| { |
| "paper_id": "Y03-1048", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:34:31.094664Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "Dependency of Long-Distance Reflexives", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Hyeran", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lee", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Kyung Hee University", |
| "location": { |
| "addrLine": "Suwon #1 Seocheon-ri, Giheung-up, Yongin-si", |
| "postCode": "449-701", |
| "settlement": "Kyunggido", |
| "country": "South Korea" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "ghyeran@hotmail.com" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "This paper aims to account for dependency of long-distance anaphors within the derivational approach. Dependency between the antecedent and the anaphor is determined by the universal operations, Merge, Move and Agree. Following Hornstein (2001) and Zwart (2002), anaphors in Korean, Chinese, and Japanese are argued to merge with antecedents to obtain anaphoricity. How such a merged complex participates in derivation is demonstrated using both local and long-distance binding examples. Logophoricity and discourse effects are obtained after computation within CHL when the antecedent and the anaphor are not merged at the outset.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y03-1048", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This paper aims to account for dependency of long-distance anaphors within the derivational approach. Dependency between the antecedent and the anaphor is determined by the universal operations, Merge, Move and Agree. Following Hornstein (2001) and Zwart (2002), anaphors in Korean, Chinese, and Japanese are argued to merge with antecedents to obtain anaphoricity. How such a merged complex participates in derivation is demonstrated using both local and long-distance binding examples. Logophoricity and discourse effects are obtained after computation within CHL when the antecedent and the anaphor are not merged at the outset.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The locally bound reflexives have been explained by the traditional binding theory in Chomsky (1981) , R&R's predicate based theory (MR 1993) , and the recent derivational theory (Hornstein 2001) . Questions are raised with regard to the reflexive forms that seem to be bound across the clause boundary. Long-distance reflexives are found in many languages such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean and others. They are even found in English as seen below.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 86, |
| "end": 100, |
| "text": "Chomsky (1981)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 132, |
| "end": 141, |
| "text": "(MR 1993)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 179, |
| "end": 195, |
| "text": "(Hornstein 2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1 (Motomura 2001 : 319) Takasi-NOM Kenji-NOM self-ACC recommended-COMP thought Takasi thought that Kenji recommended self' (3) Sumii-ka [Sujirka [Youngheek-ka cakiiliwlul Sumi-NOM Suji-NOM Younghee-NOM self-ACC silehan-ta-ko] sayngkakhan-ta-ko alkoi-ss-ta hate-DEC-COMP think-DEC-COMP know-PAST-DEC Sumii knows that Sujii thinks that Youngheek hates selfvyk' (4) Johni said that a picture of himself; is on sale For the constructions like (1), (2) and (3), some argued that they are actually pronouns, and some argued that they are reflexives that can be accounted for by the parameterization of the binding theory (Manzini and Wexler 1987) . The sentence (4) is rather surprising, since the English reflexive himself is the most typical reflexive that is locally bound, but it turns out to be bound across the clause boundary. For (4), Chomsky (1981; 1986) introduced the concept of the governing category, incorporating the phenomena into the local binding. In the movement theory (Chomsky (1986) , Battistella (1989) , Sung (1990) , Cole et al. (1990) , and Cole and Wang (1996) ), it was claimed that the apparent long-distance binding between the reflexive and the antecedent is actually local with the covert movement of the reflexive across the clause boundary. All these approaches are seeking for syntactic accounts.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 3, |
| "end": 17, |
| "text": "(Motomura 2001", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 137, |
| "end": 171, |
| "text": "[Sujirka [Youngheek-ka cakiiliwlul", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 616, |
| "end": 641, |
| "text": "(Manzini and Wexler 1987)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 838, |
| "end": 852, |
| "text": "Chomsky (1981;", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 853, |
| "end": 858, |
| "text": "1986)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 984, |
| "end": 999, |
| "text": "(Chomsky (1986)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1002, |
| "end": 1020, |
| "text": "Battistella (1989)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1023, |
| "end": 1034, |
| "text": "Sung (1990)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1037, |
| "end": 1055, |
| "text": "Cole et al. (1990)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1062, |
| "end": 1082, |
