguish diri- from personal pro25

Introduction

xlv

nouns. In the pronominal system it is possible to distinguish dia '3P pronoun' (singular or plural) from mereka or dia orang '3PPL pronoun' (obligatorily plural). No such distinction exists for diri-: The only possible form is diri-nya '3P', and number cannot be indicated. We have seen, however, that dirinya does not permit chain formation. Thus, it cannot be the presence or absence of number that is critical for distinguishing between forms that allow chain formation and those that do not. 26 That is, long-distance chains would be permitted when the reflexive is monomorphemic and when no domain restrictions block the chain. For instance, in Icelandic a finite clause boundary would block chain formation.

Peter Cole Gabriella Hermon C.-T. James Huang

xlvi


REFERENCES Amritavalli, R. (1999). Lexical anaphora in Kannada. In B. Lust, K. Wali, J. Gair, and K.V. Subbarao (eds.), Lexical Pronouns and Anaphors in Some South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Battistella, E. (1989). Chinese reflexivization. Linguistics 27,987-1012 Chierchia, G. (1989). Anaphora and attitudes de se. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, 1-31. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Cole, P., and G. Hermon (1998a). Long-distance reflexives in Singapore Malay: An apparent typological anomaly. Linguistic Typology 2(1) (Spring 1998). Cole, P., and G. Hermon (1998b). VP ellipsis and Malay reflexives. In IATL 5: Adam Zachary Wyner (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics, 39-54. Cole, P., and C. Wang (1996). Antecedents and blockers of Long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 27,357-390. Cole, P., G. Hermon and L-M. Sung (1990). Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21,1-22. Cole, P., G. Hermon and C-L. Lee (2000). Logophoric conditions on long-distance reflexives and pronouns in Singapore Mandarin and Singapore Teochew. To appear in Studies in Chinese Linguistics, Volume 14. Culy, C. (1997). Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics 35,845-859. Davison, A. (1999). Lexical anaphora in Hindi-Urdu. In B. Lust, K. Wali, J. Gair, and K.V. Subbarao (eds.), Lexical Pronouns and Anaphors in some South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Everaert, M. (1991). Contextual determination of anaphor/pronominal distinction. In Jan Koster and Eric Reuland (eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora. New York: Cambridge University Press. Frajzyngier, Z. (1993). A Grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Reimer. Giorgi, A. (1984). Toward a theory of long-distance anaphora: A GB approach. Linguistic Review 3,307-359. Hagege, C. (1974). Les pronoun logophorique. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 69,287-310. Huang, C.-T. J.; and C.-C. J. Tang (1991). The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In Jan Koster, and Eric Reuland, (eds.), Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huang, Y.-H. (1984). Reflexives in Chinese. Studies in Literature and Linguistics 10. Jayaseelan, K.A. (1999). Lexical anaphora in Malayalam. In B. Lust, K. Wali, J. Gair, and K.V. Subbarao (eds.), Lexical Pronouns and Anaphors in Some South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Keenan, E.L. (1976) "Logical expressive power and syntactic variation in natural language," in E.L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics for Natural Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keenan, E.L. (2000). An historical explanation of English Binding Theory. Presented at SHEL-1: Studies in the History of the English Language 1, UCLA, 2000.

Introduction

xlvii

Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge. Koster, J., and E. Reuland, (eds.) (1991). Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lidz, J. (1996). Dimensions of reflexivity, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware. Pica, P. (1987). On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. NELS 17(2), 483-99. Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24,657-720. Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18,445-479. Sung, L-M. (1990). Universals of reflexives. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. *„ \ Tang, C.-C. J. (1985). A study of reflexives in Chinese. M.A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University. Tang, C.-C. J. (1989). Chinese reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7,93-121. Xu, L. (1994). The antecedent of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 22,115-137. Yu, X.-F. William (1992). Challenging Chinese reflexive data. Linguistic Review 9, 285-294. Yu, X.-F. W. (1996). A study of Chinese reflexives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65,695-727.


SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS VOLUME 33


GRAMMATICAL AND DISCOURSE CONDITIONS ON LONG DISTANCE REFLEXIVES IN TWO CHINESE DIALECTS PETER COLE* GABRIELLA HERMON+ CHER LENG LEE *Department of Linguistics University of Delaware Newark, Delaware +

Department of Linguistics and School of Education University of Delaware Newark, Delaware Department of Chinese Studies National University of Singapore Kent Ridge, Singapore

1. INTRODUCTION: APPROACHES TO LONG DISTANCE REFLEXIVES There has been wide discussion of the fact that in some languages reflexives must occur in a "local" relation to their antecedents while in others locality requirements are much more relaxed. For instance, in English, himself is usually restricted to, roughly, the same clause as its antecedent, (1) Johni thinks [Tomj knows [Billk likes himself*i/*j/k]]. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 33 Long-Distance Reflexives

1

Copyright © 2001 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/00 $35.00

2

Peter Cole et al.

while in Mandarin ziji 'self can occur indefinitely far from its antecedent: (2) Zhangsani renwei [Lisij zhidao [Wangwuk xihuan ziji i/j/k ]]. Zhangsan think Lisi know Wangwu like self. 'Zhangsan thinks that Lisi knows that Wangwu likes himself.' We shall refer to reflexives which take "non-local" antecedents as "long-distance (LD) reflexives". Three sorts of accounts for the differences in locality requirements among languages are found in the linguistic literature: grammatical accounts, discourse accounts, and "mixed" accounts.1 According to the grammatical accounts, LD reflexives occur when certain specific grammatical conditions obtain. Thus, according to one current grammatical treatment, the head movement analysis (Pica, 1987; Battistella, 1989; Cole, et al., 1990; Hestvik, 1992 inter alia; Cole and Sung, 1994; Cole and Wang, 1996), LD reflexives involve LF movement of the reflexive to an INFL (or AGR) position in which the antecedent both c-commands the reflexive and is within the governing category of the reflexive. Under this analysis, a reflexive will be LD when it is an X° rather than an XP form. The antecedent must c-command the reflexive, and, therefore, in most cases, must be in subject position.2 Somewhat different grammatical analyses have been presented by Tang (1989 inter alia), Huang and Tang (1991 inter alia), Progovac (1992 inter alia) and a variety of other authors. What these analyses have in common is that they attempt to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for LD reflexives in purely syntactic terms, without reference to discourse.3 In contrast, a variety of authors have attempted to characterize the environments in which LD reflexives occur in terms of discourse and/or pragmatics alone. For instance, Chen (1992) argues that the distribution of Mandarin ziji can be explained in terms of two discourse properties, [+pivot] and [+high topicality]. Similarly, Yan Huang (1997) argues that the properties of LD reflexives can be explained fully in terms of neo-Gricean pragmatic principles like those in Levinson (1987,1995 inter alia). Unlike both the purely grammatical and the purely discourse approaches, we shall argue that neither grammatical nor discourse conditions alone can predict when LD reflexives will be possible. Rather, both grammatical and discourse conditions must be satisfied. Further, we will argue that while the grammatical conditions on LD reflexives are universal and are specified by Universal Grammar (UG), the ways in which discourse affects the distribution of LD reflexives vary from dialect to dialect and from language to language. Our discussion will be based primarily on a comparison of the distribution of LD reflexives in two Chinese dialects, the Mandarin spoken in Singa-

Grammatical and Discourse Conditions

3

pore (hereafter, Mandarin) and the dialect of Teochew spoken in Singapore (hereafter, Teochew).4 At first glance, Mandarin and Teochew appear to exhibit very different distributional restrictions on the use of reflexives, restrictions that might appear to be grammatical in nature. We shall show, however, that while both Mandarin and Teochew LD reflexives are subject to a combination of grammatical and discourse requirements (e.g., those associated with the notion of "logophoricity"), it is the discourse requirements rather than the grammatical requirements that differ from one dialect to the other. Contrary to appearances, the grammar of the dialects with respect to Binding seems to be identical. Our analysis of discourse conditions on LD reflexives is based primarily on the taxonomy of logophoricity of Sells (1987), who, like many authors, has argued that the notion of logophoricity plays a crucial role in understanding the felicity conditions on the use of LD reflexives. Unlike most researchers on this topic, Sells argues that logophoricity is not a unified notion, and that logophoric requirements are of three types, those relating to SOURCE (the source of communication), SELF (the one whose mental state the sentence describes) and PIVOT (the center of deixis or the perspective of the sentence).5 In a given sentence, the SOURCE, SELF, or PIVOT can be external to the sentence (i.e., the speaker) or internal (one of the protagonists of the sentence). Logophoric requirements are requirements that the antecedent for an anaphoric form (e.g., an LD reflexive) must be the SOURCE, SELF, or PIVOT of the sentence. Sells takes a position different from that of other writers in that he claims that languages differ with regard to the type of logophoricity required of the antecedent of an LD reflexive. For instance, he argues that in Japanese antecedents for LD reflexives must be internal PIVOTS while in Icelandic they must represent the individual whose mental state is described (i.e., internal SELF).6 Sells's proposal that logophoricity is not a unified notion provides the basis for a taxonomy of differing types of logophoric conditions that may be relevant for determining whether a noun phrase is a possible antecedent for a long distance reflexive. We shall show that Sells's taxonomy provides a useful tool for explaining the differences between the conditions on LD reflexives in Mandarin and Teochew. Using Sells's diagnostics for PIVOT, SOURCE, and SELF, we shall demonstrate that Mandarin and Teochew differ with regard to which logophoric requirements apply in the dialect: In both Mandarin and Teochew, PIVOT (perspective) requirements apply to the choice of antecedent for a LD reflexive.7 In Teochew, however, but not in Mandarin, SOURCE and/or SELF requirements apply as well. We argue that SOURCE/SELF may turn out to reflect a single, unified condition, but that PIVOT is distinct from SOURCE/SELF Following Chierchia (1989), we shall contend that Sells's taxonomy can, in part be reduced to a self-as-

4

Peter Cole et al.

cription (de se) requirement on long distance reflexives. While Sells's taxonomy provides a useful means of subdividing various types of logophoricity, we follow Chierchia, who suggested that Sells's SELF condition may derive from the requirement that LD reflexives must be associated with a de se interpretation.8 While both SOURCE and SELF may be derivable from a de se requirement, we shall argue that the PIVOT restriction cannot be reduced to de se? While the dialects differ with regard to the discourse requirements on LD reflexives, they share the same grammatical requirements. In both dialects LD reflexives show the grammatical characteristics of bound anaphors rather than those of pronouns. Thus, not only should LD reflexives in Chinese not be conflated with logophoric pronouns in African languages, for example, which have been shown to be pronouns, but Chinese dialects differ from each other much less than initial appearance would suggest with regard to the grammar of LD binding.

2. LOGOPHORIC CONDITIONS ON LD REFLEXIVES IN MANDARIN AND TEOCHEW We shall now turn to a comparison of the discourse conditions on LD reflexives in Mandarin and Teochew. In Mandarin, LD reflexives are possible even when the antecedent for the reflexive is neither described as the SOURCE of saying nor as the individual whose state of consciousness is described (SELF). (3) Antecedent neither SELF nor SOURCE Zhangsani wangji le Lisij hen taoyan ziji i/j de gege. Zhangsan forget perf Lisi very hate self 's brother 'Zhangsani forgot that Lisij hates

brother.'

(4) Zhangsani bu xiao de Lisij hen taoyan ziji i/j Zhangsan not aware Lisi very hate self 'Zhangsan was not aware that Lisi hates himi/j.' We show in (3) that the antecedent need not be either SOURCE or SELF. In (3) the possible antecedents for ziji are the local subject, Lisi, and the matrix subject, Zhangsan. But the matrix subject is neither the SOURCE of saying nor does the sentence report on the state of the world as pictured in the mind of the matrix subject (SELF): Note that the matrix verb, wangji


5

'forget', indicates that the matrix subject is unaware of the information conveyed by the subordinate clause.10 A further example is given in (4). Zhangsan is a possible antecedent for ziji despite the fact that Zhangsan is neither the SOURCE of the statement that Lisi hates him, nor is this fact represented in his consciousness (SELF). These examples show that antecedents for LD reflexives in Mandarin do not need to be either SOURCE or SELF.11 Turning to Teochew, however, LD reflexives in analogous sentences are anomalous: (5) a. Ah Mengi m kitek Ah Lengj toryam kaki??i/j gai ah hia. Ah Meng not remember Ah Leng hate self 's brother 'Ah Meng forgot that Ah Leng hates her brother.' b. Ah Mengi m zai da Ah Lengj zeng toryam kaki ??i/j Ah Meng not know that Ah Leng really hate self 'Ah Meng does not know that Ah Leng hates herself.' The ungrammaticality of (5a)-(5b) is explained, however, if, in contrast to Mandarin, when the antecedent for LD ziji is neither SOURCE nor SELF, speakers find it difficult or impossible to interpret the reflexives nonlocally. This is despite the fact that the pragmatics of the situation described in (5a) and (5b) makes a LD interpretation much more natural than a local interpretation (speakers find it peculiar for someone to hate herself rather than someone else). The infelicity of the LD interpretation of (5a) and (5b) might seem to suggest that LD reflexives are not possible in Teochew, but this is not the case. Speakers find them felicitous when the LD antecedent fills the role of internal SOURCE or SELF: (6) Antecedent as Internal SOURCE a. Ah Lengi ga Ah Mai da Ah Mengk m zai kakii/*j/k Ah Leng with grandmother say Ah Meng not know self hiao zo. knows how do 'Ah Leng told her grandmother that Ah Meng didn't know she/he can do it.' b. Ah Lengi da Ah Mengi toi dio kakii/j. Ah Leng say Ah Meng see asp self 'Ah Leng says Ah Meng saw

6

Peter Cole et al.

LD reflexives in (6a) and (6b) are wellformed because the antecedent, Ah Leng is the internal SOURCE.12 The presence of an internal SELF also licenses the use of kaki with a nonlocal antecedent: (7) Antecedent as Internal SELF a. Ah Lengi siangseng Ah Meng j do kia lai toi dio kakii/j. Ah Leng believe Ah Meng at mirror in see asp self 'Ah Leng believes Ah Meng saw

in the mirror.'

b. Ah Leng jengwui Ah Meng bo suka kakii/j. Ah Leng feel Ah Meng not like self 'Ah Leng feels that Ah Meng dislikes In (7) Ah Leng is the individual whose state of mind the sentence describes. Thus, Ah Leng is the internal SELF. Just as in sentences in which the potential LD antecedent is the SOURCE, when the antecedent fulfills the role of SELF, that noun phrase can be an LD antecedent for kaki.13

3. SUBCOMMANDING ANTECEDENTS OF LD REFLEXIVES AND SOURCE/SELF REQUIREMENTS ON ANTECEDENTS We shall next show that Mandarin and Teochew differ with regard to whether "subcommanding" antecedents are possible for LD reflexives. These differences corroborate our claim that Mandarin and Teochew differ with respect to the discourse conditions on antecedents for LD reflexives. The phenomenon of "subcommand" was first investigated by Tang (1989 inter alia), who noted that antecedents for reflexives in Mandarin appear to be possible in environments in which subcommand rather than c-command holds of the relationship between the antecedent and the reflexive. Subcommand relaxes the requirements of c-command by allowing the specifier of a c-commanding noun phrase to count as a possible antecedent for a reflexive when the c-commanding nominal is inanimate,14 and, hence, is not itself a possible antecedent. The subcommand relation is intended to account for the grammaticality of examples like (8) [Zhangsani dechezi]jhaile ziji i/*j Zhangsan 's car harmed self 'Zhangsan's car harmed


7

in which Zhangsan can be the antecedent for ziji despite the fact that Zhangsan does not c-command ziji. Tang notes that examples like (8) are grammatical just when (1) the phrase containing Zhangsan is inanimate, and, therefore, is not a potential antecedent for ziji, and (2) Zhangsan is the specifier rather than the complement of the head noun, chezi.15 Example (9) illustrates the ungrammaticality of sentences like (8) when the c-commanding noun phrase is animate, and, therefore, is a potential antecedent for ziji.16 (9) informed Subcommand with Animate Head [Zhangsani de taitai]j haile ziji*\iy Zhangsan 's wife harmed self 'Zhangsan's wife harmed

.'

Example (10) shows that the subcommanding antecedent must be the specifier, and not the complement, of a phrase c-commanding the reflexive: (10) Zhangsani get Lm-} dequangao bangzhu le tai/jl zijii/*j. Zhangsan give Lisi 's advice help perf him self 'That Zhangsan gave Lisi advice helped him.' In (10) the subject of the sentential subject, Zhangsan, is a possible antecedent for ziji, but the object of the sentential subject is not.17 Not only are subcommanding nominals possible antecedents for local reflexives in Mandarin, as was shown in (8)-(10), but they are possible antecedents for LD reflexives as well.18 (11) a. Zhangsani de xin shuo Mali} renwei ziji i/j shi wugude. Zhangsan 's letter say Mary think self is innocent 'Zhangsan's letter says that Mary thinks

is innocent.'

b. Zhangsani xie xin de shi zhengming le Lisij renwei Zhangsan write letter's matter prove perf Lisi think ziji i/j shi wugude. self is innocent "The fact that Zhangsan wrote the letter proves that Lisi thinks that he is innocent.' What is of interest here is that the subcommanding antecedents are typically neither SOURCE nor SELF Although in (lla) Zhangsan might be viewed as an indirect SOURCE (something said by Zhangsan's letter was ultimately said by Zhangsan), in a mystery novel sentence like (lib), Zhangsan's letter might be on a topic entirely unrelated to his innocence. It is also not the case that Zhangsan is indicated as SELE Thus, sentences like

8

Peter Cole et al.

those of (11) show that SOURCE and SELF are not essential for antecedents of ziji in Mandarin. Turning now to Teochew, unlike Mandarin, sentences like (12) are informed: (12) a. Ah Mengi gai chiaj hai liao kaki*i/*j. Ah Meng 's car harm perf self 'Ah Meng's car harmec b. Ah Mengi sia seng gai si zengmeng liao Ah Leng-} Ah Meng write letter 's matter prove perf Ah Leng jengwui kaki*i/j bor salah. thinks self innocent 'The fact that Ah Meng wrote the letter proves that Ah Leng t h i n k s i s innocent.' There is a clear contrast between sentences like (9) and (11) in Mandarin, in which it is felicitous for ziji to refer to an LD antecedent, and those of (12) in Teochew, in which reference to a LD antecedent is infelicitous. However, the infelicity of (12) is to be expected if the antecedents of LD reflexives in Teochew are subject to SELF/SOURCE requirements which do not apply in Mandarin. Thus, the contrast between (9)/(ll) and (12) constitutes additional evidence that Mandarin and Teochew differ in terms of whether there is a SOURCE/SELF condition on LD reflexives.

4. MODIFYING PHRASES AS TESTS FOR SOURCE/SELF Sells (1987) suggests some additional tests for determining whether a nominal is an internal SOURCE or SELF. He notes that the use of "speaker-evaluative" modifying phrases like that fool can assist in determining whether the SOURCE is external (the speaker) or an internal protagonist of the discourse. For example, in (13) John told Fred that that fool Alan was harming him. the phrase that fool can be understood as either the speaker's description of Alan or that of John. In the former case, despite the fact that the matrix verb is a verb of saying, the sentence is taken to have an external SOURCE, while in the latter case, it is understood to have an internal SOURCE.


9

Returning to Mandarin, just as in English, in (14) Zhangsani gaosu Lisij net .ge shagua Wangwuk shanghai zijiy i/*j/k. Zhangsan tell Lisi that CL fool Wangwu harm self 'Zhangsan told Lisi that that fool Wangwu h a r m e d . ' the phrase nei ge shagua 'that fool' can be understood as either the speaker's description or as Zhangsan's description. However, even when neige shagua 'that fool' is attributed to the speaker (i.e., to an external SOURCE), it is possible for ziji to refer to Zhangsan. This constitutes additional evidence that it is not necessary in Mandarin for the antecedent of ziji to be an internal SOURCE. Turning now to Teochew, when a speaker-evaluative phrase is attributed to an external SOURCE, the reflexive kaki cannot be interpreted as referring to an LD antecedent: (15) Ah Mengi ga Ah Lengj da hi gai sagua Ah Soik hai kaki*i/*j/k. Ah Meng with Ah Leng say that CL fool Ah Soi harm self 'Ah Meng told Ah Leng that that fool Ah Soi harmed

.'

However, the judgments are altered when the speaker-evaluative phrase is attributed to the matrix subject: when higai sagua 'that fool' is attributed to Ah Meng, kaki can be understood as referring to Ah Meng. Thus, the interaction of speaker-evaluative phrases like higai sagua 'that fool' and LD reflexives constitutes further evidence that in Teochew antecedents of LD reflexives must be instances of an internal SOURCE (or, as shown further following, SELF), a requirement that does not hold in Mandarin.19 Turning now to SELF, the adverbs mysteriously and inexplicably are a diagnostic for SELF. In (16) John thinks that Mary

hates him.

mysteriously/inexplicably can be understood as mysterious or inexplicable to John, making John the internal SELF, or as mysterious or inexplicable to the speaker, making the speaker the external SELF. Turning now to Mandarin, in (17) Zhangsai renwei [Wangwuj momingqimiao de xihuan ziji^. Zhangsan think Wangwu inexplicably DE like self 'Zhangsan thinks that Wangwu inexplicably likes

10

Peter Cole et al

momingqimiao 'inexplicably' can be taken to refer to the speaker's view of the world, making the speaker the external SELF. Despite this, however, ziji can refer to Zhangsan. But in (18), the Teochew equivalent to (17), (18) Ah Mengi jengwui Ah Lengj mok meng ki miao gai suka kakii/j . Ah Meng feel Ah Leng inexplicably DE like self 'Ah Meng thinks that Ah Leng inexplicably likes kaki can only refer to Ah Meng when mok meng ki miao 'inexplicably' expresses Ah Meng's perspective, i.e., when the situation is inexplicable to Ah Meng rather than to the speaker. When the mok meng ki miao 'inexplicably' is understood as expressing the speaker's perspective, kaki must be interpreted locally, that is, as referring to Ah Leng. Thus, the interaction of the interpretation of mok meng ki miao 'inexplicably' and the possible reference for kaki constitutes additional evidence that the antecedent for kaki must be SELF (or, as shown previously, SOURCE), a requirement holding for Teochew kaki but not for Mandarin ziji.

5. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE OF SELF In this section we shall provide additional evidence that SELF plays a central role in the wellformedness of LD reflexives in Singapore Teochew, but not in the Mandarin of Singapore. Consider the following situation: Zhangsan's father has been asked by the owner of a firm to evaluate the performance of the employees of the firm on the basis of the firm's records of performance and to recommend a reward for exceptional employees. The employees are identified only by number. Zhangsan is unaware that his own child is one of the employees that he has identified as deserving an award. In Mandarin the following sentence is wellformed: (19) Zhangsani qing laoban jiangshang ziji i de haizi. Zhangsan ask owner reward self 's child 'Zhangsani asked that the owner reward hisi own child.' Sentence (19) is wellformed despite the fact that Zhangsan is unaware of the fact that the person rewarded is his own child. Thus, in (19), consciousness on the part of the antecedent is not necessary in order for ziji to be employed.


11

A similar example is given in (20): (20) Zhangsani chengsan houlai sha le ziji i de ren. Zhangsan praise later kill perf self 's man 'Zhangsan praised the man who later killed him.' In (20) the antecedent for ziji, Zhangsan, is not the internal SELF because Zhangsan was unaware that the man in question would later kill him. Thus, in Mandarin internal SELF is not a necessary condition for the use of LD ziji. The situation in Teochew, however, is quite different. In contrast with Mandarin, the Teochew equivalent of (19) is informed (in the context described): (21) *Ah Mengi kio towkang sio kakii gai kia. Ah Meng ask owner reward self 's child 'Ah Meng asked the owner to reward his own son.' This sentence is wellformed, however, in a context in which Ah Meng knows that the person being rewarded is his child. Similarly, the Teochew equivalent of (20) is also informed: (22) *Ah Mengi orlor kawao tai liao kakii gai nang. Ah Meng praise later kill perf self 's man Ah Meng praised the man who later killed him.' The contrast between (19) and (20) and (21) and (22) shows that, in Mandarin, a long distance reflexive is wellformed even when the antecedent is not conscious of the event described employing the reflexive, but in Teochew, consciousness (i.e., internal SELF) is a necessary condition on the use of the long distance reflexive.

6. PIVOT RESTRICTIONS We have shown that Mandarin and Teochew LD reflexives differ in the discourse conditions which must hold of their antecedents. While in Teochew the antecedent of an LD reflexive must be an internal SOURCE or SELF,20 this logophoric requirement on antecedents does not hold in Mandarin. We would like to turn now to the PIVOT condition. We shall show that in both Mandarin and Teochew, in order for the antecedent of an LD reflexive to be fully felicitous, it must be the PIVOT, the center of deixis or role perspective for the sentence. As was first noted by Y.H. Huang (1984), LD reflexives in Mandarin are subject to a Blocking Effect, a fact that has recently been claimed to be due

12

Peter Cole et al

to logophoric restrictions on antecedents of LD reflexives (e.g., Huang and Liu 1997 and this volume). While sentences like (22) (which repeats (2)) are fully grammatical, (22) Zhangsani renwei [Lisij zhidao [Wangwuk xihuan zijii/j/k]]. Zhangsan think Lisi know Wangwu like self 'Zhangsan thinks that Lisi knows that Wangwu likes himself.' sentences like (23) are informed: (23) Zhangsani renwei [Wangwuj zhidao [wok xihuan ziji *i/*j/k ]]. Zhangsan think Wangwu know I like self. 'Zhangsan thinks that Wangwu knows that I like myself.' In such works as Tang (1989), Huang and Tang (1991), Battistella (1989), and Cole et al, (1990), the illformedness of examples like (23) was analyzed as due to a grammatical requirement that all subjects between ziji and its antecedents must agree in person features. It has been argued, however, in such works as Huang and Liu (1997 and this volume), that the Blocking Effect is not due to grammatical requirements, but rather to a discourse restriction that the antecedent for ziji satisfy a logophoric requirement, which we take to be the requirement that the antecedent constitute an internal PIVOT. That is, the antecedent for ziji must be the center of deixis or role perspective for the sentence. The occurrence of a first or second person pronoun is taken to indicate that the speaker, rather than some internal protagonist of the sentence, is the center of deixis. The grammatical view of the Blocking Effect was first called into question by such writers as Xu (1992,1993) and Yu (1989,1991), who noted that the grammatical analysis of Blocking would predict that only subjects that intervene between ziji and its antecedent should induce the Blocking Effect. The logophoric analysis, however, would predict that any external PIVOT in the sentence would induce Blocking since the occurrence of an external PIVOT would mean that the antecedent for ziji is not the internal PIVOT. Since a first or second person pronoun anywhere in the sentence would constitute an external PIVOT, according to the PIVOT analysis, Blocking could be induced by the presence of a first or second person pronoun anywhere in the sentence, and not just in a subject position between the antecedent and the reflexive. We shall argue that in fact both the grammatical and the logophoric analyses are correct (though incomplete): nonsubjects can induce Blocking.21 However, there exists evidence that Blocking by subjects is in fact a process distinct from Blocking by nonsubjects, and that both logophoric and grammatical Blocking exist. Turning now to the facts in Mandarin, as mentioned previously, Xu and


13

Yu each provide evidence that first and second person nonsubjects can induce a Blocking Effect: (24) a. Zhangsani shuo [[ni j zuo de chunshi] haile ziji*i/j] Zhangsan say you do silly deeds harmed self 'Zhangsan says that the silly things you have done have harmed you.' b. Zhangsani shuo [[Lisij zuode chunshi] haile zijiyj] Zhangsan say Lisi do silly deeds harmed self 'Zhansan says that the silly things Lisi has done have harmed him/you.' In (24a) the subcommanding specifier of the subordinate subject (ni 'you') differs in person features from the matrix subject, but the subordinate subject itself (ni zuo de chunshi 'silly deeds you have done') does not: Both are third person. However, the subcommander prevents the matrix subject from anteceding ziji. In (24b), however, the subcommander and the matrix subject are both third person, and the matrix subject is a possible antecedent for ziji. Furthermore, going beyond Xu and Yu's examples, at least for many speakers, the Blocking Effect can be induced by a non-c-commanding nominal that is not a possible antecedent for ziji: (25) a. Zhangsani Zhangsan 'Zhangsan b. Zhangsani Zhangsan 'Zhangsan

cong nij nar ting shuo Malik hen taoyan ziji?i/*j/k. from you there hear say Mary very hate self heard from you that Mary hates herself.' cong Lisij nar ting shuo Mal\ hen taoyan ziji i/*j/k from Lisi there hear say Mary very hate self heard from Lisi that Mary hates herself.'

While neither ni 'you' in (25a) nor Lisi in (25b) is a possible antecedent for ziji (since they fail to c-command/sub-command ziji),22 the fact that ni is second person prevents the matrix subject from anteceding ziji (or, for some speakers, makes it more difficult for the matrix subject to antecede ziji). In contrast, when ni is replaced by a third person nominal (Lisi), it is not problematic for the matrix subject to be the antecedent for ziji. Reduced felicity is also found when a first or second person pronoun occurs in a position in the sentence which the grammatical analysis would predict to be irrelevant to Blocking: (26) a. Zhangsan{ zhidao Mali} gen ziji??i/??j shuoguo ni xiang qu Zhangsan know Mary with self said you want go Taiwan. Taiwan

14

Peter Cole et al.

'Zhangsan knows Mary told him/herself that you want to go to Taiwan.' b. Zhangsani zhidao Mali-j gen ziji-i/j j shuoguo Xiao Ming xiang qu Zhangsan know Mary with self said Xiao Ming want go Taiwan. Taiwan 'Zhangsan knows Mary told him/herself that Xiao Ming wants to go to Taiwan.' The second person nominal in (26a) does not intervene between ziji and its antecedent. Despite this fact, (26a) is less felicitous than (26b), in which ni 'you' is replaced by a third person nominal, Xiao Ming. While explanations for (24) are possible within the framework of such grammatical analyses as head movement,23 examples like those of (25) and (26) cannot be explained by any of the current grammatical accounts. These facts, however, are predicted to occur on the hypothesis that (1) the antecedent for a LD reflexive in Mandarin must be the internal PIVOT and (2) the presence of a first or second person pronoun anywhere in the sentence constitutes an external PIVOT, which blocks the possibility of an internal PIVOT. Turning to Teochew, we see that the same PIVOT requirement holds in that dialect as well. Just as in Mandarin (23), the Blocking Effect is found: (27) Ah Mengi jengwui Ah Lengj zai wak suka kaki* i/j/k Ah Meng think Ah Leng know I like self 'Ah Meng thinks Ah Leng knows that I like

(28) Ah Mengf jengwui Ah Soij zai Ah Lengk suka kakiirj/k. Ah Meng think Ah Soi know Ah Leng like self 'Ah Meng thinks Ah Soi knows that Ah Leng like;

As is seen in (27) and (28), the presence of a first person subject between the local subject and the matrix subject blocks reference to both the matrix subject and the intervening first person subject. In addition, Blocking occurs in Teochew in sentences analogous to Mandarin (24) and (25):


15

(29) a. Ah Mengi da [le-} zor gai sa sih]k hai liao fc0/cz??i/j7*k.24 Ah Meng say you do 's silly deed harm perf self 'Ah Meng says that the silly thing you have done harmed b. Ah Mengi da [Ah Lengj zor gai sa si]k hai liao kakii/j*/kk. Ah Meng say Ah Leng do 's silly deed harm perf self 'Ah Meng says that the silly thing Ah Leng has done harmed

'

(30) a. Ah Meng^ dor lej hio kor tia da Ah Soik toryam A:fl/c/??i/*j/k.25 Ah Meng from you there hear that Ah Soi hate self 'Ah Meng heard from you that Ah Soi hates

.'

b. Ah Meng{ dor Ah Lengj hio kor tia da Ah Soik toryam Ah Meng from Ah Leng there hear that Ah Soi hate kakiytjfc. self 'Ah Meng heard from you that Ah Soi hates

.'

Thus, we conclude that the antecedents for LD reflexives in both Mandarin and Teochew are subject to a logophoric restriction that the felicity of an antecedent is reduced if that nominal is not the internal PIVOT. To summarize, both Mandarin and Teochew LD reflexives are subject to logophoric conditions on the antecedent of the reflexive. These conditions, however, differ in the two dialects. In Teochew the antecedent must be SOURCE or SELF and PIVOT. That is, the antecedent must be the source of communication or the individual in whose mind the described event is pictured. Furthermore, felicity is reduced if there is a center of deixis/role perspective anywhere in the sentence other than the antecedent of the LD reflexive. In contrast, in Mandarin, at least in the Mandarin of Singapore, SOURCE and SELF are not critical. The PIVOT requirement, however, holds in Mandarin as well. If a nominal other than the antecedent for an LD reflexive is the center of deixis, the felicity of the non-PIVOT nominal as an antecedent is re-

16

Peter Cole et al

duced. First and second person pronouns are inherently relational vis-a-vis the speaker. (/ is the speaker; you is the person the speaker is addressing.) Thus, when a first or second person pronoun occurs anywhere in the sentence, the speaker is the external PIVOT. Thus, a Blocking Effect is found whenever the sentence contains non-third person pronouns. This occurs in both Teochew and Mandarin. This is a strong argument that the Blocking Effect is, at least in part, due to logophoric restrictions on discourse rather than to grammar. We shall return later to the question of whether all instances of the Blocking Effect are due entirely to principles of discourse or whether there is a class of cases for which a grammatical explanation is necessary.

7. LOGOPHORICITY AND ATTITUDES DE SE In the discussion so far, we have employed Sells's taxonomy of logophoricity as a tool in differentiating the discourse properties associated with Mandarin and Teochew. We saw that both Mandarin and Teochew respect a requirement that the antecedent for an LD reflexive must be the internal PIVOT. However, Teochew differs from Mandarin in requiring that the antecedent be the internal SOURCE or SELF. The fact that it is either SOURCE or SELF that must be satisified (and not, for instance, both simultaneously) suggests that SOURCE and SELF might be derived from a single more abstract condition on the antecedent. We shall argue in this section that Chierchia's de se restriction is a promising candidate for such a condition. Following Lewis (1979), Chierchia (1989) proposes that sentences involving self-ascription differ semantically from those that do not. Thus, a sentence like (31) Pavarotti believes that his pants are on fire. has a de se and a de re interpretation.26 Under the de se interpretation, Pavarotti might notice that his pants are on fire and perhaps say (32) My pants are on fire. Under this interpretation, Pavarotti ascribes to himself the property of having burning pants. The second interpretation is the de re interpretation. Under this interpretation, (31) could be uttered truthfully when, for instance, during a Three Tenors concert, Pavarotti is looking at a television monitor of the ongoing concert as seen from behind. He notices in the monitor that the pants of one of the singers are on fire. He does not realize, however, that it is he himself


17

who has burning pants. Under these circumstances, it could be truthfully said of Pavarotti that he believes that a certain individual, who, in fact, is Pavarotti, has his pants on fire. That is, (31) is true. Thus, although on the de re interpretation, Pavarotti believes that his pants are on fire, he does not ascribe having pants on fire to himself. Chierchia examines whether sentences like (31) are genuinely ambiguous between two interpretations rather than vague with respect to whether self-ascription takes place. He argues that if, in natural language, there exist grammatical constructions which are limited to the de se interpretation, this constitutes evidence that de se interpretations are, in fact, distinct from de re interpretations. Chierchia notes that, in Italian, LD reflexives are possible only if the antecedent ascribes the proposition which is the object of belief, thought, etc. to himself. Thus, (33) is a contradiction: (33) Pavarotti crede che i propri pantaloni siano in fiamme. Pavarotti believes that the self pants are in flame Ma non si e' accorto che i pantaloni sono i propri. but not realize that the pants are the own 'Pavarotti believes that self s pants are on fire, but he hasn't realized that the pants are his own.' Note that the contradictoriness of (33) is due to the use of the LD reflexive propri. When the personal pronoun suoi is substituted for propri, the contradiction disappears: (34) Pavarotti crede che i suoi pantaloni siano in fiamme. Ma non Pavarotti believes that the his pants are in flame but not si e' accorto che i pantaloni sono i propri. realize that the pants are the own 'Pavarotti believes that his pants are on fire, but he hasn't realized that the pants are his own.' Returning to Teochew, let us consider the possibility that the apparent SOURCE/SELF requirement on antecedents for kaki is, in fact, a de se requirement. Let us assume that for (8b) to be felicitous (repeated as (35)). (35) Ah Lengj'engwui Ah Meng} bo suka kaki^. Ah Leng feel Ah Meng not like self 'Ah Leng feels that Ah Meng dislikes

.'

the antecedent, Ah Leng, must ascribe to herself the property of Ah Meng not liking her. This state of affairs would entail that Ah Leng pictures in her mind that Ah Meng does not like her. Thus, de se entails SELE

18

Peter Cole et al

Similarly, assuming a de se restriction on the antecedent in (35), if Ah Leng were to speak truthfully on the subject, she would have to be disposed to state (36): (36) Ah Meng bo suka wa. Ah Meng not like me 'Ah Meng does not like me.' Thus, (35) entails (37) and implicates (38): (37) Ah Meng would say that Ah Meng does not like her. (38) Ah Meng says that Ah Meng does not like her. Therefore, de se implicates SOURCE and entails something very close to SOURCE, namely, the disposition for the antecedent to be the SOURCE if the antecedent speaks truthfully. While de se entails SELF and strongly implicates SOURCE, neither SOURCE nor SELF entails de se. As we saw, the fact that Pavarotti believes that a certain individual has burning pants does not mean that he believes that he is that individual. But having this belief means that Pavarotti is the internal SELF. Similarly, the fact that Pavarotti says that a certain individual's pants are on fire does not constitute his ascribing that property to himself. It does, however, mean that Pavarotti is the SOURCE of communication. Although neither SELF nor SOURCE entails de se, both implicate de se. Thus, if, as in (35), Ah Leng feels that Ah Meng does not like her, it would be natural to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that Ah Leng is aware that the individual whom Ah Meng does not like is she herself. Similarly, if, as in (7b) (repeated as (39)) (39) Ah Leng{ da Ah Meng j .toi dio kakii/j]. Ah Leng say Ah Meng see asp self 'Ah Leng says Ah Meng saw Ah Leng says that Ah Meng saw her, it is natural to assume that Ah Leng is aware that it is she herself that Ah Meng saw. Thus, while self-ascription is not entailed by SELF or SOURCE, self-ascription is, in fact, implicated by either SELF or SOURCE. These facts suggest that SOURCE and SELF are not the primitives employed by Teochew in determining the well-formedness of LD antecedents for kaki, but rather that Sells's taxonomy of logophoricity is derivable in part from self-ascription (as Chierchia claimed). While there are a number of problems to be overcome by this analysis, many of these are discussed


19

by Huang and Liu (this volume), and we shall assume that satisfactory solutions are provided. Thus, we shall henceforth take it as demonstrated that in Teochew the SELF/SOURCE restriction can be successfully reduced to a de se requirement on antecedents of LD reflexives. (The de se restriction would not, however, apply to Mandarin or, at least, not to the dialect of Mandarin under discussion in this paper.) In the next section, we shall consider some syntactic and semantic implications of the analysis of de se.

