Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:18:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Larisa Zlatic <zlatic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
To: LINGUIST Conferences <linconf@emunix.emich.edu>
Subject: Further reply from Zlatic to Seely
In-Reply-To: <01IAZVPYLHCI96Y05B@EMUVAX.EMICH.EDU>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961024222107.8387D-100000@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>
BELOW IS MY REPLY TO D. SEELY.
LARISA ZLATIC
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, LINGUIST Conferences wrote:
> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 21:09:44 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Daniel Seely
> Subject: More on Zlatic
>
>
> It seems to me that from the Zlatic/Seely/Reeves/May discussion of (the
> _?*_ notation in) Zlatic's paper, it's been established that we're
> talking about two rather different things: dialectal variation, on the
> one hand; degrees of grammaticality/acceptability, on the other.
> I'm just more immediatedly concerned with the latter, for reasons
> given in my comments from last week.
>
> But I do still have a question. The short version:
> To what extent are the two factors relevant in the target examples,
> i.e. those with the _?_ notation?
>
REPLY: BOTH SEEM TO BE RELEVANT. SEE AN EXPLANATION BELOW.
>
> The longer version goes like this:
>
> 1. As an anchor, one relevant example from Zlatic is (4):
>
> (4) Jovan (i) je procitao [Marijin (j) clanak o sebi (i, ?*j)].
> John AUX read Mary's-ADJ article about self
> 'John read Mary's article about herself.'
>
> 2. Now, there is dialectal variation; Zlatic makes this clear in
> response to Reeves (as Zlatic states "...the above judgments all
> involving non-process nominals do involve more than one set of
> intuitions.").
>
> [On my calculation, 27% of speakers find binding of the reflexive by
> the non-process nominal subject acceptable, 73% of the speakers find
> the relevant case unacceptable.]
>
> 3. So the question is: does this mean completely acceptable and
> completely unacceptable?
ANSWER: WITH RESPECT TO EXAMPLES SUCH AS (4), YES. AS I MENTIONED
IN MY PREVIOUS MESSAGES, ONLY 3 INFORMANTS ACCEPTED BINDING
OF A REFLEXIVE BY THE SUBJECT OF A NON-PROCESS NOMINAL, THE OTHER 8
REJECTED IT. SO, I ADMIT THAT I INCORRECTLY GAVE A LABEL ?* FOR THESE
JUDGMENTS INSTEAD OF GIVING A LABEL SUCH AS %, INDICATING DIALECTAL
VARIATION. IN LIGHT OF THIS FACT, THE BINDING FACTS CAN BE FORMULATED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE MAJORITY DIALECT: ACCEPTS BINDING OF THE REFLEXIVES BY SUBJECTS OF
PROCESS NOMINALS, BUT NOT BY SUBJECTS OF NON-PROCESS NOMINALS.
THE MINORITY DIALECT: ACCEPTS BINDING OF THE REFLEXIVES BY BOTH SUBJECTS
OF PROCESS AND NON-PROCESS NOMINALS.
WHAT TWO DIALECTS HAVE IN COMMON IS: 1. NON-LOCAL BINDING, I.E. BINDING OF
A REFLEXIVE BY A CLAUSAL SUBJECT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
INTERVENING SUBJECT OF A NON-PROCESS NOMINAL (CF.INDEX _i_ IN (4) ABOVE),
AND
2. LOCAL BINDING, I.E.BINDING OF A REFLEXVE BY SUBJECTS OF PROCESS
NOMINALS (CF.(3) OF THE PAPER). THUS, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
DIALECTS IS WHETHER NON-LOCAL BINDING (DEFINED AS ABOVE) IS OBLIGATORY
(THE MAJORITY DIALECT) OR OPTIONAL (THE MINORITY DIALECT).
MY BINDING THEORY, AS FORMULATED IN THE PAPER ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR THE
FACTS OF THE MAJORITY DIALECT, AS ROBERT MAY HAS POINTED OUT. THE GRAMMAR
FOR THE MINORITY DIALECT SEEMS TO BE IN SOME STATE OF FLUX, FOR, AT THE
ONE HAND, A NOMINAL DOMAIN INVOLVING PROCESS NOMINALS IS OPAQUE DOMAIN FOR
ANAPHOR BINDING (JUST LIKE FOR THE MAJORITY DIALECT) INDICATING THAT THIS
DIALECT TOO IS SENSITIVE TO THE ARGUMENT STATUS OF THE ANTECEDENT. ON THE
OTHER HAND, A NOMINAL DOMAIN INVOLVING NON-PROCESS NOMINALS IS BOTH OPAQUE
(BINDING BY SUBJECTS OF NON-PROCESS NOMINALS IS ACCEPTABLE) AND
TRANSPARENT (BINDING BY A 'LONG' DISTANCE ANTECENDET - CLAUSAL SUBJECT) IS
ALSO POSSIBLE.
Are we dealing only with dialectal
> variation, or with dialectal variation and degrees of acceptability?
REPLY: BOTH. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WITH REFERENCE TO EXAMPLES SUCH AS (4)
ABOVE, THE LABEL ?* ON THE REFLEXIVE INDICATES DIALECTAL VARIATION.
HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO EXAMPLES SUCH AS (9) OF THE PAPER, INVOLVING
BINDING OF REGULAR PRONOUNS BY SUBJECTS OF NON-PROCESS NOMINALS, THE
LABELS SUCH AS _?_ ON THE PRONOUNS INDICATE DEGREES OF ACCEPTABILITY. SO,
THE COMMENTS I GOT HELPED ME REALIZE THAT I WAS USING THESE LABELS TO
DESCRIBE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
[A > If the former, I agree with May that this is non-standard use of
the > _?_ notation. If the latter, then the points raised in my comments
> about the interplay of BT and "processing factors" stand.
REPLY: MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO WHY PRONOUNS ARE USED TO
REFER TO SUBJECTS OF NON-PROCESS NOMINALS STILL STAND.
>
>
> I don't mean to belabor the point, but I do want to be sure
> I understand your very interesting data.
>
>
> --Daniel Seely
>
--Larisa ZlaticFrom daemon Fri Oct 25 16:05:16 1996
Received: from postal.tamu.edu by dragon.emich.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/27Aug96-0302PM)
id AA14805; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:05:11 -0400
Received: from postal (postal.tamu.edu [128.194.103.24]) by postal.tamu.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA19622; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:51:44 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU by TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8b) with spool id 3057 for LINCONF@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU; Fri, 25 Oct
1996 14:51:29 -0500
Received: from TAMVM1 (NJE origin SMTPG@TAMVM1) by TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2767; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:50:26 -0500
Received: from emunix.emich.edu by tamvm1.tamu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
Fri, 25 Oct 96 14:50:25 CDT
Received: by emunix.emich.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/04Sep96-0106PM) id AA19350;
Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:51:22 -0400
Approved-By: Daniel Seely <dseely@EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU>
Message-Id: <9610251951.AA19350@emunix.emich.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:51:22 -0400
Reply-To: Linguistics Conference <LINCONF@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>
Sender: Linguistics Conference <LINCONF@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>
From: Daniel Seely <dseely@emunix.emich.edu>
Subject: ON-LINE CONF: GENERAL REMINDER
To: Multiple recipients of list LINCONF <LINCONF@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>
Status: RO
This is just a reminder that subscribers should feel
free to comment on any of the papers in SESSION II:
Jeffrey Lidz, University of Delaware:
"On the Independence of Syntactic and Thematic Binding"
Ruth Reeves, City University of New York Graduate Center:
"'De Se' and 'Non De Se' Representation"
Robert Hamilton, University of South Carolina:
"Reflexivity, Anaphoricity, or Polymorphemicity?"
Comments should be sent to:
Thanks
Daniel Seely
Moderator