1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Volume 27, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

This paper has four goals. (1) We argue that the non-local antecedent of the long-distance reflexive is either an attitude holder bearing a belief, or an empathy locus in the event/state that the utterance speaker identifies with (Kuno & Kaburaki 1977; Kuno 1987; Huang & Liu 2001; Wang & Pan 2015; Charnavel 2019b). (2) We show that Huang & Liu’s (2001) analysis based on direct discourse representations fares better than the generalized discourse requirement in Cole et al. (2006) to characterize the distribution of the blocking effect of because first/second-person pronouns induce blocking only when they occur within the relevant direct discourse representation for the intended long-distance interpretation of . (3) We propose that the blocking effect of can be lifted with proper contextual support, invoking the Topic Empathy Hierarchy (Kuno & Kaburaki 1977; Kuno 1987) to override the Speech-Act Empathy Hierarchy and neutralize the perspective conflicts induced by a first/second-person pronoun. (4) We posit that the dependency between and its non-local antecedent is mediated by an implicit logophoric operator/pronoun in Charnavel’s (2019b) two-stage model of binding of long-distance anaphora (Nishigauchi 2014; Sundaresan 2018; Ikawa 2024; Baker & Ikawa 2024). We show that the existence of the implicit logophoric operator/pronoun not only captures the hybrid syntactico-pragmatic properties of Vietnamese , but also plays a pivotal role in explicating the interpretative possibilities of multiple occurrences of .

