LINGUIST List 22.2944 Tue Jul 19 2011 Diss: Syntax: Loss: 'Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives' Editor for this issue: Mfon Udoinyang <mfonlinguistlist.org> To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm. Directory         1.     Sara Loss , Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives Message 1: Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives Date: 18-Jul-2011 From: Sara Loss <schm1538umn.edu> Subject: Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives E-mail this message to a friend Institution: University of Minnesota at Twin Cities Program: Linguistics Dissertation Status: Completed Degree Date: 2011 Author: Sara Schmelzer Loss Dissertation Title: Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives Linguistic Field(s): Syntax Dissertation Director: Hooi Ling Soh Benjamin Munson Jean-Philippe Marcotte Jeanette K Gundel Dissertation Abstract: This dissertation investigates the distribution of Iron Range English (IRE) reflexives, using judgments collected in a Magnitude Estimation Task (Bard et al 1996), and presents a phase-based analysis for their distribution. IRE reflexives (e.g., himself) can corefer with nominal expressions outside their minimal clause in subject or object position. Coreference with an expression outside the minimal clause is not acceptable in two environments: (i) if there is an intervening subject that does not match the reflexive for person (c.f., Blocking Effects in Mandarin) or (ii) if the reflexive is in an island. The distribution of IRE reflexives is unexpected because generally only monomorphemic reflexives behave this way (Pica 1987). Complex reflexives that behave this way, such as Malay diri-nya 'himself/herself' (Cole & Hermon 2003) and Turkish kendi-sin 'himself/herself' (Kornfilt 2001), are shown to have pronominal qualities. IRE reflexives do not have pronominal qualities since they exhibit Blocking Effects and island effects. Therefore, they are true long-distance reflexives. Blocking and island effects provide evidence that the reflexive undergoes raising to [Spec, CP], as is suggested for long-distance reflexives in other languages (e.g., Katada 1991). From the [Spec, CP] position, the reflexive is able to corefer with a nominal expression in a higher clause, in accordance with the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001). Two processes are needed to account for the distribution of IRE long-distance reflexives (c.f., Cole & Wang 1996) since the set of expressions that are potential antecedents and the set of expressions that trigger Blocking Effects are not the same: a reflexive can corefer with a subject or an object, but only subjects trigger Blocking Effects. I posit that reflexives have a [VAR] feature that must be valued by a c-commanding nominal expression within the same phase via Agree, extending Hicks' (2009) analysis of English anaphors. Agree accounts for coreference and offers an inherent c-command relationship between the antecedent and reflexive. I account for Blocking Effects by considerably modifying Hasegawa's (2005) analysis for English anaphors. I suggest that a [+multi] feature on T licenses the reflexive and requires that the reflexive and the subject Agree for person. Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 19-Jul-2011       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.