Anti-anti-locality
Jeff Lidz
A subclass of long-distance anaphors which resist binding by a local antecedent has been recognized in recent years. This subclass includes such 'antilocal' anaphors as Kannada tannu, Malayalam tan, Dutch zich and Norwegian seg. Most analyses treat these forms as a kind of hybrid between anaphor and pronominal. For example, Mohanan (1982) treats Malayalam tan as bearing the features [+ anaphor] and [+ pronominal] to capture its apparent adherence to both principle A (requiring a c-commanding antecedent) and principle B (requiring no binder in the local domain); Hestvik (1990) treats Norwegian seg as bearing the features [-BS] forcing it to be free (like pronominals) at s-structure but also [+BL] forcing it to be bound (like anaphors) at LF; and Reinhart and Reuland (1993) treat Dutch zich as being -R(eferential) like anaphors but also -Reflexivizing like pronominals. In this paper, I examine the Kannada anaphor tannu and argue that its antilocality is epiphenomenal; that the inability of this anaphor to be locally bound derives from Condition R, a condition which forces semantic reflexivity to be lexically expressed.
It should first be observed that the Kannada anaphor tannu
resists binding by a coargument (Bhat 1978; Amritavalli 1984, 1991;
Lidz 1995):
(1) Hari Raaju tannannu hoDeda anta heeLida
Hari Raaju self-acc hit that said
'Hari said that Raaju hit him'
However, as has also been noted by previous researchers, this
resistance is overcome by adding a reflexivizing affix to the
verb:
(2) Hari Raaju tannannu hoDedukoNDa anta heeLida
Hari Raaju self-acc hit-refl that said
'Hari said that Raaju hit himself'
Thus, we can see that the unavailability of a local antecedent for tannu depends on the nature of the predicate that it is an argument of.
Second, we can observe that there are domains in which the anaphor
can be locally bound in the absence of a reflexivizing affix,
provided that the anaphor is not a coargument of its antecedent.
(3) a. Hari tannannu mattu tanna hendatiyannu hoDeda
Hari self-acc and self-gen wife-acc hit
'Hari hit himself and his wife'
b. Hari pustakavannu tanna hindee itta
Hari book-acc self-gen behind put
'Hari put the book behind himself'
Adopting the definition of binding domain of Chomsky (1986), it is
clear that the subject is in the local domain of the anaphor. The
smallest Complete Functional Complex containing the anaphor and a
binder for the anaphor in both cases is the whole sentence. One might
be tempted by these facts to simply say that the binding domain for
the anaphor is not the CFC as defined by Chomsky, but rather the
coargument domain. This solution runs into immediate trouble,
however, when we observe that pronouns in these environments are
ungrammatical:
(4) a. *Hari avanannu mattu avana hendatiyannu hoDeda
Hari he-acc and he-gen wife-acc hit
b. *Hari pustakavannu avana hindee itta
Hari book-acc he-gen behind put
Thus, saying that this anaphor is antilocal requires that the
domain in which the anaphor is free is different from the domain in
which the pronoun is free. This fact eliminates the Mohanan and
Hestvik solutions for Kannada unless we parameterize the binding
domains for each lexical item. Doing so, however, undermines the
spirit of these approaches whose aim was to attribute antilocality to
pronominal properties. The Reinhart and Reuland solution also fails
when confronted with these facts. Their solution has two parts, the
binding conditions and the chain condition. The binding conditions
rule out coreference in the coargument domain, correctly in this
language. However, the chain condition distinguishes pronominals from
antilocal anaphors, excluding pronouns wherever a chain can be formed
with its antecedent. The examples in (3) and (4), however, are
outside of the domain of chain formation, as can readily be seen by
trying to passivize from the position of the anaphor/pronominal.
(5) a. *Raaju Rashmiyinda mattu Hariyannu hoDedalpattanu
Raaju Rashmi-instr and Hari-acc hit-passive
'Raaju was hit t and Hari by Rashmi'
b. *Raaju Hariyinda pustakavannu hindee ittalpaTTa
Raaju Hari-instr book-acc behind put-passive
'Raaju was put the book behind t by Hari'
Since A-movement is not possible from these positions, we can conclude that anaphoric elements in these positions cannot form a chain with their antecedents and thus that both pronominals and anaphors are predicted by R&R to be grammatical here.
The correct analysis of the distribution of the Kannada anaphor is one which recognizes that the standard binding conditions correctly predict the environments in which pronominals and anaphors are in complementary distribution (i.e., 3-4) but which also explains why the lack of reflexive-marking on the verb in (1) preempts the binding conditions and blocks the anaphor from occurring.
The verbal reflexive arises whenever a predicate is lexically
reflexive. If we add the further condition that a predicate cannot be
semantically reflexive unless it is lexically reflexive, then the
apparent antilocality follows. This condition is called Condition R
(Lidz 1996, 1997). While the binding conditions are satisfied in (1),
coindexing the anaphor and its antecedent entails that the predicate
is semantically reflexive. This semantically reflexive predicate is
not lexically reflexive and so Condition R is violated. This analysis
allows us to maintain R&R's insight that reflexive predicates
play a role in determining the distribution of certain anaphors
without requiring us to abandon the binding conditions which
correctly predict the complementarity of pronouns and anaphors
outside of the coargument domain.
References:
Amritavalli, R. (1984) "Anaphorization in Dravidian," CIEFL
Working Papers in Linguistics: Hyderabad.
Amritavalli, R. (1991) "Lexical Anaphora in Kannada," ms.
CIEFL.
Bhat, D.N.S. (1978) Pronminalization Deccan College
Research Institute: Pune.
Hestvik, A. (1990) LF Movement of Pronouns and the Computation
of Binding Domains, Ph.D. Dissertation, Brandeis University.
Lidz, J. (1996) Dimensions of Reflexivity, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Delaware
Lidz, J. (1997) "When is a Reflexive not a Reflexive?
Near-Reflexivity and Condition R," proceedings of NELS 27.
Mohanan, K.P. (1982) "Grammatical Relations and Anaphora in
Malayalam," MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: Cambridge, Mass.
Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland (1993) "Reflexivity," Linguistic Inquiry.