Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns

Paul Kiparsky

63 citations0/0 files storedAkademie Verlag eBooks

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation Language Development and Disorders Historical Linguistics and Language Studies

Abstract

1.1 Accounting for disjoint reference Obviation versus Blocking. Two approaches to the distribution of anaphors and pronominals have been explored in Binding Theory. The OBVIATION approach, originating in Lasnik 1976 and extensively developed in the GB tradition, posits autonomous disjoint reference principles which directly filter out illicit coindexations in certain structural domains. The BLOCKING approach treats disjoint reference derivatively, by making anaphors obligatory under coreference in the binding domain, and invoking a syntactic or pragmatic principle that forces disjoint reference pronominals in the “elsewhere ” case. 1 1 My interest in reflexive pronouns comes partly from historical syntax and partly from the Case theory that Dieter Wunderlich and I have been thinking about since 1991. The first version of this paper was written that year, and I was fortunate to be able to discuss it with Dieter at the time, who made insightful suggestions especially about the Swedish material. I then set it aside for some years, realizing that many of the things I was trying to do were being done in a more sophisticated way by Reinhart & Reuland and by Burzio. Still, my conclusions differed from theirs on some points, and so I returned to the paper in 1996, adding the OT analysis, which was presented at an OT syntax conference at Stanford, and revising it once more for this publication in honor of Dieter Wunderlich. I am grateful to Cleo Condoravdi for her detailed comments on several drafts of this paper and for her advice and encouragement over the years. Special thanks also to Annie Zaenen and Peter Sells for their guidance, and to Ekkehard König and Tomas Riad for the interest they have take in this work. Many people have been generous with their

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 63 citations exist upstream.

References

1993Lectures on Government and Binding 1975Knowledge of Language 2016Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation 1985Old English Syntax 1989The Null Subject Parameter 1987On the Definition of Word 1980On semantics 1991Ellipsis and higher-order unification

Cited by

2005Distinct patterns of language impairment in Down's syndrome and Williams syndrome: The case of syntactic chains 2012Towards a null theory of the passive 2011A new perspective on the historical development of English intensifiers and reflexives 2015Grammar of Binding in the languages of the world: Innate or learned?2004Optimal Binding 2013The diachrony of pronouns and demonstratives 2012Greek Anaphora in Cross-Linguistic Perspective

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.