Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 1–43

Cross-linguistic variation in anaphoric dependencies: evidence from the Pacific Northwest

Original Paper

Abstract

Several languages of northwestern North America systematically fail to show obviation (“Condition C”) effects in contexts where an R-expression is c-commanded by a covalued pronoun. This paper examines Condition C-defying dependencies in one such language, St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). It is shown here that Condition C violations in St’át’imcets are not confined to coreference anaphora, since they may involve sloppy identity; however they are limited to cases where the dependency (a) does not contain a quantificational expression and (b) crosses a clause boundary. Employing a version of linking theory, this paper argues that Condition C-defying dependencies are “upside-down”—rather than involving a name unexpectedly depending on a c-commanding pronoun, they involve a dependent pronoun c-commanding an antecedent name. In order to account for this possibility, a parametrized version of the Independence Principle (Safir 2004b) is invoked, whose domain in St’át’imcets is restricted to the minimal clause. The facts here provide a direct challenge to the Universalist Hypothesis on anaphora.

Keywords

Salish St’át’imcets Pacific Northwest Binding Anaphora Obviation Condition C Linking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  3. Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  5. Davis, Henry. 1994a. A configurational pronominal argument language. In Proceedings of the western conference on linguistics, ed. Vida Samiian, Vol. 6, 53–67. Fresno: Department of Linguistics, University of California. Google Scholar
  6. Davis, Henry. 1994b. Tali ho! In 29th international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, ed. Joyce Silverthorne, 117–144. Pablo: Salish-Kutenai College. Google Scholar
  7. Davis, Henry. 1996. On agreement in St’át’imcets. In Actes du deuxième colloque de langues et grammaire, 79–94. Paris: Université de Paris 8. Google Scholar
  8. Davis, Henry. 1999. Word order and configurationality in St’át’imcets. In 34th international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, 61–82. Kamloops: SCES/SFU. Google Scholar
  9. Davis, Henry. 2003. Mind the gap: plural agreement and A-bar extraction in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). In 38th international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, eds. Jason Brown, Michael Kalmar, and Tyler Peterson, 23–46. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 11. Google Scholar
  10. Davis, Henry. 2004. VP ellipsis in St’át’imcets and its implications. In 39th international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, 117–140. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 14. Google Scholar
  11. Davis, Henry. 2005. Constituency and coordination in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). In Verb first: On the syntax of the verb initial languages, eds. Andrew Carnie, Sheila Anne Dooley, and Heidi Harley, 31–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  12. Davis, Henry. 2006. The status of Condition C in St’át’imcets. In MIT working papers on endangered and less familiar languages 7: studies in Salishan, eds. Shannon T. Bischoff, Lynikka Butler, Peter Norquest, and Daniel Siddiqi, 49–92. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  13. Davis, Henry. 2008. WH-in-situ: Japanese meets Salish. In Kanagawa university studies in language, special issue: individual languages and language variation, ed. Michiko Takeuchi, 17–58. Yokohama: Kanagawa University Center for Language Studies. Google Scholar
  14. Davis, Henry, Dwight Gardiner, and Lisa Matthewson. 1993. A comparative look at WH-questions in Northern Interior Salish. In 28th international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, ed. William Shipley, 79–96. Seattle: University of Washington. Google Scholar
  15. Davis, Henry, Ryan Waldie, and Rachel Wojdak. 2007. Condition C in Nuu-chah-nulth. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 52: 185–222 (Special Edition on Southern Wakashan Languages). Google Scholar
  16. Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH quantification: questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  17. Demirdache, Hamida. 1997. Condition C. In Atomism and binding, eds. Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica, and Johan Rooryck, 51–88. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  18. Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362. Google Scholar
  19. Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  20. Foreman, John. 2005. Backward binding in Zapotec. Paper presented at the 79th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Oakland, CA, January 7, 2005. Google Scholar
  21. Gardiner, Dwight. 1993. Structural asymmetries and pre-verbal positions in Shuswap. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University. Google Scholar
  22. Gardiner, Dwight, Lisa Matthewson, and Henry Davis. 1993. A preliminary report on word order in Northern Interior Salish. Papers for the 28th international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, ed. William Shipley, 139–158. Seattle: University of Washington. Google Scholar
  23. Gerdts, Donna. 1988. Object and absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  24. Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Tanya Reinhart. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69–102. Google Scholar
  25. Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: a reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In The interpretive tract, eds. Uli Sauerland and Susi Wurmbrand, 205–246. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25. Google Scholar
  26. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  27. Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical form, binding and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 395–420. Google Scholar
  28. Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–593. Google Scholar
  29. Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  30. Hukari, Thomas. 1996. Anaphora in Hulq’umin’um’. Paper presented at the 4th Victoria Workshop on Salish morphosyntax. University of Victoria. Google Scholar
  31. Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard Demers. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70: 697–736. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koch, Karsten. 2006. Transitive word order in Nɬeʔkepmxcín (Thompson River Salish). Papers for the 41st international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, eds. Masaru Kiyota, James J. Thompson, and Noriko Yamane-Tanaka, 192–220. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 18. Google Scholar
  33. Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Karin Michelson. 1998. Review article on Baker (1996). Language 74: 129–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langacker, Ronald. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. In Modern studies in English, eds. Sanford A. Schane and David A. Reibel, 160–186. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  35. Lasnik, Howard. 1991. On the necessity of binding conditions. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidlin, 7–28. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  36. Lasnik, Howard, and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687–720. Google Scholar
  37. Lee, Felicia. 2003. Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6: 84–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manzini, Rita, and Kenneth Wexler. 1987. Parameters, binding theory and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 413–444. Google Scholar
  39. Matthewson, Lisa. 1993. Syntax generals paper. University of British Columbia. Google Scholar
  40. Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Google Scholar
  41. Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the interpretation of wide scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7: 79–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Temporal semantics in a supposed by lenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 673–713. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matthewson, Lisa. 2008. Pronouns, presuppositions and semantic variation. In Proceedings of SALT, vol. XVIII. Google Scholar
  44. Matthewson, Lisa, and Henry Davis. 1995. The structure of DP in St’át’imcets. In 30th international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, ed. Thomas M. Hess, 55–68. Victoria: University of Victoria. Google Scholar
  45. Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis, and Dwight Gardiner. 1993. Coreference in Northern Interior Salish. In 28th international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, ed. William Shipley, 217–232. Seattle: University of Washington. Google Scholar
  46. Montler, Timothy. 2001. Auxiliaries and other grammatical categories in Klallam. In 36th international conference on Salish and Neighboring languages, 237–264. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 6. Google Scholar
  47. Newmeyer, Frederick. 2005. Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2002. Backwards control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Postal, Paul. 2003. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  50. Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar
  51. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  52. Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720. Google Scholar
  53. Rochemont, Michael, and Peter Culicover. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  54. Russell, Kevin, and Charlotte Reinholtz. 1997. Non-configurationality and the syntax-phonology interface. In Proceedings of the 15th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Brian Agbayani, Sze-Wing Tang, 441–455. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  55. Safir, Kenneth. 2004a. The syntax of Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Safir, Kenneth. 2004b. The syntax of (in)dependence. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  58. Tancredi, Christopher. 1995. Intricacies of identity. Manuscript, Yokohama National University. Google Scholar
  59. van Eijk, Jan. 1997. The Lillooet language: phonology, morphology, syntax. Vancouver: UBC Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsThe University of British Columbia, Totem Field StudiosVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations