1932

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the various means that languages use to represent interpretive dependencies and reflexive predicates. These means are exemplified on the basis of a broad variety of languages. The patterns are prima facie complex, involving semireflexives, full reflexives, and affixal reflexives. Yet they can be accounted for on the basis of the morphosyntactic properties of the elements involved, together with the way these elements interact with a number of universal principles and the syntactic environment. The central principles involved are () a principle restricting chain formation by Agree and () a general principle applying to reflexive predicates that requires them to be licensed, either through the addition of structural complexity for protection or through a lexical bundling operation, governed by () an economy principle. Although I conclude that there is no unified notion of what a reflexive is, reflexives do have a shared core, namely their role in the licensing of reflexivity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045500
2018-01-14
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/4/1/annurev-linguistics-011817-045500.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045500&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abels K. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding PhD thesis, Univ. Conn., Storrs [Google Scholar]
  2. Amiridze N. 2006. Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian Utrecht, Neth.: LOT Int. Diss. Ser. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anagnostopoulou E, Everaert M. 2013. Identifying anaphoric dependencies. Diagnosing Syntax L Cheng, N Corver 341–70 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  4. Baauw S, Delfitto D. 2005. New views on reflexivity: delay effects in acquisition, cross-modular Principle B and reflexive clitics in Romance. Probus 17:145–84 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boeckx C, Hornstein N, Nunes J. 2007. Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: a movement analysis. Univ. Md. Work. Pap. Linguist. 15:1–46 [Google Scholar]
  6. Büring D. 2005. Binding Theory Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Charnavel I, Sportiche D. 2016. Anaphor binding: what French inanimate anaphors show. Linguist. Inq. 47:35–89 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use New York: Praeger [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky N. 1995. The Minimalist Program Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language M Kenstowicz 3–52 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky N. 2008. On phases. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud C Otero, ML Zubizarreta 133–66 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  13. Cole P, Hermon G, Huang C-TJ. 2001. Syntax and Semantics 33 Long-Distance Reflexives San Diego: Academic [Google Scholar]
  14. Cole P, Hermon G, Sung L-M. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguist. Inq. 21:1–23 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cole P, Hermon G, Tjung Y, Sim C-Y, Kim C. 2008. A Binding Theory–exempt anaphor. Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations E König, V Gast 77–591 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  16. Cole P, Hermon G, Yanti R. 2015. Grammar of binding in the languages of the world: innate or learned?. Cognition 141:138–60 [Google Scholar]
  17. Corbett GG. 2000. Number Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Déchaine R-M, Wiltschko M. 2017. A formal typology of reflexives. Stud. Linguist. 71:60–106 [Google Scholar]
  19. Despić M. 2015. Phases, reflexives, and definiteness. Syntax 18:201–34 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dimitriadis A. 2000. Beyond identity: topics in pronominal and reciprocal anaphora PhD thesis, Univ. Pa Philadelphia: [Google Scholar]
  21. Dimitriadis A, Everaert M. 2014. How many theta-roles in a reflexive verb. ? Acta Linguist. Hung. 61:247–69 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dimitriadis A, Que M. 2009. The doubly marked reflexive in Chinese. Anaphora Processing and Applications SL Devi, A Branco, R Mitkov 80–90 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  23. Dixon RMW. 1988. A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Evans N, Levinson SC. 2009. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 32:429–92 [Google Scholar]
  25. Everaert M. 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris [Google Scholar]
  26. Everaert M, Marelj M, Reuland E. 2016. Concepts, Syntax, and Their Interface: The Theta System Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Faltz L. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study on Universal Syntax New York/London: Garland: [Google Scholar]
  28. Farmer A, Harnish R. 1987. Communicative reference with pronouns. The Pragmatic Perspective V Jef, M Bertuccelli-Papi 547–65 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  29. Frajzyngier Z, Curl T. 2000. Reflexives: Forms and Functions Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  30. Franssen F. 2010. Australian and Austronesian anaphora: an archival approach MA thesis, Utrecht Univ Utrecht, Neth.: [Google Scholar]
  31. Geniušiene E. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  32. Giorgi A. 1984. Toward a theory of long distance anaphors: a GB approach. Linguist. Rev. 3:307–61 [Google Scholar]
  33. Grodzinsky Y, Reinhart T. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguist. Inq. 24:69–101 [Google Scholar]
