Abstract
Contrary to the widely held view that Japanese overt third-person pronouns such as kare and kanozyo cannot function as bound variables, it has been sporadically reported in the literature that there are cases in which they can receive a bound-variable interpretation. The present paper attempts to provide an account of why Japanese third-person pronouns can be construed as bound variables only in a subset of the contexts in which bound pronouns in English can occur. I argue that Japanese overt third-person pronouns should be analyzed as epithets, claiming that they can function as bound variables only when Condition B and the so-called anti-logophoricity constraint are simultaneously satisfied. I also claim that the apparent insensitivity of the referential use of kare/kanozyo to the anti-logophoricity constraint is attributed to the fact that Japanese (but not English) allows a structure in which a null pronoun is juxtaposed with an appositive epithet phrase.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: ACC = accusative case, ASP = aspect, COMP = complementizer, COP = copula, DAT = dative case, GEN = genitive case, HON = honorific marker, NOM = nominative case, PART = particle, PAST = past tense, Q = question particle, TOP = topic.
The underlying idea here is that as opposed to variable binding, which is regulated by Binding Conditions, coreference is governed by an economy condition called Rule I (Grodzinsky and Reinhart 1993; Reinhart 1983), which blocks accidental coreference if the coreference interpretation is equivalent to what would be obtained by binding.
It should be noted that not all researchers agree that quantificational binding requires c-command. See Barker (2012).
Since the issue of whether A′-binding of epithets is possible is orthogonal to the purposes of this paper, I will not address it here. For epithets in resumptive contexts, see, among others, Aoun and Choueiri (2000), Aoun et al. (2001), and Safir (2004:63). Also, the jury is still out as to how sentences like Every boy 1 ’s mother thinks that the bastard 1 is crazy should be analyzed. See Kayne (1994:23–24) and Reinhart (1983).
Given that coreference (as opposed to variable binding) is governed by Rule I rather than Binding Principles (Grodzinsky and Reinhart 1993), it is more accurate to state that epithets are subject to (i) either Condition B or Rule I and (ii) the anti-logophoricity constraint. For brevity’s sake, we ignore Rule I here.
This characterization of anti-logophoric pronouns is only approximate, but for the purposes of this paper, it will suffice.
Haïk credits the example to Haj Ross.
That said, the precise nature of Condition C is a matter of debate. See Schlenker (2005).
While the evaluative connotations of kare/kanozyo seem to be very subtle for some speakers (especially those in the younger generation), all the speakers I consulted confirmed, regardless of age, that they would avoid using kare/kanozyo to refer to their superiors. I take this to indicate that kare and kanozyo come with certain expressive content associated with the speaker’s evaluation.
A few potential counterexamples are found in Hoji (1991: e.g., (31a, b)). It might be worth mentioning that all those examples involve verbs of saying rather than verbs of thinking. Note also that Hoji acknowledges that there is variation among speakers with respect to the acceptability of those data.
Patel-Grosz (2012) takes the fact that epithets can be bound by a quantificational antecedent as evidence for postulating a null pronominal anchor. As we will see, however, this claim runs counter to the well-established observation that the host of an appositive phrase must be a referring expression. Cf. Potts (2005:173ff).
Note that here the evaluation of the epithet is due to the discourse speaker’s perspective (not Taro’s).
I intentionally avoid using those epithets that involve (incorporated) demonstratives (e.g., aitu ‘that guy’) because the anaphoric use of Japanese demonstratives is known to be subject to some idiosyncratic constraints. See, among others, Kuno (1973) for discussion on the anaphoric use of demonstratives.
Also, the domain of quantification must be restricted to male individuals in the case of kare and to female individuals in the case of kanozyo.
References
Aoun, Joseph, and Lina Choueiri. 2000. Epithets. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 1–39.
Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri, and Norbert Hornstein. 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 371–403.
Aoun, Joseph, and Norbert Hornstein. 1991. Bound and referential pronouns. In Logical structure and linguistics structure: cross-linguistic perspectives, eds. C.-T. James Huang and Robert May, 1–23. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Barker, Chris. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 614–633.
Clements, George Nicholas. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177.
Collins, Chris, and Paul Martin Postal. 2012. Imposters: a study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.
Dubinsky, Stanley, and Robert Hamilton. 1998. Epithets as antilogophoric pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 685–693.
Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Emonds, Joseph. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 211–243.
Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Tanya Reinhart. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69–101.
Hagège, Claude. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69: 287–310.
Haïk, Isabelle. 1984. Indirect binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 185–223.
Hara, Takaaki. 2002. Bound variable interpretation and the degree of accessibility. In Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE) IX, eds. Marjo van Koppen, Erica Thrift, Erik Jan van der Torre, and Malte Zimmermann, 82–95. Leiden: SOLE.
Hinds, John. 1975. Third person pronouns in Japanese. In Language in Japanese society, ed. Fred C. C. Peng, 129–157. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Hinds, John. 1978. Anaphora in Japanese conversation. In Anaphora in discourse, ed. John Hinds, 136–179. Alberta: Linguistic Research Inc.
Hoji, Hajime. 1990. Theories of anaphora and aspects of Japanese syntax. Unpublished ms., Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Hoji, Hajime. 1991. Kare. In Interdisciplinary approaches to language: essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, eds. Carol J. Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara, 287–304. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Hoji, Hajime. 1995. Demonstrative binding and Principle B. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 25, ed. Jill N. Beckman, 255–271. Amherst: GLSA.
Hoji, Hajime, Satoshi Kinsui, Yukinori Takubo, and Ayumi Ueyama. 2000. Demonstratives, bound variables, and reconstruction effects. In Generative Linguistics in the Old Word (GLOW) in ASIA II, 141–158. Nagoya: Nansan University.
Hornstein, Norbert, and Amy Weinberg. 1990. The necessity of LF. The Linguistic Review 7: 129–168.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Katada, Fusa. 1991. The LF representation of anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 287–313.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kitagawa, Chisato. 1981. Anaphora in Japanese: kare and zibun. In Coyote papers 2, eds. Ann K. Farmer and Chisato Kitagawa, 61–75. Tucson: University of Arizona.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lasnik, Howard. 1976. Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2: 1–22.
Lasnik, Howard. 1989. On the necessity of binding conditions. In Essays on anaphora, ed. Howard Lasnik, 149–167. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Lasnik, Howard. 2001. Subjects, objects, and the EPP. In Objects and other subjects: grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, eds. William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 103–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 27, eds. Lise Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa Rodriduez, 324–343. Chicago: Chicago: Linguistic Society.
Montalbetti, Mario. 1984. After binding: on the interpretation of pronouns. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Noguchi, Tohru. 1997. Two types of pronouns and variable binding. Language 73: 770–797.
Patel-Grosz, Pritty. 2012. Anti-locality at the interfaces. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Pica, Pierre. 1994. Condition C and epistemic contexts: a case study of epithets and anti-logophoric pronouns in French. In Explorations in generative grammar: a festschrift for Dong-Whee Yang, eds. Young-Sun Kim, Byung-Choon Lee, Kyoung-Jae Lee, Kyun-Kwon Yang, and Jong-Kuri Yoon, 544–570. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing Co.
Postal, Paul Martin. 1972. Pronominal epithets and similar items. Foundations of Language 9: 246–248.
Postal, Paul Martin. 1974. On raising: an inquiry into one rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of (in) dependence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Saito, Mamoru, and Hajime Hoji. 1983. Weak crossover and move α in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 245–259.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. Minimize restrictors! (Notes on definite descriptions, Condition C and epithets). In Sinn und Bedeutung 9, eds. Emar Maier, Corien Bary, and Janneke Huitink, 385–416. Nijmegen: NCS.
Acknowledgements
Thanks first and foremost to Dominique Sportiche for his feedback on an earlier version of this paper. I am also indebted to Vincent Homer, Nina Hyams, and Hilda Koopman for their input. Thanks also to Marcel den Dikken as well as three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yashima, J. On the apparent unbindability of overt third-person pronouns in Japanese. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 33, 1421–1438 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9269-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9269-1