She saw a snake next to herself/her6. Zij zag een slang naast zich/haar.
She saw a snake next to herself/her
In both structural (e.g. Chomsky 1981; Koster 1993)
and thematic (e.g. Reinhart & Reuland 1993) approaches, pronouns
are barred from corefering to arguments `closeby'. Reflexives,
on the other hand, are specially licensed so that they can/must
refer to a local antecedent. Locality in the structural approach
is defined through governing category (Chomsky 1981) or the domain
of AGR (Koster 1993) and in the thematic approach as consisting
of a predicate and its arguments. This locality captures a generalization
across languages (cf. Faltz 1977) that direct objects are more
likely to be specially marked, for instance, through -self,
than adjuncts or indirect objects. Thus, one expects (1) and (2)
but not (3). Similarly, there are varieties of English where (4)
is grammatical because the anaphorically used pronoun is an indirect
object (see also Baker 1995; Haiman 1995; van der Leek 1994):
1. I see myself.
2. I saw a snake near me.
3. *I saw me.
4. I 'll buy me a dictionary.
Older versions of English do not display this complementarity. In fact, the reverse is true. For instance, in Gawain and the Green Knight and in Chaucer, pronouns are used reflexively in direct object position but forms marked with `self' appear in prepositional object position. Thus, the Middle English domain within which reflexivity is licensed seems very different from the Modern English one. However, rather than doing away with the notion of domain for Middle English, I examine the possibility that Middle English objects have inherent Case (as in Chomsky 1986) and that this causes the difference. This turns out not to be correct and I argue instead that the reflexive forms are not fully specified for Case due to the change that takes place in `self' from adjective to pronoun. This is especially true of myself and thiself. In the case of simple pronouns, I claim that first and second persons are less specified in terms of phi-features. Other `peculiarities' such as that forms with `self' are often used in subject position without refering to a local antecedent are accounted for.
The outline of the paper is chronological. I start
by discussing two Old English texts (Beowulf and Junius)
where specially marked reflexives do not occur. After turning
to early Middle English Layamon's Brut where the morphological
change in `self' from adjective to (pro)noun is taking place,
I examine two fourteenth century works (Gawain and the Green
Knight and Chaucer). Then, the fifteenth century Paston
Letters are addressed as well as some subsequent texts (Shakespeare's
2 Henry IV and Hume's Enquiry). The historical texts
are examined synchronically rather than diachronically. Thus,
I make very few claims as to why one stage would develop into
another.
Section 1: Some theoretical background
Chomsky (1981; 1986) formulates three Binding principles:
(A) an anaphor must be bound in its governing category, (B) A
pronoun must be free in its governing category, and (C) An R-expression
must be free. The governing domain for an element is the minimal
domain containing the governor, the element itself and a subject.
The formulation of A and B assumes that anaphors and pronouns
are in complementary distribution. One of the problems with principles
A and B and one that has prompted reformulations is the cross-linguistic
variation with respect to the famous `snake' sentences. It is
well-known that in English, as in (2) above, the pronoun can be
coreferential to the subject; in German, as in (5), ihr
cannot and the reflexive sich is needed; and in Dutch,
as in (6), both are possible (even though some speakers do not
accept haar):
5. Sie sah eine Schlange neben sich/*ihr.
6. Zij zag een slang naast zich/haar.
Other languages display a similar variety (cf. de Jong 1995; 1996 for Romance) which is problematic since the governing category for an element should not be so different for different languages. Chomsky's approach is also problematic for (4).
To remedy this, different types of solutions have been proposed. Reinhart & Reuland (1993) argue that Binding Theory should be formulated as a condition on predicates rather than as a condition on anaphors and pronouns. In (1), the predicate is reflexive-marked (one of its arguments has -self) and therefore two of its arguments must be coindexed. This condition is met. Condition B is stated such that a predicate that has two coindexed arguments must have reflexive marking. Hence, (3) is ungrammatical. In addition, they claim there is a Chain Condition that allows pronouns to be used anaphorically if they are not fully marked for Case and phi-features. Even though they do not mention (4), the Chain Condition might allow anaphoric me if one argues that indirect objects do not check structural Case but have inherent Case connected to thematic structure and would not be fully specified. They have (p. 702) more problems accounting for (2) and for the interaction between condition B and the chain condition.
Koster (1993) reformulates the notion of governing category in Minimalist terms (cf. Chomsky 1995) and crucially uses Case checking. He argues that morphologically marked anaphors are strong and must be checked with AGR. Languages differ as to where the feature is located: with AGRs as in German (Slavic) or with AGRo as in English. Thus, in (5), the reflexive is in the domain of AGRs and checks its feature; in (2), it is not and a pronoun appears. The anaphor in (1) is in the domain of AGRo and checks its structural Case there. Since inherent (or oblique) Case is not checked in AGR, obliquely marked pronouns can function anaphorically. De Jong (1995; 1996) refines Koster and uses both the Chain Condition and checking in AGR to account for bound pronouns in Romance.
I will now present some data that are the opposite
of (1) to (4) where specially marked forms and simple pronouns
are concerned and then use some of the proposals of this section
to deal with the problems that Middle English poses. I start with
two Old English texts.
Section 2: The data
As is well-known, Old English lacks a specially marked
reflexive (cf. Penning 1875; Farr 1905; Hermodsson 1952; Ogura
1989). In Beowulf, one of the earliest Old English texts
(the manuscript is 10th century but the composition is earlier),
simple pronouns function anaphorically as direct, indirect and
prepositional objects, as in (7), (8) and (9) respectively:
7. Beowulf, 677-8
ran tali
onne Grendel hine
8. Beowulf, 932
9. Beowulf, 2523-4
There is (even though Visser 1963: 420 and Mitchell
1985: 189-90 deny this) an early form of `self' that marks a reflexive
object as in (10). This example is assumed to be an emphatic since
it is the only instance; the other forms mainly refer to subjects.
If it were an early instance of a reflexive, this occurrence would
be in accordance with the observation that if any anaphors are
specially marked, it will be the direct object ones. Thus, Beowulf
presents no special problems even though the use of `self' is
probably emphatic, due to the rarity of (10). `Self' in these
early texts is an adjective inflected for person, number and gender
modifying the argument pronoun. For instance, sylfne in
(10) is marked for accusative, masculine singular (indefinite
declension) and sylfe in (11) for nominative, masculine
plural indefinite (cf. Quirk & Wrenn 1955):
10. Beowulf, 2875
11. Beowulf, 1995-7
In other Early Old English texts, the same is not
true. In the Junius Manuscript (c1000 but composed earlier),
`self' does not mark anaphoric direct objects but prepositional
objects as in (12). These occur sporadically:
12. Genesis 438
Assuming the forms in (10) to (12) are emphatic, not anaphoric (cf. Faltz 1989), no problems occur. If they were anaphoric, it would be strange that the specially marked form occurs outside the immediate domain in (12).
Skipping some centuries, there is evidence in the
thirteenth century (cf. van Gelderen 1996a) that the category
of `self' changes from adjective to (pro)noun. The endings on
`self' in both versions (Caligula and Otho) of Layamon's Brut
`simplify' and are initially reanalyzed as Case markers (non-nominative
in (13) to (15) below; cf. Diehn 1906: 60). In addition, `self'
becomes morphologically one word with the pronoun. In the early
version of Layamon (beginning of the thirteenth century), there
are clear adjectival endings and 92 `self' variants are morphologically
independent; in the later version (middle of the same century),
the endings are zero or -e and only 26 occur independently.
In the early version, the accusative me is combined with
`self' more often than with the genitive mi. This is the
opposite in the later version. There is, however, no evidence
that, at the time of the reanalysis of `self' from adjective to
(pro)noun, pronouns and anaphors start to be used differently.
For instance, the number of first person simple pronouns used
reflexively does not change. In addition, of the 21 forms in Otho
where `self' is attached to a first person pronoun, 9 are non-reflexive
as in (13) and (14):
13. Otho 4156
14. Otho 4165
The forms in `self' that might be construed as anaphoric
occur mainly (but not only) as prepositional objects as in (15):
15. Caligula 977
The real challenge to Binding Theory comes with fourteenth
century texts such as Gawain and the Green Knight, written
around 1345. Checking first person pronouns, 7 simple pronouns
are used reflexively as in (16) to (22). Two `self' compounds
are used reflexively as in (23) and (24):
16. Gawain, 402
17. Gawain, 474
18. Gawain, 1009
19. Gawain, 1215
20. Gawain, 1964
I
21. Gawain, 2121
`22. Gawain, 2159
23. Gawain, 1540
24. Gawain, 2434
Thus, the simple first person pronoun occurs in object position, except for (21) which is different because it is an ethical dative (cf. Mustanoja 1960). Myself/uen occurs as object of a preposition. This means the simple pronoun is still the reflexive but that the introduction of the `self'-compound occurs in oblique (i.e. non-direct object) position. There are no first person plural `self' form and (only) 19 instances of we occur but none is followed by a reflexive us.
