To: Linguistics Conference <LINCONF@tamvm1.tamu.edu>
Subject: Lidz reply to Dubinsky
In-Reply-To: <9610282344.AA00933@dragon.emich.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:17:31 -0500
From: Jeffrey Lidz <lidz@louie.udel.edu>
Message-Id: <9610290217.aa20434@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu>
Stan Dubinsky writes:
>
>I still do not understand the difference between Lidz' example (14a)
>and (14b). In response to Reinhart, Lidz says that _zag_ 'see' is lexically
>reflexive in (14b) if _zich_ is an argument of the verb. If this is so,
>then I am at a loss to understand why (14a) is ungrammatical. Surely,
>_zich_ in (14a) is an argument of the verb _haat_. Why is that not
>sufficient to make it lexically reflexive, as in (14b)?
>
>--Stan Dubinsky
The point of my observation was not that having _zich_ as an argument
was sufficient to make _see_ lexically reflexive. I was merely saying
that given the general observation that _zich_ can be bound by a
coargument only if the predicate is lexically reflexive, it follows
that _see_ is lexically reflexive in (14b).
Another issue brought up by Dubinsky's question is how to tell
independently whether a predicate is lexically reflexive. Everaert
(1986) claims that a test for lexical reflexivity is nominalization.
So, for example,the nominalized verb in (i) maintains its reflexive
interpretation while the nominalized verb in (ii) cannot have a
reflexive interpretation:
(i) Washing is a good idea
(means that washing oneself is a good idea)
(ii) hating is a bad idea
(means hating others (and not oneself) is a bad idea)
By this test, _see_ is not lexically reflexive. However, I think
there may be more to this. _wash_ when nominalized has the reflexive
interpretation, but as a verb can be reflexive or not (i.e., it does
not require _zich_ to be its object all the time (like
_shame_, e.g.)). So, nominalization seems to preserve only one of the
interpretations, i.e., the nonreflexive interpretation is lost. Thus,
it's possible that _see_ fails the nominalization test because it is
the reflexive interpretation that is lost when this verb is
nominalized. What determines which reading is lost under
nominalization is unexplained, however. We can assume this has
something to do with which representation (reflexive or not) is
unmarked for a given verb and that this can vary across verbs which
allow both. How this is to be implemented is not clear.
-Jeff Lidz