LINGUIST List 22.2944
Tue Jul 19 2011
Diss: Syntax: Loss: 'Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives'
Editor for this issue: Mfon Udoinyang
<mfonlinguistlist.org>
1. Sara Loss ,
Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives
Message 1: Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives
Date: 18-Jul-2011
From: Sara Loss <schm1538umn.edu>
Subject: Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives
E-mail this message to a friend
Institution: University of Minnesota at Twin Cities
Program: Linguistics
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2011
Author: Sara Schmelzer Loss
Dissertation Title: Iron Range English Long-Distance Reflexives
Linguistic Field(s):
Syntax
Dissertation Director:
Hooi Ling Soh
Benjamin Munson
Jean-Philippe Marcotte
Jeanette K Gundel
Dissertation Abstract:
This dissertation investigates the distribution of Iron Range English (IRE)reflexives, using judgments collected in a Magnitude Estimation Task (Bardet al 1996), and presents a phase-based analysis for their distribution.IRE reflexives (e.g., himself) can corefer with nominal expressions outsidetheir minimal clause in subject or object position. Coreference with anexpression outside the minimal clause is not acceptable in twoenvironments: (i) if there is an intervening subject that does not matchthe reflexive for person (c.f., Blocking Effects in Mandarin) or (ii) ifthe reflexive is in an island.
The distribution of IRE reflexives is unexpected because generally onlymonomorphemic reflexives behave this way (Pica 1987). Complex reflexivesthat behave this way, such as Malay diri-nya 'himself/herself' (Cole &Hermon 2003) and Turkish kendi-sin 'himself/herself' (Kornfilt 2001), areshown to have pronominal qualities. IRE reflexives do not have pronominalqualities since they exhibit Blocking Effects and island effects.Therefore, they are true long-distance reflexives.
Blocking and island effects provide evidence that the reflexive undergoesraising to [Spec, CP], as is suggested for long-distance reflexives inother languages (e.g., Katada 1991). From the [Spec, CP] position, thereflexive is able to corefer with a nominal expression in a higher clause,in accordance with the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001). Twoprocesses are needed to account for the distribution of IRE long-distancereflexives (c.f., Cole & Wang 1996) since the set of expressions that arepotential antecedents and the set of expressions that trigger BlockingEffects are not the same: a reflexive can corefer with a subject or anobject, but only subjects trigger Blocking Effects. I posit that reflexiveshave a [VAR] feature that must be valued by a c-commanding nominalexpression within the same phase via Agree, extending Hicks' (2009)analysis of English anaphors. Agree accounts for coreference and offers aninherent c-command relationship between the antecedent and reflexive. Iaccount for Blocking Effects by considerably modifying Hasegawa's (2005)analysis for English anaphors. I suggest that a [+multi] feature on Tlicenses the reflexive and requires that the reflexive and the subjectAgree for person.
Page Updated: 19-Jul-2011
|