Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:45:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610171445.KAA13153@sarah.albany.edu>
To: Linguistics Conference <LINCONF@tamvm1.tamu.edu>
From: George Aaron Broadwell <g.broadwell@albany.edu>
Subject: Reply to Seely from Broadwell
Here is a reply to the questions from D. Seely
about 1.) condition C, 2.) ordinary anaphors in Choctaw,
and 3.) the locality of switch-reference.
Condition C
**************
Condition C is generally applicable in Choctaw in
a relatively straightforward way. So, for example, in
sentence (a) below
a.) (pro) John-a_ pi_sa-tok.
John-ac see-pt
'He saw John.'
'He' and 'John' may not be coreferential.
The question about a potential condition C effect
between the matrix subject and the subject of the
embedded clause is interesting. I'll repeat the
example
(1) John-at abiika-haatokoo-sh ik-iiy-o-tok.
John-NM sick-because-SS III-go:L-NEG-PT
`Because John(i) was sick, he(i) didn't go.'
I am presuming that there is a *pro* subject for the
matrix clause. The question is why there is no condition
C effect between this *pro* and *John*, given that
I argued for m-command in binding. (For those of you
with access to the web version of this paper, this would
be a good time to look at the tree structure in figure 1).
There seem to be a few ways to handle this problem --
at this point I am not certain which is the best:
a.) as Seely correctly points out, it would solve the
immediate problem if we assumed VP-internal
subjects. [Spec,IP] will then be an A'-position,
and elements in A'-positions don't trigger condition C
effects.
b.) Another difference between the binding of a SR
marker by matrix INFL and the (unwanted) binding
of an embedded subject by the matrix subject
lies in the fact that INFL is the head of the IP that
the adverbial clause is adjoined to.
It may be that the definition of command distinguishes
between heads and non-heads, so that a head X
commands elements adjoined to XP while the
command domain of a non-head does not extend
into adjuncts.
c.) Finally, it is possible that the difference between
A-binding and A'-binding is the crucial difference. It
may be that A-binding uses the more restrictive (first
branching node) c-command, while A'-binding uses
the broader m-command.
Ordinary anaphors in Choctaw
***********************************
Choctaw reflexives show some quite surprising
behavior. I've discussed them in an old NELS paper
('Reflexive movement in Choctaw', NELS 18), where
I refer interested readers for more details.
The Choctaw reflexive is a monomorphemic verbal
prefix /ili-/:
a.) John-at ili-pi_sa-tok.
John-NM RFL-see-PT
'John saw himself.'
This verbal prefix may have long-distance antecedents:
b.) John-at [ili-pisachokma-kat] ikha_nah.
John-NM RFL-goodlooking-SS know
'John knows that self is goodlooking.'
c.) John-at [[ili-pisachokma-kma_] na_na-kat]
John-NM RFL-goodlooking-IRR:DS be:the case-SS
ik-ikhaan-oh.
N-know:L-neg
'John doesn't know if it is the case that self is
goodlooking.'
What is quite surprising is that (for at least some speakers)
the reflexive can also show up every intervening
verb between the reflexive and its antecedent.
d.) John-at [[(ili)-pisachokma-kma_] (ili-)na_na-kat]
John-NM RFL-goodlooking-IRR:DS (RFL-)be:the case-SS
(il-)ik-ikhaan-oh.
(RFL-)N-know:L-neg
'John doesn't (self-)know if it (self-)is the case that
self is goodlooking.'
I argued in that paper that the Choctaw data show an
s-str reflex of the LF movement of reflexives suggested
by Pica and others.
So Choctaw does have long-distance reflexives.
The locality of switch-reference
*************************************
In contrast to the long-distance antecedents of
ordinary reflexives, the antecedent of a SS marker
is always strictly local. So in D. Seely's example, the SR
marking would have to work as follows:
e.) Because John(i) was sick-DS when Bill came
to the party-DS, he(i) just sat in the corner
f.) *Because John(i) was sick-SS when Bill came
to the party-DS, he(i) just sat in the corner
A natural question to ask is why long-distance antecedents
are available to ordinary anaphors in the A-binding
system, but not to SS markers.
On my assumptions, the appearance of long-distance
antecedents for ordinary anaphors arises due to overt
or covert movement of the anaphor.
I believe that it is likely that the lack of long-distance
antecedents for SS markers is due to their failure to
undergo analogous movement.
Why might SR markers fail to raise from their own clause
into higher clauses?
In some cases the failure can be explained
by existing constraints on movement.
So in the Choctaw translation of sentence (f), the
movement of the SS marker would leave behind a
trace in an adjunct adverbial clause which would fail
to be properly governed and violate the ECP.
(Compare the ungrammaticality of Wh-movement from
such a clause in English.)
There is still a problem, however, with examples
like the following:
g.) John-at ikha_nah
John-NM know
[Bill-at [pisachokma-ka_/*kat] anokfillih.
Bill-NM goodlooking-DS/*SS think
'John(i) knows [that Bill thinks [that
he(i) is goodlooking]].'
(Choctaw is SOV, but this example shows
right-extraposition of the complement clause, which
is relatively common in sentences that would
otherwise yield lots of center embedding.)
Choctaw must have DS marking on each of the
embedded clauses since SR marking is strictly local.
I believe the impossibility of moving the SS marker up
into the matrix clause in (g) is probably due once again
to the ECP, this time via a relativized
minimality violation.
--George Aaron Broadwell, g.broadwell@albany.edu
Anthropology; Linguistics and Cognitive Science,
University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12222 | 518-442-4711