The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

This book develops a pragmatic theory of anaphora within the neoGricean framework of conversational implicature. Chomsky claims that anaphora reflects underlying principles of innate Universal Grammar, and the view is widely held that only syntactic and semantic factors are crucial to intrasentential anaphora. Yan Huang questions the basis of the Government and Binding approach and argues that syntax and pragmatics are interconnected in determining many anaphoric processes. Furthermore, he proposes that the extent to which syntax and pragmatics interact varies typologically. There exists a class of language (such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean) in which pragmatics plays a central role that in familiar European languages is alleged to be played by grammar. Yan Huang's pragmatic theory has far-reaching implications for this important issue in theoretical linguistics.

CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN LINGUISTICS General Editors: J. BRESNAN, B. COMRIE, W. DRESSLER, R. HUDDLESTON, R. LASS, D. LIGHTFOOT, J. LYONS, P. H. MATTHEWS, R. POSNER, S. ROMAINE, N. V. SMITH, N. VINCENT

The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora

In this series

35 MARTIN ATKINSON Explanations in the study of child language development 36 SUZANNE FLEISCHMAN The future in thought and language 37 JENNY CHESHIRE Variation in an English dialect 38 WILLIAM A. FOLEY and ROBERT VAN VALIN JR Functional syntax and Universal

Grammar 39 MICHAEL A. COVINGTON Syntactic theory in the High Middle Ages 40 K E N N E T H J . S A F I R Syntactic chains 41 J . MILLER Semantics and syntax 42 H. c. BUNT Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics 43 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH Metrical phonology and phonological structure 44 JOHN HAIMAN Natural syntax 45 BARBARA M. HORVATH Variation in Australian English: the sociolects of Sydney 46 GRANT GOODALL Parallel structures in syntax: coordination, causatives, and restructuring 47 JOHN M A N D E R S O N and COLIN J. EWEN Principles of dependency phonology

48 49 50 51

BARBARA A. FOX Discourse structure and anaphora LAUREL J. BRINTON The development of English aspectual systems DONNA JO NAPOLI Predication theory NOEL BURTON-ROBERTS The limits to debate: a revised theory of semantic proposition

52 MICHAEL s. R O C H E M O N T

53 54 55 56

57 ALESSANDRA G I O R G I

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

and PETER w. CULICOVER English focus constructions

and the theory of grammar PHILIP CARR Linguistic realities: an automatist metatheory for the generative enterprise EVE E. SWEETSER From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure REGINA BLASS Relevance relations in discourse: a study with special reference to Sissala ANDREW CHESTERMAN On definiteness: a study with special reference to English and Finnish and G I U S E P P E L O N G O B A R D I The syntax of noun phrases:

configuration, parameters and empty categories MONIK CHARETTE Conditions on phonological government M. H. KLAIMAN Grammatical voice SARAH M. B. FAGAN The syntax and semantics of middle constructions: a study with special reference to German ANJUM p. SALEEMI Universal Grammar and language learnability STEPHEN R. ANDERSON A-morphous morphology LESLEY STIRLING Switch reference and discourse representation HENK J. VERKUYL A theory of aspectuality: the interaction between temporal and atemporal structure EVE v. CLARK The lexicon in acquisition ANTHONY R. WARNER English auxiliaries: structure and history P. H. MATTHEWS Grammatical theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky LJILJANA PROGOVAC Negative and positive polarity: a binding approach R. M. w. DIXON Ergativity YAN HUANG The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: a study with special reference to Chinese

Supplementary volumes MIACHEL o S I D H A I L : Modern Irish: grammatical structure and dialectal variation ANNICK DE HOUWER: The acquisition of two languages from birth: a case study LILIANE HAEGEMAN: Theory and description in generative syntax: a case study in West Flemish

Other titles also available

THE SYNTAX AND PRAGMATICS OF ANAPHORA A study with special reference to Chinese

YAN

HUANG

Department of Linguistic Science, University of Reading

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521418874 © Cambridge University Press 1994 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1994 This digitally printed version 2007 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Huang, Yan. The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: a study with special reference to Chinese/Yan Huang. p. cm. - (Cambridge studies in linguistics: 70) Originally presented as the author's thesis (Ph.D. - Cambridge University) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0 521 41887 9 (hardback) 1. Semantics. 2. Anaphora (Linguistics). 3. Chinese language Anaphora. I. Title. II. Series. P299.A5H8 1994 401'.43-dc20 93-23902 CIP ISBN 978-0-521-41887-4 hardback ISBN 978-0-521-03960-4 paperback

To my wife

There are certain phenomena, like anaphora, which have just been extremely good probes; they've raised questions that have to be answered, and there are other things that also do, but I haven't seen many. Most phenomena simply do not make good probes. They are really just puzzles which are unexplained. It seems to me to make good sense to work intensively in those subareas where sharp questions seem to arise that can be answered in ways that have an explanatory character. Chomsky (1982a: 83)

In an Olympic event for World's Greatest Language, English might scrape the silver, but Chinese would be unchallenged for the gold. Sampson (1989: 229)

Contents

Preface Abbreviations used in glosses 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora Introduction A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory An outline of a neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora Plan of the book

xiii xvii 1 1 3 15 18

PART I ANAPHORA IN GOVERNMENT AND BINDING THEORY

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.6

Empty categories Introduction Chomsky's typology of empty categories C.-T. J. Huang's typology of empty categories Zero anaphors in subject position Arguments against PRO in Chinese Arguments against pro in Chinese Arguments against the empty topic hypothesis Zero anaphors in object position Two Government and Binding analyses: the variable analysis versus the pro analysis Xu and Langendoen's arguments against the variable analysis Arguments for syntactically undifferentiated object-zero anaphors Conclusion

21 21 22 24 26 26 33 44 48 48 49 51 57

x

Contents

3 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3 3.4

Control Introduction Control in Chinese under a syntactic approach A Government and Binding analysis A Lexical-Functional Grammar analysis Control in Chinese under a semantic approach Conclusion

4 4.1 4.2 4.3

Long-distance reflexivisation 75 Introduction 75 Chinese reflexives 76 The standard Government and Binding assumptions on Anaphoric binding 78 The first Government and Binding strategy: denial of evidence 79 Long-distance ziji as a Pronominal 80 Long-distance ziji as an Anaphor of a special kind 82 Ziji uniformly as a bound Pronominal 84 Ziji uniformly as a Pronominal Anaphor 86 The second Government and Binding strategy: modification of binding theory 88 Abandonment, expansion and parameterisation of local domain 88 Ad hoc supplementation of language-specific devices 96 Postulation of movement at logical form 101 Conclusion 112

4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.6

58 58 59 59 64 69 74

PART II THE PRAGMATICS OF ANAPHORA

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.4 5.5

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora Introduction The Dowty-Reinhart analysis Levinson's three pragmatic analyses The'A-first'analysis The 'B-first' analysis The 'A-first' plus 'B-first' analysis An alternative analysis Conclusion

115 115 115 119 119 124 127 128 147

Contents 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8

xi

Further applications of the theory 148 Introduction 148 Zero anaphors in the control construction 149 Zero anaphors in the tope construction 159 Zero anaphors in the relative construction 169 The zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast: Chomsky's 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle reinterpreted 172 Long-distance reflexivisation 177 The binding condition C pattern 199 Conclusion 203

7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.4

Anaphoric production in conversation Introduction Anaphoric distribution in conversation Anaphoric production in conversation Establishment of reference Shift of reference Maintenance of reference Conclusion Appendix: data sources and transcription conventions

204 204 205 209 210 222 224 233 234

8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Anaphoric resolution in conversation Introduction Anaphoric resolution in conversation The dynamic of conversation and its effects on anaphora Conclusion

236 236 236 251 256

9 9.1 9.2

Conclusions Properties of anaphora in Chinese Inadequacies of Chomsky's Government and Binding theory The development of a neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora Theoretical implications

257 257

9.3 9.4

258 258 259

xii

Contents Notes References Index of names Index of languages Index of subjects

263 299 319 323 325

Preface

This book develops a neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. In recent years, anaphora has not only become a central issue in linguistic theory, it has also attracted a growing amount of attention from philosophers, psychologists, cognitive scientists and artificial intelligence workers. It has aroused this interest because, on the one hand, some aspects of anaphora have repeatedly been claimed by Chomsky (1981, 1982a, b, 1986a, 1988, 1991b) to reflect underlying principles of innate Universal Grammar (UG), the biologically determined endowment of the human mind; and on the other hand, anaphora has been shown to interact with various syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors. It has therefore provided a test case for various competing hypotheses concerning the relationship between syntax, semantics and pragmatics in linguistic theory. Anaphora clearly involves syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors. Although it is generally acknowledged that pragmatic factors play an important role in discourse anaphora, it is equally widely held (especially among Government and Binding (GB) theorists) that only syntactic and semantic factors are crucial to intrasentential anaphora. This book argues that contrary to this popular but erroneous view, the contribution of pragmatics to anaphora is much more fundamental than has been commonly believed, even at the very heart of intrasentential anaphora. Syntax and pragmatics are interconnected to determine many of the processes of anaphora that are thought to fall within the province of grammar. This approach, of course, does not deny the existence of distinct syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels and modes of explanation in linguistic theory. On the contrary, it presumes the independence, or at least partial independence, of an irreducible, grammatical stratum for pragmatically motivated constraints: calculation of pragmatic inferences of the Gricean sort has to be made over a level of independent syntactic structure and semantic representation

xiv

Preface

(Gazdar 1979, Levinson 1983, 1991, Horn 1988). What pragmatics does is to provide a set of complementary, explanatory principles which constrains the interpretation or production of an utterance whose linguistic representation has already been antecedently cognised. But these are important and indispensable principles for linguistic explanation. Furthermore, the extent to which syntax and pragmatics interact varies typologically. There seems to exist a class of language (such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean) where pragmatics appears to play a central role which in familiar European languages (such as English, French and German) is alleged to be played by grammar. In these 'pragmatic' languages many of the constraints on the alleged grammatical processes are in fact primarily due to principles of language use rather than rules of grammatical structure. If this is the case, then a large portion of linguistic explanation concerning anaphora which is currently sought in grammatical terms may need to be shifted to pragmatics, and pragmatics may no longer be treated as an 'epiphenomenon at best' (Chomsky 1986a: 25), at least with this type of language. On the contrary, there is a pressing need for the development of the kind of pragmatic theory advanced in this work. The organisation of this book is as follows. Chapter 1 surveys the latest developments of neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and outlines the pragmatic theory of anaphora developed in this book. This chapter can be read independently. The argument of the bulk of this book is then divided into two parts. Firstly, in order to show the need for the construction of a pragmatic theory of anaphora, it is necessary to demonstrate that a syntactic approach such as Chomsky's GB theory, despite the 'standard' arguments to the contrary, is inadequate in explaining anaphora in Chinese. This is shown in chapters 2, 3 and 4. Of these, chapter 2 presents arguments against Chomsky's quadripartite typology of empty categories (ECs). Chapter 3 questions the adequacy of current syntactic and semantic theories of control. Chapter 4 discusses problems with binding theory, focusing on long-distance reflexivisation. Next, chapters 5 and 6 develop an alternative, neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Chapter 5 is devoted to the development of the theory, and chapter 6 is given to the further applications of the theory. Chapters 7 and 8 then extend the theory to discourse anaphora anaphora that is found in naturally occurring Chinese conversation. Chapter 7 looks at anaphoric production, and chapter 8 examines anaphoric resolution. Finally, chapter 9 summarises the major findings of

Preface

xv

this book and discusses the theoretical implications of these findings for linguistic theory. This book has its origin in my Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation (Y. Huang 1989). I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to my supervisor Steve Levinson for the guidance, encouragement and support he has given me over the years. I have been extremely fortunate to be personally taught also by John Lyons, Peter Matthews and Nigel Vincent. The influence of these four inspiring teachers on me has been instrumental. I am very grateful to Professor Tian-shi Lii and my other teachers in China, who first kindled my interest in linguistics. To Anna Morpurgo Davies and my other colleagues at Oxford, where I have had the privilege of teaching linguistics for the last three years, I owe a special debt of gratitude. I wish to thank David Cram, Geoffrey Horrocks, Ruth Kempson, Paul Kratochvil, Terry Moore, Sandra Thompson and Anne Zribi-Hertz for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this book or on material related to the content of this book. For reading portions of the manuscript and offering helpful comments, I am indebted to the three anonymous referees from Cambridge University Press. I particularly wish to thank Peter Matthews, who read the whole manuscript and whose invaluable comments have led to many improvements. Parts of the material contained in this book were presented to various audiences at the Universiteit Antwerpen, the Universitat de Barcelona, the University of Cambridge, the University of Exeter, the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, the University of Oxford, the University of Reading and the University of York; I have benefited from the comments received on all these occasions. I would also like to thank Judith Ayling, Catherine Max and Kay McKechnie of Cambridge University Press for their professionalism in preparing the work for publication. I owe a great debt to Trinity College, Cambridge, for electing me to an External Research Studentship and a Senior Rouse Ball Research Studentship, and to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom for awarding me an ORS Award, whichfinancedmy doctoral research. Part of the preparation of this book was carried out while I was a Research Fellow at Churchill College, Cambridge, a position for which I shall long remain grateful. On a more personal note, I wish to express my indebtedness to my parents, who brought me up and provided me with the best education they could during the hard years of China's 'Cultural Revolution'. I wish also to

xvi

Preface

thank my wife for the encouragement, support and love she has always given me. I gratefully acknowledge the permissions granted by Cambridge University Press, John Benjamins B. V., and Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. to reprint material from Y. Huang (1991a), Y. Huang (1991b), and Y. Huang (1992a), respectively. I am also grateful to Noam Chomsky, Basil Blackwell Ltd., Cambridge University Press, Kluwer Academic Publishers, and Walter de Gruyter & Co. for permissions to reprint copyright material. Yan Huang Oxford

jH^f

Abbreviations used in glosses

Chinese examples are transcribed in the Pinyin system of romanisation with tones suppressed. Each example contains two lines of English glosses: a line of gloss for each word in the sentence/utterance (where possible) and a line of gloss for the whole sentence/utterance. The glosses attempt to capture the structure of the original Chinese examples, sometimes at the expense of grammatical English. The abbreviations used in the glosses follow, most of which are described in Li & Thompson (1981). Abbreviation Term BA the ba marker in the ba construction BEI the bei marker in the bei construction CL classifier COMP complementiser CRS currently relevant state (le) CSC complex stative construction (de) CTR contrastive particle DUR durative aspect marker (zhe, zai) EMP emphatic particle EXP experiential aspect marker (guo) MM modifier marker (de) NOM nominaliser (de) PFV perfective aspect marker (le) PP pause particle Q question marker RV resultative verb SA solicit agreement marker (ba) SD the shi . . . de marker in the shi . . . de construction SFP sentence-final particle 1SG first-person singular pronoun

xviii 1PL 2SG 2PL 3SG 3PL

Abbreviations used in glosses first-person plural pronoun second-person singular pronoun second-person plural pronoun third-person singular pronoun third-person plural pronoun

The Chinese third-person singular pronoun ta does not distinguish between masculine and feminine. It is glossed as '3SG' and translated as 'he\ 'him' or 'his' (where appropriate), since there is no neuter thirdperson singular pronoun in English. For examples from other sources, the original glosses are retained.

1

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

[A] regimented account of language use facilitates a simpler and more elegant description of language structure. Horn (1988: 115)

1.1

Introduction

In this book, I shall develop, on the basis of an in-depth analysis of Chinese, a pragmatic theory of anaphora within the neo-Gricean framework of conversational implicature. Anaphora refers to a relation between two linguistic elements, wherein the interpretation of one (called an anaphor) is in some way determined by the interpretation of the other (called an antecedent) (e.g. Lust 1986a, Wasow 1986). In recent years, anaphora has not only become a central issue in linguistic theory, it has also attracted a growing amount of attention from philosophers, psychologists, cognitive scientists and artificial intelligence workers. It has aroused this interest because, on the one hand, some aspects of anaphora have repeatedly been claimed by Chomsky (1981, 1982a, b, 1986a, 1988, 1991b) to reflect underlying principles of innate Universal Grammar (UG), the biologically determined endowment of the human mind; and on the other hand, anaphora has been shown to interact with various syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors. It has therefore provided a test case for various competing hypotheses concerning the relationship between syntax, semantics and pragmatics in linguistic theory. Anaphora clearly involves syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors. Although it is generally acknowledged that pragmatic factors play an important role in discourse anaphora, it is equally widely held (especially among Government and Binding (GB) theorists)1 that only syntactic and semantic factors are crucial to intrasentential anaphora. In this book, I shall argue, in the spirit of an ongoing debate about the 1

2

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

interaction and division of labour between grammar and pragmatics regarding anaphora (Reinhart 1983a, b, 1986, Kempson 1984a, b, 1988a, b, c, Kuno 1987, Levinson 1987a, b, 1991, Y. Huang 1987, 1989, 1991a, b, 1992a, b), that contrary to this popular but erroneous view, the contribution of pragmatics to anaphora is much more fundamental than has been commonly believed, even at the very heart of intrasentential anaphora. Syntax and pragmatics are interconnected to determine many of the processes of anaphora that are thought to fall within the province of grammar. This approach, of course, does not deny the existence of distinct syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels and modes of explanation in linguistic theory. On the contrary, it presumes the independence, or at least partial independence, of an irreducible grammatical stratum for pragmatically motivated constraints: calculation of pragmatic inferences of the Gricean sort has to be made over a level of independent syntactic structure and semantic representation (Gazdar 1979: 56, Levinson 1983: 122, 1991, Horn 1988). What pragmatics does is to provide a set of complementary, explanatory principles which constrains the interpretation or production of an utterance whose linguistic representation has already been antecedently cognised. But these are important and indispensable principles for linguistic explanation, for as Horn (1988: 115) has pointed out, 'an independently motivated pragmatic theory (or several such theories, on the compartmentalized view) should provide simplification and generalization elsewhere in the overall description of language'. Furthermore, the extent to which syntax and pragmatics interact varies typologically. There seems to exist a class of language (such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean) where pragmatics appears to play a central role which in familiar European languages (such as English, French and German) has hitherto been alleged to be played by grammar. In these 'pragmatic' languages many of the constraints on the allegedly grammatical processes are in fact primarily due to principles of language use rather than rules of grammatical structure. If this is the case, then a large portion of linguistic explanation concerning anaphora which is currently sought in grammatical terms may need to be shifted to pragmatics, and pragmatics may no longer be treated as an 'epiphenomenon at best' (Chomsky 1986a: 25), at least with this type of language. On the contrary, there is a pressing need for the development of the kind of pragmatic theory advanced in this book.

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora 1.2

3

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory

On a general Gricean account of meaning and communication, there are two theories: a theory of meaning.n[On]n[atural] (Grice 1957, 1989) and a theory of conversational implicature (Grice 1975, 1978, 1982, 1989). In the theory of meaning_nn, Grice emphasises the conceptual relation between natural meaning in the external world and non-natural, linguistic meaning of utterances. He develops a reductive analysis of meaning. nn in terms of the speaker's intention (see e.g. Strawson 1964, Schiffer 1972, Wright 1975 and Avramides 1989 for further discussion, and Ziff 1967 for a critique). (1.1)

Grice's theory of meaning_nn S means.nn p by uttering U to H if and only if S intends: (i) H to think p, (ii) H to recognise that S intends (i), and (iii) H's recognition of S's intending (i) to be the prime reason for H thinking p.

Taking the view that meaning_nn is not homogeneous, Grice suggests that it be divided into a number of different categories (see e.g. Harnish 1976, Sadock 1978, Levinson 1983: 131, Horn 1989: 146 for further discussion). (1.2)

Grice's typology of meaning. nn meaning_nn

what is said

what is implicated

conventionally

non-conventionally

conversationally

non-conversationally

In the theory of conversational implicature, Grice proposes that in an exchange of conversation, there is an underlying principle that determines the way in which language is used maximally effectively and efficiently to achieve rational interaction. He calls this governing dictum the

4

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

co-operative principle and subdivides it into nine maxims classified into four categories. (1.3)

Grice's theory of conversational implicature a. The co-operative principle Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. b. The maxims of conversation Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true, (i) Do not say what you believe to be false, (ii) Do no say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Quantity: (i) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). (ii) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Relation: Be relevant. Manner: Be perspicuous. (i) Avoid obscurity of expression. (ii) Avoid ambiguity. (iii) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). (iv) Be orderly.

Assuming that the co-operative principle and its component maxims are normally observed by both the speaker and the hearer in a conversational interaction, Grice suggests that conversational implicatures - roughly, a set of non-logical inferences that contains conveyed messages which are meant without being said in the strict sense - can arise from either strictly and directly observing or deliberately and ostentatiously flouting the maxims. Furthermore, he distinguishes between those conversational implicatures which arise without requiring any particular contextual conditions and those which do require such conditions. He calls the first kind generalised conversational implicatures and the second kind particularised conversational implicatures. Grice also points out that conversational implicatures are characterised by a number of distinctive properties, notably (i) cancellability, or defeasibility (conversational implicatures can simply evaporate in certain linguistic or

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

5

non-linguistic contexts), (ii) non-detachability (any linguistic expression with the same semantic content tends to carry the same conversational implicature (a principled exception is those conversational implicatures that arise via the maxim of Manner)), (iii) calculability (conversational implicatures are calculable via the co-operative principle and its attendant maxims), (iv) non-conventionality (conversational implicatures, though dependent on what is coded, are non-coded in nature), (v) reinforceability (conversational implicatures can be made explicit without producing too much redundancy) (Sadock 1978), and (vi) universality (conversational implicatures tend to be universal, being motivated rather than arbitrary) (see Sadock 1978 for a critique and Nunburg 1981 for a defence). Recent advances on the classic Gricean theory of conversational implicature include Atlas & Levinson (1981), Leech (1981, 1983), Sperber & Wilson (1982, 1986), Levinson (1983, 1987a, b, 1991), Horn (1984, 1988, 1989, 1992) and Atlas (1989).2 In these new developments, the original Gricean programme has been revised in somewhat different ways. Sperber and Wilson, for example, in an attempt to make a 'paradigm change' (Kuhn 1970) in pragmatics, propose that the entire Gricean apparatus be subsumed within a single cognitive principle, namely the principle of Relevance. On this Relevance theory, which is essentially a modification of the Fodorian theory of cognitive modularity (Fodor 1983),3 it is assumed that the human central cognitive mechanism works in such a way as to maximise Relevance with respect to communication, that is, 'communicated information comes with a guarantee of [R]elevance' (Sperber & Wilson 1986: vii). Thus, the principle of Relevance is claimed to be responsible for the recovery of both the explicit and implicit content of an utterance. In other words, on Sperber and Wilson's view, in interpreting an utterance, one is always maximising the informational value of contextual stimuli to interpret the utterance in a way which is most consistent with the principle of Relevance. Horn suggests a less reductionist, bipartite model. In Horn's view, all of Grice's maxims (except the maxim of Quality) can be replaced with two fundamental and antithetical principles: the Q[uantity]-principle and the R[elation]-principle.

6

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

(1.4)

Horn's Q- and R-principles a. The Q-principle Make your contribution sufficient; Say as much as you can (given R). b. The R-principle Make your contribution necessary; Say no more than you must (given Q).

In terms of information structure, the Q-principle, which collects Grice's Quantity.!, Manner.! and Manner_2 maxims, is a lower-bounding pragmatic principle which may be (and characteristically is) exploited to engender upper-bounding conversational implicatures: a speaker, in saying ' . . . / ? . . . ' , conversationally implicates that (for all he knows) ' . . . at most / ? . . . ' . On the other hand, the counterbalancing Rprinciple, which subsumes Grice's Quantity_2, Relation and Manner_3 maxims, is an upper-bounding pragmatic principle which may be (and characteristically is) exploited to invite low-bounding conversational implicatures: a speaker, in saying ' . . . / ? . . . ' , conversationally implicates that (for all he knows) 4 . . . more than / ? . . . ' (Horn 1984, 1988, 1989: 192-5). Viewing the Q- and R-principles as mere instantiations of Zipfian economy (Zipf 1949), Horn explicitly identifies the Q-principle ('a hearerbased economy for the maximisation of informational content') with Zipf s Auditor's Economy (the Force of Diversification) and the Rprinciple ('a speaker-based economy for the minimisation of linguistic form') with Zipf s Speaker's Economy (the Force of Unification). He also explicitly identifies the R-principle with Atlas & Levinson's (1981) I[nformativeness]-principle. Furthermore, Horn argues, quoting Martinet (1962: 139) as support, that the whole Gricean mechanism for pragmatic inference can be largely derived from the dialectic interaction (in the classical Hegelian sense) between the Q- and R-principles in the following way.4 (1.5)

Horn's pragmatic division of labour The use of a marked (relatively complex and/or prolix) expression when a corresponding unmarked (simpler, less 'effortful') alternate expression is available tends to be interpreted as conveying a marked message (one which the unmarked alternative would not or could not have conveyed).

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

7

In effect, what (1.5) basically says is this: the R-principle generally takes precedence until the use of a contrastive linguistic form induces a Q-implicature to the non-applicability of the pertinent R-implicature. Horn's proposal to reduce Grice's maxims to the Q- and R-principles is questioned by Levinson (1987a, b). On Levinson's view, Horn fails to draw a distinction between what Levinson calls semantic minimisation (semantically general expressions are preferred to semantically specific ones) and expression minimisation ('shorter' expressions are preferred to 'longer' ones).5 Consequently, inconsistency arises with Horn's use of the Q- and R-principles; for example, in the implicature resolution scheme (1.5), the Q-principle seems to operate primarily in terms of units of speech production whereas elsewhere, in Horn-scales, i.e. a set of contrastive semantic alternates such as scalar or gradable predications (1.6) (Gazdar 1979, Atlas & Levinson 1981, Levinson 1987a, b), for instance, it seems to operate primarily in terms of semantic informativeness. (1.6)

Horn-scale For (S, W) to form a Horn-scale, (i) A(S) must entail A(W) for some arbitrary sentence frame A; (ii) S and W must be equally lexicalised; (iii) S and W must be 'about' the same semantic relations, or from the same semantic field.

Considerations along these lines lead Levinson to argue for a clear separation between pragmatic principles governing an utterance's surface form and pragmatic principles governing its informational content. He proposes that the Gricean apparatus (the maxim of Quality apart) be reduced to three inferential strategies: what he dubs the Qfuantity]-, I[nformativeness]- and M[anner]-principles. (1.7)

Levinson's Q-, I- and M-principles a. The Q-principle Speaker's maxim: Do not provide a statement that is informationally weaker than your knowledge of the world allows, unless providing a stronger statement would contravene the I-principle. Recipient's corollary: Take it that the speaker made the strongest statement consistent with what he knows, and therefore that:

8

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

(i) if the speaker asserted A(W), and (S,W) form a Hornscale (such that A(S) h A(W)), then one can infer K~(A(S)), i.e. that the speaker knows that the stronger statement would be false; (ii) if the speaker asserted A(W) and A(W) fails to entail an embedded sentence Q, which a stronger statement A(S) would entail, and {S,W} form a contrast set, then one can infer ~K(Q), i.e. the speaker does not know whether Q obtains or not. b. The I-principle Speaker's maxim: the maxim of minimisation 'Say as little as necessary', i.e. produce the minimal linguistic information sufficient to achieve your communicational ends, (bearing the Q-principle in mind). Recipient's corollary: the rule of enrichment Amplify the informational content of the speaker's utterance, by finding the most specific interpretation, up to what you judge to be the speaker's m-intended point. Specifically: (i) Assume that stereotypical relations obtain between referents or events, unless: (1) that is inconsistent with what is taken for granted, (2) the speaker has broken the maxim of minimisation by choosing a prolix expression; (ii) assume the existence or actuality of what a sentence is 'about' if that is consistent with what is taken for granted; (iii) avoid interpretations that multiply entities referred to (assume referential parsimony); specifically, prefer coreferential readings of reduced NPs (pronouns or zeros). c. The M-principle Speaker's maxim: Do not use a prolix, obscure or marked expression without reason. Recipient's corollary: If the speaker used a prolix or marked expression M, he did not mean the same as he would have had he used the unmarked expression U - specifically he was trying to avoid the stereotypical associations and I-implicatures of U.

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

9

The Q- and I-principles, both of which operate primarily in terms of semantic informativeness, are concerned with inferential enrichment of an utterance. The Q-principle handles the now classic Quantity.! conversational implicatures that arise from a Horn-scale, as in (1.8)(1.11) (Horn 1972, Ducrot 1972, Fauconnier 1975, Grice 1975, Gazdar 1979, Levinson 1987a). (Following Levinson 1983,1 shall use the symbol +> to stand for 'conversationally implicate'. The epistemic qualifications are omitted.) (1.8)

Q-scalar

Given a Horn-scale (S,W), where the semantically stronger expression substituted in an arbitrary sentence A entails the same sentence with the semantically weaker expression, A(S) h A(W), and S and W are expressions of roughly equal brevity, then the use of W Q-implicates the denial of the applicability of S: A(W) +> (for all the speaker knows) ~A(S). (1.9)

(1.10)

(all, some) Some of my friends prefer classical music. +> Not all of my friends prefer classical music. Q.clausal

Given a construction P which contains another clause q, where q is not entailed by P, and there is another construction R similar in meaning (and of roughly equal brevity) to P except that R does entail q, then the use of P(..q..) instead of R(..q..) Qimplicates that the speaker is uncertain that q is true. (1.11)

(know, believe) I believe that John is a keen art collector. +> John may or may not be - I don't know which.

The basic idea of this inferential strategy is that the use of an expression (especially a semantically weaker one) in a set of contrastive semantic alternates Q-implicates the negation of the interpretation associated with the use of another expression (especially a semantically stronger one) in the same set. In other words, the effect of this inference strategy is to give rise to an upper-bounding conversational implicature: from the absence of an informationally stronger expression, one infers that the interpretation associated with the use of that expression does not hold.

10

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

Mirroring the effect of the Q-principle, the I-principle seems to operate in a somewhat opposite direction. The basic idea of this inferential strategy is that the use of a semantically general expression I-implicates a semantically specific interpretation. The class of I-implicatures appears to be heterogeneous, ranging from 'conjunction buttressing' (Grice 1975, Schmerling 1975, Atlas & Levinson 1981) to 'conditional perfection' (Geis & Zwicky 1971, Lilje 1972, Boer & Lycan 1973), from 'membership categorisation' (Sacks 1972) to 'mirror maxim' (Harnish 1976), from 'frame-based inference' (Charniak 1972) to 'bridging inference' (Clark & Haviland 1977), from 'inference to stereotype' (Atlas & Levinson 1981) to 'indirect speech act' (Searle 1975) and from 'definite reference' (Hawkins 1978) to 'lexical narrowing' (Haas 1972, Horn 1984). Some examples follow.

(1.12)

I Given a pairing between a semantically weaker expression W and a semantically stronger one S in the same semantic domain, such that A(S) entails A(W), then if the speaker asserts A(W), he I-implicates the semantically stronger statement A(S) if that is compatible with what is taken for granted.

