Overview of Anaphoric Relations in English and Polish.

Jacek Witkoś ([e-mail])

School of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Anaphoric relations involving the anaphoric pronoun (reflexive and reciprocal: himself, herself, each other etc. or swój, siebie) and its antecedent show an inherent asymmetry:

(1) Binding (antecedent/anaphor relationship):

%The antecedent must c-command the anaphor within a local domain (nominal phrase or clause).

(2) A c-commands B iff: the first branching node dominating A dominates B.

(3)

X

A Z

K B

(4)

1. John washed himself.

b. S

NP VP

V NP

John washed himself

(5)

1. *John's mother washed himself.

b.

S

NP VP

NP N V NP

John's mother washed himself

(6)

a. John showed Mary to herself in the mirror.

b.

S

NP VP

V VP

NP VP

V PP

John showed Mary to herself

(7) Proper binding and blocking effects:

a. * Antecedent … … Blocker … … Anaphor

b. Mary₁ washed herself₁ in the stream.

c. Mary₁ read [a book about herself₁/*her₁]

d. Mary₁ read [John's₂ book about *herself₁/her₁]

e. Peter found [Mary's picture of herself]

f. Mary₁ believes [_IP herself₁/*her₁ to be the brightest student in the class]

g. Mary₁ believes [_IP *herself₁/she₁ is the brightest student in the class]

h. They₁ expected [_IP *each other₁/they₁ would win]

(8) Ambiguity between anaphors and pronouns in English:

a. They₁ sold [_NP their₁/each other₁'s books].

b. They₁ put the books [_.beside them₁/each other₁]

(9) Logophors; binding without c-commanding antecedents:

a. Apart from myself only three members protested.

b. A picture of myself would be nice on the wall.

c. Lucie said that a picture of herself/her] would be nice on the wall.

d. Lucie made the doctor read a detailed analysis of herself/myself.

e. Bill₁ knew that it would take [a picture of himself₁ with Gorbachev] to win Mary's attention.

f. Bill₁ thought that nothing could make [a picture of himself₁ in The Times] acceptable to Sandy.

(10) Movement and binding (Reconstruction):

a. [each other's₁ parents] seem [_S to please the two boys₁ t ]]

a'. seem [_S to please the two boys₁ [each other's₁ parents]]]

b. [which picture of himself] did John leave in his old jacket?

b'. John left [which picture of himself] in his old jacket?

c. Bill₂ wonders [[which picture of himself_1/2] John₁ lost t]

c'. Bill₂ wonders [John₁ lost [which picture of himself_1/2]]

Anaphoric Binding in Polish.

(11)

NOM. ____

GEN. siebie

DAT. sobie

ACC. siebie

INSTR. (ze/with) sobą

LOC. (o/about) sobie

VOC. ____

In Acc the strong form of the anaphoric pronoun sobie/self can be replaced by the clitic form się/self_CL. The form swój/self's is used as a reflexive possessive pronoun and it declines like adjectives, that is it must agree with the noun it modifies in its morphological case, number and gender.

(12)

a. Maria₁ zgubiła swoją₁ torbę.

Mary lost self's _SG,FEM. bag_ACC

`Mary lost her bag.'

b. Chłopcy₁ zostawili swoje₁ zabawki.

boys left self's_PL.MSC toys _ACC

`The boys left their toys.'

The reciprocal form of the pronoun is sobie/self, sobie nawzajem/self reciprocally, each other or, rarely, jeden drugiego/one another.

(13)

a. Piotr₁ często mówi o sobie₁/*nim₁.

Piotr often talks about self/*him

`Piotr often talks about himself/*him.'

b. [ich₁ książki o sobie₁/*nich₁] wzbudziły nasze zainteresowanie.

their books about self/*them aroused our interest

`Their books about themselves/each other/*them aroused our interest.'

(14) Fewer blocking effects for binding in Polish:

a. Piotr₁ kazał Michałowi₂ [PRO₂ przeczytać [Basi₃ książkę o sobie_1/2/3]].

