Split Antecedents Research Articles

(Under)specification Counts: When Nonlocal Anaphors Are Not Exempt

We explore the proposal in Charnavel 2019, 2020 that nonlocal anaphor binding is only apparent and reduces to local binding by a silent pronominal element—prolog—as the subject of a logophoric operator OPLOG in the left periphery of the anaphor’s local domain. Like any pronominal, prolog can be valued by a distant antecedent and should license split antecedents and partial binding for the anaphor it binds. We show that ϕ-deficient anaphors in different language families allow nonlocal binding, while disallowing split antecedents and partial binding, contra the main hypothesis of the prolog approach. We describe a Multiple Agree–based analysis that accounts for the patterns observed.

Passive do so

The received view is that the VP pro-form do so cannot be a verbal passive, although it can be unaccusative. I show that this is incorrect: do so can be passive. It can also take a raising to subject verb as its antecedent. This means that do so is compatible with all types of A-movement, although it does not permit A-bar movement of an object. I construct an analysis of do so where it is simply an intransitive verb plus an adverb. Do so combines with a Voice head, which can be unaccusative, passive, or active transitive. The subject of do so is base-generated in Spec-VoiceP, and does not move in unaccusatives or passives. Instead, do so must copy a function from its antecedent in the semantics. The subject of do so can be interpreted semantically as an internal argument if Voice is passive or unaccusative and the antecedent includes a trace, because of the way lambda abstraction works in A-movement. This analysis reconciles the evidence against movement in do so itself with arguments for A-movement in its antecedent. The copy mechanism explains voice and category mismatches, as well as split antecedents and ellipsis-containing antecedents.

Split-antecedent relative clauses and the symmetry of predicates

This paper presents the results of two experiments in German testing the acceptabilityof (non-)restrictive relative clauses (NRCs/RRCs) with split antecedents (SpAs). Accordingto Moltmann (1992), SpAs are only grammatical if their parts occur within the conjuncts ofa coordinate structure and if they have identical grammatical functions. Non-conjoined SpAsthat form the subject and the object of a transitive verb are predicted to be ungrammatical. Ourstudy shows that the acceptability of such examples improves significantly if the predicate thatrelates the parts of the SpA is symmetric. Moreover, it suggests that NRCs and RRCs behavedifferently in these cases with respect to the SpA-construal. We can make sense of this observationif we follow Winter (2016) in assuming that transitive symmetric predicates have to beanalyzed as unary collective predicates and thus provide a collective antecedent for the RC atthe semantic (not the syntactic) level. As we will argue, this accounts for some of the disagreementwe found in the literature and gives us new insights into both the semantics of symmetricpredicates and the semantics of NRCs.Keywords: non-restrictive relative clause, restrictive relative clause, symmetric predicate, splitantecedent.

Reflexivity in Meadow Mari: Binding and Agree

AbstractAccording to the Canonical Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981), anaphors must be bound in their local domain and pronominals must be free. The discovery of “long‐distance anaphors” (e.g. Thrainsson 1976, Giorgi 1984), which violate the locality condition, induced the search for independent criteria. Giorgi (1984:310) proposed a widely adopted criterion: “pronouns can have split antecedents and anaphors cannot”. Recent minimalist binding theories derive this property of anaphors from the way a dependency on the antecedent is established which makes it intrinsic to binding. However, this leads to an important problem, since some languages have elements that i) may be locally bound and, hence, look like anaphors; yet ii) allow split antecedents which is a property of pronouns (e.g. Japanese and Korean, Katada 1991, Kasai 2000). In this paper I analyze the data of another such language, namely Meadow Mari (Uralic), and show that such facts require a modular approach to binding (see Reuland 2011). I further argue that here the left periphery contains the relevant factor.

Modifier-sharing constructions in Korean

This paper discusses modifier-sharing constructions, which exhibit two split antecedents sharing one modifier. We examine Korean modifier-sharing...

Constraints on the formation of plural reference objects: The influence of role, conjunction, and type of description

This paper examines the use of singular and plural pronominal references to split antecedents such as John and Mary. Current opinion suggests that under the right circumstances, singular reference should be difficult, and plural reference facilitated, but currently only the first of the these predictions has been demonstrated. We report four experiments that explore the preferences for plural and singular pronouns following split antecedents, and through eye-tracking data show predicted effects for plural references as well as for singular. Experiments 3 and 4 show that when one character is introduced by name and the other by role description, people produce less plural continuations, but do not show evidence of a reduction in the facilitation of reading plural pronouns. This suggests that the use of and forces the availability of a plural reference object. The results are consistent with the view that the assignment of characters to common thematic roles supports plural reference.

