Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora [Kõva köide]

(Associate Professor of Linguistics, Harvard University)
  • Formaat: Hardback, 406 pages, kõrgus x laius x paksus: 155x239x28 mm, kaal: 703 g, 1 illus.
  • Sari: Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax
  • Ilmumisaeg: 22-Jan-2020
  • Kirjastus: Oxford University Press Inc
  • ISBN-10: 0190902108
  • ISBN-13: 9780190902100
Teised raamatud teemal:
Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt AnaphoraSuurem pilt
  • Formaat: Hardback, 406 pages, kõrgus x laius x paksus: 155x239x28 mm, kaal: 703 g, 1 illus.
  • Sari: Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax
  • Ilmumisaeg: 22-Jan-2020
  • Kirjastus: Oxford University Press Inc
  • ISBN-10: 0190902108
  • ISBN-13: 9780190902100
Teised raamatud teemal:
Püsilink: https://www.kriso.ee/db/9780190902100.html
Märksõnad:
Locality and Logophoricity investigates what the distribution of pronominal expressions in various languages can tell us about the structure of the human language faculty. The exploration of this question in the past fifty years has led to the development of a general theory of referential dependency, namely Binding Theory. This book focuses on Condition A of this theory, which concerns referentially dependent expressions such as English herself, French elle-m me or Mandarin ziji. Specifically, it tackles an issue of apparent ambiguity presented by many of these reflexives across languages: in a large number of unrelated languages, we observe that the same reflexive form must obey either syntactic constraints or discourse constraints related to perspective.

The specific aim of the book is to describe and explain this widespread dual behavior of reflexives. A detailed empirical investigation based mainly on systematically collected French, English, Icelandic, Mandarin, and Korean data leads the author to propose a unified solution to this issue. This proposal has consequences both for Binding Theory and for the theory of logophoricity, which addresses the impact of perspective on linguistic systems.
Acknowledgments xi
List of Abbreviations
xv
1 Introduction: The Issue of Exempt Anaphora
1(27)
1.1 The Distributional Properties of Exempt Anaphors
3(4)
1.1.1 No Obligatory Local Binding
3(3)
1.1.2 No Obligatory Exhaustive Binding
6(1)
1.1.3 Availability of Strict Readings
6(1)
1.1.4 Free Variation with Pronouns
7(1)
1.2 Main Previous Solutions to (Apparent) Exemption
7(15)
1.2.1 Reformulating Condition A
8(2)
1.2.2 Reducing Surface Long-Distance Binding to Covert Local Binding
10(2)
1.2.3 Equating Exempt Anaphors to Pronouns Subject to Discourse Conditions
12(1)
1.2.3.1 Exempt Anaphors as Logophoric Pronouns
12(1)
1.2.3.2 Exempt Anaphors as Intensive Pronouns
13(2)
1.2.4 Predicate-Based Theories
15(7)
1.3 Preview of the Proposal
22(6)
1.3.1 The Main Issues to Solve
22(1)
1.3.1.1 Methodological: How to Distinguish Exempt from Plain Anaphors
22(1)
1.3.1.2 Theoretical: How to Reduce Exempt to Plain Anaphors
