Skip to content

Universal 1319:

Posted in Universals Archive

Universal 1319:

Original
Monomorphemic reflexives can take long-distance antecedents whereas polymorphemic reflexives cannot.
Standardized
IF a reflexive can take long-distance antecedents, THEN it is monomorphemic.
IF a reflexive cannot take long-distance antecedents, THEN it is polymorphemic.
Keywords
binding, reflexive, long-distance reflexive
Domain
morphology, syntax
Type
no genuine implication; rather: provided that
Status
achronic
Quality
absolute
Basis
Chinese (Sino-Tibetan), Korean (Altaic), English, Italian, Icelandic (all Indo-European)
Source
Cole & Sung 1994: 365
Counterexamples
In Marathi and Oriya (both Indo-Aryan, Indo-European) long-distance binding of polymorphemic reflexives is possible (Subbarao 1998: 19).

One Comment

  1. FP
    FP

    By long-distance binding we mean a reflexive occurring in a lower clause being coindexed with an antecedent in a higher clause which is a violation of Principle A of the Binding Theory. Reflexives in English must have local antecedents whereas those in Chinese can take antecedents indefinitely far from the anaphor (Cole & Sung 1994: 355):(1) Tom(i) thinks Bill(j) knows Harry(k) likes himself(*i)/(*j)/(k).(2) Zhangsan(i) renwei Lisi(j) zhidao Wangwu(k) xihuan ziji(i)/(j)/(k). [Zhangsan think Lisi know Wangwu like self] ‘Zhangsan thinks Lisi knows Wangwu likes him/himself.’To account for long-distance binding Cole & Sung suggest that the monomorphemic reflexives (X° elements) involve head movement from Infl to Infl of the higher clause. They rule out long-distance binding of polymorphemic reflexives as head to head movement of XP level categories is not permissible in such cases.

    1. May 2020

Comments are closed.