Piotr told Michael (to)read Basia's book about self

`Piotr told Michael to read Basia's book about herself.'

b. Maria₁ mówi [ że Piotr₂ pisze do *siebie₁/niej₁ listy].

Maria says that Piotr writes to self/her letters

Maria says that Peter writes letters to her.'

c. Piotr₁ pytał [[które książki o sobie_2,*1/nim₁] Maria₂ już przeczytała t]?

Piotr asked which books about self/him Maria already read

Piotr asked which books about herself/him Maria had already read?'

(15)

1. Piotr₁ czytał [Marii₂ książkę o sobie_1,2].

Piotr read Maria's book about self

`Piotr read Maria's book about herself/him.'

2. Piotr₁ kazał Michałowi₂ [ PRO₂ przeczytać [Marii₃ książkę o sobie_1,2,3]].

Piotr told Michael (to)read Maria's books about self

`Piotr told Michael to read Maria's book about herself/him.'

However, the reflexive pronoun in Polish is restricted in its binding properties by the feature of strong subject orientation: the subject of both the clause and the NP always makes a prominent antecedent.

(16)

a. Piotr₁ pokazał Marii₂ książkę o sobie_1/*2.

Piotr showed Maria book about self

`Piotr showed Maria a book about himself.'

b. Chłopcy₁ pokazali dziewczynkom₂ swoje_1,*2 obrazki.

boys showed girls self's pictures

`The boys showed their pictures to the girls.'

c. Piotr₁ zauważył dwóch jeźdźców₂ na swoich_1/??2/ich₂ koniach.

Piotr noticed two horsemen on self's/their horses

`Piotr noticed two horsemen on his/their horses.'

(17) Subject orientation of reflexives and lack thereof in reciprocals:

a. Piotr₁ opowiedział dziewczynie₂ o sobie_1/*2.

Piotr told girl about self

`Piotr told the girl about himself.'

b. Piotr₁ opowiedział dziewczynom₂ [o sobie_1/2(nawzajem)].

Piotr told girls about self/each other

`Piotr told the girls about himself/each other.'

c. Piotr₁ położył deski₂ na siebie_1/2

Piotr put planks on self

'Piotr put the planks on top of himself/each other.'

d. Maria₁ skłóciła sąsiadów₂ ze sobą_1/2

Maria conflicted neighbours with self

`Maria caused a conflict between the neighbours and her/among the neighbours themselves.'

(18) Differences between active participles and passive participles:

a. Piotr₁ spotkał [mężczyznę₂ [wydanego policji przez swoją_1/2 żonę]]

Piotr met man reported to police by self's wife

`Piotr met the man reported to the police by his wife.'

b. Piotr₁ spotkał [mężczyznę₂ [kochającego swoją_2/*1 żonę]]

Piotr met man loving self's wife

`Piotr met a man loving his wife.'

(19) Distance and ambiguity between pronouns and anaphors in Polish:

a. On₁ zgubił swoje₁/*jego₁ zdjęcie.

he lost self's/his picture

`He lost his picture.'

b. On₁ zgubił [trzy nowe zdjęcia swojej₁/?jego₁ mamy w nowym kapeluszu]

he lost three pictures (of) self's/his mother in new hat

`He lost three pictures of his mother in a new hat.'

c. On₁ zgubił pięć swoich₁ zabawek.

he lost five self's toys

`He lost his five toys.'

d. On₁ zgubił pięć ze swoich₁/?z jego₁ nowych zabawek.

he lost five of self's/his new toys

`He lost five of his new toys.'

e. On₁ czytał [ksiazkę o sobie₁]

he read book about self

`He read a book about himself.'

f. On₁ czytał [książkę Marii₂ o sobie_1/2/?nim₁]

he read book Maria's about self/him

`He read Maria's book about him.'

