Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 45:2 (2021) ► pp. 384–407

Kokborok and the simple-complex reflexive distinction

| IIT Madras
| University of Delhi | University of Hyderabad
| IIT Madras
| Utrecht University
This paper presents an in-depth investigation of the binding strategies in Kokborok and we will look more specifically how this sheds light on the theories of reflexivization. Kokborok, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Tripura, a state in the North-East of India, has two reflexives: sak sak ‘self self’ and sak baithaŋ ‘self self’. The form sak sak ‘self self’ conforms to Principle A of classic Binding Theory, blocking long-distance binding, but this does not hold true for sak baithaŋ allowing non-local binding. It is a well-established fact that some reflexives allow non-local binding, but it is generally assumed that this phenomenon is limited to a certain type of reflexive, morpho-syntactically ‘simple reflexives.’ The so-called ‘complex reflexives’ generally bar non-local binding, and the Kokborok reflexive sak baithaŋ seems an exception to that. This paper explores the uniqueness involved in the nature of anaphoric binding in Kokborok.
Keywords: simple reflexive, complex reflexive, long-distance binding, binding theory, reduplication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reflexives in South Asian languages
    • 2.1The two types of nominal reflexives
    • 2.2Distribution of simple and complex reflexives in SALs
  • 3.Initial observations on the morpho-syntactic properties of Kokborok reflexives
    • 3.1Kokborok reflexives
    • 3.2Kokborok reflexives functioning as emphatic forms
    • 3.3Summary
  • 4.Binding in Kokborok
    • 4.1Local binding
    • 4.2Non-local binding in Kokborok
    • 4.3Binding in a Bodo-Garo perspective
    • 4.4An account of non-local binding in Kokborok
    • 4.5Non-local binding of the complex reflexive in Kokborok
  • 5.Explorations
    • 5.1 sak baithaŋ
    • 5.2 sak sak
    • 5.3An alternative
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19091.roy
References
Baker, Mark C.
1988 Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Battistella, Edward
1987 Chinese reflexivization. Proceedings of the Second Harbin Conference on Generative Grammar. Harbin: Heilongjiang University.Google Scholar
1989 Chinese reflexivization: A movement to INFL approach. Linguistics 27(6). 987–1012. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle, Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon & C-T. James Huang
2017 Long distance anaphor: Syntax and discourse. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, V. IV1, 2nd edn., 2321–2402. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on government & binding. Holland: Foris Publication.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, & Li-May Sung
1994 Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 251. 355–385.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon & James, Huang C.-T.
(eds.) 2001 Long distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics 33). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice
2000 Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Hindi. In Barbara Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Kārumūri. V. Subbārāo (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 397–470. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2001 Long-distance anaphors in Hindi/Urdu: Syntactic and semantic issues. In Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, & James Huang, C.-T. (eds.), Long distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics 33), 47–82. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin
1986 The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Domain restrictions on reciprocal interpretation. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives. Theoretical and typological explorations, 557–576. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin, Kārumūri V. Subbārāo & Mataina Wichamdinbo
2014 Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Liangmai. Lingua Posnaniensis 55(2). 41–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana
2014 The grammar of knowledge in Hinuq. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge, 1–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurtu, Madhu
1992 Anaphoric relations in Hindi and English. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars
1986 On anaphora and predication in Norwegian. In Hellan & Koch Christensen (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian syntax, 103–124. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Cherl Zoll
2005 Reduplication: Doubling in morphology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacquesson, François
2008 A Kokborok grammar: Agartala dialect. Agartala: Kokborok Tei Hukumu Mission.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A.
1997 Anaphors as pronouns. Studia Linguistica 511. 186–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan & Eric Reuland
1991 Long distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund
2000 Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Tracy S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions (Typological Studies in Language 40), 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lalitha Murthy, Balemarthy & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo
2000 Pronouns and lexical anaphors in Mizo. In Barbara Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 777–840. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Gunsoo
2001 A minimalist account of long-distance anaphor kucasin . Studies in Generative Grammar 11(2). 383–404.Google Scholar
Liu, Yingtong
2016 Chinese zi: Linking reflexivization and binding. Utrecht: Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, MA thesis.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Kashi Wali, James. W. Gair & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo
(eds.) 2000 Lexical reflexives in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyutikova, Ekaterina
2000 Reflexives and emphasis in Tsaxur. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Tracy. S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions (Typological Studies in Language 40), 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pica, Pierre
1987 On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In Joyce McDunough & Bernadette Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 171, 483–499. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric
2011 Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2017a Why is reflexivity so special? Understanding the world of reflexives. Studia Linguistica 711. 12–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017b Long-distance binding in Germanic languages. In: Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol. IV1, 2nd edn, 2403–2433. Holboken: John Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric, Sally Chi Ho Wong & Martin Everaert
2019 How the complexity of Mandarin zi-ji simplifies the grammar. Linguistic Inquiry early access: Crossref. 1–24.Google Scholar
Sarju Devi, T. & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo
2002 Reduplication and case copying: The case of lexical anaphors in Manipuri and Telugu. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 25(2; Fall). 47–72.Google Scholar
Schadler, Dagmar
2014 Reflexivity: Licensing or enforcing. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Sengupta, Gautam
2000 Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Bangla. In Barbara Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 277–332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Rajendra
2005 Reduplication in modern Hindi and Theory of Reduplication. In Bossong Georg, Comrie Bernard & Matras Yaron (eds.), Studies on reduplication, 263–281. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas
2009 Total reduplication: syndetic vs asyndetic patterns in Europe. Grazer Linguistische Studien 711. 99–113.Google Scholar
Subbārāo, Kārumūri V.
2012 South Asian languages: A syntactic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subbārāo, Kārumūri V. S. Malhotra & S. Barua
2010 Aspects of Kokborok syntax. Interdiciplinary Journal of Linguistics 31. 1–43.Google Scholar
Wali, Kashi
2000 Lexical reflexives and pronouns in Marathi. In Barbara Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 513–574. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wali, Kashi & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo
1991 On pronominal classification: Evidence from Marathi and Telugu. Linguistics 291. 1093–1110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Sally Chi Ho
2017 Investigating Mandarin Chinese zi-V reflexive verbs. Working paper. Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS.Google Scholar
Yang, Dong-Whee
1983 The extended binding theory of anaphors. Language Research 191. 169–192.Google Scholar