(1.13)

(Conjunction buttressing) p and q +> p and then q +> p therefore q +> p in order to cause q John turned the key and the safe opened. +> John turned the key and then the safe opened. +> John turned the key and thereby caused the safe to open. +> John turned the key in order to make the safe open.

(1.14)

(Conditional perfection) if p then q +> if ~p then ~q +> iff p then q If you let me see the manuscript, I'll make a donation to the library. +> If and only if you let me see the manuscript will I make a donation to the library.

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

11

(1.15)

(Membership categorisation) The baby cried. The mummy picked it up. +> The mummy was the mother of the crying baby.

(1.16)

(Mirror maxim) John and Mary bought a house. +> John and Mary bought a house together, not one each.

(1.17)

(Frame-based inference) John pushed the cart to the checkout. +> John pushed the cart full of groceries to the supermarket checkout in order to pay for them, and so on.

(1.18)

(Bridging inference) I have a new car. The window doesn't close. +> My new car has a window.

(1.19)

(Inference to stereotype) Have you met our new secretary? +> Have you met our new female secretary?

(1.20)

(Indirect speech act) Have you got a watch? +> If you have got a watch and know the time, please tell me what it is.

(1.21)

(Definite reference) It was a Ming vase and on the base of the vessel were four Chinese characters. +> It was a Ming vase and on the base of the vase were four Chinese characters.

(1.22)

(Lexical narrowing) John is reading two Modern Languages at Oxford. +> John is reading two Modern European Languages other than English at Oxford.

But these inferences do seem to share a number of important properties: (i) they are more informative than the utterances that generate them; the implicated propositions entail the sentences that engender them but not vice versa, (ii) they are more precise and specific than the corresponding utterances; what is implicated is a subcase of what is said, (iii) unlike Q-implicatures, they are not based on the

12

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

negation of some possible, semantically stronger statements, and (iv) they cannot be cancelled by negation (Atlas & Levinson 1981, Levinson 1987a, b, Horn 1988). In other words, all the I-principle does in these cases is to induce an inference to a proposition that is best in keeping with the most stereotypical and explanatory expectation given our knowledge about the world. Unlike the Q- and I-principles, which operate primarily in terms of semantic informativeness, the M-principle seems to operate primarily in terms of a set of alternates that contrast in form. This can be exemplified by(1.23)-(1.25). (1.23)a. The train comes frequently. +> The train comes, say, every ten minutes, b. The train comes not infrequently. +> The train comes not as frequently as the uttering of (a) suggests, say, every half an hour. (1.24)a. John stopped the car. +> John stopped the car in the normal manner, b. John caused the car to stop. +> John stopped the car in an unusual manner. (1.25)a. Mary went from the bathroom to the bedroom. +> In the normal way. b. Mary ceased to be in the bathroom and came to be in the bedroom. +> In an unusual way, e.g. in a magic show, Mary had by magic been made to disappear from the bathroom and reappear in the bedroom. The basic idea of this inference principle is that the use of a marked (prolix, non-idiomatic, non-colloquial, etc.) expression M-implicates the negation of the interpretation associated with the use of an alternative, unmarked expression in the same set. In other words, from the use of a marked linguistic expression, one infers that the stereotypical interpretation associated with the use of an alternative, unmarked linguistic expression does not obtain. Taken together, the I- and M-principles give rise to complementary interpretations: the use of an unmarked linguistic expression tends to convey an unmarked message, whereas the use of a marked linguistic expression tends to convey a marked message (Jespersen 1924, McCawley 1978, Horn 1984, Levinson 1987a, b).6

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

13

Given this tripartite classification of pragmatic principles, the question that comes up next is how inconsistencies arising from these potentially conflicting inference apparatuses can be resolved. Following a suggestion by Gazdar (1979), Atlas & Levinson (1981) and Horn (1984), Levinson (1987a, b) proposes that they can be resolved by an ordered set of precedence. (1.26)

Levinson's resolution schema for the interaction of the Q-, Iand M-principles a. Level of genus: Q > M > I (i) Genuine Q-implicatures from tight contrast sets of equally brief, equally lexicalised linguistic expressions 'about' the same semantic relations, take precedence over I-implicatures; (ii) in all other cases, the I-principle induces stereotypical specific interpretations, unless: (iii) there are two (or more) available expressions of the same sense, one of which is unmarked and the other marked in form. In that case, the unmarked form carries the I-implicatures as usual, but the use of the marked form M-implicates the non-applicability of the pertinent I-implicatures. b. Level of species: e.g. Q.ciausai > Q-scaiar

This amounts to saying that genuine Q-implicatures tend to precede Iimplicatures, but otherwise I-implicatures take precedence until the use of a marked linguistic expression triggers a complementary M-implicature to the negation of the applicability of the pertinent I-implicature. By way of illustration, let us take (1.27). (1.27)

Q>I If Colonel Gadaffi gave you a gun for Christmas, it may have been a real gun. (a) Q (since p q, if p q) +> It may or may not have been a real gun - I didn't know which. (b) I +> It was a toy gun. (c) Q > I +> Possibly the gun was a real one.

14

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

In this utterance, there should be a Q-inference due to the use of the Horn-scale alternate if p q. But there should also be an I-inference to stereotype due to the use of the gun for Christmas. Clearly, the two implicatures are inconsistent with each other. Now, given Levinson's resolution schema, the I-inference is correctly cancelled by the Qinference. Next, consider (1.28). (1.28)

M>I John caused the car to stop. (a) M +> not in the normal way, e.g. by use of the emergency brake. (b) I (John stopped the car.) +> in the usual manner. (c) M > I +> not in the normal way, e.g. by use of the emergency brake.

Here, there should be an I-implicature associated with the use of the unmarked form John stopped the car. But since the speaker has avoided it and has instead opted for a marked form (i.e. an elaborate paraphrase), an M-implicature is created. Again, by the resolution mechanism in (1.26), the I-implicature is neutralised by the M-implicature. Finally, let us look at (1.29). (1.29)

Q-clausal > Q-scalar

Some, if not all, of my students are pragmaticists. (a) Q-ciausai (if not all) +> Possibly all of my students are pragmaticists. (b) Q-scaiar (all, some) +> Not all of my students are pragmaticists. (c) Q-clausal > Q-scalar

+> Possibly all of my students are pragmaticists. In this example, there should be a Q.ciausai implicature due to the use of the conditional phrasal if not all. But there should also be a Q.SCaiar implicature due to the use of the Horn-scale alternate some. Once again, given the resolution hierarchy, the Q.ciausai implicature defeats the inconsistent Q-scaiar implicature. The resolution schema in (1.26) can in fact be incorporated into a more general implicature cancellation procedure formulated by Gazdar (1979).

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

15

On Gazdar's view, the informational content of an utterance can be considered to be an ordered set of semantic entailments, conversational implicatures, presuppositions, and so on and so forth. Each incrementation of the informational content of an utterance must be consistent with the informational content that already exists, otherwise it will be cancelled according to the following hierarchy (adapted from Gazdar 1979, Y. Huang 1991a).7 (1.30)

The implicature cancellation procedure a. background assumptions b. semantic entailments c. conversational implicatures (i) Q-implicatures \\)

V-clausal

(2) Q-scalar

(ii) M-implicatures (iii) I-implicatures d. presuppositions

1.3

An outline of a neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

Anaphora has been defined in this book as a relation between two linguistic elements, wherein the interpretation of one is in some way determined by the interpretation of the other. Stated in this way, it covers a variety of heterogeneous linguistic phenomena ranging from pronominalisation through 'identity of sense anaphora' to 'impure textual deixis'. Thus, one finds in Webber (1979), for example, the following list of anaphora in English: (i) definite pronoun anaphora, (ii) definite noun phrase anaphora, (iii) 'one(sY anaphora, (iv) verb phrase anaphora, (v) 'do if anaphora, (vi) 'do so' anaphora, (vii) null complement anaphora, (viii) 'sentential //' anaphora, (ix) sluicing, (x) gapping, (xi) stripping and (xii) 'such' anaphora (see also e.g. Hirst 1981, Cornish 1986, Carter 1987 for similar lists). In this book, however, I shall restrict my attention to core anaphora, that is, NP anaphora which exhibits the following two properties: (i) the anaphor refers to what its antecedent refers to (Lyons 1977: 657-67, 1979), and (ii) both the anaphor and its antecedent are present in the same discourse (Wasow 1986). In particular, I shall concentrate on zero anaphors, pronouns, reflexives and lexical NPs.

16

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

Of some interest to us are contrast pairs of the following kind: (1.31)

a. John turned the key and he opened the safe, b. He turned the key and John opened the safe.

(1.32)

a. There is a rose in the room. The flower is beautiful, b. There is a flower in the room. The rose is beautiful.

There seems to be a clear pattern here: the use of a reduced, semantically general anaphoric expression tends to favour a local coreferential interpretation whereas the use of a full, semantically specific anaphoric expression tends to favour a local non-coreferential interpretation. This pattern applies both intra- and intersententially. Following Levinson (1987b, 1991), let us call this the general pattern of anaphora. Now, assuming that the general pattern of anaphora is largely an instantiation, in the realm of linguistic reference, of the systematic interaction of neo-Gricean pragmatic principles (to be elucidated in chapter 5), the question to be raised next is how it can be given an account in terms of our neo-Gricean theory of conversational implicature. Applying the I- and M-principles, discussed above, to the domain of anaphoric reference, we can derive a general pragmatic apparatus for the interpretation of zero anaphors, pronouns, reflexives and lexical NPs. Assuming the semantic content hierarchy in (1.33), the pragmatic apparatus can be presented in (1.34) (with the Disjoint Reference Presumption (DRP), due to Farmer & Harnish 1987, stated in (1.35)) (Y. Huang 1987, 1989, 1991a). (1.33)

The semantic content hierarchy lexical NP > pronoun > zero anaphor (The inherent semantic content of a lexical NP tends to be semantically more specific than that of a pronoun, and the inherent semantic content of a pronoun, than that of a zero anaphor.)

(1.34)

A pragmatic theory of anaphora a. Interpretation principles Assuming that a reflexive is necessarily referentially dependent, and a pronoun and a zero anaphor are optionally but preferably referentially dependent,

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

17

(i)

the use of a zero anaphor will I-implicate a local coreferential interpretation; (ii) the use of a pronoun will I-implicate a local coreferential interpretation, unless the pronoun is used where a zero anaphor could occur, in which case, the use of the pronoun will M-implicate the complement of the Iimplicature associated with the use of the zero anaphor; (iii) the use of a reflexive will I-implicate a local coreferential interpretation, unless the reflexive is used where a pronoun or a zero anaphor could occur, in which case, the use of the reflexive will M-implicate the complement of the I-implicature associated with the use of the pronoun or the zero anaphor, in terms of either reference or expectedness; and (iv) the use of a name or a lexical NP where a pronoun or a zero anaphor could occur, will M-implicate the complement of the I-implicature associated with the use of the pronoun or the zero anaphor, in terms of either reference or expectedness. b. Consistency constraints Any interpretation implicated by (a) is subject to the requirement of consistency with (i) the DRP; (ii) information saliency, so that (1) implicatures due to higher constructions may take precedence over implicatures due to lower constructions (i.e. 'matrix wins'), and (2) implicatures to coreference may be preferred according to the saliency of antecedent in line with the following hierarchy: topic > subject > object, etc.; and (iii) general implicature constraints, namely, (1) background assumptions, (2) meaning.nn, and (3) semantic entailments (e.g. referential dependence). (1.35)

Farmer and Harnish's Disjoint Reference Presumption The arguments of a predicate are intended to be disjoint, unless marked otherwise.

18

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora

In this theory, we assume that there is a distinction of referential dependence between reflexives on the one hand, and other anaphoric expressions on the other, and we attribute this to semantics. The interpretation of zero anaphors, pronouns, reflexives and lexical NPs can then be largely dictated by the systematic interaction of the M- and Iprinciples (with that order of priority), constrained by the DRP, information saliency and general consistency conditions on conversational implicatures. It will be demonstrated that utilising the apparatus in (1.34), many of the patterns of preferred interpretation regarding intrasentential anaphora in Chinese can be given a satisfactory account. Furthermore, the same pragmatic apparatus developed for the analysis of intrasentential anaphora can easily be extended to anaphora in naturally occurring Chinese conversation, once politeness strategies and organisational properties of conversation are taken into consideration. 1.4

Plan of the book

The argument of this book is divided into two parts. Firstly, in order to show the need for the construction of a pragmatic theory of anaphora, it is necessary to demonstrate that a syntactic approach such as Chomsky's (1981, 1982b, 1986a, b, 1988) GB theory, despite the 'standard' arguments to the contrary, is inadequate in explaining anaphora in Chinese. This is shown in chapters 2, 3 and 4. Of these, chapter 2 presents arguments against Chomsky's quadripartite typology of empty categories (ECs). Chapter 3 questions the adequacy of current syntactic and semantic theories of control. Chapter 4 discusses problems with binding theory, focusing on long-distance reflexivisation. In chapters 5 and 6, I shall then develop an alternative, neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Chapter 5 is devoted to the development of the theory, and chapter 6 is given to the further applications of the theory. Chapters 7 and 8 then extend the theory to discourse anaphora - anaphora that is found in naturally occurring Chinese conversation. Chapter 7 looks at anaphoric production, and chapter 8 examines anaphoric resolution. Finally, chapter 9 summarises the major findings of this book and discusses the theoretical implications of these findings for linguistic theory.

Parti Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

2

Empty categories

The discovery of empty categories and the principles that govern them and that determine the nature of mental representations and computations in general may be compared with the discovery of waves, particles, genes, valence, and so on and the principles that hold of them, in the physical sciences. Chomsky (1988: 91)

2.1

Introduction

Chinese is well known to be a language with widespread zero anaphora (Chao 1968, Lu 1980, 1986[1942], Wang 1985[1943], Gao 1986[1948]). Following Ross (1982), C.-T. J. Huang (1984) suggests that languages be classified in analogy with McLuhan's (1964) 'hot-cool' division of the media. Accordingly, there are three types of language in relation to the explicitness with which they encode anaphoric relations: 'hot', 'medium' and 'cool'. Chinese is characterised as a very 'cool' language in that it allows the massive use of zero anaphora and the interpretation of anaphoric expressions in Chinese relies heavily on inference, context and world knowledge. A similar typological classification can also be found in Gundel (1980), in which Chinese is considered to be a language that allows great freedom for the occurrence of zero anaphora. Furthermore, zero anaphors frequently take precedence over pronouns at both sentence and discourse levels in Chinese, which leads Li & Thompson (1979, 1981) and C. N. Li (1992: 260) to the observation that zero anaphora 'should be considered the norm in Chinese discourse'. Within GB theory - a parametric theory of UG - zero anaphors are treated as empty categories (ECs), entities that are assumed to be phonologically null but syntactically present. In this chapter, I shall present arguments against Chomsky's (1981, 1982b, 1986a, 1988) typology of ECs. First, I shall summarise Chomsky's 21

22

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

quadripartite classification of ECs and C.-T. J. Huang's (1984, 1989) revision of it in sections 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. Then, I shall argue, in sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, that neither PRO nor pro can occur in Chinese. Next, in section 2.4.3, I shall show that the empty topic hypothesis - a variable can be locally A-bound (i.e. non-argument bound) by an empty topic (C.-T. J. Huang 1984, Cole 1987, Cole, Hermon & Sung 1990) may not be warranted. After that, I shall proceed to examine zero anaphors in object position in Chinese. I shall demonstrate, in sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3, that neither the variable, nor the pro analysis of objectzero anaphors may be tenable, since object-zero anaphors in Chinese could be argued to be not only variables (provided that the yet-to-beidentified A-binder is to be discovered), but also empty pronouns (but not pros), and even empty Anaphors in the sense of GB, thus seeming to form a syntactically undifferentiated class.1 Next, I shall show that there is a class of zero anaphor in Chinese that cannot be identified with any of the four 'standard' types of EC in Chomsky's taxonomy. Finally, on such evidence, I shall conclude that Chomsky's inventory of EC types does not apply to Chinese.

2.2

Chomsky's typology of empty categories

Within GB, Chomsky distinguishes two types of abstract feature for NPs: Anaphor and Pronominal. An Anaphor is a feature representation of a nominal expression which must be referentially dependent and which must be bound in a syntactic domain; a Pronominal is a feature representation of a nominal expression which may be referentially dependent but which must be free in a syntactic domain. Interpreting Anaphor and Pronominal as two independent binary features, Chomsky hypothesises that one ideally expects to find four types of nominal expression - both overt and non-overt. (2.1)

Chomsky's typology of NPs a. b. c. d.

[ + Anaphor, [ — Anaphor, [ +Anaphor, [ — Anaphor,

lexical empty —Pronominal]: lexical Anaphor NP-trace + Pronominal]: pronoun pro + Pronominal]: PRO —Pronominal]: name variable

Empty cat agones

23

With regard to the non-overt nominal expressions, which are commonly called empty categories (ECs) in GB, they are (redundantly) presented in (2.2) and exemplified in (2.3). (2.2)

Chomsky's typology of ECs a. [ +Anaphor, —Pronominal]: NP-trace b. [ —Anaphor, + Pronominal]: pro c. [ +Anaphor, + Pronominal]: PRO d. [ — Anaphor, —Pronominal]: variable

(2.3)

a. NP-trace The giant panda seems / to live exclusively on bamboo shoots. b. pro (Italian) pro parlano di pragmatica. speak-3PL of pragmatics '(They) talk about pragmatics.' c. PRO John promised PRO to study Classical Greek. d. variable Who does Chomsky admire tl

The positing of referential ECs is required by the Projection Principle and the positing of expletive (i.e. semantically empty) ECs is dictated by the Extended Projection Principle. (2.4)

The Projection Principle Lexical properties must be projected on to all levels of syntactic representation.

(2.5)

The Extended Projection Principle Every sentence must have a structural subject.

Of the four types of EC identified above, NP-trace and variable are subject to the Empty Category Principle (ECP). (2.6)

The Empty Category Principle Traces must be properly governed.

PRO, on the other hand, does not obey this principle and is therefore found in an ungoverned position. The four types of EC are also subject to different principles with respect to the assignment of antecedent. Thus, NP-trace, pro and variable obey binding conditions A, B and C respectively; whereas PRO follows separate principles of control theory.

24 (2.7)

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory Binding conditions A. An Anaphor is bound in a local domain. B. A Pronominal is free in a local domain. C. An r[eferential]-expression is free.

Finally, the four types of EC can further be distinguished (partially redundantly) in terms of principles of other GB modules such as Gtheory, Case theory, government theory etc. according to whether they can be A- or A-bound (i.e. argument or non-argument bound), whether their antecedent has an independent 0-role, whether they are governed, whether they receive Case, etc. Schematically: (2.8) NP-trace pro PRO variable

2.3

antecedent antecedent in A-position in 0-position + + + + + — —

governed + +

Case-marked +

+

+

C.-T. J. Huang's typology of empty categories

On the basis of analysis of zero anaphors in Chinese, C.-T. J. Huang (1989), departing from his earlier work (C.-T. J. Huang 1982), suggests a revision of the standard Chomskyan typology of ECs. Assuming - along with Manzini (1983), Bouchard (1984), Koster (1984a), Aoun (1985), Iwakura (1985), Hornstein & Lightfoot (1987), Borer (1989), Chung (1989), Burzio (1991) and others - that no EC should positively be classified as both Anaphor and Pronominal, C.-T. J. Huang proposes that PRO and pro be universally collapsed into a single, Pronominal EC type, namely pro/PRO. Thus, under his analysis, there are only three types of EC: NP-trace, pro/PRO (of which pro and PRO are two variants) and variable (mirroring the three types of lexical category found in the standard Chomskyan taxonomy). 2 (2.9)

C.-T. J. Huang's typology of ECs a. [ +Anaphor, —Pronominal]: NP-trace b. [ — Anaphor, + Pronominal]: pro/PRO c. [ — Anaphor, —Pronominal]: variable

Empty catagories

25

The distribution and reference of pro/FRO is then reduced to a generalised theory of control, determined in terms of a Generalised Control Rule (GCR). (2.10)

C.-T. J. Huang's (1989) Generalised Control Rule An empty Pronominal is controlled in its control domain (if it has one).

In addition to this analysis, to be called the generalised control analysis, C.-T. J. Huang (1984) also proposes an empty topic analysis, which postulates w/z-movement of a null operator (i.e. an empty topic) to Comp[lementiser] (or Specifier] of C[omplementiser]P[hrase], i.e. S) position, leaving a variable behind it. Thus, when a zero anaphor occurs in subject position, it is treated either as an A-bound variable or as a pro (an instance of pro/PRO), if the clause is assumed to be finite; or as a PRO (an instance of pro/PRO) if the clause is assumed to be non-finite. When a zero anaphor occurs in object position, it is treated either as an A-bound variable or as an A-bound NP-trace (cf. note 30). This can be illustrated by (2.11)-(2.15) from Chinese. (2.11)

(C.-T. J. Huang 1989) 0 lai le. come CRS '(I/you/he/we/they . . . ) come(s).'

(2.12)

(C.-T. J. Huang 1989) Zhangsan shuo 0 hen xihuan Lisi. Zhangsan say very like Lisi 'Zhangsan 1 says that (I/you/he 1/2/we/they/one . . . ) like(s) Lisi very much.'

(2.13)

Lao Wang qing Xiao Li 0 lai. Lao Wang invite Xiao Li come 'Wang invites Li to come.'

(2.14)

(C.-T. J. Huang 1984) Lisi hen xihuan 0. Lisi very like 'Lisi likes (me/you/him/himself/us/them/everyone . . . ) very much.'

26

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(2.15)

Xiaoming bei laoshi piping guo 0. Xiaoming BEI teacher criticise EXP 'Xiaoming was criticised by the teacher.'

According to C.-T. J. Huang, the zero anaphor in (2.11) is an A-bound variable, i.e. a trace left by a fronted empty topic. The zero anaphor in (2.12) is taken to be a pro. The zero anaphor in (2.13), on the other hand, is specified as a PRO, since the clause is assumed to be non-finite. Finally, as for the zero anaphors that occur in object position, the zero anaphor in (2.14) is classified as an A-bound variable and that in (2.15), as an Abound NP-trace. On the basis of this analysis, C.-T. J. Huang (1984: 548-9) further speculates that languages may be classified using two parameters: the zero-topic parameter distinguishing zero-topic from non-zero-topic languages and the pro-drop parameter distinguishing pro-drop from non-pro-drop languages. Consequently, there are four types of language: (i) zero-topic, pro-drop languages (e.g. Chinese and Portuguese), (ii) nonzero-topic, non-pro-drop languages (e.g. English and French), (iii) zerotopic, non-pro-drop languages (e.g. German), and (iv) non-zero-topic, pro-drop languages (e.g. Italian and Spanish). 2.4

Zero anaphors in subject position

2.4.1

Arguments against PRO in Chinese

Let us now consider the question whether zero anaphors in Chinese can fall into Chomsky's typology of ECs. The answer, I suggest, might be negative. First, we can exclude the possibility that PRO as defined either by Chomsky or by C.-T. J. Huang can occur in Chinese. In Chomsky's theory, PRO is characterised as a Pronominal Anaphor. As such, it is expected to obey both binding conditions A and B. If it has a governing category (GC), it must be both bound and free in it - a contradiction that is irreconcilable. Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, PRO cannot have a GC. From this, one derives the PRO theorem. (2.16)

The PRO theorem PRO must be ungoverned.

Therefore, PRO in the sense of Chomsky is by definition required to have an ungoverned NP site. But the only possible such site would be the

Empty catagories 27 subject position in a non-finite clause; therefore, unless Chinese has such clauses, there can be no such site, and PRO, as defined by Chomsky, could not exist in the language. C.-T. J. Huang's analysis is at first sight different, in that PRO is taken to be a pure Pronominal, being just an instance of the empty Pronominal EC pro/PRO. This has the apparent consequence that the PRO theorem does not apply. However, for reasons connected with government and Case theories and put in support of the claim that the proposed generalised control theory has a universal application, the distinction between an ungoverned null Pronominal (PRO) and a governed null Pronominal (pro) is in fact maintained in C.-T. J. Huang's analysis. Therefore, the PRO theorem does in reality apply, and the existence of PRO (either in the sense of Chomsky or in the sense of C.-T. J. Huang) in Chinese requires the existence of non-finite clauses in the language. But do such clauses exist in Chinese? Or, to put it another way, is there a distinction between finite and non-finite clauses in Chinese? It is generally agreed that there is no systematic way to distinguish finiteness from non-finiteness either syntactically or morphologically in Chinese. Consequently, tests such as those based on tense or agreement system (e.g. George & Kornfilt 1981) cannot apply to Chinese. C.-T. J. Huang (1982, 1984, 1989), however, claims that a finite clause can be distinguished from a non-finite clause in Chinese on account of the potential occurrence of Auxiliary] - both overt (such as modal auxiliaries and aspect markers) and non-overt (such as zero aspect markers). But as I argued in Y. Huang (1987, 1989, 1992a, b), this diagnostic does not work. Consider first (2.17) and (2.18). (2.17)

Xiaoming zhunbei 0 mingtian yao qu Beijing. Xiaoming plan tomorrow will go Beijing 'Xiaoming plans to go to Beijing tomorrow.'

(2.18)

Silingyuan mingling women 0 bixu zai liu dian qian commander order 1PL must at six o'clock before jinru zhendi. enter position The commander orders us to get into the position before six o'clock.'

Examples (2.17) without yao 'will, want' and (2.18) without bixu 'must' are regarded by C.-T. J. Huang (1987) as two bonafide non-finite clauses

28

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

in Chinese. Contrary to his diagnostic, however, both (2.17) and (2.18) do contain a modal auxiliary, which is intrinsically finite (Radford 1988: 289). The modal auxiliaries which can occur in an assumed non-finite clause (provided that the semantics permits)3 include bixu 'must', keyi 'may', xu 'may', yao 'will, want', yinggai 'should', etc. Next, consider (2.19) and (2.20). (2.19)

Ta bi zhangfuojie le yan. 3SG force husband give up PFV smoke 'She forced (her) husband to give up smoking.'

(2.20)

Liu Yisheng guli Xiaoming 0 xue guo zhenjiu. Liu Dr encourage Xiaoming learn EXP acupuncture 'Dr Liu encouraged Xiaoming to learn acupuncture.'

Examples (2.19) without le and (2.20) without guo are also considered by C.-T. J. Huang to constitute two bona fide cases of non-finiteness in Chinese. However, (2.19) does contain the perfective aspect marker le and (2.20), the experiential aspect marker guo - again, a contradiction to C.-T. J. Huang's test.4 In defence of his diagnostic, C.-T. J. Huang (1989) argues that the aspect markers that occur in sentences like (2.19) and (2.20) are best analysed as co-occurring with the matrix verb rather than with the embedded verb. The only evidence cited in support of this analysis is that when sentences such as (2.19) and (2.20) are negated, the aspect marker you must precede the matrix verb whereas the original aspect marker such as le and guo cannot occur with the embedded verb, as in (2.21). (2.21)

(C.-T. J. Huang 1989) Wo mei you bi ta 0 lai. 1SG not PFV force 3SG come 'I did not force him to come.'

This evidence, however, is rather dubious. First, that you is placed before the matrix verb in (2.21) has to do with the scope of negation. If the scope of negation applies only to the embedded clause, then while you cannot occur in the matrix sentence, aspect markers like le or zhe can occur in the embedded clause, especially when the sentence expresses a warning (Li & Thompson 1981: 210).

Empty catagories 29 (2.22)

Mama jiao Xiaoming 0 bu yao da le huaping. Mum order Xiaoming not will break PFV vase 'Mum told Xiaoming not to break the vase.'

(2.23)

Wo jinggao ta 0 bie na zhe dao. 1SG admonish 3SG not hold DUR knife 'I warned him not to hold the knife.'

Secondly, even in examples such as (2.21), aspect markers like guo and zhe are frequently found in the embedded clause. (2.24)

Ta mei (you) bi zhangfu 0 jie guo yan. 3SG not PFV force husband give up EXP smoke 'She did not force (her) husband to give up smoking.'

(2.25)

Wo mei (you) jiao ta kao zhe qiang. 1SG not PFV order 3SG lean against DUR wall 'I did not ask him to lean against the wall.'

Thirdly, a sentence can take an aspect marker in each clause. (2.26)

Dajie jiao guo Xiaoming tan guo gangqin. elder sister teach EXP Xiaoming play EXP piano 'Elder sister taught Xiaoming to play piano.'

All this seems to indicate that the aspect markers in examples like (2.19) and (2.20) can co-occur only with the embedded verb. Then, how about the test based on the potential occurrence of nonovert Aux such as zero aspect markers? It does not work, either, for an assumed non-finite clause (2.27a) can also take a zero aspect marker, on a par with a finite clause (2.27b) (putting aside the question of falsifiability raised by C.-T. J. Huang's claim that there are zero aspect markers in Chinese). (2.27) a. Lao Li shefa 0 tiantian lian zi. Lao Li try daily practise calligraphy 'Li tries to practise calligraphy every day.' b. Lao Li shuo 0 tiantian lian zi. Lao Li say daily practise calligraphy 'Lii says that (I/you/hei/2/we/they . . . ) practise(s) calligraphy every day.'

30

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

It should be clear from what has been said that C.-T. J. Huang's diagnostic fails to make a distinction between finiteness and nonfiniteness in Chinese. Is there, then, any other test that can really make such a distinction? At present, as far as I am aware, there is no such test.5 Consequently, in the absence of any evidence showing that there is a finite versus non-finite distinction in Chinese, I shall assume that there is no such distinction in the language. Given that this is the case, then there might follow three consequences: (i) there are neither finite nor non-finite clauses in Chinese; (ii) thqre are only non-finite clauses in Chinese; and (iii) there are only finite clauses in Chinese. Of these positions, (iii) appears to be the most plausible one. Therefore, I shall assume that there are only finite clauses in Chinese. If this is correct, then no PRO as defined either by Chomsky or by C.-T. J. Huang can be allowed in Chinese.6 Our thesis that PRO cannot occur in Chinese due to the non-existence of an ungoverned position, However, may be challenged by Battistella's (1985) proposal that PRO (in the sense of Chomsky) can be sanctioned even in a governed position in Chinese,7 on the assumption that the GCs for Anaphors and for Pronominals could be distinct in the language. How, then, is it possible that the GCs for Anaphors and for Pronominals could be distinct in Chinese? According to C.-T. J. Huang (1983), this is because there exists a bifurcation with respect to SUBJECT accessibility in relation to Anaphors and Pronominals: the accessibility of SUBJECT is relevant to Anaphors but irrelevant to Pronominals. This is captured by C.-T. J. Huang's slight modification of Chomsky's (1981: 220) original definition of GC. (2.28)

Chomsky's definition of GC a is a GC for (3 if and only if a is the minimal category containing (3, a governor of p, and a SUBJECT accessible to p.

(2.29)

C.-T. J. Huang's definition of GC a is a GC for P if and only if a is the minimal category containing p, a governor of P, and a SUBJECT that, if p an Anaphor, is accessible to p.