© ILAS
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00250.cho
2025-10-02
2026-06-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lali.00250.cho
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lali.00250.cho.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00250.cho&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Anand, Pranav
    2006 De de se. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mark C. & Ikawa, Shiori
    2024 Control theory and the relationship between logophoric pronouns and logophoric uses of anaphors. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory42(3). 897–954. 10.1007/s11049‑023‑09592‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09592-3 [Google Scholar]
  3. Battistella, Edwin
    1989 Chinese reflexivization: A movement to INFL approach. Linguistics27(6). 987–1012. 10.1515/ling.1989.27.6.987
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.6.987 [Google Scholar]
  4. Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi
    1988 Psych-verbs and θ-Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory6(3). 291–352. 10.1007/BF00133902
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boër, Steven E. & Lycan, William G.
    1986 Knowing who. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bui, Thuy
    2019 Binding and coreference in Vietnamese. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Charnavel, Isabelle
    2018 Long distance binding of French reflexive soi: First-person oriented logophoricity. InRepetti, Lori & Ordóñez, Francisco (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 14: Selected papers from the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Stony Brook, NY, 21–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/rllt.14.02cha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.14.02cha [Google Scholar]
  8. 2019a Perspective in causal clauses. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory37(2). 389–424. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9418‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9418-z [Google Scholar]
  9. 2019b Locality and logophoricity: A theory of exempt anaphora. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190902100.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190902100.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Charnavel, Isabelle & Sportiche, Dominique
    2016 Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show. Linguistic Inquiry47(1). 35–87. 10.1162/LING_a_00204
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00204 [Google Scholar]
  11. Charnavel, Isabelle & Huang, C.-T. James & Cole, Peter & Hermon, Gabriella
    2017 Long-distance anaphora: Syntax and discourse. InEveraert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk C. (eds). The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn, vol.41, 2321–2402. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom074
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom074 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheung, Candice Chi-Hang & Larson, Richard K.
    2015 Psych verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory33(1). 127–189. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9259‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9259-3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1989 Anaphora and attitudes de se. InBartsch, Renate & van Benthem, Johan & van Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 1–32. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110877335‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877335-002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, Noam
    2005 Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry36(1). 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2007 Approaching UG from below. InSauerland, Uli & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?: Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110207552.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207552.1 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2008 On phases. InFreidin, Robert & Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cole, Peter & Sung, Li-May
    1994 Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry25(3). 355–406.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cole, Peter & Wang, Chengchi
    1996 Antecedents and blockers of long-distance reflexives: The case of Chinese ziji. Linguistic Inquiry27(3). 357–390.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cole, Peter & Hermon, Gabriella & Huang, C.-T. James
    2006 Long-distance binding in Asian languages. InEveraert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk C. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol.31, 21–84. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470996591.ch39
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch39 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cole, Peter & Hermon, Gabriella & Sung, Li-May
    1990 Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistics Inquiry21(1). 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Doan, Quy Ngoc Thi
    2022 Anaphoric dependencies in Vietnamese: A syntactic approach. Amsterdam: LOT publication.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Doan, Quy Ngoc Thi & Reuland, Eric & Everaert, Martin
    2024 The blocking effect in Vietnamese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics33(2). 153–189. 10.1007/s10831‑023‑09263‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-023-09263-9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dubinsky, Stanley & Hamilton, Robert
    1998 Epithets as antilogophoric pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry29(4). 685–693. 10.1162/002438998553923
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553923 [Google Scholar]
  24. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
    2017 Vietnamese focus particles and derivation by phase. Journal of East Asian Linguistics26(4). 325–349. 10.1007/s10831‑017‑9156‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-017-9156-y [Google Scholar]
  25. Giorgi, Alessandra
    2006 From temporal anchoring to long distance anaphors. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory24(4). 1009–1047. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9004‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9004-7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Han, Peng
    2020 Investigating extra-sentential factors’ roles in interpretating Mandarin ziji: The interaction of extra-sentential (co)reference and intra-sentential coreference. Calgary: University of Calgary. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hiraiwa, Ken
    2002 Multiple agree. (Talk presented at25th GLOW Colloquium: Tools in Linguistic Theory Workshop (TiLT), Utrecht, 7–10 April 2002.)
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2005 Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hornstein, Norbert
    2003 On control. InHendrick, Randall (ed.), Minimalist syntax, 6–81. Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470758342.ch1
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758342.ch1 [Google Scholar]
  30. Huang, C.-T. James & Liu, C.-S. Luther
    2001 Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. InCole, Peter & Hermon, Gabriella & Huang, C.-T. James (eds.), Syntax and semantics vol. 33: Long-distance reflexives, 141–195. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Huang, C.-T. James & Tang, C.-C. Jane
    1991 The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. InKoster, Jan & Reuland, Eric (eds.), Long-distance anaphora, 263–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627835.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627835.014 [Google Scholar]
  32. Huang, Yun-Hua
    1984 Reflexives in Chinese. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics101. 163–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ikawa, Shiori
    2024 Revisiting anaphor complexity in Japanese. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics9(1). 1–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Ivan, Rodica & Bui, Thuy
    2019 Vietnamese anaphora: Binding principles and the lack thereof. InBochnak, M. Ryan & Butt, Miriam & Meertens, Erlinde & Zymla, Mark-Matthias (eds.), Proceedings of TripleA 5: Fieldwork perspectives on the semantics of African, Asian, and Austronesian languages, 47–61. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Jayaseelan, K. A.
    1997 Anaphors as pronouns. Studia Linguistica51(2). 186–234. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00012
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00012 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2000 Lexical anaphora in Malayalam. InLust, Barbara C. & Wali, Kashi & Gair, James W. & Subbarao, K. V. (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 113–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuno, Susumu
    1972 Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. Linguistic Inquiry3(2). 161–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 1987 Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuno, Susumu & Kaburaki, Etsuko
    1977 Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry8(4). 625–672.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lebeaux, David
    1985 Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic Review4(4). 343–363. 10.1515/tlir.1985.4.4.343
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1985.4.4.343 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyu, Jun & Kaiser, Elsi
    2021 Unpacking the blocking effect: Syntactic prominence and perspective-taking in antecedent retrieval in Mandarin Chinese. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics6(1). 1–41. (Article 136.) 10.16995/glossa.5781
     https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5781 [Google Scholar]
  42. Minkoff, Setha A.
    2004 Consciousness, backward coreference, and logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry35(3). 485–494. 10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.485
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.485 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nevins, Andrew
    2007 The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory25(2). 273–313. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9017‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2 [Google Scholar]
  44. Ngô, Binh
    2021 Vietnamese: An essential grammar. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Nguyễn Phú Trọng
    Nguyễn Phú Trọng 1996 Personal pronouns and pluralizations in Vietnamese. Mon-Khmer Studies251. 7–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Nishigauchi, Taisuke
    2014 Reflexive binding: Awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view. Journal of East Asian Linguistics23(2). 157–206. 10.1007/s10831‑013‑9110‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-013-9110-6 [Google Scholar]
  47. Oshima, David Yoshikazu
    2006 Perspectives in reported discourse. Stanford: Stanford University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Pan, Haihua
    1997 Constraints on reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. New York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2000 Why the blocking effect?InCole, Peter & Hermon, Gabriella & Huang, C.-T. James (eds.), Syntax and semantics vol. 33: Long-distance reflexives, 279–316. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pesetsky, David
    1995 Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Pham, Linh & Bui, Thuy & Goebel, Alexander & Kaiser, Elsi
    2024 Exempt reflexive mình in Vietnamese: Effects of person features and verb type. (Poster presented atHuman Sentence Processing Conference 2024, Ann Arbor, 16–18 May 2024.)
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Pollard, Carl, & Xue, Ping
    2001 Syntactic and nonsyntactic Constraints on long-distance reflexives. InCole, Peter & Hermon, Gabriella & Huang, C.-T. James (eds.), Long-distance reflexives, 317–342. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Rizzi, Luigi
    1990 On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica2(1). 27–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ross, John Robert
    1970 On declarative sentences. InJacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 222–272. Waltham: Ginn.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Simpson, Andrew & Pham, Linh
    2025 Reflexivization and mình-Exceptional local binding by a monomorphemic anaphor?Languages10(3). 44.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. von Stechow, Arnim
    1982 Structured propositions (Sonderforschungsbereich 99 Linguistik, Universität Konstanz 59). Konstanz: Universität Konstanz. (Technical report.)
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Sportiche, Dominique & Koopman, Hilda & Stabler, Edward
    2013 An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Sundaresan, Sandhya
    2012 Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart & Tromsø: University of Tromsø. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 2018 Perspective is syntactic: evidence from anaphora. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics3(1). 1–40. (Article 128.)
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Tang, C.-C. Jane
    1989 Chinese reflexives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory71. 93–121. 10.1007/BF00141348
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141348 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tran, Thuan
    2009 Wh-quantification in Vietnamese. Newark: University of Delaware. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan
    2015 A tale of two peripheries: Evidence from Chinese adverbials, light verbs, applicatives and object fronting. InWei-Tien Dylan Tsai (ed.), The cartography of Chinese syntax, 1–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang, Yingying & Pan, Haihua
    2014 A note on the non-de se interpretation of attitude reports. Language90(3). 746–754. 10.1353/lan.2014.0057
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0057 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2015 Empathy and Chinese long distance reflexive ziji — Remarks on Giorgi (2006, 2007). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory331. 307–322. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9257‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9257-5 [Google Scholar]
  65. Woolford, Ellen
    1999 More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry30(2). 257–287. 10.1162/002438999554057
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554057 [Google Scholar]
  66. Xu, Liejiong
    1993 The long-distance binding of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics21(1). 123–141.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00250.cho
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attitude holder; blocking effect; empathy locus; long-distance anaphor; Vietnamese

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error