The situation is similar with second person. In (25),
the only reflexive form marked with `self' is in prepositional
object position; in (26) and (27), the simple pronoun is used
reflexively in direct object position:
25. Gawain 2141
26. Gawain 2341
27. Gawain 2348
The same is true for second person plural, except
that the reflexive form in (29) is used without referring to an
NP in the same clause:
28. Gawain 1267
29. Gawain 1964
30. Gawain 1394
31. Gawain 1547-8
Third person `self' forms are different in that even
though more hymselfs are prepositional objects as in (32),
there are 3 direct objects out of 24 `self' forms as in (33).
There is also an impersonal subject as in (34); many are non-anaphoric
as in (35):
32. Gawain 1198
33. Gawain 2040
34. Gawain 976
35. Gawain 1085
Concluding, the data in Gawain and the Green Knight indicate two problems. (a) The domain in which specially marked anaphoric forms appear is not within the immediate domain of the verb. This presents problems for Reinhart & Reuland's conditions on predicates, as well as for Chomsky's notion of governing category and for Koster's AGR-domain. (b) There is a difference between first and second person anaphors on the one hand and third person ones on the other.
I now turn to Chaucer and will show that the data
are very similar to Gawain for first and third but not
for second person anaphors. With first person singular reflexives,
there are more simple pronouns than specially marked ones: 71
forms of `myself' as in (36) to (38), but at least 125 reflexive
me as in (39) to (45):
36. Knight's Tale 1813
37. Pardoner's Tale 841
38. Boece Bk 1 P4, 105
39. Cl T 145
40. Knight's Tale 2052
41. Wife of Bath's Tale 1231
42. Melibee 1058
43. Rom 1807
44. Rom 6297
45. Troilus and Criseyde, II, 12
The simple pronoun me is used in direct object
position (except in the expression sayde for me); myself
is used in oblique position[2].
The same distribution occurs in the case of us as in (46)
and (47) of which around 20 cases occur. Ourself and us
selven are used reflexively in oblique contexts in (48) and
(49):
46. Melibee, 1765
47. Melibee, 1821
48. Bo Bk 3 P12
49. Prol WBT, 812
Second person reflexives are different. Many are
emphatic as in (50); a few are in subject position by themselves
as in (51); many are direct objects as in (53) to (55) and many
are objects to prepositions as in (56). The same seems true for
the second person plural:
50. Boethius Bk 3, P4
51. Troilus 369, Bk 3
53. Merchant's Tale 1385
54. Troilus 528 Bk 4
55. Boethius Bk 4 P4
56. Troilus 620 Bk 4
Third person reflexives pattern with second person
ones. Even though the majority of the reflexive `self' forms occurs
as object of a preposition as in (57), there are quite a lot of
direct objects as in (58):
57. The Knight's Tale 1773
58. The Parson's Tale 1042
Summarizing Chaucer, the first person simple pronoun is used reflexively in direct object position. Outside that immediate domain, a special indicator is needed. This is not true for second and third person where even though specially marked forms predominate in prepositional object position, some occur as direct objects.
The Paston Letters show that, in the century after
Chaucer, the simple pronoun ceases to be used reflexively except
with what one could call inherently reflexive verbs such as repent.
These verbs occur throughout the history of English as (39) shows.
Reinhart & Reuland (1993: 663) assume that a predicate is
reflexive-marked if the predicate is lexically reflexive. Hence,
a simple pronoun can be coindexed with the subject in (59) without
having an ill-formed predicate. The Chain Condition would probably
deal with it too. Checking over a hundred instances of hym
in the immediate environment of he, I find 6 reflexive
hyms, namely (59) to (64), of which (59) is an ethical
dative:
59. he hasted him to60. he repentyd hym
61. he xuld repent hym
62. he shall repente hym
63. for he shall ell repent hym
64. he schold bryng wyth hym
The several hundreds of instances of I in the immediate environment of me involve almost exclusively the verb recommand.
Reflexives such as hym-self are used in all
possible environments, for instance in (65) and (66):
65. PL 826
ho so euer schuld dwelle at Paston shulde have nede to conne defende hymselfe.66. PL 5782
fore he is not bold y-now to put forthe hym-selfe
In a later text, the First Folio Edition (1623) of
Shakespeare's 2 King Henry IV, simple pronouns as in (67)
to (70) as well specially marked ones in (71) to (74) function
anaphorically in both direct and indirect domains:
67. 2 Henry IV, I, iii
68. II, ii
69. II, iv
70. IV, i
71. I, iv
72. II, iv
73. V, i
74. II, ii
This situation is just as problematic as the one in Gawain and Chaucer.