23(2)
1.3.2 The Solution in a Nutshell
25(1)
1.3.2.1 Methodological: The Inanimacy-Based Strategy
25(1)
1.3.2.2 Theoretical: The Logophoric A-Binder Hypothesis
26(2)
2 How to Identify Exempt Anaphors
28(80)
2.1 Adapting the Inanimacy Strategy to the Issue of Exempt Anaphora
29(10)
2.1.1 The Inanimacy Strategy in Charnavel and Sportiche (2016a)
29(3)
2.1.2 Inanimacy as a Tool to Determine the Scope of Exemption
32(2)
2.1.3 Comparison with Other Interpretation-Based Diagnostics
34(1)
2.1.3.1 Two Logophoricity-Based Diagnostics Used for Mandarin ziji
34(2)
2.1.3.2 The Irrelevance of Focus for Exemption
36(3)
2.2 Re-examining the Distributional Properties of Exempt Anaphors
39(19)
2.2.1 The French Anaphors son propre and lui-meme
39(5)
2.2.2 No Obligatory Local Binding
44(7)
2.2.3 No Obligatory Exhaustive Binding
51(1)
2.2.4 Availability of Strict Readings
52(2)
2.2.5 Disproving the Diagnostic of Non-Complementarity with Pronouns
54(4)
2.3 Controlling for Independent Properties
58(30)
2.3.1 Anaphors in Competition with Weaker Elements
59(13)
2.3.2 Anaphors in Agreeing Positions
72(4)
2.3.3 Anaphors and Intensifiers
76(12)
2.4 Appendix: Questionnaires on English himself and French luimeme/son propre
88(20)
2.4.1 Inanimate itself and Animate himself
89(6)
2.4.1.1 Inanimate and Animate lui-meme
95(6)
2.4.2 Inanimate and Animate Possessor son (propre) (see Charnavel 2012)
101(7)
3 The Logophoric Properties of Exempt Anaphors
108(105)
3.1 Logophoricity and Anaphors in the Previous Literature
110(29)
3.1.1 The Notion of Perspective Inspired by Literary Studies
110(1)
3.1.1.1 English Tradition
110(5)
3.1.1.2 Japanese Tradition
115(5)
3.1.2 The Emergence of the Notion of Logophoricity in Studies on African Languages
120(5)
3.1.3 Impact of Logophoricity on Philosophical Approaches on de se Attitudes
125(1)
3.1.3.1 Castaneda (1966-1968), Perry (1979), Lewis (1979): the specificity of attitudes de se
125(1)
3.1.3.2 Chierchia (1989): exempt reflexives as operator-bound de se elements
126(1)
3.1.3.3 Schlenker (1999): logophoric reflexives as shifted indexicals
127(5)
3.1.3.4 Pearson (2015): some logophoric pronouns can be construed de re
132(1)
3.1.4 Division of Logophoricity into Subtypes
133(1)
3.1.4.1 Sells (1987): Source/Self/Pivot
133(4)
3.1.4.2 Oshima (2006): Logophoricity/empathy
137(1)
3.1.4.3 Nishigauchi (2014): Sentience/Empathy
138(1)
3.2 Attitudinal Exempt Anaphors
139(25)
3.2.1 Detecting Attitude Holders in Their Attitude Contexts
141(1)
3.2.1.1 Diagnosing Embedded Attitude Contexts
141(1)
3.2.1.2 Diagnosing Third-Person Attitude Holders in Their Attitude Contexts
142(9)
3.2.1.3 The Speaker as Attitude Holder
151(1)
3.2.2 Attitude Holders as Possible Antecedents of Exempt Anaphors
151(1)
3.2.2.1 Simple Cases
152(3)
3.2.2.2 Cases of Multiple Embedding
155(2)
3.2.3 Interpretive Constraints on the Domain of Attitudinal Exempt Anaphors
157(7)
3.3 Empathic Exempt Anaphors
164(14)
3.3.1 Diagnosing Empathy Loci
165(1)
3.3.1.1 What Is an Empathy Locus?
165(2)
3.3.1.2 Possessive cher Test in French
167(3)
3.3.1.3 Sibling Terms in Korean
170(2)
3.3.2 Empathy Loci as Possible Antecedents of Exempt Anaphors
172(3)
3.3.3 Interpretive Constraints on the Domain of Empathic Exempt Anaphors
175(1)
3.3.4 Interaction between Empathy and Attitude
176(2)
3.4 Attitudinal and Empathic Anaphors as Only Possible Exempt Anaphors
178(16)
3.4.1 Unacceptability of Non-Attitudinal and Non-Empathic Exempt Anaphors
179(2)
3.4.2 The Non-Logophoricity of Deictic Perspective
181(1)
3.4.2.1 Diagnosing Third-Person Deictic Centers
181(4)
3.4.2.2 Deictic Centers as Impossible Antecedents for Exempt Anaphors
185(4)
3.4.3 Addressees as Attitude Holders or Empathy Loci
189(5)
3.5 Unifying and Extending the Notion of Logophoricity
194(7)
3.5.1 Logophoricity as Mental, First-Personal Perspective
194(3)
3.5.2 Logophoricity beyond Anaphora
197(4)
3.6 Appendix
201(12)
3.6.1 Questionnaire on Korean cachey and caki-casin (see Ahn & Charnavel 2017)
201(1)
3.6.1.1 Inanimate cachey
202(3)
3.6.1.2 Animate caki-casin
205(4)
3.6.2 Pilot Study on French ce
209(4)
4 The Logophoric A-Binder Hypothesis
213(51)
4.1 Proposal: The Logophoric A-Binder Hypothesis
214(17)
4.1.1 The Hypothesis: Reducing Logophoric Binding to A-Binding
214(3)
4.1.2 Applying the Analysis to Examples
217(6)
4.1.3 Further Motivating the Reduction of Logophoric Domains to Spellout Domains
223(1)
4.1.3.1 Perspective Switches within Clauses
224(3)
4.1.3.2 Absence of Condition C and Condition B Effects
227(4)
4.2 Novel Independent Evidence from Local Exhaustive Co-Reference Effects
231(8)
4.2.1 The Illusion of Non-Exhaustive Binding
231(3)
4.2.2 Indirect Evidence for Exhaustive Binding
234(5)
4.3 Further Specifying the Argument from Parsimony
239(8)
4.3.1 Deriving the Availability of Strict Readings
240(4)
4.3.2 The Issue of Parsimony in Previous Hypotheses
244(3)
4.4 Further Specifying the Argument from Logophoric Interpretation
247(17)
4.4.1 Deriving the Logophoric Interpretation of Exempt Anaphors
248(8)
4.4.2 The Issue of Logophoric Interpretation in Previous Analyses
256(8)
5 Reducing Long-Distance Binding to Logophoric Exemption
264(78)
5.1 The Issue of Long-Distance Anaphora
265(10)
5.1.1 Long-Distance Anaphors in the Literature
265(1)
5.1.1.1 Main Empirical Observations
265(2)
5.1.1.2 Two Main Types of Analysis
267(6)
5.1.1.3 Long-Distance Anaphora and Logophoricity
273(1)
5.1.2 Issues with Previous Analyses of Long-Distance Anaphora
274(1)
5.2 Reducing Long-Distance Anaphors to Exempt Anaphors
275(3)
5.3 The Case of Icelandic sig
278(15)
5.3.1 Previous Analyses
278(4)
5.3.2 Reducing Long-Distance sig to Logophoric sig
282(1)
5.3.2.1 Logophoric Requirement on Long-Distance sig in Infinitives
282(3)
5.3.2.2 Absence of Structural Requirements on Long-Distance sig in Infinitives
285(2)
5.3.2.3 Difference between sig and hann with Respect to de se Readings
287(6)
5.4 The Case of Mandarin ziji
293(11)
5.4.1 Existing Arguments for the Logophoricity-Based Analysis of Long-Distance ziji
293(7)
5.4.2 Further Arguments Based on Inanimate ziji
300(4)
5.5 The Case of French soi
304(4)
5.6 The Case of Norwegian seg
308(12)
5.6.1 Some Potential Arguments for Logophoric Binding of seg/sin
308(8)
5.6.2 Experimental Study of seg/sin
316(4)
5.7 Conclusion: Eliminating Long-Distance Binding?
320(3)
5.8 Appendix
323(19)
5.8.1 Icelandic
323(5)
5.8.2 Mandarin
328(3)
5.8.3 Norwegian
331(11)
Conclusion 342(3)
References 345(20)
Author index 365(6)
Subject index 371
Isabelle Charnavel is Associate Professor of Linguistics at Harvard University. Her primary research interests focus on the interface between theoretical syntax and semantics.