8. THE SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES DESE In this section we would like to examine some syntactic and semantic consequences of the analysis of attitudes de se. We shall argue, pace Chierchia, that the self-ascription requirement in Teochew should be analyzed as a felicity condition on the use of the reflexive kaki rather than as a semantic condition on verbs of propositional attitude, as was suggested by Chierchia. It may be useful to summarize Chierchia's analysis of de se. Chierchia proposes that, on the de se reading, a sentence like (31) would have a logical form like (40): (31) Pavarotti believes that his pants are on fire. (40) believe (P,l x [x's pants are on fire]) According to (40), on the de se interpretation "believe" is taken to be a self-ascriptive relation between an individual (Pavarotti) and a property. Note that in order to insure that the relation between Pavarotti and the property in question is self-ascriptive, it is necessary for Chierchia to stipulate something along the lines of (41):27 (41) a. x stands in the belief relation with property Q (i.e., x self-ascribes Q, in Lewis's terms) if x believes that x has Q and furthermore K(x,x), where K is the cognitive access that we have to ourselves, b. K(x,x) = df x is disposed to describe the relevant belief by referring to x by means of the first person pronoun. On the basis of (41), Pavarotti has the necessary awareness that the property specified in (40) is one that he himself possesses, rather than a property of some individual that merely turns out to be him.

20

Peter Cole et al

Let us now apply Chierchia's analysis to a Teochew sentence like (35): (35) Ah Lengi jengwui Ah Meng j bo suka kakii/j. Ah Leng feel Ah Meng not like self 'Ah Leng feels that Ah Meng dislike: It will be remembered that a self-ascriptive relation is required between Ah Leng and kaki for the sentence to be well-formed in Teochew. Following Chierchia, the semantic representation for (35) would be (42): (42) jengwui (AL, Xx [AM bo suka x\) feel AL AM not like According to Chierchia's proposal, an appropriate syntactic structure corresponding to (42) in the Principles and Parameters tradition would be along the lines of (43): (43) Ah Leng jengwui [CP [IP ziji-OPi{ [ipAh Meng suka ?;]]] Ah Leng feel self-OP Ah Meng like In (43) ziji is adjoined to IP, and is treated as the natural language instantiation of the lambda operator (hence, ziji-OP). 28 Structure (43) is essentially that proposed by Huang and Tang (1991) for LD reflexives. In Huang and Tang's analysis, the reflexive ziji is treated as an XP operator that adjoins to IP. While Chierchia's proposal shows clear similarities to that of Huang and Tang, it is also compatible with the head movement analysis, first proposed for Chinese by Battistella (1989) and later adopted by Sung (1990), Cole et al. (1990), and other authors. The head movement analog of (43) is (44): (44) Ah Leng jengwui [CP ziji i -C [ipAh Meng t{-I [VP suka t i ]]] Ah Leng feel self-C Ah Meng like In (44), as in (43), ziji is analyzed as the instantiation of the lambda operator which converts the subordinate CP from a proposition to a property. Thus, both XP adjunction and head movement are compatible with Chierchia's semantics for sentences like (42). Abstracting away from the differences between the two proposals, we shall take (43) and (44) to be the application of Chierchia's analysis of de se to LD reflexives in Teochew and other Chinese languages. To what extent are the structures in (43) and (44) compatible with the syntax of LD reflexives in Chinese languages? Structure (44) departs from the usual head movement analyses of LD reflexives in that the LF position


21

of ziji is the C of the complement clause rather than the I or AGR of the matrix clause, as in (45): (45)

[AGRPAh Len [ A G R ' - z i j i I I jengwui [CP t'i-C [lPAh Meng trl Ah Leng AGR-self feel Ah Meng [vpsukatfi]]]] like

In structure (45) we follow the phrase structure proposed in Cole and Wang (1996).29 In (45), unlike (44), ziji moves to a pre-VP position. Thus, according to (45), the complements of the matrix verb do not c-command (or subcommand, etc.) ziji at LF. An XP-movement analog of (45) is (46), in which ziji is adjoined to VP. (46)

Ah Leng [VP ziji-OP, [VPjengwui [CP [IP t'{ [IP Ah Meng suka ti]]]] Ah Leng self-OP feel Ah Meng like

As in (45), ziji asymmetrically c-commands the complement of the verb (in this case, CP). Structures (45)-(46) make different predictions from (43)-(44) with regard to which noun phrases can be the antecedent for ziji. According to (43)-(44), the antecedents for ziji should include both matrix subjects and matrix objects, but according to (45)-(46) postverbal objects would not be potential antecedents for ziji. Sentences like those of (47) provide a test for these differing predictions: (47) a. Sengsehj ga hakseng} [kakii/*j zornimue siosim]. teacher teach student self how careful 'The teacher teaches students how he should be careful.' b. Ah Mengi gaodai Ah Leng-} kaki^ oi kih. Ah Meng inform Ah Leng self will go 'Ah Meng informed Ah Leng that he/*she would go.' As can be seen from the sentences of (47), postverbal objects like hakseng and Ah Leng cannot be the antecedent for kaki. This is so despite the fact that hakseng can be viewed as the individual in whose mind kaki zornimue siosim is pictured (i.e., hakseng can be viewed as the internal SELF), and hakseng can be viewed as attributing kaki zornimue siosim to himself. Similarly, Ah Leng can be viewed as the internal SELF in (47b), and Ah Leng is most naturally understood as standing in a self-ascriptive relationship to kaki. The illformedness of the sentences of (47) on the reading in which kaki is understood to be hakseng or Ah Leng is explicable if these sentences have a structure like (45)-(46), but not if they have a structure along the lines proposed by Chierchia, structures (43)-(44): According to (45)-(46), hakseng

22

Peter Cole et al

and Ah Leng fail to c-command kaki at LF, and, therefore are not potential antecedents for kaki. In contrast, in (42)-(43), hakseng and Ah Leng c-command kaki. Thus, under (42)-(43), there is no explanation for why hakseng and Ah Leng fail to be possible antecedents for kaki. As a result, if it is assumed that Chierchia's analysis of the semantics of de se is correct, and that de se interpretation is due to lambda abstraction of the embedded clause (and not, crucially, of the matrix VP), there appears to be a contradiction between the structures required by the syntax and the semantics for LD reflexives in Teochew. The semantics would appear to require (43)-(44) while the syntax appears to require (45)-(46). The problem goes beyond Chinese and would hold of all languages in which LD reflexives are both "subject-oriented" and are subject to a de se condition on the choice of the antecedent. It is, of course, desirable that the structures posited for the syntax be the same structures needed for semantic interpretation, so we will explore two possible approaches to resolve this contradiction. The first option would be to assume that Chierchia's proposed semantic structures are, in fact, correct, but that the syntactic derivation includes an additional movement which is "invisible" to the semantics. Thus, the input to semantic interpretation would include only the movement indicated by the boldface, solid arrows in (48), and not the final movement indicated by a dashed arrow:

According to (48), the final movement from C to AGR is invisible to semantics, but visible to LF syntax. Thus, (48) would predict both subject orientation and the occurrence of the de se interpretation. While (48) does predict correctly that subject orientation and de se interpretation can co-occur, the prediction is made at the cost of a disassociation of the structures employed for syntax and semantics. According to (48), "reconstruction" applies to the output of the LF syntax, restoring the structure immediately prior to the last stage of movement. This reconstruction is completely ad hoc and should be rejected if a less objectionable solution is available. A second option would be to assume that the input to semantic interpretation is (45) or (46), and, therefore, that Chierchia's semantics for de se must be modified. Clearly, lambda abstraction over the matrix VP would not yield the necessary self-ascriptive relation between an individual entity and a property, so an alternative approach to de se is necessary.


23

A possibility that springs to mind is that self-ascription is not due to the semantics of the matrix verb, but, rather, to the semantics of the reflexive itself. According to such an alternative account, the reflexive kaki would carry with it the presupposition that its antecedent ascribes to himself the proposition of which kaki is an argument. Thus, in (35) Ah Leng would ascribe Ah Meng's dislike to herself and would be disposed to say, "Ah Meng dislikes me." The attribution of the de se interpretation to the reflexive rather than to the matrix predicate has a number of advantages. First, and most important, the contradiction between syntax and semantics is resolved (in favor of (45)-(46)). Second, there exist a variety of cases in which long-distance reflexives show de se effects but which do not involve a verb of prepositional attitude like "believe". For example, in (49) (49) Ah Leng bor suka hi gai toi dio kaki gai nan. Ah Leng not like this clas see asp self rel person Ah Leng does not like the person who saw her.' (Kaki can refer to Ah Leng.) In order for (49) to be wellformed, it is necessary for Ah Leng to be aware that the person whom she does not like looked at her. It cannot be the case that the man in question was looking at her without her being aware of the fact. Thus, (49) is subject to a de se requirement. There is, however, no way to interpret (49) as a relation between Ah Leng and a property, along the lines of (42). Thus, (49) seems prima facie unsuited to a Chierchia-style analysis of de se. In order to extend Chierchia's approach to cases like these, it is necessary to introduce considerable complications.30 We shall, therefore, assume pace Chierchia, that de se interpretation is a property of the anaphor rather than one of the predicate.

9. THE BINDING THEORETICAL STATUS OF LD REFLEXIVES We showed in Section 7 that the logophoric conditions on Teochew (SOURCE/SELF) are reducible in part to a de se condition on LD reflexives in that dialect, but that the logophoric conditions on Mandarin (PIVOT) are not. We would now like to turn to the question of what the existence of logophoric conditions tells us with regard to the binding theoretic status of LD ziji and kaki. Are these forms, when used with LD antecedents, bound anaphors and hence, presumably, subject to some version of Condition A of the Binding Theory, or are they pronouns and hence, subject to some version of Condition B? The fact that LD reflexives are subject to

24

Peter Cole et al

logophoric conditions might suggest that forms like kaki and ziji are ambiguous between local reflexives and logophoric pronouns. (Logophoric pronouns were first reported for certain African languages, e.g., Ewe (Clements, 1975), Mundang, and Tuburi (Hagege, 1974).) This, in fact, is the position taken by Cole and Hermon (1998) for Malay and by Reuland (this volume) for Icelandic LD reflexives. Reuland argues that in certain environments (e.g., subjunctives), reflexive forms are used as logophoric pronouns (as shown by the fact that reflexives in subjunctive clauses can take non-c-commanding antecedents, etc.). A variant on the proposal that LD reflexives are reducible to logophoric pronouns would be to claim that while reflexives are, in and of themselves, bound anaphors, they can occur in two different structures. In one structure, the reflexive is bound by a phonologically null pronoun, and, hence, takes as its antecedent the antecedent of that pronoun, while in the other structure, the reflexive is directly bound by a local antecedent. This tack is taken, for instance, by Yu (1996), who proposes that ziji can occur in two different structures: (50) Local Ziji

(51) Long Distance Ziji

In Yu's analysis, ziji is a predicate (meaning, roughly, "same as") that takes two arguments. Since ziji is a bound anaphor, its arguments must c-command ziji and be within its Governing Category. In (50) only one argument (y) is bound by a c-commanding antecedent within the Governing Category for ziji (i.e., internal to the NP). The second argument of ziji (x) requires a local binder, but none is present inside NP. A local binder is provided by adjoining ziji to the verb:


25

In (52) the specifier of IP c-commands ziji and is within its Governing Category. Thus, ziji is bound by the specifier of IP (the local subject). In contrast to (50), in the LD structure (51), both arguments of ziji are bound within the DP. Since the binder for ziji is an instance of pro, the possible reference of ziji is predicted to be whatever pro can refer to. Thus, the possible reference for ziji in (51) is that of a pronoun (modula any differences between overt pronouns and pro). Thus, approaches like that of Yu (1996) predict that LD ziji (and, presumably, its Teochew counterpart, kaki) will have the referential possibilities of a pronoun. In this section, we examine whether the predictions made by this class of analyses are correct for Mandarin and Teochew. We shall argue that the referential properties of ziji and kaki are not those of pronouns, but rather those of bound anaphors. (A similar position is argued for by Pollard and Xue (this volume)). Thus, we shall conclude that ziji and kaki are not logophoric pronouns (or anaphors bound by logophoric null pronouns), but rather bound anaphors which are subject to logophoric conditions. This contrasts with the situation found in Icelandic, in which there is reason to think that at least some "long-distance reflexives" are really logophoric pronouns. It also contrasts with the facts of Turkish as described by Kornfilt (this volume), who provides evidence that a structure roughly like that proposed by Yu for Chinese is, in fact, correct for Turkish. Furthermore, the Turkish facts are parallel to those reported earlier by Cole and Hermon (1998) for Malay. In that language, there is also evidence that seeming "LD reflexives" are, in fact, pronouns. We, therefore, shall argue that languages differ with respect to whether reflexive forms that take long-distance antecedents are pronouns or bound anaphors. While apparent LD reflexives in some languages are pronouns, those in other languages (e.g., ziji and kaki in Mandarin and Teochew) are true LD bound anaphors.

10. THE C-COMMAND REQUIREMENT There are a number of differences between pronouns and bound anaphors that can be used in determining whether a given form is a pronoun or an ana-

26

Peter Cole et al.

phor. The first is c-command (and/or subcommand, etc.). Across languages, reflexives require a c-commanding antecedent, while pronouns do not: (53) [John's; brother]j looked at him^ in the mirror. (54) [John'si brother]j looked at himself*i/j in the mirror. Examples (53)-(54) show that in English a reflexive must be c-commanded by its antecedent but a pronoun need not be. The situation is somewhat more complicated in Chinese since, as was discussed in Section 3, the antecedent for a reflexive may, under appropriate circumstances, subcommand, rather than c-command, the reflexive. However, as was shown by (10), (repeated), (10) Zhangsani gei Lisij de quangao bangzhu le tai/j /ziji i*j Zhangan give Lisi 's advice help perf him self 'That Zhangsan gave Lisi advice helped him.' a nominal which neither c-commands nor subcommands ziji (e.g., Lisi) cannot be the antecedent for ziji: Although Lisi cannot antecede ziji, this nominal can antecede the pronoun ta.31 Thus, sentences like (10) make it is possible to test whether c-command/subcommand is required for the antecedent of LD ziji. It is not entirely clear whether (10) should be viewed as local or LD. There is no such uncertainty with respect to (55), which is clearly LD: (55) Zhangsani gei Lisij de xin shuo Malik renwei ziji i/*j/k /tai/j/k shi Zhangsan to Lisi 's letter say Mary think self he is wugude. innocent r^ 'Zhangsan's letter to Lisi says that Mary thinks \ \ is innocent.' [she) In (55), the specifier of gei, Zhangsan, can serve as the LD antecedent of ziji. However, the non-c-commanding/non-subcommanding complement of gei, cannot. Turning to ta, the complement of gei is wellformed as the antecedent. Thus, we conclude that LD ziji requires c-command/subcommand, and, hence, has the referential possibilities of an anaphor rather than that of a pronoun.

11. VP ELLIPSIS A second test which distinguishes between pronouns and bound anaphors is VP ellipsis. Under VP ellipsis a pronoun can be shown to be ambiguous between a constant and a bound variable:


27

(56) [slMaryi; believes that John saw he^ at the movies] and [S2Susan does too]. Oversimplifying somewhat, in order for ellipsis to take place, the covert VP of S2 must be identical with the overt VP of SI. S2 of (56) can mean either that Susan believes John saw Mary at the movies (the strict reading) or that Susan believes John saw Susan at the movies (the sloppy reading). Under the strict reading, the pronoun of SI has been interpreted as a constant referring to Mary. Thus, under that reading, the covert VP of S2 is [yp saw M], where M is a constant referring to Mary. Under the sloppy reading, however, the pronoun of SI is taken to be a variable (x), picking out whatever individual is the subject of the verb phrase "believes that John saw x"32 Since the subject of the verb phrase is Susan (and not Mary), the VP is interpreted ultimately as "believes that John saw Susan." While the pronoun her can be interpreted as either a constant or as a bound variable, this is not the case for the reflexive herself. (57) [S1 Mary saw herself in the mirror] and [S2 Susan did too]. At least for many speakers, (57) is restricted to the sloppy reading of S2. This would follow if reflexives, unlike pronouns, are only interpretable as bound variables and not as constants. Thus, in English, VP ellipsis provides a way to distinguish reflexives and pronouns. While pronouns can have either a strict or a sloppy interpretation under ellipsis, reflexives have only a sloppy interpretation.33 Returning to Chinese, it is somewhat difficult to find a construction with properties like those of English VP ellipsis. The use of ye yiyang 'also the same' seems to provide a similar test: (58) [S1 Zhangsan kanjian ziji]', [s2 Lisi ye yiyang]. Zhangsan see self Lisi also the same 'Zhangsan saw himself and so did Lisi.' In (58), S2 can only mean that Lisi saw himself and not that he saw Zhangsan. Thus, local reflexives in Mandarin, like those in English, are interpreted as bound variables rather than constants. The same holds true in Teochew, the judgments for which match those in Mandarin: (59) Ah Meng toidio kaki; Ah Leng a si be yd. Ah Meng see self Ah Leng the same 'Ah Meng saw himself in the mirror and so did Ah Leng.' Turning now to LD reflexives, sentences with ziji receive only a sloppy interpretation, indicating that ziji is a bound variable rather than a constant:

28

Peter Cole et al.

(60) Zhangsan^ shuo Lisi changchang kuidai ziji-i, Wangwu ye Zhangsan say Lisi always mistreat self Wangwu also yiyang. the same 'Zhangsan; says that Lisi always mistreats himi; so does Wangwu [say Lisi mistreats Wangwu].' On the LD interpretation of (60), and given the indexing found in the antecedent clause, ye yiyang is interpreted to mean that Wangwu says Lisi mistreats Wangwu, not that he mistreats Zhangsan. That is, ziji is treated as a bound variable rather than as a constant. In contrast to (60), when the pronoun ta is substituted for ziji, Wangwu can be interpreted to say that Lisi mistreats Zhangsan, the strict reading: (61) Zhangsani shuo Lisi changchang kuidai tai; Wangwu ye yiyang. Zhangsan say Lisi always mistreat him Wangwu also the same 'Zhangsanj says that Lisi always mistreats him;; so does Wangwu.' The same facts are found in Teochew: (62) Ah Meng i da Ah Leng diam diam pel kakii//i; Ah Soi a si be yd. Ah Meng say Ah Leng always pressure self/him Ah Soi the same 'Ah Meng says that Ah Leng always pressures himself/him. So does Ah Soi.' On the interpretation in which kakili refers to Ah Meng, when kaki is used a sipe yd means that Ah Leng pressures Ah Soi (the sloppy or bound variable interpretation). But when the pronoun / is used, Ah Leng may be pressuring either Ah Soi (the sloppy interpretation) or Ah Meng (the strict or constant interpretation). To summarize, the LD reflexives zijilkaki patterns with the local reflexive and is treated as a bound variable while the pronoun tali is ambiguous between a variable and a constant. This constitutes an additional reason to believe that long-distance reflexives in Chinese are anaphors rather than pronouns.

12. THE BLOCKING EFFECT REVISITED We showed in Section 6 that the Blocking Effect is due, at least in part, to the discourse requirement that the antecedent must be the PIVOT, the center of deixis in the sentence. We shall show here that in addition to the


29

Blocking due to discourse restrictions, there is also grammatical Blocking that does not appear to derive from logophoric conditions on antecedents. Grammatical Blocking follows naturally from current grammatical analyses of LD reflexives (e.g., Battistella, 1989; Cole, et al, 1993; Cole and Wang, 1996; Huang and Tang, 1991; Tang, 1989). Thus, the existence of grammatical Blocking provides evidence that LD reflexives in Chinese are derived along the lines suggested in these works (e.g., by LF movement). We will present three arguments in favor of the existence of a grammatical Blocking Effect. The first argument is crosslinguistic. As was discussed in detail in Sung (1990); Cole et al. (1993); and Cole and Sung (1994) inter alia, the head movement theory of LD reflexives predicts that Blocking will occur only in languages in which overt verb agreement is not found. (In addition to such well-known cases as Chinese versus Italian, Blocking is found in Malayalam (no verb agreement), but not in Kannada (agreement present).34 This is because Blocking is interpreted as due to an agreement conflict. In a sentence like (63) (63) Zhangsani renwei [woj zhidao [Wangwuk xihuan zij i / * j / * k ]]. Zhangsan think I know Wangwu like self 'Zhangsan thinks that I know that Wangwu likes himself.' ziji adjoins successive cyclically to each AGR until it adjoins to the AGR of the clause of which its antecedent is the subject. When ziji adjoins to the AGR of the lowest clause, it must agree in person features with the specifier of AGR, the subject of that clause, in this case, Wangwu. Thus, in order to avoid an agreement conflict in the lowest clause, ziji must be third person:35

Note that in (64) the person features of the adjoined reflexive ziji percolate to the AGR node created by adjunction. This is because AGR in Chinese lacks inherent person features. If AGR had inherent person features, the features of AGR itself (the head) would percolate to the adjoined AGR node. This is illustrated in detail below. Ziji subsequently adjoins to the AGR of the next clause up.36

30

Peter Cole et al

As in (64), AGR itself lacks person inherent features. Thus, the person features of ziji are percolated to the adjoined AGR node. In the case of (65), however, the subject of the clause is wo T. Thus, a person conflict exists between the specifier of AGR and AGR. This agreement conflict, according to the account in Cole et al. (1993) and Cole and Wang (1996), explains why ziji in (63) can agree with the local subject, Wangwu, but not with the intermediate subject, wo, or the matrix subject, Zhangsan. What is significant for our argument is that this analysis predicts that the person conflict seen in (65) will not occur in languages in which AGR has inherent person features (e.g., Italian, Icelandic, Kannada). This is because, according to the feature percolation principles discussed in Cole et al. (1993), a reflexive adjoined to AGR will percolate its person features to AGR only if AGR itself does not have inherent person features. This follows from the principle that when there is a feature conflict between the head of a projection and some other daughter of that projection, the features of the head will percolate to the mother node. It is only when there is no conflict with the features of the head that those of a nonhead daughter will percolate to the mother node. Thus, in a language with verb agreement (i.e., with inherent person features on AGR), structure (66) will occur.

In (66), AGR has inherent person features (first person). As a result, the person features of the reflexive are not percolated to the adjoined AGR projection and no agreement violation occurs. Thus, the head movement analysis predicts that the Blocking Effect will be found only in languages like Chinese and Malayalam in which verb agreement does not occur. It will not occur in languages like Italian, Icelandic, and Kannada which do mani-


31

fest verb agreement. As was shown in the works cited at the beginning of this section, this appears to be a typologically correct prediction.37 The hypothesis that the Blocking Effect is entirely logophoric provides no explanation for these typological facts. While languages might differ with respect to whether PIVOT is significant in that language, it would not be expected that the presence or absence of Blocking by subjects would correlate with the presence or absence of verb agreement in the language. Thus, the typological facts provide reason to believe that Blocking by subjects has a grammatical explanation and is not due simply to logophoric conditions on antecedents of LD reflexives. Our second argument in favor of a grammatical component for Blocking by subjects is based, in part, on facts discussed in Cole and Wang (1996). Cole and Wang note that while both subjects and the nominals following ba/bei are possible antecedents for LD reflexives, subjects create strong Blocking Effects while the nominals following ba/bei do not: (67) a. Zhangsani Zhangsan 'Zhangsan b. Zhangsan^ Zhangsan 'Zhangsan home.'

yiwei woj hui ba nik dai hui ziji i/j/k de jia. thought I will BA you take back self 's home thought I would take you back to *his/my/your home.' yiwei wo-} hui bei nik dai hui ziji*-^ de jia. thought I will by you take back self 's home thought I would be taken by you back to *his/my/your

(68) a. Zhangsan^ yiwei Lisi hui ba nik dai hui ziji i/j/k de jia. Zhangsan thought Lisi will BA you take back self 's home 'Zhansan thought Lisi would take you back to his/my/your home.' b. Zhangsani yiwei Lisi hui bei nik dai hui ziji[/j/k de jia. Zhangsan thought Lisi will by you take back self 's home 'Zhansan thought Lisi would be taken by you back to his/my/your home.' The sentences of (67) show that a second person nominal following ba/bei is a possible antecedent for ziji. The nominal following ba/bei, however, does not block reference to the subject of that clause. A first person subordinate subject, however, blocks reference by ziji to the matrix subject. In contrast, in (68), in which the subordinate subject is third person, reference to the matrix subject is possible. This pattern is explained if only subjects are relevant for Blocking (since only subjects occur as the specifier of AGR), but any c-commanding nominal (including the nominals following ba/bei) is a potential antecedent for ziji.38 The facts of (67) and (68) appear to contradict the claim made in Section 5 that the occurrence of a first or second person pronoun anywhere in the

32

Peter Cole et al.

sentence will cause a Blocking Effect. In fact, however, a comparison of (68) with (69) shows that a mild Blocking Effect has occurred in (68): (69) a. Zhangsan^ yiwei List hui ba Xiao Mingk dai hui ziji i/j/k de Zhangsan thought Lisi will BA Xiao Ming take back self 's jia. home 'Zhangsan thought Lisi would take Xiao Ming back to his home.' b. Zhangsani yiwei Lisi hui bei Xiao Mingk dai hui ZJ/fyj/k de Zhangsan thought Lisi will by Xiao Ming take back self 's jia. home 'Zhangsan thought Lisi would be taken by Xiao Ming back to his home.' While in (68) it is possible to understand ziji as referring to Zhangsan, this reading is much more salient in (69). That is, a mild Blocking Effect occurs in (68) due to the occurrence of a second person pronoun following balbei. The strength of the Blocking, however, is much less than in (67), in which a first person pronoun occurs in subject position. This is precisely the pattern that would be expected if grammatical Blocking is independent of logophoric Blocking. This pattern would have no explanation if all Blocking were due to logophoric constraints on discourse. Interestingly, while the same pattern is found in Teochew, the effect of logophoric blocking is stronger. In (70), a first or second person passive agent reduces the possibility of reference to the matrix subject by kaki more than in (68b), the equivalent Mandarin sentence: (70) Ah Meng i sio da Ah Lengj kol Ah Soik kiao tng kakii/j/k gai Ah Meng think that Ah Leng give Ah Soi bring back self 's lai. home 'Ah Meng thinks that Ah Leng was brought back to his/her home by Ah Soi.' In (70), which contains only third person nominals, kaki can refer to Ah Meng, Ah Leng, or Ah Soi. In (71), however, in which the passive agent is a second person pronoun, (71) Ah Mengi s^° da Ah Lengj ko lek kiao tng kaki/???i/j/k gai Ah Meng think that Ah Leng give you bring back self 's lai. home


33

'Ah Meng thinks that Ah Leng was brought back to her home by you.' the possibility of reference to Ah Meng is markedly reduced, much more than is the case in the equivalent Mandarin examples (68b). The possibility of reference to the subject of the subordinate clause is not reduced, which suggests that this relationship must be viewed as local and, hence, not subject to logophoric conditions. While Blocking by the passive agent is stronger in Teochew than in Mandarin, Blocking by an intermediate subject is stronger still: (72) Ah Mengi sio da le ko! Ah Soik kiao tng kaki*^ gai Ah Meng think that you give Ah Soi bring back self 's lai. home 'Ah Meng thinks that you were brought back to her home by Ah Soi.' The pattern of Blocking in Teochew passives can be explained if (1) grammatical Blocking in Teochew is determined by the same principles as in Mandarin and (2) the logophoric effects in Teochew are stronger than they are in Mandarin. Such a picture would be unsurprising if, in general, the grammar of Teochew reflexives is the same as that of Mandarin, but the logophoric conditions in Teochew are stronger. We saw previously that an additional logophoric condition (the de se requirement) holds in Teochew that does not hold in Mandarin. The facts surrounding ba and passive sentences suggest that the logophoric condition shared by Teochew and Mandarin (PIVOT) is stronger in Teochew than in Mandarin. It would be of interest to know whether the somewhat "bleached" picture of Mandarin which emerges from this analysis is peculiar to Singapore, where Mandarin was introduced artificially a relatively short time ago, or whether it is true as well in the Mandarin heartland, northern China. As Xu Liejiong pointed out to us, there has been considerable variation in the description of the facts in Mandarin as reported by different authors, suggesting that not all Mandarin speakers share the same discourse/semantic requirement for LD ziji. The existence of this variation is to be expected if subdialects and idiolects differ with respect to the strength of various discourse principles, which interact with invariant principles of grammar. Indeed, while our attention in this chapter has been focused on differences among Chinese dialects with regard to one class of discourse principles, those concerned with the role of logophoricity, principles of logophoricity may well be only one class of discourse principles that affects the distribution of LD reflexives. Extending our perspective beyond Chinese dialects,

34

Peter Cole et al

Jayaseelan (1998), in a study on the Blocking Effect in Malayalam, shows that a variety of discourse factors can affect Blocking, among them distance from the antecedent and salience. A detailed investigation of crossdialectal and crosslinguistic difference in discourse conditions on LD reflexives is of pressing importance for future progress. Our third and final argument that the Blocking Effect has a grammatical as well as a discourse basis is provided by a close examination of sentences in which a third person subject blocks a first or second person antecedent, as in (73). (73) Zhangsani renwei [wj zhidao [Wangwuk xihuan ziji*i/'/k]]. Zhangsan think I know Wangwu like self 'Zhangsan thinks that I know that Wangwu likes himself.' Let us consider (73) from the perspective of discourse. The presence of wo T in (73) is predicted to force the speaker to be the external pivot in (73), thereby preventing Zhangsan from being the internal pivot. Since, according to the theory of discourse employed in earlier sections of this paper, only the PIVOT can be the antecedent for LD ziji, it is predicted that the possible antecedents for ziji in (73) are the local subject, Wangwu (since local subjects are not affected by logophoric conditions, or the intermediate subject, wo (since wo is the PIVOT), but not the matrix subject, Zhangsan (which is neither local nor the PIVOT). That is, first and second person are predicted to block third person (since first and second person induce an external PIVOT), but third person is predicted not to block first and second person.39 It is true that blocking of first person by third person is somewhat weaker than blocking of third person by first person (as in (23), repeated): (23) Zhangsani renwei[WangwUj zhidao [wok xihuan ziji*i/j/k]], Zhangsan think Wangwu know I like self 'Zhangsan thinks that Wangwu know that I like myself.' However, the hypothesis that blocking is entirely due to discourse predicts that reference by ziji to the intermediate subject in (73) would be equally well-formed as reference to the intermediate subject in (2) (repeated): (2) Zhangsani renwei [Lisij zhidao [Wangwukxihuan ziji i/j/k ]]. Zhangsan think Lisi knows Wangwu like self 'Zhangsan thinks that Lisi knows that Wangwu likes himself.' This, however, is not the case; reference to the intermediate subject is worst in (23), bad in (73), and good in (2). These gradations of grammaticality are not predicted by either the grammatical or the discourse hypotheses alone. However, if both discourse and grammar play a role in the Blocking Effect, the gradations of wellformedness


35

are predicted correctly: Sentence (2) is best because it does not violate either grammatical or discourse restrictions. Sentence (73) is somewhat informed because it violates grammatical but not discourse conditions. Finally, (23) is worst because it is informed in terms of both grammar and discourse. To conclude this section, Blocking appears to be the result of the interaction of a grammatical Blocking Effect, which is due to specifier head agreement conflict in languages that lack inherent agreement features, and logophoric Blocking due to PIVOT requirements. The apparent confusion with respect to speaker judgments on Blocking follows from the nonunitary nature of the causes of Blocking.

13. COUNTER EXAMPLES TO THE GRAMMATICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BLOCKING EFFECT We argued in the previous section that in both Mandarin and Teochew two types of Blocking occur, grammatical Blocking and logophoric Blocking. The latter is responsible for those cases of Blocking that are caused by a non-third person nominal which occurs in nonsubject position. When the blocker is in an intervening subject position, both grammatical and logophoric blocking occur, resulting in a more pronounced Blocking Effect. These claims appear to be undermined by a class of cases which we would like to discuss now, those in which our knowledge of the world demands a reflexive/antecedent relationship which is not licit according to the grammatical theory of Blocking. In such well-known sentences as those of (74), a local antecedent for the reflexive is ruled out by our knowledge of the world (Yu, 1991): (74) a. !Zongtoni qing woj zuo zai ziji i/*j de shenbian. president ask me sit at self 's side 'The President asked me to sit at his/*my side.' b. IZhangsariipa woj chaoguo ziji i/*j. Zhangsan fear I surpass self 'Zhangsan feared I would surpass him/*myself.' In the sentences of (74), the matrix subject is clearly more felicitous as an antecedent than is the complement subject. This appears to be due to our understanding of the real-world context in which the discourse takes place: The president would not ask me to sit beside myself, an impossible action. Therefore, the sentence is interpreted as an invitation to sit next to the president. Similarly, Zhangsan would have no reason to fear my surpassing myself. Thus, the natural interpretation would be for him to fear my surpassing

36

Peter Cole et al.

him. As a result, the sentences of (74) have been taken to demonstrate that our knowledge of the world can override the Blocking Effect. This is not expected if the Blocking Effect is grammatical. Thus, sentences like those of (74) have been interpreted as constituting a counterexample to the grammatical theory of Blocking. While this argument appears impressive, upon reflection, it is not entirely satisfying. First, while the matrix subject is clearly preferred as antecedent for ziji over the subordinate subject, these sentences are not perfect even on the preferred reading. Second, the sentences improve considerably when ta ziji or ta is substituted for ziji: (75) a. Zongtorii qing woj zuo zaita zijii/*j deshenbian. president ask me sit at he self 's side 'The President asked me to sit at his/*my side.' b. Zhangsan^ pa woj chaoguo ta zijii/*j. Zhangsan fear I surpass he self 'Zhangsan feared I would surpass him/*myself.' (76) a. Zongton^ qing wo-} zuo zai ta^ de shenbian. president ask me sit at his side 'The President asked me to sit at his/*my side.' b. Zhangsan^ pa woj chaoguo tai/*j. Zhangsan fear I surpass him 'Zhangsan feared I would surpass him/*myself.' On the assumption that "LD ta ziji" is really the pronoun ta, which, like any noun phrase, can be modified by ziji used as an intensifier, examples like those of (75) and (76) differ from (74) in that in (75) and (76) pronouns rather than LD reflexives are used for interclausal coreference.40 The marginality of (74) is predicted if the Blocking Effect is due to both grammar and discourse. While the real world context might favor the LD use of ziji in (74), the fact that (74) violates the grammatical constraints on Blocking would lead to reduced grammaticality. Thus, both the reduced grammaticality of (74) and the contrast in grammaticality between (74), on the one hand, and (75) and (76) on the other, are predicted if there exists a grammatical Blocking Effect in addition to a discourse-based Blocking Effect.

14. CONCLUSION We have argued that the distribution of the LD reflexive ziji in Mandarin and kaki in Teochew is determined by two sets of principles, discourse and


37

grammar. Where these two Chinese dialects appear to differ is in terms of the discourse conditions on the reflexive. The grammatical conditions, however, appear to be the same in the two dialects. We have shown that both Mandarin and Teochew LD reflexives are subject to logophoric conditions on their antecedents. In Teochew, the antecedent must be PIVOT and also SELF or SOURCE. The SELF/SOURCE requirement, we have argued, derives from a de se restriction on the antecedent of the reflexive: The antecedent must ascribe to himself the proposition which is the object of belief, thought, etc. In Mandarin, in contrast, the antecedent need only be PIVOT. There is no de se requirement, at least in the variety of Mandarin under discussion in this chapter. While Mandarin and Teochew differ in terms of the discourse requirements on LD reflexives, in both Mandarin and Teochew, LD zijilkaki obeys the grammatical conditions on bound anaphors rather than those on pronouns. Thus, while subject to logophoric conditions, zijilkaki do not constitute covert instances of logophoric pronouns like those found in some African languages, as do the seeming LD reflexives in Turkish (Kornfilt, this volume), Icelandic subjunctives (Reuland, this volume), and Malay (Cole and Hermon, 1998). Rather, the LD reflexives in Mandarin and Teochew are a type of bound anaphor which is subject to discourse/semantic conditions specific to LD reflexives. The peculiarities of the distribution of LD reflexives in Mandarin and Teochew are of special interest because the differences in distribution between the two dialects appear, on initial examination, to suggest that there are major differences in the grammar of Binding between the two dialects, differences that might seriously undercut universalist approaches to language (e.g., Chomsky, 1995), at least as applied to Binding. On closer examination, however, the ways in which the dialects differ are seen not to be due to grammar (in the narrow and technical sense in which the term "grammar" is restricted to sentence grammar). Rather, the distributional differences are due to different discourse properties associated with specific lexical items (zijilkaki). This result is one which is unexpected when the data are examined in the absence of a strong theory of grammar, but it is what is predicted by universalist approaches to grammar: What all languages share is a universal grammatical core. Languages differ outside that core, e.g., in the "grammar of discourse" and in the semantic properties associated with lexical items. This may appear surprising because it is often tacitly assumed that the discourse properties of language are the reflection of general cognitive principles of how information is structured in language. If discourse is the direct reflection of general cognitive principles, then it should be universal. Thus, languages should not differ in terms of whether a certain discourse principle applies in that language.

38

Peter Cole et al.

While the differences between Mandarin and Teochew seem surprising from this perspective, our results may appear less surprising when they are viewed from a different angle. The differences between the two dialects can be reduced to differences in the connotations of specific lexical items (zijilkaki), whether the item in question carries with it a presupposition that the antecedent ascribes the object of belief, etc. to himself. Differences in the connotations of lexical items are frequently found in closely related dialects/languages. Thus, it should not be surprising that such differences should occur in Chinese dialects. While these lexical differences play a significant role in the distribution of the lexical items in question, the existence of these differences does not entail that languages differ radically in the more fundamental ways in which information is structured in discourse. It is interesting to note that the distinction between the universal syntactic core and the language specific discourse conditions has been the focus of investigation in recent studies of pronouns and reflexives in child language. It has been widely argued in the acquisition literature that children have more difficulties with pronouns, which are referentially dependent, than with anaphors (which are syntactically bound; see, for example, Avrutin and Wexler, 1992). More recently, it has also been argued that children exhibit difficulties with logophoric reflexives in languages like English, Dutch, and Norwegian, since their interpretation also requires extrasyntactic, discourse-based knowledge (Avrutin and Cunningham, 1997; Coopmans and Avrutin, 1999; and Hestvik and Philip, this volume). In other words, while young children exhibit near-perfect knowledge of bound pronouns and local reflexives (which are subject only to grammatical Binding conditions), they have difficulties with the interpretation of lexical items (like logophors) which require access to the discourse level of representation. The acquisition data then crucially relies on the distinction between a universal syntactic core and a nonuniversal set of discourse conditions.43

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This chapter is one of a series of works reporting on research on reflexives and other topics in the grammar of the dialect of Teochew Chinese spoken in Singapore. The authors are listed alphabetically and participated equally in all aspects of the preparation of the chapter. The research on which the chapter is based was supported in part by funding from the National Science Foundation (grants SBR-9121167, SBR-9729519 and INT-9423291), the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig) and by a grant from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Re-


39

search) to the Utrecht Institute of Linguistics. We would like to express our thanks for their generous support. We received helpful comments from many colleagues while working on this paper. We would especially like to thank David Gil, Jim Huang, Xu Liejiong, Eric Reuland and Ken Safir, whose suggestions, counter proposals etc. had a profound influence on our thinking on this topic.

NOTES 1

As will be seen in later sections of this paper, it is not certain whether "discourse" properties of LD reflexives are to be analyzed as discourse or semantic properties. 2 We oversimplify here. See the discussion of c-command, subcommand, and o-command below. For discussion of an important class of examples in which the head movement theory predicts correctly that nonsubject antecedents will be possible, see Cole and Wang (1996), an analysis of cases in which the objects of ba "preverbal affected object" and bei "passive" can antecede ziji. 3 In reality, all of the previous authors were aware that there exist instances of LD reflexives that require characterization in terms of discourse conditions. However, these authors did not incorporate discourse conditions into their analyses. Thus, we will treat these analyses as purely grammatical. 4 Teochew (Chaozhou Hua) is a dialect of South Min. The variety of Teochew spoken in Singapore and Malaysia has undergone considerable lexical influence from Malay. We have not examined in any detail the extent to which Singapore Mandarin and Singapore Teochew differ from the Mandarin and Teochew spoken in other areas with respect to reflexives. We know of no evidence, however, to believe that the conditions on the use of reflexives in Singapore Mandarin and Teochew differ greatly from those on the Mandarin and Teochew spoken elsewhere. Thus, we shall refer to the Singapore varieties simply as Mandarin and Teochew. We shall return to the question of dialectal and idiolectal variation below. 5 We understand PIVOT in a less concrete way than did Sells as the role perspective taken by the sentence, that of the speaker or that of one of the protagonists of the sentence. Sells restricts PIVOT to the physical deixis. 6 Sells proposes implicational universals of logophoricity, e.g., internal SELF —» internal PIVOT. We do not adopt these implicational universals. In fact, the data of Singapore Mandarin provide counterexamples to Sells's implicational hierarchies. 7 Pollard and Xue (this volume) point out that there exist examples in Mandarin which suggest that if the notion of PIVOT is defined in a very physical sense as deixis (which is how Sells defined it), Mandarin is not subject to a PIVOT requirement: (i) Zhangsani hen gaoxing yinwei Lisi yao lai kan zij\ Zhangsan very happy because Lisi want come see self 'Zhansanj is very happy because Lisi will come to see himi.'

40

Peter Cole et al.

(ii) Zhangsani hen gaoxing yinwei List yao qu kan ziji-r Zhangsan very happy because Lisi want go see self 'Zhansan; is very happy because Lisi will go to see him.' In (ii) the deixis of qu can be from the perspective of Lisi, not Zhangsan. It is still possible, however, to understand Zhangsan as the antecedent of ziji. While ziji can be understood as coreferential with Zhangsan in (ii), we find (ii) less felicitous than (i). This suggests that when the antecedent for ziji is not PIVOT the wellformedness is reduced, but this is not sufficient to make the sentence completely informed. Thus, deixis seems to influence the perspective of the sentence, but not to determine it entirely. 8 In Chierchia's analysis, this requirement is semantic rather than pragmatic or discourse-based. Thus, if Chierchia's treatment of de se is correct, the use of the term discourse for SELF/SOURCE is incorrect, and the distinction would need to be captured in the semantics. There are, however, syntactic problems with Chierchia's analysis, so we shall take no firm position on whether de se is due to semantics or to properties of the discourse. 9 The proposal that attitudes de se differs semantically from attitudes de re is due to Lewis (1979). Subsequent to Chierchia, this proposal has been applied to long-distance reflexives by Pan (1997 and this volume) and Huang and Liu (1997 and this volume). 10 Note that according to Sells, SELF is defined as the one whose mind is being reported on rather than the one in whose mind the event is pictured. Our departure from Sells is motivated by the contrast between Mandarin and Teochew which will be discussed below. In Section 7, we shall argue that SELF is, in fact, derivative of de se, so the departure from Sells's definition is not harmful to our ultimate account of the facts. 11 Our analysis of these examples departs from that of Sells, who treats examples like those of (4) as constituting instances of internal SELF. For example, for Sells, a sentence of the form i.

John was not aware that Mary liked SELF,

could be viewed as having the logical form of ii.

->(John was aware that Mary liked SELF)

In (ii), "Mary liked SELF" is described as pictured in John's mind and the proposition as a whole is negated. That is, negation is external in (ii). Thus, the occurrence of matrix negation does not rule out the possibility that the matrix subject is SOURCE or SELF. We shall show shortly that there is empirical reason to believe that in Chinese sentences of the form of (4), the matrix subject is neither SOURCE nor SELF. As noted previously, the notions of SOURCE and SELF will later be argued to be derivative of de se. 12 AH Ma is ruled out as a potential antecedent because it does not c-command kaki. There are, however, a number of environments in which c-command as such does not hold, e.g., see the discussion of subcommand below. Some apparent viola-


41

tions of c-command may involve differences between S-structure and LF. See, for instance, Sung's (1990) discussion of psych-predicates. Pollard and Xue (this volume), Pollard and Sag (1992), and Pollard and Xue (1998) provide an alternative approach to syntactic prominence, in which c-command is replaced by o-command (based on the Obliqueness Hierarchy of Pollard and Sag, 1992). 13 The examples in this section have been explained on the assumption that in sentences like those of (5), negation prevents the matrix subject from constituting an instance of internal SELF. This state of affairs is inexplicable if the logical structure of (5b) is (i)

->(Ah Meng know that Ah Leng hates SELF)

In (i), Ah Meng is a possible SELF because negation is external. If, however, the only logical form possible for (5b) is (ii)

Ah Meng -i(know that Ah Leng that hates SELF)

in which negation is internal to the VP, Ah Meng would not constitute an internal SELF. Why might external negation be excluded in Teochew and in Chinese languages generally? It is well known that, in Chinese, logical operators are interpreted in situ. For instance, as was shown in Huang (1982), in English, sentences like (iii) I didn't see many students, can be understood either as (iv) -i (many (x) (I saw x) or as

(v)

many (x) -i (I saw x)

According to (iv), the number of students that I saw was not many (perhaps 5). According to (v), however, the number of students that I saw may have been many or few so long as the number of students that I didn't see was many. Interpretation (iv) corresponds to the order of logical operator (-1, many) in (iii), but the order of logical operators in interpretation (v) is the opposite of the order of logical operators in (iii). Both interpretations are possible. Turning to Chinese, in (vi) Wo meiyou kanjian hen duo xuesheng. I not see very many student T did not see many students.' the only possible interpretation is (vii) -i (many (x) (I saw x) in which the order of logical elements in LF is isomorphic to the order in the sentence. What can be concluded from these examples is that, in Chinese, an operator appears in the same position in surface structure as in logical form.

42

Peter Cole et al

We shall now return to why an external negation interpretation might not be possible for sentences like those of (5). We see that in Chinese negation occurs in surface structure in an immediately pre-VP position. On the assumption that negation occurs in the same position in LF as in surface structure in Teochew as well as Mandarin, it would be expected that negation in Chinese is VP negation (i.e., of type 1>3. Again, the two control situations are problematic for second person only when they co-occur. Second-person control by an indirect object, in the absence of reflexivization of another person, is perfectly acceptable as shown in (59). Reflexivization across an intervening subject, in the absence of another controlled pronominal, is also perfectly acceptable, as shown in (39) TABLE 2 CO-OCCURRENCE OF PERSON CATEGORIES IN LDR IN INGUSH PERSON CLAUSES Person of main clause subject (chained clause possessor)

Person of main clause indirect object (chained clause subject)

3 1 1 2 3 2 3

1 3 2 1 2 3

Inclusive

3

Inclusive

Acceptability

Example no.

/ / ? * * * * *

(51) (55) (53) (54) (52) (56) (57) (58)

272

Johanna Nichols TABLE 3 SYNTACTIC POSSIBILITIES FOR COREFERENCE, BY PERSON CATEGORY

Control situation Control by indirect object Reflexivization across intervening subject

Person category

2 * *

1 / */?/a

3 / /

a

Acceptability depends on person of intervening subject: 3 acceptable, 1 variable or dubious, 2 never acceptable.

preceding (the second-person pronouns, not the boldface first-person pronouns, are at issue). (59) Muusaaz hwuona kinashjka iicaad, wa yz txuona Musa.Erg 2s.Dat book bought 2s.Erg it 1p.Dat diesharg-dolazh read-Fut.CV 'Musa bought you a book to read to us.' 4.10.2. ONE REFLEXIVE CATEGORY PER CLAUSE No two non-coreferential reflexives may surface in the same clause. In (60a), the two reflexives are of different person categories, so the sentence should be unambiguous, but it is nonetheless ungrammatical. A non-third-person pronoun can be made nonreflexive in this context, and the result is grammatical, as in (60b). Note that in (60b) the controller of LDR is in a non-main clause. (60) a. *Suona xov, shiina sie bwarg-v•ejcha Muusaajna ls.Dat know 3s.RFL ls.RFL eye-see.CV Musa.Dat xosa xietaljga good seem-Sbj 'I know Musa is glad he saw me.' (lit. 'that he himself saw myself) b. Suona xov, shiina so bwarg-v•ejcha Muusaajna xoza Is-Dat know 3s.RFL ls.Nom eye-see-CV Musa.Dat good xietaljga seem-Sbj id. (61) * Muusaajna xov sejna shii bwarjg-vejcha suona M.-Dat know 1sRFL.Dat SsRFL.Nom eye-see.CV ls.Dat

Long-distance Reflexivization in Chechen and Ingush

273

xoza xietaljga good seem.Sbj 'Musa knows I'm glad I saw him.' The following examples have two third-person reflexives with different ferents. Feminine j- vs masculine v- on 'see' makes the reference unambiguous, but the sentences are nonetheless ungrammatical. (62)

*Muusaajna xov, shiina shie bwarjg-jejcha Mariemaa Musa.dat know 3sRFL.Dat SsRFL.Nom eye-J.see.CV M.Dat xoza xietaljga. good seem.Sbj 'Musa knows Mariem is glad he saw her.'

(63) *Muusaajna xov, shiina shie bwarjg-vejcha M.Dat know 3sRFL.Dat 3sRFL.Nom eye-V.see.CV Mariemaa xoza xietaljga. M.Dat good seem.Sbj 'Musa knows Mariem is glad she saw him.' 4.10.3. MAIN-CLAUSE ANTECEDENT Only when there is potential multiple third-person LDR does a difference between main-clause and non-main-clause controllers appear: in this case, the main-clause subject is the preferred controller and coreferents to other subjects can be nonreflexive or zero. (64)

Cynna xov [f [yz chy-jiecha] shiiga tilifon 3s.Dat know (Erg) 3s.Nom in-J.come 3s.RFL.All phone tuoxarg-joljga] strike-Sbj 'He knows she will call him when she gets home.'

(65) Cynna xov [ [f chy-jiecha] cuo shiiga tilifon 3s.Da know (Nom) in-J.come 3s.Erg 3sRFL.All phone tuoxarg-joljga] strike-Sbj 'He knows she will call him when she gets home.' (66)

Muusaajna xov [ [Wajshiet chy-jiecha] cuo shiiga Musa.Dat know Aisha in-J.come.CV3s.Erg 3sRFL.All tilifon tuoxarg-joljga] phone strike-Sbj 'Musa knows that when Aisha gets home she will call him.'

274

Johanna Nichols

Even here, however, multiple reflexivization is possible: (67) Muusaajna xov [[shie chy-jiecha] Wajshietaz M.Dat know 3sRFL.Nom in-J.come.CV Aisha.Erg shiiga tilifon tuoxarg-joljga] 3sRFL. All 3sRFL. All phone strike-Sbj 'Musa knows that when she gets home Aisha will call him.' 4.10.4. LOCAL REFLEXIVIZATION IS FAVORED OVER LDR In sentences with two possible controllers and, hence, potential ambiguity, wherever a local-reflexivization interpretation is possible it is strongly preferred and in most elicitation proved to be the only interpretation that came to mind: (68) Q'amarsoltaz Muusaajna kinashjka iicar, cuo yz shii Q.Erg M.Dat book bought 3s.Ergit 3s.RFL bierazhta diesharg-dolazh children.Dat read-FUT.CV 'Q'amarsoltj bought Musaj a book for hiirij to read to hisj children.' (69) Q'amarsoltaz [f shii bierazhta diesha] Muusaajna Q.Erg. (Erg) 3s.RFL children-.Datread-Inf M.Dat kinashjka iicar book bought 'Q'amarsolti bought Musaj a book to read to hisj (M.'s) children.'

5. CONCLUSION Chechen-Ingush long-distance reflexivization is analogous in its syntactic behavior to local reflexivization, the only difference being its domain: the domain of local reflexivization is the clause while that of long-distance reflexivization is the sentence or clause chain. Both local and long-distance reflexivization are strictly subject-controlled, apply virtually without limit throughout their domains, and are not sensitive to discourse or pragmatic conditions. Generative research over the last decade (Cole, Hermon, and Sung, 1990; papers in Koster and Reuland, 1991, Progovac, 1993; Cole and Sung, 1993) has led to the general expectation that in languages with LDR, the reflexive pronouns will be monomorphemic, LDR will be subject-oriented and controlled only from the main clause, and (in languages without subject-verb


275

agreement) it will be blocked if subjects of different person categories occur in different higher clauses (i.e., if between the potential antecedent and the reflexive there is an intermediate subject of a different person category). Chechen-Ingush LDR does not fit this pattern: the pronouns are technically monomorphemic, although semantically they distinguish person-number categories and reflexivity; LDR is subject-oriented but controllable from any clause; there are no blocking effects (as shown by examples (42)-(43), (50)) though there is no subject-verb agreement (recall that there is gender agreement, not with the subject but on the ergative pattern, with the S/O; and it occurs in under one-third of the verb roots, the rest simply lacking agreement). Even if the person interaction discussed in section 4.10.1 is considered a blocking effect, it is quite minimal, involving only the second person in a very restricted context. From a typological viewpoint, the Chechen-Ingush system is made possible by the presence of person-number distinctions in reflexive pronouns (this makes possible the multiple LDR and absence of blocking) and by clause chaining (which sets up a morphosyntax in which long strings of clauses comprise a single-tensed sentence, and in which referential properties are regularly dependent on higher clauses). The absence of a switchreference system or any regular specialization of converbs as same-subject and different-subject must also favor LDR; at least, their presence would presumably make LDR unnecessary. To my knowledge, Chechen and Ingush are the first ergative languages to be discussed in the literature on LDR, though it seems unlikely that ergativity has anything to do with LDR. LDR of the Chechen-Ingush type is not common cross-linguistically. It is not widespread within the Northeast Caucasian language family, though cognate third-person reflexive pronouns occur throughout the family. (Haspelmath (1993:413) gives two examples of LDR and on p. 414 one of logophoric reflexivization, from the very distant sister language Lezghi.) Nonetheless, in view of its regularity, the presence of multiple LDR, and the clear contrast with logophoric reflexivization, I suggest that it be taken as canonical LDR.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Some of the work on Ingush reported here has been supported by NSF grant SBR-96-16448 to the University of California, Berkeley. Field work on Chechen and Ingush in Tbilisi, Georgia (1979-80,1981,1984), Ingushetia, and the Chechen Republic-Ichkeria (then Chechen-Ingush ASSR; 1989) was supported by the Interna-

276

Johanna Nichols

tional Research and Exchanges Board. Research on Jordan Chechen in Berkeley (1983) was supported by the Committee on Research of the University of California at Berkeley. I am grateful to the many speakers of Ingush and Chechen who have worked with me at one time or another, and in particular to Issa Guliev for assistance on this and other syntactic topics in recent years. I thank Thomas Gamkrelidze, Firuza Ozdoeva, and Vaxa Timaev for hospitality and assistance in their respective institutions.

NOTES 1

Examples use an all-Latin transcription without diacritics in which "h" has a diacritic function as in English and other orthographies: ch [c], sh [s], etc.; gh [8]; w = pharyngealization or (non-postconsonantal position) voiced pharyngeal [9] (and hw = voiceless pharyngeal fricative [h]). y = [~t] in Ingush, [u] in Chechen. (For fuller phonological information see, .) In all examples, antecedent and long-distance reflexive are in boldface. Other conventions and interlinear abbreviations: 0 * & • 1s, 2p, etc. 12 All Aux Cmp Cnd CV Dat Erg Gen Impr Impf Inf Instr J Loc Nom Nz Pot Ppl Prs

Zero due to anaphora or deletion (in chaining and subordination) Place occupied by shared argument (in serialization) Particle used for serialization (and other functions). Boundary between gender prefix and verb First-person singular, second-person plural, etc. Inclusive Allative case Auxiliary verb Comparative (case of noun or degree of adjective) Conditional Converb Dative case Ergative case Genitive case Imperative Imperfect tense Infinitive Instrumental case Gender class (feminine) marked by prefixed ;'- agreement. Locative case Nominative case (i.e., absolutive: case of S, O, and citation form) Nominalized form of verb Potential (verbal derivation) Participle Present tense


Q Quot RFL Sbj V

277

Interrogative clitic particle Quotative Reflexive Subjunctive Gender class (masculine) marked by prefixed v- agreement.

Segmentation and interlinearization is minimal. Gender prefixes (not quite one-third of the verb roots in Chechen and Ingush agree in gender with the nominative S/O) are segmented off only where gender is at issue. Verb tenses and various kinds of converbs are not always distinguished in interlinears.

REFERENCES Cole, P., Hermon, G, and L.-M. Sung, (1990). Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21,1.1-22. Cole, P., and L.-M. Sung, (1993). Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 25,2. El'darxanov, T. (1900). Chechenskie teksty. Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestnostej i piemen Kavkaza 22,3.1-40. Tiflis. Foley, W., and Van Valin, R. D. Jr., (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hale, K. (1991). Misumalpan verb sequencing constructions. Clair Lefebvre, ed., Serial Verbs: Grammatical, Comparative, and Cognitive Approaches (Studies in the Sciences of Language, 8.) (C. Lefebvre, ed.) Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. Haspelmath, M. (1993). A Grammar of Lezgian. (Mouton Grammar Library, 9.) Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Koster, J, and Reuland,E. (eds.) (1991). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maciev, A. G. (1965). Cheberloevskij dialekt chechenskogo jazyka. I. Ju. Aliroev et al., eds., Sbornik statej i materialov po voprosam naxskogo jazykoznanija, 3-95. Izvestija Chechensko-ingushskogo nauchno-issledovatel'skogo instituta istorii, jazyka i literatury, VI.2: Jazykoznanie. Groznyj. Nichols, J. (1994a). Chechen. In The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, 4: Northeast Caucasian Languages, part 2. (Rieks Smeets, ed.,) pp. 1-78. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Nichols, J. (1994b). Ingush. In The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, 4: Northeast Caucasian Languages, part 2 (Rieks Smeets, ed.), pp. 79-145. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Peterson, D. A. (2000). Ingush a: The elusive Type 5 clitic? Submitted for publication. Progovac, L. (1993). Long-distance reflexives: Movement-to-Infl vs. relativized SUBJECT. Linguistic Inquiry 24,4.755-772.

278

Johanna Nichols

Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1993). A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, (R. Van Valin, ed.,) pp. 1-164. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins.

WHY THE BLOCKING EFFECT? HAIHUA PAN Department of Chinese, Translation, and Linguistics City University of Hong Kong Kowloon, Hong Kong

1. INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the blocking effect observed in long-distance (LD) bound bare reflexive ziji in Mandarin Chinese. Unlike the symmetrical unlike-person blocking claimed in the literature (Huang and Tang, 1991; Xue, Pollard, and Sag, 1994), this chapter argues that (a) the blocking effect of ziji is not symmetrical: first- and second-person pronouns can block third-person noun phrases (NP) from long distance binding ziji, though third-person NPs do not necessarily block first- or second-person pronouns from long-distance binding ziji; and (b) other grammatical functions filled by first- and second-person pronouns, not just subjects or NPs contained in the subject, can induce the blocking effect. The chapter claims that long-distance bound ziji points to the carrier of belief, and reconstructs this notion as self-ascription. The blocking effect is explained by appealing to the fact that only first- and second-person pronouns are obligatory self-ascribers and thus can block long-distance binding of ziji by third-person NPs if they intervene between the potential third-person NP and the reflexive ziji, while third-person NPs do not necessarily block ziji from being long distance bound by first/second-person pronouns. The rest of this chapter is organized as follows: after describing the basic facts concerning the blocking effect in Section 2, I argue in Section 3 that the blocking effect is not symmetrical, and the crucial factor is not the local subject or the unlike-person feature conflict, as suggested in the literature. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 33 Long-Distance Reflexives

279


280

Haihua Pan

Rather, it is the asymmetry between first/second- and third-person noun phrases that plays a crucial role in the blocking effect, and syntactic functions other than subject can also induce the blocking effect. In Section 4,1 briefly discuss limitations of previous analyses employing feature agreement checking, closeness, and potential binders, logophoricity, and perspectivity. In Section 5,1 first argue that long-distance bound ziji is a de se anaphor, using Lewis' terminology, and is thus constrained by self-ascription. Then, I propose a condition to account for the properties of long distance bound ziji, and show that my account can better explain the blocking effect than can previous analyses. Before concluding the chapter in Section 7,1 discuss some relevant issues in Section 6, especially the differences between self-ascription and logophoricity.

2. THE BLOCKING EFFECT Chinese bare reflexive ziji 'self exhibits the so-called effect: long-distance binding of ziji is possible only if all intervening subjects agree in person features; otherwise, the long-distance binding is blocked, as exemplified in (1) (Y. H. Huang, 1984, Tang, 1985,1989)1 (1) a. Woi juede nij dui ziji*i/j meixinxin. I think you to self not confidence 'I think you have no confidence in yourself/*me.' b. Nii juede woj dui ziji*i/j meixinxin ma? you think I to self not confidence Q 'Do you think I have no confidence in myself/*you?' c. Zhangsani juede wo/nij dui ziji*i/j meixinxin. Zhangsan think I/you to self not confidence 'Zhangsan thinks I/you have no confidence in myself/yourself/*him.' d. Zhangsani zhidao Lisij dui ziji i/j mei xinxin. Zhangsan how Lisi to self not confidence 'Zhangsan knows that Lisi has no confidence in him/himself.' Since they do not agree in person feature with the local subjects, the matrix subjects in (la), (1b), and (1c) cannot be the antecedents of ziji. By contrast, the matrix subject in (1d) can be the antecedent of ziji, since there is no person feature conflict between the local subject and the matrix subject. The blocking effect is the motivation for requiring successive cyclic movement of ziji at LF in the movement analysis of ziji (Battistella, 1989; Cole, Hermon, and Sung, 1990; Huang and Tang, 1991; Li, 1993; Cole and Sung, 1994; Cole and Wang, 1996, among others).


281

However, the blocking fact is more complicated than presented in Tang (1989). Huang and Tang (1991) point out that an intervening subcommanding NP with different person features can also induce the blocking effect, as shown by the following contrast: first/second-person NPs but not third-person NPs contained in a subject block third-person matrix subjects from binding ziji. (2) a. Zhangsani renwei Lisij de jiao'ao hai-le zijiyy Zhangsan think Lisi DE arrogance harm-Perf self 'Zhangsanj felt that Lisi'sj arrogance harmed himi/j.' b. Zhangsani renwei woj de jiao'ao hai-le ziji*i/j. Zhangsan think I DE arrogance harm-Perf self 'Zhangsan; felt that my arrogance harmed hinUj/me.' (3) a. Zhangsani renwei Lisij neiyang zuo dui ziji i/j buli Zhangsan think Lisi that-waydo to self not-beneficial 'Zhangsan; felt that Lisi'sj acting that way didn't do him any good.' b. Zhangsani renwei nij neiyang zuo dui ziji *i/j buli Zhangsan think you that-way do to self not-beneficial 'Zhangsanj felt that your acting that way didn't do him*i/you any good.' Furthermore, direct objects and obliques, though not potential binders which are defined as c-commanding animate subjects in Huang and Tang (1991), can induce the blocking just as subjects can (Xue et al, 1994). (4) a. Zhangsani zhidao Lisij gaosu-guo nik youguan ziji *i/j/k de gongzuo. Zhangsan know Lisi tell-Guo you about self De work 'Zhangsan knew that Lisi told you about his/*your work.' b. Zhangsani shuo Lisij gen nik tan-guo ziji *i/j/k de shi. Zhangsan say Lisi with you talk-Guo self De business 'Zhangsan said that Lisi talked about his/*your business with you.' c. Zhangsani renwei Lisij cong wok nar tingshuo-le ziji *i/j/k Zhangsan think Lisi from I there hear-say-Perf self de fenshu. De score 'Zhangsan thinks Lisi heard from me his/*my score.' d. Zhangsani zhidao Lisij zai wo/nikjia xi ziji *i/j/k Zhangsan know Lisi at I/you home develop self de zhaopian. DE photo 'Zhangsan knew that Lisi was developing his picture(s) at my/your home.' Sentence (4a) indicates that a second-person object can induce the blocking effect on the third-person matrix subject, Zhangsan, though it does not

282

Haihua Pan

do so on its co-argument, the intermediate third-person subject Lisi. Sentences like (4b) and (4c) show that first- and second-person pronouns in an adjunct (wo/ni 'I/you'), though not c-commanding or subcommanding ziji, can also induce the blocking effect on the third-person matrix subject. These sentences, as pointed out in Xue et al. (1994), pose a serious problem for analyses based on I-to-I relations and Spec-head (Infl) agreement (Battistella, 1989; Huang and Tang, 1991; Progova?, 1992, 1993; Cole and Sung, 1994), which claim that only c-commanding and subcommanding subjects can induce the blocking effect. Following Huang and Tang (1991), Xue et al. (1994) suggest that the blocking effect in subcommanding cases can be influenced by discourse factors. They claim that, while the blocking effect in the latter is subject to unlike-person blocking, in the former it is constrained by animate blocking, as exemplified by the contrast observed in (5a) and (5b). The inanimate subject NP naben shu 'that book' in (5a) does not block long-distance binding of ziji, but the animate subject NP Lisi in (5b) does. (5) a. [Zhangsani de xin]j biaoming naben shuk hai-le ziji i/*j/k . Zhangsan DE letter indicate that book harm-Perf self 'Zhangsan'si letter indicates that that book harmed himi.' b. [Zhangsani de xin]j biaoming Lisik hai-le ziji*i/*j/k. Zhangsan DE letter indicate Lisi harm-Perf self 'Zhangsan'si letter indicates that Lisi harmed himi/himself.' c. [Zhangsani de xin] j anshi Lisik hai-le zijii/*j/k. Zhangsan DE letter hint Lisi harm-Perf self 'Zhangsan'si letter hinted that Lisi harmed himi/himself.' However, contrary to their claim, the subcommander Zhangsan in (5c) can bind ziji, though there is an intervening animate subject Lisi. The difference between (5b) and (5c) is the main verb. As for the verb anshi 'hint,' we have the following: if Zhangsan's letter hints at X, then Zhangsan hints at X, but this is not necessarily true for the verb biaoming 'indicate.' So only in (5c) Zhangsan can bind ziji- This contrast suggests that different verbs influence the binding possibility of ziji. Hence subcommanding and c-commanding cases behave similarly and should not be treated separately.

3. THE BLOCKING EFFECT IS NOT SYMMETRICAL The characterization of the blocking effect so far implies that the blocking effect is symmetrical; actually, this seems to be the general consensus (Tang, 1989; Huang and Tang, 1991; Xue et al., 1994). However, closer examination reveals that it is not all that symmetrical.2 Actually, all the data pre-


283

sented so far, i.e., (l)-(5), show only that intervening first/second-person pronouns induce a blocking effect on third-person NPs, while intervening NPs with third-person features do not induce such an effect for third-person NPs. What is not shown is whether intervening third-person NPs can block first/second NPs from binding ziji. For the unlike-person blocking hypothesis to hold in its most general form, intervening third-person NPs should also induce a blocking effect on first/second-person pronouns. Unfortunately, this is not supported by Chinese data. First, although intervening first- and second-person subjects block long distance binding of ziji, third-person subjects do not necessarily block long-distance binding of ziji by first- or second-person NPs, as exemplified by the following sentences. (6) a. Woi zhidao Lisij bu xihuan ziji ?i/j. I know Lisi not like self 'I knew that Lisi did not like me/himself.' b. Nii xiang meixiang guo Lisij conglaijiu mei xihuan guo ziji ?i/j ? you think not think Guo Lisi never conj not like Guo self 'Have you ever thought about the idea that Lisi never liked you/himself?' c. Woi yizhi yiwei Zhangsanj xihuan zijii/j, keshio wo cuo le. I so-far think Zhangsan like self but I wrong Prt 'I always thought that Zhangsan liked me, but I was wrong.' (7) a. Woi bu xihuan Lisij guan ziji i/j de shi. I not like Lisi interfere self De matter 'I don't like Lisi interfering in my (own) business.' b. Nii xihuan Lisij guan ziji i/j de shi ma? you like Lisi interfere self De matter Q 'Do you like Lisi interfering in your (own) business?' c. Lisii bu xihuan wo/nij guan ziji *i/j de shi. Lisi not like I/you interfere self DE matter 'Lisi does not like me/you interfering in my/your (own) business.' d. Lisii xihuan Zhangsanj guan zijiyj de shi. Lisi like Zhangsan interfere self DE matter 'Does Lisi like Zhangsan interfering in his (own) business?' (8) a. Dangshi woi pa Lisij zai lai zhao ziji i/?j de mafan, jiu Then I afraid Lisi again come find self DE trouble Conj gei-le ta 100 kuai qian. give-Perfhim CL money 'At that time I was afraid that Lisi would come to cause trouble for me again, so I gave him 100 dollars.'

284

Haihua Pan

b. Dangshi nii pa Lisij zai lai zhao ziji i/?j de mafan, Then you afraid Lisi again come find self DE trouble jiu gei-le ta 100 kuai qian, dui-bu-dui? Conj give-Perf him CL money right-not-right 'At that time you were afraid that Lisi would come to cause trouble for me again, so you gave him 100 dollars. Is that right?' c. Dangshi Lisii pa woj zai qu zhao ziji *i/j de mafan, Then Lisi afraid I again come find self DE trouble jiu gei-le wo 100 kuai qian. Conj give-Perf I CL money 'At that time Lisi was afraid that I would go to cause trouble for him again, so he gave me 100 dollars.' Although the local third-person subjects are the preferred antecedents of ziji, the first/second-person matrix subjects in (6a) and (6b) are also possible antecedents. The first/second-person matrix subjects in (6c), (7a), and (7b) are equally acceptable antecedents. The contrast between (7a)/(7b) and (7c) is a strong piece of evidence arguing for the claim that the blocking effect is not symmetrical. The pragmatic factor involved is biased toward the matrix subject, so one would expect that the matrix subject could be the antecedent for all occurrences of ziji in (7). However, the matrix subject is not a possible antecedent only in (7c). If the symmetrical unlike-person account is correct, all the long-distance binding should be blocked except for (7d), which is not consistent with the facts. The binding patterns in (8) further support our position. Thus, the binding patterns observed in (6), (7), and (8) argue strongly against the symmetrical view. Furthermore, the asymmetry between third-person NPs and first/second-person pronouns also shows up in the subcommanding cases. Although an inanimate NP does not block long-distance binding of ziji in (9), inanimate NPs with a possessive can block the long-distance binding of ziji by third-person NPs only if the possessive in question has the first- or second-person feature, as shown in (10) and (11). (9) Zhangsani shuo naben shu hai-le zijii Zhangsan say that book hurt-Perf self 'Zhangsanj said that that book hurt himi. (10) a. Zhangsani zhidao wo/nii de baogao hai-le ziji *i/j Zhangsan know I/you DE report hurt-Perf self 'Zhangsan knew that my/your report hurt me/you.' b. Woi zhidao Lisij de baogao hai-le ziji i/j I know Lisi DE report hurt-Perf self 'I knew that Lisi's report hurt me/him.'


285

c. Zhangsani zhidao Lisij de baogaohai-le zijii/j. Zhangsan know Lisi DE report hurt-Perf self 'Zhangsan knew that Lisi's report hurt himself/him.' (11) a. [Zhangsani de hua]j anshi [Lisik de xin]1 hai-le zijii/*j/k*1. Zhangsan DE speech imply Lisi DE letter harm-Perf self 'Zhangsan'Sj words imply that Lisi's letter harmed himi/himself.' b. {Zhangsani de hua] j anshi [nik de xin]1 hai-le Zhangsan DE speech imply your DE letter harm-Perf ziji *i/j/k/*1 . self 'Zhangsan'si letter implies that you harmed himi/himself.' c. [Ni i de hua]j anshi [Lisik de xin]1 hai-le zijii/*j/k/*1. youDE speech imply Lisi DE letter harm-Perf self 'Youri letter implies that Lisi harmed himi/himself.' Thus, the animate feature of the intervening subjects is not the correct factor to differentiate the long-distance binding possibility of ziji in subcommanding cases, as claimed in Xue et al (1994). Rather, it is the person feature, especially the contrast between first/second-person pronouns and third-person NPs, just like the c-commanding cases. Hence, we think that there is no need to differentiate the so-called different types of blocking effect—unlike person blocking for c-commanding cases and animate blocking for subcommanding cases—and they should be dealt with by the same principle in the semantic and discourse modules. Sentences like (12) (from Li, 1993) further support our nonsymmetrical view of the blocking effect: although the local subject is animate, the firstand second-person pronoun possessors in (12a) block the long-distance binding of ziji by the matrix subject, while the third-person possessor in (12b) does not. (12) a. Baoyuiyiwei wode/nidej xueshengk bu xihuan ziji *i/*j/k . Baoyii think my/your student not like self 'Baoyu thinks that my/your student does not like himself.' b. Baoyui yiwei Lisij de xueshengk bu xihuan zijiyi/*j/k. Baoyu think Lisi DE student not like self 'Baoyu thinks that Lisi's student does not like him/himself.' Therefore, the correct generalization for the blocking effect is that only intervening first/second-person pronouns induce the blocking effect, while third-person NPs do not necessarily do so, and first/second-person pronouns in other grammatical functions, not just subjects or those contained in a subject, can block the long-distance binding of ziji. Thus, the blocking effect is more sensitive to different person NPs than to local subjects. This de-

286

Haihua Pan

scriptive generalization indicates that any analysis crucially depending on the properties of local subjects, e.g., the LF head movement analysis of ziji, will fail to explain the blocking effect of long-distance bound ziji.

4. PREVIOUS ANALYSES AND THEIR LIMITATIONS Most of the previous analyses of ziji employ feature compatibility checking to explain the blocking effect, while Huang and Tang (1991) use the concepts of closeness and potential binder with feature compatibility in their account of ziji. In the first two subsections following, I will discuss the problems for these two approaches.3,4 In Section 4.3,1 point out the problems for the accounts based on logophoricity and perspectivity. 4.1 Feature Compatibility Checking

In order to explain the blocking effect, most of the previous GB analyses employ feature percolation and subject-head agreement (Battistella, 1989; Cole et al, 1990; Progovac, 1992,1993; Cole et al, 1993; Cole and Sung, 1994; Cole and Wang, 1996) In these accounts, it is assumed that subjects play a crucial role. The blocking effect is explained as follows: once ziji gets its person feature from the local subject or the possessor contained in the subject if the subject is inanimate, the potential antecedent will be checked against this feature. If there is a feature conflict, then we have the blocking effect. Otherwise, long-distance binding is allowed. Although feature agreement checking can explain some of the blocking effects of ziji, the following problems remain. First, feature agreement checking is symmetrical, since neither will a third-person local subject agree in person feature with a first/second-person pronoun, nor will a first/second-person pronoun with a third-person NP. Thus, this account predicts that the blocking effect will be observed for both first/second-person pronouns and third-person NPs if the intervening NP has a different person feature. Although this prediction is true for the potential candidate with a first-person feature and the intervening NP with a second-person feature, or the other way round, it is not true for first/second-person pronouns when the intervening NP has a third-person feature. In the latter case, the blocking effect is not always observed, and long-distance binding is possible, as shown in (6), (7a), (7b), (8a), and (8b). Second, inanimate subjects without possessors could be problematic for this approach, since, unlike the claim made in Tang (1989), ziji can have inanimate antecedents (Pan, 1995,1997), as exemplified in the following.5


287

(13) [Meige gongyuan]idou you (ta)-zijii[de tedian. every-CL park all have (it)-self DE special-feature 'Every park has its (own) special feature.' Since inanimate subjects can be the antecedents of ziji, sentences like (14) below, if feature checking is applied, would be wrongly predicted to observe the blocking effect, since the local subject and the matrix subject do not agree in person features. (14) Nii shuo-guo naben shu hai-le zijii ma? yousay-GUO that-CL book hurt-Perf self Q 'Did you; say that that book hurt youi?' Third, subcommanding cases are also problematic for feature compatibility checking. According to feature percolation (under the assumption that inanimate subjects are not possible antecedents of ziji), the subcommanding possessor will percolate its person feature to the embedded subject and ziji will get this feature. Since the person feature of the possessors in (l0a), (l0b), (11b), and (11c) is not compatible with that of the matrix subject, the blocking effect should be observed for all the sentences. This prediction is only compatible with (10a) and (11b) but not with (10b) or (11c). Hence, sentences like (10b) and (11c) are not expected for the feature agreement checking approach. Furthermore, since the basic assumption for feature percolation (inanimate NPs cannot be antecedents of ziji) is in doubt, the feature compatibility checking approach is in trouble. Besides, first- and second-person nonsubjects cause a serious problem for this approach, since feature checking (Spec-Head agreement) only applies to subjects or NPs contained in a subject. Thus, the approach in question makes either no prediction or wrong predictions for the sentences in (4).6 Finally, sentences like (12a) are even more problematic for the approach in question. Since the local subject is animate, feature percolation cannot apply. As the local subject and the matrix subject have compatible person feature, (12a) is predicted to allow long-distance binding, which contradicts the fact. 4.2. Closeness and Potential Binders Huang and Tang (1991) differentiate subcommanding cases from the normal cases of ziji binding. Since their treatment of the latter also uses feature compatibility checking to explain the blocking effect, and thus will have similar problems that the feature compatibility checking approach has, as pointed out in the previous subsection, I will focus on their treatment of the former which is dealt with by the following condition.

288

Haihua Pan

(15) A reflexive a may take a NP b as its binder if (a) b subcommands a; and (b) There is no NP g,g a potential binder for a, such that 7 is closer to a than b is. (16) b subcommands a iff b is contained in an NP that c-commands a or that subcommands a, and any argument containing b is in subject position. (17) A potential binder is any c-commanding animate subject in the governing category of a (whether or not it is co-indexed with a).7 Notice that the proposed condition requires that the antecedents of ziji subcommand ziji, and long-distance binding is possible only if there is no closer potential binder. Since a potential binder must be a c-commanding animate subject, the analysis of ziji by Huang and Tang (1991) can avoid the problems caused by intervening inanimate subjects without possessors, as shown in (18). (18) Ni/Lisii de xin biaoming naben shu hai-le ziji i You/Lisi DE letter indicate that-CL book hurt-Perf self 'Your/Lisi'si letter indicates that book hurt you/himi?' However, their analysis has the problems listed in the following. First, the condition defined in (15) above is an alternative way of extending the governing category of the reflexive, though it is not incorporated into the definition given in Binding Condition A. This suggests that there exists some redundancy in Huang and Tang's account, since, with LF movement, there is no need to extend the governing category with additional rules, and LF movement provides it for free. Second, the account of Huang and Tang (1991) is too strong in ruling out a remote human subject from binding the reflexive if closer subjects are animate but nonhuman NPs, as shown in (19) below. For these cases, Huang and Tang (1991) would predict that long-distance binding of ziji is not possible, since the closer animate nonhuman subjects are potential binders, and thus should block the human subcommander in the matrix subjects from binding ziji- However, this prediction is not consistent with the facts. In (19) following, the subjects in the embedded clause have the feature [+animate, -human], but they do not block long-distance binding of ziji by the possessors in the matrix subjects. (19) a. Zhangsarii de xin biaoming [NP Lisij de gou]k zai zijii/?j/k Zhangsan DE letter indicate Lisi DE dog at self de fangjian jiao-guo. DE room bark-GUO 'Zhangsan's letter indicates that Lisi's dog barked in his room.'


289

b. Zhangsani de hua biaoming [NP yitiao gou] j zai ziji i/?j Zhangsan DE speech indicate one-CL dog at self de fangjian shuijiao. DE room sleep 'Zhangsan's words indicate that a dog was sleeping in his room.' Similarly, other subcommanding cases are also problematic for Huang and Tang's analysis. Although they can handle the problematic cases for the feature agreement checking approach such as (10b) and (11c), they have problems with (l0a) and (lib) that are not problematic for the feature agreement checking approach. Since the inanimate local subjects (with or without possessors) are not potential binders, no blocking is expected under Huang and Tang's analysis, which is at odds with examples like (10a) and (11b). Although we can change the potential binder definition to c-commanding human subject to cover sentences like (19), the following sentences are still problematic for the new definition of potential binders. This is because, under the new definition, the local human subject should block the NPs farther away from binding the reflexive ziji, which contradicts the fact, as exemplified in (20). (20) a. Nii de xin anshi Lisik hai-le ziji i/k . you DE letter hint Lisi harm-Perf self 'Yourj letter hinted that Lisi harmed you/himself.' b. Zhangsani de xin anshi Lisik hai-le ziji i/k . Zhangsan DE letter hint Lisi harm-Perf self 'Zhangsan'Sj letter hinted that Lisi harmed hinii/himself.' Finally, examples like (12) given earlier are also problematic for Huang and Tang (1991). Neither the feature compatibility checking nor the condition defined in (15) can correctly predict the binding patterns in (12). Since Huang and Tang only consider the closer c-commanding animate subject NPs and do not differentiate the person feature of the potential candidate and the competing closer NPs, their account of ziji fails to deal with the blocking effect, though they employ concepts like closeness and potential binders. 4.3. Logophoricity and Perspectivity Some researchers argue that long-distance binding should be accounted for by discourse factors such as logophoricity (Maling, 1984; Zribi-Hertz, 1989; Reinhart and Reuland, 1991,1993; Yu, 1991; Huang, 1994, and others), perspectivity (Kuno, 1987; Sells, 1987; Zubin et al, 1990; Li, 1991; Iida, 1992,

290

Haihua Pan

and others), emphasis, and intensive pronouns (Baker, 1995). Others argue that thematic prominence or a combination of it with subject is the right condition to explain the long-distance binding property of reflexives (Chou, 1992; Xu, 1993,1994). Clements (1975) uses the notion of logophoricity, which was originally introduced by Hagege (1974), to differentiate morphologically different pronouns in the studies of African languages. A logophor refers to an entity "whose speech, thoughts, feeling, or general state of consciousness are reported" (Clements, 1975:141) and typically appears with predicates of communication and mental experience. Maling (1984) argues that Icelandic long-distance bound reflexive sig is logophoric. Sells (1987) tries to reduce the notion of logophoricity to three more primitive ones: the SOURCE of the report, the person whose mental state or attitude is described by the content of the report (SELF), and the person from whose point of view the report is made (PIVOT). He claims that Japanese zibun is constrained by PIVOT. Zribi-Hertz (1989) argues that an English reflexive can be long-distance bound if it refers to the minimal subject of consciousness (SC), which is very similar to the logophoricity account. Reinhart and Reuland (1991) also treat the exceptional cases of long-distance binding of reflexives as something like logophoricity, claiming that the deictic center plays a crucial role in the interpretation of long-distance bound reflexives. Based on Kuno's (1987) empathy concept, Iida (1992) argues that it is the speaker's perspective that makes long-distance binding possible for Japanese zibun. After discussing Sells' approach to logophoricity, Stirling (1993) argues that it is possible to unify the three notions of Sells' by the notion of validator, which has the feature [-first person] and is responsible for the truth of the sentence involved. Following Sells (1987), Yu (1991) and Huang (1994) claim that Chinese ziji is logophoric and thus must be constrained by logophoricity. Besides, Chen (1992) uses topicality and Sells' PIVOT notion to account for the long-distance binding properties of ziji, while Li (1991) argues that perspective-taking is the crucial factor for the interpretation of unbound and long-distance bound ziji. In this subsection, I will concentrate only on logophoricity and Li's account, a representative of the perspectivity approach, and briefly discuss their limitations. 4.3.1. LONG-DISTANCE BOUND ZIJI IS NOT A LOGOPHORIC PRONOUN According to Clements (1975), Sells (1987), and Stirling (1993), a logophoric pronoun has the following three properties: (a) it does not exhibit the blocking effect; (b) it can always have the source or the subject of consciousness as its antecedent, though it is not compatible with perception verbs; and (c) it cannot have the first-person pronoun as its antecedent.


291

However, ziji does not have any of the three properties. First, ziji exhibits the blocking effect, as pointed out in Section 1, namely, that an intervening first/second-person pronoun blocks all the remote third-person non-co-argument subjects from binding ziji, but a third person NP does not necessarily block first/second-person pronouns from binding ziji long distance. Second, ziji cannot have the NP carrying the role source as its antecedent, as shown in (21). (21) Zhangsani cong Lisij nar tingshuo naben shu hai-le zijiy i/*j . Zhangsan from Lisi there hear that-CL book hurt-Perf self 'Zhangsan heard from Lisi that that book hurt himself.' Also, ziji cannot have the subject of consciousness as its antecedent as long as there is an intervening first/second-person pronoun, See (10a) and (12a), though this would be possible if ziji were a logophoric pronoun. Third, although the logophoricity theory can account for long distance binding in belief contexts or sentences with embedded complement clauses when there is no first/second-person pronoun intervening, it fails to account for similar sentences which contain an intervening first/second-person pronoun, e.g., (10a) and (12a). The theory also fails to explain why long-distance binding is possible in the following sentences (Carl Lee Baker's lecture notes): (22) a. Johni minglin Billj [s PRO gei zijiyj guahuzi]. John order Bill to self shave 'John ordered Bill to shave him/himself.' b. Johtii bi Billi [s PRO gei ziji i/j guahuzi]. John force Bill to self shave 'John forced Bill to shave him/himself.' In (22), the local domain is the embedded infinitive clause indicated by S. Since the matrix object Bill controls PRO, Binding Condition A can only predict that Bill is the antecedent of ziji. That is, it fails to predict that the matrix subject can also be the antecedent. Since John in (22) is hardly a source, nor are sentences in (22) reports about John's feeling, thoughts, etc., the binding pattern observed in (22) is problematic for the logophoricity account. Besides, ziji can appear in the perception verb context, and can be long-distance bound, as long as there is no intervening first/second-person pronoun, as exemplified in (23). (23) Zhangsani tingshuo [NP Lisij de gou]k zai ziji i/j/k de fangjian jiao. Zhangsan hear Lisi DE dog at self DE room bark 'Zhangsan heard that Lisi's dog is barking in his own room.'

292

Haihua Pan

Finally, logophoric pronouns are said to be in complementary distribution with first-person pronouns, so they cannot have them as their antecedents, i.e., the (c) property of logophoric pronouns. However, long-distance bound ziji does not have the (c) property of a logophoric pronoun. It can readily have the first person pronoun wo 'I' as its antecedent, as shown in sentences like (6a, c), (la), and (8a). Since none of the three properties of logophoric pronouns is possessed by ziji, it is very difficult to argue that ziji is a logophoric pronoun.8 4.3.2. THE PERSPECTIVE-TAKING ACCOUNT is NOT ADEQUATE N.-C. Li (1991) argues that Chinese long-distance bound ziji is constrained by perspective-taking, and it is compatible only with reflective mental states. She differentiates unbound ziji and long-distance bound ziji. Although both have the experiencer as antecedents, they differ in the sense that the former appears in the expressive framing which does not contain the coding of the experiencer, while the latter occurs in the reportive framing with the coding of the experiencer. She suggests that the former is related to the experiencer's private experience, and the latter must refer to the experiencer who is in a mental state of self-awareness. The prediction of her analysis of long-distance bound ziji is that, in statements about facts and pure emotion or perception, ziji cannot be long-distance bound. Li's account can provide an explanation to why first/second-person pronouns cannot always bind ziji long distance when there is a third-person human NP intervening, since according to her, only verbs that are related to the experiencer's private experience, or to the reflective consciousness of the experiencer allow the long-distance binding of ziji- Although I agree with her on the role played by verbs and on the claim that ziji can have the projected ego as its antecedent, Li's analysis is not adequate in the following aspects. First, the sentence below contains a factive verb zhidao 'know,' so it should not allow ziji to appear in it, according to Li's account. This is because it is not guaranteed that Zhangsan is always self-conscious, as the belief can be attributed to him by the speaker without his awareness. However, ziji can appear in sentences like this, which suggests that self-consciousness is not a necessary condition for ziji to have a long-distance antecedent. (24) Zhangsani zhidao naben shu dui ziji i bull. Zhangsan know that-CLbook to self not-good 'Zhangsan knows that book is not good for him.' Second, sentences containing nonreflective reports also allow long-distance bound ziji to appear in them, which is not compatible with Li's ac-


293

count, because there should be no coding of the experiencer in nonreflective reports, but long-distance bound ziji must point to the projected ego of the experiencer, which requires the coding of the experiencer. (25) Zhangsani tingshuo Lisi qiangzou-le ziji i de shu. Zhangsan hear Lisi rob-Perf self DE book 'Zhangsan heard that Lisi took away his (own) book.' Also, perception verbs do allow long-distance bound ziji, as exemplified in (23) and (25), given in the previous subsection. Finally, Li does not provide an account to explain the blocking effects. Even with the highly reflective verb yiwei 'think,' ziji cannot be long-distance bound in the relevant sentences, as exemplified in (26). (26) Zhangsani yiwei wo/ni mei nazou ziji*i de shu. Zhangsan think I/you not take self DE book 'Zhangsan thought I/you did not take away his book.' From the discussions in this section, we can see that previous approaches do not provide a satisfactory account for the blocking effect of long-distance bound ziji. Thus, an alternative account is called for.

5. SELF-ASCRIPTION AND LONG-DISTANCE BOUND ZIJI Although I agree with the view that the properties of Mandarin reflexive ziji cannot be properly accounted for by pure syntactic conditions like Binding Condition A, and discourse and pragmatic principles are necessary to account for its properties, I think that the correct condition for long-distance bound ziji is not one that utilizes concepts like logophoricity or perspectivity, but one that employs self-ascription, as will be argued in the rest of this chapter. Note that my account assumes that the locally bound ziji is dealt with by the Anaphor Condition, as proposed in Pan (1998), which roughly corresponds to the category—syntactic reflexives—in Pollard and Xue (1998). 5.1. My View of Mandarin Reflexives In Pan (1995, 1997) I divide Chinese reflexives into contrastive and noncontrastive reflexives.9 The contrastive reflexive category also includes morphological reflexives like benren 'proper-person,' benshen 'proper-body,' zishen 'self-body,' and their compound forms. The noncontrastive reflexive category includes locality and self-ascription reflexives. Figure 1 below rep-

294

Haihua Pan

Figure 1. My Current View of Mandarin Reflexives

resents my current view on Chinese reflexives. Notice that the category self-ascription is now under the new category long-distance bound reflexives that also includes other long-distance bound reflexives such as the ones that are constrained by logophoricity. For example, Mandarin compound reflexive taziji can be used logophorically. See the relevant discussions in Pan (1998) and Section 6 following for the differences between logophoricity and self-ascription. In Pan (1997), I argue that the three different categories of reflexives are subject to different conditions. The contrastive ones, besides the contrastive condition, are also subject to a prominence condition like centrality, as suggested in Baker (1995), namely, that a contrastive reflexive must have the central character in the discourse as its antecedent.10 The locality reflexive is constrained by a revised condition on the basis of Chomsky's (1981) Binding Condition A. The condition utilizes the concepts of closeness and prominence (see Pan (1998) for relevant discussion). Since only long-distance bound reflexives including self-ascription ziji observe the blocking effect, I will not discuss locality reflexives and contrastive reflexives any further in this chapter. 5.2. Beliefs de re, de se, and de dicto Before getting to my analysis of self-ascription ziji, let me first introduce some necessary concepts for subsequent discussion. There are three kinds of belief. Belief de re is a belief about an entity. Belief de se, introduced in Lewis (1979), is a belief about the believer him/herself, which corresponds to


295

self-ascription. It involves self-ascribers and implies that the believer (consciously) ascribes a property to him/herself. Belief de dicto is a belief about a proposition and quantifying-in is not allowed, i.e., the elements in the belief cannot be accessed externally, i.e., outside the scope of the believer. Lewis (1979) suggests that belief de dicto is subsumed under belief de se, since, if a person believes a proposition, then we can say s/he has a belief about her/himself that s/he lives in the world where the relevant proposition is true, and thus this person has a de se belief about him/herself, which involves the relevant proposition. Because the dese belief in the de dicto case is attributed to him/her by the speaker, the person in question is not necessarily aware of it, and thus s/he is not necessarily self-conscious; see endnote 12. According to Lewis (1979), self-ascription can be applied to any attitude related to belief, knowledge, and desire. It also applies to any attitude that amounts to lack of belief, knowledge, or desire. This latter case is possible, because, as noted before for de dicto beliefs, the speaker can attribute the relevant de se belief to the person in question without his/her awareness. Connected with self-ascription are the concepts of self-ascriber and property: a self-ascriber ascribes a property to him/herself. First/second-person pronouns are obligatory self-ascribers, while third-person human NPs are optional self-ascribers, as shown in (27). (27) a. I think I am smart. b. You think you are smart. c. John thinks he is smart. Unlike the referent of John in (27c) who can have either a de re or de se belief about himself, the referents of / and you in (27) can only have a de se belief about themselves. The preceding difference indicates that, whenever the speaker or addressee ascribes some property to him/herself, it must be a de se belief, or a self-ascription. Note that the ambiguity in (27c) comes from the third-person pronoun he. It can be interpreted as a referential pronoun or a bound variable pronoun, whereas the first occurrence of first and second persons in (27a) and (27b) is not a bound variable pronoun, and the second occurrences of them have to be bound variable pronouns.11 Furthermore, although third-person NPs, e.g., John, can be referred to as the believer/carrier of belief, or the entity named John, first/second-person pronouns can be referred to as the believer/carrier of belief only. Since firstand second-person pronouns have obligatory de se beliefs, they are obligatory self-ascribers in the context of belief de se, whereas third-person NPs are optional self-ascribers in the de se context. In the discussion following, we assume that all the sentences in the language represent a belief, knowledge, or desire of the carrier. Even for simple sentences like Zhangsan xihuan Lisi 'Zhangsan likes Lisi'—a statement

296

Haihua Pan

made by the speaker—is a belief of the speaker. Note that the sentence like Zhangsan zhidao Lisi xihuan Wangwu 'Zhangsan knows that Lisi likes Wangwu' can also be a belief of the speaker. Besides, there are two other situations (readings) for this sentence: (a) Zhangsan self-ascribes the belief 'Lisi likes Wangwu'; and (b) the speaker attributes to Zhangsan the de se belief—a belief about himself—that he lives in the world where the proposition Lisi likes Wangwu is true. In both situations, Zhangsan has the knowledge that he lives in the world where the proposition Lisi likes Wangwu is true, though in the (b) reading Zhangsan is not self-conscious, as he may not know that he was attributed a de se belief, and the speaker can stand at his place, viewing the object in question, in order to satisfy the requirement of self-ascription. (See more relevant discussion in Section 6 of this chapter.) Also note that, for the latter sentence Zhangsan zhidao Lisi xihuan Wangwu, we have one self-ascription embedded in another. The speaker self-ascribes the following belief: that Zhangsan self-ascribes the belief that Lisi likes Wangwu. 5.3. Self-ascription Ziji Points to the Carrier of Belief N.-C. Li (1991) points out that there is an unbound ziji which refers to the speaker, as exemplified here: (28) Ziji neng qu nar ma? self can go there Q 'Can self(I) go there?' She claims that this ziji is referential, which is why it can be used alone. However, I would rather say that ziji is bound in a discourse in which (the projected ego of) the speaker is its antecedent. Besides the speaker, an addressee can also be the antecedent of the so-called unbound ziji when the speaker addresses the addressee using (29). Note that (29) can also be used to talk about a third party that is salient in the discourse. (29) Ziji weishenme bu qu ne? self why not go Q 'Why didn't self (you) go?' Furthermore, a sentence with an object ziji can also have the speaker as antecedent if the speaker asks him/herself the question, as in (30a). (30) a. Zhangsan xihuan ziji ma? Zhangsan like self Q 'Does Zhangsan like (my)self?'


297

b. Zhangsan zhidao Lisi xihuan ziji ma? Zhangsan know Lisi like self Q 'Does Zhangsan know that Lisi likes myself/him/himself?' This is true even for a complex sentence like (30b). Besides the normal readings with Zhangsan and Lisi as the antecedents of ziji, the speaker can also be the antecedent of ziji in (30b), though I admit that this reading is more difficult to get than the ones with Zhangsan and Lisi. Note that this reading is highly reflective; actually, all the similar readings are presented in the form of a question, which implies that the speaker has an image of himself who has the property denoted by the sentence in question. By contrast, one of the readings in (30b), i.e., with Zhangsan as antecedent, need not be reflective, since the speaker can attribute Zhangsan a de se belief lx[Lisi xihuan x], in this case, Zhangsan is not necessarily self-conscious, as he may not know it.12 This reading suggests that Li's requirement that the antecedent of long-distance bound ziji must be the experiencer of a reflective mental state is not the correct characterization of long-distance bound ziji for third-person believers, though she may be right with respect to first/second-person pronouns. We can say that Zhangsan may self-ascribe the knowledge about the fact that Lisi likes him. Even his lack of self-ascribing the knowledge also falls in the domain of self-ascription, as pointed out by Lewis (1979), and repeated in the previous subsection. This is because the speaker can attribute Zhangsan a de se belief without his awareness, and it is the speaker who makes the connection between Zhangsan and ziji. Note that, in this case, Zhangsan may be conscious, but he is not self-conscious. What is crucial here is that Zhangsan is not necessarily self-conscious, and whether he is conscious or not is not relevant to our discussion of self-ascription. From the discussion preceding, we can see that long-distance bound ziji points to the carrier of belief, knowledge, or desire, and it is thus constrained by self-ascription (see more relevant discussions in Pan 1995,1997).

5.4 The Condition for Self-ascription Ziji Assuming the discussion preceding, I propose the following condition for self-ascription ziji. (31) The Condition for Self-Ascription Ziji Ziji can be bound to the carrier of belief, the most prominent self-ascriber, in a linguistic domain g iff there is no blocker in the believed proposition contained in g.

298

Haihua Pan

(32) The Prominence Condition a is the most prominent self-ascriber in g iff there is no b in g such that b appears higher in one of the following hierarchies than a. a. SUBJ > OBJ or OBLIQUE b. Dominating NPs > Dominated NPs (33) a is a blocker for b if a is a self-ascriber such that (a) a precedes ziji; and (b) neither a nor the NP controlled by it is an argument of an irreflexive predicate containing ziji. In a de se belief situation, self-ascribers include all the referents of the animate subjects of attitudinal verbs, and first- and second-person pronouns. The hierarchy in (32b) only compares NPs that have dominance relationships with one another. The domain g includes the clause that contains at least one attitudinal verb, and one sentence may have more than one domain if it contains more than one attitudinal verb. The believed proposition is the complement clause of the attitudinal verb under consideration. Now I will show that the condition in (31) can handle all the long-distance bound cases of ziji and can provide a natural account to the blocking effect. (34) a. Johtii yiwei billj xihuan zijiyy John think Bill like self 'Johnj thinks Billj likes hinii/himselfj.' b. Johni yiwei [naben shu]j hai-le ziji i/*j . John think that-CL book hurt-Perf self 'Johnj thinks that book hurt himi.' c. Johni yiwei wo/nij xihuan ziji*i/j. John think I/you like self 'Jhonj thinks I/youj likes himself*i/my/your-selfj.' d. Woi yizhi yiwei Billj xihuan ziji i/j , keshi wo zuo le. I always think Bill like self but I wrong Prt 'Ii always thinks Billj likes mej/himselfj, but I was wrong.' (35) a. [slJohni zhidao [S2Billj juede Mark k xihaun zijii/j/k]]. John know Bill think Mark like self 'John knows that Bill thinks that Mark likes himself/him.' b. [S1 Johni juede [S2 wo/nij, zhidao Markk xihaun ziji*i/j/k]]John think I/you know Mark like self 'John thinks that I/you know that Mark likes himself/me/you.' In (34a), the domain g is the whole sentence, and the believed proposition is the embedded clause. Since the local subject is not a first- or second-person pronoun, and neither is it the subject of an attitudinal predicate, it is


299

not self-ascriber. Because there is no self-ascriber in the believed proposition contained in g and thus no blocker, the only self-ascriber, the matrix subject, will be assigned the antecedent of ziji. Hence, (31) predicts that long-distance binding is possible in (34a), which is consistent with the fact. (The coindexation with j is due to the locality ziji, which is not the concern of this chapter). In (34b), like (34a), the domain g for long-distance bound ziji is the matrix clause, and the local subject is not a self-ascriber. Since only the matrix subject is a self-ascriber and no other NPs are more prominent, it can be the antecedent of ziji as predicted by (31). (The locality ziji in (34b) is excluded independently, because ziji carries the experiencer role, but naben shu 'that book' has the inanimate feature, and thus they are incompatible with each other.) In (34c), the first/second-person pronoun wo/ni in the embedded clause, a self-ascriber, precedes ziji and is not an argument of an irreflexive predicate containing ziji, so it is a blocker in the believed proposition, according to (33). Thus, (31) would predict that long-distance binding of ziji is not possible, which is consistent with the fact. In (34d), the matrix subject in the first conjunct can be the antecedent of ziji just as in (34a), since the local subject is not a self-ascriber and is thus not a blocker. In (35a), there are two domains for the long-distance bound ziji: the matrix clause (S1) and the intermediate clause (S2). For domain S1, since there is a self-ascriber in the believed proposition S2, i.e., the subject of the attitudinal predicate juede 'think' in S2, this self-ascriber may function as a blocker for the matrix subject if it is an obligatory self-ascriber. But as pointed out in the previous subsection, third-person NPs are optional self-ascribers, so when the intermediate subject does not function as a self-ascriber, and is thus not a blocker, the matrix subject can be the antecedent of ziji- As for the intermediate subject in domain S2, similar to (34a), (31) allows it to be the antecedent of ziji Thus, (31) correctly predicts the possible readings in (35a). In (35b), the first/second-person pronouns in the believed proposition S2 precede ziji and are not an argument of an irreflexive predicate containing ziji, so they function as blockers for the matrix subject, just as in (34c). Since they are obligatory self-ascribers, the intervening first/second-person pronouns will block the matrix subject from binding ziji. Note that, unlike the matrix subject, the first/second-person pronouns in (35b) can be the antecedents of ziji, as they are also the most prominent NPs in the domain (S2), and there are no (other) self-ascribers in the believed proposition in this domain. Since all the obligatory self-ascribers discussed so far are subjects, let us examine cases in which the obligatory self-ascribers are nonsubjects, to see if (31) also makes correct predictions.

300

Haihua Pan

(36) a. Johani shuo Billk gei wo/nij kan-guo ziji *i/j/k de shu. Jogn say Bill to I/you see-GUO self DE book 'John said that Bill showed me/you his/my/your book.' b. Johni shuo Billj gaosu-guo ni/wok Markn da-le ziji*i/?j/*k/n yixiar. John say Bill tell-Guo you/I Mark hit-Perf self once 'John said that Bill told you/me that Mark hit himself/him once.' In (36a), the obligatory self-ascriber wo/ni 'I/you' are nonsubjects; they are obliques indicated by preposition gei 'to.' Since there is no requirement of subjecthood in the definition of blockers in (33), (31) would predict that the obligatory self-ascriber in (36a), though not a subject, can block the long-distance binding of ziji by the matrix subject, because the obligatory self-ascribers wo/ni in the believed proposition—the intermediate clause—are blockers for the matrix subject, according to (33); note that they precede ziji and are not an argument of an irreflexive predicate containing ziji. This prediction is borne out by the impossibility of long-distance binding of ziji observed in (36a). In (36b), the obligatory self-ascribers wo/ni are not subjects, either; they are objects. Just as in (36a), the object wo/ni in (36b) blocks the long-distance binding of ziji by the matrix subject, as predicted by (31). This is because the obligatory self-ascriber first/second-person pronouns in the intermediate clause also function as blockers for the matrix subject. Note that there is a difference between (36a) and (36b): the first/second-person pronouns do not block the local subject from binding ziji, though they do for nonlocal subjects except for the co-arguments of firstand second-person pronouns.13 This is a difference between locality ziji and long-distance bound ziji: only the latter observe the blocking effect. Also, note that the fact that the local subject can be antecedent of ziji with or without the first/second-person pronouns intervening is accounted for by the condition on locality ziji.14 Hence, it is not a problem for our account for long-distance bound self-ascription ziji. Condition (31) also predicts that long-distance binding of ziji is possible if there is an obligatory self-ascriber that does not intervene between the potential antecedent and ziji. This prediction seems to be correct, as the contrast between the sentences in (37) exemplifies. (37) a. Johni shuo Billj ba zijii/j/*k de shu songgei-lewo/nik. John say Bill BA self DE book give-Perf I/you 'John said that Bill gave his own books to me/you.' b. Johni shuo Billj Songgie-lewo/nik yiben ziji*i/j/?k de shu John say Bill give-Perf I/you one-CL self DE book 'John said that Bill gave me/you one of his own books.'


301

The obligatory self-ascribers wo/ni are obliques in the embedded clause, but they do not intervene between the matrix subject and ziji in (37a), though they do in (37b). Since the obligatory self-ascribers wo/ni do not block long-distance binding only in sentences like (37a), we can say that obligatory self-ascribers can block long-distance binding of ziji only if they intervene between the two NPs under discussion. This is why we require the self-ascriber to precede the reflexive in the definition of blockers in (33a). Sentences like (37a) suggest that an account stipulating that ziji must take the perspective of the sentence in question is not adequate, as also argued in the previous section. Under the perspective-based account, the first- or second-person NP in the embedded clause would be the deictic center; note that word order should be irrelevant in an account based on perspectivity. Thus, the first- or second-person NP would have to be the perspective-taker. That is, an account employing perspectivity would predict that the long-distance binding of ziji in (37a) is blocked, since a first/second-person pronoun—a perspective-taker—appears in it. This account would also predict that the referent of the first- or second-person NP can always be the antecedent of ziji, a prediction that is at odds with the binding pattern observed in (37a). Hence, the facts here further show that the account proposed in this section is superior to an account based on perspectivity. Another property of (31) is that it requires the antecedent of ziji to be the most prominent self-ascriber. Let us see if this requirement is fulfilled in (38) below. (38) a. Billi cong wo/nij nar tingshuo Suek piping-le zijii/*j/k. Bill from I/you there hear Sue criticize-Perf self 'Bill heard from me/you that Sue criticized herself/him.' b. Wuqing de shishii gaosu Mark j Suek pian-le ziji*i/j/k.. cruel DE fact tell Marck Sue cheat-Perf self 'The cruel fact told Mark that Sue cheated herself/him.' In (38a), there is no intervening self-ascriber in the believed proposition, the embedded clause, so the NPs in the matrix clause are possible antecedents of ziji. If there is no requirement of the most prominent self-ascriber, then both the matrix subject and the oblique first/second-person pronouns, obligatory self-ascribers, should be possible antecedents of ziji. However, the fact that only the subject can be the antecedent suggests that some kind of prominence relation is necessary. Such a requirement is specified in (31). Note that sentences like (38b) are not counterexamples to our account. This is because the inanimate subject is not a self-ascriber in nature, and thus the matrix object can be the antecedent of ziji in (38b). Sentence (39), similar to (12a), suggests that the prominence requirement should not be imposed on the blockers (self-ascribers), and our account cor-

302

Haihua Pan

rectly predicts the long-distance binding of ziji is not possible in (39). This is because the first-person pronoun in the believed proposition is a blocker for the matrix subject, as it precedes ziji and is not an argument of an irreflexive predicate containing ziji, according to (33). (39) Baoyui yiwei wodej xueshengk bu xihuan ziji*i/*j/k. Baoyii think my student not like self 'Baoyii thinks that my student does not like himself.' Our account can also cover cases like (40) and (41), which are claimed to be evidence for the influence of pragmatic factors (world knowledge) in the determination of the antecedents of ziji.15 (40) Zongtongi quing woj [s PROj zuo zai ziji de shenbian]. president ask I sit at self DE side 'The president asked me to sit beside him.' (41) a. Zhangsan pa [s wo/ni hui chaoguo ziji]. Zhangsan fear I/you will surpass self 'Zhangsan fears that I/you will surpass him.' b. Ni bu pa[sta chaoguo ziji ma]*? you not fear he surpass self Q 'Don't you fear that he surpasses you?' Although the believed proposition, the embedded clause in (41a), contains a first/second-person pronoun, we do not take the first/second-person pronoun as a blocker for the matrix subject, since the predicate in the embedded clause is irreflexive, and thus precludes co-reference of its arguments: wo/ni and ziji. This is specified in our definition of blockers in (33). Since the first/second-person pronoun is not a blocker for it, the matrix subject in (41a) can be the antecedent of ziji, according to (31). Example (40) can be dealt with similarly. The irreflexive predicate is x zuo zai y de shenbian 'x sits beside y,' where x is PRO, and y is ziji. The only self-ascriber wo in (40) cannot be a blocker, since it controls PRO which is an argument of the irreflexive predicate in question. Thus, there is no blocker for the matrix subject Zongtong 'president,' according to (33). Hence, the matrix subject Zongtong 'president' can be the antecedent of ziji, as expected.16'17 Condition (31) also allows the co-arguments of first/second-person pronouns to be the antecedents of long-distance bound ziji, as shown in (36b) and the sentence following.18 (42) Zhangsani gaoshu woj [s ziji i/*j mei bei dahui xuanshang]. Zhangsan tell I self not by conference select 'Zhangsan told me that he was not selected by the conference.'


303

According to (31), the believed proposition, the embedded clause S, does not contain a self-ascriber, so there is no blocker for the matrix subject, Zhangsan, to bind ziji. Hence, long-distance binding is possible in (42). Similarly, the fact that the intermediate subject, Bill, in (36b) can be an antecedent of ziji is also predicted by our condition (31).19 Note that, although the existence of first- and second-person pronouns is crucial for the blocking effect, there is no need to stipulate in condition (31) the obligatoriness of self-ascribers, as shown by the following example (43) (Carl Lee Baker, personal communication).20 (43)

John renwei Bill zhidao Mark ba ziji de shu jie-gei-le John think Bill know Mark BA self DE book loan-to-Perf ziji de pengyou. self DE friend 'John thinks Bill knows that Mark has loaned his book to his friend.'

(44) a. John{ renwei Bill} zhidao Markk ba ziji i de shu jie-gei-le John think Bill know Mark BA self DE book loan-to-Perf ziji i de pengyou. self DE friend 'John thinks Bill knows that Mark has loaned his book to his friend.' b. Johni renwei Billj zhidao Markk ba zijij de shu jie-gei-le John think Bill know Mark BA self DE book loan-to-Perf zijij de pengyou. self DE friend 'John thinks Bill knows that Mark has loaned his book to his friend.' c. *John{ renwei Billj zhidao Markk ba ziji i de shu jie-gei-le John think Bill know Mark BA self DE book loan-to-Perf zijij de pengyou. self DE friend 'John thinks Bill knows that Mark has loaned his book to his friend.' d. *Johni renwei Billj zhidao Markk ba zijij de shu jie-gei-le John think Bill know Mark BA self DE book loan-to-Perf zijii de pengyou. self DE friend 'John thinks Bill knows that Mark has loaned his book to his friend.' For ease of exposition, I have represented the long-distance bound readings of sentence (43) individually in (44). The possible readings for the two oc-

304

Haihua Pan

currences of ziji are that either John or Bill can bind both occurrences of ziji. Note that the mixed readings are not possible, as shown in (44c) and (44d). Thus, sentence (43) suggests that, like first/second-person pronouns, third-person NPs, when functioning as self-ascribers, will block other NPs outside the domain from binding ziji. So we do not need to specify obligatory self-ascriber in the //-clause in condition (33). Note that sentence (43) does have mixed readings with the local subject, as exemplified here: (45) a. John{ renwei Bill} zhidao Markk ba ziji i de shu jie-gei-le John think Bill know Mark BA self DE book loan-to-Perf zijik de pengyou. self DE friend 'John thinks Bill knows that Mark has loaned his book to his friend.' b. Johrii renwei Billj zhidao Markk ba ziji j de shu jie-gei-le John think Bill know Mark BA self DE book loan-to-Perf ziji k de pengyou. self DE friend 'John thinks Bill knows that Mark has loaned his book to his friend.' c. Johrii renwei Bill} zhidao Markk ba ziji k de shu jie-gei-le John think Bill know Mark BAself DE book loan-to-Perf ziji i de pengyou. self DE friend 'John thinks Bill knows that Mark has loaned his book to his friend.' d. Johni renwei Billj zhidao Markk ba ziji k de shu jie-gei-le John think Bill know Mark BAself DE book loan-to-Perf ziji j de pengyou. self DE friend 'John thinks Bill knows that Mark has loaned his book to his friend.' In (45) ziji k is locally bound, while ziji i/j is long-distance bound. The sentences in (45) show that the local subject and the remote subjects can have mixed readings. The binding patterns in (44) and (45) indicate that local subjects function differently from long-distance ones. They also suggest that locally bound ziji and long-distance bound ziji are constrained by different conditions, as suggested in Pan (1995,1997). From the discussion preceding, we can see that our account of long-distance bound ziji fares better than do the previous analyses presented in this chapter. Hence, the condition in (31) is an appropriate condition for self-ascription ziji.


305

Now we can answer the question: why is there a blocking effect for long-distance bound ziji? It is because of the difference between the first/second-person pronouns and third-person NPs. The blocking effect is observed because of the obligatoriness of first/second-person pronouns being a self-ascriber if they do not agree in person features with the carrier of belief, knowledge, or desire involved. Since ziji points to the carrier of belief, a self-ascriber, the intervening obligatory self-ascribers will prevent it from being bound by farther-away self-ascribers. Hence, the blocking effect.