(20) No logophors in Polish; a c-commanding antecedent is a strict condition:

a. *Listy do siebie dobrze wyglądają na ścianie.

letters to self good look on the wall

b. [listy do siebie₁] dobrze jest [ PRO₁ wieszać t na ścianie].

letters to self good is to hang on the wall

`It is good to hang letters to oneself on the wall.'

c. *[swoje najlepsze zdjęcia] dobrze wyglądają na najwyższej półce.

self's best pictures good look on top shelf

d. [swoje₁ zdjęcia] dobrze jest [ PRO₁ stawiać t na najwyższej półce].

self's best pictures good is stand on top shelf

`It is good to put one's best pictures on the top shelf.'

(21) Object experiencer predicates and binding in English again:

a. [each other's Oscar nominations] surprised the Browns.

b. [the picture of himself in the Mirror] enraged Bill.

(22) In similar cases in Polish the object binds into the subject:

a. *?[listy od siebie₁ (nawzajem)] zafascynowały narzeczonych₁.

letters from self (reciprocally)_NOM fascinated the fiancée_ACC

b. Narzeczonych₁ zafascynowały [listy od siebie₁ (nawzajem)].

fiancee_ACC fascinated [letters from self (reciprocally)]_NOM

`The fiancee were fascinated by the letters from each other.'

c. *?W końcu [_NP stos pocztówek od siebie_k (nawzajem)] zasypał chlopców_k.

in end [pile (of) postcards from each other]_NOM buried boys_ACC

d. ?W końcu chłopców_k zasypał [_NP stos pocztówek od siebie_k (nawzajem)].

in end boys_ACC buried pile (of) postcards from each other

`In the end a pile of postcards from each other buried the boys.'

(23) (23b) and (23d) are ambiguous as a result of inverse binding:

a. [_NP stos książek Kowalskich_i o sobie_i/*k ] zasypał Nowaków_k.

[pile (of) books Kowalskis' about each other]_NOM buried Nowaks_ACC

`A pile of Kowalskis' books about themselves/each other buried the Nowaks.'

b. Nowaków_k zasypał [_NP stos książek Kowalskich_i o sobie_i/k ]

Nowaks_ACC buried [pile (of) books Kowalskis' about each other]_NOM

`A pile of Kowalskis' books about themselves/each other buried the Nowaks.'

c. [_NP nowe książki Kowalskich_i o sobie_i/*k ] przeraziły Nowaków_k.

[new books Kowalskis' about each other]_NOM frightened Nowaks_ACC

`New Kowalskis' books about themselves/each other frightened the Nowaks.'

d. Nowaków_k przeraziły [_NP nowe książki Kowalskich_i o sobie_i/k ]

Nowaks_ACC frightened [new books Kowalskis' about each other]_NOM

`New Kowalskis' books about themselves/each other frightened the Nowaks.'

(24) Two subject-oriented anaphors with different binders:

Nowaków_k przeraziły [_NP książki Kowalskich_i o sobie_i/k ]_z z powodu ich_z/swojej_z brutalnej szczerości.

Nowaks_ACC frightened [books Kowalskis' about each other]_NOM because of self's brutal honesty

`Kowalskis' books about themselves/each other frightened the Nowaks because of self's brutal honesty.'

(25) Reconstruction:

a. [te właśnie listy od siebie (nawzajem)] pokazał Piotr wczoraj dziewczynom?

a'. pokazał Piotr [ t wczoraj [_VP dziewczynom ... {te listy do siebie (nawzajem)}]?

b. [które listy od siebie (nawzajem)] pokazali Kowalscy Nowakom?

b'. pokazali Kowalscy [ {które listy do siebie (nawzajem)} [_VP Nowakom ... t ... ]]

b”. pokazali Kowalscy [ t [_VP Nowakom ... {które listy do siebie (nawzajem)} ]]

(26) Conclusions:

a. Condition on c-command holds in both languages;

b. Little blocking in Polish (subjects are always good antecedents);

c. Polish has subject oriented reflexives but not reciprocals;

d. No logophors in Polish.

Where does binding apply?

Chomsky's (1995:272-76): the set of formal features (FF) moving in LF to adjoin to relevant functional head positions, contains Case and φ features and has properties of A-movement.

