8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
1/55
GR MM TIC L
REL TIONS
AND N PHOR
I N M L Y L M
by
Karuvannul
Putllanveetti l Mohanan
SU MITTED
IN
P RTI L FULFILLMENT
OF THE
REQUIREMENTS
OF THE
DEGREE OF
~ S T R OF SCIENCE
IN
LINGUISTICS
t the
M SS CHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June 9
o Karuvannur Puthanveettil Mohanan
9
The
author
hereby
grants
to
M I T
p erm is sio n to
repro-
duce and
to distr i ute copies
of
this thesis
document
in Whole
or
in part
Signature of
uthor
Cert i f ied
by ~ ~ ~ r ~ > ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ C ~ \ ; ~ ; ~ ~ 6 ~ o ~ ~ ~ k y
Thesfs ~ u p e r v i s o r
ccepte d
by
- - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - \ . N - - - - V \ , J - - - - > A ~ - x ~ H . . , . . . . . . . - . . ~ - { r a t i t y ~ e r
Chairman
~ ~ Q 1 ~ t a l
c ~ i t t e e
I fum .
M A S S A ~ H u s E T r s
INSTITUTE
0 TECHNOLOGY
Y lD
L\BRARtES
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
2/55
G R A ~ l l \ 1 A T C A L REL TIONS ND
N PHOR
IN IVI L Y L M
b y
K RUV NNUR PUTH NVEETTIL
MO N N
Submitted
to the Department
of L i n ~ u i s t i c s and Philosophy
on
8
y 1981 i n pa r t i a l fulfil:i6nent
of the
requiremel ts
of
the e ~ r e e of Master of Science
STR CT
This thesis r ~ s th at p ri nc ip le s governing the re la-
t ion between anaphors and antecedents are best stated a t
a
level
tha t encodes
grammatical
relat ions such as
subject
of
and object of.
This
level cannot be universal ly
ident i f ied
with
the
level of
configurat ional structure.
~ h e f i r s t section of the thesis presents
a
descript ion
of the behav iour of anaphors
and pronouns in
Malayalam, and
ident i f ies
those
proper t ies
of anaphora in
this
l a r ~ u a ~
tha t are of some theoret ical
in te res t
Section shows ti at
these properties recur in various other languages
such
as
Kannada,
Chinese,
Yoruba, and
Icelandic.
Sect ion
discuss-
es
the
problems that these
phenomena
pose fo r
the
Govern-
ment i n d i n ~ Theory as developed b y
Chomsky
in press) , and
s u ~ g e s t s
possible
r e v i s i o n s ~
Thesis
Supervisor. Noam
Chomsky
Title: ns t i tu te Professor
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
3/55
KNOWLEDGElfENTS
I am
extremely
grateful to my
supervisor
oam
Chomsky,
from whom learned to
do
syntax by o st i -
n tely
disagreeing w; th llim.
I
have benefi ted
a
great
deal from
the
llumerous discussions
I
have had wi
Joan Bresnan Ken Hale Alec l Y arantz, and Paul
Kipar
sky. I am
also
i ~ d e b t e d to a host of
people
who have
offered
me
thei r
suggetions
served
as in fo rman ts ur
col lected data for me,
spec ia l
mention must be made
of Douelas PUlleyblank James Huang Mark
L i b e r ~ a n
Mitch Marcus
Sreevas
Mandalam,
run and
Poornima. y
Wife
Tara is
responsible
for l l the
errors
since
she checked the
data c r i t i c i sed my arguments
and
pre-
sentation corrected
my
~ g l i s h and typed the
thes is .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
4/55
4
TABLE OF CONTENT..
abstract
l
2
acknowle
dgements I
J
table
of
contents 4
O. INTR0DUCTION 5
1.
AN/LPHORA IN
MALA
YALAM
n I
6
9
11
14
17
21
25
)2
...........
Obligatoriness
of Antecedents
The C command Condi tion .
Disjoint Reference '
Long
Dis tance
Anaphora
General Properties
of Anaphora in
Malayalam
SUbjecthood
of
Antecedents
1.1. Introductory
Remarks
6
2
The
NoncoreferencE
Rule
.
1.3.
1 .4.
1.5.
1.6.
1.7.
1.8.
2. N PHOR IN KANNADA CHINESE
YORUBA
ND
ICELANDIC 1 35
2.1.
Anaphora
in
Kannada
2.2.
Anaphora
in
Chinese
C
,.
2.3.
Anaphora
in
Yoruba
2.4.
naphora
in
Icelandic
35
38
40
3.
N PHOR ND
G
46
References
54
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
5/55
GR MM TI L REL TIONS ND N PHOR IN M L Y L M
O
INTRODUCTION
Thia
t h e s i s
i s concerned
with
on e o f the
binding
con
i t i ~ in the G overnment
B inding) theory as developed
in
ChomSky
1979;
in p r e s s ) .
The p r i n c i p l e
is
s t a t e d thus.
1 Anaphors are bound in
t h e i r
governing
category.
In Chomsky i n
p r e s s ) ,
is
assumed
t h a t the
condi
t ion a p p lie s
a t
the l e ve l
o f
e -st ruc t ure
to
syntactic
con-
f igur ations, I s h a l l argue t h a t must,
inGtead,
be assum
ed to apply
to
a nonconfigurational le v e l o f representa
tio n
containing What Chomsky
calls
lexica l V P s ,
The
l e v e l containing l e x i c a l
VP s,
which
may be
c a l l e d
the
l ex i ca l s tr uc tu ra ,
is
the
l e v e l
t h a t
u n iv e rsa lly encodes
grammatical
r e l a t i o n s l i k e subject
and o b je c t.
I s h a l l
also
argue
t h a t
pr inciple
1)
should
be
revised
to
in
clude c e r t a i n parametric
options
so
t h a t
ca n
account
fo r anaphora in languages l i k e Malayalam,
Chinese,
Yoruba,
and
Ic e la n d ic .
The
f i r s t se c tio n
o f the
th e sis presents
a
descrip
tio n o f the
behaviour
o f
anaphors
and
pronouns in
Malaya
lam,
and
i d e n t i f i e s
the
p ro p e rtie s o f
anaphora
in th i s
language t h a t are o f some
t h e o r e t i c a l
in terest
S ectio n
2 shows t h a t these p ro p e rtie s
recu r in various
ot he r la n -
5
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
6/55
guages,
such as
K a n n a d a ~
Chinese, Yo ruba
and c ~ l a n d i c
In secti.on 3, I sha l l di.scuss the problems tha t these
pllenomena pose
for
the
bi
nding condi t ion
in 1 ) .
and
suggest
possible
solutions.
1 . ANAPHORA
IN
MALAYAI,AM
1.1.
Introductory
R e ~ a r k s
Malayalam
i s a
f ree
word order language with
the
following ~ t = VP less) clause structure. 1
2)
S
X X
V
The structure
of
Ja) is given in
3b as
an
example:
J)a.
u ~ ~ inna1e aanaye
nu i.
child-n
yesterday
elephant-a pinched
2
The
child
p inched the
elephant
yesterday.)
b. S
Adv.
V
u ~ ~
innale aanaye
nu i
1. F,)r detai led arguments
to
show
tha t Malayalam
does
not
have
a VP node, see Mohanan in press) ,
2. n
=
nominative, a = accusative, d =
dative,
and so on.
The
unmarked
subject in Malayalam is
in
the nominative
case,
and
in the dative case for a few special verbs
and
modals. Animate direct object
is
in the accusative
case,
and inanimate
in the
nominative.
The indi rec t
object
is
in the
dative case.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
7/55
The
constituents
directly
dominated by S are order
free in Malayalam. ~ h u s S Y
SV
SV VS
t
e tc .
are a l l
possible
word
orders This property reveals
in teres t ing
character i s t ics
of
anapnor-antecedent
relat ions in the
language.
There are
three
types of overt elements that
par t ic i
pate
in
syntact ical ly governed coreference
relat ionships ,
i . e . elements that can take antecedents.
I
sh all re fer to
them
as pronouns, pronominal anaphors, and
nonpronominal
anaphorsl
(4)
Pronouns awarl he; awal she awar they
b. Pronominal anaphorsl
se l f
c. Nonpronominal anaphorsl 8wa- se l f-
Pronouns
and
pronominal
anaphors can take the entire
range of cases.
The
nonpronominal anaphor swa-, on the
other
hand, can
take only the
accusative
swayam
and
the
genit ive
(swantam).
The
relevant
propert ies that dist inguish these
ele-
ments from
one
another, which
is
what this
sect ion
i s con-
cerned
with,
may be summarised as follows
(5)a. a c k w a r ~ d anaphoral
Pronouns do not
allow
the i r
antecedents
to
follow them.
Pronominal and nonpronominal
anaphors do not have
this
res t r ic t ion .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
8/55
b. Obligatoriness o f antecedentsl
Antecedents
in
the same
sentence
a re o blig ato ry fo r
p ro no mi na l a nd nonpronominal
anaphors.
Pronouns
do
n o t
have
t h i s
res t r ic t ion
c .