Consequently, the Anaphoric binding domain and the Pronominal binding domain could be distinct in Chinese (and in other languages as well), the former being larger than the latter (Anderson 1986, Chomsky

Empty catagories 31 1986a: 169-72, Borer 1989, Lasnik 1989: 35, Everaert 1991, Steenbergen 1991, Thrainsson 1991), as can be illustrated by (2.30). (2.30) a Lao Wang shuo ziji you liang ge erzi. Lao Wang say self have two CL son 'Wangi says that hei has two sons.' b. Lao Wang shuo ta you liang ge erzi. Lao Wang say 3SG have two CL son 'Wangi says that hei/2 has two sons.' c. Lao Wang shuo 0 you liang ge erzi. Lao Wang say have two CL son 'Wangi says that (I/you/he 1/2/we/they . . . ) have/has two sons.' Now, by C.-T. J. Huang's definition, the GC for (2.30a) is the matrix sentence, and the GC for (2.30b) is the embedded clause. Assuming, then, that binding condition A applies to a PRO in its Anaphoric binding domain and binding condition B applies to a PRO in its Pronominal binding domain, Battistella argues that the distribution of PRO in Chinese could be widened to the extent that PRO is licensed in positions in which the two GCs are distinct. Clearly, the embedded subject position of a finite clause is such a position, and therefore the zero anaphor in that position (i.e. the zero anaphor in (2.30c)) can be treated as a PRO.8 Battistella's contention that PRO can occur in a governed position in Chinese, however, has to be rejected on both theoretical and empirical grounds. From a conceptual point of view, abandoning the PRO theorem would result in too wide a distribution of PRO in Chinese. As a way to tackle this problem, Battistella speculates that PRO could be excluded from positions in which it must not occur using some other GB principles such as Case theory and 0-theory. But a move of this kind seems to open a Pandora's box. For example, in order for PRO to be barred from the determiner position of an NP in Chinese, Battistella, following a suggestion by Manzini (1983), assumes that Case assignment to this position is obligatory. On the other hand, in order for PRO to be licit in the subject position of a finite clause in Chinese, he stipulates that Case assignment to this position is optional. Since no explanation is given as to why Case assignment is obligatory in the former position and optional in the latter position, we are forced to conclude that there are important theory-internal questions left unanswered in Battistella's account of PRO being permitted in a governed position in Chinese.

32

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

Turning next to the empirical considerations, many problems will arise with Battistella's proposal. For one thing, given Battistella's assumption that binding condition A is relevant to the Anaphoric binding domain and binding condition B is relevant to the Pronominal binding domain, a governed PRO would be expected to be free in its Pronominal binding domain but bound in its Anaphoric binding domain - a contradiction to fact, as has been shown by (2.30c). For another, our analysis that there are only finite clauses in Chinese has the immediate consequence of ruling out the possibility that PRO can occur in examples such as (2.31). (2.31)

Lao Wang cui Xiao Li 0 mingtian dongshen. Lao Wang urge Xiao Li tomorrow set off 'Wang urges Li to set off tomorrow.'

Since there are only finite clauses in Chinese, (2.31) has to be treated as finite. The question that comes up next is whether the zero anaphor in (2.31) can be analysed as a governed PRO. Given Battistella's assumption that a governed PRO can occur only in positions in which the two GCs are distinct, the zero anaphor in (2.31) cannot be treated as a governed PRO, since the position in which the zero anaphor occurs in (2.31) is one that cannot have a pronoun and therefore does not have an embedded clause as a Pronominal binding domain, as can be shown by (2.32) below. (2.32)

*Lao Wang cui Xiao Li ta mingtian dongshen. Lao Wang urge Xiao Li 3SG tomorrow set off 'Wang urges Li to set off tomorrow.'

This will immediately raise the question of what the zero anaphor in (2.31) is on Battistella's account, since in his theory there is no pro in Chinese.9 All this greatly reduces the plausibility of Battistella's analysis of PRO. I shall, therefore, adhere to Chomsky's as well as C.-T. J. Huang's position that PRO must be ungoverned (though for different reasons). From this, it follows that PRO cannot occur in Chinese, since there are only finite clauses in the language.10 Having shown that PRO cannot occur in a governed position in Chinese, let us move on to the lexical substitution test for PRO (e.g. Riemsdijk & Williams 1986: 137), which has also been frequently used by C.-T. J. Huang as a diagnostic for PRO in Chinese. However, this is not a real test for the existence of PRO in Chinese, because it impinges on the finiteness versus non-finiteness distinction.

Empty catagories

33

As already mentioned, under Chomsky's assumption, PRO is taken to be a Pronominal Anaphor. It follows, therefore, that it must be ungoverned. From this follow a number of essential properties of PRO for GB. In particular, it follows that PRO can only be the subject of a non-finite clause (in which Inflection] with — Agreement] does not govern it), but not an object (which is governed by the verb) or the subject of a finite clause (in which Infl with + Agr governs it). This, in turn, motivates the requirement that PRO cannot in general receive Case, and therefore must remain phonologically null in order to pass through the Case Filter in (2.33), hence no substitution of PRO by a lexical NP. (2.33)

Case Filter *NP, where NP is lexical and has no Case

However, as we have already seen, there are only finite clauses in Chinese, and consequently, all subject positions in Chinese are governed and Case-marked. Given this supposition, the lexical substitution test becomes a pseudo-test. A subject-zero anaphor in Chinese, no matter whether or not it can be lexically filled, cannot be a PRO. (I shall discuss the question of why the zero anaphor in examples like (2.31) cannot be lexically filled in section 6.2 of chapter 6.) This argument can be further strengthened by the fact that in many cases, a lexical NP cannot be substituted for what is treated by C.-T. J. Huang as a pro or a variable in Chinese.11 2.4.2

Arguments against pro in Chinese

Next, we can rule out the possibility that pro as defined by Chomsky can occur in Chinese, since the question of how it is locally identified in the language remains unanswered. Of the four types of EC classified in Chomsky's typology, pro is assumed to be parametrically available. In other words, pro is assumed not to occur universally across languages. Based on a cross-linguistic survey by Gilligan (1987), Hermon & Yoon (1989) suggest that languages be grouped into four types with respect to pro-drop: (i) core pro-drop languages, languages which have obligatory expletive and optional referential pro-drop (e.g. Italian and Chinese);12 (ii) core non-pro-drop languages, languages which allow neither expletive nor referential prodrop (i.e. English and French); 13 (iii) restricted pro-drop languages, languages which permit either expletive or referential pro-drop in certain

34

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

contexts (e.g. Bavarian German and Old French); and (iv) expletive prodrop languages, languages which allow expletive but not referential prodrop (e.g. German and Papiamentu). As a step towards providing an account of the cross-linguistic distribution of pro-drop, Chomsky (1981, 1982b) proposes, essentially following Perlmutter (1971), Taraldsen (1978), Jaeggli (1982), Rizzi (1982), among others, setting up what has now come to be known as the pro-drop/null-subject parameter. The basic idea of this parameter (in its classic version), which has its root in traditional grammar (e.g. Jespersen 1924: 213), is that the distribution of pro-drop is determined by a process called recoverability (Taraldsen 1978) or identification (Jaeggli 1982); a pronoun may be dropped only if its content can be recovered in one way or another. In particular, it claims that in languages with widespread zero anaphors, there should exist a rich inflectional morphology, especially an elaborated system of agreement. Furthermore, it predicts that only the arguments with which the verb agrees may be encoded in terms of a zero anaphor. Seen in this way, the difference between pro-drop languages like Italian and Spanish and nonpro-drop languages like English and French with regard to the possibility of dropping a pronoun from the subject position of a tensed clause, boils down to this: the verb morphology, in particular, the nominal features for person, number and gender, commonly called cp-features in GB (Chomsky 1981), in the former, but not in the latter, is rich enough to determine the content of the missing subject, thus making it redundant and recoverable. Moreover, since no system of verb-object agreement exists either in Italian-type pro-drop languages or English-type non-prodrop languages, no pronoun in the object position of a tensed clause may be freely absent in any of these languages. Given this pro-drop parameter, whether pro can occur in a language is determined by recoverability or identification, in particular, by the existence of a rich agreement system in that language.14 However, (assuming that the pro-drop parameter is the relevant one, as in Bouchard 1984: 157), this is clearly not the case with Chinese. Since Chinese has no Agr in Infl (assuming that the presence or absence of Agr reflects the presence or absence of verb-subject/object agreement system) (e.g. C.-T. J. Huang 1982, 1984, Yang, 1983, 1985), let alone Agr or agreement system that is rich enough to recover the content of a missing argument, an agreement-based theory of pro would incorrectly predict that neither zero anaphors in subject position, nor zero anaphors in object position, be tolerated in Chinese.15

Empty cat agones

35

In an attempt to defend the pro-drop parameter, C.-T. J. Huang (1982, 1984, 1989) claims that pro can occur in Chinese and argues that while the identification hypothesis is essentially correct, it has to be broadened. On the assumption that pro can occur in Chinese, one immediate question arises: how is pro locally determined in Chinese (assuming with Chomsky 1982b: 87 that 'the requirement of "local determination" for pro seems necessary')? In line with the current GB assumptions on the theory of pro, this question can further be split into two subquestions: (i) how is pro formally licensed in Chinese, and (ii) how is the referential content (or at least the cp-features) of pro recovered in Chinese? Licensing applies to all types of pro and identification is a requirement imposed on referential pro only (e.g. Rizzi 1986, Jaeggli & Safir 1989a, Hermon & Yoon 1989, Atkinson 1992, Saleemi 1992).16 Since Chinese has no Agr in Infl, the Agr condition does not apply to the language. As a step towards providing an answer, C.-T. J. Huang (1982, 1984) speculates that/?ro can occur in Chinese if it is locally identified by coindexing with a SUBJECT. He (1982) states the pro-drop principle as follows. (2.34)

C.-T. J. Huang's (1982) pro-drop principle A pro must be identified by its closest SUBJECT.

This argument is further developed in C.-T. J. Huang (1984), in which he proposes a GCR as follows. (2.35)

C.-T. J. Huang's (1984) Generalised Control Rule Coindex an empty Pronominal with the closest nominal element.

Given (2.35), pro will now be licensed in Chinese even in the absence of Agr, being locally identified by coindexing with a closest subject. However, as we will shortly see, the GCR formulated this way will systematically make incorrect predictions, due largely to the requirement that pro must be coindexed with its closest SUBJECT. In an attempt to tackle this problem, C.-T. J. Huang (1989) suggests a revision of the GCR, repeated here as (2.36). (2.36)

C.-T. J. Huang's (1989) Generalised Control Rule An empty Pronominal (i.e. pro/PRO) is controlled in its control domain (if it has one).

Following Manzini (1983) and Nishigauchi (1984), C.-T. J. Huang defines the notion of control domain as follows.

36

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(2.37)

C.-T. J. Huang's definition of control domain a is the control domain for p if and only if it is the minimal category that satisfies both (a) and (b): a. a is the lowest S or NP that contains (i) p, or (ii) the minimal maximal category containing P (MMC (P)). b. a contains a SUBJECT accessible to p.

Seen in this light, the difference between Chinese- and Italian-type prodrop languages (on a GB account) with regard to local identification, boils down to this: pro in the former is identified by means of control, whereas pro in the latter is identified by means of coindexation with Agr. 17 C.-T. J. Huang's account of how pro is locally determined in Chinese, however, does not seem to stand, and consequently, pro as defined by Chomsky cannot occur in the language. To see this, let us start with the 1984 version of the GCR. Consider first (2.38). (2.38)a. Bingren shuo yisheng zhidao 0 mingtian gei ta kaidao. patient say doctor know tomorrow for 3SG operate 'The patient! says that the surgeon 2 knows that (I/you/he2/3/we/ they . . . ) will operate on himi tomorrow.' b. Yisheng shuo bingren zhidao 0 mingtian gei ta kaidao. doctor say patient know tomorrow for 3SG operate The surgeon 1 says that the patient 2 knows that (I/you/he 1/3/we/ they . . . ) will operate on him 2 tomorrow.' On C.-T. J. Huang's account, the zero anaphor in both (2.38a) and (2.38b) is a pro, being in the embedded subject position of a finite clause. Therefore, by the 1984 version of the GCR, it must be coindexed with its closest nominal element, namely yisheng 'surgeon' and bingren 'patient' respectively - a prediction that is intuitively incorrect for (2.38b) (putting aside for the moment the other interpretations due to the fact that the (pfeatures of zero anaphors are not reflected in Chinese for feck of agreement phenomenon). Clearly, the interpretation that the zero anaphor in (2.38b) is preferably coindexed with yisheng is one that makes the most sense pragmatically in keeping with our knowledge about the world. Next, consider (2.39)-(2.42) below. (2.39)

Fuqin shuo 0 yao weirenzhengzhi. father say should upright 'Father says that (one) should be upright.'

Empty catagories

37

(2.40)

Mama shuo 0 kanlai Xiaoming youdianr bu gaoxing. mum say seem Xiaoming a bit not happy 'Mum says that (it) seems that Xiaoming is a bit unhappy.'

(2.41)

Mama shuo yihuir 0 yao xiayu le. mum say in a moment will rain CRS 'Mum says that (it) is going to rain soon.'

(2.42)

Lao Wang tongzhi Lao Li 0 xiawu yiqi qu Lao Wang inform Lao Li afternoon together go kaihui. have a meeting 'Wangi informs Li2 that (they{^2}/{3,4} • • • ) will go to a meeting together this afternoon.'

Again, given the 1984 version of the GCR, the zero anaphor in (2.39)(2.42), being a pro, is expected to be coindexed with its closest nominal element respectively. And again, this prediction is falsified: the zero anaphor in (2.39) can receive an arbitrary interpretation;18 the zero anaphor in (2.40) and (2.41) (assuming with C.-T. J. Huang Chomsky's Extended Projection Principle) can only function as a non-argument and a quasi-argument respectively; and finally, the zero anaphor in (2.42) can take split antecedents. There is thus clear evidence that contrary to the prediction of the 1984 version of the GCR, the assumed pro in Chinese is not always coindexed with its closest nominal element. In other words, the local A-binding effect of the GCR is at best a preference strategy rather than a strict grammatical rule. Then, how about the 1989 version of the GCR? In this modification, the 'coindexation with the closest nominal element' condition is dropped. Pro is now assumed to be sanctioned on a par with PRO, by whatever principle determines the reference of PRO. Thus, when a pro/PRO has a control domain, it is controlled in that domain; it has a local, unique and non-arbitrary antecedent. On the other hand, when a pro/PRO does not have a control domain, it need not be controlled; it may take a longdistance antecedent; it may receive an arbitrary interpretation; it may have split antecedents; etc. In spite of the initial attraction of the 1989 version of the GCR, the very problem of how pro is locally identified in Chinese still remains unanswered. By way of illustration, let us consider examples like (2.43),

38

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

which are regarded by C.-T. J. Huang as a paradigm case of pro in Chinese. (2.43)

Wang Xiansheng shuo 0 wanshang lai. Wang Mr say evening come 'Mr Wangi says that (I/you/hei/2/we/you/they/one . . . ) will come this evening.'

Now, given C.-T. J. Huang's definition of control domain, the zero anaphor in (2.43) has two potential control domains: the embedded clause which contains it, and the matrix sentence which contains its MMC. Since only the matrix sentence, but not the embedded clause, contains an accessible SUBJECT, the matrix sentence becomes the control domain. It follows, therefore, that the zero anaphor in (2.43) must be controlled in the matrix sentence. However, as noted by C.-T. J. Huang himself, the zero anaphor in (2.43) need not be controlled in it (though the local coreferential interpretation is the preferred one) - contra the 1989 version of the GCR. What, then, can C.-T. J. Huang say to the zero anaphor in such examples as (2.43)? First, of course, he might perhaps protest that he is being misinterpreted here: he might wish to claim that since the zero anaphor under discussion escapes the GCR, it is not a pro. Such a move, however, will certainly not be in his favour, for the argument that the zero anaphor is not a pro is precisely part of his opponent's armoury, and belongs to a line of attack against the GB analysis of ECs: the zero anaphor not being a pro, then, what is it in Chomsky's inventory? It cannot be an NP-trace because it can be without an antecedent; or a variable becuase it can be A-bound; or a PRO because it is governed. This will eventually force a GB theorist to conclude that there is a class of EC in Chinese that is not identifiable with any of the four 'standard' types of EC as defined by Chomsky. A second possibility might be for C.-T. J. Huang to suggest that the requirement of local identification for pro be dropped with respect to Chinese. But again this alternative would not help the GB theorist; it would be a significant departure from the standard GB position that the content of an EC must be somehow locally identified (e.g. Chomsky 1982b: 85, Rizzi 1986). Given C.-T. J. Huang's assumption that the content of an NP-trace in Chinese is locally identified by A-chain with an antecedent and that of a variable, by A-chain with an operator, we are

Empty catagories

39

owed a reasonable explanation as to why the content of a pro (and a PRO) in Chinese does not need to be locally determined. A final escape route would be to claim, as C.-T. J. Huang (1989) does, that the zero anaphor under consideration, being a pro, need not be controlled because it does not have a control domain. How could this be possible? Appealing to a discarded analysis by Rosenbaum (1967) of sentential complementation, C.-T. J. Huang claims that this is because the soy-type verbs, unlike the force-type verbs, subcategorise for an NP rather than for an S. This can be schematised as follows. (2.44)a. Say-type verbs [s... [VP... [NP [S [S pro/PRO • • • ]]]]]

b. Force-type verbs [s... [VP... [3 [s pro/PRO • • • ]]]]

Consequently, the zero anaphor in examples like (2.43) does not have a control domain: if it had one, it would be either the embedded clause (which minimally contains it) or the NP under VP (which minimally contains its MMC, i.e. the matrix sentence), but neither contains an accessible SUBJECT. It follows, therefore, that the zero anaphor in these examples may be uncontrolled, since it does not have a control domain. What, then, is the evidence for this analysis? C.-T. J. Huang, essentially following Rosenbaum, adduces two kinds of evidence. The first is that only the say-type verbs, but not the force-type verbs, can have a phrasal, non-sentential NP as complement, and only complements of the say-type verbs, but not of the force-type verbs, can be passivised, pseudo-clefted, etc. The second is that under a say-type verb, a clause may be either finite or non-finite, but under a force-type verb, a clause can only be non-finite. However, what evidence there is in Chinese appears to run against rather than for this analysis. First, the force-type verbs can happily take an NP complement. (2.45)

(Y. A. Li 1990) Wo quan guo ta zhe jian shi. 1SG persuade EXP 3SG this CL matter 'I persuaded him of this matter.'

Secondly, the complement of a say-type verb, unlike its counterpart in English, cannot be passivised.

40

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(2.46)a. Lao Wang shuo Lao Li bu lai. Lao Wang say Lao Li not come 'Wang said that Li would not come.' b. *Lao Li bu lai bei Lao Wang shuo. Lao Li not come BEI Lao Wang say 'That Li would not come was said by Wang.' Thirdly, given our assumption that there are only finite clauses in Chinese, C.-T. J. Huang's claim that under a force-type verb, a clause can only be non-finite becomes invalid. Thus, from facts like these, we may conclude that C.-T. J. Huang's account of the say-type verbs cannot be an explanation as to why the zero anaphor in examples such as (2.43) does not have a control domain. On the contrary, we assume that by CT. J. Huang's definition, the zero anaphor under discussion does have a control domain but is not controlled in it. If this is correct, then the zero anaphor cannot be a pro, given C.-T. J. Huang's (1989: 204) own conclusion that 'a pro/PRO is excluded precisely where it has a control domain but is not controlled in that control domain'. Furthermore, even if the above arguments were totally implausible and C.-T. J. Huang's analysis of the zero anaphor in (2.43) could be maintained, my argument that the 1989 version of the GCR fails to provide an account of how pro is locally identified in Chinese would still remain valid. This is because C.-T. J. Huang's claim that pro in Chinese may be uncontrolled is only a statement of the problem, but not a solution to it. Suppose we first ask the question: how is pro formally licensed in Chinese? Given the 1989 version of the GCR, we are likely to be given the answer that pro is formally sanctioned in a language if it can be controlled or uncontrolled. Given that control is the only syntactic licensing condition provided by C.-T. J. Huang, we are forced to the conclusion that there is no account of how pro is formally licensed in this analysis. Next, we may raise the question of how the referential value of pro is determined in Chinese? The answer is likely to be that when a pro is controlled, its referential content is determined by its antecedent in the control domain; when a pro is not controlled, its referential content is not determined syntactically. Since sentences such as (2.43) are assumed not to have a control domain under C.-T. J. Huang's analysis, the referential values (even the cp-features) of the zero anaphor in such sentences are left undetermined syntactically. Thus, we are forced to conclude that nowhere in the 1989 version of the GCR is there any solution either to

Empty catagories 41 the problem of formal licensing or to the problem of the recovery of the content of pro. At this point, it is useful to turn to Jaeggli & Safir's (1989a) alternative theory of pro. On Jaeggli and Safir's view, the crucial property in a language to allow pro-drop is morphological uniformity. This idea is stated in terms of a Morphological Uniformity Hypothesis (MUH). (2.47)

Jaeggli and Safir's Morphological Uniformity Hypothesis Null subjects are permitted in all and only languages with morphologically uniform inflectional paradigms.

The notion of morphological uniformity is defined as follows. (2.48)

Morphological uniformity An inflectional paradigm P in a language L is morphologically uniform if and only if P has either only underived inflectional forms or only derived inflectional forms.19

At first sight, Jaeggli and Safir's account seems to make correct predictions for both Italian- and Chinese-type pro-drop and English-type non-pro-drop languages. Italian is morphologically uniform in that it has derived forms throughout the paradigm; Japanese is morphologically uniform since all forms are inflected for tense/aspect/mood and negation; and Chinese is morphologically uniform in that it has no derived form at all. On the other hand, English is not morphologically uniform, because it has mixed derived and underived forms in the paradigm. It is thus correctly predicted (from a GB viewpoint) that while Italian and Chinese are pro-drop languages, English is not. On a closer examination, however, the analysis turns out to be problematic as well. From an empirical point of view, its predictions are falsified in both directions. For example, as Jaeggli and Safir are aware, the mainland Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish) are morphologically uniform, and yet they do not allow pro-drop of any kind (Platzack 1987), hence morphological uniformity may not be sufficient for the licensing of pro-drop. This has forced Jaeggli and Safir to weaken their hypothesis to a one-way implication: if pro-drop is allowed in a language, the paradigm in that language must be morphologically uniform. But a move of this kind would still leave pro-drop in languages like Old French unexplained; Old French is not a morphologically uniform language, but as Adams (1987) has demonstrated, it allows pro-drop at least in some contexts (see also

42

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

Hirschbiihler 1989). This indicates that morphological uniformity may not be a necessary licensing condition, either. Furthermore, it is also unclear conceptually why there should be a connection between morphological uniformity and the licensing of pro-drop, why morphological uniformity needs to have all derived forms in some languages and all underived forms in others, and why some languages are morphologically uniform and others are not (e.g. Hermon & Yoon 1989). Now, suppose we accept morphological uniformity as the crucial factor that licenses pro-drop in Chinese (though the right formulation of the MUH remains to be spelled out). This would only allow the occurrence of expletive pro in Chinese; for a referential pro to occur in the language, it must also be syntactically identified. In other words, Jaeggli and Safir's theory would still have to deal with the characterisation of how a referential pro in Chinese is identified. Here they simply follow C.-T. J. Huang's analysis, which we now know not to work. Therefore, it must be assumed that there is no account of the identification of referential pro in Chinese on Jaeggli and Safir's analysis. It follows, therefore, that Chinese would be wrongly predicted to be a language like German and Icelandic, allowing only expletive but not referential pro-drop. If this is correct, then the question of how pro is locally identified in Chinese still remains unanswered given Jaeggli and Safir's theory.20 This, in turn, forces us to maintain with Chomsky that in the absence of any plausible explanation concerning local identification of pro in Chinese, there is no pro in the language. This is, in fact, exactly as would be expected. Neither C.-T. J. Huang's analysis nor Rizzi's nor Jaeggli and Safir's is able to give a successful syntactic account of assumed pro in Chinese for the quite simple reason that there is little really to explain here in syntactic terms; there is no such empty syntactic category as pro in Chinese. Suppose then for the sake of argument that the requirement of local identification for pro were dropped with respect to Chinese, and as a consequence, the zero anaphor in examples like (2.43) were indeed a pro. As such, we should expect that the zero anaphor, being a pro (i.e. the null analogue of a pronoun), would behave in a fashion parallel to its overt counterpart both syntactically and semantically (assuming with e.g. Chomsky 1982b, Hyams 1986, Chung 1989, and Lasnik 1989 that what differentiates ECs from their overt counterparts is nothing but the lack of the phonetic matrix of ECs). This expectation, however, is bound to be disappointed: the zero anaphor under discussion often does not share the

Empty catagories 43 same range of distribution with its overt counterpart. Thus, in the following pair noted by Xu (1986), (2.49)a. Mei ge ren xiwang 0 neng xingfu. every CL person wish can happy 'Everybodyi wishes that (I/you/he 1/2/we/they . . . ) can be happy.' b. Mei ge ren xiwang ta neng xingfu. every CL person wish 3SG can happy 'Everybodyi wishes that he2 can be happy.' the zero anaphor in (2.49a), but not the overt pronoun in (2.49b), can admit of a quantifier-variable interpretation.21 The same can also be shown to hold for Japanese (Saito & Hoji 1983), Korean (Kang 1988), Tarifit (Ouhalla 1988) and a number of other languages (see e.g. Montalbetti 1984 on Italian and Spanish). (2.50)

(Korean, Kang 1988) a. kak salami-i &\ Mary-lul salangha-nta-ko each person-NOM Mary-ACC love-DECL-COMP malha-ass-ta. say-PAST-DECL 'Each personi said that (he^ loved Mary.' b. *kak salami-i kuj-ka Mary-lul salangha-nta-ko each person-NOM he-NOM Mary-ACC love-DECL-COMP malha-ass-ta. say-PAST-DECL 'Each person! said that hei loved Mary.'

A somewhat parallel situation is observed in the following pair. (2.5l)a. Fuqin shuo 0 yao weirenzhengzhi. father say should upright 'Father says that (one) should be upright.' b. Fuqin shuo ta yao weirenzhengzhi. father say 3SG should upright 'Father says that he should be upright.'

44

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

Here, as in (2.49), the zero anaphor in (2.51a), but not the overt pronoun in (2.51b), can take an arbitrary interpretation. The same appears to be true of Japanese, Korean (Yang 1985), Malayalam (Mohanan 1983) and a number of other languages. (I shall return to this issue in section 6.5 of chapter 6.) (2.52)

(Malayalam, Mohanan 1983) a. wakkiilanmaar 0 catikkum. lawyers-N cheat-FUT 'Lawyers will cheat (one).' b. wakkiilanmaar awane catikkum. lawyers-N 3SG cheat-FUT 'Lawyers will cheat him.'

Examples of this kind must suffice to suggest that at least some of the zero anaphors that are taken by C.-T. J. Huang to be pros are distinct both syntactically and semantically from overt pronouns, and therefore this class of zero anaphor as a whole does not equate easily with pro. All this thus collectively leads to the conclusion that pro as defined by Chomsky cannot occur in Chinese.

2.4.3

Arguments against the empty topic hypothesis

In the preceding section, I showed that pro cannot occur in Chinese. In this section, I shall present arguments against the empty topic hypothesis - a variable can be locally A-bound by an empty topic, the occurrence of which depends on whether the topic position in a language is properly governed by Infl. Recall that under C.-T. J. Huang's analysis, the zero anaphor in (2.11) and (2.14), repeated here as (2.53) and (2.54) respectively, are analysed as a variable. (2.53)

0 lai le. come CRS '(I/you/he/we/they . . . ) come(s).'

(2.54)

Lisi hen xihuan 0. Lisi very like 'Lisi likes (me/you/him/himself/us/them/everyone . . . ) very much.'

Empty catagories 45 This analysis, however, raises a number of problems for the theory of variable-binding within GB. One such problem is that it violates the condition that a variable must be A-bound by an operator in Comp (or Spec of CP) or by the trace of such an operator (May 1977, 1985). In an attempt to deal with this problem, C.-T. J. Huang (1984) hypothesises that the zero anaphor under consideration is A-bound rather than seemingly A-free, and is A-bound by a null operator, which, in this case, is an empty topic. How is it possible for Chinese to have empty topics? C.-T. J. Huang (1982, 1984), Cole (1987) and Cole, Hermon & Sung (1990) suggest that the answer is to be sought in the hypothesis that Infl in Chinese (and in other East Asian languages) is lexical rather than functional (see also Lasnik & Saito 1984 and Chung & McCloskey 1987). This being so, Infl in these languages can properly govern the topic position (and a fortiori, the subject position) of the clause in which it occurs.22 From this, there follow three consequences. First, non-gap topics will occur in these languages (2.55). This is because given that the topic position, like the subject position, is governed and Case-marked (assuming that a Case assigner can assign Case to more than one nominal it governs), topics can be base-generated without violating the Case Filter. A second consequence is that these languages will allow the occurrence of empty topics (in a topic chain whose chain-initial topic is present) and the existence of a topic NP deletion rule (Tsao 1977) to operate across discourse to delete the topics of a topic chain (2.56). And thirdly, there will be no that-trace effect (one of the ECP effects) in these languages (2.57).23 (2.55)

Shuiguo Xiaoming zui xihuan xiangjiao. fruit Xiaoming most like banana 'Fruits, Xiaoming likes bananas most.'

(2.56)

Zhongguo fuyuan liaokuo, 0 renkou zhongduo. China territory vast population many 'China, (its) territory is vast, and (its) population is large.'

(2.57)

(Cole, Hermon & Sung 1990) Ni zhidao shei mai le shenme? 2SG know who buy PFV what 'Do you know who has bought what?'

46

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

A number of arguments can be put forward to question the validity of this hypothesis, however. First, as C.-T. J. Huang himself (1984) is aware, the empty topic is a discourse rather than a sentence phenomenon in Chinese. This can be evidenced by the fact that a topic can be empty only if its chain-initial topic is present. This being so, an empty topic appears to be constrained by its chain-initial topic rather than by Infl of the clause that follows. Secondly, it is generally accepted that the topic is the most salient element in a sentence or discourse (Chafe 1976). If this is the case, then assuming the existence of an empty topic in the absence of its chain-initial topic seems a bit odd, since it is quite unreasonable in this case to regard something that is phonologically null as the most salient, dominating element in a sentence or discourse. Thirdly, the proposal that the empty topic can occur in the absence of its chain-initial topic has the immediate consequence of forcing one to analyse every sentence in Chinese as having an empty topic, and more absurdly, even to analyse every sentence in Chinese as containing a indefinite number of empty topics. This is because given that an empty topic is an EC (C.-T. J. Huang 1984: 546), the question arises what it is in Chomsky's inventory. Since it is governed and Case-marked, it cannot be a PRO. Since it has no antecedent, it cannot be an NP-trace. Since it is not locally identified, it cannot be a pro. The only alternative left (for those who assume Chomsky's typology of ECs) is that it is a variable. The question that comes up next is how it is locally A-bound? The answer is likely to be that the empty topic (itself being a variable) is locally Abound by another empty topic, which is, in turn, locally A-bound by another empty topic, ad infinitum. Thus, one is led to the implausible position that a sentence in Chinese contains an indefinite number of empty topics. In other words, positing empty topics will result in an infinite regress. Finally, the empty topic hypothesis seems to pose a number of theory-internal problems for GB. One such problem is that it runs counter to the generally accepted GB assumption that a null operator is moved to Comp (or Spec of CP) and cannot co-occur with other (overt or null) operators (e.g. Rizzi 1986). As we have just seen, given C.-T. J, Huang's assumption that the empty topic under discussion is a null operator, we are forced to the position that an indefinite number of null operators can occur in Comp (or Spec of CP) in Chinese (assuming with Cole 1987 and Authier 1988 that the empty topic is in Comp (or

Empty catagories

47

Spec of CP) position). Next, consider C.-T. J. Huang's analysis of (2.58).

