Object Coreference in German: The Reflexive sich as a Problem for Derivational Approaches to Binding

Vera Lee-Schoenfeld,Nicholas Twiner

doi:10.3390/philosophies7010005

Abstract

Despite Grewendorf’s well-known German binding data with the double-object verb zeigen ‘show’, where one object reflexively binds the other and which suggests that the direct object (DO) is generated higher than the indirect object (IO), this paper argues for the canonical surface order of IO > DO as base order. We highlight the exceptional status of Grewendorf’s examples, build on scope facts as well as a quantitative acceptability rating study, and exploit the fact that zeigen can also be used as inherently reflexive with idiomatic meaning. Appealing to the base configuration of the pieces of idiomatic expressions and considering different Spell-Out possibilities of coreferential objects in German, we show that the case, number, and gender underspecification of the anaphor sich poses a previously unnoticed problem for derivational approaches to binding.

Highlights

The base order of internal arguments in German double object constructions has been argued to be determinable by binding facts
Consistent with our data in (3), the scope reconstruction effects in (4–5), and generalizations (6a–b), we argue for the structure in Figure 1 as the base configuration of the verbal argument domain
All the potentially ditransitive verbs discussed here, which have been used in the literature to argue for direct object (DO)(ACC) > indirect object (IO)(DAT) as underlying order based on object coreference binding facts like those discovered by Grewendorf, have an inherently reflexive use

Summary

Introduction

The base order of internal arguments in German double object constructions has been argued to be determinable by binding facts (see, e.g., [1,2,3]). Interference one binding possibility with the other is unexpected on the view that possibilities it can be, and usually is, subject-oriented, but it can be object-oriented. Of one Interference of one binding possibility with the other is unexpected on the view that aaa pronoun is (a part of) one the same nominal as its antecedent underlyingly. Interference of one binding possibility with the other is unexpected on the view that reflexive pronoun is (a (a part part of) of). This clearly clearly speaks against a derivational derivational bindingThis account This speaks against a binding account of object coreference. German object binding (as proposed, e.g., in [9,10,11,12]) of German object coreference

Shedding

Evidence

The Exceptional

Insertion

Deletion

Conclusions