Di sj o i n t
~ f r n l
Pronouns
and
pronominal ana-
p h o rs cannot have
the ir
antec Jnts in
the
same minimal NP S
t h a t contains
the m. N onpr onor nina l anaphors do
n o t
have th is c o n d i t i o n .
d. The c command condition. The antecedents
o f
pro-
nominal
and
nonpronominal anaphors must
c command them
This does
n o t
apply to
pronouns.
e. Subjecthood o f antecedentsl The antecedents o f
pronominal
and nonpronominal anaphors
must
be s u b j e c t s .
f Subjecthood o f anaphors: Both
pronominal
and
nonpronominal a na phor s allow long dis -
tance
anaphora, i e
they
can
f i n d
antecedents
in
higher
up cl auses. ow-
ever, 8wa is allow ed to
have
long d i s -
tan ce a n a p h o r a o n ly when
i s contain-
ed in
the
s u b j e c t .
In
th e s e c
t ions t l t
f ) l l o w ,
I
sha l l demons
t ra te each
o f the prope rtie s
l is ted in 5).
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
9/55
9
1.2. The Noncoreference Rule
One
of the
conditions
governing
the relation bet
ween pronouns and
the ir
antecedents in
Malayalam
is
s ta
ted
as
follows
I
(6) Pronominal
Noncoreference (Malayalam)
Pronouns
cannot
precede
the i r
antecedents . )
This property sharply
dis t inguishes
pronouns f rODl .
pronominal and nonpronominal anaphors.
Whatever
be
the
c-command
relat ion
between
pronouns
and antecedents, a l l
and only those versions
in
which the pronoun follows the
antecedent are grammatical, as shown
~
folloWing
ex-
ampleSt
7
a moohan Cawan
ce
b h a a F y a y ~ DU:n.i
4
Mohan-n
his wife-a pinched
Mohan pinched
his wife.)
b.
*
Un00hante bhaaryaye] Dul-l-i
(8)a. hmoohante Ehaar;yaye]
awan
DU1 l i
b. *
[awante
b h a a r y a ~ ] moohan D U ~ l i
9 a
Cmoohan
te
bhaarya]
awane
D U ~ J i
(Mohan s wife p inc hed him.)
b.
*
[awante bhaarya]
moohane nu:J 1 i
; . The
in tui t ive
meaning of the term
antecedent
is ob
vious. In Oscar thirlks that he i s
br i l l i an t
Oscar
is the antecedent of he.
For a
formal characterisation,
see
Mohanan
(1981). - -
4. Here, as in wha
t
follows,
underl ined
NP s ir ldi ca te the
coreferent
reading.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
10/55
lO a. moohane awante bhaarya
null i
10
b.
awane moohante bhaarya nu i
l l a .sl tutti aanaye
nU:J :J i
enna]s awan pararLi u
child
elephant pinched
t r l ~ . t
he
said
He said
that
tria
child
pinched
~
elephant.
b. * ~ w a n aanaye nU:J :J i enn-]s kut:k
i
paraYffiu
12)a.
k u ~ ~ i paranfiu
S
[aYlan aanaye
D l l:J ;J i
e p ~ S
The
ch ild said that he
pinched the
elephant.
b.
awan parannu S [ k u t ~ i aanaye nu:J
i
e D D ~
Note
that
pronouns
can
c-command
their
n t e ~ e e n t s
in
Malayalam,
as
shown by
8a ,
9a , and
11a .
This
property
distinguishes
Malayalam
pronouns
from Englisr
pronouns.
In
contrast to the behav iour of
pronouns, pronominal
and
n o r ~ r o n o m i n l anaphors can
precede
their antecedentsl
lJ a .
[ ~ n t e swaotam
bhaaryaye]
Maohan nu:J J i
se l f s
b aanaye
nUffi
enna] ku paranfiu
se l f
\ cf .
b
cf . l lb)
n
the
basis of these
data,
w conclude that pronouns,
and
not pronominal
anaphors,
obey ~ condition against
fo llowing antecedents,
as stated
in
6 .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
11/55
1 Obliga.to r iness of r ~ t e c e d e n t s
I
shal l
assume in
this
th esis tha t
anaphors
are
u -
versal ly
characterised
as
t h ~ s e
elements
that
require
n ~
tecedents.
5
Eoth pronouns and reflexives
take
antecedents,
unlike narne
l ike
John.
The
difference
between tham is
that antecedents are
optional
for pronouns while they are
o b l i ~ t o r y
for ref lexives. A pronoun tha t does not have
an
antecedent in the
sencence
i s a deict ic pronoun,
and
a
pronoun
that dOdS
not,
is
a
deict ic
one.
6
Seen
in
th is
l i ~ h t anaphors are
a subclass of nominals
which have
no
lex ica l reference,
namely,
5 cf:
An anaphor
is
something
lexical ly
specified
as
needinu
an
antecedent . tlomsky 1979116
6.
Pronouns and anaphors are not
the
only nominals
that
take
antecedents.
Definite
noun phrases such as the
boy (as opposed to a
boy) can also
have antecedents
in the discourse, and one may
argue
tha t
they
can have
antecedents
even within sentences, as in (i):
i A
boy
and a came in , and the boy took
off
his
shoes
iremediately.
I do not quite know how the antecedentship
of
defini te NP s f i t s
in with the
~ e n e r l theory of
ante-
cedents.
I t
must
also
be
pointed out
~ h t
no t
a l l
pronouns
take antecedents,
only
defini te pronouns do. Thus, in -
def ini te pronouns l ike one, someone,
anyone,
etc . do
not take antecedents.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
12/55
12
those
t t must fin d t h e i r a n t e c e d e n t s i n the ~ D E r sen-
tence
and
n o t
i n t ~ discourse, l i k e
pronouns).
We
may
l e x i c a l l y encode thi.s p ro p erty
wi
th the
fea ture ~ a n a p h o r i c
and give the
following
d e f i n i t i o n .
14 i s
[.,.
anaPhoric] i f f
t
i s l e x i c a l l y r e
quired to have an
antecedent i n th e same sen
ten ce. ?
I f not ,
i s
[-a 1aph 1ric]).
We found
i n 1 . 2 . t h a t
the
noncoreference
ru le groups
pronom inal a na ph ors and
nonprollominal
anaphors
to g eth er,
d i s t i n g u i s h i n g them from
pronouns.
The
property o f
o b l i
g a to ry a n te c ed e nt sh ip
expressed
by 14)
o ffe rs y e t
another
c r i t e r i o n
fo r
making
e xa c t l y the
same
groupi.ngl pronominal
7. Compare t h i s
d e f i n i t i o n with the one given
in ,
s a y ,
Chomsky
i n
p r e s s ) ,
which
gives a l e s s
i n t u i t i v e
notion
o f
anaphor
.
For
Chomsky,
anaphors
a re
t ho se ele men ts
which
de n o t
have
i n h e r e n t referen ce, and
pr onominals
are
those
which have
th e featu re
o f number, gender,
and
p e r s o n .
This
r a i s e s the
i s s ue
why r e f l e xi ve s l i k e i m s l ~
a re
n o t considered
to
be pronominal, sin ce
they
too, l i k e
he
and she
have
the
f e a t ur e s o f number, gender
and
person.
Perhaps,
pronominals a re those
which
are
NOT araphors
and
have the f e a t ur e s o f
number,
gender,
and
person.
But
then,
nominals l i k e
man
a l s o have these f e a t u r e s , and to exclude
them
from being
pronominal,
one has
to
sa y
t h a t
pronominals
are
nonanaphors
which
have O Y the featu res
o f
number ,
gender, and p e r s o n . This, i n turn, l e a d s
to f u r t h e r ques
t i ons
about
pronouns
Which
have
ot he r
featu res
such
a s
nearness e . g . Malayalam
awan
t h a t
h e vs iwan
t h i s
h e ) .
These pI oblems,
no
doubt
t a re
n o t insunnountable, but
none o f
these
problems a r i s e with regard
to
the c ha r a c t e r
i s a t i o n o f anaphors
~ v n
i n 14).
Observe t h a t 14)
would lead us to
conclude t h a t
PRO
i s E-anaphoric],
a s
i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t PRO
shoul d
have an antecedent
in
the
same
sentence.
I
see
nc
serio u s
problems
a r i s i n g
o ut o f
t h i s
conclusion, except those
r a i s e d
by
some o f
the assumptions
t h a t
a re theory i n t e r -
n a l
to G
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
13/55
13
anaphors and nonpronominal anaphors, and
not
pronouns,
are
required
to
take
antecedentsl
15)a. awan aanaye
he-n
elephant-a
pinched
He pinched the
elephant.)
b.
*taan aanaye DU li
self-n
16)a.
[awante aniya:t:t
i
ur9.99i
his s i s t e r - n s lept
His s i s t e r
has
gone
to sleep.)
b . [::tante
n i y t ~ i
uralJ }i
s e l f s
c .