(2.58)

0 kanjian 0. see '(I/you/he/we/they . . . ) saw (me/myself/you/yourself/him/ himself/her/herself/us/ourselves/you/yourselves/them/ themselves . . . ) . '

According to C.-T. J. Huang (1984), both zero anaphors in (2.58) are variables, each of which is A-bound by a null operator (i.e. an empty topic) respectively. Thus, we derive (2.59) - a clear violation of the 'one null operator per Comp (or Spec of CP)' condition. (2.59)

[s O! o 2 [ s 01 kanjian 02]]

We can conclude from the above arguments that the empty topic hypothesis is not generally coherent and anyway is untenable with respect to Chinese. This leaves unanswered the vital question of how the assumed variable in (2.53) and (2.54) is locally A-bound, which, in turn, casts serious doubts on C.-T. J. Huang's claim that it is a variable. We may ask, can anything be said to maintain C.-T. J. Huang's claim that the zero anaphor in question is a variable in the face of the evidence against the empty topic hypothesis? To uphold his position, C.-T. J. Huang might argue that a variable in Chinese is A-bound by a null operator, but by one which remains to be identified. Or, alternatively, he might claim that the condition of variable-binding does not obtain in Chinese and therefore all variables are A-free in the language. However, neither of the moves will really help him. In the first argument, to claim that a variable in Chinese is A-bound in a way yet to be determined is not enough to establish the variable analysis. In fact, it gives no more (if not less) support to the 'variable' position than to its 'not variable' rival. In the second argument, C.-T. J. Huang owes us a reasonable explanation as to why the variable-binding condition does not apply to Chinese. Moreover, both moves would seem to create considerable problems for the variable-binding theory within GB. 24

48

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

2.5

Zero anaphors in object position

2.5.1

Two Government and Bindings analyses: the variable analysis versus the pro analysis

Having discussed zero anaphors in subject position, we turn next to zero anaphors in object position. Zero anaphors are allowed, in many languages, to occur in object position despite the absence of an object-identifying clitic or a verb-object agreement feature.25 Within the current framework of GB, object-zero anaphors have been argued to be of two types: variable and pro (cf. note 30). C.-T. J. Huang (1984, 1989), Hasegawa (1984), Raposo (1986), Campos (1986a, b) and Authier (1988) argue that object-zero anaphors in Chinese, Japanese, European Portuguese, Spanish and KiNande are variables A-bound by an empty topic. (See also Lillo-Martin 1986 for a similar analysis with respect to American Sign Language.)26 By contrast, Chung (1984), Yoon (1985), Pingkarawat (1985), Rizzi (1986), Nakamura (1986), Afarli & Creider (1987), Farrell (1990) and Roberge (1991) claim that object-zero anaphors in Chamorro, Korean, Thai, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Brazilian Portuguese, French, Spanish and Arabic are pros. (See also Authier 1992, who, departing from Authier 1989, argues that arbitrary object-zero anaphors in French, KiNande and Tamil are A-bound pros which are Caseless.) In an attempt to reconcile these two accounts, Cole (1987) proposes that languages be grouped into four types with regard to the possibility of 'unidentified' object-drop: (i) those like English that do not allow null objects,27 (ii) those like Chinese that allow only null variable objects, (iii) those like Imbabura Quechua that allow only (null) pro objects, and (iv) those like Thai that allow both null variable and (null) pro objects. Furthermore, parameterising the GCR to the effect that it applies to both pro and PRO in languages that do not allow null objects or allow only null variable objects but applies only to PRO in languages that allow only (null) pro objects or allow both null variable and pro objects, Cole claims that the full range of possibilities regarding 'unidentified' null objects can be predicted by incorporatinjg the empty topic parameter and the GCR parameter. Coming back to Chinese, under C.-T. J. Huang's analysis, an objectzero anaphor is a variable, the result of movement to an A-position of a base-generated empty object. Generalising from this, C.-T. J. Huang further hypothesises that object-zero anaphors in all languages can only be variables, but not pros. This is because otherwise (null) pro objects

Empty catagories

49

would entail a contradiction: they must satisfy both the GCR (which requires a pro to be controlled in its control domain, i.e. the minimal clause containing the object-zero anaphor) and binding condition B (which prevents a pro from being bound in its GC, i.e. the minimal clause containing the object-zero anaphor). In what follows, I shall contend that neither the variable nor the pro analysis of object-zero anaphors can be maintained, since object-zero anaphors in Chinese could be argued not only to be variables (provided that the yet-to-be-identified A-binder is to be discovered), but also empty pronouns (but not pros), and even empty Anaphors in the sense of GB, thus seeming to form a syntactically undifferentiated class.

2.5.2

Xu and Langendoen's arguments against the variable analysis

Let us begin with Xu and Langendoen's arguments against the variable analysis of object-zero anaphors in Chinese. Xu & Langendoen (1985) and Xu (1986) produce three arguments against taking object-zero anaphors in Chinese as variables. The first argument is that the relation between the zero anaphor and the topic is not subject to the strong crossover condition first observed by Postal (1971) - a condition which has subsequently been taken to be a diagnostic for variable binding. In their second argument, they point out that the topic can simultaneously relate to more than one distinct gap - a violation of Koopman & Sportiche's (1982) bijection principle. (2.60)

Koopman and Sportiche's bijection principle a. Every A-position is locally bound by at most one A-position; b. every A-position locally binds at most one A-position.

Their third argument is that the relation between the zero anaphor and the topic does not obey the island constraint and therefore is not subject to subjacency. These arguments can be exemplified by (2.61)-(2.63), which are drawn from Xu & Langendoen (1985) and Xu (1986). (2.61)

Xiaoming, ta yiwei mama yao zeguai 0 le. Xiaoming 3SG think mum will blame CRS 'Xiaomingi, hei . . . thinks that mum will blame (himi . . . ) . '

50

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(2.62)

Zhangsan, tamen shuo 0 cengjing zhudong Zhangsan 3PL say ever of own accord yaoqiu bieren piping 0. ask other criticise 'Zhangsan 1 they say that (he!...) of (hisi...) own accord has asked other people to criticise (himi...).'

(2.63)

Zhe ben shu [[du guo 0 de] ren] bu duo. this CL book read EXP MM people not many There are not many people who have read this book.'

C.-T. J. Huang (1987), however, rejects all the three arguments above, claiming that the first one wrongly assumes the non-existence of subjectobject asymmetries in Chinese (a point to which I shall return in the next section), and the second and third ones are simply irrelevant.28 We may ask, then, why does neither the bijection principle nor subjacency obtain in these cases in Chinese? According to C.-T. J. Huang, it is by virtue of Chomsky's (1981, 1982b) approach of functional interpretation of ECs, the basic assumption of which is that all ECs are inherently alike and their binding properties are contextually determined, that the bijection principle and subjacency can possibly be brushed aside as irrelevant. Under Chomsky's functional approach, an EC is determined in terms of the following principle (Chomsky 1981: 330, C.-T. J. Huang 1984). (2.64)

Chomsky's principle of functional interpretation of ECs (a) An EC is a Pronominal if and only if it is free or locally bound by an element with an independent 0-role, and a nonPronominal otherwise. (b) A non-Pronominal EC is an Anaphor if and only if it is locally A-bound, and a variable if locally A-bound.

Given (2.64), a zero anaphor is defined as a variable at any given level if and only if it is coindexed with its local A-binder at that level, regardless of its derivational history. This has the consequence that the status of a zero anaphor being a variable may be independent of either the bijection principle or subjacency. There are, however, considerable problems at the very core of this account. In the first place, the plausibility of this analysis depends very much on the validity of the approach of functional determination of ECs. But recent work in GB has tended to assume, with a fair amount of

Empty catagories

51

evidence to support the assumption, that this is a wrong approach (e.g. Brody 1984, Epstein 1983, Chomsky 1986b: 57, Lasnik 1989, Chung 1989). If this is the case, then as C.-T. J. Huang himself is aware, sentences like (2.61)-(2.63) would remain counterexamples to the variable analysis. Suppose next that the GB arguments against functional determination are wrong and the functional approach can be used to explain away the counterevidence above. In following this approach, we would be led to the conclusion that object-zero anaphors in Chinese could be argued to be not only variables, but also empty pronouns (but not pros), and even empty Anaphors in the sense of GB. Such a position - object-zero anaphors could fit simultaneously in with more than one type of EC - would in turn undermine the very core of the other GB approach of interpretation of ECs, namely the inherent approach which assumes that the different properties of ECs are inherently defined.

2.5.3

Arguments for syntactically undifferentiated object-zero anaphors

I shall start by showing that contrary to C.-T. J. Huang, but in line with Xu and Langendoen, object-zero anaphors in Chinese could be argued to be empty pronouns (but not pros). Consider first (2.65). (2.65)

Liu Hua danxin jingli hui congzhong chufa 0. Liu Hua worry manager will severely punish 'Liu Hua! is worried that the manager will severely punish (hinn...).'

Here, the null-complement object is most naturally interpreted as being locally A-bound by the matrix subject rather than being locally A-bound by an empty topic (though it can also be A-bound by a discourse topic if there is one or locally A-bound by the embedded subject). The same can also be said of (2.66). (2.66)

Xiaoming gaosu Xiaohua mama yao ma 0 le. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua mum will scold CRS 'Xiaoming! tells Xiaohua 2 that Mum will scold (himi /2 . . . ) . '

In (2.66), the most natural interpretation is that the object-zero anaphor is locally A-bound either by the matrix subject or by the matrix object. Thus, under the functional approach, the zero anaphor in (2.65)

52

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

and (2.66) could be analysed as an empty pronoun, since it obeys binding condition B - a constraint relevant only to Pronominals in GB. (It is not a pro, since how it is locally identified remains unknown.) C.-T. J. Huang (1987), however, attempts to dismiss examples like (2.65) and (2.66) as crucial evidence for the existence of empty pronoun objects in Chinese by claiming that they are not used in a pragmatically neutral context. Furthermore, he suggests three alternatives to account for counterexamples of this kind. His first suggestion is to adopt Evans's (1980) proposal to reinterpret binding theory as a theory of referential dependence. The second alternative is to treat all sentences in which the null object is interpreted as an empty pronoun as ungrammatical at the sentence level where binding condition C obtains but as acceptable at the discourse level where this principle does not apply. In other words, under C.-T. J. Huang's analysis, the existence of counterexamples like (2.65) and (2.66) can be attributed to the familiar GB argument that pragmatics may override grammar, that is, certain discourse-level, pragmatic factors may override what are otherwise purely sentence-level, syntacticosemantic values (e.g. Chomsky 1981: 227). Thirdly, C.-T. J. Huang stipulates that examples like (2.65) and (2.66) could also be argued to be acceptable but ungrammatical. This is because on a Fodorian modular view of the mind (Fodor 1983), a sentence may be considered to be grammatical but unacceptable. By the same reasoning, a sentence may also be taken to be acceptable but ungrammatical. These arguments seem to carry little weight, however. First, it is not clear what 'pragmatically neutral context' precisely means here. As far as I can ascertain, (2.65) and (2.66) do not have a context (see also Xu 1986). Or, put slightly differently, in terms of the notion of context, we say that (2.65) and (2.66) have a default/unmarked context. If, however, what C.-T. J. Huang means is that (2.65) and (2.66) are not pragmatically neutral examples, then, in my opinion, there is nothing as such, since we understand the meaning of a linguistic example only against a set of background assumptions. This argument can be supported by the fact that none of C.-T. J. Huang's own examples is absolutely neutral from a pragmatic point of view. Secondly, there are serious problems with C.-T. J. Huang's proposal to account for examples like (2.65) and (2.66) in terms of Evans's theory of referential dependence. On C.-T. J. Huang's assumption that the zero anaphor is not referentially dependent on the matrix subject/object, one question arises: on what is it referentially dependent? The answer is likely to be

Empty catagories

53

that the zero anaphor is referentially dependent on an empty topic. Such an analysis, however, cannot be maintained, because as we have already seen, the existence of (sentence) empty topics in Chinese is itself highly questionable. Thirdly, to treat examples like (2.65) and (2.66) either as ungrammatical at the sentence level but acceptable at the discourse level or as acceptable but ungrammatical, that is, to attribute the existence of counterevidence to the argument that pragmatics may override grammar, seems both theoretically and methodologically suspect. One direct consequence is that any 'objective' test for grammaticality versus non-grammaticality (if such a test does exist) would be lost. Whenever there is any counterexample, a GB theorist can dismiss it as a real one simply on the grounds that although it can be ruled out by grammatical factors at the sentence level, it can be allowed by pragmatic/contextual factors at the discourse level. This will eventually lead to making it impossible to permit the recognition of any counterexample and falsify any theory - a consequence that is at variance with the generally accepted Popperian point of view that theories of empirically based sciences (under which, on Chomsky's 1980a: 3 view, linguistic theories fall) can only be refuted but not confirmed (Popper 1973). If these arguments are correct, it seems then that none of C.-T. J. Huang's proposals will really do away with such counterexamples as (2.65) and (2.66). I conclude, therefore, that we cannot reject these counterexamples and that we must instead reject C.-T. J. Huang's thesis that object-zero anaphors cannot be empty pronouns in Chinese (and in any other language). This conclusion is further supported by the occurrence of empty pronoun objects in a wide range of other languages. Some examples follow. (2.67)a. (Chamorro, Chung 1984) Ha-hahassu ha' si Maria na in-bisita SUBJ(3SG)-remember EMP UNM Maria that SUBJ(lPL)-visit 0 gi espitat. LOC hospital 'Mariai remembers that (we) visited (herO at the hospital.' b. (Imbabura Quechua, Cole 1987) Juzi nin Marya 0 juyanata. Jose says Maria will love 'Jose! says that Maria will love

54

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory c. (Japanese, Nakamura 1986) Kodomo-wa [haha-ga 0 sikaru daroo to] omotta. child-TOP mother-NOM scold will COMP thought 'The child 1 thought that his mother would scold (him! . . . ) . ' d. (Korean, Yoon 1985) Chelswu-ka Yenghi-ka 0 hyeppakha-ess-ta-ko Chelswu-NOM Yenghi-NOM threaten-PAST-DECL-COMP cwucangha-ess-ta. claim-PAST-DECL 'Chelswu! claims that Yenghi threatened (himi).' e. (Brazilian Portuguese) Joao espera que o doutor examine 0 sem demora. Joao hopes that the doctor examine without delay 'Joao! hopes that the doctor will examine (him^ without delay.' f. (Thai, Pingkarawat 1985) Nit book waa Nuan hen 0. Nit speak say Nuan see 'Niti said that Nuan saw (hen).'

The fact that object-zero anaphors in Chinese (and in other languages as well) can be empty pronouns has some important consequences for the GB analyses of object ECs. First, it furnishes further evidence against the GCR, falsifying its prediction that empty pronouns cannot occur in object position in any language. Secondly, it significantly weakens C.-T. J. Huang's claim that all sentences in Chinese that contain an object-zero anaphor display a subject-object asymmetry. The fact seems to be that while object-zero anaphors that prefer a variable interpretation could be argued to display such an asymmetry, object-zero anaphors that prefer a pronominal interpretation clearly do not. If this is the case, then the evidence which has frequently been cited in favour of the variable analysis, namely the argument that subject-object asymmetries can be explained only if the object-zero anaphor involved is a variable, becomes pseudo-evidence, since no such asymmetry will arise if the object-zero anaphor is an empty pronoun, And thirdly, it decreases the plausibility of Cole's claim that the full range of possibilities of 'unidentified' objectdrop can be predicted by incorporating the empty topic parameter and the GCR parameter. We have already seen substantial evidence for rejecting the first parameter; for the second, there is also evidence that it

Empty catagories

55

has to be refuted. For example, given that empty pronoun objects are permitted in Chinese, under Cole's analysis, the GCR would then have to be restricted to PRO alone. However, as we saw in section 2.4.1 of this chapter, PRO cannot occur in Chinese. It follows, therefore, that there is no domain to which the GCR can apply with respect to Chinese. We can conclude from these arguments that Cole's formulation of the null-object parameter cannot be maintained. Next, I shall show that object-zero anaphors in Chinese could even be argued to be empty Anaphors in the sense of GB. Consider (2.68). (2.68)

(C.-T. J. Huang 1987) A: Zhangsan piping guo ziji le ma? Zhangsan criticise EXP self CRS Q B: Ta piping guo 0 le. 3SG criticise EXP CRS A: 'Has Zhangsan criticised himself?' B: 'He has criticised (himself).'

Here, the zero anaphor could best be characterised as an empty Anaphor in the sense of GB. This is because under the functional approach, a non-Pronominal EC should be identified as an empty Anaphor if and only if it is locally A-bound. This is exactly what happens in (2.68). Since the zero anaphor is A-bound in its GC in (2.68), by the principle of functional determination, there is no reason why it should not be treated as an empty Anaphor. 29 C.-T. J. Huang (1987), however, presents two arguments against taking the zero anaphor in (2.68) to be an empty Anaphor. His first argument is that object-zero anaphors in Chinese cannot in general be interpreted as empty Anaphors. It is only as a reply to A's question that B's reply in (2.68) can have an Anaphoric interpretation. His second argument is that since (2.68) is similar to (2.6,9) in English, and since (2.69) is generally not taken as evidence for the existence of empty Anaphors in English, nor should (2.68) be taken as evidence for the existence of empty Anaphors in Chinese. (2.69)

Himself, John liked 0.

Neither of these arguments, however, seems to stand. Take the first argument first. In the first place, C.-T. J. Huang's claim that object-zero anaphors in Chinese cannot in general be interpreted as empty Anaphors

56

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

seems factually incorrect. On the contrary, according to my intuition and that of the native speakers surveyed, object-zero anaphors in Chinese can in general be interpreted as empty Anaphors (though the Anaphoric interpretation is in general the dispreferred interpretation), as example (2.14) has shown. Secondly, even if C.-T. J. Huang's observation were right and object-zero anaphors in Chinese could not in general be interpreted as empty Anaphors, our argument would still remain valid. This is because by virtue of functional determination, a non-Pronominal EC is identified as an Anaphor if and only if it is locally A-bound. Consider next C.-T. J. Huang's second argument. According to him, there is a striking similarity between (2.68) in Chinese and (2.69) in English: both (on a variable interpretation) constitute an apparent counterexample to binding condition C and both occur only when the null object refers to (him)self, which is outside the minimal clause. The only difference is that (him)self is a discourse topic in (2.68) but an overt (sentence) topic in (2.69). But this similarity claim does not seem to be sufficient to sustain C.-T. J. Huang's position. First, C.-T. J. Huang ignores a crucial difference between (2.68) in Chinese and (2.69) in English: the former does not involve movement viewed from the standpoint of GB whereas the latter does. If this is the case, then it is difficult to see how any reconstruction, chain binding (Barss 1986), 'anywhere' binding (Belletti & Rizzi 1988) or other devices relating to levels of syntactic representation (Katada 1991) can be applied to (2.68). Secondly, C.-T. J. Huang's claim that an object-zero anaphor with an Anaphoric interpretation must refer to (i.e. referentially depend upon) the Anaphor outside its GC is incorrect. Consider (2.70). (2.70)

Xiaoming piping guo ziji, danshi Xiaoming criticise EXP self but Xiaohua meiyou piping guo 0. Xiaohua not criticise EXP 'Xiaoming has criticised himself, but Xiaohua has not criticised (himself).'

In (2.70), the zero anaphor cannot be referentially dependent on ziji 'self in the preceding clause. Instead, it can only refer to the subject of its own clause. In other words, (2.70) allows only a bound-variable (i.e. sloppy) but not a pragmatic-coreference (i.e. strict) interpretation, using the terminology of e.g. Reinhart (1983a, b, 1986) and Sells (1987). Thus,

Empty catagories

57

under the functional approach, the zero anaphor in (2.70) is by definition an empty Anaphor. All this seems to lead to the conclusion that objectzero anaphors in Chinese could be empty Anaphors in the sense of GB 30,31

We have now reached the stage where I can show that there is a class of zero anaphor in Chinese that cannot be related to any of the four 'standard' types of EC defined by Chomsky. In counterattacking Xu (1986), C.-T. J. Huang (1987) points out correctly I think - that to claim that zero anaphors in Chinese do not fit with Chomsky's typology, one has to demonstrate that there is a class of zero anaphor, say, a in Chinese which can be neither an NP-trace, nor a pro, nor a PRO, nor a variable. There is little doubt that the class of zero anaphor in sentences like (2.43) would provide a clear demonstration of the kind of examples C.-T. J. Huang requires. The class of zero anaphor in such examples cannot be a PRO, because it is governed and Casemarked; nor can it be an NP-trace, because it can be without an antecedent; nor can it be a pro, because it is not locally identified; nor can it be a variable, because it can be locally A-bound. 32 2.6

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have demonstrated that (i) PRO as defined by Chomsky cannot occur in Chinese, since there are only finite clauses in the language; (ii) pro as defined by Chomsky cannot occur in Chinese, either, since the question of how it is locally identified in the language remains unknown; (iii) the empty topic hypothesis is in general incoherent, and consequently, C.-T. J. Huang's analysis of the zero anaphor in (2.53) and (2.54) as a variable has to be called into serious question, since the problem of how it is locally A-bound remains unsolved; (iv) object-zero anaphors in Chinese could be argued to be not only variables (provided that the yet-to-be-identified A-binder is to be discovered), but also empty pronouns (but not pros), and even empty Anaphors in the sense of GB, thus seeming to form a syntactically undifferentiated class; and (v) there is a class of zero anaphor in Chinese that cannot be classified with any of the four 'standard' types of EC as identified by Chomsky. On the basis of the strength of the evidence presented above, I conclude that Chomsky's typology of ECs does not apply to Chinese.

3

Control

3.1

Introduction

In the last chapter, I showed that zero anaphors in Chinese do not fit into Chomsky's typology of ECs. In this chapter, I shall demonstrate that control in Chinese cannot be adequately accounted for under either a syntactic or a semantic approach. Control is defined here in a relatively theory-neutral way as a relation of referential dependence between an unexpressed subject (called a controllee) and an argument (called a controller) (usually) in the minimal matrix clause (e.g. Bresnan 1982a, Mohanan 1983, Andrews 1985, Farkas 1988). Defined thus, control appears to have two essential properties (one syntactic and one semantic): the syntactic one being the omission of the controllee,1 and the semantic one being the referential dependence between the controller and the controllee.2 Control in Chinese enjoys a great freedom in interpretation. More specifically, it exhibits a number of distinctive properties. First, although there is in general a distinction between subject- and object-control verbs, there are verbs that allow either subject or object control, and there are even verbs that sometimes prefer subject control and sometimes prefer object control - depending on context and world knowledge. Secondly, Chinese allows - rather freely - remote or long-distance control, control from a non-immediate, higher clause or from prior discourse. Thirdly, in an object-control construction, the direct object controller sometimes can be dropped, contrary to Bach's Generalisation (Bach 1979). Fourthly, control in Chinese can be done by way of split antecedency, that is, 'jointly' by two arguments, each of which bears a distinct 0-role. In what follows, I shall focus on complement control in Chinese. I shall first present arguments against C.-T. J. Huang's (1984, 1989) GB analysis of control in section 3.2.1. I shall then argue, in section 3.2.2, that the theory of functional and anaphoric control within the framework of 58

Control

59

Bresnan's (1982a) Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) cannot be easily extended to Chinese. Finally, in section 3.3, I shall investigate how control in Chinese can be dealt with under a semantic/thematic approach. I shall show that control relations in Chinese cannot be strictly determined in purely semantic/thematic terms, either.

3.2

Control in Chinese under a syntactic approach

3.2.1

A Government and Binding analysis3"

In the spirit of Chomsky (1980b, 1981), C.-T. J. Huang (1984) suggests that control be handled in terms of a Rosenbaum-type, 'minimaldistance' GCR, repeated here as (3.1). (3.1)

C.-T. J. Huang's (1984) Generalised Control Rule Coindex an empty Pronominal with the closest nominal element.

The notion of 'minimal distance' is defined in configurational terms, but there is an important difference between C.-T. J. Huang's conceptualisation of this notion and that of Chomsky: unlike Chomsky, C.-T. J. Huang concedes that 'minimal distance' does not make a distinction between a c-commanding subject and a c-commanding object within the same clause. Consequently, the question of controller choice in these cases is handed over to pragmatics (C.-T. J. Huang 1984: 553). The 'minimal-distance' analysis, however, does not work. While it makes no prediction for the choice of controller in examples like (3.2) where both the matrix subject and the matrix object are c-commanding NPs, it makes the wrong prediction for examples like (3.3). (3.2)

Silingyuan mingling women 0 mashang chufa. commander order 1PL at once set off 'The commander orders us to set off right away.'

(3.3)

Xiaoming shuo baba jueding 0 mingtian bu yong Xiaoming say dad decide tomorrow not need qu shangxue. go go to school 'Xiaoming 1 says that Dad2 has decided that (he 1/2/3 . . . ) need not go to school tomorrow.'

60

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

Example (3.3) is ambiguous; the unexpressed subject of the embedded clause can refer to Xiaoming, Xiaoming's father, or even an individual evoked in the previous discourse. However, given the common knowledge about who is likely to go to school, the reading that Xiaoming is the controller is pragmatically the preferred interpretation. But this reading is wrongly ruled out by the GCR as formulated in (3.1).4 This eventually leads C.-T. J. Huang (1989) to revise the GCR to the effect that the 'coindexation with the closest nominal element' condition is relaxed. For convenience, the 1989 version of the GCR is repeated as follows. (3.4)

C.-T. J. Huang's (1989) Generalised Control Rule An empty Pronominal is controlled in its control domain (if it has one).

The notion of control domain is repeated as follows. (3.5)

C.-T. J. Huang's definition of control domain a is the control domain for P if and only if it is the minimal category that satisfies both (a) and (b): (a) a is the lowest S or NP that contains (i) P, or (ii) the minimal maximal category containing p (MMC (P)). (b) a contains a SUBJECT accessible to p.

Now, by (3.4), it is predicted that when a controllee has a control domain, it is syntactically controlled in that domain; it is required to have a local, unique, non-split and non-arbitrary antecedent. On the other hand, when a controllee does not have a control domain, it is not syntactically controlled; it may take a remote antecedent; it may receive an arbitrary interpretation; it may have split antecedents (C.-T. J. Huang 1989). Serious problems remain with this analysis, however. First, contrary to C.-T. J. Huang's claim, a controllee that has a control domain need not be controlled in it. There appear to be (at least) three cases of counterexamples. The first is illustrated by examples (3.3) above and (3.6) below. By C.-T. J. Huang's definition of control domain in (3.5), the controllee in both (3.3) and (3.6) has a control domain and it is the intermediate clause. This is because the intermediate clause is the only category that contains not only the MMC of the controllee but also a SUBJECT accessible to it. This being the case, it follows from the GCR that the controllee must be controlled in the intermediate clause. But this is

Control

61

not the case; the controller can simply be outside the intermediate clause, in other words, the controllee can take a long-distance controller. (3.6)

Xiaoming de didi shuo baba jueding Xiaoming MM younger brother say dad decide 0 mingtian bu yong qu shangxue. tomorrow not need go go to school 'Xiaoming'si younger brother 2 says that Dad 3 has decided that (he 1/2/3/4 • • • ) need not go to school tomorrow.'

The existence of examples like (3.6) also wreaks havoc with any attempt to determine control on a configurational basis (e.g. Williams 1980, Manzini 1983, Koster 1984a, Larson 1991): a controllee in Chinese can have a controller in a non-c-command relation.5 A second class of counterexamples concerns exceptions to Bach's Generalisation. This is exemplified by (3.8) (on the generally accepted GB assumption that the structure of the VP of an object-control construction is [VP V X] rather than [VPV NP X]).6 (3.7)

Bach's Generalisation A direct object controller cannot be omitted.

(3.8)

Popo bu jiao [0 chifan], zhangfu bu mother-in-law not allow eat meal husband not jiao [0 hui jia]. allow return home '(Her . . .) mother-in-law does not allow (her . . .) to eat meals, and (her . . .) husband does not allow (her . . .) to return home.'

The dropping of the direct object controller in examples of this kind is most common with causative verbs such as jiao 'allow', rang 'let', xu 'permit', etc. (Chao 1968, Ding 1981), but it happens with other objectcontrol verbs as well. For example: (3.9)

Liu Ming shuo shi banzhang mingling [0 kai de qiang]. Liu Ming say SD- squad leader order open -SD gun 'Liu Ming! said that it was the squad leader who ordered . . . ) to open fire.'

In (3.8), the control domain is the matrix sentence, and in (3.9), the control domain is the intermediate clause, and yet the controller in both examples is outside its control domain. The same is just as true of (3.10),

62

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

where control is by an NP not in the control domain but in the immediate discourse context.7 (3.10)

Ta xiang dui nainai shuo, ta kao shang le 3SG want to granny say 3SG pass examination RV PFV yanjiusheng, renjia duji, bu rang [0 qu]. (Tian Zhonghe, Wuyue) postgraduate others jealous not allow go 'She wanted to tell Granny that she had passed the entrance examinations for graduate studies, but other people were jealous and (they) did not allow (her) to go.'

Still another source of counterexamples is that a controllee with a control domain can be interpreted as arbitrary in reference. Two examples are given below. (3.11)

Huiyi haozhao [0 dali tuiguang Putonghua]. conference appeal vigorously popularise common language The conference calls to popularise standard spoken Chinese in a vigorous way.'

(3.12)

Zhengfu jinzhi [0 du Sate de shu]. government prohibit read Sartre MM book 'The government forbids reading Sartre's books.'

All this must suffice to show that a controllee in Chinese which has a control domain need not be controlled in that domain. Secondly, a controllee that has a control domain may have more than one interpretation. I have remarked earlier that there are control verbs in Chinese that sometimes prefer subject control and sometimes prefer object control - depending on context and world knowledge. These verbs include day ing 'promise' and shuofu 'persuade'. (Example (3.14b) is adapted from Xu (1986).) (3.13)a. Xiaoming daying mama 0 xiawu zuo gongke. Xiaoming promise mum afternoon do homework 'Xiaoming 1 promises Mum2 that (he! . . . ) will do (hisi . . . ) homework in the afternoon.' b. Mama daying Xiaoming 0 xiawu kan dianying. mum promise Xiaoming afternoon see film 'Mum! promises Xiaoming2 that (he2 . . . ) will see a film in the afternoon.'