6. DISCUSSION Like Huang and Tang (1991) and Cole and Wang (1996), we recognize the need for separating blockers from antecedents. As one can see from our condition on self-ascription ziji given in (31), our concept of blockers includes only self-ascribers that are (a) first/second-person pronouns that precede the reflexive ziji and are not an arguments of an irreflexive predicate that contains ziji; and (b) animate NPs that are subjects of a belief, knowledge, or desire. There is no prominence restriction for being a blocker for first/second-person pronouns, though there is one on being the antecedent of long-distance bound ziji- Unlike Huang and Tang (1991) but in line with Cole and Wang (1996), our account also suggests that a blocker is not necessarily an antecedent of the reflexive ziji; see (12a) (See more discussion on the difference between blockers and antecedents in Cole and Wang (1996) and Pan (1998).) Another issue is the relationship between the concepts of logophoricity and self-ascription. Since these concepts are closely related, it is very easy to confuse them. In the following, I will briefly discuss their differences. Logophoricity and self-ascription differ from each other in the following aspects. First, according to Sells (1987), the SOURCE of the report is one primitive of the concept of logophoricity. However, self-ascription can never be attributed to the individual who carries the source role if it is not also the carrier of belief, which is why a source cannot be the antecedent of long-distance bound ziji, as shown in (21). Second, the subject of consciousness is another primitive in Sells' concept of logophoricity (SELF). By contrast, the concept of self-ascription does not necessarily require self-consciousness; for example, (46) would present a problem for the requirement of self-consciousness of the subject, whereas, in the self-ascription concept, self-consciousness is not necessary. This is because, in addition to the reading in which Zhangsan is self-conscious, i.e., that he self-ascribes the relevant belief, the de se belief can also be attributed to Zhangsan by the

306

Haihua Pan

speaker without his awareness. In this latter reading, Zhangsan is not aware of the fact that the speaker attributed him a de se belief. This is what I meant earlier, that in self-ascription, the person, denoted by a third-person NP, who has the de se belief, need not be self-conscious, as the speaker can attribute him the relevant de se belief. Notice that the consciousness of Zhangsan is not relevant here, and what is crucial is the self-consciousness concept; see endnote 12. Even for the positive version of (46), self-consciousness is not necessary for it to be true.21 Just like the negative version, Zhangsan can be attributed a de se belief by the speaker without his awareness. The clearer example is the question version of (46) given in (30b), since there is no guarantee that the answer to the question is positive. (46) Zhangsan bu zhidao Lisi xihuan ziji. Zhangsan not know Lisi like self 'Zhangsan does not know that Lisi likes him.' Self-ascription is also different from the third primitive in Sells' logophoricity concept, point of view (PIVOT). Self-ascription is person neutral, that is, it can be combined with all three persons, whereas point of view has separate persons: first-, second-, or third-person point of view, depending on which NP is the point of reference (Mitchell, 1986). The closest one among the three points of view to self-ascription is the first-person point of view. However, there are at least two differences between them, as far as I can see. (47) a. Zuozi zai wo de zuobian. table at I DE left 'The table is to my left.' b. Zuozi zai ziji de zuobian. table at self DE left 'The table is to self's left.' The first difference between wo T and ziji is that the interpretation for (47a) is fixed to the speaker, but that for (47b) is not. In (47b), ziji can refer to the speaker, the addressee, or a third party individual. The last reading is possible if the speaker and addressee are talking about a particular third person. This difference becomes clearer if we embed (47) in a sentence. With the different person NPs as the matrix subject, the interpretation is very different for (47b), though for (47a) it always has the reading that the point of reference is the speaker. The second difference is that ziji can refer to the projected ego, while wo cannot. It seems that wo is external in nature, but ziji is internal in nature. In other words, wo is existentially bound, i.e., identified outside the scope of the carrier of belief, while ziji is not. If we really want to name self-ascription ziji in terms of the concept of point of view,


307

we can view it as presenting the self point of view, which is the essential property of self-ascription. Another difference between logophoric pronouns and self-ascription ziji is that the former cannot have a first-person pronoun as antecedent, whereas the latter can easily do so, as pointed out in Section 4.3.1. Maybe one can see the difference between self-ascription and the concept of point of view (and logophoricity) more clearly by using the following analogy. Suppose that a viewer (the speaker) is seeing things from a point of reference, and the reference can be first-second, and third-person NPs. If the viewer takes the perspective of a third-person NP, then we call this a third-person point of view. Note that the viewer can have his/her independence from the referent of the third-person NP, namely, that they stand at different places. This is the so-called logophoricity use of reflexives. However, if the viewer becomes one with the referent of the third-person NP, namely, that they at least stand at the same place, then we have the self point of view, or it involves self-ascription. Hence, the difference between logophoricity and self-ascription is that the former allows the independence of the viewer from the point of reference, while self-ascription does not. That is, logophoricity does not necessarily require that the two (the reviewer and the point of reference) become one, though self-ascription does require it. Note that the self-ascription requirement is satisfied only if the speaker stands at Zhangsan's place and views the object in question from that place. Similarly, if the second-person pronoun is the point of reference, and the viewer takes the perspective of the referent of the second-person pronoun, but still keeping his/her independence, then we have a second-person point of view. However, if the two become one, i.e., the viewer loses his/her independence, then we have the self point of view again. Note that the independence of the viewer from the point of reference and the self-consciousness of the individual used as the point of reference are independent concepts. Although the viewer or speaker is always self-conscious, the individual as the point of reference is not necessarily so, especially when the point of reference is a third-person NP; though s/he may be conscious, that is not at issue here; see endnote 12. Self-ascription does not require the individual—the point of reference—to be self-conscious, as pointed out previously and in Section 4.3, though it does require that the viewer and the point of reference become one, i.e., at least standing at the same place.22 An anonymous reviewer asks why can't the speaker take the point of view of Zhangsan in (46). Actually, the speaker can take Zhangsan's point of view. The issue is the relationship between the speaker and Zhangsan. There are two possible ways for the speaker to take Zhangsan's point of view: (a) the speaker is independent of Zhangsan, e.g., they stand at differ-

308

Haihua Pan

ent places, and the speaker views the object from Zhangsan's perspective; and (b) the speaker and Zhangsan stand at the same place or, in my terminology, they become one. The first case is the so-called third-person point of view, while the second case is the self point of view. I think that sentences like (46) only allow the second case that corresponds to self-ascription, though logophoricity may allow both cases. Hence, only self-ascription corresponds exactly to the use of long-distance bound ziji. In summary, self-ascription and logophoricity are two different concepts, though they overlap in meaning. I think that the concept of self-ascription is more primitive and covers more cases than does logophoricity.23

7. CONCLUSION In this chapter, I have presented systematic facts on the blocking effect of long-distance bound bare reflexive ziji in Mandarin Chinese. I have argued for the nonsymmetrical nature of the blocking effect and against the symmetrical unlike-person blocking view. I have shown that not only subjects or NPs contained in subjects but also nonsubjects can block long-distance binding of ziji as long as they are first- or second-person pronouns, or contain first- or second-person pronouns. Hence, the blocking effect is more sensitive to the person feature than to the local subject. I claim that long-distance bound ziji is constrained by self-ascription and have proposed a condition in (31) to account for the binding properties of ziji. I have explained the blocking effect by appealing to the special role played by the first- and second-person pronouns in self-ascription: since first- and second-person pronouns are obligatory self-ascribers, they will block long-distance binding of ziji by third-person NPs. Since sometimes third-person NPs can indeed block the long-distance binding of ziji by first/second-person pronouns, though they are not as strong as the cases with first/second-person pronouns as blockers, we need to investigate the reason why. One possible reason is that, following Li (1991), we may say that it is required to have highly reflective contexts for long-distance bound ziji, though unlike Li (1991), we think the relevant constraint only applies to first/second-person pronouns, not to third-person NPs, when they function as long-distance antecedents. Hence, there is another asymmetry between third-person NPs and first/second-person pronouns in the sense that highly reflective contexts are required only when the latter function as the antecedents of long-distance bound ziji. We leave this issue open for future research.


309

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Parts of this article were presented at the 1997 LSA Workshop on Long-Distance Reflexives in Ithaca, New York. The author would like to thank the participants for interesting questions. He would also like to thank Peter Cole, James C.-T. Huang, Manfred Krifka, Carlota Smith, Jonathan Webster, and Liejiong Xu for helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this chapter. Thanks also go to the two anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments and suggestions. As usual, the author is responsible for all potential errors.

NOTES l

The following abbreviations are used in this chapter: CL (classifier), Perf (perfective marker), DE (possessive/modifier/complementizer marker), ZAI (progressive marker), ZHE (imperfective nonprogressive marker), GUO (the experiential marker), Q (question morpheme), Prt (sentence-final particle), Conj (sentence connective). Also, note that the Chinese names Zhangsan, Lisi, and Wangwu given in the chapter are generic names rather than real names. 2 F.-X. Li (1990) also notices the asymmetrical nature of long-distance binding in Chinese. I differ from him, though, in the sense that I group first/second-person pronouns together in contrast with third-person NPs, but he differentiates all three person forms. I think that first-person pronouns can bind ziji with a second-person pronoun's intervening only if ziji is contrastive. Since it belongs to the contrastive reflexive, and is thus subject to different conditions, this usage of ziji should not interfere with the characterization of noncontrastive reflexives (see Pan (1997) for relevant discussion). 3 Xue, Pollard, and Sag (1994) propose a new category Z-pronoun for ziji besides locality ziji subject to local o-binding and discourse ziji, and suggest that it must be o-bound (see Pollard and Sag, 1994, for the concepts of (local) o-binding). Although they suggest differentiating two types of blocking effect—unlike-person blocking for ziji in complement clauses and animate blocking for ziji in subcommanding cases—Xue, Sag, and Pollard (1994) do not provide a clear account to explain the blocking effect for ziji except pragmatic factors. Hence, I will not discuss their analysis further in the rest of this chapter. 4 The reader can find a detailed critique of all the previous analyses mentioned in this chapter and other analyses of Chinese reflexives in Pan (1995,1997). 5 Note that it is not adequate to claim that cases like (13) are metaphoric extension (or personification), as suggested in Tang (1989). One weakness of the personification claim is that there is no clear condition to determine when personification takes place, and when it does not. We think that ziji, in general, can take either an animate or inanimate NP as its antecedent, although we understand that, for a specific case, it depends on the semantics of the verb to determine the animacy feature of ziji, and whether the NP in question can be an antecedent of ziji. For instance, in the case fol-

310

Haihua Pan

lowing, the inanimate subject cannot be the antecedent of ziji because of the animate feature ziji has that is determined by the experiencer role ziji carries. i.

*Na-bian wenzhang hai -le ziji. That-CL article hurt-ASP self Lit: That article hurt self.

What we are saying, basically, is that the animacy feature of ziji is not determined lexically or inherently, but rather it is determined by context. 6 We notice that Cole and Wang (1996) claim that first/second-person pronouns do not block long-distance binding of ziji by a third-person NP if they are the BA object or an oblique introduced by the passive marker bei 'by.' It seems that there is some speaker judgment variation here. Although this possibility may be extended to adjuncts, it does not apply to objects, as in (4a). That is, even if we agree in not counting obliques and adjuncts as possible blockers, objects and possessors in a subject are still problematic to the feature agreement checking approach. The relevant examples are (4a) and (12a). Besides, all the arguments against this approach presented earlier are still valid. 7 Example (17) is a summary of Huang and Tang's (1991) original descriptions. 8 Both anonymous reviewers point out that the notion of logophoricity has been used in varying ways by different authors, and thus my arguments against the individual notions of logophoricity proposed by Sells (1987) do not refute the general notion of logophoricity. However, we notice that the general notion of logophoricity is not well defined. One possible definition is given in Reinhart and Reuland (1993): nonargument reflexives or arguments that are focused are logophors, but this notion only applies to compound reflexives like himself, not to bare reflexives like ziji. If we use the conception that all the cases that do not obey Binding Condition A belong to the so-called logophoricity, then it is very clear to see that this general notion of logophoricity is too weak to account for the properties of ziji. Although it can predict the long-distance binding possibility, the general notion fails to explain the blocking effect, and it also fails to account for the subject orientation property of ziji. One of the reviewers asks what category the logophoric pronouns belong to if logophoric pronouns are not de se anaphors. As shown in Fig. 1 in Section 5.1 following, I take the logophoric reflexives as belonging to a separate category that is dominated by long-distance bound reflexives that also dominate the self-ascription reflexives. See also endnote 23. 9 This classification does not include the adverbial usage of ziji, as discussed in Tang (1989) and Pan (1995,1997). The following is a relevant example. i.

Zhangan ye ziji zuo fan. Zhangsan also self do rice 'Zhangsan also cooks his meal himself.'

We can also group this usage of ziji with the locality reflexive, since they can only have clause-bound antecedents. 10 Note that Baker's conditions are not fine-grained enough to differentiate the four contrastive reflexives in Chinese: ziji, benren, benshen, and zishen. For the rele-


311

vant conditions to differentiate these reflexives, see the discussion in Chapter 7 of Pan (1997). n The bound variable interpretation of pronouns is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition, for de se beliefs. Note that, even for the bound variable interpretation of pronoun he, there are also two readings: de re and de se. See Chierchia (1989) for relevant discussion. 12 Note that I make a distinction between the concepts of consciousness and self-consciousness. The former does not entail the latter, though the latter does entail the former. A person can be conscious without being self-conscious. For example, when a person is awake, then he is conscious. He can read and speak. Nevertheless, he may not know what his name is if he has suffered brain damage and lost all of his previous memory. In this latter situation, the person in question is not self-conscious, though he is conscious. Hence, when I say a person is not self-conscious, I mean that he may not know something about himself, though he is awake and conscious. 13 Example (36b) also shows that first/second-person pronouns do not block their co-arguments from long-distance binding ziji. See more relevant discussions later. 14 The condition on locality ziji and taziji is proposed in Pan (1998), and we repeat it here for reference. (i)

The Anaphor Condition An a can be the antecedent of an anaphor X in a linguistic domain y if (a) a is a noun phrase that does not dominate X; and (b) There is no closer blocker in g.

(ii)

a is closer to X, the reflexive, than b iff the path from X to the minimal maximal projection dominating a is a subset of the path from X to the minimal maximal projection dominating p.

(iii) b is a blocker for a if (a) b is not less prominent than a; and (b) b, if not dominating a, must be a subject. (iv) a is less prominent than b if it appears lower in the animacy hierarchy than b does. (v) 15

Animacy Hierarchy (Chou, 1992) [+human] > [+animate, -human] > [-animate]

Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out that sentence (40) may be a counterexample to the claim that first-person pronouns always induce the blocking effect. Sentences like (40) are well-behaved examples showing that semantic constraints play a role in the determination of the antecedents of ziji- The involved predicates are irreflexive predicates, i.e., the meaning of the predicate precludes co-reference of its arguments. We have incorporated this constraint in our definition of blockers in (33). 16 The same reviewer points out that the following sentence may be a counterexample to the claim that third-person NPs do not block the long-distance binding of ziji by first/second-person pronouns. (Note that I only claim that third-person NPs

312

Haihua Pan

do not NECESSARILY block long-distance binding of ziji by first/second-person pronouns; see endnotes 19 and 20.) (i)

Nii weishenme meiyou shixian gaosu dajia Lisij-. bu xihuan ziji/;? you why didn't before tell all Lisi not like self 'Why didn't you tell everyone in advance that Lisi didn't like you?'

Although I agree with the reviewer that first/second-person pronouns are strong blockers and third-person NPs are weaker blockers, I think that the i reading in (i) is possible, at least marginally. It seems that for the remote first/second-person pronouns to be the long-distance antecedents of ziji, we need to make extra effort to provide appropriate context. This may be the point made in Li (1991), namely, that long-distance bound ziji requires highly reflective contexts, and it points to the projected ego. Although I don't think that her claim applies to third-person NPs as antecedents, it may be true that it applies to first/second-person pronouns as antecedents. Sentences like (i) seem to suggest that there may be additional constraints for the cases in which first/second-person pronouns are the long-distance antecedents of ziji. I leave this issue open for future research. 17 The reviewer also argues against the self-ascription account of ziji using (i) below, claiming that it is very difficult to say the subject Zhangsan is the carrier of belief, and thus a syntactic account is necessary. (i)

Cong nei yihou Zhangsani zai meiyou jian-dao guo jiu le ziji i from that after Zhangsan again didn't see ASP save Perf self mingde nage ren. life De that-CL person 'Since then Zhangsan has never seen the person again who saved his life.'

Actually, I agree with the reviewer that my self-ascription account cannot cover sentences like (i). However, these sentences are dealt with by the condition on locality ziji, as specified in endnote 14, and so are sentences involved psych-verb object antecedents. 18 Example (42) is from Luther Liu (1999), i.e., his (50c) in Chapter 1 of his Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine. 19 An anonymous reviewer suggests that the sentence following (Tang, 1989) is another counterexample to my analysis, since there is no first/second-person pronoun in the believed proposition, the embedded clause, but long-distance binding of ziji is still not possible, contrary to the prediction made by my analysis. (i) Tameni renwei taj zai piping ziji *i/j they think he at criticize self 'They think that he is criticizing himself.' However, my informants take the i reading in (i) to be possible, especially when tamen 'they' is interpreted as a group. For instance, long-distance binding of ziji is perfectly possible in (ii) below. (ii)

Like

ban de xuesheng zhidao Laoshi zai zhanyang ziji,


313

science class DE student know Teacher at praise self, gandao feichang gaoxing. feel very happy 'The students from the science class(es) knew that Teacher is praising them, and felt very happy about it.' Hence, the asymmetry between first/second-person pronouns and third-person NPs still holds, even if the long-distance binding of ziji is not possible in (i). See also endnotes 16 and 20. 20 The fact that third-person NPs can sometimes block the long-distance binding of ziji by first/second-person pronouns, as pointed out by one of the reviewers, does not falsify my claim that there is an asymmetry between first/second-person pronouns and third-person NPs in the blocking effect. This is because I only claim that third-person NPs do not NECESSARILY block long-distance binding of ziji by first/second-person pronouns, which implies that third-person NPs can, though they do not always do so. Similarly, sentences like (43) are not counter examples to the preceding claim of mine either, as long-distance binding is possible in the relevant sentences. 21 Note that here I differ from what I said in Pan (1995,1997), namely, that the antecedents of long-distance bound ziji must be self-conscious. It seems that this self-consciousness constraint should be replaced by the highly reflective context constraint and only applies to antecedents with first/second-person features, i.e., it does not apply to third-person antecedents. 22 When I say that the viewer and the referent of the point of reference become one, I mean it metaphorically. It seems that it is more appropriate to say that the viewer stands at the same place as the referent of the point of reference, viewing the object in question, when we are talking about self-ascription in the sense that the viewer attributes a de se belief to the referent of the point of reference. In this situation, the referent in question is not required to view the object, and the viewing action can be carried out by the speaker only. This is why the referent need not be self-conscious, though s/he may be conscious, which is not relevant to the concept of self-ascription, as mentioned earlier. Note that we do not deny the existence of a different reading in which the point of reference is the viewer, and thus s/he self-ascribes the relevant belief. Unlike the situation mentioned previously, the referent of the point of reference, being a self-ascriber, in this reading is self-conscious. 23 The same reviewer claims that s/he could not see the differences between logophoricity and self-ascription and suggests that, although I have refuted the individual notions (SOURCE, SELF, and PIVOT) of logophoricity for long-distance bound ziji, there is still the general notion of logophoricity that is not refuted. I believe that the general notion must be based on the individual notions. If each and every one of them is refuted, I could not see how the general notion could stand. If the general notion is a garbage-can type, as suggested in the literature, then it is still too weak to account for the properties of long-distance bound ziji, as pointed out in endnote 8. Also note that the logophoricity notion given in Reinhart and Reuland (1991), as

314

Haihua Pan

pointed out in Section 4.3, is actually perspectivity (deictic center), which is refuted in Section 4.3. Hence, it is not appropriate to claim that the general notion of logophoricity can help to account for the long-distance binding of ziji.

REFERENCES Baker, C. L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71(1), 63-101. Battistella, E. (1989). Chinese reflexivization: A movement to INFL approach. Linguistics 27,987-1012. Chen, P. (1992). The reflexive ziji in Chinese: Functional vs. formalist approaches. In T. H.-T. Lee (ed.), Research on Chinese Linguistics in Hong Kong, pp. 1-36. Linguistics Society of Hong Kong. Chierchia, G. (1989). Anaphora and attitude de se. In R. Bartsch et al. (eds.) Semantics and Contextual Expression, pp. 1-31., Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications. Chou, X.-L. (1992). An alternative approach to Chinese reflexives. MA report, the University of Texas at Austin. Clements, G. N. (1975) The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10,141-177. Cole, P. Hermon G., and Sung, L.-M. (1990). Principles and parameters of long distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21,1-22. Cole, P., and Sung, L.-M. (1993). Feature percolation and Mandarin reflexives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2,91-118. Cole, P., and Sung, L.-M. (1994). Head movement and long distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 25,239-62 Cole, P., and Wang, C.-Z. (1996). Antecedents and blockers of long distance reflexives: The case of Chinese ziji. Linguistic Inquiry 27,357-390. Hagege, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophorique. BSLP 69,287-310. Huang, C.-C. J., and Tang, C.-C. J (1991). The local nature of long distance reflexive in Chinese. In J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds.) Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Huang, Y. (1994). The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge University Press, New York. Huang, Y.-H. (1984). Reflexives in Chinese. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 10. lida, M. (1992) Context and Binding in Japanese. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Kuno, S. (1987) Functional Syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. University of Chicago Press.


315

Lewis, D. (1979) Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88,29-80. Li, F.-X. (1990). The effect of person hierarchy on the blocking of the long distance binding of the Chinese pronoun ziji, In Proceedings of WECOL 19. Li, N.-C. (1991). Perspective-Taking in Mandarin Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. Li, Y. (1993). What makes long distance reflexives possible? Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2,132-166. Maling, J. (1984). Non-clause-bounded reflexives in modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7,211-241. Mitchell, J. E. (1986) The Formal Semantics of Point of View. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Pan, H. (1991). Pro and long distance reflexive ziji in Chinese. Paper presented at the 3rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Pan, H. (1995). Locality, Self-Ascription, Discourse Prominence, and Mandarin Reflexives. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Linguistics, the University of Texas at Austin, Austin. Pan, H. (1997) Constraints on Reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Pan, H. (1998). Closeness, prominence and binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16,771-815. Pollard, C, and Sag, LA. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. The University of Chicago Press and CLSI Publication. Pollard, C., and Xue, P. (1998). Chinese reflexive Ziji: Syntactic reflexives vs. nonsyntactic reflexives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7,287-318. Progovag, L. (1992). Relativized SUBJECT: Long distance reflexives without movement. Linguistic Inquiry 23,671-680. Progova?, L. (1993). Long distance reflexives: Movement-to-Infl vs. relativized SUBJECT. Linguistic Inquiry 24,755-772. Reinhart, T, and Reuland, E. (1991). Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds.), Long distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, T. and Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24,657-720 Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18,445-479. Stirling, L. (1993). Switch Reference and Discourse Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tang, C.-C. J. (1985). A Study of Reflexives in Chinese. Unpublished M. A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University. Tang, C.-C. J. (1989). Chinese reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7(4), 93-121. Xu, L. (1993). The long distance binding of ziji- Journal of Chinese Linguistics 21, 123-141. Xu, L. (1994). The antecedent of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 22,115-137. Xue, P., Pollard C., and Sag, I. (1994). A new perspective on Chinese ziji. In Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 432—447. The University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publication.

316

Haihua Pan

Yu, W. (1991). Logophoricity in Chinese. Paper presented at the 3rd North-American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentences and discourse. Language 65(4), 695-727. Zubin, D. A., Chun, S., and Li, N. (1980). Misbehaving reflexives in Korean and Mandarin. In K. Hall and J.-P. Koenig (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Vol. 16: General Session and Parasession on the Legacy of Grice. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

SYNTACTIC AND NONSYNTACTIC CONSTRAINTS ON LONG-DISTANCE REFLEXIVES CARL POLLARD* PINGXUEt ^Department of Linguistics, College of Humanities The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio tApplied Research & Technology The Boeing Company Seattle, Washington

1. INTRODUCTION This chapter is part of a long-term project whose goal is to untangle the various factors involved in the interpretation of reflexive pronouns, especially in Chinese and English. Building on proposals developed in Pollard and Xue (1998), here we discuss not only syntactic conditions but also nonsyntactic conditions that determine the interpretation of the Chinese reflexive ziji and (to a lesser extent) reflexives in English (both standard American English and British and literary (Brit./Lit.) English varieties discussed in, for example, Baker, 1995 and Zribi-Hertz, 1989). The nonsyntactic conditions will involve such notions as logophoricity, contrastiveness, and discourse prominence, all of which we will attempt to clarify. It has long been observed that the Chinese ziji exhibits several interesting properties. First of all, ziji is a long-distance (henceforth, LD) reflexive in the Syntax and Semantics, Volume 33 Long-Distance Reflexives

317


318

Carl Pollard and Ping Xue

sense that it may take an antecedent across clause boundaries, as shown by the following example, where ziji may be interpreted as co-referring with any of the subjects, namely, Wangwu, List, or Zhangsan (see, e.g., Battistella, 1989; Cole, Hermon and Sung, 1990; Huang and Tang, 1991). (1) Zhangsani zhidao [Lisij renwei [Wangwuk zui xihuan zijii/j/k]]Zhangsan know Lisi think Wangwu most like self 'Zhangsanj knows that Lisij thinks that Wangwu likes himself/himi/j most.' A closely related property is that a higher subject usually can antecede ziji only if, roughly speaking, no lower subject which c-commands ziji disagrees with it (see, e.g., Tang, 1989).1 This effect, which we call nonagreement blocking, is illustrated in (2).2 (2) Zhangsani zhidao [nij renwei [Wangwuk zui xihuan ziji* ji/*j/k] ]Zhangsan know you think Wangwu most like self 'Zhangsan; knows that yoUj think that Wangwu likes himself/you*j/him*i most.' Further, ziji, in general, takes a subject, not an object, as its antecedent. This property is often called subject orientation. (3) Zhangsani songgei Lislj yizhang ziji/j de xiangpian. Zhangsa give Lisi one-CL self DE picture 'Zhangsanj gave Lisij a picture of himselfi/*j.' While these have been widely taken as the central characteristics of ziji, the relevant properties are more complex than they have appeared. In addition, as has been widely discussed in the literature, ziji may co-refer with an NP in the same sentence that does not structurally "command" it, or even with an NP in the prior discourse (see, e.g., Chen, 1992; Yu, 1992). In (5) following, for instance, ziji can refer either to the local subject na xuesheng 'that student' or to the external speaker. Examples like (4), (5), and (6) are equally important in characterizing the reflexive ziji and thus pose a serious challenge for any purely syntactic account. In fact, these examples have been cited as arguments for a purely pragmatic or discourse-based account (see, e.g., Chen, 1992; Y. Huang, 1994). (4) Zhangsan^ xiangxin [[ziji i/j de xiaohai mei de jiang de xiaoxi] Zhangsan believe self DE child not get prize DE news shi Lisij hen nanguo.] make Lisi very sad 'Zhangsan, believed that the news of hiSj/j child not getting a prize made Lisij sad.'

Syntactic and Nonsyntactic Constraints on Long-distance Reflexives

319

(5) Zheyang yilai na xueshengi jiu bu shuohua-le, yanjing cong zijii/j thus then that student then not speak-ASP, eyes from self de shen-shang yikai-le DE body-on move-away-ASP 'Then, that studentj stopped talking, and his eyes moved away from hin i/j

(6) Zhangsarii zhidao neijian shi yihou hen qifen, Lisij shuo neixie Zhangsan knows that-CL thing after very angry Lisi say those hua mingming shi zai he ziji i/j zuodui. words obviously is being with self against 'Zhangsan; was very angry after he learned that. By saying those words, Lisij was obviously acting against himselfj/himj.' In Pollard and Xue (1998), we propose that a distinction must be drawn between syntactic and nonsyntactic uses of reflexives. More importantly, we point out that this distinction should not be treated as one of lexical ambiguity between an anaphor and a logophor (or discourse pronoun, or intensive pronoun), contrary to what has usually been proposed.3 Instead, we posit just one type of referentially dependent element—reflexives—which avail themselves of two (not necessarily mutually exclusive) options for being related to their antecedents, namely, (syntactic) binding and discourse coreference; here we reserve the term "binding" for a coindexing relation between the reflexive and an NP that commands it in a certain structurally characterized way (which we will make precise in the following). Informally speaking, an NP can serve as the antecedent of ziji when it is either syntactically prominent (namely, a subject which structurally commands the reflexive) in the sentence or else pragmatically prominent in the discourse. Our account entails that, contrary to what has been commonly assumed, there is no notion of anaphor (viz., a referentially dependent element subject to an obligatory local binding condition such as Principle A) that is relevant in the grammar of Chinese (or of Brit./Lit. varieties of English). This rejection of obligatory binding is motivated by numerous examples from Chinese such as (4), (5), and (6) preceding, and by certain examples from English discussed in Zribi-Hertz (1989) and Baker (1995). On the other hand, we reject a purely pragmatic account; we believe that a syntactic notion of binding cannot be entirely dispensed with. This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 2.1, we review current analyses, demonstrating that any theory positing obligatory binding is empirically inadequate. In Section 2.2, we revise the binding theory for English developed by Pollard and Sag (1992,1994), focusing on how American and British English reflexive usages differ. In Section 2.3, we discuss similarities and differences between English and Chinese reflexives, showing that the

320


notion of obligatory binding is not motivated; at the same time, we will argue that a purely pragmatic or discourse-based account cannot be maintained. In Section 3, we focus on nonsyntactic conditions relevant to Chinese ziji. In Section 3.1, we consider how logophoricity bears upon ziji, concluding that, of the three logophoric notions SELF, SOURCE, and PIVOT suggested by Sells (1987), only the first is relevant to the interpretation of ziji. Moreover, we argue that, while logophoricity is often a factor in nonsyntactic use of reflexives, it is not a necessary condition, a point also made in Baker (1995). In Section 3.2, we will identify notions of discourse prominence relevant to ziji, together with a number of related issues. And in Section 4, we summarize our findings and conclusions.

2. SYNTACTIC AND NONSYNTACTIC REFLEXIVES While differing in their views regarding the nature of reflexivization, almost all researchers seem to agree that a reflexive must find some prominent NP as its antecedent. Over the past 20 years, there have been many attempts to characterize the relevant notion of prominence. Chomsky (1981,1986) suggests that the relevant generalizations can be formulated as a single structural condition (viz., Principle A) that requires a reflexive to be bound by a syntactically prominent (i.e., c-commanding) NP in an appropriately defined local syntactic domain. That is, a reflexive (or anaphor) must be bound in the minimal phrase containing the reflexive, a subject, and an NP that c-commands the reflexive. Clearly, this theory, as it stands, is problematic with respect to the facts of ziji as illustrated previously, since it is inconsistent at least with LD antecedents, on the one hand, and with subject orientation on the other.

2.1. Limitations of Binding Principle A In the last decade or so, most analyses of ziji within generative grammar have focused on incorporating ziji into a suitable extension of Chomsky's Principle A. More precisely, the properties of ziji, particularly the possibility of LD antecedents and nonagreement blocking, have been widely considered evidence for a successive-cyclic LF association of ziji with each of the c-commanding subjects (or the highest subcommanding subjects, which will be discussed shortly), either via head movement (see, e.g., Cole and Sung, 1994), or via IP-adjunction (see, e.g., Huang and Tang, 1991), thus predicting, among other things: (i) ziji allows LD antecedents; (ii) only c-commanding


321

(or highest subcommanding) subjects can be the antecedents; (iii) only potential binders participate in nonagreement blocking. While having different theoretical consequences, analyses along these lines are all problematic with respect to the following facts.4 First, the antecedent of ziji does not always have to be a c-commanding subject. One class of counterexamples are sentences with so-called psychological predicates as in (4) preceding, where ziji can refer to the experiencer object List. Thus, subject orientation cannot be taken as an absolute condition for ziji in general. Another class of problematic examples are those instances of ziji which allow so-called subcommanding antecedents, that is, animate subjects which are not c-commanders themselves, but which are contained in an inanimate c-commanding subject (see, e.g., Huang and Tang, 1991). As Xue et al. (1994) and Pollard and Xue (1998) point out, the relation between a reflexive and its subcommanding antecedent is fundamentally pragmatic, not syntactic in nature. The second problem for these LF movement analyses is that nonagreement blockers need not be potential binders. For example, direct and oblique objects, in general, cannot be antecedents without bearing special discourse or pragmatic properties, such as being the individual whose point of view or state of consciousness is being reported, as in (4), but objects can trigger nonagreement blocking just as subjects can, as discussed in the literature (see, e.g,, Pollard and Xue, 1998; Pan, 1995; Xue and Sag, 1994). In fact, there is ample evidence that nonagreement blocking is actually pragmatic, not syntactic in nature. For instance, the blocking effect can even be overriden if obeying it leads to a pragmatically bizarre result. This is illustrated in (7) and (8):5 (7) Zongtongi qing wo^ zuo zai zijiy*j de shenbian. president ask I sit at self DE side 'The president^ asked mCj to sit beside him/himself*j.' (8) Lisii shengpa woj chaoguo ziji i/*j Lisi worry I surpass self 'Lisij was afraid that Ij would surpass himi/myself*j. Thus, nonagreement blocking is not an absolute grammatical constraint, and therefore cannot be accounted for in terms of such purely syntactic notions as LF movement. The third problem is that, crucially, no analysis that assumes a condition of obligatory binding, such as Principle A, however modified, can adequately explain why an instance of ziji may have a noncommanding NP as its antecendent even when a commanding subject NP is available, as in (4), (5), and (6) (which were either ignored or considered peripheral cases).

322


Note that a similar phenomenon is also observed with reflexives found in BritVLit. English (after Zribi-Hertz, 1989; also see Baker, 1995, for similar examples): (9) a. Philipl was supposed to be fooling ( . . . ) , because Desiree ( . . . ) had undoubtedly explained to them the precise nature of her relationship with himself^ (Zribi-Hertz, 1989: (43b)) b. ( . . . ) his{ wife was equally incredulous of her innocence and suspected himself i , the pastor, to be the cause of her distress, ( . . . ) (Zribi-Hertz, 1989: (37)) c. But Ruperti was not unduly worried about Peter's opinion of himself. (Zribi-Hertz, 1989:(46b)) These facts show that under appropriate pragmatic or discoursal conditions—whose precise characterization remains a matter of widespread debate—in these varieties of English even a locally c-commanded reflexive pronoun does not always have to be locally bound, Zribi-Hertz assumed that logophoricity was the operative factor. Baker (1995) argued for a different notion of contrastive intensification involving contrastive reference to discourse-prominent entities. But, in any case, facts like these are inconsistent with any theory that requires reflexives to be (obligatorily) bound in accordance with Chomsky's binding Principle A. 2.2. A Revision of Binding Principle A Pollard and Sag (1992,1994) suggest that the binding theory should be formulated not in terms of c-command, but rather in terms of the relative obliqueness ordering of grammatical relations, shown in (10). (10) The Obliqueness Hierarchy: SUBJECT > PRIMARY OBJECT > SECONDARY OBJECT > OTHER COMPLEMENTS In place of Chomsky's c-command, Pollard and Sag define the relation of o-command and o-binding as in (11) and (12), respectively: (11)

O-Command: X o-commands Y just in case X is a less oblique coargument of some Z that dominates Y. In case Z = Y, X is said to locally o-command Y.

(12) O-Binding: X (locally) o-binds Y iff X and Y are coindexed and X (locally) o-commands Y; Y is (locally) o-free if it is not (locally) o-bound.


323

This theory relates binding to argument structure, converging with the conclusions of a number of recent studies (e.g., Everaert, 1991; Hellan, 1991; Reinhart and Reuland, 1991,1993). It explains not only the basic facts about American English reflexive (and reciprocal) binding, but also many other facts that are unexplained by Chomsky's binding theory. Unfortunately, the formulation of Principle A in Pollard and Sag (1992,1994) is also inconsistent with reflexives in Brit/Lit, varieties as shown in (9) preceding, since it assumes obligatory binding, as other analyses do. Pollard and Xue (1998) propose that referentially dependent English NPs are either R-PRONOUNS (reflexives or reciprocals) or P-PRONOUNS (pronouns other than r-pronouns), completely eliminating the notion of anaphor from the classification of NPs. Note that the term ANAPHOR has come to be widely associated with the property of being constrained by Principle A, but the term R-PRONOUN here carries no such association. We carry over from Pollard and Sag the notions of obliqueness, (local) o-command, and (local) o-binding, as stated in (10), (11), and (12) preceding. We formulate the principle for r-pronouns as follows: (13) Principle R (for English): An r-pronoun (e.g., himself) must either be locally o-bound or interpreted in accordance with certain (English-specific) pragmatic/ discourse constrains (which a complete theory must make explicit). The pragmatic/discourse contraints referenced in Principle R, involving notions such as logphoricity, contrastiveness, intensification, and discourse prominence, will be discussed in detail in Section 3. We believe that the main difference between American English and Brit./Lit. English with respect to reflexive interpretation is that American English is subject to an additional syntactic condition—a version of Principle A—which we call Principle A'. (14) Principle A' (Standard American English): A locally o-commanded r-pronoun must be locally o-bound. Because of (14), examples like those in (9) are ruled out in American English. But except for that difference, British and American English work essentially the same way as far as reflexives are concerned: they can be either locally o-bound or pragmatically interpreted (or both at the same time). While also recognizing the distinction between syntactic reflexives and nonsyntactic reflexives, Baker (1995) proposes that reflexives in Brit./Lit. English are ambiguous between anaphors and something else that he called (nonanaphoric) intensive pronouns. Baker argues that logophoricity is not a necessary condition for nonsyntactic reflexives, and that nonsyntactic reflexives can be viewed as (contrastive) intensive versions of ordinary pro-

324


nouns; Baker's intensive pronouns overlap in part with what other people have sometimes called logophors or discourse reflexives. Baker's account is summarized in (15): (15) Baker's Theory of English Reflexive Pronouns a. Reflexives are lexically ambiguous between anaphors and intensive pronouns. b. Anaphors in both American and British English are subject to an obligatory local binding condition (e.g., Principle A). c. British English and American English differ in the form of intensive pronouns; in nonnominative positions, reflexives are used as intensive pronouns in British English, but not in American English, where ordinary pronoun forms are used. d. Pragmatically, intensive pronouns are used to set up a contrast between the antecedent, which must refer to a discoursally prominent entity, and some other entity. There are some problems with Baker's theory. First, it ignores facts of American English such as the following (also see, e.g., Pollardf and Sag, 1992, 1994, and references cited there for similar examples), all of which contain nonnominative reflexive pronouns that are not locally bound. (16) a. Jessiej knew full well that the local people would all feel that people like himselfj were not to be trusted, let alone hired. b. Each student; was confident that the teacher would criticize everyone but himselfj. c. The picture of himself; on page one of The Times upset Johni;. d. John's; campaign requires that pictures of himselfi be placed all over town. e. Johni; asked Maryj to send reminders to everyone except themselvesk(k=i+j). In such examples (among which some are contrastive and some not), the antecedents of the reflexives seem to be subject to discourse conditions of the same general character as those that apply to Baker's intensive pronouns in British English. A related problem is concerned with the conclusion about the difference between American and British English. Baker suggests that American English and British English differ with respect to nonsyntactic uses of reflexives in the sense that nonnominative reflexives can be used as intensive pronouns only in British English, but not in American English. While it is true that ordinary pronouns with a certain contrastive pitch accent are often used as intensive forms, there is no question that reflexives are also used to signal intensification in American English, as the following examples show:


325

(17) a. It suddenly dawned on Johni that it was a picture of HIMSELFi/HIMj (not of Kenneth Starr) that Mary was painting, b. John; sent flyers to everyone on the distribution list except HIMSELFi/??HIMi. In fact, in a sentence like (17b), it seems much more natural to use the reflexive form himself (in the environment introduced by the element except). Baker's theory fails to capture this similarity between American and British English, and therefore makes them appear to be more different from each other than they really are. The third problem arises from Baker's lexical ambiguity hypothesis for reflexives. The problem can be made clear by considering a very simple example like (18a): (18) a. Johni; admires himselfi;, b. John admires Mary. According to Baker's account, (18a) must be ambiguous between a reading where himself is an anaphor and a reading where himself is an intensive nonanaphoric pronoun. But there does not seem to be any evidence that the sentence is ambiguous in this way. It is true that himself can be uttered with or without contrastive pitch accent. But so can Mary in (18b), and this does not stand as evidence that Mary is lexically ambiguous! One apparent way to eliminate this spurious ambiguity would be to add to Baker's theory a further constraint that intensive nonanaphoric pronouns must be locally free, thereby eliminating the intensive reading of the reflexive in (18a). That is, intensive pronouns are pronominals (in Chomsky's terminology). This is essentially the solution adopted by Reinhart and Reuland (1993). The problem with this approach (beyond the fact that it is a further complication) is that it blurs the fact that being an intensive pronoun is a pragmatic notion entirely independent of considerations about whether the antecedent is local or not. If a reflexive is being used to signal a contrast involving the antecedent, then it seems to us that deserves to be classified as an intensive, no matter where the antecedent is. In summary, while both Baker's theory and ours recognize the distinction between syntactic and nonsyntactic reflexives, out theory differs from Baker's theory in some fundamental aspects. Our theory does not posit two different syntactic types of reflexives. In our theory, there is no notion of obligatory binding for reflexives; rather reflexives are subject to the general principle—Principle R—that there are two options for interpreting r-pronouns. In fact, these two options are nonexclusive: there is no reason why an English reflexive couldn't be intensive (or logophoric) and locally o-bound at the same time, for example, as in (18a), uttered with contrastive pitch ac-

326


cent on himself. Furthermore, Baker suggests that American English and British English differ as to whether nonnominative reflexives can be used as intensifiers, while in our account, they differ primarily in the respect that Principle A' applies only to Standard American English. 2.3. Binding for Chinese and English Reflexives. Returning to Chinese, we now characterize exactly what we refer to as syntactic and nonsyntactic instances of ziji, respectively. In passing, we will also discuss the similarities and differences between Chinese and English. In Chinese, the cases in which ziji is coindexed with a (local or superordinate) animate "commanding" subject, as in (1), repeated here, have been widely considered core cases of ziji binding. (1)

Zhangsan-t zhidao [Lisij renwei [Wangwuk zui xihuan ziji i / j / k ]]. Zhangsan know Lisi think Wangwu most like self 'Zhangsanj knows that Lisij thinks that Wangwu likes himself/him^ most.'