A century and a half after Shakespeare, there is
no trace of the reflexive use of simple pronouns in the texts
I examine. `Self'-forms are used exclusively in, for instance,
Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748). Typical
instances are:
75. Hume, Enquiry IV, i, 23
76. Hume, Enquiry XII, ii, 128
Checking some Jane Austen texts a century later,
the `modern' English situation prevails and simple pronouns are
not used reflexively.
Section 3: Middle English Binding
I will entertain a number of ways to account for the Middle English data, through (a) inherent Case; and (b) the change of `self' from adjective to noun.
As shown above, Old English has no specially marked reflexive. However, using the insights the Chain Condition, as in Reinhart & Reuland (1993), or Koster (1993) provide us into inherent Case, this is not surprising. In Old English, as I argue in (van Gelderen 1996b), the Case to the object is not structural as many Cases are distinguished morphologically: the first person nominative, genitive, dative and accusative forms are ic, min, me, me(c); the third person forms are he, his, him and hine. Many of these Cases are thematically predictable. One piece of evidence for inherent Case is that Old English lacks transformational passives (cf. Lightfoot 1979 and others). The reason is that the inherently marked object has no reason to move to subject position to check its Case. If me in (7) above has inherent Case, it can form a chain with ic because me is not fully specified. Prepositional objects as in (8) and (9) can also be argued to receive inherent Case. For instance, as in Modern German, certain Cases go with certain prepositions, dependent on their meaning.
The situation in Middle English is different. If Case in Middle English were inherent as well, i.e. tied to theta-marking rather than to structural position, the pronoun could form a Chain with the antecedent without violating Reinhart & Reuland's Chain Condition; it would also not need to be marked in Koster (1993) because it would not check its (inherent) Case in Spec AGRo. The reason `self' would be necessary in prepositional object position might be that prepositions cease to assign inherent Case. However, the existence of inherent Case cannot be demonstrated. On the contrary, in van Gelderen (1996b), it is argued that the Old English system of inherent Case is replaced by structural Case around 1250, based on morphological and thematic Case marking being lost. Thus, in the mid-fourteenth century Gawain, the direct object is not assigned inherent Case. If this is true, Case is checked in AGRo. Moreover, prepositions are argued to lose their inherent Case around the same time (loss of postpositions and the introduction of prepositional passives) and there would therefore be no account of the complementarity.
Even though the loss of inherent Case does not explain
why pronouns are used in direct object position, it may explain
the use of `self' marked pronouns in oblique positions. As mentioned
in connection with Layamon's Brut, around 1250, the adjectival
nature of `self' is lost. It is lost earlier in those connected
with third person than in those connected to first and second
person pronouns. This means that the structure of `self' changes
from modifying adjective to nominal head as in (77):
77. [ NP[ him] AP[ self]] or, using a DP and N-to-D movement:
In a Minimalist framework, Modern English himself has (non-Interpretable) Case features that are attached to it. In Middle English, the Case on the pronominal part is not clear. As mentioned, at the time the change in (77) is taking place the form changes from `meself' to `miself' in many instances. It may therefore be the case that the accusative Case cannot be checked in AGRo because it is not present. In first and second person, the Case on the pronominal part is more clearly genitive than accusative and hence the checking in Spec AGRo is completely impossible in Gawain. This provides a possible account for the appearance of specially marked reflexives exclusively as objects to prepositions: this is a position where they can check Case. Additional evidence can be found in sentences such as (29) and (34) where yowreself and hemself check dative and nominative Case and not accusative. So far, this accounts for specially marked pronouns not occurring in direct object position but it does not account for why simple pronouns occur in direct object position.
If one thinks of first and second person pronouns
as having weaker phi-features than third person ones (but see
Collins & Thr·insson 1996: 423 for a different view),
one could argue that the Chain Condition allows first and second
person pronouns as in (16) to (22) to form a chain with their
antecedent because they are less specified. The same difference
between first and second person pronouns and third person ones
occurs in Modern Dutch as (78) and (80) show. In (78) and (79),
me and je can form chains with their antecedents,
but hem in (80) cannot:
78. Ik waste me
79. Jij waste je
80. *Hij waste hem (hij and hem coindexed)
As mentioned above, in Chaucer, the situation is more or less the same. The difference is that second person pronouns pattern with third person ones and are similar to Modern English. This means that at that point, second person forms check Case and have full phi-features.
The Paston Letters and
Hume present no problems since, except for inherently marked reflexive
verbs in the former, the situation is as in Modern English. The
question remains why the situation could remain unstable as late
as Shakespeare.
