Focus on reflexive anaphors

Spathas, Giorgos

doi:10.3765/salt.v20i0.2555

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…DPs occur in A’‐positions, so do D‐reflexives, (34e,f). (For related discussion relating to the prosody and semantics of D‐reflexives, see Spathas and Ahn . )…”

Section: D‐ Versus φ‐Reflexives: English X‐self Versus French Sementioning

confidence: 99%

A Formal Typology of Reflexives

Déchaine

Wiltschko

2017

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Starting with the observation that reflexives do not form a homogenous class, we develop a formal typology for reflexives. In particular, on the basis of data from English (Germanic), French (Romance), Shona (Bantu), Plains Cree (Algonquian), and Halkomelem (Salish), we argue for the existence of (at least) five categorically distinct reflexive forms: D‐reflexives, φ‐reflexives, Class‐reflexives, n‐reflexives, and N‐reflexives. We present the following arguments in support of this typology: (i) reflexive forms differ in their syntactic distribution; (ii) reflexive forms differ in the syntactic parallelism they exhibit; (iii) reflexive forms differ in the patterns of multi‐functionality they exhibit; (iv) reflexive forms differ in their syntactic integration into the clause; (v) reflexive forms differ in their semantic mode of composition. The analysis that we develop is couched within the Interface Syntax model of Wiltschko & Déchaine (2010), according to which sound‐meaning bundles freely associate with a universally defined syntactic spine.

show abstract

“…DPs occur in A’‐positions, so do D‐reflexives, (34e,f). (For related discussion relating to the prosody and semantics of D‐reflexives, see Spathas and Ahn . )…”

Section: D‐ Versus φ‐Reflexives: English X‐self Versus French Sementioning

confidence: 99%

A Formal Typology of Reflexives

Déchaine

Wiltschko

2017

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Spathas (2010) andJacobson (2012) propose an alternative account of (59), in which the apparent semantic inertness of -features on bound pronouns is limited to their focus value. This account does not extend to uninterpreted -features in contexts involving no focus, such as the bound pronoun/reflexive in (65) or PRO in standard OC; see Landau (to appear) for discussion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Two-Tiered Theory of Control

Landau¹

2015

118

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a persistent intuition running from the earliest to the most recent works on the topic, that obligatory control (OC) complements fall into two distinct types. In this study I recast this intuition in terms of the semantic distinction between attitude and nonattitude complements. I argue that the latter establish control by simple predication ("predicative control") but the former establish it by variable binding, where the bound variable is a projected coordinate of the embedded context of evaluation ("logophoric control"). I offer an explicit syntax-semantics analysis of the two types, utilizing the idea that logophoric control structures are constructed as a second tier above predicative control structures. In both, PRO figures as a minimal, featureless pronoun, which functions as a -abstractor upon movement. The analysis derives the obligatory de se reading of OC PRO as a special kind of de re attitude, without ascribing any inherent feature to PRO (a minimal pronoun). At the same time, it provides a principled explanation, based on feature transmission, for the agreement properties of PRO, which are stipulated on competing semantic accounts (the property theory and the indexical shift theory of OC). Importantly, it is capable of deriving a striking universal asymmetry between OC in attitude and non-attitude contexts: the fact that agreement on the embedded verb blocks the former but not the latter. This is handled by reference to the differential agreement properties of predication and variable binding. Further contrasts between the two types of OC follow, some of which unnoticed before, such as the visibility of implicit controllers and the [±human] value of PRO. I dedicate this work to all those who spend years and decades working on the same topic and never stop marveling at the most elementary puzzles that lured them in the first place.

show abstract

“…But as Landau () points out, other possibilities that do not entail a PF view of agreement have also been explored: von Stechow () and Reuland () propose that the ϕ‐features are present in syntax but deleted in LF. In another vein, Spathas () and Jacobson ()—capitalizing on the distinction between focus values and ordinary semantic values and how that distinction relates to ϕ‐feature interpretation—pursue an approach in which the ϕ‐features are in fact interpreted after all. (See also Sudo for another kind of approach in which ϕ‐features are always interpreted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Partial Control Might Not Tell Us about Agreement: A Reply to Landau

Grano

2017

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landau (2016b) draws on data from person mismatches in partial control to argue that agreement is (at least sometimes) a PF (Phonological Form) phenomenon. The argument depends in part on the premise that there is a reading of sentences such as They wanted to prepare themselves and then meet for debate that corresponds to a structure in which the VP meet for debate has a controlled PRO subject that is semantically first‐person but morphologically third‐person. I argue that according to Landau's own assumptions, PRO in such sentences is not semantically first‐person at any level of representation: Landau's premise relies on a problematic conflation between PRO and the output obtained by applying the group operator to PRO in Landau's approach to partial control. Consequently, Landau's argument for the PF status of agreement does not go through.

show abstract

Focus on reflexive anaphors

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

A Formal Typology of Reflexives

A Formal Typology of Reflexives

A Two-Tiered Theory of Control

What Partial Control Might Not Tell Us about Agreement: A Reply to Landau

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About