Control

63

(3.14)a. Bingren shuofu yisheng 0 mingtian gei ta kaidao. patient persuade doctor tomorrow for 3SG operate T h e patient! persuades the surgeon2 that (he2 . . . ) will operate on nimi himi tomorrow, tomorrow.' on b. Yisheng shuofu bingren 0 mingtian gei ta kaidao. doctor persuade patient tomorrow for 3SG operate T h e surgeon! persuades the patient 2 that (hei . . . ) will operate on him2 tomorrow.' In unmarked cases, daying 'promise' is a verb of subject control, as in (3.13a). But this unmarked, subject-control reading is merely a preferred reading; it is overridden in the face of inconsistency with, say, world knowledge. As a consequence, there is a shift of preference for the choice of controller: the object-control reading becomes the favoured reading in (3.13b). The reverse holds for shuofu 'persuade'. Thus, both (3.13) and (3.14) are allowed to have (at least) two interpretations, in accord with the number of potential antecedents in them.8 But again this would be wrongly ruled out by the GCR. Thirdly, a controllee with a control domain can take split antecedents. This is the phenomenon precisely displayed by examples like (3.15). (3.15)

Lao Wang qing Xiao Li 0 yiqi chifan. Lao Wang invite Xiao Li together eat meal 'Wang invites Li to have a meal together.'

Here, the unexpressed subject of the embedded clause is controlled 'jointly' by the matrix subject and object. However, the GCR would have nothing to say about this fact. Nor would it say anything about control involving referential overlap of some sort, as in (3.16). (3.16)

Zongtong shuailing daibiaotuan 0 fangwen Zhongguo. president head delegation visit China 'The president leads the delegation to visit China.'

In this example, the matrix subject is most naturally interpreted as included within (rather than strictly coreferential with) the controllee, and yet this fact remains unaccommodated under the GCR. It should be clear from the foregoing that C.-T. J. Huang's GB analysis does not represent an adequate theory of control.

64

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

3.2.2

A Lexical-Functional Grammar analysis

Next, let us consider control in Chinese from the viewpoint of another current syntactic theory, namely Bresnan's (1982a) LFG. Within the framework of LFG, control is dealt with in terms of a theory of functional and anaphoric control.9 What, then, are the main differences between functional and anaphoric control? Details aside, they can roughly be distinguished along the following lines (Bresnan 1982a: 321-33). In functional control, the controllee takes the SUBJ function and the controlled constituent is designated by the open grammatical functions XCOMP and XADJ. The control relation is represented by a control equation, a functional schema which identifies the f[unctional]-structures of the controller and the controllee. Functional control relations are either lexically induced or constructionally induced. In lexically induced functional control, the control equation is part of a lexical entry, the controlled constituent is the XCOMP, and the controller is expressed by a control equation of the form (|G) = (jXCOMP SUBJ). The assignment of controller is determined by a redundant Lexical Rule of Functional Control (LRFC) (Bresnan 1982a: 322). (3.17)

Bresnan's Lexical Rule of Functional Control Let L be a lexical form and F L its grammatical function assignment. If XCOMP € F L , add to the lexical entry of L: (TOBJ2) = (TXCOMP SUBJ) if OBJ2 e F L ; otherwise: (|OBJ) = (TXCOMP SUBJ) if OBJ e F L ; otherwise: (TSUBJ) = (TXCOMP SUBJ).

The controller is predicted to be local, unique and obligatory. It is local because it has to obey the locality condition (3.18) (Bresnan 1982a: 288); it is unique because it has to conform to the uniqueness condition (3.19) (Kaplan & Bresnan 1982: 181); and it is obligatory because it has to abide by the completeness condition (3.20) and the coherence condition (3.21) (Kaplan & Bresnan 1982: 211-12). Furthermore, for theory-internal reasons, the controller of lexically induced functional control is restricted to SUBJ. OBJ and OBJ2.

Control 65 (3.18)

The locality condition Designators in lexical and grammatical schemata can specify no more than two function applications.

(3.19)

The uniqueness condition In a given f-structure, a particular attribute may have at most one value.

(3.20)

The completeness condition (a) An f-structure is locally complete if and only if it contains all the governable grammatical functions that its predicate governs. (b) An f-structure is complete if and only if it and all its subsidiary f-structures are locally complete.

(3.21)

The coherence condition (a) An f-structure is locally coherent if and only if all the governable grammatical functions that it contains are governed by a local predicate. (b) An f-structure is coherent if and only if it and all its subsidiary f-structures are locally coherent.

In constructionally induced functional control, the control equation is part of a c[onstitute]-structure rule annotation, the controlled constituent is the XADJ, and the controller is represented by a control equation of the form of (|G) = (jSUBJ). The set of possible controllers is identified in terms of a Constructional Rule of Functional Control (Bresnan 1982a: 324). By contrast, in anaphoric control, there is an LFG-TRO', which is created by an optional functional schema of the form of (|G PRED) = 'PRO'. This functional schema is conditioned by a Rule of Functional Anaphora (3.22) (Bresnan 1982a: 326). The interpretation of a pronominal SUBJ is determined by an Obviation Principle (3.23) (Bresnan 1982a: 331). (3.22)

Bresnan's Rule of Functional Anaphora For all lexical entries L, for all G e A, assign the optional pair of equations {((|G PRED) = 'PRO), (|FIN) = ca} to L.

(3.23)

The Obviation Principle If P is the pronominal SUBJ of an obviative clause C, and A is a potential antecedent of P and is the SUBJ of the minimal clause

66

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory nucleus that properly contains C, P is bound to A if P is not morphologically expressed, and P is not bound to A if P is morphologically expressed.

Accordingly, the controller of anaphoric control need not be local, unique or obligatory; it can be remote, split and optional. Furthermore, the assignment of antecedent for an LFG-'PRO' must obey a universal constraint on anaphoric control, namely the f-command condition (Bresnan 1982a: 333-4, Mohanan 1983). (3.24)

The f-command condition If A is a grammatically assigned antecedent of P, where P is morphologically unexpressed, then A must f-command P.

The definition of f-command is given below. (3.25)

Bresnan's definition of f-command For any occurrences of the functions oc, (3 in an f-structure F, a f-commands P if and only if a does not contain (3 and every f-structure of F that contains a contains (3.

With this background, let us now turn to Chinese and see how well control in the language can fit into the LFG framework. We begin with examples like (3.2), (3.3), (3.8) and (3.14), which correspond roughly to lexically induced functional control in LFG. 10 However, to account for these examples in terms of LFG's theory of functional control poses considerable problems. First, as we have already seen, contrary to Bach's Generalisation, the direct-object controller in a functional control construction in Chinese can be omitted. Or, to put it another way, intransitivisation can occur even if the direct object is the obligatory functional controller in Chinese. Besides examples (3.8), (3.9) and (3.10) above, we have the following. (3.26)a. Lao Wang jiao Xiao Li 0 dazi. Lao Wang teach Xiao Li type 'Wang teaches Li to type.' b. Lao Wang jiao 0 dazi. Lao Wang teach type 'Wang teaches typing.' On an LFG analysis, the verb jiao 'teach' has the lexical form 'JIAO((SUBJ)(OBJ)(XCOMP))' (e.g. Bresnan 1982a: 374). Given the

Control 67 LRFC, the control relation (TOBJ) = (jXCOMP SUBJ) is obligatorily added to the lexical entry of jiao. The lexical rule of intransitivisation would then substitute (OBJ) with a 0. As a consequence, the control relation is undermined, since 0 is not a grammatical function and therefore cannot act as a functional controller. In other words, the possibility of deleting a functional controller in Chinese would violate the completeness condition of functional control. The reason is that given the completeness constraint which ensures that there are not too few arguments for a predicate, a functional controller cannot be omitted, otherwise an incomplete f-structure would obtain due to the absence of the f-structure values of the controller and the controllee. Secondly, as examples (3.15) above and (3.27) below show, in Chinese, a controllee in a functional control construction can take split antecedents. (3.27)

Xiaoming shuofu Xiaohua 0 yiqu qu Beijing. Xiaoming persuade Xiaohua together go Beijing 'Xiaoming persuades Xiaohua to go to Beijing together.'

This indicates that the control relation in Chinese is not subject to the uniqueness condition of functional control, either, from which it follows that functional control by split antecedency is impossible. This is because functional control by split antecedency would automatically destroy the control equation by forcing the f-structure of each of the functional controllers to be merged with the f-structure of the controllee, thus yielding a clash of features. The same may hold for 'overlapping reference' control, as shown in examples (3.16) above and (3.28) below. (3.28)

Xi zhuren zhaoji jiaoshoumen 0 department head call together professors kai le ge pengtouhui. have PFV CL brief meeting 'The head of the department called the professors to have a brief meeting.'

Thirdly, serious problems arise with LFG's mechanism for controller assignment. In LFG, there are two types of controller choice: (i) an unmarked choice in terms of the LRFC which predicts that the specification of controller is done according to the hierarchy OBJ2 > OBJ > SUBJ, and (ii) a marked choice which has to be stipulated

68

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

and which overrides the unmarked choice. The latter is the LFG's 'solution' to the problem caused by the 'exceptional' behaviour of promise in English. Now, with respect to Chinese, there are (at least) four classes of counterexample to the LRFC. In the first, the unexpressed subject of the embedded clause is long-distance controlled, as in examples (3.3) and (3.6). Second, there is that type of example like (3.8), (3.9), (3.10) and (3.26), which allows the dropping of the direct-object controller. Third, then, is that type of example like (3.11) and (3.12), in which the controllee has an arbitrary interpretation. The final, fourth type of counterexample involves control verbs that sometimes prefer subject control and sometimes prefer object control, as in examples (3.13) and (3.14). In order to save the LRFC in the face of the fourth type of counterevidence, an LFG proponent might claim that daying 'promise' and shuofu 'persuade' are ambiguous between subject and object control. He might then stipulate that the lexical entry of daying in (3.13b) and shuofu in (3.14b) contains a control equation which specifies that the controller of the former be the OBJ and that of the latter be the SUBJ, and this control equation can override the LRFC. But a proposal like this does not seem to be a good solution to the problem. In the first place, as we will see in the next section, the ambiguity strategy itself is not a satisfactory one. And second, the stipulation is arbitrary, for the vital question why daying in (3.13b) and shuofu in (3.14b) preferentially take object and subject control respectively remains unexplained. From facts like these, we can draw the conclusion that Bresnan's theory of functional control cannot easily extend to Chinese.11 It might be argued at this point that the fact that control in Chinese cannot be accounted for in terms of LFG's theory of functional control is simply because there is no functional control in the sense of LFG in Chinese. Rather, there is only anaphoric control in the sense of LFG in Chinese. However, to argue that Chinese has only anaphoric control seems also to present some problems for LFG, for how the examples we have just discussed can be dealt with in terms of anaphoric control under LFG is not clear, to say the least. For instance, as Xu (1985) has noted, contrary to Bresnan's (1982a) and Mohanan's (1983) claim, the fcommand condition is simply inconsequential for anaphoric control in Chinese. Examples (3.29) and (3.30) illustrate this point.

Control 69 (3.29)

Jiao guo Xiaohua de laoshi changchang shuoqi teach EXP Xiaohua MM teacher often discuss 0 xuexi hen yonggong. study very hard The teachers who have taught Xiaohua often discuss (his) studying very hard.'

(3.30)

0 kanbuqi ziji zhi neng shuoming look down upon self only can demonstrate Xiaoming tai zibei. Xiaoming too self-abased '(His) looking down upon himself can only demonstrate that Xiaoming is too self-abased.'

On Bresnan's view, examples (3.29) and (3.30) are bona fide cases of anaphoric control in LFG. As such, we would expect that neither Xiaohua in (3.29) nor Xiaoming in (3.30) can anaphorically control the LFG-TRO'. This is because by the definition of f-command in (3.25), Xiaohua does not f-command the LFG-'PRO' in (3.29), nor does Xiaoming f-command the LFG-TRO' in (3.30). Yet, as a matter of fact, both can anaphorically control the LFG-'PRO'.

3.3

Control in Chinese under a semantic approach

By now, we have seen that control in Chinese cannot be adequately accommodated under a syntactic, whether a GB or an LFG, approach. Next, we turn to a semantic/thematic approach. Under this approach, control is determined on the basis of thematic relations as defined along the lines of Fillmore (1968) and Jackendoff (1972, 1987). Jackendoff (1972), for example, argues for a specification of the controller in the lexical entry of the complement-taking verbs as part of the 'network of reference'. This is also the position taken by Chomsky (1980b). In attempting to tackle the problem caused by the promise-class verbs for the Rosenbaum-type, 'minimal-distance' analysis, Chomsky proposes an arbitrary feature [ + SC] ('assign subject control') to be included in the lexical entry of these verbs. As for the second major class of control verb, namely the persuade-class verbs, he suggests that they be marked in the lexicon with the arbitrary feature [ + CC] ('assign complement control').

70

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

An advance from Jackendoff and Chomsky is Ruzicka (1983), who proposes a Thematic Identity Condition (TIC) and a Thematic Distinctness Condition (TDC) for the selection of the controller and the controllee. Roughly speaking, the TIC requires that the controller and the controllee have identical thematic roles, whereas the TDC requires that they have distinct thematic roles. Consequently, verbs that are traditionally treated as subject-control verbs and are therefore given [ + SC] in Chomsky's model are now assigned [ + TI] in Ruzicka's model, and verbs that are traditionally regarded as object-control verbs and are therefore given [ + CC] in Chomsky's model are now assigned [ + TD] in Ruzicka's model. In addition, there are two other features in Ruzicka's model: [m[arked] TD] and [m[arked] TRC]. The former is meant to encompass verbs such as propose in English, vorschlagen in German, predlozit in Russian and proponowac in Polish, which allow inclusion of the agent as part of the controller. The latter is intended to cover verbs such as like in English, lieben in German, ljubit in Russian and lubic in Polish, which are (claimed to be) indifferent to thematic relations with regard to the choice of controller.12 Next, another thematic relation-based account of control is presented by Culicover & Wilkins (1986). In this theory, infinitival complements are treated as base VPs. Consequently, there is no use of PRO in the syntax. Instead, the lexical entry for a verb contains a specification of its thematic structure, and thematic roles are assigned algorithmically to a level of representation which Culicover and Wilkins call R-structure. The Rstructure is restricted by a Completeness Constraint and a Distributedness Constraint. The assignment of controller is handled by a Coindexing Rule, which is stated as follows. (3.31)

Culicover and Wilkins's Coindexing Rule Coindex R(NP) and R(X) where X is a predicate. a. Thematic conditions on R-structure: (i) If R(X) bears no thematic role, then R(NP) must be a THEME Or a SOURCE.

(ii) If R(X) is a GOAL, then R(NP) must be a THEME. (iii) If R(X) is a THEME, then R(NP) must be a SOURCE. b. Locality conditions (i) If R(NP) and R(X) both bear thematic roles, they must do so within the same domain (i.e. with respect to the same role-assigning element) at R-structure.

Control

71

(ii)

If R(NP) or R(X) bears no thematic role, then X must be bijacent to NP in syntactic structure, c. Definition: X is bijacent to NP if and only if: (i) X is a sister to NP, or (ii) X is immediately dominated by a sister of NP. Given this rule, when the VP complement itself has a thematic role, thematic condition (ii) will apply to examples like John permitted!allowed Bill to go, and thematic condition (iii), to examples like John expected! wanted)triedt0 g°\ yielding the correct results that Bill is the controller in the former and John, in the latter. On the other hand, when the VP complement does not have a thematic role, locality condition (ii) will obtain, predicting correctly that in examples like John wanted!expected Bill to go and John believed! hoped for Bill to be the winner, Bill should be coindexed with the VP. Finally, locality condition (i) is responsible for ensuring that the controller and the VP will occur in the same sentence. Let us now subject control in Chinese to scrutiny using this semantic/ thematic framework. From a conceptual point of view, the assignment of arbitrary features to control verbs, as Radford (1981: 381) and Foley & Van Valin (1984: 307) point out, has no predictive or explanatory power. Suppose we ask the question: how do we know that mingling 'order' (for example) is a verb of complement control or thematic distinctness? It is likely that we will get the non-answer: because it is marked with the feature [ + CC] or [ + TD] in the lexicon. Turning next to empirical considerations, most of the problems posed by control in Chinese for a syntactic approach would remain problems for this approach. But the major problem facing the semantic/thematic approach has to do with verbs that can be used to express different 'speech acts'. Take shuofu 'persuade' as an example. Suppose shuofu is assigned the feature [ + TD] on Ruzicka's account. The TDC will allow (3.14a) but rule out (3.14b). Suppose then it is given the feature [ + TI]. The TIC will permit (3.14b) but exclude (3.14a). Faced with examples of this kind, what can a proponent of the semantic/thematic approach do? One possibility might simply be to argue that these verbs have two distinct senses, one marked with the feature [ + TI] and the other marked with the feature [ + TD]. Or, alternatively, one might even posit that there are two distinct verbs involved, namely shuofu\ and shuofu2. But a move like this is not very satisfactory. First, from a metatheoretical point of view, such a proposal runs directly against 'Occam's razor' ('entities are

72

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

not to be multiplied beyond necessity'), in particular, 'Occam's erazer' (Ziff 1960) or 'modified Occam's razor' (Grice 1978) ('senses or dictionary entries are not to be multiplied beyond necessity'). To posit either two distinct senses or two distinct verbs would produce an unnecessary proliferation of senses of many verbs in Chinese. In other words, this option is possible, but it should be regarded as a last resource. Second, since there is no algorithmic procedure to determine when these verbs are to be assigned the feature [ + TD] and when they are to be assigned the feature [ + TI], it would leave the feature assignment on an even less principled ground. Of course, a proponent of this approach might contend that there is a principled way to assign features (at least) to some of these verbs. For example, in the case of qingqiu 'ask' (though not in the case of shuofu), whether it is to be assigned the feature [ + TD] or [ + TI] depends on the presence or absence of a matrix object. The presence of a matrix object will require the assignment of the feature [ + TD]; otherwise the feature [ + TI] will obtain, as in (3.32). (3.32)a. Xiaoming qingqiu 0 canjia shufa xiehui. Xiaoming ask join calligraphy society 'Xiaoming asks to join the calligraphy society.' b. Xiaoming qingqiu ta 0 canjia shufa xiehui. Xiaoming ask 3SG join calligraphy society 'Xiaoming asks him to join the calligraphy society.' But examples like (3.33) show that even this is not entirely true. (Some of the native speakers I have consulted find (3.33b) rather odd but all of them find (3.33a) perfectly acceptable.) (3.33)a. Bingren qingqiu 0 mingtian gei ta kaidao. patient ask tomorrow for 3SG operate 'The patient! asks (e.g. the surgeon2) 02 to operate on him! tomorrow.' b. ?Bingren qingqiu yisheng 0 mingtian chuyuan. patient ask doctor tomorrow leave hospital 'The patienti asks the doctor 2 01 to leave hospital tomorrow.' In other words, the correlation between the assignment of the feature [ + TD] or [ + TI] and the presence or absence of a matrix object is at best a one-way prediction: the presence of a matrix object would tend to favour the assignment of the feature [ + TD] (unless context or world

Control

73

knowledge tells us otherwise, as in (3.33b)), but from the absence of a matrix object, little would be predicted (Comrie 1984). If the feature assignment is determined by the speech act the verb expresses, by the contextual environment in which the verb occurs, and/or by our knowledge about the world, then the solution seems to lie in pragmatics rather than semantics. An alternative move might be to assume that shuofu is uniformly a TD verb and explain why the TDC is violated in (3.14b). One might claim that (3.14b) has the underlying structure of (3.34) (e.g. Riizicka 1983). (3.34)

Yishengi shuofu bingren2(02 rang tai) doctor persuade patient permit 3SG 0i mingtian gei ta2 kaidao. tomorrow for 3SG operate The surgeon! persuades the patient 2 02 to permit him! 0i to operate on him 2 tomorrow.'

Accordingly, there are two occurrences of control in (3.34). Since both shuofu and rang let' are TD verbs, the TDC will predict that both zero anaphors in (3.34) take object control - a valid prediction. This analysis, however, may not be so plausible as it might have been thought of at first sight. Of course, (3.14b) is understood as preferentially meaning (3.34). But this is only an interpretative fact. What is at issue here is precisely the question why (3.14b) has (3.34) as its preferred interpretation, even if the semantics (i.e. the feature [ + TD]) of shuofu would suggest otherwise. Seen in this light, the account offered by Riizicka seems to be more a statement of the problem than a solution to it. Moreover, even if this escape route could be pursued, we would still need an account of the fact that (3.14b) is ambiguous and of when it is and is not construed as (3^34). The same can also be said of Culicover and Wilkins's theory. On this account, there could be two analyses of the VP in (3.14). The first is to treat the VP as the GOAL. By thematic condition (ii), the controller will be the THEME, hence object control. This will allow (3.14a) but rule out (3.14b). Or, alternatively, one might analyse the VP as the THEME. Consequently, according to thematic condition (iii), the SOURCE will be chosen as the controller, hence subject control. This will permit (3.14b) but exclude (3.14a). Either way, Culicover and Wilkins's theory can only get half of the facts right and has to treat the other half as exception. Furthermore, as in Ruzicka's analysis, the fact that both (3.14a) and

74

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(3.14b) are ambiguous and have a preferred interpretation is left uncaptured by this analysis.13 3.4

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have demonstrated that (i) C.-T. J. Huang's (1984, 1989) GB analysis cannot account for control in Chinese, (ii) Bresnan's (1982a) theory of functional and anaphoric control cannot be easily extended to Chinese, and (iii) a purely semantic/thematic approach cannot handle control in Chinese adequately.

4

Long-distance reflexivisation

4.1

Introduction

In this chapter, I shall turn from an examination of control in Chinese to a consideration of binding in the language. I shall concentrate on the treatment of long-distance reflexivisation within the GB framework. By long-distance reflexivisation is meant, roughly, the phenomenon whereby a reflexive may be bound outside its local domain. Long-distance reflexivisation has been observed in a wide range of languages as genetically unrelated and structurally diverse as Chinese, Icelandic and Italian. In recent years, it has become a focus of attention in both syntactic and pragmatic theorising (e.g. Everaert 1986, Hellan & Christensen 1986, Y. Huang 1987, 1989, 1991a, Kuno 1987, Manzini & Wexler 1987, Sells 1987, Battistella 1989, Huang & Tang 1989, 1991, Tang 1989, Zribi-Hertz 1989, Battistella & Xu 1990, Cole, Hermon & Sung 1990, Hyams & Sigurjonsdottir 1990, Maling & Zaenen 1990, Katada 1991, Koster & Reuland 1991, Levinson 1991, Thomas 1991, Pollard & Sag 1992); it has represented a particularly fruitful testing ground for various hypotheses concerning the principles-and-parameters approach to generative syntax of a comparative nature on the one hand, and the interface and division of labour between syntax and pragmatics on the other. While long-distance reflexivisation often requires language-specific constraints, 1 it seems to display a number of distinguishing properties cross-linguistically, notably (i) long-distance reflexives allow an antecedent outside their local domain, (ii) long-distance reflexives allow only a subject antecedent, 2 ' 3 (iii) long-distance reflexives are morphologically simplex (Pica 1984, 1987, 1991, Faltz 1985) (but see section 4.2 below), and (iv) there is no complementary distribution between pronouns and long-distance reflexives (Reuland & Koster 1991: 10, Reinhart & Reuland 75

76

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

1991: 284). Seen in this light, Chinese may be characterised as a typical 'long-distance reflexivisation' language. 4 There are (at least) four issues that any adequate theory of longdistance reflexivisation must address: (i) the specification of a domain within which an antecedent can be found, (ii) the identification of potential antecedents within the domain specified, (iii) the selection of one out of a number of possible antecedents, and (iv) the explanation of the motivation behind the use of long-distance reflexives, since plain pronouns can normally be employed where long-distance reflexives are used. This chapter is organised as follows. Section 4.2 summarises the basic facts about the Chinese simplex reflexive ziji 'self and complex reflexive pronoun + ziji. Section 4.3 then summarises the standard GB assumptions on the binding of Anaphors. Finally, in sections 4.4 and 4.5, I shall discuss various GB accounts of long-distance reflexivisation. My conclusion will be that the problems shared by all the GB analyses to be discussed in this chapter arise from the fact that they attempt to account for the non-syntactic nature of long-distance reflexivisation in terms of a (parameterised) syntactic theory of binding.

4.2

Chinese reflexives

Chinese has two reflexives (using the traditional term): a morphologically simplex reflexive ziji and a morphologically complex reflexive in the form of a pronoun + ziji sequence. From a distributional point of view, both reflexives occur very freely. They can be used in nearly all nominal positions. The basic facts about ziji are summed up in (4.1) and illustrated in (4.2). (4.1)

a. Antecedents of ziji are in general subjects (i.e. subject orientation). b. Antecedents of ziji are in general animate (i.e. the animacy condition). c. Ziji can be both long- and short-distance bound. d. Long-distance binding of ziji is possible (normally) only in case all antecedents agree in person (i.e. the blocking effect). e. Possible antecedents of ziji can be the subject of any clause, but the minimal clause subject and the maximal clause subject

Long-distance reflexivisation

11

are in general preferred to the intermediate clause subject (i.e. the maximality effect). f. Binding of ziji may not be subject to the c-command condition given appropriate conditions. (4.2) a. Xiaomingi gei Xiaohua2 ziji1/*2 de hua. Xiaoming give Xiaohua self MM painting 'Xiaoming! gave Xiaohua 2 hisi painting.' b. *Reshuiping dapo le ziji. flask break PFV self 'The flask broke itself.' c. Wang Xiansheng yiwei Xu Xiaojie ai shang le ziji. Wang Mr think Xu Miss love RV PFV self 'Mr Wangi thinks that Miss Xu 2 has fallen in love with himi/ herself2.' d. Tai juede wo 2 dui ziji*i/2 yaoqiu tai yange. 3SG feel 1SG to self set demands on too strictly 'He feels that I am too strict with myself.' e. Wang Xiansheng yiwei Li Xiansheng huaiyi Xu Xiaojie Wang Mr think Li Mr suspect Xu Miss ai shang le ziji. love RV PFV self 'Mr Wangi thinks that Mr Li2 suspects that Miss Xu 3 has fallen in love with himi/herself3/him2.' f. Xiaoming de huai piqi gei ziji dai lai Xiaoming MM bad temper for self bring RV le xuduo mafan. PFV much trouble 'Xiaoming'Si bad temper has brought a lot of trouble to Next, the basic facts about pronoun + ziji can be summed up in (4.3) and exemplified in (4.4). (4.3)

a. b. c. d.

Binding of pronoun + ziji is not subject-oriented. Antecedents of pronoun + ziji are in general animate. Pronoun + ziji can be both long- and short-distance bound. Long-distance binding of pronoun + ziji does not exhibit the blocking effect.

78

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory e. Binding of pronoun + ziji may not be subject to the ccommand condition.

(4.4) a. Xiaomingi gei Xiaohua2 ta ziji^ de hua. Xiaoming give Xiaohua 3SG self MM painting 'Xiaoming gave Xiaohua his painting.' b. *Reshuiping dapo le ta ziji. flask break PFV 3SG self The flask broke itself.' c. Wang Xiansheng yiwei Xu Xiaojie ai shang le ta ziji. Wang Mr think Xu Miss love RV PFV 3SG self 'Mr Wangi thinks that Miss Xu 2 has fallen in love with him!/ herself2.' d. Ta jeude wo dui ta ziji yaoqiu tai yange. 3SG feel 1SG to 3SG self set demands on too strictly 'Hei feels that I am too strict with himi.' e. Xiaoming de huai piqi gei ta ziji dai lai Xiaoming MM bad temper for 3SG self bring RV le xuduo mafan. PFV much trouble 'Xiaoming'si bad temper has brought a lot of trouble to him!.' 5

4.3

The standard Government and Binding assumptions on Anaphoric binding

Recollect binding conditions A and B, repeated here in (4.5). (4.5)

A. An Anaphor is bound in a local domain. B. A Pronominal is free in a local domain.

The definition of binding is given in (4.6). (4.6)

a binds (3 if and only if oc c-commands P, and a and P are coindexed.

The definition of GC is repeated in (4.7). (4.7)

a is a GC for p if and only if a is the minimal category containing P, a governor of p, and a SUBJECT accessible to p.

Long-distance reflexivisation

79

Now, within GB, Anaphors (i.e. reflexives and reciprocals) are subject to binding condition A. Broadly speaking, what binding condition A does is to characterise conditions under which Anaphors must be coindexed with an argument in an appropriately defined command relation within an appropriately defined minimal syntactic domain. Stated thus, the standard version of binding condition A entails the following propositions (e.g. Zribi-Hertz 1989, Pollard & Sag 1992). (4.8)

a. An Anaphor must have an antecedent within the same clause. b. An Anaphor must be c-commanded by its antecedent. c. An Anaphor cannot split its antecdents.6

In what follows, I shall concentrate mainly on the GB treatment of ziji because it has been the focus of most GB analyses of long-distance reflexivisation in Chinese.

4.4

The first Government and Binding strategy: denial of evidence

There are two main problems caused by long-distance reflexivisation for binding theory. The first, major, one is that the locality requirement imposed by binding condition A is violated: the antecedent can in principle be indefinitely far away from a long-distance reflexive. The second problem is that binding condition A allows too much freedom in the choice of antecedent and fails to accommodate subject orientation. Considerable attention has been focused on the locality problem, whereas subject orientation has to be stipulated in a parameterised version of binding condition A (exceptions are various analyses which propose movement at the level of logical form (LF), about which, see section 4.5.3 below). Within the current framework of GB, there appear to be two general strategies to tackle the locality problem: (i) to deny the evidence that binding condition A is violated by claiming that a long-distance reflexive is not a true Anaphor, and (ii) to modify the standard version of binding theory in such a way as to allow long-distance reflexivisation to be accounted for by binding condition A. Let us begin with the first strategy. Under this strategy, there might be four ways to pursue this escape route: (i) to claim that long-distance (but not local) ziji is not a real Anaphor but a Pronominal in disguise; (ii) to argue that long-distance (but not local) ziji is an Anaphor of a special kind that should be dealt with by some newly invoked binding

80

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

condition; (iii) to analyse ziji uniformly as a bound Pronominal; and (iv) to treat ziji uniformly as a Pronominal Anaphor.

4.4.1

Long-distance ziji as a Pronominal

Starting with the first GB option, one might argue that despite the identical morphological form, long- and short-distance ziji are two distinct nominal expressions, and that long-distance ziji is actually a variant of a Pronominal (e.g. Ronat 1982, Bouchard 1984, and for a different reason, Kameyama 1984, Maling 1984, Sells 1987, Koopman & Sportiche 1989). According to Bouchard (1984), for example, although reflexives constitute a coherent morphological class, they do not form a coherent typological class. On the basis of this assumption, Bouchard proposes that Anaphors be determined functionally rather than morphologically. Consequently, he makes a distinction between what he calls true and false Anaphors. What are treated by him as true Anaphors are generally those that can occur only in the direct object position of a simple, transitive clause in which they cannot be replaced by a Pronominal on the coreferential interpretation (except in the case of Exceptional Case Marking constructions) (see also Hellan's 1988, 1991 connectedness versus containment Anaphor distinction). This has the immediate consequence that a long-distance reflexive is ruled out as a true Anaphor, and as a result, the fact that it does not conform to the locality requirement imposed by binding condition A does not need an explanation. Thus, in order to tackle the locality problem caused by ziji, what one needs to do is perhaps no more than simply to transfer Bouchard's Pronominal analysis into Chinese by arguing that what surfaces as an Anaphor is actually a variant of a Pronominal. However, such an analysis, which is based on little more than 'classificatory convenience' (Burzio 1991), does not seem to hold; for what evidence there is strongly indicates that long-distance ziji is an Anaphor rather than a Pronominal. Consider (4.9)-(4.12). (4.9)a.