[swaniam aniyat t i ]
uranlJi
s e l f s
I f
15b),
16b,c)
are
embedded
in
a matrix that con-
ta ins
an
antecedent,
the
r e s u l t
i s
grammatical,
thereby
showing
that and are required
to have
an
ante
cedent in
the
same sentence.
17)a. ta
an
aanaye nu::} i
entra] k u t t i
paraiiflu
that
child s aid
b .
[ tan te/swan t
aniya
l ~ i
ura99i
e n n ~ awam oo p.)i
that
he-d
f e l t
He f e l t
that s e l f s ~ s t r
had
gone
to
s l e e p .
Gi van the d e f i n i t i o n
o f anaphora
i n 14)., wha
t
we rous
t
do in order
to account
for
this behaviour of
and
Bwa-
i s to s t i p u l a t e that they have
the
feature
~ n p h o r i c .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
14/55
14
1.4.
Disjoint Reference
While
noncoreference and obligatoriness of antecedents
separate pronouns from
pronominal and nonpronominal ana
phors, the
phenomenon
of
dis jo in t
reference
separates
non
pronomina l anaphors
from
pronouns and pronominal anaphors.
The principle i s
the one
tha t allows
(lab,
c) in English,
while
blocking
(18a).
(18)a.
* O car admires
him.
b.
Oscar admires
his
wife.
c. Oscar sai
d
Mary admired
hint
The same phenomenon
i s
found in Malayalam as wella
(19)a.
* Mechan w n ~ aaraaghik'k'uDQu.
Mohan-n him
worships
Mohan
worships him.)
b.
moo han [awan te
bhaaryayeJ aal aaghi
k k unnu
his
wife-a
Mohan worships ~ i s wife . )
c. moohan
paranii.u
~ 1 ; e ; l r 1 awane aaraaghik 'k 'unn
u
n n ~
said
Mary-n him t t
Mohan s i d
tha t
Mary worshipe d
hiD .)
As in En,,?;lisll, pronouns cannot have th i r antecedents
in the same
minimal
P or S that
contains
them.
ow
we
find the
same
behaviour
in pronominal anaphors, but
not
in
nonpl-onominal
anaphors
I
8. For the
l i t r tur
on ~ i s j o i n t Reference
and
Nvncorefe
renee,
see Reinhart
1976
f Lasnik
(1976), Chomsky (1980).
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
15/55
20 a.
meohan
tannc
aaraaghik k unnu
b.
maohan
[ta
nte
bhaaryaye]
a .raaghik k unou
c.
meohan
parannu
[meeri
tanne
aaFaadhik k unnu
enr.raJ
-
--
(21) moohan
swayam aaraaghik k unnu
s e l f
Mohan worships himself.)
I
shall assume tha t
pronouns
have
the feature
[+ pronominal] , and th t i s
th i s
feature th t i s res
ponsible for disjoint reference.
The
principle
of dis jo in t
reference can
then
be stated as ei ther (22a) or (22b):
(22)a. Pronomals are free in
the i r
minimal governinf
cate,qory.
b. Pronominals cannot
have
thei r antecedents
within their minimal
c lause nuc leus .
(22a) and (22b) wil l be respective
f o r m u l t i o ~ s
of
disjoint
reference
in and
l ~ x i l
functional ~ r m m r
and they
do
not
make
the
same
empirical predict ions .
I
shall not go into these issues
here.
The l ssif i t ion
of Malayalam pronouns, pronominal
anaphors,
and nonpronominal anaphors can
now
be
given
as
follows
(2J)a. Pronouns [-anaPhoric, p r o ~ o m i n a l
b. Pronominal anaphors [+anaphoric, +pronominaI]
c.
Nonpronominal anaphors
[+anaphoric,
-pronominal]
d. Nouns
[-anaphoric, p r o n o m i n ~
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
16/55
I t
may be
instruct ive
to point out
a con tra st b et
ween
n g ] ~ i s h and Malayalam wi
th respec t
to
the phenomenoll
of disjoint
reference in
inf ini t ival
clauses. Thus,
as i s
well known,
24a)
and not
24b) i s
possible
in
English.
24)a. John expects
that
he would win.
b.
John expects him
to
win.
In M a l a ~ l a m on the 0ther hand, the pronoun-antece
dent
re la t ionsh ip
i s
possible
in
both
f ini
te
and
in.f ini
ti--
val st ructures
25)a. moohan [awan bllgghimaan aa ).a
eooaJwicaariccu
he-n
in te l l igent
i s that thought
Mohan thought
that
he was
in te l l igent .
b.
moohan [awan
bugghimaan aawaan] aagrahiccu
become-inf.
desired
Mohan wanted him
to
become
in te l l igent .
Given the
fact
that rnoohan is not
contained
in the
m i n i n ~ l
S
that contains awan, 22) and
2,3)
to ge th er c or
rectly predict the
pronoun-antecedent
re la tio n in 25).
Some addit ional statement
will
have to be made
about
the
contrast
between
24a)
and
24b) in
Enflish.
9. See the discussion of sentences
l ike
Johnwas sur -
prised for him to be l e f t out , and
I t surprised
John for him
to
be l e f t out- in section 2.4.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
17/55
17
1.5. The C-command
Condition
We
shal l see
in this sect ion tha t and Bwa
in
Malayalam,
but not
the
pronouns,
obey th e fo llowing
universal
principle
about
t i le
antecedents
of
anaphors
26 Anaphors
must
be
c-commanded
by t h e i r
n t e c e d e n ~ s
I hava a l r e a dy shown tha t pronoulls do no t 0
bey
2 6 ) .
In
fact ,
as
examples 8a), 9a),
and
l la) demonstrate,
the
pronoun
can asymmetrically c-command i t s antecedent
in
Malayalam.
What I must now show i s tha t taan and 8wa
must
obey 2 6 ) .
27)a.
tante
aniya tiye
s e l f s
s i s t e r - a
ut l l
nul: .i
child
pinched
The child pinched s e l f s
s i s t e r . )
b.*
kuttiyute
aniyat t iye
c h i l d s
taan n u ~ : } i
s e l f - n
28)a.
~ aanaye
n u ~ i
enna]
s e l f - n
elephant-a pinched
that
ut t
child
raajaawinoo1;a
king- . ;
paraiffiu
said
The child
told the
king
that s e l f pinched
the
elephant.)
b.*
[ k u 1 ; ~ i
aanaye
nU:J i
erma]
t.aan
raajaawinoo11
child-n
s e l f - n
paraffilu
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
18/55
29
[[iante
k U ~ ~ ~
aanaye
nUfli
s e l f s
child elephant-a
pinched
18
e n n ~ J
th t
mother
~ m O O h a n
Mohan
ummaweccaJ
61riiyoo1;al
paranfiu
kissed-
r e l . p a r t . woman-d s a i d
Mother to l
the womarl whom
Mol,an kissed th t
mother s/
*Mohan s/ *woman s
chi ld pinched
the elephant . )
~ w a n t a n l ku t i]
aanaye
Dull i ~ amma
s e l f s
[tnOOhan urnmaweccaJ s ~ r i i y o o ; ~
parannu.
(Reading
as in
29
I t
must be
mentioned
tha t there are
cer tain
possess-
iva constructions in which the c-command restr ict ion
seems
to be
relaxed. Compare
the following
examples:
(Jl)a.
moohante
wiswaasarn
Mohan s
b e l i e f
s e l f
brav
i s
tha t
i s
(Mohan s b e l i e f i s
tha t s e l f i s
brave.)
b.* rnoohante makan
h i i r n ~ ~ enna paranfiu
Mohan s son
s e l f brave i s
that said
(Mohan s son said
that
s e l f i s brave.)
The fac t tha t
31b i s ungrammatical
suggests tha t
the
relaxation
of
the
c-command
r e s t r i c t i o n
in
(J la)
i s
a
special
property of
nouns
l ike wiswaasam . belief ,
abhip.raayam opinioll
lt
,
laoonal
f e e l i n g . e t c .
a l l o f
which are nouns that a s s e r t proposit ions.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
19/55
9
Now
a t
Some
level
of
representat ion,
we
may say
t ha t
x s be. l ief
t ha t
S ,
X iS be l i e f
i s
tha t S ,
and
x believes that
S
have para l le l
structures ,
l1amely,
the
one
in
which
x
is
the
subject of
bel ieve,
and
ts
complement.
TIle
technical
detai ls
tha
t map
x
s bel ie f
i s
tha t
S
onto
believe
(x,S) are not
quite clear to
me,
but i f ,
a t the
relevant
l evel
o f representat ion, Mohan s
bel ie f
i s
tha t
. . . . . i s
represented as
having the
same
structure
as
Mohan
believes that . . . . .
, we
have an
expla-
nation for
the
contrast
between
(Jla)
and
(Jib).
Note
tha t
t
is only when
the
head (pelief) i s
pre-
dicative tha t i t s possessive (Mohan s)
i s allowed to be
the antecedent of
Compare
31a) with (32),
rakf?iccu
saved
32
moohante wiswaasam
tanne
Mohan s bel ief / fa i th se l f
(Mohan s faith saved se l f . )
One may,
in
fact , suggest tha t
Mohan s bel ief but
not Mohan s son is a clause nucleus (cf . Bresnan ( in press))
or a
lexical
S (cf .
the notion of lexical
VP in Chomsky
(in
press , even
though configurationally, both are NP s.
A clause
nucleus
may
be
defined,
following Bresnan,
as
consist ing of a predicate argument
s t ructure .
Alternately,
one may define a lexical S as consist ing of a lexical VP
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
20/55
20
and the
NP that
i s associated
with i t
10
Thus,
the
con-
t r a s t between (J la)
on the one hand,
and
(J1b)
and
32
on
the
other, may
be represented a t the relational or
lexical level
as follows.
JJ a.
=
la
clause
Mohan believe clause
L
~ l
i s brave
b. = 1 b
c
=
32
clause
ohan s son
say
clause
L
se l f is brave
X J
clause
clause se l f save
Mohan
believe
x
A
I f the
suggestion
given above i s correct , then the
10.
See
the discussion of
lexical VP and lexica l S in
section
J.
f-command and I-command may be
thought
of as notions para l le l to c-command except
tha t
they
are defined a t the
levels
of f(unctional)
s t ruc-
ture
( in
lex ica l i s t functional grammar
and
l (exical)
s tru ctu re (in G
respectively.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
21/55
21
condition o f c-comrnand i n 2 6 ) ,
which
i s a property o f
the
ca t e g o r i a l o r
configura
t i o n a l
l e v e l ,
should
be repla .c-
ed
by
a c o n d i t i o n
o f If-command
o r
I-command .
which
would beAcondition
a t ~ l e v e l
o f f - s t r u c t u r e c f . Kaplan
and Bresnan in press
or
o f l e xic al and l e x i c a l S.
I s h a l l n o t pursue th ese i s s u e s any f rth er i n t h i s t h e s i s .
1.6.
Subjecthood o f Antecedents
The
ai m o f
t h i s
s e c t i o n i s
to show
t h a t
the follow-
ing p r i n c i p l e holds i n Malayalama
34) Antecedents o f anaphors
must
be
s u b j e c t s .
Th e p r i n c i p l e i s i l l u s t r a t e d by
th e
fo llo w in g exam-
ple s l
35)a.
k ~ l l
tante/swantarn
a n i y a t:tiye
n u l l i
-
c h i l d - n
s e l f s
s i s t e r - a
pinched
The
c h i l d
pinched
s e l f s s i s t e r .
)
b .*
k u t t i y e t,ante/swantam a n i y a 1 t i
Du:J.li
c h i l d - a
s e l f s s i s t e r - n pinched
I n
35a),
k u t t i i s the
s u b j e c t ,
and in J5b),
the
o b j e c t . Hence,
34)
allows
k u t t i
in J5a)
but n o t i n 35b)
to
be the antecedent o f ~ t o r s w a t a ~
The same
p o i n t
i s
i l l u s t r a t e d
by
J6a,
b
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
22/55
36 a [taan aanaye
s e l f elephant-a
n u ~ ~ i
~ raajaawa
pinched t h a t king-n
22
m i r i y o o ~
p r nfiu
minis ter-d s a i d
The
king told the minister
that s e l f (king
*minister)
pinched
the elephant.)
b [taan aanaye
nu:r i
raajaawinoo
king-d
m n ~ r i
parannu
minis ter-n
s a i d
The
minister
told
the king
that
s e l f
(minister/
*king) p inched the elephant.)
Is t possible to characterise the
phenomenon
i l l -
ustI ated
in these sen tences i n tt rms
of
a
condi t ion on
the case of the antecedent of the NP?
The answer
i s no,
by
c a s e what we
mean
is
overt case.
Thus, even though
the
antecedent
i n
35a
and
36
happens
to
be
in
the
nominative
case, this i s not
a
requirement, as
dative
sub-
jects can
be antecedents of anaphors. Consider, for
exam
pIe ,
wha
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
23/55
2)
J7)b.
j o o ~ i k k a
meeriye
~ n t e s w a n a m w i i ~ ~ i l wecc
Jo h n -d Mary-a
s e l f s
h o u s e - l
a t
umm
w e k k ~ m
k iss
place-wants
John wants to
kiss
Mary
a t s e l f s
J o h n s /
*Mary s house.)
Even
though dative
su b je c ts
ca n
be antecedents
o f
anaphors,
dative i n d i r e c t obj e c t s cannot
a
38 j o o ~ i
meerikka
~ n t e s w a n a m w i i ~ t i l weCC3
John-n Mary-d
s e l f s
house-l a t
oru pus takam ko
t tu
on e book gave
John
gave M ary a
book a t s e l f s
John s/*Mary s)
house.)
Therefore, w conclude t h a t the condition
governing
the antecedents o f
anaphors
cannot
be
s ta t e d i n terms
o f
a
condition on the ove r t case
o f the
an teced en ts.
The
next
question
i S i s
pos s i bl e to
s t a t e the
condition
i n
terms
o f
semantic ro le s such
as
ag en t and theme? Once ag ain ,
the
answer
i s
no. The
c r u c i a l
examples a re to be found in the
i nt e ra c t i on b e ~ e e n anaphor binding and c a u s a t i v i s a t i o n
and p a s s i v i s a t i o n . I s h a l l
assume
t h a t passive
i s
a
rule
t h a t
promotes
an
o b je c t
to
Subjecthood.
Consider
the
e f f e c t
o f the
s h i f t
o f subjecthood on anaphorsl
11.
For
the
d e ta i ls o f
p a s s i v i s a ~ i o n
an d
c a u sa tiv isa tio n
in
Malayalam,
see
Mohanan in pr ess) .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
24/55
4
(J9)a.
j o o ~ i
meeriye tante/swantam
w i i ~ ~ i l
wecca D u ~ l i
John
Mary-a
3 e l f s
house
a t pinched
(John
pinched
Mary
a t
s e l f s
(John s/*Mary s)
house.)
b. j o o ~ i y a a l
meeri
John-instr Mary-n
~ n t e / s w a n ~ w i i ~ ~ i l wecca
s e l f house-l
a t
D U ~ f a p p e ~ F
p i n c h ~ p a s s . p a s t
(Mary
was
pinched by John a t Mary s/*John s
house.)
Since the seman tic
roles of
jooQi and
meeri
are
pre
sumably
the same ;.n 39a and (.39b), a ~ o n j i
t i o n
on
the
semantic r o l e s o f antecedents
w i l l not
l e able to account
for
the
contrast . The same
point holds for
causativisation,
in which a new
subject
i s
i n t r ~ m l c e d
and the original
subjec t
i s
e i ther
changed
to an object 01 in to an
i n s t r u -
mental
d jun t l
(40)a. k u ~ t i ~ n t e s w a D ~ a m w i i ~ ~ i l wecc;
urauui
child-n
s e l f s house-l a t s l e p t
(The
c h i l d
s lept
a t s e l f s house.)
b. rom k u ~ t i y e
mother
c h i l d a
~ n t e ~ s w a D : t a m wii
~ ~ i l weco.
urakki
s e l f s house a t s l ~ e p
caused
The
mother
made
the
child sleep
a t
s e l f s
(mother s/*child s) house.)
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
25/55
41
a.
auseeppa
ouseph-n
j o o ~ i y e k k o ~ ~ a meeriye ~ a n t e s w a D ~ a m
John-a with
Mary-a s e l f s
w i i ~ t i l weCC3
umma
weppiccu
house-l
a t
kiss
place-causa-past
Ouseph made John
kiss
Mary a t s e l f s
(Ouseph's/*John's/*Mary's) house.(cf.37a
On
the
basis of these facts , we
are
j u s t i f i e d in
con
cluding tha t i s
the
subjecthood of antecedents, not
the ir
case
or semantic role
that
govel ns
the
antecedent
anaphor
relat ion.
1.7. Long Distance Anaphora
As
the
reader
must have
already
noticed, anaphors in
Walayalam can
have
antecedents
which are not in the
same
clause f i n i t e or n on fin ite ), in contrast to the s i t u a t i o n
i n , say, E n ~ l i s h Except
in marginal
cases l i k e
'rhey
think
th at p ic tu re s
of
each other
are
on sale , anaphors
in Envlish do not
cross
clause boundaries. ~ h u s 42a i s
u n ~ r a m m a t i c a l
while
the
c o r r e s p o n d i n ~
sentence in Malaya-
lam, (42b) , i s perfect ly grammatical:
(42)a.
John thought t h a t himself
was a
fool.
b.
aan
w i 9 ~ i
aal .a
eDDd
jo0t:l
i
wicaariccu
s e l f fool-n
i s
t t
John
thought
The
antecedent
can be
removed from
the anaphor
by
any
number
of clauses, as
demonstrated
by t he fol lowing :
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
26/55
6
43 sEsrs[ta
an
aanaye Dul l i
e n ~ ]
aroma
s e l f
elephant pinched that
mother
h n o o ~ parannu ennaJs raajaawini
father said
tha t
king
oonni eooaJ
S
f e l t tha t
man riye
r ~ w i ~ w s i p p i u
minister queen believe-caused
The queen convinced
the
minieter that the
king
f e l t tha t
the
mother
told the
fa ther tha t
s e l f (queen/*minister/king/mother/*father)
pinchAd the elephant.)
