Anaphors as Pronouns

Abstract

In this paper we point out that in a wide variety of languages, reflexive anaphors seem sensitive to Principle B when they are morphologically simple. While this is now acknowledged by many linguists, we show that (further), when reflexive anaphors in these languages are morphologically complex, they still contain a pronominal element which obeys Principle B. We also provide evidence that many complex reflexive forms which are currently taken to be local (or ‘strict’) anaphors, are on closer examination seen to be only non‐local: i.e. they can take both local and long‐distance antecedents. We suggest a syntactic process of “reflexivization’ which enables anti‐local (pronominal) elements to take an antecedent in the minimal clause. We lastly show that truly local anaphors – like reciprocals and distributives – also contain a pronominal element which obeys Principle B.

Primitives of Binding

“…It follows from our approach that these must be distinct properties of SELF, which need not even be related. Jayaseelan's (1997) discussion of reflexivity in Malayalam shows that this consequence is correct. Just as in English or Dutch, in Malayalam the bound element must be complex in local binding contexts.…”

“…At this level of generality it is, then, immaterial whether the SELF element of SELF anaphors is a focus marker (as Jayaseelan (1997) argues for Malayalam and English; see also Solà 1994) or whether it is a head, implying that SELF anaphors 43 R&R (1993) show that Condition B applies to semantic predicates. That is, it must apply at a level of representation where the distributive properties of predicates are reflected.…”

Why is Reflexivity so Special? Understanding the World of Reflexives

“…The CBT assumed that the English anaphor himself is just one single element that as a whole qualifies as an anaphor. Although already challenged by Helke (), and later by Jayaseelan (), this assumption still underlies a considerable body of current work in binding theory, notably Safir (), Hicks (), Rooryck & VandenWyngaard (), and also Charnavel & Sportiche (), though not, for instance Boeckx, Hornstein & Nunes (). To account for the logophoric use of himself , which we saw exemplified in (4), it is then assumed that English also has another, homonymous, expression, him + intensifier.…”

The World of Reflexives: An Introduction

“…These, however, have generally been analysed as mono‐morphemic. The first analysis in the literature of a complex element with this property was provided by Jayaseelan () with a discussion of Malayalam taan tanne . Subsequent work on Peranakan Javanese by Cole and co‐authors, such as Cole et al.…”