Speaking informally, the key fact about such cases is that any commanding subject qualifies as the antecedent of ziji on the strength of its syntactic prominence alone.6 Thus, we can define an instance of ziji to be syntactic ziji or nonsyntactic ziji according to whether it is or is not coindexed with a (local or superordinate) commanding subject. Consider a sentence like (8), repeated here, where either the matrix subject or the local subject in principle can be the antecedent. Note that usually the reflexive ziji will not be interpreted as referring to the local subject wo, not because the relevant structure is ungrammatical but only because such an interpretation of the sentence is pragmatically bizarre in a normal context. (8) Lisli shengpa woj chaoguo ziji ji/*j Lisi worry I surpass self 'Lisij was afraid that Ij would surpass hinii/myselfj.' Pollard and Xue (1998) argue that argument structure is relevant to ziji binding. Thus, while the tree-configurational notion c-command is close to being descriptively correct, it is the notion of o-command defined in (11) preceding that appears to provide exactly what is required for an empirically adequate account of syntactic ziji-7 It has sometimes been suggested (e.g., by Chen, 1992) that all instances of reflexives, including those with commanding subject antecedents, can be subsumed under some unified discourse or pragmatic notion, and thus the notion of binding can be eliminated entirely. However, as has been discussed, an embedded ziji, as in (1), can take any of the superordinate sub-


327

jects as its antecedent, even in the absence of such conditions as logophoricity, contrast, or discourse prominence. And as far as local subjects are concerned, it seems even clearer that no logophoricity or special discourse prominence is required in order to qualify as being the antecedent of a reflexive, no matter how deeply the clause containing the subject and the reflexive may be embedded, what types of predicates may be involved, and what the sentence intonation is like (with or without pitch accent), as shown by many examples in the literature. One might argue that being a subject grants the element an automatic prominence in the discourse. Our answer is that this is not necessarily true. Consider the following example: (19) Zhangsatii zhidao Lisij bu hui rang Wangwuk [PROk zai ziji i/j/k Zhangsan know Lisi not will allow Wangwu at self de jia-li ye shou dao yingxiang.] DE home also receive ASP affect 'Zhangsanj knows that Lisij will not allow Wangwuk to be affected even at (hisi/j/k) home.' In (19), the fact that the embedded object Wangwu (or the PRO) can be the antecedent is particularly telling. It need be associated neither with any logophoric role (e.g., point of view, source of reported speech, or deictic perspective) nor with any discoursally prominent property (e.g., topicality, high external rank, thematic agency, givenness, contrastiveness) in order to be interpreted as the antecedent. Rather, we believe that it is simply its syntactic prominence (namely, being an o-commanding subject) that makes it possible for it to serve as the antecedent.8 On the basis of these considerations, we conclude that while it is necessary to recognize the status of nonsyntactic uses of reflexives, whose antecedents are determined by nonsyntactic conditions, a purely discourse or pragmatic theory cannot adequately account for the facts discussed previously, and thus a syntactic notion of binding cannot be entirely dispensed with. Given the preceding discussion, we summarize the similarities and differences between Chinese and Brit./Lit. English as follows: (20) Chinese ziji and Brit./Lit. Reflexives: Some Similarities a. They are not anaphors, in the sense that they are not subject to any obligatory binding condition. b. In spite of (a), in each language, there is a language-specific notion of (syntactic) binding that is relevant for reflexives. c. In each language, reflexives are either bound (in the sense relevant for the language in question) or interpreted according to Ian-

328


guage-specific discourse/pragmatic constraints (e.g., logophoricity, contrast, intensification, and discourse prominence). This is a nonexclusive disjunction. d. In both languages, unbound reflexives include (among others) ones anteceded by subcommanders, psych-verb experiencers, NPs in preceding sentences or in the discourse (see (16) for English examples). (21) Chinese and English Have Different Notions of Binding: a. English: local o-binding b. Chinese: o-binding by a subject. Statement (21) captures the standard wisdom that Chinese reflexive binding differs from English in being subject-oriented and potentially long-distance. Of course, it is interesting to speculate but premature to conclude that (21a) and (21b) are, in some sense, settings of a parameter of cross-linguistic variation within a universal theory of binding. Now we state our binding theory for Chinese in (22): (22) Principle Z (for Chinese): ziji must either be o-bound by a subject or interpreted in accordance with certain (Chinese specific) pragmatic/discourse constraints (which a complete theory must make precise). Statement (22) is analogous to the theory for English in (13), except that (i) the English Principle R with local o-binding has been replaced with the Chinese Principle Z in (22) with o-binding by a subject, and (ii) we allow for the (strong) possibility that pragmatic/discourse factors to which antecedents of unbound reflexives are subject might differ in subtle ways between the two languages. Thus, neither Chinese nor (British) English has obligatory reflexive binding. From this point of view, the obligatory binding (as traditionally stated in Principle A) of anaphors in American English belong to a special case and should not be taken as a cross-linguistic model for the study of reflexives.

3. NONSYNTACTIC CONDITIONS ON ZIJP In the preceding sections, we have shown that there is a wide class of instances of reflexives which are not o-bound by a subject but rather are coindexed with an NP in the discourse, as exemplified by (4), (5), and (6), repeated following:


329

(4) Zhangsani xiangxin ziji i/j de xiaohai mei de jiang de xiaoxi Zhangsan believe self DE child not get prize DE news shi Lisij hen nanguo. make Lisi very sad 'Zhangsanj believed that the news of hiSi/j. child not getting a prize made Lisij sad.' (5)

Zheyang yilai na xueshengi jiu bu shuohua-le, yanjing cong zijiyj thus then that student then not speak-ASP, eyes from self de shen-shang yikai-le DE body-on move-away-ASP 'Then, that studentj stopped talking, and his eyes moved away from hinij/j.'

(6)

Zhangsan{ zhidao neijian shi yihou hen qifen, Lisij shuo Zhangsan knows that-CL thing after very angry Lisi say neixie hua mingming shi zai he ziji i/j zuodui. words those obviously is being with self against 'Zhangsanj was very angry after he learned that. By saying those words, Lisij was obviously acting against himselfj/himj.'

Rather than being completely free, such instances of reflexives must be interpreted subject to discourse and pragmatic conditions, as stated in Principle Z in (22). Compared with structural aspects of ziji, the relevant discourse and pragmatic aspects have been studied much less. However, there seems to be a general consensus that logophoricity, contrastiveness, intensification, and discourse prominence, in general, are among the factors involved in the distribution of nonsyntactic antecedents of reflexives. In the following sections, we focus on these aspects, examining and characterizing how discourse and pragmatic factors are relevant to nonsyntactic uses of ziji, and thus providing further justification that instances of ziji not o-bound by a subject are indeed discoursal and pragmatic in nature. We also hope to clarify a number of related issues. 3.1. Logophoricity It has been extensively noted in the literature (e.g., Sells 1987, Reinhart and Reuland, 1991) that logophoricity plays a central role in the interpretation of nonsyntactic reflexives. Roughly speaking, logophoricity involves reference to an individual whose point of view or general state of consciousness is expressed in the discourse (Clements, 1975). Sells (1987) uses the term "logophoric" in an extended sense which subsumes not only point of view and subject of consciousness (his SELF) but also source of reported

330


speech (SOURCE) and deictic perspective (PIVOT). Reinhart and Reuland (1993) employ an even broader (and vaguer) usage which is, as they point out, quite widespread in the syntactic literature. Logophoricity typically arises in the presence of certain predicates, such as verbs of communication and predicates of mental experience, or even with some adverbial conjunctions, as will be discussed (see Sells, 1987). A typical and much-cited example is the sentence in (23), where the antecedent of ziji is a psych-predicate experiencer. Note that an o-commanding object normally cannot be the antecedent, as shown in (3) preceding. Moreover, an object cannot usually be the antecedent when ziji occurs within a superordinate position, as shown in (24). (23) Ziji de xiaohai mei de Jiang de xiaoxi shi Lisii hen nanguo. self DE child not get prize DE news make Lisi very sad 'The news of hiSj child not getting a prize made Lisii sad.' (24) *Ziji- de didi da le Lisii self DE younger-brother hit ASP Lisi 'His, own younger brother hit Lisij.' A psych-predicate experiencer object is logophoric in the strict sense that it reports the general state of the consciousness of the experiencer. Examples like (23) suggest that an NP can antecede ziji, even if it is not an o-commanding subject, if it refers to the discourse SELF. Certain adverbial conjunctions also seem to be logophoric. For example, when an adverbial clause is introduced by a causal conjunction like yinwei 'because,' the subject of the matrix clause can antecede ziji contained in an adverbial clause for many speakers.10 (25) Wangwui bu hui qu, [yinwei Lisij mei-you yaoqing ziji i/j ]. Wangwu not will go because Lisi have-not invite self 'WangwUj won't go because Lisij didn't invite him/himselfj.' As Sells (1987) points out, such adverbial conjunctions allow the speaker to take the point of view of the subject of the matrix clause. To put it another way, the reason expressed by the subordinate clause can be the matrix subject's reason, not necessarily the speaker's reason. By contrast with SELF, being the logophoric SOURCE does not seem to be a sufficient condition to license an antecedent which is not a subject o-commanding ziji, as shown by examples like the following: (26) Zhangsan^ cong Lisij chu tingshuo Wangwuk bu xihuan ziji i/*j/k Zhangsan from Lisi place hear Wangwu not like self 'Zhangsanj heard from Lisij that Wangwuk does not like himi/*j/himselfk.'


331

Moreover (and pace Chen, 1992), being a logophoric PIVOT is not a necessary condition for an NP to antecede ziji, as pointed out by Xue and Hukari (1993). In Sells, the notion of PIVOT is defined in a very physical sense, referring to the one with respect to whose (space-time) location the content of the proposition is evaluated. "If someone makes a report with Mary as the PIVOT, that person is understood as (literally) standing in Mary's shoes." (Sells, 1987:456). For example, since PIVOT is assumed as the locus to which deictic elements like 'come' and 'go' refer, the contrast between the Japanese examples in (27a) and (27b) is naturally explained if the PIVOT is the logophoric role that mediates coreference of unbound instances of zibun with their antecedents. (27) a. Takasii wa Yosiko ga zibuni o tazunete-kita node uresigatta. Takasi Top Yosiko Sub self obj visit-came because happy 'Takasij was happy because Yosiko came to visit sehy b. *Takasi{wa Yosiko ga zibun i o tazunete-itta node uresigatta. Takasi Top Yosiko Sub self obj visit-went because happy 'Takasii was happy because Yosiko went to visit selfi.' However, the corresponding sentences do not pattern analogously in Chinese, in which the following two sentences are equally possible. (28) a. Zhangsani hen gaoxing yinwei List yao lai kan ziji i. Zhangsan very happy because Lisi shall come see self 'Zhangsanj is very happy because Lisi shall come to see himi.' b. Zhangsani hen gaoxing yinwei Lisi yao qu kan ziji i Zhangsan very happy because Lisi shall go see self 'Zhangsanj is very happy because Lisi shall go to see hinij.' Although the deixis is the same as in the corresponding Japanese examples, there is no requirement that the antecedent of nonbound ziji be the PIVOT. Instead, the fact that, in both cases, Zhangsan is the SELF suffices to license the antecedency. In terms of deictic effects, the difference between Japanese and Chinese can be further shown by the following contrast (the Japanese examples are provided by Tsuneko Nakazawa (personal communication)): (29) a. Yamada-san-ga anata-ni kuruyou-ni it-te-imasuyo. Yamada-Mr-Nom you-Dat come-to say-ing 'Mr. Yamadaj is asking you to come to him}.' b. * Yamada-san-ga anata-ni ikuyou-ni it-te-imasuyo. Yamada-Mr.-Nom you-Dat go-to say-ing 'Mr. Yamadai is asking you to go to himi.'

332


(30) a. Zhangsan qingni qu. Zhangsan ask you go 'Zhangsarij asked you to go to himi.' b. Zhangsan qingni lai. Zhangsan ask you come 'Zhangsani asked you to come to himi;.' It seems that in sentences like the above involving deictic elements, the external speaker will obligatorily take the viewpoint of the sentence internal referent (i.e., the subject) in (29) in Japanese, in order to get the interpretation indicated by the English translation. But in Chinese, the external speaker may or may not take the viewpoint of the sentence internal referent. This, together with facts discussed previously, indicates that while Japanese deictic effects may be closely associated with the notion of logophoricity, their Chinese counterparts are not. The crucial fact is that despite the difference in terms of deictic effects between Japanese and Chinese, both languages allow LD reflexive coreference into adverbial clauses. This suggests that the deictic effects cannot be the essential content of the logophoricity involved in adverbial cases crosslinguistically.11 In the examples discussed previously, the SELF is, in Sells' terminology, internal. However, the SELF can also be external, i.e., the point of view can be that of the utterance speaker. In this connection, it is interesting to note that there is a class of instances of reflexives which are interpreted as referring to the external speaker of the sentence. Particularly, there are certain uses of ziji which have sometimes been characterized as nonreflexives in the literature, such as ziji used as a "first-person pronoun,'" as discussed in Pan, and Gu Liu (1983), For example. (31) Lingdaode biaoyang dui ziji shi yi-ge bianche. leader DE compliment to me be one-CL impetus 'The leader's compliment was an encouragement to me.' (32) Zhe-ci de xianjin jingyan jiaoliu dahui dui dajia This-CL DE advanced experience exchange meeting to everyone dui ziji dou you shenke de jiaoyu yiyi. to me both have profound DE instructive meaning 'This advanced-experience exchange meeting has profound educational implications for everyone as well as for me.' In (31) and (32), the most natural interpretation is that ziji refers to the speaker, as indicated by the English translation. In other words, such a reflexive refers to the "I" or the narrator of the discourse, as discussed in Kuroda (1973), among many other researchers. Such cases have sometimes been dismissed (e.g., by Liu et al, 1983) as nonreflexive uses. However, even


333

though it is true that such cases lack linguistic antecedents, it is worth considering whether they should be assimilated to the logophoric case, inasmuch as "first-person" ziji does indeed refer to the individual whose point of view is being reflected.12 If this is correct, then it is altogether natural to expect that reflexive ziji should be able to function as a first-person pronoun. 3.2. Contrast, Intensification, and Discourse Prominence While logophoricity does play an important role in the interpretation of reflexives in Chinese, it seems clear, however, that logophoricity is not a necessary condition for nonsyntactic use of reflexives in this language.13 Consider the following example: (33) [Zhangsani neiyang zuo] zhihui did ziji i buli. Zhangsan that-waydo only-will toward self not-beneficial 'Zhangsanj acting that way won't do himi any good.' Here, the SELF, from whose perspective the subjective evaluation is presented, is not the referent of ziji but rather the external speaker. Thus, this use of ziji, while nonsyntactic, cannot be considered logophoric. On the other hand, it is clear that the discourse to which (33) belongs is one in which Zhangsan is the topic, in the sense that the discourse is principally concerned with Zhangsan. This notion of topicality is closely related to such notions as givenness and information saliency discussed in functional literature (e.g., Bates and MacWhinney, 1982; Givon, 1983; Chen, 1992).14 Topicality in this sense (what Baker calls "primary topic of concern") is just one factor that contributes to what has been widely referred to as discourse prominence. The precise characterization of this notion is a matter of widespread and ongoing debate, which we will not attempt to settle here.15 Thus, not all discourse-prominent entities are strictly topics, but it does seem to be true that in order to be sufficiently discourse-prominent to serve as referent of ziji, an entity must not only be present in the immediate discourse, but also should have been referred to before, since Chinese ziji, unlike ordinary stressed pronouns, cannot be used deictically: (34) a. Ni zhidao na ben shu hai le TAV na ge wuli xi you know that CL book hurt ASP he that CL physics dept. de xueshengi. DE student 'You know that book harmed HIMi, that physics studenti.' b. *Ni zhidao na ben shu hai le ZIJI i na ge wuli you know that CL book hurt ASP self that CL physics

334


xi de xueshengi. dept. DE student 'You know that book harmed HIMSELF;, that physics student i ' We follow Baker in distinguishing contrastiveness from discourse prominence. What Baker refers to as intensive uses of reflexives in British English are those cases (e.g., (9)) where both factors are present; more precisely, the antecedent of the reflexive is a discourse-prominent entity which is involved in a comparison with some other entity. An example of this kind involving ziji is the following, due to Pan (1995): (35) [Jiaoshi bajiao], [shouhai de shouxian shi xuesheng]. teacher strike get-hurt DE first be student [Xueshengi bake], [daomei de shi (tamen) Zijii.] student strike bad-luck DE be them self 'If teachers are on strike, then the ones who get hurt are students. If students are on strike, then the ones who have bad luck are themselves.' In this example, xuesheng 'students' is a discourse-prominent entity. Note that this example reflects the point of view of the speaker, not the students, and therefore cannot be considered a logophoric use, as Pan points out. However, we reject (both for English and Chinese) Baker's view that all unbound reflexives are intensive. Relevant English examples are (16a), (16c), and (16d), which are neither bound nor contrastive (and therefore not intensive either). Relevant Chinese examples include such logophoric examples as in (23), (25), and (28). In this connection, it is interesting to note that contrastiveness (whether signified by pitch accent or by lexical/structural marking) can sometimes render acceptable (or more acceptable) a nonsyntactic use of ziji that would otherwise be unacceptable. Consider, for example, the following: (36) a. Zhangsani de xin anshi Lisij hai-le ziji*i/j. Zhangsan DE letter imply Lisi harm-ASP self 'Zhangsan'Sj letter implies that Lisi harmed him*i/himself.' b. Zhangsani de xin anshi Lisij hai-le ZIJIril]. Zhangsan DE letter imply Lisi harm-ASP self 'Zhangsan'Sj letter implies that Lisi harmed him?i/himself.' c. Zhangsani de xin anshi Lisij hai de neige ren shi Zhangsan DE letter imply Lisi harm DE that person FOC zijiwy self 'Zhangsan'Sj letter implies that it was him?i/himself that Lisi harmed.'


335

First, note the unacceptability of Zhangsan as the antecedent of ziji in (36a); evidently, it lacks sufficient discourse prominence. In fact, it is the logophoric SOURCE, but as we noted previously, in logophoric uses of ziji, it is the SELF, not the SOURCE (or PIVOT), that counts. Interestingly, however, acceptability is improved markedly by contrastiveness, whether marked by pitch accent (as in (36b)) or lexically/structurally (by use of the shi-construction, as in (36c)). Thus, it appears that contrastiveness, in addition to SELF-type logophoricity and discourse prominence, is among the pragmatic factors that figure in the interpretation of nonsyntactic ziji-16 It should be noted that the various nonsyntactic uses of ziji (e.g., logophoric, contrastive, prominence-signaling) need not be mutually exclusive. Consider the example in (23), repeated here: (23) Ziji{ de xiaohai mei de Jiang de xiaoxi shi Lisii hen nanguo. self DE child not get prize DE news make Lisi very sad 'The news of hiSi child not getting a prize made Lisii sad.' Although, as discussed previously, the use of ziji here is logophoric, the possibility is by no means ruled out that it is also contrastive, as the sentence can mean either 'Lisi was sad because his own child didn't get the prize while other children got the prize.' or 'Lisi was sad because his child didn't get the prize (regardless of whether other children got the prize or not).'17

4. CONCLUSION We have drawn a clear distinction between syntactic and nonsyntactic uses of reflexives in Chinese and English. The distinction does not necessarily correlate with one between locally bound reflexives and nonlocally bound reflexives, but rather with one between binding by a syntactic subject and reference to an entity in the discourse subject to pragmatic constraints (involving such factors as logophoricity, discourse prominence, and contrastiveness). Another recent account of ziji that bears comparison with the one we have presented here is that of Pan (1995), which also deals with other reflexives such as ta ziji, benren, benshen, zishen, and their compound forms. Like Baker's account of English reflexives, whose influence is acknowledged throughout, Pan's account recognizes a fundamental ambiguity between contrastive reflexives with a discourse-prominent antecedent (Baker's intensive pronouns) and noncontrastive reflexives. Unlike Baker though, Pan assumes that noncontrastive reflexives include not only anaphors, which are subject to both a tree-configurational closeness condition and a compatibil-

336


ity condition (which encompasses animacy-compatability, among other things), but also what Pan calls self-ascription ziji, which he characterizes as a de se anaphor, and therefore requiring a self-conscious antecedent. More specifically, the antecedent of self-ascription ziji must be the holder of a de se belief, who is either a discourse participant (speaker or hearer) or the referent of the subject of an explicit attitude predicate whose complement expresses the belief in question. We agree with Pan that the holder of a de se belief can certainly antecede ziji, though we would simply assimilate these cases to the logophoric ones, inasmuch as the holder of a reported belief surely qualifies as the SELF or subject of consciousness. However, we see Pan's account as problematic in several respects. First, like Baker's, it is a lexical-ambiguity account, which we have explicitly argued against. Second, Pan's two-way classification of noncontrastive ziji seems both empirically flawed and unintelligible. The main empirical shortcoming is posed by examples such as (37): (37) Zhangsani zai mei you jian guo jiu le ziji i ming de na Zhangsan again not have see ASP save ASP self life DE that ge ren. CL person 'Zhangsanj didn't see again the person who saved his; life.' The problem is that there is no sense in which Zhangsan here can be considered a self-ascriber, and thus, according to Pan's account, ziji, which is noncontrastive, should be an anaphor and therefore bound by the closest compatible NP, i.e., the PRO subject of jiu 'save.' But here jiu heads a subject relative clause and so its subject must be coindexed with the noun modified by the relative clause; i.e. ziji must refer to the life-saver, not Zhangsan. By contrast, by our account, Zhangsan is a subject o-commander of ziji and therefore can syntactically bind it.18 Incomprehensibly (at least to us), Pan himself argues against logophoric accounts of ziji on the basis of examples like the following, inasmuch as the antecedent of ziji is not the subject of consciousness: (38) a. Johni mingling Billj [PRO gei ziji i/j guahuzi] order to self shave 'John ordered Bill to shave him/himself.' b. Johni bi Billj [PRO gei zijiyj guahuzi] force to self shave 'John forced Bill to shave him/himself.' c. Johni rang Billj [PRO gei ziji i/j guahuzi] let to self shave 'John let Bill to shave him/himself.'


337

Frankly, we fail to understand what Pan's account of such examples is. Given that ziji here is not contrastive, it seems to follow from Pan's theory that the antecedent must be either (i) a self-ascriber or (ii) closest to ziji. But in each case, it is clear that that the antecedent does not fit the definition of self-ascriber (as the matrix predicates are not attitude verbs whose complement clauses express de se beliefs), and the nearest NP is the PRO subject of the complement clause. By contrast, our account simply predicts that either the local PRO subject or the matrix subject can bind ziji. Equally unclear to us is Pan's discussion of example (39) in the case where John is the antecedent: (39) [npJohni de gou] yao-le zijir DE dog bite self 'John's dog bit him.' Pan notes, correctly, that John does not satisfy the closeness condition. It would seem to follow from his account, then, that in this case, either John is a self-ascriber or else the use of ziji is contrastive, but clearly neither of these is the case. Therefore, we fail to understand why Pan considers (39) merely a "potential problem" rather than a problem simpliciter. By contrast, our account simply treats John as discourse-prominent (he is the directly affected patient and likely the topic as well). We have demonstrated that, given the facts from Chinese as well as from English, any theory that assumes the notion of obligatory binding as formulated in Chomsky's binding theory will be empirically inadequate. We have also shown that an approach based on the hypothesis of lexical ambiguity results in unnecessary complications. There is no reason why an NP cannot be both syntactically prominent and pragmatically prominent in the discourse at the same time. Consider the example in (7), repeated here: (7)

Zongtongi qing wo zuo zai zijii de shenbian. president ask I sit at self DE side 'The president, asked me to sit beside hinij.'

As discussed previously any o-commanding animate subject can be the antecedent of a subordinate reflexive. In this case, however, the matrix subject zontong is both syntactically prominent and pragmatically prominent. On our account, this is the very reason why the matrix subject is preferred to be the antecedent. The local subject is ruled out as the antecedent not due to syntactic reasons but due to semantic anomaly. We have identified a number of discourse/pragmatic conditions on nonsyntactic ziji, among which are logophoricity, contrast, and various conditions that contribute to relative discourse prominence, consistent with

338


what has been discussed in the literature. But our analysis indicates that while nonsyntactic uses of reflexives must satisfy one or more of these conditions, none of them alone seems to be a necessary condition, contrary to the conclusion reached by various attempts to seek a single explanation for nonsyntactic uses of reflexives (e.g., Baker, 1995; Zribi-Hertz, 1989). Thus, the relevant conditions for nonsyntactic uses of reflexives are more diverse than has been traditionally assumed. This fact, together with the independent status of syntactic binding as we have discussed, provides further argument against any unified (syntactic or nonsyntactic) analysis of reflexive pronouns.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank the anonymous referee for very perceptive and useful comments and suggestions.

NOTES ipor expository convenience, we employ here the standard characterization of nonagreement blocking. A more empirically adequate characterization is given in Pollard and Xue (1998:310). See also endnote 6 for related discussion. 2 Our use of the symbol "*" in front of an index is best construed not as an indication of ungrammaticality but as unavailability of the indicated interpretation. 3 See, e.g., Baker (1995), Pan (1995), Xue et al. (1994). 4 We simplify considerably here because of space considerations. See Pollard and Xue (1998) and Xue et al. (1994) for more detailed discussion. 5 Also see Chen (1992) and Y. Huang (1994) for similar examples and related discussion. 6 In fact, while not ruled out on syntactic grounds, sometimes ziji fails to corefer with an LD subject, or can corefer with it only with difficulty, because of the (not strictly syntactic) effect of nonagreement blocking, as discussed in the preceding sections. In this respect, the term "syntactic ziji" might appear somewhat misleading. We believe that this effect arises from a processing strategy to avoid conflicts in point of view. See Huang and Liu (this volume) for discussion. 7 Also see Xue et al. (1994) for detailed discussion of the relevance of argument structure to ziji binding. 8 As the anonymous referee points out, a set of independent diagnostic tests would greatly strengthen the case for the distinction between syntactic and nonsyntactic uses of reflexives and, concomitantly, the argument against a purely discourse-pragmatic account of ziji-


339

9 We exclude from consideration two kinds of uses of forms homophonous with reflexives which neither occur in syntactically bound positions nor refer to some entity picked out by nonsyntactic constraints:

(i)

ziji used as an adverb with such meanings as (all) alone, unaccompanied, (all) on one's/its own, unassisted, of one's/its own accord, (all) by one/itself, without help, in person, as in the following examples: Wo shi ziji laide I be self come+ASP 'I came alone/unaccompanied/on my own/unassisted.' Pingzi buhui ziji daoxialai, zhun shi youren peng-le ta. bottle not-can self fall-down-come, definitely be someone bump+ASP it "The bottle couldn't have tipped over on its own; someone must have bumped it.'

For further discussion, see Li and Thompson (1981), and Tang (1989), which employs the (in our opinion, misleading) term "emphatic" for such uses. (ii)

ziji used as an indefinite (or generic) pronoun, as in: Ziji zuo shi ziji dang. self do be self be-responsible 'If one does something, then one is responsible for it.'

For discussion, see Batistella and Xu (1990). 10 Conditional and concessive adverbial conjunctions such as zhiyao 'if,' napa 'even if,' and jishi 'even though' seem to have similar logophoric functions. This is particularly true when the adverbial clause occurs after the main clause. While an adverbial clause usually occurs before the main clause in Chinese, it may occur after the main clause. See Tang (1976) for discussion of possible positions of adverbial clauses. Precisely what adverbial conjunctions belong to this class in Chinese is a topic for further research. llr These examples also show that Sells' putative universal constraint that internal SELF always coincides with the deictic PIVOT, while perhaps valid for Japanese, is inapplicable to Chinese. See also Cole et at. (this volume) for discussion. 12 More generally, it could well be that the best approach to nonsyntactic reflexives is one that characterizes pragmatic constraints on their referents (as opposed to their antecedents) with those cases where there is a coreferential linguistic expression on the prior discourse being treated as a special case. 13 Baker (1995) concludes that in English, reflexive uses formerly analyzed as logophoric (e.g., by Zribi-Hertz, 1989) should all be assimilated to his intensive pronouns. We follow Golde (to appear) in assuming (both for English and Chinese) that, although Baker's analysis is probably correct for many of the examples he discusses, not all logophoric uses of reflexives are intensive. 14 Information saliency is related to such factors as the degree of semantic content, and perceptual and attentional vividness. See Chen (1992), Y. Huang (1994), and references cited there. Chen argues that givenness plays a particularly important role in characterizing

340


what he calls "topicality," and that the possessive position of the subject is one typical position with high topicality (also see, e.g., Kuno, 1987). This seems to provide an explanation for why a subcommanding NP as discussed in Section 2.1 can serve as the antecedent of ziji in an appropriate discourse. 15 For expository convenience, we will adopt a usage rather close to that of Baker, which encompasses a number of other factors, including high external rank (e.g., the King, God) and thematic salience (e.g., directly responsible agent, directly affected patient). However, we depart from Baker's usage in not subsuming logophoricity (Baker's "subject of consciousness") under the notion of discourse prominence. This is an expository choice and is not intended to reflect a strong theoretical commitment. 16 Alternatively (and with all due respect to Baker), we could absorb contrastiveness into the notion of discourse prominence. This move would have the side effect of rendering Baker's notion of intensification (which crucially involves the interaction of contrastiveness with discourse prominence) unintelligible. 17 See Pan (1995) for related discussion and examples. However, we differ from Pan in that most of the examples he provides to argue that LD ziji need not be contrastive count as syntactic uses on our account. 18 In addition, the speaker in (37) might be adopting the point of view of Zhangsan, so that ziji is logophoric, i.e., identified with the (internal) SELF; but our account does not require this.

REFERENCES Baker, C. L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71, 66-101. Bates, E., and MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functional approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner and L. Gleitman, (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, pp. 173-218. Cambridge University Press. Battistella, E. (1989). Chinese reflexivization: A movement to INFL approach. Linguistics 27,987-1012. Battistella, E., and Xu, Y.-H. (1990). Remarks on the reflexive in Chinese. Linguistics 28,205-240. Chen, P. (1992). The reflexive ziji in Chinese: Functional vs. formalist approaches. Research on Chinese Linguistics in Hong Kong. The Linguistic Society of Hong Kong. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. The Netherlands: Foris Publications. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Clements, N. G. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10,141-177.


341

Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Lee, C.L. (this volume). Grammatical and discourse conditions on long distance reflexives in two Chinese dialects. Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Sung, L.-M. (1990). Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21,1-22. Cole, P., and Sung, L.-M. (1994). Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 25,355-406. Everaert, M. (1991). Contextual determination of anaphor/pronominal distinction. In I Koster and E. Reuland (eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora, New York: Cambridge University Press. Givon, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: Quantitative Cross-Language Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Golde, K. (to appear). A complete Principle A for English. In Proceedings of the 34th Colloquium of Linguistics. Berne: The Peter Lang-Verlag. Hellan, L. (1991). Containment and connectedness anaphors. In J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora. New York: Cambridge University Press. Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Huang, C.-T. J., and Tang, C.-C. J. (1991). The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds.), Long-distance Anaphora. New York: Cambridge University Press. Huang, C.-T. J., and Liu, C.-S. L. (this volume). Anaphoricity and logophoricity in Mandarin Chinese. Huang, Y. (1994). The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora. New York: Cambridge University Press. Koster, I, and Reuland, E. (eds.) (1991). Long-Distance Anaphora, New York: Cambridge University Press. Kuno, S. (1987). Functional Syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1973). Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: A case study from Japanese. In S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Li, C. N, and Thompson, S.-A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Liu, Y.-H., Pan, W.-Y, and Gu, H. (1983). Shiyong Xiandai Hanyu Yufa [Practical Grammar of Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Waiyu Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu Chubanshe. Pan, H. H. (1995). Locality, Self-Ascription, Discourse Prominence, and Mandarin Reflexives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Pollard, C. J., and Sag, I. A. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23,261-303. Pollard, C. J., and Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago and Stanford: The University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publication. Pollard, C. J., and Xue, P. (1998). Chinese reflexive ziji: Syntactic reflexives vs. nonsyntactic reflexives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7,287-318. Reinhart, T., and Reuland, E. (1991). Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds.), Long-distance Anaphors. New York: Cambridge University Press.

342


Reinhart, T., and Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24,657-720. Reuland, E., and Koster, J. (1991). Long-distance anaphors: An overview. In J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds.), Long-distance Anaphors. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18,445-479. Tang, C.-C. J. (1989). Chinese reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 93-121. Tang, T.-C. (1976). Studies in Transformational Grammar of Chinese, Vol. 1. Taipei: Student Book Co. Ltd. Yu, W. (1992). Challenging Chinese reflexive data. The Linguistic Review 9, 285-294. Xue, P., Pollard, C.J., and Sag, I.A. (1994). A new perspective on Chinese reflexive ziji. In Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Standford University: CSLI Publications. Xue, P., and Hukari, T. (1993). Non-clause-bounded reflexives: Logophoricity and grammatical hierarchy. Manuscript, University of Victoria. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphora binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65,695-727.