Non-Redundancy: Towards a Semantic Reinterpretation of Binding Theory

In Generative Grammar, Binding Theory has traditionally been considered a part of syntax, in the sense that some derivations that would otherwise be interpretable are ruled out by purely formal principles. Thus Hei likes himiwould in standard semantic theories yield a perfectly acceptable interpretation; it is only because of Condition B that the sentence is deviant on its coreferential reading. We explore an alternative in which some binding-theoretic principles (esp. Condition C, Condition B, Condition A, a modified version of the Locality of Variable Binding argued for by A. Kehler and D. Fox, and Weak and Strong Crossover) follow from the interpretive procedure – albeit a somewhat nonstandard one. In a nutshell, these principles are taken to reflect the way in which sequences of evaluation are constructed in the course of the interpretation of a sentence. The bulk of the work is done by a principle of Non-Redundancy, which prevents any given object from appearing twice in any sequence of evaluation. An account of split antecedents and non-overlapping-reference effects is included in the analysis, and a detailed implementation of a large part of the theory is given in an Appendix.

Reflexive pronouns with split antecedents

It has been firmly held for the past number of decades (and, we would argue, without proper justification) that anaphors cannot take split antecedents. This paper, which is a semantic investigation of the problem of split antecedency, endeavors to make the following points: (1) that the negative connection between anaphors and split antecedents is not necessarily an absolute truth which can be used as a syntactic norm; (2) that the answer to the apparent tendency lies in a very simple semantic constraint on the use of simple sentences in describing events; and (3) that the distinctive and mysterious behavior of picture noun reflexives, which show strong affinity for this type of referential dependency, can be accounted for straightforwardly by applying the semantic constraint of event description.

Accessibility theory in a variable syntax of Spanish

One prediction and one extension derived from Accessibility Theory are explored in response to questions concerning the variable alternation of personal pronominal and null subjects in dialects of Spanish. First, are split antecedents to personal plural subjects informationally inferior to antecedents which are not split? Second, why do the categories of specific and nonspecific second person singular subjects show differing frequencies of null subject expression? With respect to the first question, the answer is no. This contradicts a prediction of Accessibility Theory and calls for a reappraisal of the issue of inferior antecedents. With respect to the second question, the criterion of informativity is extended from its initial scope of specific reference to that of nonspecific reference in order to account for the statistical favoring of pronominal subject expression by nonspecific tú, usted, and uno. However, where Accessibility Theory is unable to account for a favoring of null subjects by nonspecific second person singular tú in Iberian dialects, research from generative treatments of pro arb, provides a basis for, if not explaining, then strongly expecting this particular pattern. Also included, is an analysis of nonspecific second person reference in Latin American dialects which reveals paradigm leveling of the nonspecific tú constraint on subject pronoun expression in the Latin American dialects by analogy to that of nonspecific uno or usted, a direction of change which Accessibility Theory would predict.

A bound pronoun in modern Greek

Modern Greekidhios has different properties depending on its grammatical function. Non-Subjectidhios must have a binder but it does not seem to obey the locality restrictions characteristic of anaphors (Iatridou 1986). Furthermore, it cannot occur in embedded questions or relative clauses thought it can be found in noun complement constructions and adjuncts. In addition it licenses only sloppy identity interpretations under ellipsis and cannot tolerate split antecedents. Subjectidhios differs in every respect. It need not be bound, it can occur in embedded questions and relative clauses. It does not require a sloppy identity interpretation under ellipsis and it can take split antecedents. We show that these properties ofidhios follow from the assumption non-subjectidhios is an A′-bound pronoun. We derive the properties of subjectidhios by showing that it cannot be a bound pronoun as it is subject to an A′-disjointness constraint typical of bound pronouns.

Bound pronominals in Marathi, Telugu and Mizo

The purpose of this paper is to show that the inherent feature classification of nominals suggested in Chomsky (1981) is inadequate to capture cross-linguistic similarities between Marathi a:pan, Dravidian ta:n and Mizo ama:h. We shall show that they are not anaphors as they are not bound in the core local domain and they allow split antecedents. In view of their occurrence in the quantified and interrogative antecedent contexts and their inability to be coindexed freely, we argue that they are not regular pronouns. We propose that they be analysed as bound pronouns and point out that the binding conditions be stated differently. The fact that these bound pronominals, when used in the forbidden local domain, require reduplication or another anaphor or the presence of a verbal reflexive, provide further support to our claim that these be treated as bound pronominals.

On dropping the single mother condition: notes on split controllers, split antecedents and antecedent-contained pro-forms

On dropping the single mother condition: notes on split controllers, split antecedents and antecedent-contained pro-forms