Universal #1323

Legacy number: 1323

 Number  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

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
In Marathi and Oriya (both Indo-Aryan, Indo-European) long-distance binding of polymorphemic reflexives is possible (Subbarao 1998: 19).
Notes
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.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
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):


<table class = "textTable">
<tr>
<td>(1)</td>
<td> </td>
<td>Tom(i) thinks Bill(j) knows Harry(k) likes himself(*i)/(*j)/(k).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>(2)</td>
<td> </td>
<td>Zhangsan(i) renwei Lisi(j) zhidao Wangwu(k) xihuan ziji(i)/(j)/(k).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>[Zhangsan think Lisi know Wangwu like self]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>'Zhangsan thinks Lisi knows Wangwu likes him/himself.'</td>
</tr>
</table>

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.