Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 16:20:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Seely <ENG_SEELY@EMUVAX.EMICH.EDU>
Subject: Questions for Lidz
To: LINCONF@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Message-Id: <01IB2E87HAUQ95PJZH@EMUVAX.EMICH.EDU>
Couple of loose general points/questions on Lidz'
excellent work.
1. I wonder if you could comment a bit more on how
your Condition R gets the strict-sloppy cases. For concreteness,
here's your example (11) [from (Sells, Zaenen and Zec 1987)]:
(11) a. zij verdedigde zich beter dan Peter
she defended self better than Peter
'She defended herself better than Peter defended himself'
'*She defended herself better than Peter defended her'
b. zij verdedigde zichzelf beter dan Peter
she defended selfself better than Peter
'She defended herself better than Peter defended himself'
'She defended herself better than Peter defended her'
Am I right in saying that (11)a gets only the sloppy reading
since _defend_ is lexically reflexive, hence Condition R
right to left. In (11)b the prediate is reflexive-marked
by virture of the SELF anaphor; thus it's near-reflexive--but
just how do the two interpretations of (11)b then follow
(just the standard way)?
Also, can (11)b allow near-reflexive interpretations of the sort:
"Mary defended Mary and ..."
"Mary defended a statue of Mary and ..."
with combinations in the second clause like:
"and.. Peter defended a statue of Peter"?
[The relevant English counterpart I guess would be something like:
Bill defended himself better than Tom.
Do you get the interpretations where Bill defended Bill better
than Tom defended a statue of Tom, etc.?]
2. Could you also say more about "variation in lexical reflexivity."
On the surface, Dutch and Kannada seem rather dissimilar in this
respect; in Dutch lexical reflexivity is (inherently) marked on a
small set of verbs, but in Kannada such reflexivity appears to be more
of a morphological process wherein "... any verb can be MADE lexically
reflexive through the affixation of the verbal reflexive." (my
emphasis). [I see from your footnote 2 the basic point (which, it
says, you discuss in your disseration), but I wonder if you could give
some more detail here.]
--Daniel Seely