  34. Harbour D. 2014. Paucity, abundance and the theory of number. Language 90:185–229 [Google Scholar]
  35. Heim I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases PhD thesis, Univ. Mass Amherst: [Google Scholar]
  36. Heim I, Kratzer A. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar Malden, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  37. Heine B, Miyashita H. 2008. The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: a grammaticalization perspective. Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations K Ekkehard, V Gast 169–225 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  38. Hellan L. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris [Google Scholar]
  39. Hicks G. 2009. The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoekstra J. 1994. Pronouns and case: on the distribution of Frisian harren and se ‘them’. Leuvense Bijdr. 83:47–65 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hornstein N. 2000. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal Oxford, UK:: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  42. Hualde JI, Ortiz de Urbina J. 2003. A Grammar of Basque Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  43. Huang C-TJ. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  44. Jackendoff R. 1992. Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 10:1–33 [Google Scholar]
  45. Jayaseelan KA. 1997. Anaphors as pronouns. Stud. Linguist. 51:186–234 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kartono B. 2013. A puzzle in binding: half reflexives and locally bound pronouns. A comparative study of anaphoric systems in Indonesian, Javanese, Palembangnese, City Jambi and Village Jambi MA thesis, Utrecht Univ Utrecht, Neth.: [Google Scholar]
  47. Keenan E. 1988. On semantics and the binding theory. Explaining Language Universals J Hawkins 105–44 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  48. König E, Gast V. 2008. Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  49. König E, Siemund P. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: a typological perspective. In Frajzyngier & Curl 2000 41–74
  50. Koornneef AW, Reuland E. 2016. On the shallow processing (dis)advantage: grammar and economy. Front. Psychol. 7:82 [Google Scholar]
  51. Koster J. 1985. Reflexives in Dutch. Grammatical Representation J Guéron, H-G Obenauer, JY Pollock 141–68 Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris [Google Scholar]
  52. Koster J, Reuland E. 1991. Long-Distance Anaphora Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  53. Kratzer A. 2009. Making a pronoun: fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguist. Inq. 40:187–237 [Google Scholar]
  54. Labelle M. 2008. The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 26:833–76 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lasnik H. 1989. Essays on Anaphora Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  56. Leben W. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  57. Legate JA. 2014. Voice and v Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Levinson SC. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  59. Liu Y. 2016. Chinese zi: linking reflexivization and binding MA thesis, Utrecht Univ Utrecht, Neth.: [Google Scholar]
  60. Lust B, Wali K, Gair J, Subbarao KV. 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  61. Marelj M. 2004. Middles and Argument Structure Across Languages Utrecht, Neth.: LOT Int. Diss. Ser. [Google Scholar]
  62. Marelj M, Reuland E. 2016. Deriving reflexives—deriving the lexicon syntax parameter. In Everaert et al. 2016 175–252
  63. May R. 1977. The grammar of quantification PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  64. Mchombo SA. 2004. The Syntax of Chichewa Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Menuzzi S. 1999. Binding Theory and Pronominal Anaphora in Brazilian Portuguese The Hague: Holland Acad. Graph. [Google Scholar]
  66. Moyse-Faurie C. 2008. Constructions expressing middle, reflexive and reciprocal situations in some Oceanic languages. König & Gast 2008 105–68
  67. Moyse-Faurie C. 2017. Reflexives markers in Oceanic languages. Stud. Linguist. 71:107–35 [Google Scholar]
  68. Muysken P. 1993. Reflexes of Ibero-Romance reflexive clitic + verb combinations in Papiamentu: thematic grids and grammatical relations. Focus and Grammatical Relations in Creole Languages F Byrne, D Winford 285–301 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  69. Nikolaeva I. 1995. Obdorskij dialekt chantyjskogo jazyka [The Obdorsk Dialect of Ostyak] Hamburg, Ger.: Mitt. Soc. Uralo-Altai. In Russian [Google Scholar]
  70. Nikolaeva I. 1999. Ostyak Munich, Ger.: Lincom Eur. [Google Scholar]
  71. Papangeli D. 2004. The Morphosyntax of Argument Realization: Greek Argument Structure and the Lexicon-Syntax Interface Utrecht, Neth.: LOT Int. Diss. Ser. [Google Scholar]
  72. Pesetsky D, Torrego E. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation S Karimi, V Samiian, W Wilkins 262–94 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  73. Pica P. 1985. Subject, tense and truth: towards a modular approach to binding. Grammatical Representation J Guéron, H-G Obenauer, JY Pollock 259–91 Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris [Google Scholar]
  74. Pica P. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS 17) J McDonough 483–99 Amherst, MA: Grad. Stud. Linguist. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  75. Pollard C, Sag I. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguist. Inq. 23:261–305 [Google Scholar]
