To: Linguistics Conference <LINCONF@tamvm1.tamu.edu>
Subject: Lidz reply to Richards
In-Reply-To: <9611032100.AA09307@primavera.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 20:12:46 -0500
From: Jeffrey Lidz <lidz@louie.udel.edu>
Message-Id: <9611040112.aa01779@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu>
Norvin Richards brings up the following facts:
>
>There are apparently some anaphors which are unable to be bound by local
>subjects but can be bound by local non-subjects; examples include
>Norwegian ham selv and Finnish ha"n itse:
>
>1. (Norwegian, from Hellan 1988 (130, 105))
> a. *Jon/i respekterer ham selv/i
> Jon respects him self
> b. Vi fortalte Jon/i om ham selv/i
> we told Jon about him self
>
>2
(Finnish, from van Steenbergen 1991, 237)
> a. *Pekka/i puolusti häntä itseään/i
> Pekka defended him self
> b. Puhuin Pekalle/i hänestä itsestään/i
> spoke-1sg to-Pekka about-him self
> "I spoke to Pekka about himself"
>
As the theory presented so far has been stated, it would predict that
the (a) examples should be grammatical. Assuming that anaphors like
hamselv can introduce the Near-Reflexive function (i would be quite
surprised if they didn't), Condition R is avoided because such
sentences would not be semantically reflexive. These facts, however,
should be taken together with the fact that Norwegian (I don't know
about Finnish) pronouns are anti-subject oriented in general. So,
whatever property of these forms gives them their antisubject
orientation when they are not part of an anaphor will presumably give
them their antisubject orientation when they are part of an anaphor.
-Jeff Lidz