Conclusion
I examine stages of English that are very different
from Modern English. In Old English, simple pronouns are used
anaphorically in all environments. This can be explained using
the insight that inherent Case is different from structural Case
and that it makes a pronoun into an anaphor, i.e. not fully specified.
In Middle English, the situation is more complex. Specially marked
anaphors are introduced around 1250 (NB this claim is valid for
Layamon, but there may be other varieties that have them earlier)
but their distribution is unexpected: specially marked anaphors
occur outside the immediate domain whereas simple pronouns are
used in direct object position. The account valid for Old English
cannot hold since inherent Case is lost in the thirteenth century.
I argue that the reason for the unexpected distribution must be
sought in the change of `self' from adjective to noun and its
not being connected with (non-Interpretable) accusative Case features
that must be checked in the structural position (i.e. Spec AGRo).
In addition, first, and second, simple pronouns function anaphorically
since their phi-features are incomplete as in Modern Dutch.
Notes
[1] I would like to thank Aryeh Faltz for detailed comments on an earlier version. I use TACT and electronic texts provided by the Oxford Text Archive and the University of Virginia. The non-electronic editions used are Brook & Leslie (1963); Krapp (1931), Klaeber (1922), Blake (1971), Tolkien & Gordon (1925); Kàkeritz (1954); Selby-Bigge (1902).
`Self' is used when orthographic variants are implied, e.g. for self, seolf, sylf etc. For space reasons, I sometimes provide the word-by-word gloss; sometimes the paraphrased gloss.
[2] For reasons that
are unknown to me, the exception is the verb slay.
References
Baker, C. 1995. "Contrast, Discourse Prominence, and Intensification, with Special Reference to Locally Free reflexives in British English", Language 71.1: 63-101
"*Beckmann, E. 1878. "ãber das reflexive Verb im Englischen", Archiv f¸r das Studium neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 59: 204-215.
Benson, L. 1987. The Riverside Chaucer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Blake, N. 1971. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, Part I. Oxford: Clarendon.
Brook, G. & R. Leslie, eds. 1963. Layamon: Brut. Oxford: Oxford University Press, EETS 250.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
- 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.
- 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Collins, C. & H. Thr·insson 1996. "VP-Internal Structure and Object Shift in Icelandic". Linguistic Inquiry 27.3: 391-444.
Diehn, O. 1901. Die Pronomina im Fr¸hmittelenglischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Faltz, L. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland.
- 1989. "A Role for Inference in Meaning Change". Studies in language 13-2: 317-331.
Farr, J. M. 1905. Intensives and Reflexives in Anglo-Saxon and Early Middle English. Baltimore: J. H. Furst.
Gelderen, E. van 1993. The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- 1996a. "The Emphatic Origin of Reflexives". BLS talk.
- 1996b. "Case to the Object in the History of English", Linguistic Analysis 26: 1-16.
Haiman, J. 1995. "Grammatical Signs of the Divided Self". Discourse Grammar and Typology, edited by W. Abraham, T. GivÛn, S. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hermodsson, L. 1952. Reflexive und Intransitive verba. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Jong, J. de 1995. "Local Binding and the Minmalist Framework". Language and Cognition 4 edited by A. de Boer et al. Groningen.
- 1996. The Case of Bound Pronouns in Peripheral Romance. Groningen dissertation.
Kàkeritz, H. ed. 1954. Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories & Tragedies: A Facsimile Edition. New haven: Yale University Press.
Koster, J. 1993. "Towards a New Theory of Anaphoric Binding", ms Groningen University.
Klaeber, F. ed. 1922. Beowulf. Boston: D.C. Heath [1950 edition].
Krapp, G.P. 1931. The Junius Manuscript. New York: Columbia University Press.
Leek, F. van der 1994. "Dutch Pronominals", talk, Stanford.
Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mustanoja, T. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki.
Ogura, M. 1989. Verbs with the Reflexive Pronoun and Constructions with Self in Old and Early Middle English. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
Penning, G. 1875. A History of the Reflexive Pronouns in the English Language. Bremen.
Quirk, R & C. Wrenn 1955 [1977]. An Old English Grammar. London: Methuen.
Reinhart, T. & E. Reuland 1993. "Reflexivity", Linguistic Inquiry 24.4: 657-720.
Reuland, E. & T. Reinhart 1995. "Pronouns, Anaphors and Case". ** edited by H. Haider et al.: 241-268. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Selby-Bigge, L.A. ed. 1902. Hume Enquiries. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon.
Tolkien, J & E. Gordon. eds. 1925. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Oxford: Clarendon.
Visser, F. 1963. An Historical Syntax of the English Language I. Leiden: Brill.