(27)

a. the DA [proved [the defendants₁ to be guilty] during each other₁'s trails]

b. *the DA [proved [that the defendants₁ were guilty] during each other₁'s trails]

c. the DA accused the defendants₁ [during each other₁'s trials]

d. there arrived (last night) three men₁ [without PRO₁ identifying themselves]

Binding and control in LF are a consequence of feature raising for Case checking reasons.

(28) Apparent problems:

a *there seem to each other [t to have been many linguists given good job offers]

b. Many linguists seem to each other to have been given good job offers.

Solution: LF cliticization of the anaphor to T (α )and feature movement of the subject to T, they find themselves in a configuration of mutual c-command, insufficient for binding:

(29) [_Infl Infl [_FF (linguists)] [α]]

This configuration does not arise where the binder is in [spec,T], as in (28a).

However, Lasnik (1999) and Lasnik and Hendrick (2003) question the account of feature binding:

(30)

a. *The DA proved [there to have been two men at the scene] during each other's trials.

b. The DA proved [two men to have been at the scene] during each other's trials.

The raising of features of two men to the matrix verb in (30a) for Case checking should establish a licit binding configuration. Lasnik proposes to account for this fact by assuming that object raising (and Object Shift, OS in general) takes place in overt syntax in English.

If OS applies in English and, likewise, the associate moves overtly to its Partitive case position, the examples in (31) need not show binding in LF:

(31)

a. There arrived two knights on each other's horses.

b. I saw two men on each other's birthdays.

(32) Lasnik's Generalisation:

LF movement does not expand the binding domain of the antecedent.

(33) More evidence for lack of LF movement of the associate (Den Dikken 1995)

a. There aren't many people in the room.

b. Many people are not in the room.

c. [_IP [many people] are [_NegP not [_PP{many people} in the room]]].

c. many > not

d. not > many

(34) Reductionist approaches to binding as movement: the binder and the reflexive form a constituent:

a. Hornstein (2000):

John washed himself.

[_IP John [_vP John washed [{John}+self as a case bearer]]]

b. Zwart (2002):

John washed himself.

[_IP John [_vP John washed [John [him+coref]]]]

Non-local and inverse binding must be treated as logophoric relations:

(35) John wondered [which picture of himself Peter sold t?]

Boskovic and Takahashi (1998) show inverse binding in Japanese:

(36) [_IP [Mary to Pam]-ni [_IP [otagai-no hahaoya]-ga atta]].

Mary and Pam-DAT each other-GEN mother-NOM met

`Mary and Pam, each other's mothers met.'

Polish does not allow for logophoric relations, yet it seems to allow for inverse binding of reciprocals (ex. 22-24).

Selected references:

Anderson, S. and P. Kiparsky (eds.). 1973. A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Belletti, A. And R. Rizzi. 1988. Psych Verbs and Theta Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291-352.

Bošković, Ž and D. Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistics Inquiry 29: 347-66.

Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. and P. Kiparsky (eds.). 232-86.

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 1988/2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.). 89-156.

Chomsky, N. 1999. Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.

Chomsky, N. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. Ms. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Den Dikken, M. 1995. Binding, Expletives and Levels. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 347-54.

Epstein, S. D. , Groat, E., Kawashima, R. and H. Kitahara. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: OUP.

Epstein, S.D. and N. Hornstein (eds.). 1999. Working minimalism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Fox, D. 1999. Reconstruction, Binding Theory and the Interpretation of Chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157-196.

Hendric, R. (ed). 2003. Minimal syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Hornstein, N. 1995. Logical form: From GB to minimalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Hornstein, N. 2000. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lasnik, H. and R. Hendric. 2003. Steps toward a minimal theory of anaphora. In Hendric, R. (ed). 125-151.

Lebeaux, D. 1998. Where does the binding theory apply? NEC Research Institute Technical Report.

Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.). 2000. Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in hounour of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Tajsner, P. 1998. Minimalism and functional thematization. Poznań: Motivex.

Willim, E. 1989. On word order. A government-binding study of English and Polish. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

Witkoś, J. 2003. Movement and Reconstruction: Questions and Principle C effects in English and Polish. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.

8

---