*Xiaoqiangi, Xiaoming2 shuo Xiaohua3 kanbuqi Xiaoqiang Xiaoming say Xiaohua look down upon self 'Xiaoqiang 1? Xiaoming2 says that Xiaohua 3 looks down upon him].'

Long-distance reflexivisation 81 b. Xiaoqiangi, Xiaoming2 shuo Xiaohua3 kanbuqi taj. Xiaoqiang Xiaoming say Xiaohua look down upon 3SG 'Xiaoqiang!, Xiaoming2 says that Xiaohua3 looks down upon him!.' (4.10)a. *Xiaomingi de didi2 shuo Xiaohua3 Xiaoming MM younger brother say Xiaohua kanbuqi zijij. look down upon self 'Xiaoming'si brother2 says that Xiaohua3 looks down upon him!.' b. Xiaomingi de didi2 shuo Xiaohua3 Xiaoming MM younger brother say Xiaohua kanbuqi tai. look down upon 3SG 'Xiaoming'si brother2 says that Xiaohua3 looks down upon

(4.1 l)a. ?Xiaomingi dui Xiaohua2 shuo Xiaoqiang3 Xiaoming to Xiaohua say Xiaoqiang kanbuqi ziji2. look down upon self 'Xiaoming, tells Xiaohua2 that Xiaoqiang3 looks down upon him2.' b. Xiaomingi dui Xiaohua2 shuo Xiaoqiang3 Xiaoming to Xiaohua say Xiaoqiang kanbuqi ta2. look down upon 3SG 'Xiaomingi tells Xiaohua2 that Xiaoqiang3 looks down upon him2.' (4.12)a. *Xiaomingi gaosu Xiaohua2 Xiaoqiang3 Xiaoming tell Xiaohua Xiaoqiang kanbuqi ziji{i2}. look down upon self 'Xiaomingi tells Xiaohua2 that Xiaoqiang3 looks down upon them{i>2}.'

82

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

b. Xiaomingi gaosu Xiaohua2 Xiaoqiang3 Xiaoming tell Xiaohua Xiaoqiang kanbuqi tamenj i 2} • look down upon 3PL 'Xiaoming! tells Xiaohua2 that Xiaoqiang3 looks down upon On the Bouchard-type analysis, the long-distance ziji in (4.9a)-(4.12a) is a Pronominal. As such, we would expect that (4.9a)-(4.12a) are well formed under the indicated interpretation. But this is clearly contrary to fact. Thus, we are owed a reasonable account of why the long-distance ziji in (4.9a)-(4.12a), unlike the real Pronominal ta in (4.9b)-(4.1 lb) and tamen in (4.12b), cannot undergo topicalisation, cannot be coindexed with an NP that is contained in a potential binder, cannot be bound to an object, or cannot take split antecedents. On the other hand, the ungrammaticality of (4.9a)-(4.12a) on the assigned coreference is entirely unexceptional if ziji is an Anaphor rather than a Pronominal: an Anaphor is normally referentially dependent, that is, it does not have any capacity for inherent reference (e.g. Chomsky 1981: 118, Giorgi 1983); the binding of a long-distance Anaphor is normally subjectoriented; an Anaphor is sensitive to the c-command condition; it does not allow split antecedents. Thus, the ungrammaticality of (4.9a)-(4.12a) shows that long-distance ziji behaves like a real Anaphor rather than a Pronominal.7 Furthermore, given this analysis, the vital question of when ziji is predicted to be a true Anaphor (i.e. to be bound in its local domain) and when it is predicted to be a Pronominal in disguise (i.e. to be bound outside its local domain) remains unanswered. Unless there is independent evidence to suggest otherwise (as seems implausible given the array of syntactic tests above), to argue that a long-distance reflexive is a Pronominal simply because it violates binding condition A is circular.

4.4.2

Long-distance ziji as an Anaphor of a special kind

Alternatively, long-distance (but not local) ziji might be treated as an Anaphor of a special kind. For example, one might argue, following Iatridou's (1986) analysis of o idhios in Modern Greek, that ziji, like aapan in Marathi (Wali 1979, Bremen 1984),t_aanin Malayalam (Mohanan 1982) and zich in Dutch (Everaert 1991), is a wide-domain Anaphor. A wide-domain Anaphor, according to Iatridou, should be regulated by a

Long-distance reflexivisation 83 newly postulated binding condition D or something of the kind (see also Koster 1984b, Wang & Stillings 1984, Thrainsson 1991: 66, Everaert 1991).8 (4.13)

Iatridou's binding condition D A wide-domain Anaphor is bound in its matrix sentence, but free in its GC.

This seems to work for man in Malayalam. In (4.14), we seem to have an Anaphor that is free in its GC but bound in its matrix sentence, as predicted by binding condition D. (4.14)

(Yang 1983) Moohani tanne^/2/3 nulli enns amma2 acchanoota Mohan self pinched that mother father parannnu enna raajaawin93 toonni. said that king felt 'The king3 felt that the mother2 told the father that Mohan! pinched him3/her2.'

However, when we come to Chinese, we find that this analysis is problematic. The distribution of long-distance ziji is not consistent with binding condition D, for long-distance ziji need not necessarily be bound in its matrix sentence; it can be A-bound by the topic of a topic-comment construction, as in (4.15), and it can also pick up an antecedent from the previous discourse, as in (4.16). (4.15)

Xiaomingi zuiba guan bu zhuzijii, Xiaoming mouth control not RV self 0i shetou ye guan bu zhuzijii. tongue also control not RV self 'Xiaomingi, mouth cannot control self 1, tongue cannot control selfx, either.'

(4.16)

0 ting le Lao Wang de fayan, Lao Li xinli yizhen bu hear PFV Lao Wang MM speech Lao Li heart a burst not gaoxing. Zhexie hua fenming shi chong zhe ziji happy these remarks clearly SD- aimed at DUR self lai de. RV-SD 'Having listened to Wang's speech, Lii was not happy. Those remarks were clearly aimed at

84

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

Secondly, as in the Bouchard-type analysis, this account too is incapable of predicting when ziji is a narrow-domain Anaphor and when it is a wide-domain Anaphor. Furthermore, both analyses, which posit that there are two homonymous zijis (one long- and one shortdistance), are metatheoretically undesirable; it runs contrary to the metatheoretical desideratum known as 'Occam's eraser' or 'modified Occam's razor' (cf. section 3.3 of chapter 3). The homonymy solution should be resorted to only when every attempt to give a unified account of ziji fails.

4A3

Ziji uniformly as a bound Pronominal

Next, there is the third GB option: appealing to an analysis by Fukui (1984) and Ueda (1984) of zibun in Japanese, one might wish to treat ziji uniformly as a bound Pronominal. But considerable problems would arise in connection with this analysis. First, the same evidence that has been adduced to argue against treating long-distance ziji as a Pronominal on the basis of examples like (4.9a)-(4.12a) can also be used to argue against this analysis. Once again, proponents of the (bound) Pronominal analysis are faced with the task of explaining satisfactorily why ziji in (4.17a)-(4.20a), unlike ta in (4.17b)-(4.19b) and tamen in (4.20b), cannot be bound out of a topic, cannot be coindexed with an NP contained in a potential binder, cannot be anteceded by an object, or cannot have split antecedents. (4.17)a. * Xiaoqiangi, Xiaoming2 piping le zijii. Xiaoqiang Xiaoming criticise PFV self 'Xiaoqiangi, Xiaoming2 criticised himi.' b. Xiaoqiangi Xiaoming2 piping le taj. Xiaoqiang Xiaoming criticise PFV 3SG 'Xiaoqiang!, Xiaoming2 criticised him!.' (4.18)a. *Xiaomingi de didi2 kanbuqi zijij. Xiaoming MM younger brother look down upon self 'Xiaoming'si brother 2 looks down upon himi.' b. Xiaomingi de didi2 kanbuqi taj. Xiaoming MM younger brother look down upon 3SG 'Xiaoming'si brother 2 looks down upon

Long-distance reflexivisation

85

(4.19)a. *Xiaomingi gei Xiaohua2 ziji2 de hua. Xiaoming give Xiaohua self MM painting 'Xiaomingi gave Xiaohua 2 his2 painting.' b. Xiaomingi gei Xiaohua2 ta 2 de hua. Xiaoming give Xiaohua 3SG MM painting 'Xiaomingi gave Xiaohua 2 his2 painting.' (4.20)a. *Xiaomingi gaosu Xiaohua 2 ziji{i.2} de fenshu. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua self MM mark 'Xiaomingi tells Xiaohua 2 their{1?2} marks.' b. Xiaomingi gaosu Xiaohua 2 tamenji2} de fenshu. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua 3PL MM mark 'Xiaomingi tells Xiaohua 2 their {1,2} marks.' The non-Pronominal nature of ziji in these cases receives further confirmation from considerations of (4.21). (4.21)a. Xiaoming bu xihuan ziji de xuexiao, Xiaoming not like self MM school Xiaohua ye bu xihuan 0. Xiaohua too not like 'Xiaomingi does not like hisi school, and Xiaohua 2 does not like his2 school, either.' b. Xiaoming bu xihuan ta de xuexiao, Xiaoming not like 3SG MM school Xiaohua ye bu xihuan 0. Xiaohua too not like 'Xiaoming! does not like hisi school, and Xiaohua 2 does not like hisi/2 school, either.' In this example, while ta in (4.21b) allows both a bound-variable (i.e. sloppy) and a pragmatic-coreference (i.e. strict) interpretation, ziji in (4.21a) allows a bound-variable interpretation only. This contrast, which has long been used as a diagnostic for differentiating between Anaphors and Pronominals in GB, again strongly indicates that ziji really is an Anaphor here. Secondly, on the (bound) Pronominal hypothesis, even such examples as (4.22) would have to be treated as exceptional.

86

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(4.22)

Xiaoming piping le ziji. Xiaoming criticise PFV self 'Xiaoming criticised himself.'

This is a very undesirable situation, as both long- and short-distance use of ziji represent equally well-formed cases of binding in Chinese, and neither should be excluded from the core. Therefore, any adequate account of the distribution of ziji should treat ziji in examples like (4.22) as unmarked and non-exceptional, at least as far as binding is concerned. Thirdly, given that a bound Pronominal is a Pronominal, we would expect that it falls under binding condition B. But all binding condition B does is to impose some negative binding requirements on the choice of antecedent for a Pronominal: it specifies only where a Pronominal should be free, but not if and where it should be bound. Given that this is the case, the question of why and how ziji must normally be somewhat referentially dependent (or bound) needs an explanation (see also Sportiche 1986 for further arguments against treating zibun as a bound Pronominal).

4.4.4

Ziji uniformly as a Pronominal Anaphor

Still another avenue to explore would be to argue, in the spirit of Chomsky (1982b: 78), Mohanan (1982), Wang & Stillings (1984), BokBennema (1984), Koster (1987), Bickerton (1987), Battistella & Xu (1990), Everaert (1991), Thranisson (1991), among others, that ziji is a nominal expression in its own right: it shares neither the distribution nor the properties of either a pure Pronominal or a pure Anaphor; rather it combines properties that are normally associated with a pure Pronominal only or with a pure Anaphor only. Considered in this way, ziji could then be characterised as an overt Pronominal Anaphor with the feature matrix [ +Anaphor, + Pronominal]. However, if such an analysis were correct, ziji would be wrongly predicted to be ungoverned. The reason is exactly the same as for its null analogue, i.e. PRO. Being a Pronominal Anaphor, ziji would have to be subject to both binding conditions A and B. It follows, therefore, that if it has a GC, it must be both bound and free in it - a contradiction that is irreconcilable. Hence, by reductio ad absurdum, ziji cannot have a GC and therefore must be ungoverned.9 To this it might be objected that, despite our arguments to the contrary, ziji could in fact be a Pronominal Anaphor. This is because

Long-distance reflexivisation

87

given that the binding domains for Anaphors and for Pronominals do not always coincide (cf. section 2.4.1 of chapter 2) and that binding condition A could apply to ziji in its Anaphoric binding domain and binding condition B, to ziji in its Pronominal binding domain, ziji, being a Pronominal Anaphor, could then be licensed in positions in which the two binding domains are distinct. By way of illustration, consider (4.23). (4.23)

Zhang Xiansheng shuo ziji shi hua hua de.10 Zhang Mr say self be draw picture NOM 'Mr Zhang! says that hei is a painter.'

Now, given C.-T. J. Huang's (1983) definition of GC, repeated here in (4.24), the embedded subject position of (4.23) is a position in which the two binding domains are distinct (the Anaphoric binding domain being the matrix sentence and the Pronominal binding domain being the embedded clause). Therefore, ziji in that position could be treated as a Pronominal Anaphor. (4.24)

C.-T. J. Huang's definition of GC a is a GC for P if and only if a is the minimal category containing (3, a governor of P, and a SUBJECT that, if P an Anaphor, is accessible to p.

There are, however, serious problems attaching to this analysis. First, the fact that ziji can be left unbound within its matrix sentence turns out to be unexplained under this account: if ziji were a Pronominal Anaphor, it would be expected to be free in the embedded clause but bound in the matrix sentence (cf. Iatridou's binding condition D). Besides examples (4.15) and (4.16) above, where ziji is A-bound by a sentence and a discourse topic respectively, we have the following. (4.25)

Yeye shuo ziji zui liaojie ziji. grandpa say self most know self 'Grandpa! says that hei/one knows himselfi/oneself best.'

Example (4.25) contains two occurrences of ziji: the second is bound by the first, but the first can either be bound by the matrix subject or take an arbitrary interpretation. Clearly, the arbitrary reading would be wrongly ruled out if ziji is taken to be a Pronominal Anaphor. Secondly and more importantly, ev^n if this analysis could be maintained for examples such as (4.23), it certainly cannot be a general

88

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

solution to the problems ziji has caused for binding theory. On the assumption that a Pronominal Anaphor can occur only in positions in which the two binding domains are distinct, ziji in examples such as (4.22) above and (4.26) below cannot be characterised as a Pronominal Anaphor, since the position in which ziji occurs in these examples is one that has the (embedded) clause as both the Anaphoric and the Pronominal binding domain.11 (4.26)

Xiaoming danxin mama you yao zeguai ziji le. Xiaoming worry mum again will blame self CRS 'Xiaoming! is worried that Mum2 will blame himi/herself2 again.'

Summarising this section, we have seen that ziji cannot be reclassified as either a Pronominal (bound or unbound) or a Pronominal Anaphor, whether uniformly or when used in a long-distance way.12 4.5

The second Government and Binding strategy: modification of binding theory

We come next to the second GB strategy, namely to treat long-distance reflexives as Anaphors and to readjust the standard version of binding theory so that they can be accommodated by binding condition A. Under this strategy, three types of solution have presented themselves: (i) to amend the notion of local domain in terms of GC or complete functional complex (CFC), i.e. the smallest maximal category containing all the grammatical functions compatible with its head (Chomsky 1986a: 169); (ii) to add language-particular constraints to binding condition A; and (iii) to propose LF-movement. Let us consider each of them in turn. 4.5.1

Abandonment, expansion and parameterisation of local domain

Abandonment of local domain

The first line of approach is to redefine local domain for ziji, with minimal changes in the standard binding conditions (e.g. Chomsky 1981: 211, Yang 1983, Anderson 1986, Manzini & Wexler 1987). One solution might simply be to argue that either there is no GC in Chinese for lack of Agr (Yang 1983, see also Progovac 1992) or there is no GC for ziji when

Long-distance reflexivisation

89

used in a long-distance way (Giorgi 1983). Consequently, the locality condition required by binding condition A becomes a red herring. Viewed from a GB perspective, however, this line of analysis is very undesirable: it would amount to saying that there is no structurally definable domain for long-distance binding of ziji. (For a critique of Giorgi's analysis relating to Chinese, see Tang 1989.)

Expansion of local domain An alternative is to expand local domain for ziji. This is essentially the position taken by e.g. C.-T. J. Huang (1983), Wang & Stillings (1984) and Battistella & Xu (1990). C.-T. J. Huang, for example, modifies the definition of GC to the effect that the presence of an accessible SUBJECT is relevant to an Anaphor but irrelevant to a Pronominal. This has the consequence that the GC for Anaphors is larger than the GC for Pronominals, as we have already seen (cf. section 2.4.1 of chapter 2). The widening of GC seems to have some empirical benefits. Consider, for example, (4.27). By C.-T. J. Huang's definition in (4.24), the GC for ziji in (4.27) is not the embedded clause but the matrix sentence, because the matrix sentence is the only category that contains an accessible SUBJECT.

(4.27)

Xiaomei juede ziji zui piaoliang. Xiaomei feel self most beautiful 'Xiaomeii thinks that shei is most beautiful.'

Suppose, then, subject orientation is stipulated in an appropriately parameterised binding condition A, as in the form of (4.28) (e.g. C.-T. J. Huang 1982, Mohanan 1982, Anderson 1986, Wexler & Manzini 1987, Battistella & Xu 1990), it will then be predicted that ziji in (4.27) be bound to the matrix subject in its GC - a prediction that is intuitively correct. (4.28)

An Anaphor is bound to a subject in its GC.

However, examples like (4.26) above and (4.29) below will pose problems for such an account.

90

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(4.29)

Lao Zhou yiwei Lao Ma bu zhidao ziji qu guo Meiguo. Lao Zhou think Lao Ma not know self go EXP America 'Zhoui thinks that Ma2 does not know that he 1/2 has been to America.'

Now, by the same analysis, only the embedded subject and the intermediate subject would be permitted to be the binder for ziji in (4.26) and (4.29) respectively. This is because given the definition of GC in (4.24), the GC for (4.26) would be the embedded clause, and that for (4.29) would be the intermediate clause. It follows, therefore, that ziji would have to be bound in its respective GC, but as the indexing indicates, it is possible (and in fact preferable) for ziji to be bound to the remote subject outside their GCs in (4.26) and (4.29). What, then, can a GB theorist do to tackle these counterexamples? Of course, he could expand the local domain for ziji again. Wang & Stillings (1984), for example, argue that the local domain for ziji should consist of the root GC, i.e. the entire root sentence. However, a move of this kind would encounter some difficulties. First, the notion of root GC would allow equal binding to any subject (in an appropriately defined command relation), and consequently, it could not accommodate the maximality effect. As an illustrating example, take (4.30). (4.30)

Xiaoming yiwei Xiaohua danxin mama you Xiaoming think Xiaohua worry mum again yao zeguai ziji le. will blame self CRS 'Xiaoming 1 thinks that Xiaohua 2 is worried that Mum 3 will blame himi/herself3/him2 again.'

In this example, there are three possible antecedents for ziji, but they are not on an equal footing: the intermediate subject is the least preferred binder. However, this fact is left unexplained under Wang and Stillings's account. As a way to accommodate the maximality effect, Battistella & Xu (1990) stipulate that the local domain for ziji should be the narrow (i.e. the standard minimal) GC and the root GC but nothing in between. But this move is quite counter-productive: it incorrectly rules out the possibility that the intermediate subject can in principle also be a binder (though a dispreferred one). Secondly, the local domain for ziji may not be limited to the root GC. The reason is that (as we have already seen) ziji can also be A-bound: for example, it can be A-bound by the topic of a

Long-distance reflexivisation

91

topic-comment construction (4.15). In addition, it can also be A-bound by the head of a relative clause (4.31). (4.31)

Xiaoming xihuan [[0 biaoyang ziji de] ren]. Xiaoming like praise self MM person 'Xiaoming! likes those2 who praise hinii/themselves2.'

Example (4.31) contains a relative clause whose head is ren 'person'. As indicated by the indexing, ziji can be either A- or A-bound, that is, it can be coindexed either with Xiaoming or ren. However, it is difficult to perceive how A-binding of ziji involving topicalisation and relativisation can be dealt with by enlarging the GC in an elegant way. Worse still, ziji can also take a long-distance antecedent from the previous discourse. The following is yet another example of discourse-binding of ziji.13 (4.32)

(adapted from C.-T. J. Huang 1984) A: Jingli pai mei pai ren lai? manager send not send people come B: Mei, ziji ye mei lai. no self too not come A: 'Did the manager 1 send anyone?' B: 'No, hei didn't come, either.'

Here, as C.-T. J. Huang himself (1984: 551) is aware, ziji is bound by the discourse topic jingli 'manager'. Clearly, from a GB standpoint, the expansion of GC simply has to stop when it goes beyond the root sentence. Therefore, the way is open to suggest that there is no structurally definable domain (at least) for part of the domain in which ziji can occur. Thirdly, the expansion of GC has the consequence that a principled way for defining GC is lost. The paradox seems to be that in some cases, the most deeply embedded clause remains the GC, whereas in others, the intermediate clause or even the matrix clause becomes the GC. Finally, given that the GC is enlarged, there will be more than one potential antecedent for ziji in it. The problem that arises next will be the question of selecting one out of a number of potential antecedents for ziji within its GC. This, of course, may not be a problem for binding condition A or any extension of such a syntactic rule. Nevertheless, the fact that the selection issue does not fall within the scope of core grammar shows that a syntactic theory per se is not adequate to long-distance reflexivisation. since it leaves one of the central issues untackled.

92

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

Parameterisation of local domain A third possibility might be to redefine the concept of local domain in a more radical way. Manzini and Wexler (Manzini & Wexler 1987, Wexler & Manzini 1987), for example, suggest parameterising the notion of GC and of proper antecedent by way of a subset principle, the values of which yield set-theoretically nested languages. More specifically, they define the notion of GC in terms of a set of five parametric values, as in (4.33): (4.33)

Manzini and Wexler's definition of GC y is a GC for a if and only if y is the minimal category that contains a and a governor for a and (a) can have a subject or, for a Anaphoric, has a subject P,

P # a; or (b) has an Infl; or (c) has a Tense; or (d) has a 'referential' Tense; or (e) has a 'root' Tense; if, for a Anaphoric, the subject P', P' ^ oc, of y, and of every category dominating a and not y, is accessible to oc. Now, it is claimed that a language can choose among these parametric options for its GC. Thus, the GC for himself, each other and he in English is supposed to be determined by value (a); that for se in Italian, by value (b); that for hann in Icelandic, by value (c); that for sig in Icelandic, by value (d); and that for ziji in Chinese, zibun in Japanese and caki in Korean, by value (e). Furthermore, it is claimed that a strict settheoretical relation among languages associated with these values (i.e. L(a), . . . , L(e)) can be obtained as follows. (4.34)

(a) For Anaphors L(a) c L(b) C L(c) c L(d) C L(e) (b) For Pronominals L(e) c L(d) c L(c) C L(b) c L(a)

Coming back to Chinese, what value (e) basically says is that the GC for ziji is any minimal category that contains ziji, a governor for ziji and a 'root' tense. Furthermore, for a root sentence to qualify as the GC for ziji, not only the subject of that sentence but the subject of any intervening clause must be accessible to it.

Long-distance reflexivisation

93

While Manzini and Wexler's parametric variation of GC constitutes an advance upon previous analyses, it has some undesirable consequences, both empirical and conceptual. Empirically, Manzini and Wexler's definition of GC makes incorrect predictions. First, it says nothing about the blocking effect. Below is an example showing this effect. (4.35)

Xiaoming shuo ni kanbuqi ziji. Xiaoming say 2SG look down upon self 'Xiaoming says that you look down upon yourself.'

What happens here is that the disagreement of person feature between the intervening binder (i.e. the local subject) and the target binder (i.e. the root subject) blocks long-distance binding. Both subjects are accessible to ziji, but only the local subject can be its binder. If the GC is the root sentence, then why can ziji not be bound to the root subject? Secondly, Manzini and Wexler's definition of GC does not consider the maximality effect. This is the phenomenon displayed by examples like (4.2e) and (4.30) above. In these sentences with three clauses, the intermediate subject is the least preferred binder. However, this is left unexplained by Manzini and Wexler's definition of GC (or their proper antecedent parameter). Of course, one immediate objection to these arguments might be that the blocking and maximality effects are simply the idiosyncrasies of binding in Chinese and as such should be dealt with in terms of language-particular devices (e.g. Tang 1989, about which, see the next section) rather than in terms of a parameterised definition of GC. But examples of the following kind would make such an attempt a very dubious enterprise. (4.36)

Kanshou baogao shuo taofan kai qiang guard report say escaped prisoner open fire dasi le ziji. kill PFVself T h e guard] reported that the escaped prisoner2 had shot himsehV

According to the definition of GC given by Manzini and Wexler in (4.33), (4.36) has a GC. This is the matrix sentence. It is the minimal category that contains ziji, a governor for ziji and a 'root' Tense. Furthermore, both the matrix subject and the local subject are accessible to ziji. Therefore, ziji is expected to be bound either to the matrix subject

94

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

or the local subject. But this clearly is not the case with the matrix subject, as our knowledge about the world tells us. Once again, if the GC is the root clause, why can ziji not be bound to the matrix subject? Thirdly, Manzini and Wexler's definition of GC is also problematic with Abinding of ziji involving topicalisation and relativisation, as in examples (4.15) and (4.31) above. Given that the GC is limited to the root sentence, A-binding of ziji is left unaccommodated. Consider, next, (4.37). (4.37)

Xiaoming bu xihuan ziji chuixu ziji. Xiaoming not like self boast self 'Xiaoming does not like boasting himself/self-boasting.'

By the same line of reasoning, the GC for ziji in (4.37) is the matrix sentence. As such, we should expect ziji be bound in the matrix sentence. But, as the indexing shows, (4.37) is ambiguous: ziji can be either Abound or not bound at all. Clearly, the arbitrary reading in (4.37) evidences against Manzini and Wexler's definition of GC. Finally, further evidence against Manzini and Wexler's definition of GC comes from discourse-binding of ziji. As examples (4.16) and (4.32) above show, ziji can take a long-distance antecedent in the previous discourse. The same appears to be true of zibun in Japanese, caki in Korean and sig in Icelandic. Following is an example from Korean (Kang 1988). (4.38)

A: ne John-eykeyse pillyeo-n chayk-lul po-ass-ni? you John from borrow-REL book-ACC see-PAST-INT John-i kukes-lul chac-te-la. John-NOM it-ACC look for-RETRO-DECL B: nay-ka imi caki-uy tongsaying-eykey I-NOM already self-POSS brother-DAT tollyecwu-ass-e. return-PAST-DECL A: 'Did you see the book which (I) borrowed from Jornii? (I remember that) Johnj was looking for it.' B: 'I have already returned it to hisx brother.'

Next, from a theoretical point of view, Manzini and Wexler's parameterisation of GC has unwelcome consequences as well. One such consequence is that the definition of GC has to be parameterised not only for reflexives in different languages, but also for Anaphors and

Long-distance reflexivisation

95

Pronominals, different types of Anaphors (reflexives and reciprocals), and even different forms of reflexives, in a given language. Thus, according to Manzini & Wexler (1987: 423-4), the GCs for the reflexive sig, the pronoun hann, and the reciprocal hvor annar in Icelandic are distinct: the GC for sig is associated with value (d); that for hann, with value (c); and that for hvor annar, with value (a). The same is also true of, say, Japanese and Italian. In Japanese, while the reflexive zibun follows value (e), the pronoun kare and the reciprocal otagai obey value (a). Finally, in Italian, while the reflexive se stesso (together with the pronoun lui and the reciprocal Fun Valtro) falls under value (a), the reflexive se is subject to value (b). This would raise a number of conceptual problems. One such problem, noted by Kang (1988) in connection with the Korean reflexive caki and reciprocal selo is the question of why reflexives and reciprocals and even different forms of reflexives need different GCs. Clearly, as Kang rightly points out, the original conceptual grounds in GB for separating the GCs for Anaphors from the GCs for Pronominals do not seem to hold here: unlike Pronominals, Anaphors by definition are in need of an antecedent. Furthermore, to stipulate a GC for a particular Anaphor or Pronominal in a given language would be a significant departure from the standard position taken in GB with respect to parameter setting, namely a principle or concept that is defined by a general theory of UG can allow only a small range of parametric options, among which individual languages may choose (McCloskey 1988): the kind of parameterisation we have seen would render the definition of GC vacuous as a concept of UG. Finally, even if Manzini and Wexler's parameterisation of GC could be empirically maintained, there would still remain the question of why GCs are different in different languages, different for different anaphoric expressions, and even different for different forms of Anaphors and of reflexives in a given language. To sum up, the domain in which ziji can be anteceded is not restricted to the root sentence. This would make any attempt to expand and parameterise the syntactically definable binding domain a very dubious enterprise. It would force a GB theorist to posit three different binding domains for ziji: a local domain, characterised by the minimal (accessible) subject (i.e. the specified subject condition); a mediumdistance domain, characterised by the minimal finite Infl (i.e. the tensed sentence condition); and a long-distance domain, characterised by logophoricity (to be elucidated later) (e.g. Reuland & Koster 1991: 23, Reinhart & Reuland 1991: 284, Reinders-Machowska 1991). However,

96

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

a move like this clearly is both conceptually and empirically undesirable.

4.5.2

Ad hoc supplementation of language-specific devices

Tang (1989) considers another line of approach to reflexivisation in Chinese, suggesting that binding condition A be supplemented with some language-specific devices. In her analysis, there are two types of reflexive in Chinese: a local reflexive with the compound (i.e. integrated) form of pronoun + ziji or pro + ziji and a long-distance reflexive derived from the local reflexive pro + ziji. The former is converted into the latter by the application first of an optional feature-copying rule (inspired in part by Everaert 1986) that copies the cp-features of pro to ziji, turning it into a long-distance ziji, and then of an obligatory iterative reindexing rule that reindexes the long-distance ziji up to the subject of the root sentence. These two language-specific rules are given in (4.39) and (4.40) respectively. (4.39)

The feature-copying rule The pro in a pro + ziji Anaphoric reflexive may transfer its features to ziji after the application of binding theory, thus turning ziji into a long-distance reflexive.

(4.40)

The reindexing rule Reindex the long-distance reflexive (that is, one to which binding theory has applied) with the potential antecedent of the next higher GC.

Thus, on this account, while the local reflexive is subject to binding condition A, the long-distance reflexive is subject to the reindexing rule. Furthermore, in order to accommodate the relaxation of c-command, Tang stipulates a sub-command condition, to which both the local- and long-distance reflexives are required to be subject. This condition is given as follows in the form of Huang & Tang (1991). (4.41)

The sub-command condition (a) (3 sub-commands oc if and only if |3 is contained in an NP that c-commands a or that sub-commands a, and any argument containing P is in subject position.