Queen , k i n g , and mother
are subjects,
and
there-
fore,
the pronominal
anaphor
taan
can
be coreferential
with any
of them but
not
with
the
direct object
mdnister
or
the
indi rec t
object
f a t h e r .
With
respect
to
the
p o s s i b i l i t y
of long
distance
anaphora, pronominal
anaphors d i f f e r
crucial ly from non-
pronominal anaphors. The former can
have
long distance
anaphora whatever be the
grammatical
function of the ana-
phor;
the l a t t e r ,
on
the
other
hand,
i s
allowed to have
long
distance
anaphora only
when the
anaphor
i s contain
ed in the
subject.
I f
i s
contained by a nonsubject,
the
nonpronominal
anaphor must have i t s
immediate
subject
i . e . , the subject of the same clause) as
i t s
antecedent.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
27/55
7
44 a. [[fiante/swan1am sUhra:t:t3 aanaye
n U ~ J i ~ D n ~
s e l f s fr iend-n elephant pinched that
aroma h n o o ~
mother father-d
parannu o o ~
s a i d t h a t
raajaawina
king-d
tnonni
n n ~
man:triye
f e l t that
m i n i s ~ e r
r ~ i wiswasippiccu
queen
believe-caused
(The queen
convinced the minister that the
king f e l t t h a t the
mother told
the father
that s e l f s (queen s /*m inis ter s /king s /
mother s/*father s) fr iend pinched tne ele-
phant .
b. ~ a a n a ian
te
suhrat. tine
nuJ..:J.i
enIJC1] aroma
elephant
s e l f s
fr iend-a
pinched
that mother
acchanoota parannu
fa ther sa id
e L l ~
r j w i n ~
t oomJi
tha t
king
f e l t
e rr;; l]
r ~ i
t t
queen
m a n ~ r i y e
w i ~ w s i p p i u
minister
believe-caused
The queen
convinced
the minister tha t
the
king
f e l t
tha t the
mothsr
told
the
father
tha t
the elephant pinched s e l f s (queen s/
m i n i s t e r s /
k i n g s / m o t h e r s J f a t h e r ~ s /
elephant s)
f r iend.)
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
28/55
28
rill-ana
swan1am suhrattine
n
1 i
elephant s e l f s
fr iend pinched t h a t
~ ~
a c c h a n o o ~ d parannu e n D ~ r a a j a a w i n ~
mother
fa ther sa id tha t king
oonni e n D ~ ]
r a a ~ i
man riye wiswasippiccu
f e l t
that queen
minister
believe-caused
(The queen
convinced the minister t h a t
the
king
f e l t
that
the
mother told the father
tha t the elephant pinched s e l f s (*queen s/
*minis
t e r
s /*king s /* fet
t ~ e r
s/*mo
t h e r s /
elephant s)
fr iend.)
Note
t h a t i n
(44,), the
NP 6wantam
6uhrattine i s the
object of
the
clause. Hence, 3wa- i s forced tc find i t s
antecedent
in t ~ subject of i t s
own clause.
In
(44a),
on
the
other hand,
since
swau tam.,j uhr-att3
i s
the sUbject
o f
the
clause,
there
i s no such
l oc a ii ty r e st ri c ti o n on ante-
cedentship.
44b
shows
t h a t
there
i s
no
r e s t r i c t i o n
on
long distance
anaphora for
taan.
The immediate technical problem
th at a rise s i s
the
exact formulation of the
condition
tha t allows long
dis
tance
anaphora for
6wa-.
In
(44a),
where
shows
long
distance anaphora,
i s
immediately dominated
by
t
Bub-
j e c t Immediate
domination,
however, cannot be the r ight
condition,
as
i l l u s t r a t e d
by (45)1
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
29/55
29
45)a. [ [ ~ w a n t a m sUhrattinte] b h a a r y a Y U ~
amma]
s e l f s f r i e n d s wife s
mother
aanaye nU:l- i e o o ~ raajaawin_
l
oo
0 0 i
erl
r a a ~ i
m a n ~ r i y e wiswasippiccu
Th e
queen
c o n v i ~ c e d
the m i n i s t e r
that the
king fe l t
tha t
se l f s q u 6 e n s / ~ i n g s )
f r i e n d s w i f e s mother pinched the e l e p h a n t .)
t
erma
b .
, . .
~ O P
N P s u b j)
V
Poss
P S ~
P O ~ N
s w n ~ m
s u h r ~ ~ ~ n t ~ h r y y u ~ e
a r r ~ a
aanaye n u ~ ~ i
In 45),
6wa i s
s e v e r a l
nodes
removed from the s u b j e c t
NP and yet
i t shows long
d i s t a n c e
binc1i ng. Hence immediate
domination
cannot
be
the
condition p e r mi t t I n g long distance
b i n d i n g . On tt l )
other
hand, the c ondi t i o n tha t be domi-
nated b y the s u b j e c t
i s inadequate,
as shown b y
46).
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
30/55
46 a. f}wan:tam suhra:ttine Du: .iya] kU tti] aanaye
s e l f s fr iend pinched-REL chi ld elephant
~ i c c u e ~
raajaawina
toonni
enga r ~ i
beat
t h t king f e l t t h t
queen
man1riye w i ~ w s i p p i u
minis ter believe-caused
The
queen convinced
the minister
tha t
the
king f e l t
that
the
child
who pinched s e l f s
(chi ld 's /*queen 's /*minister 's /*king 's) fr iend
beat the elephant . )
v
ennd
b .
s
NP
NP
S
COIVIP
~
raajaawina
tccnoi
eDua raal i. mantriye
wis-
wasippiccu
S
COIVIP
NP(subj)
NP
S ------------ . : . NP
~
NP V
PosS- - - N
swaniam suhra tine nU:I: iya k u t ~ i a
naye
a ticcu
What the
contrast
between 45 and 46 i l l u s t r t e s
i s
that
long
distance
anaphora
i s
possible
only
8wa-
i s
dominated by the subject with no intervening nodes which
ara not NP's. In (46), even
though
the subject dominates
swa- t
there
i s
a n intervening S node which makes 8wa- in-
capable
o f
long distance anaphora.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
31/55
)1
The
c o n t r a s t
between (45) and46) can be accounted
fo r
by using the notion o f NP -containment defined thus,
47 0 NP-c onta ins 1 i ) a
i s
o r i i )
0
domi
na
te s
(
wi
th
no
i n t e r v n n i n g
non-NP
nodes.
12
12. The
n o t i o n
o f
NP-containment, I think, ie
u s e f u l
i n
o t h e r
a r e a s
o f
grammar
a s
w ell. Thus, i n order to
account f or c on tra sts such
as in
i) and i i ) , th e
notion
o f
weak c-command derived from
Higginbotham
(1980
i s proposed
i n Mohanan 1981).
i ) a . Everyone i s upset by h is
f a i l u r e s .
b.
?
Everyone s
fai.lures u p s e t him.
c . ?
Everyone s
fa1;her s f a i l u r e s u p s e t
him.
d.
*
Fa i l u r e s
o f
everyone
u p s e t
him.
i i ) a . Who i s
u p s e t
by h is f ail u re s?
b.
Whose
f a i l u r e s
upset him?
c .
? Whose f a t h e r s f a i l u r e s upset him?
d.
*
Fa i l u r e s
o f whom
up set h is
mother?
The p ri n c i p l e s
t h a t
account fo r the c o n t r a s t a re given
belowl
i i j ) Strong Cross Overa Q uantified antecedents
must weakly) c-command
pronouns.
i v)
0
weakly c - commands 3 a) oJ c - comrnands
o r
b
the
node
th at d ir e ctly
dominates
0< weakly c-commands .
Given the
notion
o f NP-containment, iv ) can be
r e f o r
mulated as follows
v weakly c-comroands
i f f t he b ra nc hi ng node
tha
t - c o n t a i n s 01 domina
t e s
and 0 .
does
no
t
domina te
J
The notion
o f
NP-containment
i s
a l s o u s e f u l to account
fo r the follo win g c o n t r a s t ,
pointed
ou t i n Mohanan 1981).
v i ) a .
? His n e t h e r
hates
John.
b.
The-Professor
on
h is
committee
hates
John.
The r e l e v a n t param etricised p ri n c i p l e
t h a t
accounts
fo r the c o n t r a s t i s as follow s.
v i i ) Pronouns
cannot weakly)
c-command t h e i r
antecedents.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
32/55
3
In (45),
the
subject NP-contains ~
in
(46),
does
not. We
can now fo rmulate the
principle governing
long
distance anaphora
of
as follows
48)
I f
8wa-
is
not
NP-contained
by
the
subject,
must
find i t s
antecedent
in i t s minimal clause
nucleus.
1.8. General Properties
of
Anaphora
in
Malayalarn
The special features
of
anaphora
in
Malayalam that
deserve
some
theoret ical
at tent ion
can
now
be summarised
as follows.
irst
anaphora in
Malayalam
does not
exhibi t
the generalisation
that anaphors are bound where pronouns
are
free .
That i s
to
say, unlike what
has
been
claimed
for
English, the domain in which the
princip le of dis-
jo in t reference operates i s not ident ical
to the
domain
in
which
anaphors
are
required
to
find
thei r
antecedents
,1)
The domain in which
dis jo in t reference
applies in Malayalam
is
t minimal S,
NP containing
e
pronominal
the
domain
in which -the anaphor
i s
required to f ind ts antecedent
is
the
ent i re sentence. As
a
resul t
one
finds
that a
pro-
noun
and
an anaphor
in
the
same
s t ructura l
posi t ion
can
have
the
same
antecedent.
13-
cf.
Chomsky 1979);
Fiengo
Higginbothom (forthcoming).
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
33/55
wiQ9hi aart a
fool-n
is
49)a. k
U
l ti a m m a y o o ~ ~ ~ n w n aanaye n U l ~ i ennaJ
c h i l d mother s e l f
he elephant pinched
t h a t
p r ffiiu
said
The
child
told
the
mother
th at s elf/h e
pinched
the
elephant.)
b . kalJ..anil ~ w a n ] a r n : t a n t e a w a n t e naaya
t h i e f d
s e l f s
his dog-n
e na]
t h a t
manassilaayi
understood
The t h i e f
re alise d th at
s e l f s / h i s
dog
i s
a
fool.)
In both 49a and 49b ,
the
pronoun can have the
subject
of
the
matrix
as
i t s
antecedent, which
i s
what
and 8wa- are required to
do
in
these
cases.
The second property i l l u s t r a t e d y anaphora in Mal
ayalam
i s
that of long distance anaphora. Both
taan
and
swa-, as shown in 1.7., can cross any number of f i n i t e
clause
boundaries
to find an
antecedent
whether or
not
there are
intervening
subjects qualified to be
antecedents
themselves.
The third property,
demonstraten in 1.6. , i s
that
the
antecedents
of anaphors in
IVlc llayalam
are
required
to
be subjects. e
found tha t the notion subjec t can
not
be ident i f ied
wi
th unique configura t ional prcJperties
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
34/55
such as
of
S case
features such as the
nominative
or semantic roles such
as agenthood . This raises an in -
terest ing ques tion regarding
the
ident i f icat ion of
ante-
cedents
in Malayalam anaphora.
The fou rth p roperty found
in the
anaphor
~
is
tha t shows
long
distance anaphora only when is
NP contained
in
the subject . When NP contained
in
the
object swa mus t have i t s
immediate
subject
as
i t s ante-
cedent
i e
must
find i t s antecedent in i t s
minimal
c lause nuc leus as in
the
case of English
reflexives
and
reciprocals.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
35/55
5
2.
ANAPHORA
IN KANNADA CHINESE YORUBA AND ICELANDIC
In
this
section, I
shal l
show
that the four proper
t ies
of
anaphora in Malayalam
are
not accidental language
specif ic
quirks,
but
are
found
to occur
again ana
again
in various other languages l ike Kannada, Chinese, Yoruba,
and
Icelandic.
Therefore, an
adequate
universal
theory
of anaphora must incorporate the r ight propert ies which
would
derive principles of
thi.s
kind in individual gra-
mmars
2 1
A h
K d
14
nap ora l.n anna
The
anaphor
laanu
in Kannada,
a
s i s t e r Dravidian
language, shows
very
much the same properties as the Mal-
ayalam
taan,
as
Shown by
50).
50
s s s ~ n u aanayennu k i l ~ i { i a l e g u s amma
se l f
elephant
pinched-that mother
maga ige
hee iQ.aleDQu]s
r a a ~ i cin:tisi{ialeUQu]
daughter told that
queen
thought that
aa hevgasu nanna
h n g ~ i y n n u
nambisi9a1u
that woman
my
wife
believe-caused
That woman convinced
my
wife
th t
the queen
thought
th t
the mother
told
the daughter that
se l f woman/*wife/queen/mother/*daughter) pin
ched the elephant . )
50 shows that ~ n u must have a subject as
i t s
ante-
14. I
am
grateful
to Sreevas
Mandalarn
for
the
data.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
36/55
6
cedent, and tha t
allows
long
distance
anaphora, i . e .
can find i t s
antecedent
across f ini te
clause
boun-
daries. The domain of dis joint
reference in
Kannada, as
in
Malayalam, is
the
minimal
S,
NF
as
shown
51 .
51 a. moohan [awanu malagalengu] p r r l h i s i ~ n u
Mohan
he to
sleep
prayed
Mohan prayed
for
him
to
s leep.
b.
amma [raaniyige awalu k i ~ ~ l n g ~
mother
queen she to pinch
praarthisigalu
prayed
Mother
prayed
for
her to
pinch
the queen.
c.
aroma
[raal iYige ~
k i ~ a l e n g u praartjlisiq.alu
mother queen she to pinch
prayed
Mother
prayed for
her
to pinch the
queen.
The following
sentences demonstrate
more clear ly that
in
Kannada,
as
in
Malayalam,
i s
not
the case
tha t
anaphors
are
bound where pronouns are freeJ
52
moohan
Mohan
bugghimwanta engu
in te l l igen t
tha t
t i l i
dukondi danu
-
thought
Mohan
thought
tha t
was
inte l l igent .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
37/55
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
38/55
8
Like Malayalam swa-, z i j i allow s long distance ana
phora
only
when NP-contained by the subj ect .
55 S a l l y
xiangxin
[ J ohn
gaosu
B i l l [Mary s h a s i l e zi
i]]
S a l l y
b e l i e v e d t h a t John t o l d
B i l l
t t
Mary
k il l e d s e l f Ma r y / * Bi l l / * J o h n / * Sa l l y ) . ) c f . 5 4 b )
a . ~ [
5 6)/Jo hn x ian gx in L Bill gaosu
Sam
z i j i
de
t a i t a i
believes told s lf s wife
s h a s i l e
JaCk]
]
k i l l e d
J o h n b e l i e v e s tJlat B i l l
t o l d Sam
t h a t s e l f s
B i l l s / * S a m s / J o h n s )
wife
k i l l e d
J a c k .)
b .
John xiangxin [ B i l l gaosu Sam
[JaCk
b e l i e v e s t o l d
s h a s i l e
z i j i
de
t a i t a i ] J
k i l l e d
s e l f
s
w ife
John believes t h a t B i l l t ol d Sam t h a t Jack
k i l l e d s e l f s
Jack s/ *B i l l s/ *S ar n s/ *John s)
wife.
2.3.
Anaphora i n Yoruba
6
Yoruba has
an
anaphor Qun and a pronoun which show
i n t e r e s t i n g
p r o p e l t i e s .
The
anaphor
Qun
must
take an
n t ~
cedent
in the
sentence, and
the antecedent,
l i k e
the ana-
16.
I
am
g r a t e f u l to
Douglas Pulleyblank fo r
c o l l e c t i n g
th e da ta f o r me .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
39/55
39
phors in
Malayalam, Kannada, and
Chinese,
may be any
subject
higher
up in the sentences
cannot take an
object
antecedent.
The
pronoun
,
on
the other
hand, can
take any
antecedent
except
a subject , and as in the case
of pronouns in general, need not take an
antecedent.
57 a.
Tolu so fun
Segun
p oun sanra
told
tha-t
s e l f
i s f a t
Tolu
told
Segun that se l f Tolu/*Segun/*some
one
else i s fa t .
b.
Tolu
sofun
Segun
p
o
sanra
pron
Tolu
told S
egun
that
*Tolu/S egun/solneone
else i s fa t .
58 a . A r
. S -
pe Tolu
sofUn
egun pe oun
sanra
thought tha t
told tha
t s e l f
Ade thought
that
Tolu told Segun that se l f
Ade/Tolu/*Segun/*someone
else is fa t .
1
pe
o u
sofUn Segun
p
6 sanra
.
.
Ade thought
that
Tolu
told
Segun
that
*Ade/*Tolu/Segun/someone
else
is
fat .
The generalisation
that
underl ies
t he se sen tences is
obvious
I an
anaphor must
have
a subject
antecedent, and
a
pronoun
cannot
have
a
subject antecedent.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
40/55
40
s
Subj . Obj . S
ubj
Gbj.
S
pronoun
Obj . S
ubj
Obj .
S
anaphor
s
Subj .
Discoursew.-..-o l
oun
The
behaviour of
/ follows from the
princi.ples
formulated
in
section 1.
In
order to account
for
the
behaviour
of
0,
shal].
se t
up
th e follow ing
princi .ple
for Yorubaa
60
Yoruba
Pronound cannot have subject antecedel lts.
2.4.
Anaphora
in
Icelandic ?
Pronouns in Icelandic exhibit dis jo in t reference as
shown by
sentences l ike (61).
61
Jon ha t hann
(John h ates him.)
In
addit ion to
th e g en eral dis jo in t refe re nc e. Ic e-
landic
pronouns
also show a subject
obviation similar
to
what
found in Yoruba.
The difference between the two
languages
i s tha t
in Yoruba,
obviation
applies
across
17.
The ent i re discussion of Icelandic i s based
on
the
examples provided by Thrainsson 1976). His solutions,
however,
are quite different from
mine.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
41/55
tensed clauses,
while
in I celandic, t i s restr ic ted
within
t e r ~ e
clauses. Adopting Chomsky s ori gi na l in
s ight o f
the
tensed S
c o n d i t i o n ,
on e may form ulate the
obviation
p r i n c i p l e
in
I c e l a n d i c
a s follows
62
ce landic
Pronouns cannot have s ubject antecedents
in the minimal tensed clauses
t h a t
con-
ta in thenl
Examples t h a t i l lus t ra te
62 )
a re given
belowl
63)a.
Jon
syndi H a r a l d i
f o t
hann
showed
c l c t h e s fo r him
John
showed
clothes
fo r
him
* Jo h n /Har o ld ) .
b . Jon
r e t t i
H a r a l d i
hans
fo t
handed
h is
c l o t h e s
John
handed Ha rold
h is
* J o h n s /H a r o l d s )
c lo thes
c .
Jon
t e l u r
H ara ld h af a
r ~
hann
e l i e v ~
to
have
shaved
him
John
believes Harold to have shaved
him
*John/*Harold).)
d
ron t e lu r ~ l i a r a l d u r
h a f i
r ~ hann
believes t h a t
has
shaved
him
John b e l i e v e s
tha t Harold
has shaved him
J o h n / ~ H a r o l d .
In
63a) and 6Jb), th e pronoun can have the
o b j e c t
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
42/55
42
Harold
as
i t s
antecedent,
but not
the
subject John. In
(6Jc), both
John
and Harold are subjects in the minimal
tensed
clause
that
contains hann,
and therefore, nei ther
of
them can
funct ion
as
t s
anteceden t.
In 6Jd , ev en
though John
i s
a subject, does not l i e within
the
mini-
mal
te ns ed c laus e tha t contains hann, and hence
62)
does
not apply to
i t
Compare now the obviation p rin cip le s o f Yoruba
and
Icelandic.
60
Yoruba
Pronouns
cannot have
subject
antecedents.
62 Icelandic
Pronouns
cannot have
subject antecedents
in
the minimal tensed c lause tha t contains
them.
can
collapse
the
two
principles
follows.
64)
Pronouns
cannot
have
subject
antecedents ( in
the
minimal
tensed clause
tha t
contai.ns them.)
At
this point , I would l ike
to
draw the reader s
a t tent ion
to an
in teres t ing
fact of obviation in English
pronouns. t
appears to
be the case tha t English pronoun3,
when
they
occur
as
subjects of in f in i t iva l clauses, cannot
have
matr: x st lbjects
as
antecedents , though
thl.Y
can
have
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
43/55
4;
matrix
objects as antecedent s.
18
The contras t i s i l lu s -
t rated
by
the
following pai r of sentences.
(65)a.
*
John
was
surprised
for
him
to
be
l e f t
out.
b. I t surprised John for him
to
be l e f t out.
The
principle
responsible for this
contras t
may be
stated as follows.
66 English
In f in i t iva l
subject pronouns
cannot have
matrix
subjects
as ant eceden ts .
I t i s tempting to collapse the obviation
principles
of Yoruba, I celandic, and English in to something l k ~ I
(Subject)
pronouns cannot
have
subject antecedents in
trle
minimal
t ~ n s clause
that
contains them) t Since,
however,
is only the immediate matrix subject ,
and
not
the s ub je cts h igher
up
tt.a t the in.fini
t i
val subj
~ t
shows obviation with,
this
may
not
be the
r ight
move to
m ke
18. This
fact
was
pointed
out
to me by Joan Bresnan.
Even
though mos t speakers re ject (65a), I have also come
across
some who do not. Even in t ~ s cases, however,
the contras t
between the two sentences
is quite
clear:
65b is perfect ly grammatical, While
coreference
is
possible
in
65a
only with
some
ef fo r t .
19.
01serve
t ha t
(66), Which
seeIa.J to be independently
necessary, would also
account
for the fo llowing contrast:
( i) * John believes him to be a fool .
i i John
believes that he is a fool.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
44/55
67
Mary was annoyed to find John to
be surprised
for her
to
be l e f t
out.
i s
c lear th at not a l l languages
choose
to
include
the
obviation
principle in
their
grammars.
As
demonstrated
i n 1.4., Malayalam
grammar
does not con ta in the
principle.
Since
a
number of
geneticall .y unrelated
languages
show
Bome version or the other of (66), however, I
s h a l l
assume
t h a t
i t i s a pa t
o f UG
20
We
ahal l now
turn to the
behaviour
of anaphors
in
Icelandic.
seems
+0
be the case
t h a t
anaphors
Ice-
landic can have
both
subjects and objects
as
an
antecedent,
and they can find t h e i r anteceden ts ou ts ide the domain
of
both
d i s j o i n t
reference and
subject
obviation,
as
shown
21
by the following
examples.
20. Finnish
appears
to
be
another
language
in which ana-
phors
must have
subject
antecedents, and pronouns
canno t. Consider
the fo llowing data (provided by
ur i Cal lson)
i ) a . Juha tappoi Villen puutarhassan
John k i l l e d B i l l
in
s e l f s garden
(John k i l l e d B i l l in John s/*Bill s/*someone
e l s e s garden.)
b.
Juha
tappoi Villen n ~ puutarhassan
i n pron s garden
(John
k i l l e d B i l l i n
*John s/Bil l s/someone
e l s e s
garden.)
21.
Thrainsson s examples do
not
clear ly
demonstrate
tha t
the
antecedent of sig must f-command i t , but then he
does not give
any
examples to the
contrary
e i t h e r .
Therefore, I s h a l l
assume that the antecedent of s ig
should
f-command
i t .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
45/55
68)a.
Jon
sYndi Haraldi fOt a s ig
John showed
Harold
clothes fo r him
John
showed
Harold clothes fo r him John/Harold)
b.
Jon
r e t t i Haraldi
s i n
f o t
handed s e l f s clothes
John handed Harold s e l f s J o h n s /H a r o l d s )
c l o t h e s.
c.
on
t e l u r
Haral d
h afa rakaJ s i g
be11eves
to have
shaved s e l f
John believes Harold to have shaved
s e l f
John/Harold).
d . Jon
t e l u r
Haraldur
h a f i
r ~ s i g
believes
t t
has
shaved s e l f
John believes
t t
arold
has
shaved
s e l f
John/Harold)
e . Jon s e g i r
ai
Haraldur t e l j i ~
i l l i
says That b e l i e v e s
t h a t
v i l j i Maria r a k i s i g
wants t h a t Mary
shaves
s e l f
John
says
t h a t Harold believes
t h a t
i l l
~ ~ n t s
t h a t
Mary
shave s e l f Mary/Bill/Harold/John).)
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
46/55
46
3 .
N PHOR N
In t h i s s ection, I s h a l l r a i s e
orn
o f the
problems
posed
fo r
the binding
p r i n c i p l e s
in
by
the
f acts
o f
anaphora
in languages l i k e Malayalam, Kannada, Chinese,
Yoruba, and I c e l a n d i c . My concern
here i s
mainly with
the
p re se nt ati on o f
the
problems t h m s l v ~ fo r
fellow
researchers in the f i e l d , n o t the
construction
o f an
a l-
ter native
theory
o f anaphora.
The
most
serious
problem
t h a t
the
c u rre n t
formulation
o f the
binding
conditions fa ce s, as fa r as I can
see,
is
r e l a t e d
to the
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the domains
o f
d i s j o i n t
reference and
anaphor binding.
The relevant condi tions
are s t a t e d as
follows
69)a. Anaphors a re bound in t h e i r
governing
category.
b.
Pronominals a re free
i n
t h e i r governing
category.
Whatever be the de fi ni t i on o f
government
and
governing
categor y ,
follows
from th e c on ju nc t
o f
69a
and
69b
t h a t
governed anaphors must
find
t h e i r
antecedents in
the
domain i n
Which
governed
pronominals
e x h i b i t
d i s j o i n t
reference.
That
i s
anaphors
a re
bound
where
pronominals
are free.
s a universal
p rin ci p le , th is
i a i n c o n s i s t e n t
with
the
f acts
o f a na pho ra and d i s j o i n t
reference in Malayalarn, Kannada, Chinese,
Yoruba,
and
I c e l a n d i c . n
a l l
-these
l an gu ag e s, a na ph or s ca n
find
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
47/55
47
thei r antecedents outside tIle etomain of dis jo in t refere
nce, thereby allow ing
both
pronouns
and anaphors to have
the same antecedent
in the
same s t ruc tura l posi t ion.
