Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T12:55:36.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflexives and the Dependency Relation “R”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Susanne Carroll
Susanne Carroll*
Affiliation:
O.I.S.E.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this paper is to present a complete syntactic analysis of the reflexives of English. Most of the work in this area, particularly work in the Government-Binding theory, has focused on one type of reflexive, what has come to be called the “anaphor” reflexive. Thus Koster (1984), in describing reflexives (among other things), postulates a number of essential properties characteristic of a core dependency relation between constituents. This relation, labelled “R”, is illustrated in (1). Its properties are listed in (2).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Spring 1986 , pp. 1 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1982 Types of Dependency in Anaphora: Icelandic (and Other) Reflexives. Journal of Linguistic Research 2:1–22.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, and Horn, George M. 1976 Remarks on “Conditions on Transformations”. Linguistic Inquiry 7:265–361.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark 1982 A Landing Site Theory of Movement Rules. Linguistic Inquiry 13:1–38.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis 1982 On the Content of Empty Categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis 1983 ECM is Exceptional case Marking. Pp. 11–18 in Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis 1985 The Binding Theory and the Notion of Accessible SUBJECT. Linguistic Inquiry 16:117–133.Google Scholar
Cantrall, William R. 1974 Viewpoint, Reflexives and the Nature of Noun Phrases. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 210. Mouton: The Hague.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susanne 1981 Notions fonctionnelles en grammaire générative: dislocations et structures topicalisées. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susanne 1984 Anaphor/Non-Anaphor Reflexives. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susanne 1986 On Non-Anaphor Reflexives. Revue québécoise de linguistique 15:135–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1977 On WH-movement. Pp. 71–132 in Formal Syntax. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, eds. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1980 On Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11:1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1982 Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Jerrold A., and Plank, Frans 1978 Great Expectations: An Intensive Self Analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 2:373–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faltz, Leonard 1977 Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California/Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, and Sag, Ivan 1981 Passive and Reflexives in Phrase Structure Grammar. Pp. 131–152 in Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Groenendijk, J.A., Janssen, T.M.V., and Stokhof, M.B.J., eds. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandro 1983 Toward a Theory of Long Distance Anaphors: A GB Approach. The Linguistic Review 3:307–361.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline 1981 Logical Operators, Complete Constituents, and Extraction Transformations. Pp. 65–142 in Levels of Syntactic Representation. May, Robert and Koster, Jan, eds. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helke, Michael 1970 The Grammar of English Reflexivization. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James 1983 Logical Form, Binding and Nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14:395–420.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 1984 On the Phrase The Phrase ‘The Phrase’ . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2:25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1981 On Certain Differences Between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 12:349–371.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique 1982 Variables and the Bijection Principle. The Linguistic Review 2:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan 1984 On Binding and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 15:417–459.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo 1972 Pronominalization, Reflexivization and Direct Discourse. Linguistic Inquiry 3:161–195.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru 1984 On the Nature of Proper Government. Linguistic Inquiry 15:235–289.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David 1982 Local and Nonlocal Anaphoric Binding. Ms.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David 1983 A Distributional Difference Between Reciprocals and Reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 14:723–730.Google Scholar
Mating, Joan 1984 Non-Clause-Bounded Reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosphy 7:211–241.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul 1971 Crossover Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970 On Declarative Sentences. Pp. 222–272 in Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter, eds. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
Warchawsky, Florence 1965 Reflexivization I, II. Ms.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin 1980 Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11:203–238.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin 1983 Against Small Clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14:287–308.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin 1984 Grammatical Relations. Linguistic Inquiry 15:639–673.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne 1980 Coréférence et pronoms réfléchis: note sur le contraste lui/luimême en français. Lingvisticae Investigationes 4:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar