A Language Typology in Anaphoric Dependency: Evidence from Chinese, English, Japanese, Icelandic, and Korean

Kim, Soo-Yeon

doi:10.22425/jul.2004.5.2.37

Journal of Universal Language 2004; 5(2):37-73

pISSN: 1598-6381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2004.5.2.37

Article

A Language Typology in Anaphoric Dependency: Evidence from Chinese, English, Japanese, Icelandic, and Korean

Soo-Yeon Kim ¹

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹Sejong University

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

This paper reviews the Prominence Hierarchy in Kim (1998, 2000a, 2000b) that were proposed to compute a different degree of preference when there is more than one option for anaphor interpretations. Employing the parameterized definition of a potential anaphor in a given language, this paper extends its basic spirit to interpretations of anaphors in other languages such as English, Icelandic, Japanese and Chinese.

Keywords: preference; acceptability; anaphors; dependency; prominence; intervention

References

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cole, P., G. Hermon, & L.-M. Sung. 1991. Principles and Parameters of Long Distance Reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 1-22.

Cole, P. & L.-M. Sung. 1994. Head Movement and Long Distance Reflexives. Linguisitc Inquiry 25, 355-406.

Cole, P. & C. Wang. 1996. Antecedents and Blockers of Long-distance Reflexives: The Case of Ziji. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 357-390.

Grinder, J. 1970. Super-equi Deletion. In M. Campbell et al. (eds.), Papers from the 6th Regional Meetings of the CLS 297-317. Chicago, IL: CLS.

Hellan, L. 1991. Containment and Connectedness Anaphors. In Koster & Reuland (eds.), 27-49.

Hestvik, A. 1990. LF Movement of Pronouns and the Computation of Binding Domains. Ph.D. Dissertation, Waltham, MA: Brandeis University.

Hestvik, A. 1992. LF Movement of Pronouns and Antisubject Orientation. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 557-594.

10.

Huang, C.-T. & C.-C. Tang. 1991. The Local Nature of the Long-distance Reflexive in Chinese. In Koster & Reuland (eds.), 263-282.

11.

Keenan, E. & B. Comrie. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63-99.

12.

Kim, S.-Y. 1998. Dependencies: A Study of Anaphoricity and Scrambling. Seoul: Hanshin.

13.

Kim, S.-Y. 2000a. Acceptability and Preference in the Interpretation of Anaphors. Lingusitics 38.2, 313-353.

14.

Kim, S.-Y. 2000b. What should we Do with Condition A? Korean Journal of Linguistics 25.2, 291-314.

15.

Kim, S.-Y. 2001. Phase Sensitivity of Binding Conditions. Korean Journal of Linguitic 26.1, 39-58.

16.

Koster, J. & E, Reuland. 1991. Long Distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Kuno, S. 1972. Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 161-195.

18.

Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

19.

Kuno, S. & E. Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 627-672.

20.

Lebeaux, D. 1983. A Distributional Difference between Reciprocals and Reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 723-730.

21.

Maling, J. 1984. Non-clause-bounded Reflexives in Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 211-241.

22.

McCawley, N. 1976. Reflexivization: A Transformational Approach. In M. Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 5, Japanese Generative Grammar 51-116. New York: Academic Press.

23.

Pica, P. 1987. On the Nature of Reflexivization Cycle. In J. McDonough & B. Plunkett (eds.), NELS 17, 483-499. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.

24.

Pollard C. & I. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261-303.

25.

Reinhart, T. & E. Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657- 720.

26.

Sells, P. 1987. Aspects of Logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 445-481.

27.

Tang, C.-C. 1989. Chinese Reflexives. Doctoral Dessertation, Leiden: University of Leiden.

28.

Thráinsson, H. 1991. Long-distance Reflexives and the Typology of NPs. In Koster & Reuland (eds.), 49-75.

29.

Wexler, K. & M. Manzini. 1987. Parameters and Learnability in Binding Theory. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (eds.), Parameter Setting 41-76. Dordrecht: Reidel.

30.

Wu, Y. 1992. Anaphora and Quantifier Scope in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

31.

Zribi-Herz, A. 1989. Anaphor Binding and Narrative Point of View: English Reflexive Pronouns in Sentence and Discourse. Language 65.4, 695-727.