| "text": "Cole and Wang (1996)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "On the other hand, it has been claimed that logophoricity plays as a licensing condition for long-distance reflexives (Kuno (1987) , Sells (1987) , and Zribi-Herts (1989) ). The term `logophoric pronoun' was originally used for the analysis of African languages. The concept of logophoricity used for the long-distance reflexives is different from the original concept, including SOURCE, SELF, and PIVOT. In (1-3), both the matrix subjects and the embedded subjects seem to satisfy the logophoric conditions, being aware of the situation predicated. The high frequency in using the verbs of 'saying' and 'thinking' as a matrix subject could induce such a misconception. However, logophoricity cannot explain all binding phenomena, since there are languages such as Chechen and Ingush that do not require the logophoric conditions (Nichols 2001) . Chinese and Korean also do not always require the logophoric conditions for antecedents as illustrated below. Chulswu-NOM Youngswu-from Younghee-NOM self-ACC sileha-n-ta-ko tul-ess-ta dislike-PRES-DEC-COMP hear-PAST-DEC 'Chulswui heard from Youngswuj that Younghee k dislikes self y*j/k' In (5) and (6), the SOURCE NP does not serve as an antecedent. The mixed approach (Reinhart and Reuland (1993) , Pollard and Sag (1992) , Pollard and Xue (2001), Cole et al. (2001) , Huang and Liu (2001) and others) thus comes in between, adopting both the syntactic accounts and the logophoricity-based accounts.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 118, |
| "end": 130, |
| "text": "(Kuno (1987)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 133, |
| "end": 145, |
| "text": "Sells (1987)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 152, |
| "end": 170, |
| "text": "Zribi-Herts (1989)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 830, |
| "end": 844, |
| "text": "(Nichols 2001)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1231, |
| "end": 1245, |
| "text": "Reuland (1993)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1248, |
| "end": 1270, |
| "text": "Pollard and Sag (1992)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1273, |
| "end": 1284, |
| "text": "Pollard and", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1285, |
| "end": 1315, |
| "text": "Xue (2001), Cole et al. (2001)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1318, |
| "end": 1338, |
| "text": "Huang and Liu (2001)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This paper attempts to elucidate the licensing conditions on the long-distance anaphors by investigating both the syntactic conditions and the logophoric conditions. I basically follow the spirit of Reuland (2001) in that the syntactic binder is more easily available than the binder based on the logophoricity effects. For the mechanism of the syntactic binding, I follow the derivational approach supported by Hornstein (2001) , Kayne (2002) , and Zwart (2002) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 199, |
| "end": 213, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 412, |
| "end": 428, |
| "text": "Hornstein (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 431, |
| "end": 443, |
| "text": "Kayne (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 450, |
| "end": 462, |
| "text": "Zwart (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Previous Studies 2.1 Reuland (2001) Reuland (2001) argues that locality conditions on anaphors are derived from the conditions on Move within CHL. He says that encoding a dependency between the anaphor and the antecedent by CHAIM formation within CBI, is the cheapest. Next comes encoding a dependency by variable binding at the LF interface. The costliest way is establishing coreference by using the discourse storage. Ranking availability of a binder in terms of economy, he attempts to account for crosslinguistic differences and considerable microvariations within a particular language. I follow his spirit in that anaphor binding consults the CHL first and then the LF-interface, and finally the discourse storage. Logophoricity could be involved in binding only if the syntactic binding is not established. Reuland (2001) 's system seems to have an explanatory power for a wide range of data in the area of binding. He provides ranking for binding depending on which component the binding takes place: within CHL, or at LF interface, or from discourse storage. Using this concept, he deals with the non-c-commanding binding cases and unbound binding cases as well as the core binding cases. He argues that there is no intrinsic property of anaphors that prohibits an unbound interpretation.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 21, |
| "end": 35, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 44, |
| "end": 50, |
| "text": "(2001)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 815, |
| "end": 829, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "He is, however, criticized in that (i) his accounts are representational rather than derivational, (ii) chains are made based on traces which violate the Inclusiveness Condition, (iii) his data are focused on Dutch SE and SELF anaphors, not explaining caki-type anaphors that are quite similar to SE but different from SE. SE is used for an argument of inherently reflexive verbs, while caki is not restricted to the reflexive verbs only.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For the specific analysis of the syntactic binding, I adopt the derivational approach by Hornstein (2001) , Motomura (2001) , Kayne (2002) , and Zwart (2002) , instead of depending on a chain formation within CHL. I, however, follow Reuland (2001) in that the anaphoric dependency is determined by derivation within CHL and by LF-interface and discourse storage as well: all unbound anaphors have a high accessibility to the discourse storage, though it is the costliest way of binding.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 89, |
| "end": 105, |
| "text": "Hornstein (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 108, |
| "end": 123, |
| "text": "Motomura (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 126, |
| "end": 138, |
| "text": "Kayne (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 145, |
| "end": 157, |
| "text": "Zwart (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 233, |
