Abstract
Chinese anaphors can be divided into two semantic types: One (the X-benshen 'X-self' anaphor, in which X is either ziji 'self' or pronoun-ziji 'pronoun-self') requires pure identity with its antecedent; the other (the non-X-benshen 'non-X-self' anaphor) allows near identity with its antecedent. Pure identity shown by the anaphor ziji-benshen 'self-self' can be derivable from the semantic composition of the near reflexive function of the morpheme ziji 'self', the focus function of the morpheme benshen 'self' and the operator status of ziji-benshen 'self-self' while near identity (or near reflexivity) shown by the non-X-benshen 'non-X-self' anaphor is due to its being "a pronoun in coreference." In other words, in Chinese pure identity is near reflexivity plus a focus marker which picks out the best representation of the antecedent that happens to be the actual person. Thus, the X-benshen 'X-self' anaphor should not be considered a pure anaphor without content. Typologically, there are two ways for human languages to get pure identity: One is by using an anaphor without content; the other is by using a focus marker that picks out the best representation of the antecedent which happens to be the actual person. The typological difference in establishing pure identity provides an answer for the long standing question of why the notion of coargumenthood is often adopted by linguists in defining binding conditions in languages which show an antilocality effect but seldom in Chinese. The distribution and coindexation of all Chinese anaphors, either the X-benshen 'X-self' or the non-X-benshen 'non-X-self' anaphor, are determined by one single syntactic condition, namely, the traditional binding theory, regardless of whether they are inside or outside the coargument domain. In contrast, in languages which show an antilocality effect, the binding theory allows both pure and near anaphors within the coargument domain but Condition R filters out one of them in the absence of lexical/morphological reflexivity; however, outside the coargument domain, the binding theory itself governs the distribution and coindexation of all anaphors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bhat, D. N. S. (1981) Pronominalization, Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, Pune.
Bickerton, Derek (1987) “He Himself: Anaphor, Pronoun, Or... ?,” Linguistic Inquiry 8, 345–348.
Bonomi, Andrea and Paolo Casalegno (1994) “Only: Association with Focus in Event Semantics,” Natural Language Semantics 2, 1–45.
Brame, Michael K. (1983) “Ungrammatical Notes 4: Smarter Than Me,” Linguistic Analysis 12, 323–338.
Burzio, Luigi (1994) “Weak Anaphora,” in Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths Toward Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard Kayne, Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C., pp. 59–84.
Carlson, Greg (1977) Reference to Kinds in English, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Chierchia, Gennaro and Sally McConnell-Ginet (2000) Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics, 2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger, New York.
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon and Li-May Sung (1990) “Principles and Parameters of Long-Distance Reflexives,” Linguistic Inquiry 21, 1–22.
Cole, Peter and Li-May Sung (1994) “Head Movement and Long-Distance Reflexives,” Linguistic Inquiry 25, 355–406.
Edmondson, Jerold and Frans Planck (1978) “Great Expectations,” Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 373–413.
Everaert, Martin (1986) The Syntax of Reflexivization, Foris, Dordrecht.
Fauconnier, Gilles (1985) Mental Spaces, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Grimshaw, Jane (1990) Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hankamer, Jorge (1973) “Why There Are Two Than's in English,” in C. Corum, P. C. Smith-Stark, and A. Weiser (eds.), Papers from the Ninth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 179–191.
Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hellan, Lars (1988) Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht.
Hestvik, Arild (1990) LF Movement of Pronouns and the Computation of Binding Domains, PhD dissertation, Brandeis University.
Hoeksema, Jack (1983) “Negative Polarity and the Comparatives,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 403–434.
Huang, C.-T. James (1983) “A Note on Binding Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 14, 554–561.
Huang, C.-T. James and Chih-Chen Jane Tang (1991) “The Local Nature of the Long-Distance Reflexives in Chinese,” in Jan Koster and Eric Reuland (eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 263–282.
Huang, C.-T. James and Chen-Sheng Luther Liu (2000) “Logophoricity, Attitudes, and Ziji at the Interface,” in Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and C.-T. James Huang (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 33: Long-Distance Reflexives, Academic Press, New York, pp. 141–195.
Jackendoff, Ray (1992) “Madame Tussaud Meets the Binding Theory,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 1–31.
Jiang, Yan and Hai-Hua Pan (1998) Xingshi Yuyixue Yinlun [Introduction to Formal Semantics], Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe, Beijing.
Katada, Fusa (1992) “The LF Representation of Anaphors,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 287–313.
Kao, Rong-Rong (1993) Grammatical Relations and Anaphoric Structures in Mandarin Chinese, PhD dissertation, University of Hawai'i.
Lidz, Jeffrey L. (1995) “Morphological Reflexive-Marking: Evidence from Kannada,” Linguistic Inquiry 25, 705–710.
Lidz, Jeffrey L. (1996) Dimensions of Reflexivity, PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.
Lidz, Jeffrey L. (2000) “Anti-antilocality,” in Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and C.-T. James Huang (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 33: Long-Distance Reflexives, Academic Press, New York, pp. 227–254.
Lidz, Jeffrey L. (2001a) “Condition R,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 123–140.
Lidz, Jeffrey L. (2001b) “The Argument Structure of Verbal Reflexives,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 311–353.
Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther (1999) Anaphora in Mandarin Chinese and Binding at the Interface, PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther (2002) The Logophor ziji-benshen and the Minimal Distance Effect, ms., National Chiao Tung University.
Pan, Hai-Hua (1997) Constraints on Reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese, Garland Publishing Inc., New York.
Pan, Hai-Hua (1998) “Closeness, Prominence, and Binding Theory,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 771–815.
Pica, Pierre and William Snyder (1997) “On the Syntax and Semantics of Local Anaphors in French and English,” in Anna-Maria di Sciullo (ed.), Projections and Interface Conditions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 235–250.
Pollard, Carl J. and Ivan A. Sag (1992) “Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303.
Pollard, Carl J. and Ping Xue (1998) “Chinese Reflexive Ziji: Syntactic Reflexives vs. Nonsyntactic Reflexives,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 287–318.
Postma, Gertjan (1997) “Logical Entailment and the Possessive Nature of Reflexive Pronouns,” in Hans Bennis et al. (eds.), Atomism and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland (1993) “Reflexivity,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.
Reuland, Eric (1995) Primitives of Binding, paper presented at the 18th Generative Linguistics in the Old World Colloquium, Tromsø, Norway.
Rooryck, Johan and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (1998) “The Self as Other: A Minimalist Approach to Zich and Zich-zelf in Dutch,” in Pius N. Tamanji and Kiyomi Kusumoto (eds.,) Proceedings of the 28th North Eastern Linguistic Society, Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 359–373.
Sells, Peter, Annie Zaenen, and Draga Zec (1987) “Reflexivization Variation: Relations Between Syntax, Semantics and Lexical Structure,” in Masayo Iida, Stephen Wechsler, and Draga Zec (eds.), Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse Structure, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 169–238.
Szabolcsi, Anna (1994) “All Quantifiers Are Not Equal: the Case of Focus,” Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Logic and Language, Acta Linguistica Ac. Sc. Hungarica, pp. 171–187.
Tang, Chih-Chen (1989) “Chinese Reflexives,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 93–121.
Tang, Ting-Chi (1994) “Hanyu Jufa yu Cifa de Zhaoying Ci [Anaphors in Chinese Syntax and Morphology],” Studies on Chinese Morphology and Syntax 5, Student Book Co., Ltd, Taipei, pp. 197–225.
Voskuil, Jan and Pim Wehrmann (1990) On SC-subjects and Binding, ms. Leiden.
Yu, Xian-Fu (1996) A Study of Chinese Reflexives, PhD dissertation, University of London.
Yu, Xian-Fu (1998) “Theta Role Assignment, Internal Structures of Reflexives and Reflexive Binding,” Linguistic Review 15, 389–405.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, CS.L. Pure Reflexivity, Pure Identity, Focus and Chinese Ziji-Benshen . Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12, 19–58 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021662808616
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021662808616