What are
the
moves tha t can be made such tha t
these
languages do not consti tute a counterexample
to
(69)7 One
may, for
example, think
of saying
tha t what
I have called
anaphors
in these
languages are
not
in
fact
anaphors, and
tha t therefore. condition (69a)
i s
not
applicable to
them.
22
This proposal has
the
effec t of
making
a dist inct ion
between
those reflexives
which are
anaphors and those
which are not,
thus
rais ing the
follOWing problema
f i r s t
t
forces
us to
t rea t the binding
p rope rtie s o f r ef le xiv es
in
English-type l anguages and non-English-type languages
in unrelated
ways,
which clearly must
be
avoided
possi-
ble . Second, one i s forced
to the
di f f icu l . t t k of defi-
ning anaphor in such a way that t
would
include ref le
xives in English, b ut
would exclude reflexives
in Malaya
lam,
Kannada, Chinese. Yoruba, and Icelandic. Chomsky 1979
Characterises anaphors
as
elements
tha t
are lexical ly spe
cif ied as needing an an-tecedent (p.16) , and (irfp ress) as
NP s that have no capacity fo r in here nt reference (Ch I I I
p.42). Under
e i ther
of these character isa t ions, the
re
f lexives in
the
languages tha t we looked a t in Sections
1 and 2 qualify to
be anaphors.
22. This
solution
was suggested to me by
o m
Chomsky.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
48/55
48
For the binding conditions to be meaningful,
the theory should
offer a
universal character isa t ion
of
the class of reflexives to which the principles wil l
apply. t should
a t
l eas t
ident i fy
the properties which
would
make
~ n g u g s
proper candidates
for the binding
condit ions. s
far as
I know, no such proposal exis ts
Even in languages
l ike English,
the prediction
that
anaphors a re bound where pronominals are free i s
not
without
problems. Generally
recognised problem cases
in the l i te ra ture
are sentences
l ike the fo llowing:
(70)a.
They
admire
the ir children.
b.
They
admire
each
other s children.
f i s
false
that anaphors
are
bound
Where
pro
nouns are free, then 69a
must
be revised. Perhaps
a
possible
way
of
approaching
this
task
would be
to
make
th e fo llowing parametric option
available
71 Anaphors
are
bound (in
the i r
governing category).
Languages l ike Malayalam, Chinese, Yoruba, and Ice
landic leave out
the
more
res t r ic t ive condition
in
the
brackets, thereby choosing the
more general
condition
anaphors
are
bound , which
i s
in
fact
par t of
the
very
defini t ion of
anaphors.
Languages
l ike English,
on
the
other
hand, choose the fu l le r I ersion of the condi t ion.
A
secontl
problem tha t faces the
theory i s
the
speci-
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
49/55
f ic a t io n o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a l e gi t i m a t e a n t e c e d e n t in
languages l ike Malayalam. P r i n c i p l e 71) allows any
c-commanding NP to
be
th e
a n t e c e d e n t
o f
an
anaphor,
b u t
in
the Malayalam
type
la ng uag es , o nly s u bje c ts a r e p os s i
b le antecedents
o f anaphors.
L et us
say
t h a t this pheno
menon can
be derived
by p aram etricisin g
the
co n d itio n
on e
s te p fu rth er.
72
Anaphors
must
be bound to
a
su b ject) in the i r
governing
c a t e g o r y ) .
Malay alam, Kan nada, Chinese, and Yoruba
choose
the
more
res t r ic t ive
condition
a bo u t s ub je ct ho od o f antecedents,
languages
l i k e English
and
Icelan d ic
do not .
I f
the pa r a m e t r i c i s a t i on o f the binding conditi.on
as
in
72
is
necessary, ~ q u e s t i o n
t h a t ar i ses
imme-
d i a t e l y
is .
what
c o n s t i t u t e s a
su b ject?
Recent
work
on
nonconfigurational
languages has
made
amply
obvious
tha t the configura
t i o n a l
de f i ni
t io n
o f subj e c t as
NP o f
u and
o f obj e c t as NP
of
VP i s
n ot u n i v e r s a l l y
a p p l i
cab le.
3
I n
o r d e r
to c h a ra c te rise th e
n otio n S Ubje ct
in nonconfigurational
languages,
Chomsky i n
p ress) pro
p05 JS the notion o f lex ica l VP ,
Which
may be s a i d to be
2 ]. c f . Hale
1980),
Nash
1980), Farmer 1980), Simpson
1980), and
Mohanan
in p r e s s ) .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
50/55
consist ing of the verb and the
arguments
th t
Bub-
categorises for, on the assumption
tha t
verbs
do
not
subcategorise for subjects. Thus, in
John
gave
Mary
a book ,
the
lexica l
VP consis ts of the unordered
se t
book, give, and
Mary.
Languages may
dif fer
with respect
to having or not
having a
syntact ic
VP
but
l l
langua
ges
on
th is
assumption
have
lexi l
V ~ Even though
Malayalam does
not
have
a
syntact ic
VP
has
a
l ex i -
cal VP
in
the sense outl ined above.
homsky suggests tha t d- and
a-structure
repre-
sentat ions in nonconfigurational languages
may
be looked
upon as pairs of configurat ional and
lexi l
represent-
at ions. Given
th at le xic al
VPls
are
paired with VP-less
configurations
in
Malayalam, the a-structure
of
7Ja)
may be thought
of
as
7Jb).
73)a.
b.
k u ~ ~ i aanaye n u ~ i
child-n
elephant-a pinched
s
P
k U ~ ; i
nom
aanaye
ace
configurational
st ru ture
lexica l
structure
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
51/55
5
Instead of saying
that
is
only
nonconfigurational
languages that have pair ed a -s tructur e r ep re sent at ions ,
would be
bet ter to
generalise to configurational
languages
as
well,
and
say
that
a-structure
is
univer
sal ly
a
pair of configurational and
l ex i ca l s tructures .
In configura t iona larlguages, the configurational s t ruc-
tures
happen
to , uut
need
not, re f lec t the lexical
struc-
turel
configura t iona l
structure
74
The boy
s
VP
I
pinched the e lephan t
lexical
structure
V
S
rom these assumptions,
follows
that the
universal
def ini
t ion
of objec t
i s
NP of
l ex ica l
VP ,
and
t t t
of
subjec t
NP
of l ex ica l S . f one
accepts
these assump-
t iona,
72)
may be
restated as followsJ
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
52/55
52
75 Anaphors must be bound
to
the NP of l exica l S)
in
their
governing category).
24
24. There are several residual problems. I f
PRO i s an
anaphor,
75
would p re dic t th at
in those languages
that
leave
out the condition
in thei r governing
category , PRO must
have
an antecedent
in
the sen-
tence. This prediction, as
far
as I know, i s in-
correct . Therefore, would be
necessary
to say
that
PRO
i s not an anaphor. see
also
footnote
7
Another problem would
be the
treatment
of cau-
sat ivas
in Malayalam. Recall
that
under causat ivisa-
t ion,
the
intransit ive
subject
becomes
the
t ransi -
t ive object ,
and
i s
no longer
an
e l ig ib le antecedent
of anaphors. c f. 40 a, b). An ident ical s i tua t ion
i s found with respect to par t ic ip ia l adjunc t c lauses
which are obligatori l ly
controlled
by
matrix
subjects .
Given the formulation in 75), we are forced to say
that the effec t of causa ti vi sa ti on
i s
to
convert
an
NP
of
S
into an of VP a t the lexical J.evel. Such
a move, however, co rresponds to a ru le of
move
tha t
moves
an
NP into a
VP in
configurat ional lan-
guages, and
would
presumably
be ruled out by the
projection principle
c f .
Chomsky
in
press
One may go on to aska
how i s the behaviou r of
anaphors l ike
the
Malayalam wa
and
Chinese
zi j i
which
exhibi t long
distance
anaphora
only when con-
tained
by the
subject ,
taken care
of? In what
precise
terms i s the obviation
in
Yoruba, Icelandic, and
English stated? Straightforward
answero
to
these
questions do not
appear to be
a
t r i v i a l matter .
I
leave these
kno tty quest ions to future
research.
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
53/55
I f this i s
the
r ight
way of looking
a t anaphora,
what
i t
implies i s tha t binding conditions
apply to
lexical
s t ructure ,
not
configurational
structure. he
notion
bound , which means ltc commanded an
antece
dent , must therefore be
redefined
as
I-commanded
an
antecedent ,
where
I-command a t
the
level
of lex
i ca l structure corresponds
to
c command a t the level
of
configurational s t ructure . This
revision is
perfect
ly consistent with
the analysis
of
examples l ike
(Jla)
and J ib , which independently
suggests tha t the re le -
vant notio n
of
command for
n p o r ~ binding i s not to
be found a t the configurational
structure.
Thus,
we
are lead to conclude
that the principles rove rn ing the
relat ion
between
anaphors
and the i r antecedents are
s ta ted,
not a t the level of
configurational structure,
but
a t
a
level
tha t
represents
grammatical re la t ions .
8/12/2019 Grammatical relations in Malaya
54