Article published in:
Finiteness Matters: On finiteness-related phenomena in natural languages
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 231] 2016
► pp. 93–120

Universals and variation

Encoding anaphoric dependencies

| Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS
This contribution starts with an overview of current issues in the theory of binding. It sketches a modular approach based on universal principles (entailing that reflexivity must be licensed), and that yet is able to account for the cross-linguistic variation observed. It subsequently addresses three issues as case studies: Non-local binding in Scandinavian and the role played by finiteness marking; followed by an analysis of apparently locally bound pronominals in Fijian; it concludes with a novel solution to a problem posed by the anaphoric system of Chamorro that was first described in Chung (1989).
Keywords: binding, Chamorro, Fijian, finiteness marking, Scandinavian, universals
Published online: 25 August 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.231.04reu
References
Bianchi, Valentina
2001 On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. In Temps et point de vue/Tense and Point of View, Jacqueline Guéron & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 213–246. Nanterre: Université Paris X.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko
1997 The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 32]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1982 Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008 On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero & Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133-166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra
1989 On the notion “null anaphor” in Chamorro. In The Null Subject Parameter, Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds), 143-184. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, Tjung, Yassir, Sim, Chang-Yong & Kim, Chonghyuk
2008 A binding theory exempt anaphor. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds), 577-591.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W
1988 A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen
2009 The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, Martin
1986 The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1991 Contextual determination of the anaphor/pronominal distinction. In Jan Koster & Eric Reuland (eds), 77-118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker & Haas, Florian
2008 On reflexive and reciprocal readings of anaphors in German and other European languages. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds), 307-347.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2000 A History of English Reflexive Pronouns: Person, Self, and Interpretability [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 39], Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef & Reinhart, Tanya
1993 The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69-101.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars
1988 Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich
1994 Pronouns and case: On the distribution of Frisian harren and se 'them'. Leuvense Bijdragen 83: 47-65.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward
1988 On semantics and the binding theory. In Explaining Language Universals, John Hawkins (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1992 Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10: 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K.A
1997 Anaphors as pronouns. Studia Linguistica 51(2): 186-234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kartono, Bambang
2013 A Puzzle in Binding: Half Reflexives and Locally Bound Pronouns. A Comparative Study of Anaphoric Systems in Indonesian,Javanese, Palembangnese, City Jambi and Village Jambi. MA thesis, UtrechtUniversity.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast Volker
(eds) 2008 Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan
1985 Reflexives in Dutch. In Grammatical Representation, Jacqueline Guéron, Hans-Georg Obenauer & Jean Yves Pollock (eds), 141-168. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan & Reuland, Eric
(eds) 1991 Long Distance Anaphora. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
2000 Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge
2009 Animacy and long distance binding in Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 32:111–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Wexler, Kenneth
1987 Parameters, Binding Theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 413-444.Google Scholar
Marelj, Marijana & Reuland, Eric
2016 Deriving reflexives - Deriving the lexicon syntax parameter. In Concepts, Syntax, and their Interface: The Theta System, Martin Everaert, Marijnana Marelj & Eric Reuland (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
2007 The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pica, Pierre 1991 On the interaction between antecedent-government and binding: The case of long-distance reflexivization. In Jan Koster & Eric Reuland (eds), 119–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1983 Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
2006 Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric
1991 Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In Jan Koster & Eric Reuland (eds), 283-321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 657-720.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal
2005 Thematic arity operations and parametric variations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 389-436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric
2001 Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 439-492. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005a Agreeing to bind. In Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2005b Binding conditions: How are they derived? In Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference, Stefan Müller (ed.). Stanford CA: CSLI. http://​csli​-publications​.stanford​.edu/Google Scholar
2008 Anaphoric dependencies: How are they encoded? Towards a derivation-based typology. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds), 499-557.Google Scholar
2010 Minimal versus not so minimal pronouns: Feature transmission, feature deletion, and the role of economy in the language system. In The Linguistics Enterprise: From Knowledge of Language to Knowledge in Linguistics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 150], Martin Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah de Mulder, Øystein Nilsen & Arjen Zondervan (eds), 257-283. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Reinhart, Tanya
1995 Pronouns, anaphors and case. In Studies inComparative Germanic Syntax, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen & Sten Vikner (eds), 241-269. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður
1997 Long distance binding in Icelandic: Syntax or discourse? In Atomism in Binding, Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds), 323–334. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Winter, Yoad
2009 Binding without identity: Towards a unified semantics for bound and exempt anaphors. In Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Lalitha Devi Sobha, António Branco & Ruslan Mitkov (eds), 69-79. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Safir, Kenneth
2004 The Syntax of Anaphora. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schadler, Dagmar
2014 Reflexivity: Licensing or Enforcing. Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Schladt, Mathias
2000 The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Reflexives:Forms and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 40], Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci Walker (eds), 103-124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
1986 Moods and (long-distance) reflexives in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 25. Trondheim.Google Scholar
1990 Long distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds), 309–346. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana
1996 Materialy k voprosu o povedenii mestoimenija wuž v caxskomdialekte caxurskogo jazyka. Ms, Moskva.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1976a Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. In NELS 6, 225-239 Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
1976b Some arguments against the interpretive theory of pronouns and reflexives. In Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Jorge Hankamer & Judith Aissen (eds), 573-624. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
1991 Long distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Jan Koster & Eric Reuland (eds), 49-75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten
1984 Anaphors in Danish as Compared to English Seen from the Point of View of the Government-binding Theory. MA thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
1985 Parameters of binder and of binding category in Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 23. Trondheim: University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Volkova, Anna
2014 Licensing Reflexivity: Unity and Variation among Selected Uralic Languages. Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Volkova, Anna & Reuland, Eric
2014 Reflexivity without reflexives? The Linguistic Review 31(3-4): 587-633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar