In a great many languages something special is required for the expression of reflexivity. Cross-linguistically what is necessary varies from marking the object (e.g. pronoun + intensifier, a body-part noun, etc.), or using a special verb form (e.g. affix, special clitic, etc.). We discuss the limits of certain extant approaches to binding in accounting for this pattern. Going over the various cases we show that a key factor underlying this pattern is "local identity avoidance" If a DP were to bind a coargument straight away a logical form would result with two occurrences of the same variable in a local domain. Unless these can be kept apart, this would lead to a violation of a general principle of computation, not specific to language. We point towards possibly similar effects in other domains. We then discuss what underlies the variation in the ways languages express reflexivity. Universal is the need to find a strategy to avoid the consequences of our Inability to distinguish indistinguishables (IDI), but the specific choice will depend on the resources that are available in a particular language.

In Vietnamese not only pronouns and anaphors but also kinship terms and status terms may yield sloppy interpretations. The aim of the article is to explore why in Vietnamese such terms, essentially common noun expressions, can be bound at all and what the underlying mechanism is for these expressions to obtain both strict and sloppy identity readings. We briefly discuss previous proposals by Pham (2011) and Trinh (2022) and show that they do not provide a convincing answer. We then present an extension of Higginbotham’s (1983) analysis of possessive constructions, which, after a more general discussion of relational nouns, is applied to Vietnamese’s relational nouns in particular. We argue that in Vietnamese nominal expressions based on a relational noun may contain a variable that is locally free, and hence can be bound by an external binder. We discuss a variety of Vietnamese in which kinship terms and status terms cannot yield sloppy readings when there is a mismatch in honorificity between these nominal expressions and their envisaged antecedents in the elided clause. By contrast, when there is a match in honorificity, both sloppy and strict readings are available. This is testimony to the important role of honorificity in the Vietnamese grammatical system. However, we found that other speakers show more variability in the judgments than was initially expected. We conclude with a discussion of this variation.

We explore the proposal in Charnavel 2019, 2020 that nonlocal anaphor binding is only apparent and reduces to local binding by a silent pronominal element—prolog—as the subject of a logophoric operator OPLOG in the left periphery of the anaphor’s local domain. Like any pronominal, prolog can be valued by a distant antecedent and should license split antecedents and partial binding for the anaphor it binds. We show that ϕ-deficient anaphors in different language families allow nonlocal binding, while disallowing split antecedents and partial binding, contra the main hypothesis of the prolog approach. We describe a Multiple Agree–based analysis that accounts for the patterns observed.

Citation: Beckers GJL, Huybregts MAC, Everaert MBH and Bolhuis JJ (2024) No evidence for language syntax in songbird vocalizations. Front. Psychol. 15:1393895. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1393895

This article explores a restriction on non-local binding in Vietnamese—the blocking effect—including a systematic comparison with its Mandarin Chinese counterpart. Our finding is that the blocking effect in Vietnamese appeared to be rather different from that in Mandarin but, in fact, employs essentially the same syntactic mechanism. While binding of Mandarin ziji is governed by a [+participant] feature, binding of the Vietnamese anaphor mình is governed by a [+author] feature. Together with the assumption of the presence of a silent performative frame, this derives that binding of Vietnamese mình yields what one may call an Author effect .

Abstract All languages have expressions, typically pronominals and anaphors, that may or must depend for their interpretation on another expression, their antecedent. When such a dependency is subject to structural conditions, it reflects binding. Although there is considerable variation in binding patterns cross-linguistically, in fact, variation is along a limited set of parameters. The Germanic languages exemplify some of the main factors involved. In Germanic, third-person pronominals generally do not allow binding by a co-argument. However, in Frisian and Afrikaans, they do, being embedded in a richer structure than meets the eye. In Continental West Germanic and Scandinavian, anaphors come in two types: simplex anaphors (SE-anaphors)—deficient for number and gender—and complex anaphors (SELF-anaphors). These typically consist of a pronominal or SE-anaphor combined with an element like Dutch zelf ‘self’ or one of its cognates. In all the Germanic languages SELF-anaphors are bound in their local domain—approximately the domain of their nearest subject—except in a few identifiable positions, where they are interpreted logophorically. That is, they accept a non-local antecedent, provided this element holds the perspective of the sentence. The distribution of SE-anaphors involves three different conditions. First, they can be bound by a co-argument only if the verb belongs to a restricted class, which allows syntactic detransitivization. Second, in general, SE-anaphors allow non-local binding. But the conditions differ among subgroups. In Dutch and German, they can only be bound non-locally when contained in a causative or perception verb complement or a small clause. In Mainland Scandinavian, non-local binding is, in principle, available to all infinitival clauses (subject to some dialectal variation). For instance, in some varieties of Norwegian, referentiality of intervening subjects restricts binding; in other varieties, the restricting factor is not “finiteness” but “being specified for tense.” Third, in Icelandic long-distance antecedents beyond the infinitival domain are licensed by a subjunctive, together with the requirement that the antecedent holds the perspective. Faroese largely patterns like Icelandic, although lacking a subjunctive. However, the class of verbs that allow this pattern coincides with the class of verbs in Icelandic that have a subjunctive complement. Non-local binding of SE-anaphors is sensitive to the requirement that the antecedent be animate, but the languages show differences in the details. Unlike the West Germanic languages, the Scandinavian languages all have a possessive reflexive in third person. In general, their distribution appears to be quite close to that of SE-anaphors, but this is subject to dialectal variation, with various differences in the details.

In 2016 the authors started a project studying Dutch acquired by Indonesian state citizens at a very early age, when it was an official language in Indonesia, before 1945. The group is quite diverse; some could be called early bilinguals. A substantial group of Indonesians used Dutch in the family circle. Often the parents, who spoke Dutch as a first or second language, decided to use Dutch at home to increase the social opportunities of their children. Before World War II the language of the ‘better’ schools was Dutch, enhancing (Indonesian) students’ opportunities for further education in the Netherlands, or employment with the Dutch government. Outside the family Bahasa Indonesia was the standard language. In the years immediately after the second World War the use of Dutch strongly decreased, especially in education, and when the Netherlands recognized Indonesian independence, in 1949, the use of Dutch virtually ended. Our principal aim, for the moment, is documenting the language use of this 70+-group; the gathered material will later be used for studying language contact and language loss. These first 20–30 interviews, conducted over the past few years, also offer us a better understanding of the conditions under which Dutch was used during the colonial period, how this changed during the Japanese occupation and the struggle for independence after the second World War, why people are still using it nowadays, and how Dutch as a family language disappeared. The present paper reports our initial findings, outlining how using Dutch formed part of these speakers’ identity in a (post-)colonial society.

Abstract The present chapter discusses the acquisition of social and linguistic constraints by Jakarta Indonesian preschoolers. We examine the morphological aspects in two Indonesian varieties, namely Bahasa Indonesia (BI) and Colloquial Jakarta Indonesian (CJI), focusing on the use of transitivity and intransitivity marking verbal prefixes. Data in this study come from two periods of interviews in formal and informal settings with a six-month interval. Participants in this study are children of middle-class families (N = 63). We investigate whether they use BI prefixes and CJI prefixes appropriately in terms of situations and morphological rules. Findings in this study indicate that these children acquire the social and grammatical constraints at the same time in the informal situation.

The expression of reflexivity in Indonesian and related languages is based on various strategies, see Cole and Hermon (2005), Kartono (2013), and Schadler (2014) for discussion. This paper focuses on the expression of reflexivity based on the element diri and its cognates, not discussed in these papers. As a reflexive marker, bare diri is not specified for grammatical features such as number, gender, and person, so it imposes no restrictions on the value of the subject argument. It is only allowed with a subset of verbs, namely agent– theme verbs. Our goal is to determine its precise role. After applying a number of diagnostics for argumenthood (Dimitriadis and Everaert 2014), we show that diri is not an argument. We propose that the role of diri is that of an element marking detransitivization of the verb and reflecting an operation combining the latter’s agent and theme roles into one complex agent–theme role (“a bundling operation” in the sense of Reinhart and Siloni 2005). This complex role is assigned to the remaining argument resulting in a reflexive interpretation. Further tests also show that agent and patient roles are indeed present in verbs with diri after the bundling operation.

This paper presents an in-depth investigation of the binding strategies in Kokborok and we will look more specifically how this sheds light on the theories of reflexivization. Kokborok, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Tripura, a state in the North-East of India, has two reflexives: sak sak 'self self ' and sak baitha. 'self self '. The form sak sak 'self self ' conforms to Principle A of classic Binding Theory, blocking long-distance binding, but this does not hold true for sak baitha. allowing non-local binding. It is a well-established fact that some reflexives allow non-local binding, but it is generally assumed that this phenomenon is limited to a certain type of reflexive, morpho-syntactically 'simple reflexives.' The so-called 'complex reflexives' generally bar non-local binding, and the Kokborok reflexive sak baitha. seems an exception to that. This paper explores the uniqueness involved in the nature of anaphoric binding in Kokborok.

In many domains of linguistics, theoretical differences have led to entrenchment and a certain degree of fragmentation. Morphology seems to be different. Theoretical positions differ substantially, but the differences never get in the way of informing oneself about the reasons for adhering to a different framework, making use of it. In this volume, the following frameworks are discussed: a-morphous morphology (Anderson 1992), word and paradigm morphology (Blevins 2016), paradigm function morphology (Stump 2001, 2016), onomasiological approaches (Dokulil 1962, Stekauer 1998), construction morphology (Booij 2010), lexical semantic framework (Lieber 2004, 2016), and neo-constructionist approaches (Hale & Keyser 2002) such as distributed morphology (Embick 2015). This volume thus contains a wealth of theoretical approaches, methodologies, and descriptive issues: a fitting tribute to a linguist who made it his hallmark to serve the linguistic community with a broad range of textbooks, monographs, and research articles.

It is generally assumed that Mandarin Chinese has a complex anaphor ta ziji, which is locally bound (Condition A of the canonical binding theory; Chomsky 1981), and another anaphor, ziji, which can be locally and nonlocally bound, as in (1).Ziji’s internal structure is subject to debate. The dominant position is that it is simplex and that this property enables its nonlocal binding (Battistella 1987, 1989, Pica 1987, 1991, Cole, Hermon, and Sung 1990, Huang and Tang 1991, Charnavel et al. 2017). Bergeton (2004), on the other hand, argues that it is complex. Huang and Liu (2001) propose a nonuniform analysis. So does Giblin (2016:171), arguing that zi-ji is a SE-anaphor (Reinhart and Reuland 1993), hence simplex, when nonlocally bound, but a SELF-anaphor, hence complex, when locally bound. In these analyses, the representation of zi-ji’s dual role lacks independent motivation. However, Chief (1997, 1998) provides the data for an independent argument that zi-ji is complex throughout. This is important for understanding the expression of reflexivity in Mandarin, and the syntactic representation of anaphoric dependencies in general.1Our starting point is coargument binding, which leads to a reflexive predicate. Crosslinguistically, expressing reflexivity requires special means, some of which we illustrate here with Sakha and Faroese. The use of reflexive affixes, as in (2a), or simplex reflexives, as in (3a), is restricted or requires additional licensing; see the ill-formedness of the affixal variant in (2b) and of (3b) without sjálvan. However, complex reflexive forms as in (2b) and (3b) can generally be used without restrictions (Reinhart and Reuland 1993, Reuland 2011, 2017c, Schadler 2014, Volkova 2014).Reuland (2001, 2011, 2017c) shows that “local identity avoidance”2 is a key factor in the analysis of reflexivity. The grammatical system avoids the expression of reflexivity by two identical variables in a local domain (4a). A reflexive (semantic) predicate can avoid (4a) in two ways: either by detransitivization as in (4b) with a bundled 8-role (Reinhart 2000/2016), illustrated by (2a)/(3a); or by differentiating its arguments—that is, “protecting” one variable by combining it with an additional morpheme (crosslinguistically realized as a -self-type element, body part noun, doubled pronoun, etc.) as in (4c), illustrated by (2b)/(3b). Bundling (4b) is restricted to agent-theme verbs and is therefore not available in (2b)/(3b) (Reinhart and Siloni 2005). If neither bundling nor protection applies, the result is ill-formed.If zi-ji were truly simplex, like sær/seg in (3), its behavior would not fit the overall pattern observed, and it would pose a challenge to the approach in Reuland 2011.We first review evidence from Bergeton 2004 and Giblin 2016 showing that locally bound zi-ji differs from simplex anaphors. Then, reviewing evidence from Chief 1997, 1998, Bergeton 2004, Y. Liu 2016, and Wong 2017, we show that zi-ji is complex, consisting of zi-, independently occurring as a reflexivizing verbal prefix, and a pronominal stem -ji (defective, since it lacks a number contrast; Reuland 2011). We then derive the binding properties of zi-ji from its constituting elements, based on a unified analysis of the role of zi- in two different environments.Germanic simplex anaphors like Faroese seg (see (5)) or Dutch zich allow local binding only with a subclass of agent-theme verbs (e.g., Everaert 1986, Reinhart and Siloni 2005).3Zi-ji is not subject to this restriction, though; witness the contrast between (5) and (6).Bergeton (2004) notes that zi-ji has both sloppy and strict readings in elliptical constructions, unlike its Scandinavian and Dutch counterparts with sig/seg/zich, but like their complex counterparts such as sjálfan sig/seg sjálvan/zichzelf. Similarly, zi-ji allows statue interpretations (Jackendoff 1992), as noted by Y.Liu (2016), unlike simplex anaphors in Scandinavian or Dutch. In all these respects, locally bound zi-ji behaves just like the complex anaphors in these languages, expressed in the gloss ‘REFL-self’.4 These properties of zi-ji will be discussed in detail in section 5.Locally bound zi-ji differs not only from simplex anaphors, but also from nonlocally bound zi-ji. Nonlocal binding of zi-ji is subject to a blocking effect (e.g., Cole, Hermon, and Sung 1990, Huang and Tang 1991, Giblin 2016). That is, binding of zi-ji by a 3rd person antecedent is blocked by a 1st or 2nd person pronominal intervening between zi- ji and its envisaged antecedent. For instance, if we replace 3rd person Lisi by 1st person wo ‘I’ in (1), we get (7a), in which zi-ji cannot be bound by Zhangsan. In a local binding dependency, however, this blocking effect disappears, as illustrated in (7b) (see, e.g., Huang and Liu 2001, Giblin 2016).5This led Huang and Liu (2001) and Giblin (2016) to hypothesize that zi-ji’s entry is ambiguous. We show, however, that in fact no such ambiguity is involved: zi-ji is uniformly complex, consisting of a reflexivizing element zi- and a deficient pronominal -ji. The “ambiguity” of zi-ji reduces to a timing difference in the way its two components interact with the syntactic environment.The evidence that zi-ji is complex comes from the fact that Mandarin has a verbal prefix zi-, which marks verbal elements as reflexive, as in (8). When a Mandarin verb has a compound form, zi- generally replaces the first component when it reflexivizes; for example, cansha ‘kill cruelly’ reflexivizes as zi-sha ‘kill oneself’.The second component, -ji, originated as a pronominal element in Classical Chinese (Y. Liu 2016).6 Currently, the -ji part can still be used in contexts like (9); see also Bergeton 2004.Marking by zi- is quite productive, yielding entries like these:7Wong (2017) discusses 38 more zi-prefixed verbs from a corpus search (see the online appendix mentioned in footnote 7).8 Like affixal reflexives in other languages, they are subject to restrictions (see (2b)). Most of the verbs are agent-theme verbs, but some appear to be object experiencer verbs, such as zi-yu ‘to amuse oneself’ (see the appendix for discussion).Y. Liu (2016) and Wong (in preparation) show that zi-reflexivization also obtains with subject experiencer verbs taking a clausal complement, as in Zhangsan [zi-jue conghui] ‘Zhangsan considers himself smart’.9 Such zi-verbs also allow full clausal complements with embedded clauses, to be discussed in section 9.10Zi-prefixation is also highly productive in formations like zi-yi zhuangzhi ‘self-moving device’ and similarly in expressions like zi-jia ‘self-drive’, zi-xue ‘self-learn’, and zi-ban ‘self-manage’, which abound on the Internet. Here, zi- is comparable to SELF-morphemes in the corresponding forms in languages like English and Dutch.These facts warrant the conclusion that zi-ji is a complex anaphor.11Let’s see, then, precisely how zi- contributes to a reflexive interpretation. As noted in section 2, zi-ji, like complex anaphors in Dutch and Scandinavian, but unlike simplex reflexives, allows proxy readings (11), strict and sloppy readings in ellipsis (12b), and object comparison (12c) (Zec 1985, Dimitriadis and Everaert 2014). However, as Y. Liu (2016) observes, zi-prefixed verbs do not, as the minimal pairs in (11) and (12) show.In this respect, zi-prefixed verbs behave like verbs with simplex reflexives in Scandinavian and Dutch and verbs with reflexive affixes in languages as different as Indonesian (diri) and Sakha (-n). Unlike what one sees with Romance clitics, zi- occurs only in reflexives and object experiencers. Its role in zi-jia ‘self-drive’, zi-xue ‘self-learn’, and the like, indicates that it is a reflexivizer semantically, but is not itself an argument.12We propose that zi- acts as an operator on argument structure, identifying two argument positions (for details, see footnotes 17, 18, 21). Since in cases like (8) no object argument is projected syntactically in the coargument domain, this identification results in reduction of an argument and bundling of the two θ-roles, as in (4b). In section 9, we extend this analysis to clausal complements of zi-verbs (see Chief 1997 for an analysis in terms of Lexical-Functional Grammar).In contrast to what the dominant position presupposes (e.g., Pica 1987, 1991), nonlocal binding does not necessarily require monomorphemic anaphors. Crosslinguistically, we find a class of complex anaphoric expressions that allow both local binding (insensitive to verb class) and nonlocal, nonlogophoric binding. Such anaphors are morphologically complex elements that license reflexivity (4c) but do not enforce it (Reuland 2011). Volkova and Reuland (2014) refer to these elements as semireflexives.This class comprises elements from languages as diverse as Meadow Mari (škenže; Uralic, Volkova 2014), Avar (žiwgo; Nakh-Daghestanian, Rudnev 2017), Bahasa Indonesia and Javanese (dirinya and awake dee; Malayo-Polynesian, Kartono 2013, Schadler 2014),13 and many others. These anaphors all consist of a nominal head and a possessive pronominal element. In addition, these languages all have a locally bound anaphor, containing an additional element (a “super-complex” anaphor).14 Mandarin fits into this type of system, having a semireflexive, zi-ji, and a yet more complex local anaphor, ta zi-ji (which enforces reflexivity).That being monomorphemic is not a prerequisite for nonlocal binding follows from the fact that not only Move but also Agree expresses dependencies in syntax. Agree allows the encoding of an interpretive dependency by feature sharing (Reuland 2001, 2011, 2017c, Pesetsky and Torrego 2007, Kratzer 2009; see also Giblin 2016).15 Under standard assumptions (e.g., Chomsky 2008), the mediating elements on the path between binder and bindee are X0s, but neither binder nor bindee must be an X0 itself. The same holds for analyses of nonlocal binding using Multiple Agree (Hiraiwa 2005), as in Giblin 2016 or Zubkov 2018, illustrated in the following section. Hence, there is no reason for nonlocally bound zi-ji to be analyzed as monomorphemic.We cannot do justice here to the extensive literature on binding of zi-ji. For the sake of concreteness, we refer to Giblin (2016) for an Agree-based account of nonlocal zi-ji. Very briefly, Giblin argues that zi-ji is ϕ-feature-deficient and is syntactically bound through the agreement system. The binding relation is mediated by functional heads (C0 and T0) above the antecedent and the anaphor, and, crucially, C0 bears an unvalued person ([+participant]) feature, which it seeks to value, in accordance with Contiguous Agree (Nevins 2007). It probes for a value and finds it in the local (subject) DP, and in a nesting of embedded TPs the ϕ-features on C0 are shared with all lower (anaphoric) T0s, as well as with zi-ji, as illustrated in (13).The blocking effect emerges when an intervening argument with a nonmatching person value disrupts the agreement chain that effects the binding relationship between the anaphor and its potential antecedent.16We now derive the difference between local and nonlocal zi-ji, given that zi-ji is uniformly complex. In this analysis, -ji acts as the (defective) pronominal head of the expression and is the relevant goal for Agree in (13). Zi-, a reflexivizing element, identifies two argument variables of an expression it applies to.17Our analysis of zi-ji is modeled on Reuland and Winter’s (2009) analysis of English himself, accounting for the availability of proxy readings. Note, first of all, that it is a standard property of pronouns that they allow a proxy interpretation (Safir 2004, Reuland and Winter 2009). In Reuland and Winter’s analysis, modifying a proposal by Jacobson (1999), nonreflexive pronouns, instead of simply denoting the identity function on entities, are taken to denote a function from entities to entities that takes a relation (such as the ‘stands for’ relation) as a parameter (a Skolem function). Reuland and Winter provide a decompositional semantics of pronself, in which the self relation replaces the contextually given proxy relation of the bare pronoun. SELF reflexivizes the verb by covert movement (incorporation; Reinhart and Reuland 1991, Reuland 2011).18 When self does not move onto the verb (in “exempt positions”), English himself allows another option: namely, self can directly compose with him, leading to the nonlocal, “pronominal” interpretation of himself.We propose that this analysis carries over to Mandarin zi-ji, where zi- = self and -ji = him, with the proviso that -ji, unlike him, is feature-deficient. Thus, one option is for zi-ji to reflexivize a predicate as follows: the zi-component composes with the predicate by covert movement, yielding local binding, as in (14a), represented more abstractly as in (14b).Zi- introduces a blind process identifying two variables in the predicate—here, those corresponding to the internal and external θ-roles—which does not “see” the arguments, hence the absence of consciousness effects (for the sake of concreteness, (14) shows how the process applies after the goal role has been saturated). Thus, the local anaphoric dependency in (14) is not mediated through Agree and therefore is also insensitive to ϕ-features and blocking. Since the process leaves zi-ji as a syntactic and semantic argument, object comparison will be possible just like with English himself.When the alternative of directly composing pron with self is applied to Mandarin zi-ji—that is, composing zi- with -ji—the result is a pronoun-type interpretation, allowing a proxy reading. Under this option, zi-ji is interpreted as in (15).Clearly, zi-ji as it results from (15) is not a reflexivizer. Since -ji is ϕ-feature-defective and heads the expression, its defectiveness will be inherited by zi-ji as a whole. Zi-ji will therefore be visible for probing and chain formation along the lines discussed by Giblin (2016), and will also be sensitive to blocking. Given (14) and (15), zi- has the same semantics in both the local and the nonlocal case, obviating the ambiguity approach of Huang and Liu (2001) and Giblin (2016). The difference resides in what element the instruction associated with its semantics applies to.The binding properties of zi-ji follow from the interaction of zi-ji’s components with other grammatical mechanisms. That is, both ways of interpreting zi-ji involve elements and operations within the computational system. Neither leads to the local satisfaction of all interpretive requirements, and there is no economy preference between the two options (see Reuland 2001, 2011 for the notion that economy privileges syntactic processes over accessing the interpretation system). In this, zi-ji differs from himself: for himself, only the option with self-movement (see (14)) involves syntax, which therefore takes precedence, and exemption effects are observed.This touches on the general issue of optionality in anaphoric dependencies. In the case of pronominal binding, optionality seems unavoidable, but it is theoretically unproblematic, since it is nonsyntactic and postcyclic.19 For zi-ji, choice of antecedent appears to be optional as well (see Giblin 2016), although this dependency is syntactic. The challenge, then, is whether prima facie optionality in anaphor binding can be reduced to structural differences (e.g., the numeration; see Reuland 2017b for Scandinavian). For more detailed discussion, see Reuland 2017b.The issue of local vs. nonlocal binding can in principle be resolved by locating the source of the optionality in the C-T system (Giblin 2016). As explained above, given the structure [V zi-ji], the next step can be either (a) zi- composes with -ji (see (15)) or (b) zi- composes with V (see (14)). Since (a) involves composing with a sister, it may be initially preferred over (b); however, the result of (a) will be interpretable only if it is in the domain of a suitable probe: a derivation in which zi- applies to -ji only converges if -ji is covalued with the local T0 under Agree. If the local T0 does not match (by not carrying a suitable [+participant] feature), the alternative whereby zi- applies to the verb remains, yielding local binding.20As noted in section 4, a class of zi-verbs takes a clausal complement (Y. Liu 2016). As observed by Wong (in preparation) and Chief (1997) independently, not only may such complements contain a subject—[zi- V [SC NP Pred]]—but further embeddings are in fact possible. These are subject to an important restriction. If the complement of a zi- prefixed verb contains an occurrence of zi-ji or the pronominal ta, this element is obligatorily bound by the subject of the zi-prefixed verb, but not by a higher or a more local subject if present. Whereas in (1) zi-ji can take any of the c-commanding subjects as an antecedent, in (16) the local subject of the zi-verb is the only option.Interestingly, as observed earlier, nonlocal binding of zi-ji is subject to the blocking effect. If we replace Lisi in (16) by wo ‘I’, Zhangsan is not available as a binder, and instead Wangwu is chosen. However, binding of ta ‘he/she/it’ is not affected.This pattern can be explained as follows. Let’s take as a starting point the case in (16) where ta or zi-ji is free in the complement, before zi- is merged to the verb. This yields (17) as the logical syntax representation of the whole vP, after the subject undergoes Quantifier Raising and zi-ji is rendered by a variable.Merging zi- yields (18), since it identifies the argument variables.21Nondistinctness does not come into play (nor do restrictions on bundling), since the complement structure itself yields complexity (see (4c)), and the reflexive representation is licensed. This derives the fact that Zhangsan is the binder.However, we should also derive that the closer binder Lisi is not available for ta, and that neither Lisi nor Wangwu is a possible binder for zi-ji. Crucially, variable binding will not apply at this stage given its postcyclic nature. During the syntactic derivation, variables stay free, unless morphosyntax interferes. The economy principle mentioned above ensures that morphosyntactic encoding (as in the case of zi-) takes precedence over coreference assignment and variable binding.22 Thus, at the point where zi- merges, the relevant variable is free, and zi-’s operation (see 18)) identifies it with the external argument variable of the verb.The blocking effect in these complements follows from Giblin’s (2016) approach to blocking together with our analysis of binding. As Giblin shows, blocking follows from a morphosyntactic mismatch in [+participant] features, causing a violation of Contiguous Agree. Hence, blocking will bleed zi-’s operation. The effect of blocking is that the variable is not free for binding beyond the position where blocking obtains. Consequently, when either Lisi or Wangwu is replaced by wo ‘I’, the configuration in (17) is not derived, and zi- cannot apply to it.23The result is a complement to the zi-verb without a free variable. Such cases are indeed observed, with an interesting interpretive effect, as illustrated in (19).In such cases, zi- may express counterfactuality of the complement. This reflects reflexivization in a different vein: Zhangsan’s thinking is shared only by himself.We have shown that the anaphor zi-ji is complex, consisting of a reflexivizing prefix zi- and a pronominal stem -ji. This considerably simplifies the grammar of binding in Mandarin and eliminates a challenge to Reuland’s (2011) approach. The local and nonlocal binding properties of zi-ji result from zi- either reflexivizing the verb of which zi-ji is an argument or taking -ji as an argument, inheriting the visibility of -ji for probing. This leads to nonlocal binding. We discussed curious binding patterns involving clausal complements of zi-verbs and showed that these follow from an economy principle in which morphosyntax acts as a filter on variable binding relations.Zi-ji fills the bill for being a semireflexive in the sense of Volkova (2014)—that is, a morphologically complex element that licenses reflexivity but does not enforce it. Thus, Mandarin has a verbal reflexivizing affix zi-, a (complex) semireflexive zi-ji, and a supercomplex local anaphor ta zi-ji. Therefore, the system of Mandarin fits into a crosslinguistically well-established pattern of anaphoric systems.Searches were carried out on the Xiandai Hanyu Cixi–Xiandai Hanyu Dongci Cidian (Modern Mandarin Chinese Dictionaries–Modern Mandarin Chinese Verbs Dictionary) (Beijing). In addition, data were collected from the Modern Mandarin Chinese Corpus (http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw) and the Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (Modern Mandarin Chinese Dictionary) (Beijing). Where no reference is provided, the reported facts were collected by the second author.We would like to thank the reviewers and the Squibs and Discussion editors for their very helpful comments, and Liu Yingtong and Iain Giblin for getting us started. We would also like to thank the members of the research group Language Structure: Variation and Change, the audience of the 2018 SLE conference in Tallin, and the organizers and participants of the Workshop on Anaphoricity and Logophoricity, Harvard University, September 2018, where parts of this material were presented. For their help with the data, special thanks go to Gang Wei, Qiu Shuang Huang, Hon Kin Lam, Kin Wah Wong, Scarlett Chung, Mandy Chung, Shirley Chung, Professor Jen Ting, Professor Shu-ing Shyu, Shiunue Kuo, Chang Liu, Dr. Wei Yu, Dr. Hai Lan He, Jun Hao Cao, Han Chen, Ying Liu, Chou Mo, Na Hu, Xin Li, Lily Chan, Xiao Bai, Shuangli Guo, Ming Yuk, Xiao Jie, Jia Nan Liu, Chancy Niu, Qi Qi, Ling Ya Liu, and their friends and all other native participants.