  76. Reinhart T. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  77. Reinhart T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation London: Croom Helm [Google Scholar]
  78. Reinhart T. 2002. The theta system: an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28 W Sternefeld 229–90 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  79. Reinhart T. 2006. Interface Strategies: Reference Set Computation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  80. Reinhart T. 2016. The Theta System: syntactic realization of verbal concepts. Concepts, Syntax, and Their Interface: The Theta System Martin E, M Marelj, E Reuland 1–113 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  81. Reinhart T, Reuland E. 1991. Anaphors and logophors: an argument structure perspective. See Koster & Reuland 1991 283–321
  82. Reinhart T, Reuland E. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguist. Inq. 24:657–720 [Google Scholar]
  83. Reinhart T, Siloni T. 2005. The lexicon–syntax parameter: reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguist. Inq. 36:389–436 [Google Scholar]
  84. Reuland E. 1995. Primitives of binding Presented at Conf. Gener. Linguist. Old World, 18th (GLOW 18), Tromsø, Nor. [Google Scholar]
  85. Reuland E. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguist. Inq. 32:439–92 [Google Scholar]
  86. Reuland E. 2011a. Anaphora and Language Design Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  87. Reuland E. 2011b. Syntax and interpretation systems: How is their labour divided?. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism C Boeckx 377–95 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  88. Reuland E. 2017a. Why is reflexivity so special? Understanding the world of reflexives. Stud. Linguist. 71:12–59 [Google Scholar]
  89. Reuland E. 2017b. Icelandic logophoric anaphora. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax M Everaert, H van Riemsdijk Oxford, UK: Blackwell. , 2nd rev. ed.. In press [Google Scholar]
  90. Reuland E. 2017c. Grammar of binding in the languages of the world: unity versus diversity. Cognition 168:370–79 [Google Scholar]
  91. Reuland E, Winter Y. 2009. Binding without identity: towards a unified semantics for bound and exempt anaphors. Anaphora Processing and Applications LD Sobha, A Branco, R Mitkov 69–79 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  92. Richards N. 2002. A distinctness condition on linearization. Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 20) K Megerdoomian, LA Bar-el 470–83 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  93. Rooryck J, Vanden Wyngaerd G. 2011. Dissolving Binding Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  94. Ross JR. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  95. Ross JR. 1970. On declarative sentences. Readings in English Transformational Grammar AJ Roderick, PS Rosenbaum 222–72 Waltham, MA: Ginn [Google Scholar]
  96. Rudnev P. 2017. Minimal pronouns, logophoricity and long-distance reflexivisation in Avar. Stud. Linguist. 71:154–77 [Google Scholar]
  97. Safir K. 2004. The Syntax of Anaphora Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  98. Safir K. 2014. One true anaphor. Linguist. Inq. 45:91–124 [Google Scholar]
  99. Schadler D. 2014. Reflexivity: Licensing or Enforcing Utrecht, Neth.: LOT Int. Diss. Ser. [Google Scholar]
  100. Schadler D. 2017. Reflexivity in two Zhuang dialects. Stud. Linguist. 71:136–53 [Google Scholar]
  101. Schladt M. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. Frajzyngier & Curl 2000 103–24
  102. Toldova S. 1999. Mestoimennye sredstva podderžanija referencii [Pronominal means of reference tracking]. Elementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Studies in Tsakhur: A Typological Perspective] A Kibrik, Y Testelets 629–74 Moscow: Nasledie. In Russian [Google Scholar]
  103. Tucker AN, Bryan MA. 1966. Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa London: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  104. Van Gelderen E. 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns: Person, Self, and Interpretability Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  105. Vinokurova N. 2005. Lexical Categories and Argument Structure: A Study with Reference to Sakha Utrecht, Neth.: LOT Int. Diss. Ser. [Google Scholar]
  106. Volkova A. 2014. Licensing Reflexivity: Unity and Variation Among Selected Uralic Languages Utrecht, Neth.: LOT Int. Diss. Ser. [Google Scholar]
  107. Volkova A, Reuland E. 2014. Reflexivity without reflexives?. Linguist. Rev. 31:587–633 [Google Scholar]
  108. Volkova A. 2017. Reflexivity in Meadow Mari: Binding and Agree. Stud. Linguist. 71:178–204 [Google Scholar]
  109. Winter Y. 2016. Elements of Formal Semantics: An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Meaning in Natural Language Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  110. Wong S. 2017. Investigating Mandarin Chinese zi-V reflexive verbs Utrecht Univ Utrecht, Neth.: [Google Scholar]
  111. Zec D. 1985. Objects in Serbo-Croatian. Berkeley Linguist. Soc. 11:358–71 [Google Scholar]
  112. Zeijlstra H. 2012. There is only one way to agree. Linguist. Rev. 29:491–539 [Google Scholar]
  113. Zribi-Hertz A. 1989. A-type binding and narrative point of view. Language 65:695–727 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045500
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045500
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error