Long-distance reflexivisation

97

(b) A reflexive a may take an NP p as its binder if (i) P sub-commands a, and (ii) there is no NP y, y a potential binder for a, such that y is closer to a than P is. (c) A potential binder for a is any NP that satisfies all conditions of being a binder of a except that it is not yet coindexed with a. Let us now focus on Tang's two language-particular devices, the reindexing rule and the sub-command condition, and see how successful they are in accounting for the blocking effect and the c-command relaxation. In Tang's analysis, the agreement of cp-features is required to trigger the cyclic reindexing rule to allow long-distance binding of ziji (see also Burzio 1991 for the notion of pseudo-agreement). However, as Tang herself is aware, gender and number sometimes may simply be irrelevant, as can be seen in (4.42) and (4.43) respectively. (4.42)

Wang Xiansheng yiwei Xu Xiaojie ai shang le ziji. Wang Mr think Xu Miss love RV PFV self 'Mr Wang! thinks that Miss Xu 2 has fallen in love with herself2.'

(4.43)

(Tang 1989) Ta zhidao tamen dui ziji mei xinxin. 3SG know 3PL to self have no confidence 'Hei knows that they2 have no confidence in himi/themselves2.'

We would expect, on the feature-matching hypothesis, that the longdistance binding of ziji in (4.42) and (4.43) should be blocked, for the local and long-distance antecedents do not agree in (p-features: the gender agreement is violated in (4.42) and the number agreement, in (4.43). But long-distance binding of ziji is licit here. One solution might simply be to say that neither gender nor number is an agreement feature in Chinese (Battistella 1989). However, this would leave examples such as (4.44) to be explained, where the mismatching of the number feature between the local and the remote subject is responsible for the blocking of longdistance reflexivisation.

98

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(4.44)

(Tang 1989) Tamen zhidao ta dui ziji mei xinxin. 3PL know 3SG to self have no confidence 'They know that he has no confidence in himself.'

More problematic for Battistella's proposal is the fact that occasionally even the person feature, which in general has a higher weight than either the gender or the number feature, may also be irrelevant, as in (4.45). (4.45)

Zongtong qing wo zuo zai ziji de shenbian. president ask 1SG sit at self MM side The president asks me to sit beside him.'

An alternative escape route, pursued by Tang, is to argue that examples like (4.43) and (4.45) are syntactically ungrammatical but pragmatically acceptable. However, as we saw in section 2.5.3 of chapter 2, the pursuit of this escape route is both theoretically and methodologically suspect. Next, the feature-matching condition is not sufficient for the triggering of long-distance binding of ziji, either. For example: (4.46) a. Chen Xiansheng renwei Liu Xiansheng tai kuangwang, Chen Mr think Liu Mr too arrogant 0 zongshi kanbuqi ziji. always look down upon self 'Mr Chen! thinks that Mr Liu2 is too arrogant, and (he2) always looks down upon him!.' b. Chen Xiansheng renwei Liu Xiansheng tai zibei, Chen Mr think Liu Mr too self-abased 0 zongshi kanbuqi ziji. always look down upon self 'Mr Cheni thinks that Mr Liu2 is too self-critical, and (he2) always looks down upon himself2.' Here, the feature-matching requirement between the antecedents and the reflexive ziji is satisfied, yet contrary to Tang's (1989: 113) claim that 'any NP, third person or non-third person, can act as a long-distance antecedent, as long as it satisfies the feature-matching requirement between antecedents and reflexives', ziji can only refer to Mr Chen in (4.46a) and Mr Liu in (4.46b), given the context. All this seems to indicate

Long-distance reflexivisation

99

that the cp-feature matching condition may not be as firmly grammaticalised as one might have thought. Next, we move on to Tang's sub-command condition. This constraint is designed to characterise the conditions under which the c-command condition can be relaxed and upon the relaxation of c-command to impose new configurational restrictions.14 What, then, are the conditions under which the c-command condition can be relaxed? Generally speaking, the c-command condition can be relaxed only in cases where the antecedent is contained in a c-commanding NP that itself is not a binder due to inanimacy. By way of illustration, consider (4.47). (4.47)

(Tang 1989) [[[Zhangsani de] baba2 de] qian^ bei ziji2 de Zhangsan MM father MM money BEI self MM pengyou tou zou le. friend steal RV PFV 'Zhang'si father's2 money was stolen by his2 friend.'

Here, NP 3 is not a potential binder of ziji, because it is inanimate. On the other hand, NP 2 is a potential binder of ziji, since it is a subject, it is animate, it sub-commands ziji (it is a subject contained in an NP that ccommands ziji, and the argument containing it is in subject position), and it is not contained in a potential binder.15 By the sub-command condition, NP 2 but not NP! is predicted to be a binder for ziji - a prediction that is borne out. By the same reasoning, we can also provide an account of the violation of the c-command condition in the following examples. (4.48)a. Xiaoming de taidu shi ziji jue bu ren cuo. Xiaoming MM attitude be self EMP not admit mistake 'Xiaoming's! attitude is that hei will never admit he! is wrong.' b. (Icelandic, Thrainsson 1991) Skodun Siggu er ad sig vanti haefileika. opinion Sigga's is that self lacks talent 'Sigga'si opinion is that shei lacks talent.' c. (Malayalam, Mohanan 1982) Moohante wiswaasam taan dhiiranaans enna aana. Mohan's belief self brave is that is 'Mohan'si belief is that hei is brave.'

100

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

However, when we come to examples of the following kind, the subcommand condition would run into trouble. (4.49)

[[Xiamingi de] mao]2 ba ziji xia le yi tiao. Xiaoming MM cat BA self frighten PFV one 'Xiaoming's! cat 2 has frightened himi/itself2.'

Here, NP 2 is a binder. Consequently, by Tang's sub-command condition, NP t cannot be a binder, because it is contained in an NP that is itself a binder. But this is contrary to fact. NP! is in fact the preferred binder. The key point to note here is that NPi is more animate than NP 2 . By the animacy condition, Xiaoming is more likely to be picked up by ziji as its binder. This seems to indicate that in examples of this kind the choice of antecedent is also affected by a semantically-oriented animacy hierarchy. We will return to this issue in section 6.6 of chapter 6. What is perhaps more interesting is that the sub-command condition has to be further relaxed to allow for pragmatic factors. While the condition correctly accounts for (4.47) above, it makes the wrong prediction for (4.50). (4.50)

[[[Xiaomingi (de)] fuqin2 de] turan qushi]3 dui Xiaoming MM father MM sudden death to ziji daji hen zhong. self strike a blow very heavily 'Xiaoming'si father's 2 sudden death struck a heavy blow on

Again, NP 3 in (4.50) is not a potential binder, because it is inanimate. On the other hand, according to the sub-command definition, NP 2 is a potential binder. However, given our knowledge about the world, NP 2 cannot be the antecedent of ziji. It should be clear from the foregoing that while the sub-command condition is syntactic in nature, the conditions under which the c-command condition is relaxed and the sub-command condition is activated are semantic (e.g. animacy) and/or pragmatic (e.g. world knowledge) in nature. There is thus clear evidence that in imposing configurational restrictions on possible antecedents for ziji, syntax and semantics/pragmatics interact with each other. Finally, from a theoretical point of view, as Battistella (1989) has noted, Tang's analysis leaves a number of important conceptual questions unanswered. For example, why should the copying of the

Long-distance reflexivisation

101

(p-features of a pro-prefix have the effect of turning pro + ziji into a long-distance ziji, why should feature-copying trigger reindexing, and why should reindexing mimic the subject orientation of binding of zijil 4.5.3

Postulation of movement at logical form

The third line of approach under the modification-of-binding-theory strategy can be found in Lebeaux (1983), Chomsky (1986a), Pica (1987), Battistella (1989), Huang & Tang (1989, 1991), Cole, Hermon & Sung (1990), Katada (1991), Reinhart & Reuland (1991) and Hestvik (1992). The basic idea of this approach is to somewhat retain the standard version of binding condition A by proposing LF-movement for reflexives, both long- and short-distance, thus attempting to reduce long-distance reflexivisation to 'a sequence of local dependencies' (Cole, Hermon & Sung 1990: 2). This is, of course, partly reminiscent of various chain analyses, whether in terms of government-chains (e.g. Everaert 1986, Koster 1987, Benedicto 1991) or of I[nfl]-chains (e.g. Steenbergen 1991). Under this approach, there are two types of LF-movement: (i) a local reflexive is adjoined to a position (such as VP) c-commanded by either a subject or an object, and (ii) a long-distance reflexive is raised to a position (such as Infl) c-commanded only by a subject. Thus, one of the main merits of this approach is (claimed to be) that it provides a particularly elegant explanation of subject orientation displayed by longdistance reflexivisation cross-linguistically. Battistella (1989) Let us begin with Battistella's (1989) analysis. Following a suggestion by Lebeaux (1983) and Chomsky (1986a), Battistella suggests that reflexivisation in Chinese be analysed in terms of movement at LF. According to this analysis, to be called the 'movement-to-Infl' analysis, the simplex reflexive ziji (being an X° category) moves into Infl position at LF and the complex reflexive pronoun + ziji (being an XP category) moves into a position that is Chomsky-adjoined to VP at LF. In both cases, movement leaves a trace, as in (4.51) and (4.52) respectively. (4.51)a. Xiaoming zebei le ziji. Xiaoming blame PFV self 'Xiaoming! blamed himself^' b. [Xiaoming ziji-Infl zebei le t]

102

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(4.52)a. Xiaoming zebei le ta ziji. Xiaoming blame PFV 3SG self 'Xiaoming! blamed himself 1/2.' b. [Xiaoming Infl ta ziji-zebei le t] Long-distance binding of ziji is then treated as the result of cyclic headto-head movement of ziji from Infl to Infl. Thus, the S-structures in (4.53a) and (4.54a) will yield their corresponding LF-structures in (4.53bc) and (4.54b-d) respectively. (4.53)

a. [NP Infl . . . [NP Infl . . . [ziji Infl V]]] b. [NP Infl . . . [NP ziji-Infl . . . [t-Infl V]]] c. [NP ziji-Infl . . . [NP t'-Infl . . . [t-Infl V]]]

(4.54)

a. b. c. d.

[NP [NP [NP [NP

Infl . . . Infl . . . Infl . . . ziji-Infl

[NP Infl . . . [NP Infl V ziji]]] [NP Infl . . . [NP ziji-Infl V tffl [NP ziji-Infl . . . [NP t'-Infl V t]]] . . . [NP f-Infl . . . [NP t'-Infl V t]]]

By way of illustration, take (4.55). (4.55)a. Wang Xiansheng yiwei Li Xiansheng huaiyi Wang Mr think Li Mr suspect Xu Xiaojie kanbuqi ziji. Xu Miss look down upon self 'Mr Wang! thinks that Mr Li 2 suspects that Miss Xu 3 looks down upon himi/herself3/him2.' b. [Wang Xiansheng Infl yiwei [Li Xiansheng Infl huaiyi [Xu Xiaojie ziji-Infl kanbuqi t]]] c. [Wang Xiansheng Infl yiwei [Li Xiansheng ziji-Infl huaiyi [Xu Xiaojie t'-Infl kanbuqi t]]] d. [Wang Xiansheng ziji-Infl yiwei [Li Xiansheng t"-Infl huaiyi [Xu Xiaojie t'-Infl kanbuqi t]]] In (4.55), ziji undergoes LF-movement first from the object position of the lowest clause to the Infl position of that clause, and then from the Infl position of the lowest clause to the Infl position of the intermediate clause, and finally from the Infl position of the intermediate clause to the Infl position of the matrix clause. How, then, is ziji interpreted? According to Battistella, it is interpreted at LF (but not at S-structure) in a way similar to how a w/z-operator is interpreted in Chinese.

Long-distance reflexivisation

103

Assuming with Chomsky (1986a: 175) that binding conditions apply at LF, Battistella claims that ziji in (4.55) would be predicted by binding condition A to be bound to a subject in its GC at LF. This is an interesting analysis, but it is not without problems. First, non-subject binding of ziji would be incorrectly ruled out on this account. (4.56)

Laoshi jingchang biaoyang ziji shi Xiaoming hen gaoxing. teacher often praise self make Xiaoming very happy 'That the teacher i often praises him2/himselfi pleases Xiaoming 2 .'

Example (4.56) is a so-called psych-sentence. Various solutions have been put forward in GB to explain the 'special' behaviour of these sentences (e.g. Pesetsky 1987, Belletti & Rizzi 1988). But non-subject binding of ziji is not restricted to psych-sentences, as can be seen by (4.57). (4.57)

Xiaoming wen Xiaohua ziji hui bu hui Yingyu. Xiaoming ask Xiaohua self know not know English 'Xiaoming! asks Xiaohua 2 whether he2/i knows English.'

The sentence in (4.57) is ambiguous, as the indexing indicates. However, given our knowledge about the world, the object binding reading is the preferred interpretation. But it is difficult to see how various solutions proposed for psych-sentences (even if successful) can be applied to examples such as (4.57) to analyse them as obeying subject orientation. Secondly, binding of ziji by an A-antecedent such as the topic of a topic-comment construction and the head of a relative clause would pose considerable problems for Battistella's analysis. Take (4.15), which is repeated as (4.58a), as an example. Under the movement-to-Infl analysis, (4.58a) would give rise to the LF-structure in (4.58b). (4.58)a. Xiaomingi zuiba guan bu zhuzijii, Xiaoming mouth control not RV self 0i shetou ye guan bu zhuzijii. tongue also control not RV self 'Xiaomingi, mouth cannot control selfi, tongue cannot control selfi, either.' b. Xiaoming [zuiba ziji-Infl guan bu zhu t] 0 [shetou ziji-Infl ye guan bu zhu t]

104

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

It follows, then, that by binding condition A, ziji cannot be bound by the topic Xiaoming, which occurs outside its GC - an incorrect consequence. As an attempt to overcome these difficulties, Battistella (1989) follows C.-T. J. Huang (1984) in arguing that subjacency does not obtain at LF in Chinese (cf. note 28 of chapter 1). But then the universal concept of subjacency or barrier would become virtually vacuous (Xu 1990). Anyhow, discourse binding of ziji in examples like (4.16) and (4.32) and arbitrary interpretation of ziji in examples like (4.25) and (4.37) above would also be wrongly excluded on this account, since the escape tactic (even if successful) cannot be applied to these cases. Thirdly, agreement of cp-features between ziji (or the trace of the moved ziji) and its antecedents would represent as much a problem for Battistella as for Tang. In Battistella's analysis, ziji (or the trace of the moved ziji), which retains whatever person feature assigned to it at Dstructure, is assumed to be merged with Agr in Infl at LF. In the process of derivation from S-structure to LF, Agr and the subject of its clause are coindexed by an agreement-checking rule. Long-distance binding of ziji will be blocked if feature agreement between one or more subject-Agr/ trace pairs is not satisfied. However, such an analysis has some difficulties. For one thing, it presupposes that Chinese has Agr in Infl. But this runs counter to the generally accepted GB assumption that there is no Agr in the language. To bypass this problem, Battistella could argue that Chinese has Agr in Infl but Agr in Chinese is morphologically null. But such an escape route would be impossible to pursue in relation to control constructions. Consider (4.59). (4.59)

Xiaoming qingqiu jiejie 0 buyao zai zeguai ziji le. Xiaoming ask elder sister not again blame self CRS 'Xiaoming! asked his elder sister2 02 not to blame himi/herself2 any more.'

On Battistella's (1985) assumption that there is a finite versus nonfinite distinction in Chinese and control constructions are non-finite, control constructions by definition do not contain Agr. This has the immediate consequence that ziji in (4.59) would be left uncoindexed in its GC at LF, since there is no Agr for ziji to be merged with. Furthermore, examples like (4.43), (4.44) and (4.45), discussed earlier in connection with Tang's feature-copying rule, would remain counterexamples to Battistella's agreement-checking rule as well.

Long-distance reflexivisation

105

Fourthly, Battistella, following a suggestion by Chomsky (1986b: 24), stipulates a language-particular rule to allow the (p-features of an animate NP to percolate up to the inanimate NP that contains it. Successful as it is in accounting for the relaxation of c-command in examples like (4.47), the stipulation still fails to give an account of the difference between (4.47) and (4.50). Finally, the question of antecedent choice would also be left undetermined on this account. Under the movement-to-Infl analysis, antecedent choice for ziji is parasitic on the successive-cyclic movement at LF. However, all Infl-to-Infl movement does is to predict that any c- or sub-commanding subject could be a potential binder. Consequently, the actual antecedent for ziji would be left unfixed. This shows once again that a syntactic account is (by design) inadequate in explaining longdistance reflexivisation. Cole, Hermon & Sung (1990) We move next to Cole, Hermon & Sung's (1990) analysis. Building on the analysis of Battistella (1989), Cole, Hermon and Sung propose that longdistance reflexivisation be analysed in terms of Infl-to-Comp-to-Infl movement at LF within Chomsky's (1986b) Barriers framework. The basic idea is that Infl in Chinese is lexical rather than functional, and consequently, it L-marks its VP, which, in turn, L-marks its CP. It follows, therefore, that VP and CP in Chinese are not barriers for movement, and accordingly, ziji can undergo Infl-to-Comp-to-Infl movement at LF. 16 This can be illustrated by a consideration of (4.55). The LF structure of (4.55) is given in (4.60). In (4.60), (assuming that Infl-to-Comp-to-Infl movement for ziji is an instance of head-to-head X° movement (where ziji = N°)), ziji moves first from the object position of IP 3 to I 3 (more accurately, adjoiri^d to I3). No barrier is crossed, because VP 3 is L-marked. Ziji moves next from I 3 to C 3 . Since IP is not a barrier by definition (though it is a blocking category), the movement is no problem. Ziji moves next from C 3 to I 2 . Since both CP 3 and VP 2 are L-marked , no barrier will intervene between C 3 and I 2 , either. In the same way, movement of ziji can continue first from I 2 to C 2 and then from C 2 to Ii. Furthermore, to account for the blocking effect of long-distance binding of ziji, Cole, Hermon & Sung follow essentially Battistella in appealing to the covert agreement of (pfeatures in Infl. Our arguments against Battistella's analysis carry over nicely to this analysis. Non-subject binding of ziji, A-binding of ziji, discourse-binding

106

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

(4.60)

CPi

Spec

C,

IP,

Wang

ziji

V

CP 2

Long-distance reflexivisation

107

of ziji, and agreement of cp-features between ziji and its antecedents all remain to be given a more satisfactory explanation on this account. But one aspect of Cole, Hermon and Sung's analysis deserves further comments. In their analysis, Cole, Hermon and Sung consider the question of how long-distance reflexivisation is licensed in a language. The answer is that long-distance reflexives can occur only in languages in which Infl is lexical and hence VP is not a barrier (but see Sung & Cole 1991). This prediction, however, may not be altogether correct. Conceptually, the assumption that Infl in languages like Chinese, Japanese and Korean is lexical is rather odd, to say the least (cf. note 22 of chapter 2). From an empirical point of view, on the one hand, it says nothing about long-distance reflexivisation in languages like Icelandic (as Cole, Hermon and Sung are aware); on the other, it predicts that long-distance reflexivisation is always impossible in languages like English where Infl is assumed to be functional and hence VP is always a barrier. But this is not true. Though English is not a typical 'long-distance reflexivisation' language, it does allow longdistance binding of reflexives in restricted contexts (e.g. Kuno 1987, Zribi-Hertz 1989, Pollard & Sag 1992, Safir 1992). Huang & Tang (1991) Next, a slightly different analysis is presented in Huang & Tang (1991). Huang and Tang start with the question of what makes an Anaphor into an Anaphor. Borrowing an idea first entertained in Bouchard (1984), they suggest that NPs cannot refer unless they have (p-features. On this view, a complex reflexive like pronoun + ziji lacks only inherent reference, whereas a simplex reflexive like ziji lacks intrinsic cp-features as well, and hence is a 'double' Anaphor (see also Burzio 1991). Since pronoun + ziji already has an (intrinsic) (p-index, it needs only to receive an r[eferential]-index. It acquires the r-index via binding condition A at Sstructure. The r-index assigned at S-structure cannot change at LF, hence ruling out the possibility of long-distance binding of pronoun + ziji. On the other hand, ziji needs both a (p- and an r-index. It is given its (p-index (by the (p-index of an NP in its GC) at S-structure and its r-index (by binding condition A) at LF. At LF, ziji can then undergo successivecyclic movement without its r-index being changed, thus resulting in the possibility of long-distance reflexivisation. However, unlike Battistella (1989), Cole, Hermon & Sung (1990), and Pica (1987, 1991), Huang and Tang assume that the LF-movement involved is not Infl-to-Infl

108

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

movement but A-movement, specially IP-adjunction, and perhaps a case of Q[uantifier]R[aising] (e.g. May 1977, 1985, Katada 1991). Another difference is that Huang and Tang do not assume that subject orientation follows directly from LF-movement. It is clear that Huang and Tang's analysis is to a large extent technically (and terminologically) different but conceptually identical to Battistella's and Cole, Hermon and Sung's analyses. If this is the case, then sentences like (4.16), (4.57) and (4.58) will undermine the case for Huang and Tang's analysis as much as they do the case for Battistella's and Cole, Hermon and Sung's analyses, and I shall not repeat my arguments here. However, there is an interesting idea in Huang and Tang's analysis which deserves further attention. The idea is that the presence or absence of cp-features of a reflexive is responsible for the licensing of long-distance binding: a reflexive with an (intrinsic) cp-index can only be short-distance bound (but notice that pronoun + ziji can be long-distance bound, as in (4.4c)), whereas a reflexive without such an index can be both long- and short-distance bound. This might be taken to suggest that there is a correlation between the lack of cp-features and the possibility of long-distance reflexivisation (see also Burzio 1991). However, before we reach such a conclusion, we need to consider the binding behaviour of complex reflexives of the form self + self, as found in languages such as Japanese (zibun zisin), Korean (caki casin) and Norwegian (seg selv). Clearly, on Huang and Tang's analysis, these reflexives too lack both (p- and r-features. As such, they need to have their cp-index licensed at S-structure and r-index licensed at LF. In other words, we would expect them to be able to participate in long-distance binding. But this is clearly not the case, as can be seen by the following examples from Japanese and Korean. 17 (4.6l)a. (Japanese, Katada 1991) *Johni-ga Bilb-ga Mike3-ni zibun- zisinj-no koto-o John-SB Bill-SB Mike-IO self self-GN matter-DO hanasita to itta. told that said said that Bill2 told Mike 3 about

Long-distance reflexivisation

109

b. (Korean, Cole, Hermon & Sung 1990) *Chelswui-nun Inho2-ka caki-casini-ul Chelswu-TOP Inho-NOM self self- ACC sarangha-n-ta-ko sayngkakha-n-ta. love-PRES-DECL-COMPthink-PRES-DECL 'Chelswui thinks that Inho2 likes Katada (1991) We come finally to Katada's (1991) analysis. On the basis of analysis of Japanese, Katada introduces a threefold typological classification of reflexives according to a two-way contrast relating to locality and subject orientation: (i) long-distance reflexives with subject orientation, (ii) local reflexives with subject orientation, and (iii) local reflexives with no particular orientation. This can be illustrated cross-linguistically in table 4.1. Katada claims that this typology can be accounted for in terms of a three-way contrast regarding Anaphor raising at LF: (i) long-distance raising, (ii) local raising, and (iii) no raising at all. She calls those Ariaphors which can raise operator Anaphors and those which cannot non-operator Anaphors, and argues that the former undergo LF raising to an A-position whereas the latter do not. Subject orientation, on this account, is then a property of Anaphors that involve LF raising. What, then, is the evidence for this analysis? One crucial piece of evidence concerns the contrast binding behaviours of the two types of Anaphor in relation to the connectivity effect. The contrast is that while Table 4.1 Katada's typology of reflexives

Japanese Korean Norwegian Dutch Italian Chinese English

Subject orientation (long-distance)

Subject orientation (local)

No particular orientation (local)

zibun caki seg zich se ziji

zibun zisin caki casin seg selv zich zelf se stesso

kare zisin ku casin ham selv 'm zelf lui stesso ta ziji himself

110

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory

scrambled self + self and pronoun + se/f display connectivity (i.e. allow backward reflexivisation), scrambled self dots not. This can be illustrated by the following examples from Japanese (Katada 1991). (The acceptability judgements are Katada's.) (4.62)

(Katada 1991) ???

Zibuni-o Johni-ga t\ semeta. self-DO John-SB blamed 'Self, John blamed t: b. Zibun-zisini-o Johni-ga t\ semeta. self-self-DO John-SB blamed 'Self-self, John blamed C c. Kare-zisinj-o Johni-ga t\ semeta. he-self-DO John-SB blamed 'Himself, John blamed t" a.

(4.63)a. *Johni-ga Bill2-ni zibun3-o Mike3-ga ti semeta to itta. John-SB Bill-IO self-DO Mike-SB blamed that told 'Johni told Bill2 that self3, Mike 3 blamed / 3 .' b. Johni-ga Bill2-ni zibun-zisin3-o Mike3-ga r3 semeta to itta. John-SB Bill-IO self-self-DO Mike-SB blamed that told 'Johni told Bill2 that self-self3, Mike 3 blamed / 3 .' c. Johni-ga Bil^-ni kare-zisin3-o Mike3-ga f3 semeta to itta. John-SB Bill-IO he-self-DO Mike-SB blamed that told 'Johni told Bill2 that himself3, Mike 3 blamed f3.' In (4.62), the reflexives are locally scrambled from the object position to the sentence-initial position. This gives rise to a contrast in the binding possibilities of zibun zisin and kare zisin on the one hand and zibun on the other: while zibun zisin and kare zisin allow coindexation with the local subject, zibun does not. The same is also true of (4.63), where the reflexives are scrambled from the embedded clause. Whereas zibun zisin and kare zisin can be coreferential with the non-c-commanding subject of the embedded clause, zibun cannot. This contrast, Katada takes to be the crucial evidence for the operator versus non-operator Anaphor distinction. However, similar data from Chinese seem to point to a different conclusion. Unlike zibun in Japanese and caki in Korean, ziji in Chinese clearly displays connectivity. The following examples show that

Long-distance reflexivisation

111

scrambled ziji allows backward reflexivisation. (Note that there is no complex reflexive of the form self + self in Chinese.) (4.64)a. Zijii Xiaomingi zeguai t\ le. self Xiaoming blame CRS 'Self, Xiaoming blamed t" b. Ta zijii Xiaomingi zeguai t\ le. 3SG self Xiaoming blame CRS 'Himself, Xiaoming blamed t" (4.65)a. Xiaomingi gaosu Xiaohua2 ziji3 Xiaoqiang3 zeguai ^3 le. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua self Xiaoqiang blame CRS 'Xiaomingi told Xiaohua 2 that self3, Xiaoqiang 3 had blamed ^3.' b. Xiaomingi gaosu Xiaohua 2 ta ziji3 Xiaoqiang3 zeguai ^ le. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua 3SG self Xiaoqiang blame CRS 'Xiaomingi told Xiaohua 2 that himself3, Xiaoqiang 3 had blamed t3:

This contrast can be related to a more basic contrast between zibun in Japanese and caki in Korean, on the one hand, and ziji in Chinese, on the other: unlike zibun and caki, which are marginal when locally bound, ziji can be both long- and short-distance bound. (4.66)a. (Japanese, Katada 1991) ?

Johni-ga zibuni-o semeta. John-SB self-DO blamed 'John blamed himself.' b. (Korean, Cole, Hermon & Sung 1990) ??

Johni-un cakii-lul miweha-n-ta. John-TOP self-ACC hate-PRES-DECL 'John hates himself.' c. Xiaomingi zeguai le zijii. Xiaoming blame PFV self 'Xiaoming has blamed himself.' All this seems to indicate that ziji may not be an operator Anaphor in the sense of Katada. (For a more radical view against the postulation of LF-movement in Chinese from a GB perspective, see Xu 1990a.)

112 4.6

Anaphora in Government and Binding theory Conclusion

In this chapter, I have examined various extant GB analyses of longdistance reflexivisation in Chinese, and I have demonstrated that they are not adequate. A purely syntactic approach is not sufficient in specifying the domain or the set of possible antecedents for long-distance reflexives. It also has nothing to say about the selection of actual antecedent for a long-distance reflexive or the motivation behind its use. The main problems shared by all the syntactic analyses discussed in the present chapter seem to arise from the fact that they attempt to account for the non-syntactic nature of long-distance reflexivisation in terms of a (parameterised) syntactic theory of binding.

Part II The pragmatics of anaphora

5

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

Probably the most gaping hole in our present understanding of anaphora is the absence of any explicit theory of the pragmatic factors involved. Wasow (1986: 117)

5.1

Introduction

In the last three chapters, I showed that a syntactic approach such as Chomsky's GB theory is inadequate in explaining anaphora in Chinese. In this chapter, I shall develop a pragmatic theory of anaphora within the neo-Gricean framework of conversational implicature. I shall first summarise Dowty's (1980) and Reinhart's (1983a, b, 1986) pragmatic analysis of anaphora in section 5.2. I shall then proceed to discuss, in section 5.3, Levinson's (1987a, b, 1991) three pragmatic accounts of anaphora. Finally, in section 5.4, I shall propose an alternative analysis of anaphora within the same pragmatic framework. In this theory, anaphora is largely determined by the systematic interaction of two neoGricean pragmatic principles, namely the M- and I-principles (in that order of priority), constrained by a Disjoint Reference Presumption (DRP), information saliency and general consistency conditions on conversational implicature.

5.2

The Dowty-Reinhart analysis

Dowty (1980) represents perhaps the first attempt to make a partial pragmatic reduction of binding conditions within the Gricean framework of conversational implicature.1 He proposes a neo-Gricean pragmatic principle of ambiguity avoidance in the form of (5.1). 115

116 (5.1)

The pragmatics of anaphora Dowty's 'avoid ambiguity' principle If a language has two (equally simple) types of syntactic structures A and B, such that A is ambiguous between meanings X and Y while B has only meaning X, speakers of the language should reserve structure A for communicating meaning Y (since B would have been available for communicating X unambiguously and would have been chosen if X is what was intended).

With regard to binding, what (5.1) basically says is that given the binding condition A pattern, which is grammatically specified, the complementary binding condition B pattern can then be derived pragmatically. This can be illustrated by a consideration of (5.2). (5.2)

a. Chomsky! admires himselfi. b. Chomskyj admires him2.

Here, (5.2a) is unambiguous, in that himself is grammatically obligatorily coindexed with Chomsky. However, (5.2b) is potentially ambiguous; him has a wide range of possible antecedents. By (5.1), it is correctly predicted that (5.2b) should be reserved for the noncoreferential interpretation, because (5.2a) would be chosen if the coreferential interpretation is intended. All this points to the possibility that the interpretation of certain patterns of binding can be made depending on the language user's knowledge of the range of options available in the grammar and of the actual use or avoidance of a particular linguistic form or structure on a particular occasion. The central ideas of Dowty are elaborated in Reinhart (1983a, b, 1986). Along the lines of Hankamer & Sag (1976), Williams (1977) and Bach & Partee (1980), Reinhart suggests that a distinction be made between what she calls bound-variable anaphora and unbound coreference. She further argues that while the former should fall under the scope of sentence grammar, the latter should lie within the province of pragmatics. On Reinhart's account, bound-variable binding is effected by a single coindexing rule, which applies to both quantificational and definite NPs 2 and which incorporates both binding conditions A and B. This rule is given in (5.3) below (Reinhart 1983a: 158).