| "end": 247, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The derivational approach to syntactic relations argued by Epstein and Seely (1999) extends to syntactic dependency between anaphor and antecedent as seen in the work of Hornstein (2001) , Zwart (2002) , and Kayne (2002) . In this derivational approach, all relations must be explained by Merge, Move and Agree (Chomsky 1999; . The English example is given below.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 59, |
| "end": 83, |
| "text": "Epstein and Seely (1999)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 170, |
| "end": 186, |
| "text": "Hornstein (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 189, |
| "end": 201, |
| "text": "Zwart (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 208, |
| "end": 220, |
| "text": "Kayne (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 311, |
| "end": 325, |
| "text": "(Chomsky 1999;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Hornstein (2001) and Others: Derivational Approach", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(7) John; likes himself; (8) [ip John I [self [vp John [likes [[John] self]]]]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Hornstein (2001) and Others: Derivational Approach", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Based on Hornstein (2001) , the derivation starts with merging John with self. The complex [John self] merges into the object position of likes where John gets the internal theta role. Then John raises2 to Spec VP, where it gets an external theta role of likes. The theta-criterion does not hold in his analysis so that a DP is permitted to move into more than one theta-position as mentioned. John now raises to Spec IP (Spec TP) where it checks Case and EPP features. The accusative Case checking on likes is done by the reflexive element self Selfraises at LF as shown above to check the accusative Case features. Hornstein assumes that John is introduced in numeration with the nominative Case features and self with the accusative Case features. All the copies delete prior to the A-P interface due to LCA that requires the deletion of all copies but the topmost one. Hornstein continues to argue that the pronoun is inserted after the copy is deleted to provide morphological support for the bound morpheme sell Hence self is pronounced as himself. Zwart (2002) is in the same spirit with Hornstein. He argues that anaphoricity is a property acquired in the course of a derivation rather than an inherent lexical feature. He claims that the features relevant to anaphoricity can only be acquired in a sisterhood relation as below.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 9, |
| "end": 25, |
| "text": "Hornstein (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1055, |
| "end": 1067, |
| "text": "Zwart (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Hornstein (2001) and Others: Derivational Approach", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(9) A PRONOUN3 a is coreferential with 13 iff a is merged with f3.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Hornstein (2001) and Others: Derivational Approach", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(10) bcp [antecedent] [PRONOUN]]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Hornstein (2001) and Others: Derivational Approach", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The statement (9) says that Merge determines the syntactic relation between the antecedent and the anaphor. With a little difference in mechanics from Hornstein (2001) , Zwart (2002) also argues that the binding theory can reduce to Merge and Move dispensing with Condition A and other related stipulations and assumptions. I adopt Zwart (2001) in my analysis, not using him as a morphological support as in Hornstein 2001, since it seems to violate the Inclusiveness Condition, and complicates the derivation. In Zwart (2001) , the merging elements are an antecedent and a PRONOUN, being different from Hornstein (2001) where the merging elements are an antecedent and self. I follow Chomsky (2001) and Kitahara (2002) in using the probe-goal system to elucidate the interpretative procedure. The operation Agree is involved to distinguish the English anaphor himself and the Korean type anaphors such as caki, ziji, and zibun.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 151, |
| "end": 167, |
| "text": "Hornstein (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 170, |
| "end": 182, |
| "text": "Zwart (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 332, |
| "end": 344, |
| "text": "Zwart (2001)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 514, |
| "end": 526, |
| "text": "Zwart (2001)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 604, |
| "end": 620, |
| "text": "Hornstein (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 685, |
| "end": 703, |
| "text": "Chomsky (2001) and", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 704, |
| "end": 719, |
| "text": "Kitahara (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Hornstein (2001) and Others: Derivational Approach", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "3 Analysis of Long-Distance Binding", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Hornstein (2001) and Others: Derivational Approach", |
| "sec_num": "2.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In Korean, caki is a third person reflexive, showing long-distance binding phenomena. Let us take a look at the sentence that shows local binding first.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(11) Chulswurka cakirlul sileha-n-ta Chulswu NOM self-ACC dislike-PRES-DEC Thulswuj dislikes himselfr", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(12) [TpChulswu-ia-Chulswu [Chulswu caki] silehanta] T", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The derivation starts with merging Chulswu and caki as shown in (12). The operation Merge establishes the syntactic dependency between the antecedent and the anaphor. T probes a DP to check its uninterpretable phi-features and EPP features. Chulswu is the right candidate to enter into Agree with T, raising to Spec TP through Spec vP. The theta-criterion does not hold as argued in Hornstein (2001) with", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 383, |
| "end": 399, |
| "text": "Hornstein (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Chulswu moving through the internal theta-position and the external theta position to reach to Spec TP.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Caki enters into Agree in situ4 checking the uninterpretable phi-features on v and its own Case features.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the following example, caki is replaced with ku.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(13) Chulswu-ka ku-lul sileha-n-ta Chulswu-NOM him-ACC dislike-PRES-DEC Thulswu dislikes him'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(14) [TpChulswu-ka Chulswu [ku silehanta] T", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In 14, Chulswu does not merge with ku, since the two DPs are not coreferential. Ku merges with silehana, and the complex Iku silehanta] merges with Chulswu. The probe T and Chulswu check their uninterpretable features off by the operation Agree. There is no syntactic dependency between the two DPs, since they do not merge each other.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Locally Bound Caki", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "SE anaphor in Dutch can be analyzed in the same way. The data used here came from Reuland (2001 The SE anaphor zich merges with Oscar and then Oscar raises to Spec vP to get the subject theta-role. By PIC (Chomsky 1999 ) 5, the probe T can fmd Oscar in this position as a search target, inducing its raising to SpecTP. Oscar and zich merge together, and Oscar raises to Spec vP to get the subject theta-role and to Spec TP to undergo the operation Agree. Zich can form the Agree relation with wegglijden, but the verb has incomplete phi-features, being a [-finite] verb. The v with incomplete phi-features cannot be the probe to check the Case features off from zich.6 Thus zich covertly raises to the outer Spec vP (the multiple specs are possible in Chomsky (1999; ) where it enters Agree with v, checking its Case off.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 82, |
| "end": 95, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 205, |
| "end": 218, |
| "text": "(Chomsky 1999", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 752, |
| "end": 766, |
| "text": "Chomsky (1999;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "SE anaphor in Dutch", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "33 Long-Distance Binding in Korean Motomura (2001) adopts the derivational approach to the Japanese long-distance binding. Based on his study, the following Korean sentences show ambiguity in meaning: the anaphor can be bound to the embedded subject or to the matrix subject.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 35, |
| "end": 50, |
| "text": "Motomura (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "SE anaphor in Dutch", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(19) Chulswui-ka Younghee-ka sileha-n-ta-ko malha-yss-ta", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "SE anaphor in Dutch", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The embedded subject reading is obtained as follows. Chulswu and caki merge together. The complex merges with the verb. Now there are two choices: (i) to move Chulswu to spec vP and (ii) to merge another DP Younghee. The condition of Merge over Move forces Younghee to merge into Spec vP where it obtains the external theta role. Younghee now raises to Spec TP to check its Case features and the EPP and phi-features on T. The problem is how Chulswu raises to the matrix subject position. Motomura, in his Japanese data analysis, says that adjunction of Chulswu in (21d) is an instance of scrambling which obviates the MLC. Now Chulswu has to move to Spec vP2 to get the external theta role. This movement is also problematic, crossing over CP1 from the TP adjoined position. Motomura (2001) acknowledges this problem in Japanese sentences without any solutions. In terms of movement, I do not have a solution either. There is, however, a motivation that forces Chulswu to raise; Chulswu has unchecked features and the matrix v also has unchecked features. If we assume that Chulswu is in the search domain by the probe v, then Chulswu with some mechanism raises to Spec vP2 where it gets the external theta role and check off uninterpretable features on v.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 776, |
| "end": 791, |
| "text": "Motomura (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "SE anaphor in Dutch", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Further raising to SpecTP2 delete the Case features of Chulswu and the uninterpretable EPP and phi-features on T. Such an attempt to derive the long-distance dependency through the derivational approach is worth investigating, since long-distance binding is more natural than the local binding in this type of language. Responds from native Koreans show that the matrix reading is more natural than the embedded subject reading. If long-distance binding is more easily available, then it should be done within CHL. This fact forces us to find a derivational way of accounting for the dependency within the narrow syntax.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "SE anaphor in Dutch", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Nominative Anaphors Rizzi (1990) proposed that anaphors do not occur in syntactic positions construed with agreement. Woolford (1999) provided evidence that the ungrammaticality of nominative anaphors in English, Italian and Icelandic is due to the presence of agreement. She argues that languages without agreement allow nominative anaphors. Korean, Chinese and Japanese are such languages as shown below.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 20, |
| "end": 32, |
| "text": "Rizzi (1990)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 118, |
| "end": 133, |
| "text": "Woolford (1999)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(22) Chulswurka cakii-ka Younghee-lul sileha-n-ta-ko Chulswu-NOM self-NOM Younhee-ACC dislike-PRES-DEC-COMP malha-yss-ta say-PAST-DEC Chulswu; said that self; dislikes Younghee' (23) Zhangsan; shuo zijii hui lai Zhangsan say self will com\u00e8 Zhangsan; said that self; will come' (Huang 1982; Woolford 1999) (24) Marikoi-ga zibuni-ga ichiban moteru-to shinjiteiru Mariko-NOM self-NOM best be popular-COMP believ\u00e8 Marikoi believes that seal is the most popular' (25) *Mary; said that herself; is the most popular The derivational approach to the nominative anaphor binding shows why nominative anaphors are well formed in the above examples, while they are out in English type languages. Following the analyses in Hornstein (2001) , Motomura (2001) , and Zwart (2002) Mary and herself merge together in Spec vP, and the complex DP moves to Spec TP to check nominative Case, phi-features and the EPP features. Here I assume that anaphors have incomplete phi-features. Caki type anaphors such as ziji, zibun, SE, and etc., have the person feature only, not showing the gender and number match. Himselfapparently has person, number and gender described as a 3rd person, male, singular DP. I assume that the phi-features in English himself are not complete though since it lacks references. I also assume that uninterpretable features are eliminated by Agree through Match, and Match deleting the Case features and EPP and phi-features should take place between the complete phi-features of the probe and goal. Herself with incomplete phi-features cannot undergo the Agree operation with T. Mary is a good candidate to check all these features at once since it has the full phi-features. ? Once Mary is checked, it is frozen at the place so that it cannot raise to Spec TP2. Herself is stranded within Spec TP with its Case features unchecked and the uninterpretable features on the matrix T cannot be eliminated. This leads the derivation to crash. Thus languages with agreement cannot have the nominative anaphors. Korean is totally different from English. (27) ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 710, |
| "end": 726, |
| "text": "Hornstein (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 729, |
| "end": 744, |
| "text": "Motomura (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 751, |
| "end": 763, |
| "text": "Zwart (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 2051, |
| "end": 2055, |
| "text": "(27)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "[cp2Erp2Chulswu [vP2 Chulswu [CP1Irpi Chulswu caki ][vpi Chulswu caki [vpiYounghee silehan])-tal-ko] malha-yss]-tail", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In 27, Younghee and the verb merge together, and then the merged complex Chulswu and caki merges into the Spec vP position. The complex raises to Spec TP to check the EPP, phi-features and Case features off by the operation Agree. I assume that T has no agreement features in this type of language following Woolford (1999) . I also assume that incomplete phi-features on a DP match with incomplete phi-features on T. The incomplete phi-features could be interpreted as incompleteness or absence of phi-features. Due to the absence of agreement on T, caki with incomplete features, rather than Chulswu with full phi-features can check its own Case features and the EPP features on T. Thus the Agree operation applies to caki and the lower T. Chulswu with unchecked features must move to Spec vP to obtain an external theta role and then moves to Spec TP to check its nominative Case and the EPP and phi-features of T. Another assumption is needed to obviate the distance crossing over the CP 1. In Korean type of languages, it might be the case that CP is not a strong blocker for movement. No subjacency effects and anaphoric Tense could be the evidence, though it has been arguable and should be investigated more. If this analysis is on the right track, the same applies to the Chinese and Japanese In 30, repeated from (6), the SOURCE NP cannot be the antecedent, while in (31), the SOURCE NP can be the antecedent. The only difference between those two sentences is that the matrix subject is available as a syntactic binder in (30), but not in (31). Based on the derivational approach, a derivation produces the embedded subject reading when Younghee merges with caki. The matrix subject reading is produced when Chulswu merges with caki. Youngswu must not merge with caki, since it should merge with the postpositional element lopute. In (31) , Younghee and caki can merge together, but nay and Younghee cannot merge due to the feature mismatch. Nay is merged into the matrix verb at a later derivational step. According to Zwart (2002) , a PRONOUN a is coreferential with 13 iff a is merged with 13. Nay has no way to be coreferential with caki, since they do not merge in the beginning.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 308, |
| "end": 323, |
| "text": "Woolford (1999)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1842, |
| "end": 1849, |
| "text": "In (31)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 2031, |
| "end": 2043, |
| "text": "Zwart (2002)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A question arises: how caki is bound to Youngswu-lopute in (31). Within CHL, caki cannot be bound to Youngswu. It seems that at SEM some discourse constraints provide Youngswu as a binder. Such a contact to the discourse storage takes cost, but happens for the diversity of meaning of the natural languages. In Reuland (2001) 's term, the syntactic binding by Merge and Move is determined within CHL and takes the least cost. The binding by logophoricity is determined at the different component after CHL, that is, at the LF interface or at SEM. If we use Reuland (2001) 's concept of rank in providing binders, we can comprise both the core binding cases and the peripheral binding cases related with logophoricity.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 311, |
| "end": 325, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 557, |
| "end": 571, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In languages like Korean, Chinese, and Japanese, the free reflexives are grammatical. The English-type languages do not allow such a free reflexive. Reuland (2001: 446) says that there is no intrinsic property of anaphors that prohibits an unbound interpretation. He says that free anaphors can only be used for elements that are of the highest accessibility in terms of discourse factors such as center of consciousness and point of view. Take a look at the following examples.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 149, |
| "end": 168, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001: 446)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Unbound Anaphors", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(32) Ziji neng qu nar ma? (Pan 2001: 296) self can go there Q 'Can self (I) go there? (33) Caki-ka ha-yss-eyo? self-NOM do-PAST-Q (34) *himself went to school.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 26, |
| "end": 41, |
| "text": "(Pan 2001: 296)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Unbound Anaphors", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The derivational approach accounts for why unbound anaphors are well formed in Korean, Chinese, and Japanese, while they are ruled out in English. [CP [TPcaki [vPcalci. [VPcaki-ka ha-yss-eyo] (37) [CP [TPhimself [vPhimself [VPhimself went to school] With no agreement on T, ziji and caki can check Case and the EPP features, though they are incomplete. On the other hand, himselfraises to Spec TP where it cannot check the Case features, phi-features and EPP features, since T in English has full agreement features while himself lacks in features. 9 The sentences (35) and (36) converge, though the anaphors are not bound. Nothing prohibits the unbound anaphors as long as the derivation converges without violating Merge and Move. The binder will be found later in a different component: at LF interface or at SEM. The above example with the English anaphor himself cannot converge through derivation, since there is no way to eliminate the uninterpretable phi-features on T. The derivation simply crashes, voiding all efforts to contact the discourse storage. Consulting the discourse constraints for interpretation of anaphors is possible only for converged derivations. According to Reuland (2001) , caki and ziji-type anaphors (more precisely SE anaphors in his term) are highly accessible to the discourse factors. This kind of binding is costliest but available in case that the cheaper binding is not available.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 147, |
| "end": 191, |
| "text": "[CP [TPcaki [vPcalci. [VPcaki-ka ha-yss-eyo]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 197, |
| "end": 249, |
| "text": "[CP [TPhimself [vPhimself [VPhimself went to school]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1188, |
| "end": 1202, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Unbound Anaphors", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Long-Distance Anaphors in English", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "7", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Going back to English cases, the sentence (4) is repeated in (39). continues to raise to Spec vP where it gets the external theta role and then to Spec TP where it checks its nominative Case and the EPP and phi-features on T. In (41), John and himself merge together. Himself gets a theta role in site and John with uninterpretable features raises to Spec DP. In the raised position John cannot check its Case, since Spec DP is not the nominative Case checking position. The whole complex DP [John a picture of (John) himself] raises to Spec TP to check its nominative Case and the EPP and phi-features on T1. John with uninterpretable features now raises to Spec vP2 where it obtains a theta role and continues to raise to Spec TP2 to check its nominative Case and the EPP and phi-features of the matrix T. Problem is again the movement over CP1. Why is the following sentence (42), repeated from (4), excluded while (39) is ruled in? (42) *Mary; said that herseit is the most popular When the merged complex [Mary herself] raises to Spec TP, Mary with pull features enter Agree with T. Mary is valued with nominative Case and herself is left with uninterpretable features. Once Mary is checked, it cannot raise to Spec TP in the matrix clause, which results in crash of the derivation due to the uninterpretable features on the matrix T. If herself away to move to Spec TP in the matrix clause, the derivation still crash, since phi-features of herself are not complete, leaving the phi-features of the matrix T unchecked. On the other hand, in (41), the complex [John a picture of himself] shows that John is in Spec DP position. This position is an edge position accessible from outside.\u00b0 John can thus raises to the matrix CP2 and the derivation converges.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "7", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "8 Conclusion I have shown how Merge, Move and the operation Agree can account for the binding facts. Dependency between an anaphor and an antecedent is the result of derivation within CHL. Logophoricity and discourse effects are involved to establish the dependency when the anaphor binding cannot be determined by the computation within CHL. A variety of phenomena that could not be explained by either the syntactic approach or the logophoricity-based approach in the long-distance reflexives can now be accounted for. This paper will be meaningful in testing Reuland (2001) and Hornstein (2001) 's theory to other languages such as Korean, Chinese and Japanese in comparison to English.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 562, |
| "end": 576, |
| "text": "Reuland (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 581, |
| "end": 597, |
| "text": "Hornstein (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "7", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(i) Chain(a,13) form a Chain if (a)I3's features have been ( deleted by and) recovered from a, and (b)(a,13) meets standard conditions on chains such as uniformity, c-command, and locality. (ii) If(al, a2) is a Chain and (i31, b 132) is a chain and a2= , then (al, a2 / r31, P2) is a CHAIN.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The word 'raise' is in general use. The more precise meaning of 'raise' should be attraction, since I follow the probe-goal system inChomsky (2001) in this paper. 3 PRONOUN includes both anaphors and pronouns as variable referential elements inZwart (2002).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "I assume that the accusarive Case is checked in situ in Korean. 5 PIC is Phase Impenetrability Condition proposed inChomsky (1999) : The domain of H is not accessible to operations outside HP, but only H and its edge.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In theHornstein (2001:189), it is assumed that self can bear Case but not phi-features and that if an expression checks any feature it must check all the features that it can check. 8In Motomura (2001: 321)'s analysis of the Japanese reflexive as shown in (29), he states that zibun can check all of the relevant features of T and of itself and the embedded subject can move up to the matrix clause, thus the derivation converges. He didn't say how the embedded ssubject can cross over CP.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In English constructions, the DP with full phi-features and the T with full phi-features undergo the operation Agree in the subject position, checking the nominative Case and the EPP and phi-features. There-constudtions show that the operation Agree undergoes between the T (phi complete) and there (phi incomplete). There can check the EPP feature on T off but the unibterpretable phi-features on T must be checked by the associate raising, since there has only a person feature or a D-feature. The example in issue shows that there is no DP like an associate DP in there constructions that makes Match and Agree possible.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Pica (1991) assumes that the anaphor can move out of the Spec DP when the complex picture-DP is in the subject position. Unlike Pica, I assume that John merged with himself can move out of the complex DP through Spec DP. The position where movement takes place is the same, though the moved elements are different due to differences in analysis.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chomsky", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1999, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, N. 1999. Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 18. MIT. Chomsky, N. 2001. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. Ms. MIT.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hornstein", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2001, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Hornstein, N. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Blackwell.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Pronouns and their Antecedents. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kayne", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2002, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "133--165", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kayne, R. 2002. Pronouns and their Antecedents. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Epstein S. and T. Seely (eds). 133-165. Blackwell.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Scrambling, Case, and Interpretability. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kitahara", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2002, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "167--183", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kitahara H. 2002. Scrambling, Case, and Interpretability. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Epstein S. and T. Seely (eds). 167-183. Blackwell.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3: Proceedings from FAJL 3. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Motomura", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2001, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "309--323", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Motomura, M. 2001. Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3: Proceedings from FAJL 3. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41. 309-323.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Primitives of Binding", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "E", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Reuland", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2001, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "volume": "32", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "439--492", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Reuland, E. 2001. Primitives of Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439-492.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "E", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Woolford", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1999, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "volume": "30", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "257--287", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Woolford E. 1999. More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 257-287.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Issues Relating to a Derivational Theory of Binding. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J. -W", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Zwart", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2002, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "269--304", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Zwart, J. -W. 2002. Issues Relating to a Derivational Theory of Binding. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Epstein S. and T. Seely (eds). 269-304. Blackwell.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "Syntactic Binding vs. Logophoricity Related BindingThe following Korean examples show how the syntactic binding has priority compared to the logophoricity effects.(30)Chulswui-ka Youngswurlopute Youngheek-ka cakiippyk-lid Chulswu-NOM Youngswu-from Younghee-NOM self-ACC sileha-n-ta-ko tul-ess-ta dislike-PRES-DEC-COMP hear-PAST-DEC 'Chulswu; heard from Youngswu that Youngheek dislikes self ilt/Ic' (31) Nayi-ka Youngswuj-lopute Youngheek-ka I-NOM Youngswu-from Younghee-NOM self-ACC sileha-n-ta-ko tul-ess-ta dislike-PRES-DEC-COMP hear-PAST-DE heard from Youngswu that Youngheek dislikes self vyk'", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF0": { |
| "text": "Zhangsan; zhidao [Lisi; renwei [Wangwuk zui xihuan Zhangsan know Lisi think Wangwu most like self 'Zhangsan; knows that Lisi; thinks that Wangwuk likes self; k' (Pollard and Xue 2001: 326)", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>(2) Takasii-ga</td><td>[Kenjirga zibunvro suisenshita-to]</td><td>omotta</td></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "text": "The nominative Case of Oscar and the uninterpretable phi-features and EPP features on T delete by Agree. The syntactic dependency is established when Merge takes place in the beginning. Next is illustrated the ECM structure. (17) Oscar; voelde [zich1 wegglijden] Oscar felt himself slide away (18) [cpErp Oscar T [zich [vP Oscar voelde [[[Oscar [zich]] wegglijden]]]]]]", |
| "content": "<table/>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF4": { |
| "text": "The derivation continues to the next phase, merging the matrix verb and then the matrix subject. All the uninterpretable features in CP2 delete by the operation Agree.The matrix subject reading is obtained as follows. .[CP2[TP2 Chulswu[vp2Chulswu[vp2kP1[TP1 Chulswu[rp i Younghee [\"pi Younghee [vpi [Chulswu caki] silehan]] -ta]]-ko] malhyss]]-ta]", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">malhyss]</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">e. {vp2Chulswu [VP2 [CP1[11,1 Younghee [vpi Younghee [vpi [Younghee caki]</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">silehan]]-ta]-ko] malhyss]]</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">f. [cp2[Tp2Chulswu [vp2Chulswu [VP2[CP1[TP1 Younghee [vpi Younghee [vpi [Younghee</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">caki] silehan]]-ta]-ko] maLhyssfl-ta]]</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">g. [cP2[Tp2C hulswu [\"P2(Chulswu) [vim [CP1{171 Younghee[vpi (Younghee) [VP1</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(21) caki=Chulswu a. vpi [Chulswu c</td><td>\u2022</td><td>\u2022 silehata] ata</td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td colspan=\"3\">[\"P1 Younghee [vpi [Chulswu caki] silehata]]</td></tr><tr><td>c.</td><td colspan=\"3\">[Tpi Younghee [vpi Younghee [vp i [Chulswu caki] silehan]]</td></tr><tr><td>d.</td><td colspan=\"3\">[Tpi Chulswu[n1 Younghee [vpi Younghee [vpi [Chulswu caki] silehan]] -ta]]</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">e. {vP2[CP1[TP1 Chulswu[Tp1 Younghee [vpi Younghee [vpi [Chulswu caki] silehan]]</td></tr><tr><td/><td>malhyss]</td><td/></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF5": { |
| "text": ", the above examples are analyzed as below.", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Let us start with (25).</td><td/></tr><tr><td>(26) [cp2 Erp2 MarY [vP2 Mary said [Cpl popularMM]</td><td>that hpiMary herself [vpMary herself [is the most</td></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF6": { |
| "text": "Zhangsan ziji raises to Spec TP where ziji checks Case and the EPP features. Zhangsan moves to Spec vP and Spec TP where it checks the Case features, phi-features and the EPP Mariko zibun raises to Spec TP where zibun checks Case and the EPP features. Mariko moves to Spec vP and Spec TP where it checks the Case features, phi-features and the EPP features.", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">examples. 8 See the following Chinese sentence.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(28) [cp2ErP2Thangsan [vp2shuo [cpi ErpiThangsan ziji [VP! Zhangsan ziji hui laii]]]]]</td></tr><tr><td>The complex DP features.</td><td/></tr><tr><td>(29) [cP2[TP2 Mariko [vp2Mariko</td><td>Mariko zibun [gyp Mariko zibun ichiban moteru]-to]</td></tr><tr><td>shinjiteiru]</td><td/></tr><tr><td>The complex DP</td><td/></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF8": { |
| "text": "Mary and herself at the outset. Herselfobtains a theta role and its Case is checked in situ. Mary with uninterpretable features raises to Spec DP where it cannot check its nominative Case. Mary", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Maryi sold a picture of herself;</td></tr><tr><td>(39) Johni said that a picture of himselfi is on sale</td></tr><tr><td>The derivational steps for (38) and (39) are shown below.</td></tr><tr><td>(40) [cp [Tp Mary [vP Mary sold [DP Mary a picture [pp of [Mary herself]]]]]</td></tr><tr><td>(41) [CP2 [TP2 John; [vn John said [Cpi that bpi John [a picture [of [John himself; ]li[vP1</td></tr><tr><td>[DP John a picture [of [John himself; ]]is on sale]]]]]</td></tr><tr><td>In (40),</td></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "html": null, |
| "num": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