The chapter presents a unified account of relative clauses of Santali, whose unmarked structure is the prenominal form of Externally Headed Relative Clauses. The prenominal form is an innovation evolved due to the change in the word order from SVO to SOV. The application of Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (Keenan and Comrie's 1977) over various syntactic positions shows that the relativisation ceases when the relativized head is ablative object. Further, in the case of comitative object, an alternative relativisation strategy is adopted. Keeping in view the distribution mentioned above, we analyze the relative clauses with matching analysis as discussed in Lees (1961, 1963), Chomsky (1965), Sauerland (1998) and Bhatt (2002).

In this contribution we discuss the factors determining the definite or indefinite interpretation of Noun Phrases in Vietnamese. In contrast to what has been claimed in the literature, we find that NPs consisting of a bare noun and NPs consisting of a numeral, a classifier (cl) and a noun, while generally indefinite, may permit a definite interpretation in certain contexts (in contrast to NPs consisting of just a classifier and a noun, which are always definite). We then compare the relevant patterns in Vietnamese with their counterparts in Mandarin and Cantonese. Although the differences may seem striking we show that they can be captured by some simple morpho-syntactic parameters.

The faculty of language is thought to be uniquely human. Recently, it has been claimed that songbirds are able to associate meaning with sound, comparable to the way that humans do. In human language, the meaning of expressions (semantics) is dependent on a mind-internal hierarchical structure (syntax). Meaning is associated with structure through the principle of compositionality, whereby the meaning of a complex expression is a function of the meaning of its constituent parts and the mode of composition. We argue that while recent experimental findings on songbird call sequences offer exciting novel insights into animal communication, despite claims to the contrary, they are quite unlike what we find in human language. There are indeed remarkable behavioral and neural parallels in auditory-vocal imitation learning between songbirds and human infants that are absent in our closest evolutionary relatives, the great apes. But so far, there is no convincing evidence of syntax-determined meaning in nonhuman animals.

In this Formal Comment the authors respond to objections to their previous Essay, reiterating that comparative linguistics is not an easy undertaking.

Unraveling the evolution of human language is no small enterprise. One could start digging somewhere in the largely unobservable past, working forwards to the present, hoping to surface in the right spot. Alternatively, one could start with the currently observed and well-established properties of human language, the phenotype of language, and work backwards, with these ‘knowns’ guiding the search for otherwise speculative historical ‘unknowns’. In a recent issue of Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Corballis [ 1 Corballis M.C. Language evolution: a changing perspective. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2017; 21: 229-236 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar ] appears confident that only the first strategy will serve. Evolutionary explanations necessarily are historical, but few evolutionary biologists faced with such a paucity of historical evidence would forge ahead without first defining what, exactly, the phenotype is that ultimately evolved [ 2 Everaert M.B.H. et al. Structures, not strings: linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2015; 19: 729-743 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar ]. Yet, Corballis criticizes what we actually know about the human language phenotype, because it does not conform to his speculations [ 3 Berwick R.C. Chomsky N. Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. MIT Press, 2016 Crossref Google Scholar ]. We believe that Corballis’ odd research inversion suffers from misconceptions regarding what we know about both language and evolution.

Studia LinguisticaVolume 71, Issue 1-2 p. 1-11 Original article The World of Reflexives: An Introduction † Alexis Dimitriadis, Alexis Dimitriadis M.B.H.Everaert@uu.nl Utrecht University, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorMartin Everaert, Martin Everaert Utrecht University, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorEric Reuland, Eric Reuland Utrecht University, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author Alexis Dimitriadis, Alexis Dimitriadis M.B.H.Everaert@uu.nl Utrecht University, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorMartin Everaert, Martin Everaert Utrecht University, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorEric Reuland, Eric Reuland Utrecht University, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 March 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12064 †This special issue is based on a selection of contributions presented at the World of Reflexives workshop (August 25–27, 2011), organized by the editors. This workshop was organized as part of the project Universals and the Typology of Reflexives, funded by grant number 3600-70-330 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), which is gratefully acknowledged. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume71, Issue1-2Special Issue: The world of reflexives: universal principles and a typology of variation'April 2017Pages 1-11 RelatedInformation