ANAPHORS, LOGOPHORS, AND BINDING ERIC REULAND Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS Utrecht, The Netherlands

1. INTRODUCTION The aim of this article is to contribute to our understanding of what has come to be known as the free, or "logophoric," use of anaphors. My starting point will be a comparison of the interpretation of sig in subjunctive and infinitival clauses, summarizing some of the considerations given in Reuland and Sigurjonsdottir (1997). Since the initial discussions of Icelandic long-distance anaphora by Thrainsson (1976) and Maling (1984), it has become widely acknowledged that the anaphor sig in subjunctives in Icelandic can take as its antecedent a non-c-commanding argument. Thus, in (1) the NP Jon can serve as the antecedent for sig, although it does not c-command and anaphor.1 (1) a. [NP Skodun Jonsi] er [ad sigi vanti hoefileika]2 Opinion John's is that SIG-Acc lacks-Subj talents 'John's opinion is that he lacks talents.' (Maling, 1984:222) b. [NP Alit Jonsi] virdist [tj vera [ad eg hati sigj]]] Belief John's seems be that I hate-Subj SIG 'John's belief seems to be that I hate him.' (him=John) c. Bjorn sagdi Petri fra [NP osk Jonsi ] ud [ad Ari syndi Bjorn told Peter about wish John's about that Ari showed-Subj seri virdingu]3 SIG respect 'Bjorn told Peter about John's wish that Ari showed him (=John) respect.' Syntax and Semantics, Volume 33 Long-Distance Reflexives

343


344

Eric Reuland

Furthermore, sig in subjunctives can refer to a matrix object, even though otherwise sig is strictly subject oriented. (2) ?J6ni er masokisti. Pad gledur Joni [ad eg muni lemja sigi i hausinn med spytu a morgun] 'John is a masochist. It pleases John that I will-Subj hit him on the head with a stick tomorrow.' (Sigurjonsdottir, 1992: 95)4 Comparing sig in subjunctive clauses with sig in infinitival clauses, we see that in clauses of the latter type, a c-command requirement on antecedents must be strictly observed (3a-c). The same holds true for subject orientation (3d). (3) a. *[NP Skodun J6nsi]j virdist [tj vera haettuleg fyrirsig i ] Opinion John's seems be-Inf dangerous for SIG 'John's opinion seems to be dangerous for him.' b. * [NP (Osk Jonsi]j er likleg til [t j adhafa slcemarafleidingar Wish John's is likely to to have-Inf bad consequences fyrir sigi] for SIG 'John's wish is likely to have bad consequences for him.' c. *[NP Alit Jonsi ]i er sagt [tj hcefa seri vel] Belief John's is said suit-Inf SIG well 'John's belief is said to suit him well.' d. *Egj hotadi Joni [ad PROj lemja sigi] I threatened John to hit-Inf SIG 'I threatened John to hit him.' That binding sig out of infinitival clauses is possible when c-command is obeyed is shown in (4). (examples cited in Thrainsson (1991)) (4) a. Peturi bad Jensj um [PRO j ad raka sigi,j] Peter asked Jens to shave self 'Peter asked Jens to shave him/himself.' b. Annai telur [pig hafa svikid sigi] Anna believes you-Acc have-Inf betrayed self 'Anna believes you to have betrayed her.' As has often been observed, the felicitousness of sentences as in (1) and (2) is governed by the discourse status of the antecedent. The antecedent of sig must be the person (distinct from the speaker-narrator) whose perspective or point of view is reflected in the sentence. This is illustrated by the following minimal pair reported in Sells (1987:451): (5) a. Barnidi let ekkii Ijos [ad pad hefdi verid hugsad The child put not in light that there had-Subj been thought


345

vel um sigi] well about SIG 'The child didn't reveal that she had been taken good care of.' b. *Barnidi bar pess ekki merki [ad pad hefdi verid The child bore of it not signs that there had-Subj been hugsad vel um sigi] thought well about SIG 'The child didn't look as if she had been taken good care of.' The difference in acceptability between (5a) and (5b) can be attributed to the fact that in the (a) sentence, the report is made from the child's point of view, i.e., it is the child, and not the speaker, who didn't reveal that he/she had been taken good care of, whereas in the (b) sentence, it is the speaker who reports that the child didn't look as if he/she had been taken good care of. To see this effect yet more clearly, consider the sentences in (6), comparing them to those in (1). (6) a. *[NP Skodun Jonsi fcer mig til adhalda [ad sigi Opinion John's leads me to to believe that SIG-Acc vanti hcefileika] lacks-Subj talents 'John's opinion leads me to believe that he lacks talent.' (Maling, 1984:222) b. *[NP Vinur Jonsi] telur [ad eghati sigi] Friend John's believes that I hate-Subj SIG 'John's friend believes that I hate him.' (him=John) c. *Petta vandamdli krafdist pess [ad vid hugsudum stodugt This problem demanded it that we thought-Subj constantly um sigi] about SIG 'This problem demanded that we constantly think about it.' (Sigurdsson, 1990:335) The sentences in (6) are infelicitous, yet the antecedent NP bears the same structural relation to sig as in the felicitous sentences in (1). In (1), however, Jon is the person (distinct from the speaker) whose opinion, belief, or wish is reported. Sentences (6a) and (6b), on the other hand, do not reflect Jon's point of view; rather, it is the first person pronoun mig 'me' in (6a) and the NP Vinur Jons 'John's' friend in (6b) which carry the perspective. This analysis is further supported by the example in (6c), which shows that an inanimate NP, which cannot possibly be the "source" of an utterance, cannot serve as the antecedent for sig in subjunctives. Since Hagege (1974) and

346

Eric Reuland

Clements (1975), this use of sig and similar elements in other languages is generally called logophoric. Consider next the sentences in (3), which we also found to be infelicitous. Crucially, these sentences have been constructed in such a way that the putative antecedents have the same discourse status as those in (1). In these sentences, the discourse factors that license the sentences in (1) are without effect. That is, in infinitival clauses, discourse factors are apparently unable to compensate for the lack of c-command between a putative antecedent and sig. The question is, then, how this difference between sig in infinitival clauses and sig in subjunctive clauses can be understood. For an answer, we must investigate the logophoric use of sig in more detail. The discussion of this use of sig is generally conducted against the background of two assumptions: (i) sig is anaphor and (ii) anaphors must be bound. The latter is taken to be a distinguishing characteristic of anaphors versus pronominals. That is, anaphors are inherently defective: they lack the content to be interpreted independently (Bouchard, 1984). Clearly, if these assumptions are correct, the logophoric use of sig is extremely puzzling. In view of the fact that binding requires c-command (Reinhart, 1983), it should be downright impossible for sig to receive an interpretation when it is not c-commanded by its antecedent. This point becomes even more pressing given that a linguistically expressed antecedent need not be available at all, as is illustrated in (7). Here, ser refers to the individual whose thoughts are being presented, although there is no other argument in (7) referring to this individual. That is, this individual is only manifested in the discourse representation associated with the sentence. (7) Maria var alltafsvo andstyggileg. Pegar Olafur j kosmi segdi him seri/*j areidanlega ad fara . . . 'Mary was always so nasty. When Olaf would come-Subj, she would certainly tell himself [the person whose thoughts are being presented—not Olaf] to leave.' (SigurSsson, 1990: 317) Such a use is characteristic for pronominals, not for anaphors. In order to understand this use of sig, two lines of enquiry must be pursued: (i) What types of interpretation are available to elements like sig? (ii) What is the role of the c-command condition? I will discuss these issues in that order.

2. INTERPRETING SIG Sig can be distinguished from other pronominal elements in that it lacks a grammatical singular/plural opposition and a grammatical gender op-


347

position. In agreement with anaphors in many other language, it lacks a form with nominative Case (see Everaert, 1986, 1990, and Anagnostopoulou and Everaert, 1998, for discussion). Suppose we adopt Bouchard's (1984) thesis that a DP must have a full specification of CD-features in order to be interpreted (henceforth, the deficiency thesis, for a precise formulation, see (15) following). It follows that sig cannot be interpreted independently, i.e., it must have an antecedent. A binding requirement on sig (and other anaphors) then follows immediately from the fact that in order to be interpreted, sig must first acquire CD-features. Directly or indirectly, it will be the role of the antecedent to provide them.5 This is essentially the line taken in much work on anaphors including that of Reinhart and Reuland (1991). This line, however, also raised the question of what enables sig to be interpreted in those contexts where an antecedent need not c-command sig, or can be absent entirely. If the deficiency thesis reflects a really deep property of language, we would expect that nothing can make up for the impossibility for sig to acquire CD-features in some given context. To say that some sort of discourse prominence can make up for the nonsatisfaction of a fundamental property of lexical or syntactic structure would effectively render the deficiency approach vacuous. Logically, there are, therefore, two options. One is that in those cases where sig appears to be interpretable without a c-commanding antecedent, there is a (structurally accessible) source of F-features, after all; the other is that the deficiency thesis is incorrect. One certainly cannot, in principle, exclude the possibility that a significant linguistic relation between an anaphor and a non-commanding antecedent can be established. For one thing, too little is known about the reasons why c-command holds at all, and furthermore, there are wellknown exceptions to the c-command requirement, notably in cases of variable binding. Where a linguistic antecedent is not realized, one faces the additional task of justifying some null-source of CD-features, but again, there are no a priori reasons to exclude the possibility that it can be done. Yet, even if both tasks can be carried out successfully, an additional task remains, namely, to explain the sensitivity to subjunctive and to discourse factors. In this respect, the option of dropping the deficiency thesis is no different. If this thesis is dropped, this amount to saying that under certain conditions anaphors like sig can be used as pronominals. But still, the sensitivity to subjunctive and discourse factors of this use remains to be explained. I will now show that it is the deficiency thesis which must be dropped, by eliminating the alternative. I will first discuss the issue of non-c-commanding antecedents.

348

Eric Reuland

3. NON-C-COMMANDING ANTECEDENTS To accommodate cases such as (1) where the visible does not c-command the anaphor, two options can logically be distinguished: (i) the element which is realized is the actual antecedent of the anaphor, or (ii) the structure of (1) is closer to that of (7) than appearances indicate, and the real antecedent is a null element (somehow linked to the visible antecedent) that does c-command the anaphor. Let us first address option (i). This option implies a certain degree of variability in the structural conditions on A-binding. However, it is found throughout that the relation between a and b in configurations such as (8) can be one of variable binding or coreference, but not one of A-binding. This is illustrated in (9). (8) [a'sN] V [b ... ] (9) a. * Mary's father loves herself b. Every girl's father hates her boyfriend c. Mary's father hates her boyfriend Both Reuland (1998) and Kayne (1994) present independent reasons for why A-binding requires the strict version of c-command. Here, I will not offer a discussion of the difference between these approaches, but I refer to Reuland (1998) for such a discussion.6 At this point, it suffices to note that under either approach, option (i) would call for additional assumptions, which would lack independent motivation. It would narrow down possibilities if we could independently determine whether the relation between sig and its antecedent in Icelandic subjunctives is modeled on anaphor binding, variable binding, or coreference. In line with Reinhart (1983), I will be assuming that strict versus sloppy identity in VP-deletion contexts provides a diagnostic for coreference versus variable binding. Consider (10): (10) Mary hates her boy friend and Cindy does too. As is well known, in (10), both a coreference and a bound variable reading are available. As observed by Thrainsson (1991: 60), where c-command is satisfied, the strict/sloppy identity ambiguity also shows up with sig in the long-distance subjunctive case. This is illustrated in (11): (11) Joni telur [ad professorinn muni fella sigi a profmu] John believes that the professor will-Subj fail SIG on the test og AriI telur pad lika andAri believes so too a. = Ari believes that the professor will fail Ari on the test b. = Ari believes that the professor will fail John on the test


349

However, when subjunctive sig is not c-commanded by its long-distance antecedent, the sloppy (i.e., bound) reading is, as Thramsson (1991) puts it, "more difficult, if not impossible to get." This is illustrated in (12) Thramsson (1991:60): (12) Skodun Jonsi er [ad sigi vanti hcefileika] og pad er Opinion John's is that SIG lacks-Subj talents and that is skodun Petursj lika opinion Peter's too 'John's opinion is that SIG lacks talents and that is Peter's opinion too.' a. Peter's opinion is that Peter lacks talents b. = Peter's opinion is that John lacks talents7 This is problematic for any approach that must claim that the interpretation of sig in (12) depends on the existence of a syntactic binding relation between Jon and sig, instead of coreference.8 The other alternative (mentioned under (ii)) is that sig is not directly licensed by Jon, but by some null element associated with the subjunctive clause, let's say, some null operator obtaining its range from the context, as in (13): (13) Skodun Jons er [Op i ad sigi vanti hcefileika] og pad er Opinion John's is that SIG lacks-Subj talents and it is skodun Peturs lika [Op i ad sigi vanti hcefileika] opinion Peter's too that SIG lacks-Subj talents However, it is easily seen that this does not solve the problem. Just as the element heading the original must get its value from Jon, the one in the copy would be able to gets its value from Petur. Thus, no explanation of the contrast between (11) and (12) follows. Moreover, it is unclear how such an operator could serve as a source of F-features for sig, except by stipulation. There is one further possibility to be considered: an operator associated with the full sentence, as in (14). (14) Opi[Skodun Jonsi er [ad sigi vanti hcefileika] og pad er Opinion John's is that SIG lacks-Subj talents and that is skodun Petursj lika] opinion Peter's too Assuming that the reconstruction of the VP in the conjunct uses material that is in the scope of the operator, one would indeed except that a sloppy reading does not occur. However, this structure does not resolve the question of how sig receives F-features any more than the structure of (13). Moreover, similar structures with overt operators are crossover configura-

350

Eric Reuland

tions. As illustrated by Who does John's mother love t? or The man who John's mother admires most t is him, this structure does not facilitate identity between elements in the position of Jon and sig.9 The conclusion is that this line does not offer any promise towards result either. Since this exhausts the alternatives discussed in Section 2, we conclude that the deficiency thesis must be dropped. Given a suitable environment, sig can be interpreted as a pronominal and can be related to its antecedent by coreference.

4. THE INTERPRETIVE PROCESS The result that the deficiency thesis must be dropped is quite welcome for independent reasons, as discussed in Reuland (1997a). Consider the specific formulation in (15): (15) If a lacks a specification for some F-feature F, then a cannot be interpreted independently. It is indeed true that anaphors (simplex anaphors, such as Icelandic sig, Dutch zich, and perhaps Latin se; clitic anaphors, such as Italian se/si, French se; and complex anaphors, such as Icelandic sjalfan sig, Dutch zichzelf) are underspecified in some respect (e.g., Burzio (1991)). Taking the set of F-features to be [aperson, bgender, gnumber], we observe that, e.g., zich is specified for person (namely, third-person), but is not specified for gender nor for number. Although zich requires a third-person antecedent, the latter can be masculine, feminine or neuter, and singular or plural. (Note the contrast with Slavic, where the anaphor is generally not specified for person either.) Although, at first glance, (15) may therefore seem natural, it is not hard to see that, in fact, it is just a stipulation. Proposition (15) cannot be reduced to known properties of features. The role of lexical and formal features is only to constrain the interpretation of the elements carrying them. On the basis of that role, one would rather expect (16) to hold, and not (15). (16) If a has fewer F-features than (3, there are fewer constraints on the interpretation of a than on the interpretation of (3 Proposition (16) should, then, be adopted as the null-hypothesis. Given (16), an anaphor such as Icelandic sig which carries only the feature third-person, should just have a broad range of application, namely, to all objects distinct from speaker and addressee. Thus, there is no intrinsic need for anaphors to have a syntactic binder. On the other hand, we know that free anaphors have a restricted distribution, just as they have a very specific type of interpretation. Thus, whereas


351

standard binding theory leads to the question of why, under certain conditions, logophoric interpretation can be allowed, from the present perspective, the questions to ask are (17a) and (17b): (17) a. Why is, under certain conditions, free interpretation of anaphors blocked? b. What are these conditions? In order to be able to address these questions fruitfully, I must first discuss the relation between pronominals and anaphors from a more general perspective, starting out with the interpretation of pronominal elements. 4.1. Interpreting Pronominal Elements Consider the tree structure a in (18), with its subtrees t and d. Let's focus on some argument a in 8:

If a has lexical features (Cindy, a cat, etc.) it will be directly interpreted by a suitable element in the domain of discourse (which reflects part of what one may call a knowledge base). Suppose a is an element without lexical features, which therefore functions as a semantic variable. Let's assume with Chierchia (1995) that a semantic variable may be either free or bound. If it ends up being free, it receives an E-type interpretation. That is, it is assigned as its value some element in the domain of discourse, just as in the case of a lexical. The alternative is interpretation by variable binding. Given some compositional interpretation process, a may, at any time, be construed as a bound variable (as when an expression [t [ § ... a ....]] is interpreted, with t a possible antecedent for a). Note, that as long as a has not been interpreted, it is held "in store." If the interpretation of a is "postponed," this will be visible on whatever expression reflects 8's interpretation, since 8 will be a semantically open expression. There may be various ways to represent this. Here, I will represent the semantically open character of 8 by a l-expression. So, in order for the interpretation of 8 to be completed, the l-expression must receive an argument enabling a to receive a value. Thus, whatever the precise nature of representations at the relevant level, the status of 8 will be equivalent to (19). (19) l x ( . . . x . . . )

352

Eric Reuland

As I said, I will be adopting the standard position that interpretation proceeds compositionally. Within the present framework, we can understand this as involving a semantic counterpart of the Merge operation in Chomsky (1995), let's call this procedure Interpretive Merge (IM) (see Reuland, 1998). This means that the fact that the subtree 8 is a semantically open expression will be visible at 8's root. The open position can become saturated at the next interpretive step, namely the one composing 8 with T. If 8 is represented as a l-expression, the process can be viewed as the application of t to 8. If, for some reason, application of t to d is impossible (for instance, if t has the wrong type), a will remain in store, which will be visible in the form of nonsaturation of a, etc. (As is shown in Reuland, 1998, a procedure along these lines effectively derives the structural conditions on variable binding, including the c-command condition where its holds, and violations of c-command in cases of inverse-linking and binding by a specifier). In Reuland (1997a) and Reuland and Sigurjonsdottir (1997), it is argued that the choice of a free versus a bound interpretation of pronominal elements is governed by an economy principle, not so much governing the choice of operations within one module of human communicative competence (such as the computational system CHL in Chomsky's (1995) sense), but rather the number of operations across modules that are involved. For instance, if some linguistic expression is assigned as its value an object from the knowledge base, given standard assumptions, this is an operation involving elements from different cognitive faculties. I am claiming that this is associated with a certain cost. It is generally assumed that an interpretation procedure that is able to capture the necessary semantic generalizations (for instance, those involving the contrast between collective and distributive readings) requires operations that are language independent and go beyond what can be stated in CHL (i.e., beyond move, check, merge). If this assumption is correct, which seems quite reasonable, this comes down to claiming that there is a separate semantic component among our cognitive faculties. If so, operations assigning to syntactic structures expressions in which variable binding or the distributive relations between arguments and predicates are represented are also cross-modular, and carry the concomitant cost as well. If expressions a and b are to receive the same value (to be covalued), the following operations may be involved: (i) a and b may independently be assigned the same object from the knowledge base. (ii) a and b may be identical variables bound by the same operator, (iii) a and b may be members of the same syntactic chain.


353

This leads to the following cases to be distinguished: a a (20) a. Knowledge base (objects) Semantic objects (variables) Syntactic objects (chains) Basic expressions b. Knowledge base (objects) Semantic objects (variables) Syntactic objects (chains) Basic expressions c. Knowledge base (objects)

x

l

X

2

C1 C2 a ... b a

X1

x1

C1

C2

a ... b

a

Semantic objects (variables) Syntactic objects (chains) C1 C1 Basic expressions a ... b As is easily seen, if a and b are to be assigned the same value via the knowledge base, as in (20a), they represent different chains and different variables; the number of cross-modular operations is 4. If a and b are covalued via variable binding, as in (20b), they are represented by different chains but an identical variable; the number of cross-modular operations is 3; hence, this operation is cheaper. The empirical claim is that this process is preferred where the option exists. (As regards the relation between semantics and pragmatics, this is essentially Rule I of Reinhart (1983) and Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993)). The cheapest interpretation process is given in (20c): chain formation creates one syntactic object. Only two cross-modular operations are required. Thus, if it comes to the task of assigning a value to some element a, the cheapest way is to do it in the syntax (by linking a to some element b, creating a syntactic chain); the costliest way to do it is by interpreting a independently, accessing the knowledge base; intermediate in cost is to do it in the interpretive process, turning a into a variable which is kept in store until it can be logically bound by an antecedent. Note that the reason for chain formation is not that it is the least costly way of expressing a dependency. Chain formation is just the result of a blind process, driven by requirements of feature checking. Only where two derivations, one syntactic and the other semantic, lead to the same semantic object can there be a competition of the type discussed.

354

Eric Reuland

This leads us immediately back to the relation between pronominals and anaphors, and to a further discussion of syntactic chain formation. 4.2. Pronominal Binding and Anaphor Binding In Reuland (1996,1997a) it is shown that the binding of simplex anaphors (Dutch zich, Icelandic sig) follows from syntactic chain formation using no more than Merge, Move/attract, and feature checking and associated properties. Indices are not involved. Informally, this comes down to the linking of syntactic dependencies that exist independently. This is illustrated in (21) (see also Reuland and Sigurjonsdottir (1997)). (21) DP ... [ V / I ... jAgr jsig . . . ] . . . sig Example (21) shows two dependencies: the Case checking relation between verb and object (sig) and the dependency between verb and subject expressed by agreement (or by EPP; for expository purposes, we will limit ourselves to agreement). All are formal dependencies. The chains encoding binding relations are formed by linking two dependencies. More precisely, at the relevant level the verb has merged with inflection forming a V/I complex, and the Case checking relation between the verb and sig is encoded on that complex. The agreement features of the V/I complex are represented by jAgr, and the relation of the verb in the V/I complex with sig by the features jsig. Agreement between subject and verb involves the checking of F-features inside the V/I complex by the subject DP. For the mechanism effecting agreement, jAgr and jsig are equally visible. So, among the dependencies that can be formally represented is also the dependency , as a product of the same checking mechanism that establishes the dependency . <j sig , sig> is also among the formal dependencies. If this dependency relation is transitive, is among the formal dependencies as well. In fact, it has the status of a chain (see Reuland (1996,1997a) for more discussion). This chain is thus a syntactic object encoding the relation between the anaphor and its antecedent.10 Clearly, the possibility to form a chain must be restrict. For instance, if the object is a lexical NP or a pronoun, instead of sig, a chain should not be formed. In Reuland (1996, 1997a), it is argued that the relevant factor is grammatical number: sig is not marked for grammatical number, pronouns and lexical NPs are. For lack of space, I will not review the argumentation here, and simply assume the result of Reuland (1997a) that grammatical number on a in (22) will block checking, and make formation of a chain impossible: (22) DP ... [V/I jAgr ja] . .. a


355

The span of this type of dependency, and therefore the locality of the binding relation, is entirely determined by the factors governing the movement of the elements involved, such as Case checking and V-movements. (see Reinhart and Reuland (1991) for discussion), and the possibilities for the resulting objects to be linked. Where no chain can be formed, a dependency cannot be syntactically encoded. I am claiming that a syntactic chain constitutes one syntactic object which will be interpreted as one semantic object. This yields the effect of binding without invoking indices.11 To develop a systematic picture, the following cases are to be considered. Consider first (23):

(23)

...[DP1ll...[CP[DP2l2...Va]]]

Suppose a is the object of V, and DP2 is its subject. DP1 c-commands a from a higher clause. Say both are suitable antecedents (nondistinct in F-feature specification). Suppose that a lacks number but also that, in line with (16), it can, in principle, be interpreted independently (ignoring for the moment the special discourse restrictions). From the perspective of the interpretive procedure then, a can be bound by either DPl or DP2. Reinhart and Reuland (1991) argue that Scandinavian languages have a covert counterpart of the overt verb movement of Dutch or German. As they show, this makes possible a straightforward account of certain differences in binding domains (for lack of space, I will not repeat this discussion here). Suppose then that, in line with this argument, V can reach both I1 and I2 by (covert) movement (as when the complement is infinitival). If so, the dependencies (DPl ,a) and (DP2, a) can both be syntactically encoded, and there will be no grammatical preference. Suppose that V cannot reach I1 (as when the lower clause is an indicative CP). If so, the dependency (DP1,a) cannot be syntactically encoded, Hence, assigning the value of DP1 to a will require (at least) three cross-modular steps (two from CHL to the semantics, one from semantics to the knowledge base). Assigning a the value of DP2 requires only two cross-modular steps, since a chain (DP2, a) can be formed, mediated by V. (Cross-modular are the steps from DP2 to the semantics and from there to the knowledge base.) Hence, that course is cheaper and wins over the option to assign DP1 to a as its antecedent. What if DP2 is not a suitable antecedent for a, due to a feature mismatch (for instance, DP2 is first-person and a third-person)? In such cases DPl is nevertheless not a viable alternative antecedent, as we know. This fact follows from chain theory without further assumptions. As Chomsky (1995: 309) points out, chains with a feature mismatch are ill-formed objects. Derivations leading to such chains are cancelled. Cancelled derivations count for the computation of economy rankings, unlike crashed derivations. Hence, less economical alternatives remain blocked. This procedure will immedi-

356

Eric Reuland

ately carry over to the present case. The chain (DP2, a) will be formed, but being ill-formed, it will not be interpreted. Yet its presence will block the less economical alternative interpretation with a bound by DP1. 4.3. Syntactic Conditions on Free Anaphors Although we have given up the deficiency thesis in (15), it might seem that we are still in virtually the same position with regard to free anaphors, unless we can find a way to occasionally release them from the preference for derivations in which they are bound. The logic of our approach shows the way in which to look for a solution. Consider again (22). (22) D P . . . [ v / I . . . j A g r j a - - - ] - - . a Crucially, the V/I complex as a carrier of both F-features linking it to the subject and a Case feature linking it to the object acts as an intermediary for the chain between these two to be formed. If some property of V/I prevents it from acting as an intermediary, no chain between DP and a will result. If there is no chain, the cheapest way of arriving at an interpretation of a is not available. Hence, interpreting a both by a semantic strategy, or, if such a strategy is blocked, by directly accessing the knowledge base become available. Essentially, under such a condition, an element like sig comes to act like a pronominal. In Reuland (1997a) and Reuland and Sigurjonsdottir (1997), it is argued that subjunctive morphology on the verb has precisely this effect. In accordance with Kempchinsky (1986,1995), Manzini (1993), and many others one may assume that subjunctive morphology is licensed by an operator (or perhaps vice versa) (see also Quer (1998)). Licensers are elements such as negatives and modals. Assuming this to be a morphosyntactic property of subjunctive, this licensing relation must be syntactically encoded. Within the framework adopted, such encoding involves (covert) movement of the V/I complex to its licenser. The result is sketched in (24). (24) [0P [V/I • • • j.Agr ja ... ]i OP] DP ... t i . . . a So, this operation removes the V/I complex from the intermediate position between DP and a. Now, note that chain linking as it operates on (22) requires two chains, with an identical shared element (see the discussion in Chomsky (1995)). That is, if (a,b) is a chain, (t,d) is a chain, and b=t, then (a,8) is a linked chain. In (22), we can form the objects (DP, [V/I jAgrja]) and ([v/I jAgrja],a). For each object, its chain status is transparent, in the former by the relation between DP and Agr, in the latter by the relation between, ja and a. If the V/I complex with the information it caries is removed, only a trace is left. There are now two options as to the status of this trace. Suppose, a trace has no internal structure. In that case, the two chains are no longer


357

directly represented in the structure, and the information for chain linking to apply is no longer available. Alternatively, this type of movement allows reconstruction. So, in fact, ti is a copy of the moved element. However, that theory requires the inaccessibility of traces/copies to further operations (see Chomsky (1995) for discussion). Hence, the impossibility for ti or whatever is in its place to mediate chain linking also follows in this case. Thus, a chain between DP and an anaphor in the position of a cannot be formed in principle. It follows that there is no way to encode a dependency between a and a possible antecedent in the syntax. This opens the way for a pronominal interpretation of a.12 Of course, this procedure makes use of a very special property of the syntactic environment. Other languages also have forms that allow a dual use as free or bound anaphors, depending on their environment. It should be emphasized that what should be expected to be universal is not any particular factor blocking a syntactic encoding of a binding relation, such as subjunctive. Rather, whatever blocks syntactic encoding should follow from the nature of the encoding device. For instance, in the case of English, encoding the reflexivity of John saw himself presumably involves (abstract) movement of self onto the verb (yielding John self-saw him). If so, one would expect that free interpretation of himself is restricted to environments from which (abstract) syntactic movement of self is impossible. Such a restriction is precisely what appears to be involved (see Reinhart and Reuland (1991, 1993)). Consider also reflexives in Italian. In Italian, licensing reflexives involves a reflexive clitic (as discussed in Napoli (1979)). From our present perspective, it is not surprising then that a conditioning factor for a logophoric use of the anaphor (se) is that it occur in positions from which cliticization is impossible (Napoli, 1979; Reuland, 1990). What is common to all these cases is that a particular process which happens to be selected in a language for the syntactic encoding of an interpretive dependency is blocked in some set of environments for a general reason. It is in such environments that a logophoric interpretation is available for an anaphor. We are now ready to complete our investigation with a more detailed analysis of logophoricity.

5. WHAT MAKES A PRONOMINAL INTERPRETATION OF SIG LOGOPHORIC?13 The term "logophoric" is introduced in Hagege (1974). He uses it to characterize a class of pronouns that refer to the "auteur d'un discours" (the "source of a discourse" in the terms of Clements (1975)).

358

Eric Reuland

Both Hagege and Clements observe that the discourse function of logophoric pronouns is similar to that of what traditional grammarians called indirect reflexives, which occur in Latin and other languages, of which the use of Icelandic sig in (1) is an example. This "indirect" use of reflexives is not limited to Icelandic. It is, in fact, rather widespread over the languages of the world. Hagege observes that many languages have a formally distinct series of pronouns for this type of use (for instance, Mundang, Tuburi, and Ewe from the Niger-Congo family). These pronouns bear no formal resemblance to reflexives; hence, the term "indirect reflexive" would be inappropriate. It is for these that Hagege introduces the term "logophoric," setting them apart from the indirect reflexives. But the parallel between free anaphors and logophors is well illustrated by the following example from Ewe, discussed by Clements (1975): (25) Tsali gbl na-e be ye-e dyi ye gake ye-kpe dyi Tsalii say to-Pronj that Pronj beget LOGi but LOGi be victor 'Tsali told him (i.e., his father) that he begot him but he was the victor.' Here, LOG is the gloss for the logophoric pronoun ye.14 As Clements notes, only Tsali, the source of the reported discourse, can be the antecedent of ye. It is not necessary that the clause containing the logophoric pronoun be subjacent to the clause containing the antecedent. The logophoric pronoun may, in fact, occur at any depth of embedding. Whereas Hagege explicitly distinguishes free anaphors (indirect reflexives) from logophoric pronouns, Clements extends the notion of logophoricity so as to include free anaphors. For him, logophoricity is what characterizes both the phenomenon in (25) and that in (1), comprising uses of anaphors in languages such as Japanese, Icelandic, Italian, and English. Clements gives the following cross-linguistic characterization of logophoric pronouns (Clements, 1975,171-172): (i) logophoric pronouns are restricted to reportive contexts transmitting the words or thoughts of an individual or individuals other than the speaker narrator; (ii) the antecedent does not occur in the same reportive context as the logophoric pronoun; (iii) the antecedent designates the individual or individuals whose words or thoughts are transmitted in the reported context in which the logophoric pronoun occurs. Since logophoricity started receiving attention, research has been focusing on different aspects. There have been attempts (as in Sells, 1987) to pro-


359

vide a further understanding of the discourse properties of logophoricity. Another line of research has been addressing free anaphors. Specifically, there have been attempts to understand free anaphors from the perspective of the binding theory put forward in Chomsky (1981). It has also been debated whether Clements' proposal to group together logophoric pronouns of the Niger-Congo type with free anaphors can be maintained. For a recent contribution to this debate, see Frajzyngier (1997). From a syntactic and lexical perspective, logophoric pronouns and free anaphors pose very different theoretical problems. Logophoric pronouns have specific lexical properties, which impose a certain type of interpretation. For them, the question arises (i) how this type of interpretation can be characterized (and, perhaps, also how suprising it is to find elements with this type of interpretation); and (ii) why, in some languages, assigning this interpretation is still subject to syntactic licensing, even though it is lexically expressed. Free anaphors have no intrinsic lexical properties imposing a logophoric interpretation (since they do not have this interpretation in standard reflexive contexts). This raises the question of why they can be so interpreted at all. One question, however, applies to logophoric pronouns and free anaphors alike; How can this type of interpretation be characterized? For a proper perspective, let us first address the latter question. 5.1. The Nature of Logophoric Interpretation Any utterance is an event that happens at some particular time and place. This is virtually a triviality.15 However, many properties of utterances are independent of the particular time and place at which they were uttered. This is why for so many purposes an analysis of sentences abstracting away from these factors suffices. So, the interpretation of a sentence like John is an idiot can remain the same, regardless of whether it was uttered on January 10,11, or 12,1997. A sentence can be provided with expressions specifying values for time and place. These expressions may receive absolute interpretation, such as January 12,1997, or Room 0.19, Trans 10. However, the interpretation of other elements cannot be given independently of the context of utterance. Such relative interpretation is pervasive in the deictic system, be it local or temporal. So, the interpretation of John was an idiot yesterday is clearly affected when the utterance time is varied. Similarly, the interpretation of John saw an idiot over there is affected by varying utterance place. Of course, for the interpretation of many texts, actual time and location of production play a marginal role or none at all. Instead, values for time and place may be chosen that are distinct from the time and place of the utterance; they may be situated in the coordinate system of the actual world, but

360

Eric Reuland

also within some virtual coordinate system determined by the text itself. Let's call this the evaluation system, extending the standard notion of evaluation time (see for discussion of temporal structure the extensive literature on this subject, starting with Reichenbach (1947)).16 So, even if the interpretation domain is held constant, for certain items the interpretation will vary with the coordinates of a sentence in the evaluation system.17 Let's call these coordinates the position of a sentence. So, a certain type of context sensitivity reflects variation in position. The question is, then, whether all context sensitivity can be captured in terms of position. As is well known, the interpretation of personal pronouns shows that more is involved than position. Suppose that a saw b on January 12,1997, and a=John, b=Bill, but b did not see a on January 12 1997. On January 13, 1997, this verifies John saw Bill yesterday and falsifies Bill saw John yesterday. These arguments can also be expressed by personal pronouns such as / and you. Clearly, under the conditions sketched, it is possible for John to truthfully say to Bill / saw you yesterday. That is, I= John and you=Bill. However, it is equally possible that /= Bill and you= John. So, in this situation, Bill can truthfully say to John I didn't see you yesterday, but, of course, not I saw you yesterday. So, both a sentence and its negation can be truthfully uttered in one and the same position. Of course, from a common-sense perspective, all this is not surprising. The important point is that / and you are indexicals whose context sensitivity cannot be captured in terms of varying the utterance position, but which reflect a quite different aspect of the embedding of a sentence in a context. As trivial as the observation that any utterance is an event that happens at some particular time and place is the observation that any utterance is associated with a speaker who utters it. Similarly, if an utterance is perceived at all, it is associated with a person who perceives it. This implies that utterances have directionality. We can say that speaker and perceiver together define the orientation of an utterance in the world.18 Of course, the same caveats apply as with time and place. Just as actual time and place of an utterance must be generalized to the notion of an evaluation system, the notions of speaker and perceiver must be generalized so as to accommodate the possibility that they are positioned within some derived or virtual reality. Let's use source and target (allowing the possibility that source and target coincide) and continue to use the term orientation for what they contribute. So, for the system of temporal interpretation, utterance time, evaluation time, and event time must be distinguished, and for place interpretation corresponding distinctions must be made. Notice that there is no necessity for language systems to directly express these distinctions. Utterance time and evaluation time are generally not formally distinguished, nor are utterance place and evaluation place. However,


361

a distinction between evaluation time and event time is typically linguistically reflected in some way, just like a distinction between evaluation place and event place. Orientation may reflect the same type of systematic distinctions, namely, as utterance orientation, evaluation orientation, and event orientation. Just as in the case of position, utterance orientation and evaluation orientation mostly, or perhaps even generally, formally coincide. In many languages, there is no special system reflecting relativized event orientation either. My claim, however, is that logophoricity of the Niger-Congo type as described by Hagege and Clements is precisely that: a system linguistically expressing relativized event orientation. Hence, logophoricity is nothing mysterious. Making the interpretation of elements relative to a property which generalizes some aspect of the context of utterance is one of the common options among language systems. Logophoricity just employs this option with respect to the orientation of sentences. Logophoric pronouns are simply elements lexically marked as expressing event orientation. 5.2. Why Are Free Anaphors Interpreted Logophorically? What we have seen in Section 4 implies that free anaphors are essentially pronominal, i.e., potentially, they can refer independently. Their use, then, should be primarily explained in terms of discourse structure. It is well known that also in cross-sentential domains, where syntactic binding can play no role, the choice of an expression to refer to some object in the domain of discourse is not arbitrary. Ariel (1990) extensively discusses the conditions under which one and the same object is referred to by a full NP, an epithet, or a pronoun. Ariel establishes that there is an inverse relation between the descriptive content of a referring expression and what she calls the accessibility of the discourse referent. The more prominent an element is in the discourse, where prominence can, for instance, be measured in terms of textual distance, the more accessible it is in the theoretical sense Ariel develops. So, whenever the last mention of a discourse referent is sufficiently distant with respect to the mention to come, a full lexical NP or proper name will be used. If it is high on the scale of accessibility, a pronoun is preferred instead. Epithets are generally used for referents of intermediate accessibility. Since anaphors of the type discussed have even lower descriptive content than pronouns, Ariel's theory predicts that they require discourse referents of higher accessibility than pronouns do. The correctness of this prediction has been obscured by the fact that, in many languages, anaphors may not escape syntactic binding at all, and that the remaining cases were viewed as anomalies.19 The interpretation of free anaphors indicates that this predic-

362

Eric Reuland

tion is, in fact, correct. In the environments in which they occur, free anaphors take discourse referents that are, indeed, high on the scale of accessibility. That is, they refer to individuals within the domain of interpretation that can be characterized as being the center of consciousness, defining viewpoint, or as perspective holders. However, a bit more must be said. Although such individuals certainly figure prominently in the discourse, so far no independent explanation has been given as to why just these elements serve as discourse referents for free anaphors and why not just any forcefully foregrounded discourse entity. The following proposal sheds light on this issue. Note that, with respect to first- and second-person pronouns, it is uncontroversial that these, first and foremost express orientation. Suppose then, that the basic property of personal pronouns is to do precisely this. Whenever a pronoun has properties independent of reflecting orientation, this, following this line, should be due to other features it has. If such features are absent, as they are in the case of sig, se, etc., the only option for interpretation left should involve that property that is basic and, hence, unaffected, namely, orientation.20 Utterance and evaluation orientation, however, are typically expressed by first- and second-person pronouns. Hence, the only option left for a defective third-person pronoun is to reflect event orientation. This is what had to be explained. Such a view seems to correspond nicely with the intuition underlying the approach of Koopman and Sportiche (1989) to the pronominal system of Abe. As they note in their very detailed analysis, to which it is impossible to do full justice here, Abe has two pronominal classes, O-pronouns and n-pronouns. O-pronouns behave essentially like English pronominals. They respect condition B, and can be interpreted as bound variables, or referentially. N-pronouns also respect condition B, but they cannot be bound by either an R-expression or an O-pronoun, nor bind one themselves. At first sight, they allow a referential interpretation, but surprisingly, the number of indexings (taking these to reflect interpretations) available to them in a sentence is limited by the number of Comp nodes dominating them. For instance, two n-pronouns in a root clause are dominated by only one Comp node. Hence, they are obligatorily coindexed. Generalizing, in the case of n Comp nodes dominating n + i (occurrences of) n-pronouns, i n-pronouns will have to be coindexed with another n-pronoun. In clauses introduced by the complementizer kO (under reportive verbs), they are, however, coindexed with the NP representing the source of the report, regardless of whether this is an O-pronoun or R-expression. In this environment, they exhibit the standard features of logophoricity. The basis of the analysis in Koopman and Sportiche (1989) is their claim


363

that n-pronouns are what they call logical variables. In this, they say, they are similar to first- and second-person pronouns (n-pronouns are also characterized as + human). These authors discuss the status of logical variables in syntactic rather than semantic terms. A straightforward semantic characterization of what it means to be a logical variable can be based on precisely the idea arrived at earlier, namely, that they reflect event orientation. In reportive contexts, this gives us directly the consequence that they are identified with the source of the report. The behavior of n-pronouns in nonreportive contexts can be understood as follows. Koopman and Sportiche account for the relation between their interpretation and the number of dominating CPs by assuming that each C, being associated with an operator position, provides a possible A'-binder for the variable. One C, then, directly entails co-interpretation. The A'-binding part of the analysis is not essential, though. Let us assume that events are syntactically realized as CPs. Let us assume, furthermore, that the orientation of an utterance is not just defined by the pair source, target, but that, at least optionally, the person talked about can also be treated as a participant in the utterance, and thus be among the factors defining orientation, yielding a triple <source, target, 3rd>. Each event has, of necessity, precisely one orientation. Therefore, once the selection of this further participant has been made, enabling it to be referred to by the n-pronoun, this selection must be maintained for the whole CP Thus, the interpretation of the n-pronoun will be fixed to that one choice. In a complex sentence, with embedded expressions for events (CPs), each event will introduce a 3rd, yielding the pattern discussed. On the basis of the considerations discussed so far, the syntactic approach of Koopman and Sportiche and the semantic alternative sketched here may appear close to being notational variants. Although their analysis is more elaborate, a point in favor of the approach sketched here is that it gives independent content to the notion of logical variable. Further evidence bearing on the choice may be found by more carefully investigating the syntactic realizations of events, on the one hand, and the interaction between other properties of C and the licensing of n-pronouns on the other.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The following picture has emerged. Simplex anaphors like Icelandic sig, but also its counterparts in other languages, can be interpreted like pronominals when they are free. There is no intrinsic necessity for them to be syntactically bound. Where anaphors must be bound, this is the result of an economy condition favoring operations applying within a module over

364

Eric Reuland

crossmodular operations. First- and second-person pronouns intrinsically reflect the orientation of an utterance. Third-person pronouns may do so as well in the absence of features that are able to fix their reference independently (such as the grammatical number feature). That is why pronouns that are impoverished in features are used logophorically just as first- and second-person pronouns. Logophoric use of third-person anaphors thus reflects their event orientation. Unlike the logophoric use of specialized pronouns of the type discussed by Hagege and Clements, the logophoric use of "indirect reflexives" can be considered a default interpretation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research reported on in this article is part of an ongoing project on anaphoric relations of the Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS. I am indebted to many people involved in this project. I am particularly grateful to Peter Coopmans, Denis Delfitto, Martin Everaert, Bill Philip, Tanya Reinhart, and Sigridur Sigurjonsdottir for sharing their insights with me, and to an anonymous reviewer for useful comments. Special thanks go to Martin Everaert for commenting on the prefinal version of this article. Needless to say that I alone am responsible for any errors. Some of the ideas reported in this article were developed during a stay at NIAS during the fall semester of 1996.I would like to express my gratitude to NIAS and in particular to the members of the SynCom theme group for providing such a stimulating research environment. Finally, I would like to thank Peter Cole, Gaby Hermon, and Jim Huang who invited me to join this volume and showed such a tremendous patience.

