Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12: Selected papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Campinas, Brazil
Edited by Ruth E.V. Lopes, Juanito Ornelas de Avelar and Sonia M. L. Cyrino
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12] 2017
► pp. 15–28

Chapter 2
Exempt anaphors and logophoricity in French

| Harvard University

The goal of this paper is to account for instances of anaphors that appear to be exempt from Condition A, based on the French anaphors son propre (‘his own’) and lui-même (≈ ‘himself’). Drawing on specific tests, I show that such anaphors must be anteceded by logophoric centers, specifically either by attitude holders or by empathy loci. This generalization is explained if we suppose the existence of silent logophoric operators that corefer with the antecedent and locally bind the anaphor: apparently exempt anaphors are in fact not exempt. This accounts for why they have the same form as anaphors standardly obeying Condition A: they are one and the same element. Their specific distribution and interpretation derives from their silent logophoric binder.

Keywords: anaphor, exemption from Condition A, logophoricity, French
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Issue: How to identify exempt anaphors?
    • 1.1How to define locality requirements of anaphors
    • 1.2The inanimacy strategy
    • 1.3Specific caveats for French anaphors
  • 2.Descriptive generalization: Logophoricity of exempt anaphors
    • 2.1Logophoricity
    • 2.2French exempt anaphors in attitude contexts
    • 2.3French exempt anaphors in non-attitude contexts
  • 3.Analysis: Binding by logophoric operators
    • 3.1Logophoric operators
    • 3.2The position of logophoric operators
    • 3.3Interaction between logophoric centers
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.12.02cha
References
Anand, P.
2006 De de se. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Charnavel, I.
2012 On her own: Probing Syntax and Semantics with French propre. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
2014 “Exempt anaphors and logophoricity in French.” Harvard manuscript. lingbuzz/002683Google Scholar
Charnavel I. & D. Sportiche
2016 “Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show”. Linguistic Inquiry 47(1): 35–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1986 Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N.
1975 “The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177.Google Scholar
Culy, C.
1994 “Aspects of logophoric marking”. Linguistics 32: 1055–1094. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubinsky, S., & R. Hamilton
1998 “Epithets as antilogophoric pronouns”. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 685–693. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, G.
1980/1892 “On sense and meaning”. In Tranlations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, ed. by P. Geach & M. Black, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., & C.-S. L. Liu
2001 “Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface”. In Syntax and Semantics 33: Long Distance Reflexives, ed. by P. Cole, G. Hermon, & C.-T. J. Huang, 141–195. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., & D. Sportiche
1989 “Pronouns, logical variables, and logophoricity in Abe”. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 555–588.Google Scholar
Kuno, S.
1987 Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Maling, J.
1984 “Non-clause bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic”. Linguistic and Philosophy 7: 211–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oshima, D. Y.
2007 “On empathic and logophoric binding”. Research on Language and Computation 5: 19–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C. & I. A. Sag
1992 “Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 261–303.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T., & E. Reuland
1993 “Reflexivity”. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N.
1990 “ En et y: deux clitiques pronominaux antilogophoriques”. Langages 97: 51–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P.
2003 “Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns”. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II, ed. by J. Lecarme, 409–428. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sells, P.
1987 “Aspects of logophoricity”. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–479.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S.
2012 Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces. University of Tromsø and University of Stuttgart, Tromsø, dissertation.Google Scholar
Wexler K. & M. R. Manzini
1987 “Parameters and learnability in binding theory”. Parameter setting. Springer Netherlands, 41–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A.
1989 “Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse”. Language 65: 695–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Charnavel, Isabelle
2018. Chapter 2. Long-distance binding of French reflexive soi. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 14], ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Marty, Paul
2020. What Do French Inanimate Anaphors Really Show?. Linguistic Inquiry 51:1 ► pp. 184 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.