Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14: Selected papers from the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Stony Brook, NY
Edited by Lori Repetti and Francisco Ordóñez
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14] 2018
► pp. 21–34

Chapter 2
Long-distance binding of French reflexive soi

First-person oriented logophoricity

| Harvard University

This paper aims at showing that long-distance binding can be reduced to logophoric exemption from Condition A based on the case study of French soi. Soi is usually treated as a long-distance anaphor similar to Icelandic sig. But once the relevant factors are disentangled, it turns out that soi is a standard anaphor that must be locally bound unless the relevant logophoric conditions are met, which exempt soi from binding requirements. First, soi is a first-person oriented generic, expressing a generalization based on the discourse participants’ identification with the antecedent. Second, this determines its logophoric conditions of exemption (speaker-orientedness): soi is exempt from Condition A when its antecedent includes the speaker and is the perspective center of its clause.

Keywords: anaphor, Condition A, long-distance binding, logophoricity, speaker orientation, genericity, French
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.French soi as a first-person oriented generic
    • 2.1Background about soi
    • 2.2Genericity of soi
  • 3.French soi as an anaphor exempt under logophoric conditions
    • 3.1Exemption of soi
    • 3.2Logophoricity of soi
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.14.02cha
References
Charnavel, Isabelle
2017 “Exempt Anaphors and Logophoricity in French.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12. Selected papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), ed. by Ruth E. V. Lopes, Juanito Ornelas de Avelar, and Sonia M. L. Cyrino, 15–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle, and Victoria Mateu
2015 “The Clitic Binding Restriction revisited: Antilogophoricity in Clitic Clusters.” The Linguistic Review 32 (4): 671–701.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle, and Dominique Sportiche
2016a “Unifying Long Distance Binding: Icelandic sig is Clause-bound, or Logophoric.” In Proceedings of the 42th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 42), ed. by Emily Clem, Virginia Dawson, Alice Shen, Amalia Horan Skilton, Geoff Bacon, Andrew Cheng, and Erik Hans Maier, 47–62. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
2016b “Anaphor Binding – What French Inanimate Anaphors Show.” Linguistic Inquiry 47 (1): 35–87.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1998 “Reference to Kinds across Language.” Natural Language Semantics 6 (4): 339–405.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1986 Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clements, George N.
1975 “The Logophoric Pronoun in Ewe: Its Role in Discourse.” Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and C. -T. James Huang
2006 “Long‐Distance Binding in Asian Languages.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. by Martin Everaert, and Henk Van Riemsdijk, 21–84. Malde, MA: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2008 “Impersonal Pronouns and Coreference: The Case of French on .” Ms. University of Lyon.Google Scholar
Huang, C. -T. James, and C. -S. Luther Liu
2001 “Logophoricity, Attitudes, and ziji at the Interface.” In Syntax and Semantics 33: Long Distance Reflexives, ed. by Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and C. -T. James Huang, 141–195. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
2003 “Person Morphemes and Reflexives in Italian, French and related Languages.” In The Syntax of Italian Dialects, 102–136. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1997 “German Impersonal Pronouns and Logophoricity.” Talk given at Sinn und Bedeutung 2, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1987 Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Etsuko Kaburaki
1977 “Empathy and Syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry: 627–672.Google Scholar
Malamud, Sophia
2012 “Impersonal indexicals: one, you, man, and du .” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15 (1): 1–48.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan
1984 “Non-clause bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic.” Linguistic and Philosophy 7: 211–241.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Kenneth Wexler
1987 “Parameters, Binding Theory, and Learnability.” Linguistic Inquiry: 413–444.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Frederick
2006 “Generic one, Arbitrary PRO, and the First Person.” Natural Language Semantics 14 (3): 257–281.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oshima, David Y.
2006 “Perspectives in Reported Discourse.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel
2013 “A Judge-free Semantics for Predicates of Personal Taste”. Journal of Semantics 30 (1): 103–154.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, Pierre
1984 “On the Distinction between Argumental and Non-Argumental Anaphors.” In Sentential Complementation, ed. by Wim de Geest, and Yvan Putseys, 185–193. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1987 “On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle.” In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 17 (2): 483–500.Google Scholar
1991 “On the Interaction between Antecedent-Government and Binding: The Case of Long-Distance Reflexivization.” In Long Distance Anaphora, ed. by Jan Koster, and Eric Reuland, 119–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag
1992 “Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 261–303.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland
1993 “Reflexivity.” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric
2006 “Icelandic Logophoric Anaphora.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. by Martin Everaert, and Henk Van Riemsdijk, 544–557. Malden, MA: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezac, Milan, and Mélanie Jouitteau
2008 “The Nature of French ‘Impersonal’ Indexicals tu and on .” Talk given at the Workshop on Impersonal Pronouns, Paris.Google Scholar
Ronat, Mitsou
1982 “Une solution pour un apparent contre-exemple à la théorie du liage [a Solution for an Apparent Counter-example to the Binding Theory].” Lingvisticae Investigationes 6 (1): 189–196.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter
1987 “Aspects of Logophoricity.” Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–479.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique, Hilda Koopman, and Edward Stabler
2013 An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne
1990 “ Lui-même argument et le concept de « pronom A » [ Lui-même Argument and the Concept of ‘A Pronoun’].” Langages 97: 100–127.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Charnavel, Isabelle
2020. Logophoricity and Locality: A View from French Anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 51:4 ► pp. 671 ff. DOI logo
Vydrina†, Alexandra
2023. Non-existential bound pronouns and restricted reflexive: the emergence of reflexive pronoun in Manding and Mokole languages. Mandenkan :70 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 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.