NOTES l

For expository reasons, I will follow common practice by using indices to represent interpretive dependencies of various kinds. However, the reader should attach no theoretical significance to this device. 2 Note that sig in Icelandic does not have a nominative form (see Everaert, 1990, for discussion). Hence, sig can occur in subject position only with those verbs that select a nonnominative subject, i.e., with the so-called "quirky" case verbs in Icelandic. The verb vanta "to lack, need" which appears in example (2a) is one of these verbs and takes an accusative subject. Quirky subjects in Icelandic have been discussed by a number of authors; see, for example, Andrews (1976), Thrainsson (1979), Bernodusson (1982), Zaenen, Maling, and Thrainsson (1985), and Sigurdsson (1989, 1992).


365

3

Note that there are two NPs in this sentence whose perspective or point of view are being reported, i.e., Jon and Bjorn. Hence,sig could also take Bjorn as its antecedent. 4 Note that objects generally do not qualify as holders of the perspective of a sentence, and hence, they rarely qualify as antecedents for sig in this type of context (see Sigurdsson, 1990:334). 5 Huang and Tang (1991) argue that, in Chinese, the source of F-features need not coincide with the actual antecedent. For present purposes, this complication can be ignored. 6 As discussed in Huang and Tang (1991), Chinese ziji can be bound by a subcommanding antecedent. The requirement expressed by subcommand is strikingly similar to that holding for pronominal binding in (8) and the examples of (9). Further research is required to explain the nature of this similarity. 7 It is interesting to note that Icelandic sig behaves quite similarly to Dutch pronominals in this respect. Whereas, in general, variable binding does not require strict c-command, in a context such as (12), it does. This is illustrated in the contrast between (i) and (ii). (i)

Johns mening is dat het hem aan talent ontbreekt en dat is ook John's opinion is that it lacks him in talent, and that is also Peters mening Peter's opinion a. Peter's opinion is that Peter lacks talents b. = Peter's opinion is that John lacks talents

(ii) John vindt dat het hem aan talent ontbreekt en Peter vindt dat ook John thinks that it lacks him in talent, and Peter thinks so too a. = Peter thinks that Peter lacks talents b. = Peter thinks that John lacks talents Although at this point I have nothing to say as to why variable binding requires strict c-command in cases like these, the pattern supports that thesis that logophoric sig behaves as a pronominal. 8 It should be noted that locally bound sig does not allow a strict reading. This is illustrated in (i): (i)

Joni rakadi sigi og Peturj geroibao lika John shaved SIG and Peter did so too ( Peter shaved John) Yet, in the long-distance infinitive case, both readings are possible.

(ii) Joni skipaoi professornum j [ao PRO. fella inf sigi a profinu] og Ari John ordered the professor to fail SIG on the test and Ari geroi pao lika did so too a. = Ari ordered the professor to fail Ari on the test b. = Ari ordered the professor to fail John on the test This may indicate that what forces the sloppy reading in (i) is not a property of the antecedent-anaphor relation, but a property of the predicate. In (i), the copied pred-

366

Eric Reuland

icate is intrinsically reflexive, whereas (ii) has no reflexive predicate (see Sigurjonsdottir (1992) for discussion of intrinsic reflexives in Icelandic). 9 I will not engage in a discussion of what precisely the theory would predict, since the status of the operator is unclear. In any case, the effect seems to have the strength of a WCO violation rather than a condition C-violation. 10 An anonymous reviewer raises the question of why one doesn't get a trace instead of sig, or the same Case on sig and its antecedent. As already argued in Reinhart and Reuland (1993), there is no general need to stipulate that the tail of a chain is empty or that a chain has only one Case. The idea that dependencies are, in principle, transitive (restricted by intrinsic properties of the terms involved) is essentially an elaboration of the notion of chain linking developed in Chomsky (1995). In the implementation of chain formation adopted here from Reuland (1997a), nothing in the operation of chain linking requires the tail to be empty or the chain to have only one Case. What is assumed is only that one may link a pair of dependencies sharing the same middle term. Another question by the reviewer concerns the status of quirky subjects, wondering how they are related to 'Agr' when they serve as antecedents. The relation of a subject to Agr, however, is not crucial. Quirky subjects, just like other subjects, are in a checking relation with the V/I complex, as they have to check the EPP feature. Suppose, we have a situation where the j-features of the verb have already been checked and erased by a VP-internal nominative. This would not change the fact the j-features from any other constituent moved onto the V/I complex would still be in a checking configuration with respect to the DP in the specifier position. Hence, a dependency can be established. 11 What about complex anaphors (English himself, Dutch zichzelf, Icelandic sjalfan sig)? Limiting ourselves to essentials (for details see Reuland, 1997a), the picture is as follows. Suppose we have a verb that is not only syntactically, but also semantically transitive, as in (i): (i)

* Cindy haat zich Cindy hates SE

If chain formation applies, a 2-place predicate has only one argument, which is sure to violate plausible interpretive requirements. Suppose, we add zelf, as in (ii), and allow chain formation to take place between zich and Cindy: (ii) CindyF haatF [t zichF [dzelf]] Cindy hates herself The arguments of haat are not Cindy and zich, but Cindy and t. These two do not form a chain; hence, the arity of the predicate is respected. What is the semantic effect of zelf? Well, in terms of value assignment in a model, the value of X zelf does, in general, not greatly differ from the value of X. So, for binding theoretic purposes, X zelf will do quite well as a stand-in for zich, as required. How, on the other hand, is binding enforced? Suppose, that zelf, as the head-noun of a DP in argument position, has insufficient lexical content to project an argument. One effect is that it will not be able to 0-mark its specifier zich, the other that it will not be able


367

to receive a -role from its governing verb. However, it may (covertly) incorporate into the verb, absorbing the relevant -role. If so, zich would seem to be left dangling, but given that it has formed a chain with the subject Cindy, its interpretation is also taken care of. Again, we have a binding relation that does not depend on any form of indexing. Note that ze//-incorporation involves a local relation with a predicate (by the Head Movement Constraint, or whatever principle of CHL derives it). Hence, the locality effects on SELF-anaphors follow. 12 More formally, in order to effectively enforce this conclusion we must explicitly assume that:(i) if x (here, the subjunctive) is part of g (i.e., a sublable of g), licensing £ (by attracting x involves obligatory pied-piping of all formal features of g (here, the V/I complex); (ii) subparts of traces are invisible to syntactic operations, in particular, the chain linking operation. Both have independent motivation. Point (i) is in line with the position argued for in Chomsky (1995) with respect to feature pied-piping; (ii) seems at least independently necessary, though at this point, it is not entirely clear to us whether it can be derived or must be stipulated. Note that this approach requires that"V2"-phenomena in Germanic (V/I to C) fall under the PF part of the grammatical system, in line with Chomsky (1995). Otherwise, the same effect should obtain in V2-clauses as in subjunctives. 13 Much of the following discussion is taken from Reuland (1997b). l4 Ye's nonhigh tone, represented by the grave accent, distinguishes it from the nonlogophoric strong form ye which bears high tone; the logophoric pronoun is also distinct from a reflexive; in Ewe, these are formed by affixing a genetive form of a pronoun to the noun d,okui 'self,' and, according to Clements, behave much like their English counterparts. 15 It would be completely trivial, were it not for the fact that where there is a significant delay between production and reception of a text occasionally, significance should be attached to time and place of reception, rather than to time and place of production. 16 And further references cited in Reuland (1997b). 17 This implies that we distinguish between the model and the space-time in which it is embedded. Clearly, formally one might collapse the distinction. However, there is independent evidence from behavior with respect to quantification that expressions of space-time are different from other argument expressions (see the contrast between John walked five kilometers versus ??/o/m walked every kilometer). They become part of the model only after anchoring. See De Jong (1987) and Reuland and Ter Meulen (1987) for discussion. 18 For present purposes, an informal notion suffices. 19 A reviewer suggests that there is no real contrast here, since anaphors have "high accessibility" referents anyway, namely, local binders. However, we cannot refer to a syntactic notion such as local binding to define the notion of a high accessibility antecedent. The notion of a high accessibility antecedent should be given in independent terms. Otherwise, the theory would become vacuous. 20 Note that the property of being able to bear an orientation feature should be distinguished from the property of actually bearing a feature such as source or target expressing a particular orientation. The claim is that the former property is basic and

368

Eric Reuland

remains active even in the absence of features actually expressing a particular orientation.

REFERENCES Anagnostopoulou, E. and Everaert, M. (1998). Towards a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (1), 97-118 Andrews, A. (1976). The VP complement analysis in modern Icelandic. In Proceedings of NELS 6, GLSA, pp. 1-21. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Croom Helm. Bernodusson, H. (1982). Opersonulegar setningar. Master's thesis, University of Iceland, Reykjavik. Bouchard, D. (1984). On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Burzio, L. (1991). The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27, 81-105 Chierchia, G. (1995). Dynamics of Meaning, Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Clements, G. N. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10,141-177. Everaert, M. (1986). The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris. Everaert, M. (1990). Nominative ananphors in Icelandic: Morphology or syntax? In Issues in Germanic Syntax (W. Abraham, W. Kosmeijer, and E.J. Reuland, eds.), pp. 277-307. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Frajzyngier, Z. (1997). Pronouns and agreement: Systems interaction in the coding of reference. In Atomism and Binding (H. J. Bennis, P. Pica, and J. Rooryck, eds.), pp. 115-141. Dordrecht: Foris. Grodzinsky, Y., and Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24,69-101 Hagege, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 69,287-310 Hellan, L. (1988). Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Hyams, N., and Sigurjonsdottir, S. (1990). The development of "long distance anaphora": Cross-linguistic comparison with special reference to Icelandic. Language Acquisition 1,57-93. Huang, C.-T. J., and Tang, C.-C. J. (1991). The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In Long Distance Anaphora, (J. Koster and E.J. Reuland, eds.), pp. 263-283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jong,F. M. G. de (1987). The compositional nature of (in)definiteness. In The Repre-


369

sentation of (In)definiteness, (E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen, eds.), pp. 270-286. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kempchinsky. P. (1986). Romance subjunctive clauses and logical form. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UCLA, Los Angeles. Kempchinsky, P. (1995). From the lexicon to the syntax: The problem of subjunctive clauses. In Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory (H. Campos and P. Kempchinsky, eds.), pp. 228-250. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Koopman, H., and Sportiche, D. (1989). Pronouns, logical variables and logophoricity in Abe. Linguistic Inquiry 20,555-589 Maling, J. (1984). Non-clause-bounded reflexives in modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7,211-241. Maling, J. (1986). Clause-bounded reflexives in modern Icelandic. In Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, (L. Hellan and K. K. Christensen, eds.), pp. 53-63. Dordrecht: Reidel. Manzini, M. R. (1993). The subjunctive. Paris 8 Working Papers, Vol. 1. Napoli, D. J. (1979). Reflexivization across clause boundaries in Italian. Journal of Linguistics 15,1-28 Quer, J. (1998). Mood at the Interface. [LOT Dissertation 1]. Dordrecht: Holland Academic Graphics. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. London and New York: Macmillan. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London & Sydney: Croom Helm. Reinhart, T, and Reuland, E. J. (1991). Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In Long Distance Anaphora, (J. Koster and E. J. Reuland, eds.), pp. 283-321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, T, and Reuland, E. J. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24,657-720. Reuland, E. J. (1990). Reflexives and beyond: Non-local anaphora in Italian revisited. In Grammar in Progress (J. Mascaro and M. Nespor, eds.), pp. 351-361. Dordrecht: Foris. Reuland, E. J. (1996). Pronouns and features. In Proceedings of NELS 26,319-335. GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Reuland, E. J. (1997a). Primitives of binding. Paper presented at GLOW 1995, Tromso, Norway. UiL OTS Working paper. Utrecht University, Utrecht. Reuland, E. J. (1997b). Logophoricity as orientation. In Yearbook 1997, (Jan Don and Ted Sanders, eds.), pp. 71-83. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University. Reuland, E. J. (1998). Structural conditions on chains and binding. In Proceedings of NELS 28, 341-356. GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst. Reuland, E. J. and Meulen, A. G. B. ter (1987) Introduction. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, (E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen, eds.), pp. 1-20, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reuland, E. J. and Sigurjonsdottir S., (1997). Long-distance "binding" in Icelandic:

370

Eric Reuland

Syntax or discourse. In Atomism and Binding (H. J. Bennis, P. Pica, and J. Rooryck, eds.), pp. 323-341. Dordrecht: Foris. Rognvaldsson, E. (1986). Some comments on reflexivization in Icelandic. In Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, (L. Hellan and K. K. Christensen, eds.), pp. 89-102. Dordrecht: Reidel. Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity, Linguistic Inquiry 18,445-479. Sigurosson, H. A. (1989). Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund, Sweden. Sigurdsson, H. A. (1990). Long distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, (J. Maling and A. Zaenen, eds.), pp. 309-346. New York: Academic Press. Sigurdsson, H. A. (1992). The case of quirky subjects. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49,1-26. Sigurjonsdottir, S. (1992). Binding in Icelandic: Evidence from Language Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. [Published in 1993 as UCLA Working Papers in Psycholinguistics 2.1. UCLA.] Thrainsson, H. (1976). Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. In Proceedings of NELS 6,225-239. GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst. Thrainsson, H. (1979). On Complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland. Thrainsson, H. (1990). A semantic reflexive in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax (J. Maling and A. Zaenen, eds.), pp. 289-307. New York: Academic Press. Thrainsson, H. (1991). Long distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Long-Distance Anaphora (J. Koster and E. J. Reuland, eds.), pp. 49-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zaenen, A., Maling, J., and Thrainsson, H. (1985). Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3,441-483.

INDEX

A

Agreement, 55-56 Anaphors anti-antilocality, 232-234 form of, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 53-55 conditions on, 53-55 logophors, binding, 343-370 free anaphors logophorical interpretation, 361-363 syntactic conditions on, 356-357 interpreting sig, 346-347 interpretive process, 350-357 logophoric interpretation, nature of, 359-361 non-c-commanding antecedents, 348-350 pronominal binding, 354-356 pronominal elements, interpreting, 351-354 pronominal interpretation of sig, logophoric, 357-363 long-distance, Hindi/Urdu, 47-82 Animacy, 268 Animate head, subcommand, 7 Antecedent as internal source, logophoric conditions, 5 logophoric conditions as internal self, 6 as internal source, Chinese, 5 neither self nor source, Chinese, 4 Anti-antilocality, 227-254 371

anaphors, semantic distinctions between, 232-234 binding theory, predicate-centered, 246-250 Chinese, 238-239 coargument-bound anaphors, as nearreflexives, 237-240 English, 238 hybrid pronoun, 242-246 Kannada, 227 anaphora in, 229-232 lexical reflexivity, variation in, 240-242 pure-reflexivity, vs. near-reflexivity, 234-236 Russian, 239-240 Antimacy condition, 69-70 Aspect, local binding domain, 65-67 Attitudes, 141-195 binding by internal source, self, 158-159 blocking effects, 142,161-165 consciousness, 159-160 and perspectivity, 179-182 direct discourse, attitudes de se, 154-157 extensions, 179-182 formal analyses, 144-147 functional analyses, 147-150 governing category, 168-170 local binding, 166-168 long distance ziji, 174-184 monomorphemicity, 142 nonuniform approaches, 150-154 perspectivity, 179-182 semantics, 174-176

372 sentence-free ziji, referring to speaker, 157 subcommanding antecedent, 142 subcommanding antecedents, 170-172 subject-orientation, 142 syntax, 176-179 ziji as logophor, 154-165 ziji as (syntactic) anaphor, 166-174 Attitudes de se, 154-157 logophoricity, 16-19 semantic, syntactic analysis, 19-23 B

Baker theory, 324 Bare reflexive, 216-217 Beliefs de re, de se, de dicto, 294-296 Binding domains, 61-65 Binding relations, 52-56 Binding theory, 246-250 Blocking effect, 279-316 attitudes, ziji at interface, logophoricity, 142 beliefs de re, de se, de dicto, 294-296 Chechen, Ingush, long-distance reflexivation in, 267-268 closeness, potential binders, 287-289 feature compatibility checking, 286-287 Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 55-56 agreement/phi features, role of, 60-61 logophoricity attitudes, ziji at interface, 161-165 perspectivity, 289-293 long-distance bound ziji, not logophoric pronoun, 290-292 Mandarin reflexives, 293-294,294 not symmetrical, 282-286 self-ascription long-distance bound ziji, 293-305 ziji carrier of belief, 296-297 condition for, 297-305 C

C-command, 89-91 Causative, 62 Chained adjunct clauses, 263-264

Index

Chechen,255-276 animacy, 268 blocking effects, 267-268 chained adjunct clauses, 263-264 complement clauses, 264-265 conditions, 267-268 intervening different subject, 266 local reflexivization, 257-259,274 logophoric reflexivization, 259-261 main-clause antecedent, 273-274 modality, 267 multiple anaphora, conditions on, 268-274 multiple long distance reflexive, conditions on, 268-274 no upwards long distance reflexive, 266 non-main clause, long distance reflexive from, 265-266 ordinary long-distance reflexivization, 261-274 person hierarchy, 267 person interaction, 269-272 relative clauses, 265 sentence-bounded, 261-262 serialization, 262-263 Chinese dialects, 1-46 approaches to long distance reflexives, 1-4 binding theoretical status, long distance reflexives, 23-25 blocking effect, 28-35 c-command requirement, 25-26 informed subcommand, with animate head, 7 logophoric conditions antecedent as internal self, 6 as internal source, 5 neither self nor source, 4 on long distance reflexives, Mandarin, Teochew, 4-6 logophoricity, attitudes de se, 16-19 modifying phrases, 8-10 pivot restrictions, 11-16 subcommanding antecedents, of long distance reflexives, source/self requirements on antecedents, 6-8 syntactic, semantic analysis, of attitudes de se, 19-23 VP ellipsis, 26-28 Closeness, potential binders, 287-289 Coargument-bound anaphors, as near-reflex-

373

Index ives, 237-240 Compatibility checking, 286-287 Complement clauses, 264-265 Conditions on domains, 53-55 Conjunctive operator, 83-117 Consciousness, 159-160 and perspectivity, 179-182 D

De dicto, 294-296 De se, 19-23 Direct discourse, 154-157 Divergence of binding, 54-55 Domains conditions on, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 53-55 functional categories, binding possibilities, 62 E

Ellipsis, VP, 26-28 English anti-antilocality, 238 long-distance reflexives, syntactic, nonsyntactic constraints on, 326-328 reflexive pronouns, Baker theory, long-distance reflexives, syntactic, nonsyntactic constraints on, 324 reflexives, binding for, 326-328 Extensions, 179-182 F

Finite tense, 62 Free anaphors, syntactic conditions on, 356-357 Functional categories domains, 62 Hindi/Urdu, 62 Functional heads, 61-65 G

Governing category, 168-170

H

Head movement constraint, 71-73 Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 47-82 agreement, role of, 55-56 anaphors, form of, 53-55 conditions on, 53-55 antimacy condition, 69-70 aspect, LF movement to, 57-59 binding domains, 61-65 binding relations, 52-56 blocking effect, 55-56 agreement/phi features, role of, 60-61 causative, 62 divergence of binding, agreement, 54-55 domains conditions on, 53-55 functional categories, binding possibilities, 62 finite tense, 62 head movement constraint, on LF movement, 71-73 inflectional categories, 50-51 inflectional morphology, lexical forms, 48-52 local binding, 53 local complementarity, 53 long-distance, 56-60 nonfinite aspect, 62 nonfinite binding domains, 54 nonfinite clause, with aspect, 63 nonfinite tense, 62 nonlocally bound anaphoric expressions, 47-48 noun phrase, no local binding, 64-65 object agreement, subject orientation, 77-78 pronoun-anaphor, 49 pronouns, and reflexives, 49-50 reciprocals, 49 reflexive antecedents, verbal inflection, interaction of, 51 reflexive movement, 73-75 reflexives, 49-50 functional projection host for, 60-68 small clause, 62 with no tense, aspect, 63-64 subject orientation, 53 syntactic/semantic factors, 68-75 tense, LF movement to, 57-59

374

Index antecedent, logophoric conditions, 5 binding by, attitudes, ziji at interface, logophoricity, self, 158-159

tense/aspect, 65-67 verb inflection, 50 verbal tense, agreement inflection, 50 XP reflexives, 70-71 subject orientation of, 71 Hybrid pronoun, 242-246

K

I

Kannada, 227 anaphora in, 229-232

Indonesian, Riau sendiri c-command, would-be antecedent, 89-91 conjunctive operator, 83-117, 98-106 long-distance reflexives, 83-85 nonreflexive interpretations, 92-98 as reflexive anaphor, 88-98 reflexive anaphor, 83-117 Inflectional categories, 50-51 Inflectional morphology, 48-52 lexical forms, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 48-52 Ingush, 255-276 animacy, 268 blocking effects, 267-268 chained adjunct clauses, 263-264 complement clauses, 264-265 conditions, 267-268 intervening different subject, 266 local reflexivization, 257-259,274 logophoric reflexivization, 259-261 main-clause antecedent, 273-274 modality, 267 multiple anaphora, conditions on, 268-274 multiple long distance reflexive, conditions on, 268-274 no upwards long distance reflexive, 266 non-main clause, long distance reflexive from, 265-266 ordinary long-distance reflexivization, 261-274 person hierarchy, 267 person interaction, 269-272 relative clauses, 265 sentence-bounded, 261-262 serialization, 262-263 Intensification, 333-335 Internal self, 6 Internal source

L Local binding Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 53 logophoricity, attitudes, ziji at interface, 166-168 Local complementarity, 53 Local reflexivization, 257-259, 274 Logophoric reflexivization, 259-261 Logophoricity attitudes, ziji at interface, 141-195 binding by internal source, self, 158-159 blocking effects, 142, 161-165 consciousness, 159-160 and perspectivity, 179-182 direct discourse, attitudes de se and, 154-157 extensions, 179-182 formal analyses, 144-147 functional analyses, 147-150 governing category, 168-170 local binding, 166-168 long distance ziji, 174-184 monomorphemicity, 142 nonuniform approaches, 150-154 perspectivity, 179-182 semantics, 174-176 sentence-free ziji, referring to speaker, 157 subcommanding antecedent, 142 subcommanding antecedents, 170-172 subject-orientation, 142 syntax, 176-179 ziji as logophor, 154-165 ziji as (syntactic) anaphor, 166-174 long-distance reflexives, syntactic, nonsyntactic constraints on, 329-333 perspectivity, blocking effect, 289-293 Logophors, 343-370

Index

free anaphors logophorical interpretation, 361-363 syntactic conditions on, 356-357 interpreting sig, 346-347 interpretive process, 350-357 logophoric interpretation, nature of, 359-361 non-c-commanding antecedents, 348-350 pronominal binding, 354-356 pronominal elements, interpreting, 351-354 pronominal interpretation of sig, logophoric, 357-363 Long-distance anaphors, 47-82 agreement, role of, 55-56 anaphors, form of, 53-55 conditions on, 53-55 "antimacy" condition, 69-70 aspect, LF movement to, 57-59 binding domains, 61-65 binding relations, 52-56 blocking effect, 55-56 agreement/phi features, role of, 60-61 causative, 62 divergence of binding, agreement, 54-55 domains conditions on, 53-55 functional categories, binding possibilities, 62 finite tense, 62 head movement constraint, on LF movement, 71-73 inflectional categories, 50-51 inflectional morphology, lexical forms, 48-52 local binding, 53 local complementarity, 53 long-distance, 56-60 nonfinite aspect, 62 nonfinite binding domains, 54 nonfinite clause, with aspect, 63 nonfinite tense, 62 nonlocally bound anaphoric expressions, 47-8 noun phrase, no local binding, 64-65 object agreement, subject orientation, 77-78 pronoun-anaphor, 49 pronouns, and reflexives, 49-50 reciprocals, 49

375 reflexive antecedents, verbal inflection, interaction of, 51 reflexive movement, 73-75 reflexives, 49-50 functional projection host for, 60-68 small clause, 62 with no tense, aspect, 63-64 subject orientation, 53 syntactic/semantic factors, 68-75 tense, LF movement to, 57-59 tense/aspect, distinguishing from agreement, as host head, local binding domain, 65-67 verb inflection, 50 verbal tense, agreement inflection, 50 XP reflexives, 70-71 subject orientation of, 71 Long-distance bound ziji, 290-292 Long-distance interpretation, 104-106 Long-distance reflexives binding theoretical status, 23-25 logophoric conditions, Mandarin, Teochew, 4-6 Riau Indonesian, sendiri, 83-85 subcommanding antecedents, source/self requirements on antecedents, 6-8 syntactic, nonsyntactic constraints on, 317-342 contrast, intensification, discourse prominence, 333-335 English reflexive pronouns, Baker theory, 324 logophoricity, 329-333 nonsyntactic conditions on ziji, 328-335 nonsyntactic reflexives, 320-328 obliqueness hierarchy, 322 Turkish, 197-226 bare, 212-217 inflected reflexive contrasting, overt pronoun, 213-216 binding features, underdetermined, 205-206 complex reflexives, 217-218 inflected reflexive, 204-209 binding domain of, 202-203 narrative, standard styles, differences between, 212-213 nature of inflected reflexives, 201-205 phrasal analysis, 209-212

376 possessor raiser, bare reflexive, 216-217 properties of, 203 types of morphologically free reflexives, 197-199 Long distance ziji, 174-184

M

Main-clause antecedent, 273-274 Mandarin, 293-294 logophoric conditions, 4-6 Modality, 267 Monomorphemicity, 142

N Nonfinite aspect, 62 Nonfinite binding domains, 54 Nonfinite clause, 63 Nonfinite tense, 62 Nonlocally bound anaphoric expressions, 47-8 Nonreflexive interpretations, 92-98 Nonuniform approaches, 150-154 Norwegian child language, syntactic, vs logophoric binding, 119-140 Avrutin, Cunningham, 126-128 local, vs. nonlocal logophoric binding, 120-126 non-coargument theory, 120-123 possessive reflexives, reflexives in locative PPs, 129-134 reflexive-movement theory, 123-126 reflexives in picture NPS, 134-136 seg in locative PP conditions, 131 subjects, 129 within-subjects comparison, 136-138

Index Person hierarchy, 267 Person interaction, 269-272 Perspectivity, 179-182 Phi features, 60-61 Possessor raiser, 216-217 Projection host for reflexives, 60-68 Pronominal elements, 351-354 Pronouns, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, and reflexives, 49-50

R Reciprocals, 49 Reflexive. See also Long-distance reflexive anaphor, Riau Indonesian, sendiri, 83-117,88-98 antecedents, verbal inflection, interaction of, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 51 Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 49-50 functional projection host for, 60-68 movement, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 73-75 Relative clauses, 265 Riau Indonesian sendiri c-command, would-be antecedent, 89-91 conjunctive operator, 83-117,98-106 long-distance reflexives, 83-85 no long-distance interpretation, 104-106 nonreflexive interpretations, 92-98 as reflexive anaphor, 88-98 reflexive anaphor, 83-117 unified semantic analysis, 98-104 Russian, 239-240

S

O Object agreement, 77-78 Obliqueness hierarchy, 322

P

Pan, 182-184

Self internal, antecedent, logophoric conditions, 6 modifying phrases as tests for, 8-10 role of, additional evidence, 10-11 Self-ascription long-distance bound ziji, 293-305 ziji

377

Index carrier of belief, 296-297 condition for, 297-305 Self requirements on antecedents, 6-8 Semantics logophoricity, attitudes, ziji at interface, 174-176 syntactic analysis, of attitudes de se, 19-23 Sendiri, Riau Indonesian c-command, would-be antecedent, 89-91 conjunctive operator, 83-117 long-distance reflexives, 83-85 no long-distance interpretation, 104-106 nonreflexive interpretations, 92-98 as reflexive anaphor, 88-98 reflexive anaphor, 83-117 unified semantic analysis, 98-104 Serialization, 262-263 Small clause, 62 with no tense, aspect, 63-64 Source internal, antecedent, logophoric conditions, 5 requirements on antecedents, long distance reflexives, subcommanding antecedents, 6-8 Source/self, 8-10 Subcommanding antecedent, 142 Subcommanding antecedents, logophoricity, attitudes, ziji at interface, 170-172 informed, with animate head, 7 Subject, different, intervening, Chechen, Ingush, 266 Subject orientation Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 53 logophoricity, attitudes, ziji at interface, 142 object agreement, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 77-78 Syntactic reflexives, 320-328

T

Tense distinguishing from agreement, as host head, local binding domain, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 65-67

LF movement to, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 57-59 Teochew, 4-6 Turkish, 197-226 bare, inflected reflexive contrasting, overt pronoun, 213-216 bare reflexive, 212-217 binding features, underdetermined, 205-206 complex reflexives, 217-218 inflected reflexive, 204-209 binding domain of, 202-203 narrative, standard styles, differences between, 212-213 nature of inflected reflexives, 201-205 phrasal analysis, 209-212 possessor raiser, bare reflexive, 216-217 properties of, 203 types of morphologically free reflexives, 197-199

U

Urdu Hindi, long-distance anaphors, 47-82 agreement, role of, 55-56 anaphors, form of, 53-55 conditions on, 53-55 "antimacy" condition, 69-70 aspect, LF movement to, 57-59 binding domains, 61-65 binding relations, 52-56 blocking effect, 55-56 agreement/phi features, role of, 60-61 causative, 62 divergence of binding, agreement, 54-55 domains conditions on, 53-55 functional categories, binding possibilities, 62 finite tense, 62 head movement constraint, on LF movement, 71-73 inflectional categories, 50-51 inflectional morphology, lexical forms, 48-52 local binding, 53 local complementarity, 53 long-distance, 56-60

378 nonfinite aspect, 62 nonfinite binding domains, 54 nonfinite clause, with aspect, 63 nonfinite tense, 62 nonlocally bound anaphoric expressions, 47-48 noun phrase, no local binding, 64-65 object agreement, subject orientation, 77-78 pronoun-anaphor, 49 pronouns, and reflexives, 49-50 reciprocals, 49 reflexive antecedents, verbal inflection, interaction of, 51 reflexive movement, 73-75 reflexives, 49-50 functional projection host for, 60-68 small clause, 62 with no tense, aspect, 63-64 subject orientation, 53 syntactic/semantic factors, 68-75 tense, LF movement to, 57-59 tense/aspect, distinguishing from agreement, as host head, local binding domain, 65-67 verb inflection, 50 verbal tense, agreement inflection, 50 XP reflexives, 70-71 subject orientation of, 71 long-distance anaphors, 47-82 V

Verb inflection Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 50

Index reflexive antecedents, interaction of, Hindi/Urdu, long-distance anaphors, 51 Verbal tense, 50

Z

Ziji, at interface, 141-195 binding by internal source, self, 158-159 blocking effects, 142,161-165 consciousness, 159-160,179-182 direct discourse, attitudes de se and, 154-157 extensions, 179-182 formal analyses, 144-147 functional analyses, 147-150 governing category, 168-170 local binding, 166-168 logophor, 154-165 long distance ziji, 174-184 monomorphemicity, 142 nonuniform approaches, 150-154 perspectivity, 179-182 previous analyses, 143-154 semantics, 174-176 sentence-free ziji, referring to speaker, 157 subcommanding antecedent, 142 subcommanding antecedents, 170-172 subject-orientation, 142 (syntactic) anaphor, 166-174 syntax, 176-179

SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS

Volume 1 edited by John P. Kimball Volume 2 edited by John P. Kimball Volume 3: Speech Acts edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan Volume 4 edited by John P. Kimball Volume 5: Japanese Generative Grammar edited by Masayoshi Shibatani Volume 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions edited by Masayoshi Shibatani Volume 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground edited by James D. McCawley Volume 8: Grammatical Relations edited by Peter Cole and Jerrold M. Sadock Volume 9: Pragmatics edited by Peter Cole Volume 10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table edited by Frank Heny and Helmut S. Schnelle Volume 11: Presupposition edited by Choon-Kyu Oh and David S. Dineen Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax edited by Talmy Givon Volume 13: Current Approaches to Syntax edited by Edith A. Moravcsik and Jessica R. Wirth Volume 14: Tense and Aspect edited by Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen

Volume 15: Studies in Transitivity edited by Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson Volume 16: The Syntax of Native American Languages edited by Eung-Do Cook and Donna B. Gerdts Volume 17: Composite Predicates in English Ray Cattell Volume 18: Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case Alice C. Harris Volume 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics edited by Hagit Borer Volume 20: Discontinuous Constituency edited by Geoffrey J. Huck and Almerindo E. Ojeda Volume 21: Thematic Relations edited by Wendy Wilkins Volume 22: Structure and Case Marking in Japanese Shigeru Miyagawa Volume 23: The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages edited by Randall Hendrick Volume 24: Modern Icelandic Syntax edited by Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen Volume 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing edited by Susan D. Rothstein Volume 26: Syntax and the Lexicon edited by Tim Stowell and Eric Wehrli Volume 27: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian edited by Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin E. Kiss Volume 28: Small Clauses edited by Anna Cardinaletti and Maria Teresa Guasti Volume 29: The Limits of Syntax edited by Peter Culicover and Louise McNally Volume 30: Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax edited by Erhard Hinrichs, Adreas Kathol, and Tsuneko Nakazawa Volume 31: Sentence Processing: A Crosslinguistic Perspective edited by Dieter Hillert Volume 32: The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories edited by Robert D. Borsley Volume 33: Long-Distance Reflexives edited by Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and C.-T. James Huang

Syntax and Semantics Volume 33: Long Distance Reflexives

SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS VOLUME 32

Long Distance

Logical Syntax and Semantics

Syntax and Semantics, Volume 28: Small Clauses

Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax, Volume 30 (Syntax and Semantics)

Long Distance Life

Long Distance Anaphora

Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies

Lexical Functional Grammar, Volume 34 (Syntax and Semantics)

Lexical-Functional Grammar (Syntax and Semantics, Volume 34)

Long distance, или Славянский акцент

Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface

Formal Syntax and Semantics of Java

Latin Syntax and Semantics (Romance Linguistics)

Logical Syntax and Semantics, Their Linguistic Relevance

Syntax and semantics of programming languages

The Syntax and Semantics of Infinitary Languages

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistics Today)

The Syntax and Semantics of Discourse Markers

Categorial Grammar: Logical Syntax, Semantics, and Processing

The lambda calculus: its syntax and semantics

Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P

Categorial Grammar: Logical Syntax, Semantics, and Processing

Grantville Gazette Volume 33

Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner

Consonant Harmony: Long-Distance Interactions in Phonology

Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface

Grantville Gazette Volume 33

Syntax and Semantics Volume 33: Long Distance Reflexives

SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS VOLUME 32

Long Distance

Logical Syntax and Semantics

Syntax and Semantics, Volume 28: Small Clauses

Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax, Volume 30 (Syntax and Semantics)

Long Distance Life

Long Distance Anaphora

Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies

Lexical Functional Grammar, Volume 34 (Syntax and Semantics)

Lexical-Functional Grammar (Syntax and Semantics, Volume 34)

Long distance, или Славянский акцент

Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface

Formal Syntax and Semantics of Java

Latin Syntax and Semantics (Romance Linguistics)

Logical Syntax and Semantics, Their Linguistic Relevance

Syntax and semantics of programming languages

The Syntax and Semantics of Infinitary Languages

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistics Today)

The Syntax and Semantics of Discourse Markers

Categorial Grammar: Logical Syntax, Semantics, and Processing

The lambda calculus: its syntax and semantics

Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P

Categorial Grammar: Logical Syntax, Semantics, and Processing

Grantville Gazette Volume 33

Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner

Consonant Harmony: Long-Distance Interactions in Phonology

Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface

Grantville Gazette Volume 33

Recommend Documents