Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish.
Reflexive binding: awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view
Pronouns, licensing, and binding. Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. Condition A and scope reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 35 3 , Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. Hicks, Glyn. Syntax 11 3 , Hornstein, Norbert.
Pronouns in a Minimalist setting.
Syntax and Semantics | Awards | LibraryThing
Working Papers in Linguistics 14, Direct complement clauses as object control structures in Turkish. California: California State University, London: Routledge. Local and Long-Distance Reflexives in Turkish. James Huang eds. Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In Irina Nikoloeva ed. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22, On some ECM constructions in Turkish. Case, Referentiality and Phrase structure. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32, Ross, John R. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Dissertation, MIT.
Safir, Ken. Coconstrual and narrow syntax. Sezer, Engin. On reflexivization in Turkish. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3 4 , Add to Cart. View PDF Flyer. Contents About.
In This Article
Pages: i—xlix. By: Alice Davison. Pages: 47— By: David Gil. Pages: 83— By: Arild Hestvik and William Philip. Pages: — By: C. James Huang and C.
Log in to Wiley Online Library
Luther Liu. In Dutch this restriction shows up in the distribution of the SE-anaphor zich discussed earlier. A similar restriction has been observed in a range of languages, varying from Germanic to Modern Greek or Russian and Sakha.
They assume that this is a reflection of the fact that the lexicon may to a certain extent host idiosyncrasies. In the final section I briefly come back to this.
- Descriptional Complexity of Formal Systems: 14th International Workshop, DCFS 2012, Braga, Portugal, July 23-25, 2012. Proceedings.
- The Psychobiology of Consciousness.
- Reflexives - Oxford Handbooks.
- Login using.
- Remote sensing and GIS accuracy assessment!
- Advanced Vehicle Technology (2nd Edition).
- Telling Tales Over Time: Calendars, Clocks, and School Effectiveness?
This second strategy to license reflexivity is in line with the observation in Levinson that many languages use detransitivized verbs form to express reflexive relations. IDI explains why this is so. See Franssen for an overview of the use of this type of strategy in Australian and Austronesian languages. This is due to the fact that clitics have a richer internal structure than meets the eye. As is shown in Marelj and Reuland in press , the syntactic properties of clitics can in fact provide the necessary protection. It should be clear now why proxy-readings are lacking in In fact the availability of proxy-reading serves an important diagnostic to assess the status of a particular morpho-syntactic operation, since clearly no linguistic expression caries its analysis on its sleeve.
As an example consider the following sentence from Bahasa Indonesia Kartono :. Bahasa Indonesia has a number of reflexive strategies, to be discussed in more detail in the next section. Two of these employ a full phrase d irinya and dirinya sendiri. In 37 , however, we only have diri. So the question is what status this element has. See Volkova and Reuland for similar contrasts in Khanty. So far this overview focused on the licensing of reflexivity.
But, as we know, and in fact, surprisingly, self in English not only licenses a reflexive interpretation but may also enforce it. That is, the locality condition on anaphor binding expressed by condition A of the CBT reflects the property of self that it enforces reflexivity, even if a reflexive interpretation is ruled out for reasons of a feature mismatch.
For instance in 38a , self enforces reflexivity of the invite -predicate. However, since the queen cannot bind himself due to a mismatch in gender features, the sentence is ill formed. What about the case in 38b , where, clearly, himself does not enforce reflexivity? Under the assumption that reflexive-marking by self is a syntactic process, this follows without further stipulation. For the sake of concreteness, assume that reflexive-marking by self involves covert head-movement of self onto a verb V, creating a SELF-V, which is reflexive see Reuland and Winter and Reuland for the semantics of SELF-marking.
A general economy principle to the effect that expressing a dependency in syntax is preferred over postponing this to the interpretive system may serve as a trigger; see Reuland for discussion. If so, self -movement is expected to be subject to syntactic restrictions on movement: it should be impossible to move self from within a coordinate structure the coordinate structure constraint , or from an adjunct the condition of extraction domains; Huang Thus 38a, b , just like 12a, b , behave precisely as expected.
In 38b, just like in 12a, b , movement of self onto the verb is blocked by the CC and the condition of extraction domains. Hence the verb is not forced to be reflexive. That is, in both cases himself is in an exempt position Pollard and Sag , and it may be bound by a more remote antecedent. The configuration is illustrated in the following:. A case discussed in Reuland is Malayalam Jayaseelan Volkova and Reuland discuss a similar case in Khanty. Here I exemplify it by an example from Bahasa Indonesia Kartono The behavior of the latter is illustrated in 39 , that of the former in 40 :.
Budi i membenci diri-nya sendiri i. Budi i membenci diri-nya i. Budi i mengatakan mereka membenci diri-nya i. That is, dirinya sendiri acts both as a licenser and an enforcer of reflexivity dirinya only licenses. As Kartono notes dirinya is composed of a body-part noun with a pronominal possessive. Hence it is complex and provides the protection IDI requires.
Series: Syntax and Semantics
However, its noun head is not in the canonical N-position but in a derived position to the left. From such a position it cannot undergo head-movement to SELF-mark the verb due to a general syntactic condition on movement, the left branch condition. Hence, local binding is not enforced. In the case of dirinya sendiri, sendiri is in the canonical head position.
Hence it can move and therefore has to move for reasons of economy. Binding and Syntactic Chains.
The discussion so far captures the distribution of simplex versus complex anaphors, among others but does not say anything about the distribution of simplex anaphors versus pronominals. Any such discussion must take into account the fact that languages such as Frisian and Old English do allow third-person pronominals to be locally bound. That is, any account must be sensitive to a morphosyntactic parameter.
As shown in Reuland and Reinhart and further discussed in Reuland , , this factor is structural case. Feature sharing, then, creates identity of variables. These dependencies are real syntactic dependencies. R3 is the case dependency between V and its object glossing over the finer articulation of the functional system. This yields a syntactic encoding of the binding relation. An element like zich is feature deficient.
This identity of feature bundles is interpreted by the interpretation system as variable binding. This is illustrated in Unlike SE-anaphors, the feature matrix of pronominals is not deficient.