Yakov G. Testelets. April–May 2008. Moscow
For Barbara H. Partee’s course
Formal Semantics and Anaphora
Typology of anaphoric elements
8. Anaphoric R-expressions as Bound Variables
(Reinhart 1983; Chomsky 1981): R-expressions cannot be syntactically bound (1) or
denote bound variables, even if occasionally syntactically bound (Heim’s 1998 ‘mode of
presentation’, the referent presented in a different ‘guise’ like (2)); cf. (3)
(1)
Shei sees the womani/*j
(2)
Is that Mike ? Well, hei’s wearing Mikei’s coat.
(3)
XVIth century French:
Rome de Rome est le seul monument,
Et Rome Rome a vaincu seulement (J. du Bellay)
Rome is the only monument of Rome
a) ‘there are no other monuments of Rome’
b) ‘*there are no other cities that are monuments of themselves’
and only Rome defeated Rome
c) ‘nothing else (could have) defeated Rome’
d) ‘*no other city defeated itself, e.g. Paris didn’t defeat Paris, Constantinople
didn’t defeat Constantinople… etc.’
(Lee 2003): San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec, an Otomanguean language spoken in southern
Mexico, regularly allows apparent conditions B and C violations.
(4)
R-yu’lààa’z
Gye’eihlly
HAB-like
Mike
‘Mike likes himself’
Gye’eihlly
Mike
(5)
R-yu’lààa’z-ёng
la’anng
HAB-like-3SG.PROX 3SG.PROX
‘He/she likes himself/herself’
(6)
A
w-nalààa’z
bhuuhahz g-uhcnèe Lia Paamm bxuuhahz
already PERF-remember priest
PERF-help FEM Pam
priest
‘The priesti remembered that Pam helped himi’
(Lasnik 1991): Condition C does not hold for those languages (like Thai) which allow
syntactically bound R-expressions; only a part of Condition C seems to be universally
valid, viz. that a l e s s r e f e r e n t i a l e l e m e n t c a n n o t b i n d a m o r e
r e f e r e n t i a l e l e m e n t:
(7)
Thai
a.
Cọọn chọọp Cọọn
Johni likes Johni
b.
Cọọn khit waa
Johni thinks that
Cọọn chalaat
Johni (is) smart
c.
*khaw chọọp
hei
likes
d.
*khaw
hei
khit
thinks
Cọọn
Johni
waa
that
Cọọn
Johni
chalaat
(is) smart
(Lee 2003): examples like (4–7) in Zapotec and Thai are not exceptions to Binding
Condition C; they are bound variables which are spelled out as overt copies (bound
copies) and have anaphoric status.
Identical Antecedent Requirement
Gye’eihlly
Mike
(8)
*B-gwi’ih-ёng
lohoh
PERF-look-3SG.PROX at
‘Hei looked at Mikei’
(9)
*Ryu’ààa’z
Gye’eihlly
me’s
HAB-like
Mike
teacher
‘Mikei likes the teacheri’
Thai
(10) *Cọọn konnuad aajarn
John
shave
teacher
‘Johni shaved the teacheri’
Strong Crossover
Traces (=silent copies) of A’-movement are claimed to be R-expressions
(Chomsky 1981):
*Whoi does hei know ___? (= ‘Who knows oneself?’
*Whoi does hei think Felipe likes ___ ?
(11)
a.
b.
(12)
*Tu r-ralloh
la’anng
r-yu’lààa’z Li’eb?
who HAB-think 3SG.PROX
HAB-like
Felipe
‘Whoi does hei think Felipe likes?/ Whoi does hei think likes Felipe?’
Lee concludes from the Strong Crossover effect that Principle C is operative in Zapotec.
Only Sloppy Readings Under Deletion
(13)
B-gwi’ih
Gye’eihlly lohoh Gye’eihlly
zё’cy cahgza’ Li’eb
PERF-look Mike
at
Mike
likewise
Felipe
‘Mike looked at himself, and Felipe did, too’ (*strict/sloppy)
If the lower occurrence of Gye’eihlly ‘Mike’ were a truly referential expression, it would
not yield the sloppy reading in the second conjunct.
Thai
Cọọn konnuad khong Cọọn lae
Peter ko muankan
John
shave
of
John and Peter the same
‘John shaved himself, and Peter did too’ (i.e. Peter also shaved himself/*Peter
shaved John)
(14)
2
Quantified DPs cannot be bound R-expressions
(15)
a. *B-guhty cho’nn ra bxuuhahz cho’nn ra
PERF-kill three PL priest
three PL
b. Cho’nn ra bxuuhahz b-guhty-rih
three
PL priest
PERF-kill-3PL.DIST
‘Three priests killed themselves’
bxuuhahz
priest
la’arih
3PL.DIST
Coordinated DP arguments disallow copying:
(16) *R-yuu’lààa’z [Li’eb cuann Gye’eihlly] [Li’eb
HAB-like
[Felipe and
Mike]
[Felipe
‘Mike and Felipe like themselves’
cuann
and
Gye’eihlly]
Mike]
Lee brings no examples with other kinds of “long” DPs!
Thai
(17) a. *Thuk khon konnuad thuk
every one
shave
every
‘Everyone shaved everyone’
b.
Thuk khon konnuad
every one shave
‘Everyone shaved himself’
khon
one
tu:aeng
self
Lee’s conclusion: Bound names in Zapotec and Thai are anaphoric variables spelled
out as copies of their antecedents.
(Nakao 2004): In Japanese, R-expressions which are bound by identical R-expressions in
non-coargument positions:
(18)
*?Taro-wa Taro-o
tatai-ta
Taro-TOP Taro-ACC hit-PAST
‘Taroi hit Taroi’
(19)
Taro-wa
[Taro-no
okaasan]-o tatai-ta
Taro-TOP Taro-GEN mother-ACC hit-PAST
‘Taroi hit Taroi’s mother’
(20)
*Kare-wa
[Taro-no
he-TOP
Taro-GEN
‘Hei hit Taroi’s mother’
(21)
*Dare-o
kare-ga
___
who-ACC he-NOM
‘Whoi does hei love ___ ?’
(22)
Taro-wa
[Taro-no okaasan]-o tatai-ta si, Jiro-mo
Taro-TOP Taro-GEN mother-ACC hit-PAST and Jiro-too
‘Taroi hit Taroi’s mother, and Jiro did, too’
a. Jiroi hit Taroi’s mother
b. Jiroi hit Jiroi’s mother
(23)
Daremo-ga
[daremo-no
okaasan]-o
everyone-NOM everyone-GEN mother-ACC
a. ‘Everyone hit everyone’s mother’
b. ‘*Everyone hit his/her own mother’
okaasan]-o tatai-ta
mother-ACC hit-PAST
aisite iru
love PROG
3
no?
Q
tatai-ta
hit-PAST
soo da
such be
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation: A reinterpretation of
Reinhart’s approach. In The Interpretive tract, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
25, ed. U. Sauerland, O. Percus. 205–246.
Lasnik, Howard. 1991. On the Necessity of Binding Conditions. In Principles and
Parameters in Comparative Grammar, ed. by Robert Freidin. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press. 7–28.
Lee, Felicia. 2003. Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6: 84–114.
Nakao, Chizuru. 2004. A Note on Japanese Anaphoric R-expressions. Linguistic
Research 20, University of Tokyo, Tokyo: 207-214.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. University of Chicago
Press.
4