Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 22:24:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Seely <ENG_SEELY@EMUVAX.EMICH.EDU>
Subject: Comments on Zlatic from Seely
To: LINCONF@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Message-Id: <01IARKM4E6CI935S2M@EMUVAX.EMICH.EDU>
Comments on Zlatic
1. Some very interesting data in this paper! I wonder though to what
extent it really supports the need for thematic structure in binding.
In fact, on one view, you give evidence against thematic structure:
you argue that coargumenthood is not a relevant factor, and you give
no evidence for thematic hierarchy effects. It's only "semantic
argument" that plays a role. But couldn't this be stated in
structural terms? (For instance, the subject of a process nominal is
in an A-position, and the "subject" of a non-process nominal is A'; then,
BT is sensitive to relativized minimality?)
2. I wanted to clarify a number of (probably minor) data points:
A. You state that the reflexive _sebe_ must be locally subject-bound
within a tense clause, and that a pronoun must be locally subject-free
in this domain (your example #(6)). But I don't recall seeing the
confirming anti-subject orientation example. I guess it would be
something like:
Jovan (i) je ispricao Mariji (j) sve o nje(j) (*i, j).
John AUX told Mary-DAT everything about pronoun
'John told Mary everything about her'
[sorry if I've got the actual pronoun wrong, but you see
the point]. I just wanted to be sure on this point.
B. I also wanted to ask about the apparent instability of some of the
data. It seems to be the case that non-local binding of the reflexive
in a process nominal is strongly out (see your example #(3), which is
relevantly starred), non-local binding of the reflexive in a
non-process nominal is strongly in (that is the key distinction), but
that local binding of a reflexive in a non-process nominal is
unstable. I just wonder if you could comment on the ?* status
of (4) on index _j_. (I find this potentially interesting
in light of comments made in the Everaert-Anagnostopoulou
paper.)
--Daniel Seely