1887
image of Kokborok and the simple-complex reflexive distinction
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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: ‘self self’ and ‘self self’. The form ‘self self’ conforms to Principle A of classic Binding Theory, blocking long-distance binding, but this does not hold true for 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 seems an exception to that. This paper explores the uniqueness involved in the nature of anaphoric binding in Kokborok.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19091.roy
2020-10-19
2020-11-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, Mark C.
    1988Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Battistella, Edward
    1987 Chinese reflexivization. Proceedings of the Second Harbin Conference on Generative Grammar. Harbin: Heilongjiang University.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. Charnavel, Isabelle, Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon & C-T. James Huang
    2017 Long distance anaphor: Syntax and discourse. InMartin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, V. IV, 2nd edn., 2321–2402. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom074
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom074 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chomsky, Noam
    1981Lectures on government & binding. Holland: Foris Publication.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cole, Peter, & Li-May Sung
    1994 Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry25. 355–385.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon & James, Huang C.-T.
    (eds.) 2001Long distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics 33). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Davison, Alice
    2000 Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Hindi. InBarbara Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Kārumūri. V. Subbārāo (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 397–470. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2001 Long-distance anaphors in Hindi/Urdu: Syntactic and semantic issues. InPeter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, & James Huang, C.-T. (eds.), Long distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics 33), 47–82. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Everaert, Martin
    1986The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110250510
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110250510 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2008 Domain restrictions on reciprocal interpretation. InEkkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives. Theoretical and typological explorations, 557–576. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Everaert, Martin, Kārumūri V. Subbārāo & Mataina Wichamdinbo
    2014 Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Liangmai. Lingua Posnaniensis55(2). 41–47. 10.2478/linpo‑2013‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.2478/linpo-2013-0012 [Google Scholar]
  13. Forker, Diana
    2014 The grammar of knowledge in Hinuq. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert W. Dixon (eds.), The grammar of knowledge, 1–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gurtu, Madhu
    1992Anaphoric relations in Hindi and English. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hellan, Lars
    1986 On anaphora and predication in Norwegian. InHellan & Koch Christensen (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian syntax, 103–124. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4572‑2_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4572-2_6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Inkelas, Sharon & Cherl Zoll
    2005Reduplication: Doubling in morphology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627712
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627712 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jacquesson, François
    2008A Kokborok grammar: Agartala dialect. Agartala: Kokborok Tei Hukumu Mission.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A.
    1997 Anaphors as pronouns. Studia Linguistica51. 186–234. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00012
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00012 [Google Scholar]
  19. Koster, Jan & Eric Reuland
    1991Long distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627835
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627835 [Google Scholar]
  20. König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund
    2000 Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. InFrajzyngier, Zygmunt & Tracy S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions (Typological Studies in Language 40), 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.40.03kon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.40.03kon [Google Scholar]
  21. Lalitha Murthy, Balemarthy & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo
    2000 Pronouns and lexical anaphors in Mizo. InBarbara Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 777–840. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, Gunsoo
    2001 A minimalist account of long-distance anaphor kucasin. Studies in Generative Grammar11(2). 383–404.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, Yingtong
    2016 Chinese zi: Linking reflexivization and binding. Utrecht: Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, MA thesis.
  24. Lust, Barbara, Kashi Wali, James. W. Gair & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo
    (eds.) 2000Lexical reflexives in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110818888
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110818888 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lyutikova, Ekaterina
    2000 Reflexives and emphasis in Tsaxur. InFrajzyngier, Zygmunt & Tracy. S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions (Typological Studies in Language 40), 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.40.09lyu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.40.09lyu [Google Scholar]
  26. Pica, Pierre
    1987 On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. InJoyce McDunough & Bernadette Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS17, 483–499. Amherst: GLSA Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Reuland, Eric
    2011Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2017a Why is reflexivity so special? Understanding the world of reflexives. Studia Linguistica71. 12–59. 10.1111/stul.12070
    https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12070 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017b Long-distance binding in Germanic languages. In: Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol.IV, 2nd edn, 2403–2433. Holboken: John Wiley. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom039
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom039 [Google Scholar]
  30. Reuland, Eric, Sally Chi Ho Wong & Martin Everaert
    2019 How the complexity of Mandarin zi-ji simplifies the grammar. Linguistic Inquiry early access: doi:  10.1162/ling_a_00355. 1–24.
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00355 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sarju Devi, T. & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo
    2002 Reduplication and case copying: The case of lexical anaphors in Manipuri and Telugu. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area25(2; Fall). 47–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Schadler, Dagmar
    2014Reflexivity: Licensing or enforcing. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sengupta, Gautam
    2000 Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Bangla. InBarbara Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 277–332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Singh, Rajendra
    2005 Reduplication in modern Hindi and Theory of Reduplication. InBossong Georg, Comrie Bernard & Matras Yaron (eds.), Studies on reduplication, 263–281. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Stolz, Thomas
    2009 Total reduplication: syndetic vs asyndetic patterns in Europe. Grazer Linguistische Studien71. 99–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Subbārāo, Kārumūri V.
    2012South Asian languages: A syntactic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139003575
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139003575 [Google Scholar]
  37. Subbārāo, Kārumūri V. S. Malhotra & S. Barua
    2010 Aspects of Kokborok syntax. Interdiciplinary Journal of Linguistics3. 1–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wali, Kashi
    2000 Lexical reflexives and pronouns in Marathi. InBarbara Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, 513–574. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wali, Kashi & Kārumūri V. Subbārāo
    1991 On pronominal classification: Evidence from Marathi and Telugu. Linguistics29. 1093–1110. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.6.1093
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.6.1093 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wong, Sally Chi Ho
    2017 Investigating Mandarin Chinese zi-V reflexive verbs. Working paper. Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Yang, Dong-Whee
    1983 The extended binding theory of anaphors. Language Research19. 169–192.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19091.roy
Loading
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