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora (5.3)

117

Reinhart's coindexing rule Coindex a pronoun P with a c-commanding NP oc (oc not immediately dominated by Comp or S). Conditions: (a) If P is an R-pronoun (i.e. Anaphor) a must be in its minimal GC (cf. binding condition A). (b) If P is a non-R-pronoun (i.e. Pronominal) a must be outside its minimal GC (cf. binding condition B).

The coindexing rule in (5.3) handles the configurational effect well.3 For example, it correctly predicts that whereas coindexation in possible in (5.4), it is not possible in (5.5). (5.4)

a. Chomsky! admires himselfx. b. Everyonei respects hisi /2 teachers. c. Chomsky! thinks that hei /2 has started a revolution in linguistics. d. Near himi, Johni /2 saw a giant panda.

(5.5)

a. *Himselfi admires Chomsky\. b. He! respects everyone's2 teachers. c. Hei thinks that Chomsky 2 has started a revolution in linguistics. d. Near Johni, he 2 saw a giant panda.

The output of the coindexing device in (5.3) is then put into a semantic rule for interpretation (5.6), which in effect translates reflexives and pronouns into bound-variables within ^-extracted predicates (Reinhart 1983a: 160). Thus, for the coindexed readings in (5.4), we have (5.7): (5.6)

Reinhart's interpretation mechanism (For any string $ and any NP p in non-Comp or S position in $, $ p /x is the result of replacing P and all pronouns coindexed with and c-commanded by P by x.)

(5.7)

a. Chomsky (A,x (x admires x)). b. Everyone (kx (x respects x's teachers)). c. Chomsky (kx (x thinks that x has started a revolution in linguistics)). d. John (kx (near x, x saw a giant panda)).

118

The pragmatics of anaphora

This has the welcome consequence of reducing the half-dozen or so different types of pronoun postulated from a truth-conditional semantic point of view to just two: semantically bound pronouns (which are subject to ^-extraction) and referential pronouns (which may or may not be anaphoric) (see Cooper 1979, Hausser 1979, Evans 1980, Kempson 1986a, b for further discussion).4 On the other hand, the mirror-image unbound coreference is left to some form of a Dowty-type, 'ambiguity-avoidance' pragmatic principle. Within the Gricean framework of conversational implicature, Reinhart (1983a: 167) proposes a Manner submaxim of Explicitness (5.8) and formulates an 'avoid ambiguity' strategy (5.9). (5.8)

Reinhart's submaxim of Explicitness Be as explicit as the conditions permit.

(5.9)

Reinhart's 'avoid ambiguity' pragmatic strategy Speaker's strategy: Where a syntactic structure you are using allows boundanaphora interpretation, then use it if you intend your expressions to corefer, unless you have some reasons to avoid bound anaphora. Hearer's strategy: If the speaker avoids the bound-anaphora options provided by the structure he is using, then, unless he has reasons to avoid bound anaphora, he did not intend his expressions to corefer.

The pragmatic strategy in (5.9) operates roughly as follows. Given that the coindexing rule in (5.3) will ensure coindexation in the sentences in (5.4), any speaker who intends bound-variable interpretations will use the syntactic structures in (5.4), otherwise he will be in violation of the submaxim of Explicitness. If, on the other hand, the syntactic forms in (5.4) are not employed but those in (5.5) are used instead, then a pragmatic inference is generated, namely bound-variable interpretations are not intended. Thus, the Dowty-Reinhart analysis opens the way to suggest that wherever there is a grammatically restricted constraint on anaphora, there will be a pragmatically inferred mirror-image interpretation (Levinson 1987a, b).

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora 5.3

Levinson's three pragmatic analyses

5.3.7

The 'A-first' analysis

119

Let us turn next to Levinson's (1987a, b, 1991) three neo-Gricean pragmatic analyses of anaphora. In these analyses, it is assumed that the general pattern of anaphora, stated here in (5.10) and illustrated in (5.11) and (5.12), is largely an instantiation, in the realm of linguistic reference, of the systematic interaction of neo-Gricean pragmatic principles. (5.10)

The general pattern of anaphora Reduced, semantically general anaphoric expressions tend to favour locally coreferential interpretations; full, semantically specific anaphoric expressions tend to favour locally noncoreferential interpretations.

(5.11)

a. Johni adores hisi /2 wife, b. Hei adores John's 2 wife.

(5.12)

(Sanford & Garrod 1981) a. The busi came trundling round the bend. The vehiclei almost flattened a pedestrian. b. The vehicle! came trundling round the bend. The bus 2 almost flattened a pedestrian.

Take (5.12) for illustration. Clearly, vehicle is semantically more general than bus, being the superordinate term of bus. When it follows bus, a local coreferential interpretation is encouraged, as in (5.12a); on the other hand, when it is followed by bus, a local non-coreferential interpretation is invited, as in (5.12b)-as the general pattern of anaphora has predicted. Now, assuming that the general pattern of anaphora is an instantiation of the systematic interaction of neo-Gricean pragmatic principles, the question to be raised next is how it can be given an account in terms of a neo-Gricean theory of conversational implicature. Levinson (1987a, b) suggests that applying the Q-, I- and M-principles, sketched in section 1.2 of chapter 1, to the domain of anaphoric reference, we can derive a general pragmatic apparatus for the interpretation of reflexives, pronouns and zero anaphors. Assuming the semantic content hierarchy in (5.13), Levinson's pragmatic apparatus can be presented in (5.14).

120

The pragmatics of anaphora

(5.13)

The semantic content hierarchy lexical NP > pronoun > zero anaphor (The inherent semantic content of a lexical NP tends to be semantically more specific than that of a pronoun, and the inherent semantic content of a pronoun, than that of a zero anaphor).

(5.14)

Levinson's pragmatic apparatus for anaphora (i) Where the syntax permits a direct encoding of coreferentiality, e.g. by the use of a reflexive, the use of an informationally weaker expression, e.g. a non-reflexive pronoun, will Q-implicate a non-coreferential interpretation. (ii) Otherwise semantically general, minimally informative expressions (pronouns and gaps) will favour a coreferential interpretation by the I-principle, unless: (iii) the use of a marked form, a lexical NP where a pronoun might have been used, or a pronoun where a zero might have occurred, will M-implicate a non-coreferential interpretation.

Before applying (5.14) to the interpretation of anaphora, we need to look squarely, though briefly, at two (somewhat related) questions: (i) why is it that a local coreferential interpretation is considered to be semantically more specific, hence informationally richer, and (ii) why is it that the general pattern of anaphora is assumed to be an instantiation of the interaction of the neo-Gricean pragmatic principles? According to Atlas & Levinson (1981) and Levinson (1987a, b), answers to these questions can be sought in the analysis of the notion of informativeness by Bar-Hillel, Carnap and Popper. First, there is the Bar-HillelianCarnapian argument at the level of reference (which might be regarded as one way of operationalising the Popperian idea of informativenessrelative-to-falsifiability) that the smaller the number of possible statedescriptions which are compatible with a proposition, the more informative the proposition (Bar-Hillel & Carnap 1964). Consequently, a simple entailment analysis of informativeness emerges. Following Levinson (1987b: 404), we state this analysis in (5.15).

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora (5.15)

121

A proposition A is more informative than a proposition B if and only if the set of entailments of B is properly contained in the set of entailments of A.

Since a coreferential interpretation reduces the number of possible entities referred to in the minimal domain of discourse, it is more D[omain]-informative than a corresponding, noncoreferential interpretation. If follows, therefore, that the preference for a local coreferential interpretation is the direct result of the I-principle on this account. Secondly, there is the independent Popperian argument at the level of logical form (and also partially at the level of reference) that the fewer existential commitments, the more informative the proposition (Popper 1959). To illustrate this point, let us take (5.16). (5.16)

a. John! adores hisi wife, b. Johni adores his 2 wife.

On Popper's view, (5.16a) and (5.16b) would have (5.17a) and (5.17b) as their respective logical form. (5.17)

a. 3x[AD0RE(x, lz(W(z,x)))&x = John]. (There is an x such that x adores the unique z who is the wife of x, and x is John.) b. 3x3y[ADORE(x, lz(W(z,y)))&x # y & x = John]. (There are an x and a y such that x adores the unique z who is the wife of y, and y is distinct from x, and x is John.)

Clearly, a coreferential interpretation (as in (5.16a)) contains fewer existential quantifiers than its corresponding, non-coreferential interpretation (as in (5.16b)).5 Therefore, it is more P[roposition]-informative. Thus, on this view, the preference for a local coreferential interpretation can also be seen to follow directly from the I-principle. Finally, there is the third argument at the level of sense. In a sentence like (5.18), regardless of the domain of discourse, the coreferential interpretation about John is more informative than the corresponding, noncoreferential interpretation would be about either referent. (5.18)

John walked into the room and he turned on the light.

Having clarified the notion of informativeness, I can now show how (5.14) works. In the spirit of Dowty (1980) and Reinhart (1983a, b, 1986), Levinson (1987a, b) argues that if we accept binding condition A as a

122

The pragmatics of anaphora

basic rule of grammar, binding conditions B and C can then be partially reduced to pragmatics by the use of the apparatus in (5.14). In somewhat simplified terms, this can be achieved in the following way. If binding condition A is taken to be grammatically specified, binding condition B is then the direct result of the application of the Q-principle. The use of a semantically weaker pronoun where a semantically stronger reflexive could occur will induce a classic Q-implicature to the negation of the more informative, coreferential interpretation associated with the use of that reflexive. On the other hand, where a reflexive cannot occur, the use of a pronoun will I-implicate a preferred, more informative, coreferential interpretation. By the same token, binding condition C is then the direct outcome of the application of both the Q- and M-principles, the former applied to binding condition A and the latter applied to binding condition B. Whenever a reflexive could occur, the use of a semantically weaker lexical NP will Q-implicate the non-applicability of the more informative, coreferential interpretation. On the other hand, the use of a more prolix lexical NP where a reflexive could not occur and thus where a pronoun would normally fall under the I-principle will invite an Mimplicature to the effect that the otherwise I-implicated coreferential interpretation does not obtain. This can be illustrated by a consideration of (5.19). (5.19)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Chomskyi admires himselfi. Chomsky! admires him 2. Chomskyi admired him 2 and hei gave him 2 a book. *Chomskyi admired him 2 and himselfi gave him 2 a book. Chomskyi admires Chomsky 2 Chomskyi admired him 2 and the man 3 gave him 2 a book. Chomskyi praised Riemsdijk2 and then he! praised Williams3. h. Chomskyi praised Riemsdijk2 and then HE2 praised Williams3.

Since himself in (5.19a) is coreferential with Chomsky-by binding condition A - the use of the semantically weaker him in (5.19b) will Qimplicate the non-applicability of the coreferential interpretation. On the other hand, since he in (5.19c) and himself m (5.19d) cannot alternate, there will be no Horn-scale to prevent an I-implicated coreferential interpretation between he and Chomsky in (5.19c). The use of the second Chomsky in (5.19e) shows again the Q-effect: the employment of a name

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

123

where a semantically stronger reflexive could occur will Q-implicate that the two instances of Chomsky are disjoint in reference. Next, the use of the man in (5.19f) where the unmarked he could be used will give rise to an M-implicature to the effect that the coreferential interpretation associated with the use of he does not hold. Finally, the I- and Mprinciples will jointly give complementary interpretations for (5.19g) and (5.19h), predicting correctly that the unstressed pronoun in (5.19g) be Iimplicated to be preferably coreferential with the local subject and the stressed pronoun in (5.19h) be M-implicated to be preferably coreferential with the local object. There are, however, some problems with this 'A-first' analysis (Y. Huang 1987, 1989, 1991a). Consider, for example, (5.20) and (5.21). (5.20)a. Wang Xiansheng shuo 0 youlan guo Changcheng. Wang Mr say tour EXP Great Wall 'Mr Wangi says that (he 1/2/I/you/we/they . . . ) has/have visited the Great Wall.' b. Wang Xiansheng shuo ta youlan guo Changcheng. Wang Mr say 3SG tour EXP Great Wall 'Mr Wang! says that hei /2 has visited the Great Wall.' c. Wang Xiansheng shuo ziji youlan guo Changcheng. Wang Mr say self tour EXP Great Wall 'Mr Wangi says that hei has visited the Great Wall.' (5.2l)a. Xiaoming yiwei mama yao ma 0 le. Xiaoming think mum will scold CRS 'Xiaoming! thinks that Mum 2 will give (himi/3/herself/me/you/ us/them . . . ) a talking-to.' b. Xiaoming yiwei mama yao ma ta le. Xiaoming think mum will scold 3SG CRS 'Xiaomingi thinks that Mum 2 will give him 1/3 a talking-to.' c. Xiaoming yiwei mama yao ma ziji le. Xiaoming think mum will scold self CRS 'Xiaoming! thinks that Mum 2 will give himi/herself2 a talkingto.' Given this 'A-first' analysis, the use of ta in the (b) sentence of both (5.20) and (5.21) would suggest a preferred, non-coreferential interpretation - a prediction that is intuitively incorrect. This appears to be the

124

The pragmatics of anaphora

result of the application of both the Q- and M-principles: on the one hand, since there is the (c) sentence, by the Q-principle the use of ta will Q-implicate the non-applicability of the coreferential interpretation associated with the use of ziji; on the other hand, since there is the (a) sentence, by the M-principle the use of ta will M-implicate the nonapplicability of the coreferential interpretation associated with the use of the zero anaphor. Thus, there seem to be two problems here: (i) the nonapplicability of the Q-principle where there is a (ziji, ta) contrast set, and (ii) the non-applicability of the M-principle where there is a [ta, 0] contrast set. Let us take the first problem first. This problem appears to be attributable to the fact that the 'A-first' analysis depends crucially on the acceptance of binding condition A as a basic rule of grammar, thus presupposing that reflexives and pronouns are always in complementary distribution on a given interpretation. Clearly, as we saw in chapter 4, this is not the case with Chinese (and a great number of other 'longdistance reflexivisation' languages as well). All this indicates that the 'Afirst' analysis fails to explain some central aspects of anaphora, and calls for the development of alternative analyses.

5.3.2

The 'B-first' analysis

In attempting to tackle these and other problems raised by the 'A-first' analysis,6 Levinson (1991), following in the spirit of proposals by Farmer & Harnish (1987) and Y. Huang (1987), develops an alternative analysis (to be called the 'B-first' analysis) within the same pragmatic framework. In this alternative, the pattern predicted by binding condition B (which itself may be grammatically specified or pragmatically motivated) is taken to be the basic pattern, from which the patterns regulated by binding conditions A and C can then be derived 'for free' by the systematic interaction of neo-Gricean principles of inferential enrichment. The argument goes roughly thus: assuming that the pattern characterised by binding condition B is the basic pattern of anaphoric interpretation and that this pattern is given by the I-principle, and assuming also that reflexives and lexical NPs are prolix, marked expressions (as opposed to pronouns and zero anaphors), the use of a reflexive or a lexical NP where a pronoun or zero anaphor could have been used will M-implicate the negation of the interpretation associated

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

125

with the use of that pronoun or zero anaphor. By way of illustration, consider (5.22). (5.22) a. Lao Wang piping le ta. Lao Wang criticise PFV 3SG 'Wangi has criticised him2/?himselfi.' b. Lao Wang piping le ziji. Lao Wang criticise PFV self 'Wangi has criticised himself i.' Since a pronoun in the object position of a simple, transitive clause in Chinese is I-interpreted as preferentially non-coreferential with the local subject, by the M-principle the reflexive in that position will be implicated as coreferential with the local subject; hence the pattern as described by binding condition A. Next, it remains to see how the binding condition C pattern is given to us by pragmatics under this 'B-first' analysis. (5.23) a. Xiaoming shuo ta zai Beijing zhangda. Xiaoming say 3SG in Beijing grow up 'Xiaoming! says that hei /2 was brought up in Beijing.' b. Xiaoming shuo zhe ge ren zai Beijing zhangda. Xiaoming say this CL person in Beijing grow up 'Xiaomingi says that the man 2 was brought up in Beijing.' Since (5.23a) exists, where ta is I-interpreted as preferentially coreferential with the matrix subject, the use of the more prolix zhe ge ren 'this/the man' in (5.23b) will trigger an M-implicature to the effect that the coreferential interpretation associated with the use of ta does not hold, thus the pattern as predicted by binding condition C. There are some difficulties with this 'B-first' analysis, however. First, the analysis seems to make wrong predictions for the binding condition C pattern in examples of the following sort. (5.24)

Lao Wang piping le zhe ge ren. Lao Wang criticise PFV this CL person 'Wangi has criticised the man 2 .'

Under the 'B-first' analysis, a coreferential interpretation would be erroneously favoured here. This is because on the assumption that a lexical NP is a prolix, marked expression, the use of a lexical NP where a

126

The pragmatics of anaphora

pronoun could have occurred, as in (5.22a), would encourage the negation of the interpretation associated with the use of that pronoun by the M-principle. An escape route would be to claim that the lexical NP is marked in (5.23b) but not in (5.24), thus no M-implicature would arise in (5.24). This argument, however, is unwarranted on the grounds that unless there is independent evidence to suggest otherwise, circularity would arise if one claims that the lexical NP is not marked in (5.24) simply because its use there does not solicit an M-implicature (given that an M-contrast set is defined in terms of form rather than meaning). Another, much more plausible, solution is to argue that the M-implicated coreferential interpretation is overridden by the I-implicated presumption of clausemate co-argument disjointness. But this could pose a problem for Levinson's resolution schema, repeated here in (5.25): the argument that the M-induced coreferential interpretation is cancelled by the Iinduced non-coreferential interpretation in (5.24) would be at variance with the hierarchy Q > M > I. (5.25)

Levinson's resolution schema for the interaction of the Q-, Iand M-principles a. Level of genus: Q > M > I (i) Genuine Q-implicatures from tight contrast sets of equally brief, equally lexicalised linguistic expressions 'about' the same semantic relations, take precedence over I-implicatures; (ii) in all other cases, the I-principle induces stereotypical specific interpretations, unless: (iii) there are two (or more) available expressions of the same sense, one of which is unmarked and the other marked in form. In that case, the unmarked form carries the I-implicatures as usual, but the use of the marked form M-implicates the non-applicability of the pertinent I-implicatures. b. Level of species: e.g. Q.ciausai > Q-scaiar

Secondly, the 'B-first' analysis might also give wrong results for the binding condition A pattern in examples such as (5.26). (5.26)

Xiaoming shuo ziji zai Beijing zhangda. Xiaoming say self in Beijing grow up 'Xiaoming! says that hei was brought up in Beijing.'

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

127

Given the existence of (5.23a), by the M-principle the employment of the more prolix ziji in (5.26) would implicate a non-coreferential interpretation - an intuitively incorrect interpretation. Again, there might be a number of ways to incorporate this counterexample. One possible solution might be to claim that there is an M-contrast set in (5.22), but not in (5.23a) and (5.26). The problem with this approach is obvious: as in the case of (5.24), unless there is independent evidence to show that this is the case, to argue that there is no M-contrast set in (5.23a) and (5.26) simply because no M-implicated referential contrast arises is circular. A second possible avenue to explore might be to suggest that {ziji, ta) forms a Q-contrast set (i.e. a Horn-scale) rather than an Mcontrast set and is thus subject to the Q- rather than the M-principle, and that this Q-contrast is a contrast in logophoricity rather than in reference (Levinson 1991). It is to this that we shall now turn. 5.3.3

The 'A-first' plus 'B-first' analysis

An examination of the proposal to treat (ziji, ta) as a Horn-scale brings us to the third and last of Levinson's analyses. Levinson (1991), hypothesising that reflexives are historically derived from emphatic pronouns, suggests that a better analysis of anaphora can be obtained by combining the 'A-first' and 'B-first' analyses. His synthesis can be summed up along the following lines: (5.27)

Levinson's 'A-first' plus 'B-first' analysis (i) There are two pragmatic principles at work, (ii) one an I-presumption of clausemate core-argument disjointness, the other a Q-contrast between reflexives and pronouns, the former being [ + referentially dependent, + logophoric], the latter being [ ± referentially dependent, ±logophoric]. (iii) Where antecedent and anaphor are clausemate corearguments, the I-presumption will ensure that there is always a contrast in reference. Outside these positions, the Q-presumption will ensure that a long-distance reflexive is contrastive, but not necessarily contrastive in reference.

To see how this 'A-first' plus 'B-first' analysis works, let us turn to some of the examples discussed in the previous section. Consider first (5.22). Since ziji and ta form a Horn-scale, the use of ta in (5.22a) will

128

The pragmatics of anaphora

induce a Q-implicature. Since both ziji and ta are in the object position of a simple, transitive clause, the I-principle will ensure that the Q-contrast in question is one of reference. Next, consider (5.26) and (5.23a). Since ziji and ta are outside the object position of a simple, transitive clause, there will be no I-presumption of clausemate core-argument disjointness at work here. Consequently, the Q-apparatus will ensure that ziji and ta are contrastive, but not necessarily contrastive in reference. While this 'A-first' plus 'B-first' analysis undoubtedly constitutes an advance upon the previous two analyses, it is not without problems. For one thing, given that (reflexive, pronoun) forms a Horn-scale, the interpretation of a pronoun (now in terms of the Q-principle) seems to be parasitic on the interpretation of the pertinent reflexive. However, how long-distance reflexives themselves (especially in such examples as (5.26)) are interpreted in this analysis is not clear. If this is the case, then pronouns would be left undetermined in this account, since there would be no 'conceptual anchorage', to use Levinson's own metaphor, for pronouns to be interpreted. A second problem seems to be that unless (lexical NP, pronoun) is regarded as forming a Horn-scale, lexical NPs (especially in such examples as (5.23b)) would remain uninterpreted, since there is no longer an M-principle in this system. But to posit (lexical NP, pronoun) as forming a Horn-scale would perhaps violate both the 'entailment' and the 'equal lexicalisation' constraints on Horn-scales.

5.4

An alternative analysis

I am now in a position to propose another alternative analysis (based mainly on my earlier work in Y. Huang 1987, 1989, 1991a) within the same neo-Gricean pragmatic framework. The basic intuition we want to capture is that in languages like Chinese, except in cases where antecedent and anaphor are clausemate co-arguments, the preference for coreference is simply stronger than that for non-coreference. In our account, we assume that there is a distinction of referential dependence between reflexives on the one hand, and other anaphoric expressions on the other, and we attribute this to semantics.7 The interpretation of reflexives, pronouns, zero anaphors and lexical NPs can then be largely determined by the systematic interaction of the M- and I-principles (with that order of priority), constrained by a world-knowledge-based DRP. Needless to say, any interpretation implicated by this pragmatic apparatus is subject

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

129

to the general consistency constraints applicable to neo-Gricean conversational implicature. Let me now spell out this analysis in more detail. Consider first (5.28). (5.28) a. Xiaoming changchang manyuan 0. Xiaoming; often blame 'Xiaoming 1 often blames (him2/himselfi/me/you/us/them . . . ) . ' b. Xiaoming changchang manyuan ta. Xiaoming often blame 3SG 'Xiaoming 1 often blames him2/?himselfi.' c. Xiaoming changchang manyuan ziji. Xiaoming often blame self 'Xiaoming! often blames himselfj.' d. Xiaoming changchang manyuan Xiaoming. Xiaoming often blame Xiaoming 'Xiaoming! often blames Xiaoming2/himselfi.' e. Xiaoming changchang manyuan zhe ge ren. Xiaoming often blame this CL person 'Xiaomingi often blames the man 2 .' At this point, we need to make use of Farmer & Harnish's (1987) DRP: (5.29)

Farmer and Harnish's Disjoint Reference Presumption The arguments of a predicate are intended to be disjoint, unless marked otherwise.

The basic idea of the DRP is that the co-arguments of a predicate tend to be disjoint in reference, unless one of them is encoded by means of a reflexive. This observation is, of course, far from being wholly original; it is strongly reminiscent of, say, Chomsky's binding condition B and Hellan's (1988, 1991) connectedness condition in GB, and Hintikka & Kulas's (1985) and Hintikka & Sandu's (1991) Exclusion Principle in Game-Theoretical Semantics (GTS). But there is a fundamental difference between the DRP on the one hand and binding condition B, the connectedness condition and the Exclusion Principle on the other. On Farmer and Harnish's view, the DRP is not of a syntactic or semantic but of a pragmatic nature: what it describes is essentially a usage preference. This is indeed the case with Chinese. The disjoint reference reading between the co-arguments of a simple, transitive clause in Chinese is merely a (strongly) favoured one: the

130

The pragmatics of anaphora

two clausemate co-arguments could also be referentially dependent on each other - a fact that was pointed out by Li Wang, a noted Chinese grammarian and linguist, more than fifty years ago. To quote him (Wang 1985[1943]: 293): 'Regarding ta ma ta "he rebukes him", it is ambiguous: it can mean either "he rebukes himself" or "he rebukes another person"' (my translation). However, it could also be equally strongly argued that the DRP is based on world knowledge, given that the fact that one entity tends to act upon another could be due largely to the way the world stereotypically is. The advantage of attributing the DRP to world knowledge is that in that case it will automatically prevent any inconsistent pragmatic implicature from arising or cancel it without violating the hierarchy Q > M > I.8 Armed with the M- and I-principles, their interaction schema and the DRP, we can now give a full account of anaphora in (5.28). Since the zero anaphor in (5.28a) is in the object position of a simple, transitive clause, the preferred, local coreferential interpretation engendered by the Iprinciple will not arise or will arise but will be cancelled by the DRP, thus the desired non-coreferential interpretation between the zero anaphor and the local subject. More or less the same can be said of the pronoun in (5.28b). Next, consider the reflexive in (5.28c). Here, the preference for a coreferential interpretation induced by the I-principle will go through unblocked, since the DRP is not in operation. The evaporation of the potentially conflicting M-implicature generated by the contrast set (ziji, ta) (for example) is due to the semantics of the reflexive ziji (given that semantic constraints always cancel inconsistent pragmatic inferences): namely a reflexive is (normally) necessarily referentially dependent. Finally, both the name in (5.28d) and the lexical NP in (5.28e) will be read by the DRP as being preferably disjoint in reference with the local subject. A word of explanation about 'preferred interpretation' is due at this point. By 'preferred interpretation' is meant the interpretation that is the most favoured one out of a number of other, possible interpretations. This interpretation arises without any particular context or specific scenario being necessary. Put in slightly different terms, in terms of the notion of context, the preferred interpretation arises in a default/ unmarked context rather than in a specific/marked one. In other words, it is an instance of Grice's generalised (i.e. default) conversational implicature rather than particularised (i.e. context-deduced) conversational implicature.

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

131

Next, consider (5.30). (5.30) a. *Xiaoming de

b.

c.

d.

e.

huai piqi

gei 0 dai

lai le

Xiaoming MM bad temper for bring RV PFV xuduo mafan. much trouble 'Xiaoming'si bad temper has brought a lot of trouble to (himi /2 / me/you/us/them . . . ) . ' Xiaoming de huai piqi gei ta dai lai le Xiaoming MM bad temper for 3SG bring RV PFV xuduo mafan. much trouble 'Xiaoming'si bad temper has brought a lot of trouble to himi /2 .' Xiaoming de huai piqi gei ziji dai lai le Xiaoming MM bad temper for self bring RV PFV xuduo mafan. much trouble 'Xiaoming'si bad temper has brought a lot of trouble to him!.' Xiaoming de huai piqi gei Xiaoming dai Xiaoming MM bad temper for Xiaoming bring lai le xuduo mafan. RV PFV much trouble 'Xiaoming'si bad temper has brought a lot of trouble to Xiaoming 2 /himi.' Xiaoming de huai piqi gei zhe ge ren Xiaoming MM bad temper for this CL person dai lai le xuduo mafan. bring RV PFV much trouble 'Xiaoming'si bad temper has brought a lot of trouble to the man 2 .'

Starting with (5.30b) ((5.30a) is ungrammatical due to the fact that a co-verb object cannot in general be dropped in Chinese), since ta and Xiaoming are not clausemate co-arguments, the DRP does not operate here. Consequently, the use of ta will I-implicate a preference for local coreferentiality. Turn next to (5.30c). The use of ziji here also falls under the I-principle. Given the animacy condition, ziji cannot be I-implicated to be anteceded by the c-commanding NP Xiaoming de huai piqi

132

The pragmatics of anaphora

'Xiaoming's bad temper' (because I-implicatures have to be consistent with semantic constraints). But it can be I-inferred to be coreferential with the sub-commanding NP Xiaoming, since there is no semantic constraint to prevent such an interpretation. The potentially inconsistent M-implicature for a local non-coreferential interpretation is ruled out by the semantics of referential dependence of ziji. Finally, since both the name in (5.30d) and the lexical NP in (5.30e) stand in M-contrast with the pronoun in (5.30b), the use of the name and the lexical NP will Mimplicate the complement of what the use of the pronoun has Iimplicated; hence the local non-coreferential interpretation. Needless to say, without the counterpoising M-principle, the I-principle would yield the wrong result for (5.30e), since the lexical NP is semantically more general and should therefore be a natural candidate for an I-implicature. Next, let us move on to (5.31). (5.31) a. Xiaoming shuo 0 xia ge yue jiehun. Xiaoming say next CL month marry 'Xiaoming i says that (hei /2 /I/you/we/they . . . ) will get married next month.' b. Xiaoming shuo ta xia ge yue jiehun. Xiaoming say 3SG next CL month marry 'Xiaoming! says that hei /2 will get married next month.' c. Xiaoming shuo ziji xia ge yue jiehun. Xiaoming say self next CL month marry 'Xiaomingi says that hei will get married next month.' d. Xiaoming shuo Xiaoming xia ge yue jiehun.9 Xiaoming say Xiaoming next CL month marry 'Xiaoming! says that Xiaoming2/hei will get married next month.' e. Xiaoming shuo zhe ge ren xia ge yue jiehun. Xiaoming say this CL person next CL month marry 'Xiaomingi says that the man 2 will get married next month.' Take (5.31a) first. By the I-principle, the zero anaphor will be interpreted as preferentially coreferential with the matrix subject. Skipping (5.31b) for a moment, the potentially clashing M-implicature for a local non-coreferential interpretation promoted by the use of ziji in (5.31c) is once again suspended by the semantics of the reflexive. Consequently, the use of ziji here will be subject to the I-principle, which

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

133

will invite a coreferential interpretation between ziji and the matrix subject. Finally, the use of both the name in (5.3 Id) and the lexical NP in (5.3le) will M-implicate a preferred, local non-coreferential interpretation. Now, a question may be raised as to whether or not there is any systematic semantic/pragmatic contrast between the reflexive, on the one hand, and the pronoun and the zero anaphor, on the other, in locations where there is a referential overlap. The answer appears to be yes. Intuitively, the use of ziji in these locations seems to indicate some sort of unexpectedness (Edmondson & Plank 1978). Examined in a more careful way, this unexpectedness may turn out to be logophoricity (roughly, the report of the point of view of persons other than the current speaker) (as in (5.32)) (e.g. Hagege 1974, Clements 1975, Kuno 1987, Sells 1987, O'Connor 1987, Stirling 1993: 252ff) or emphaticness/contrastiveness (as in (5.33)) (e.g. R. J. Li 1984) or something yet to be discovered. (5.32)a. Xiaoming yiwei mama hui lai jie ziji. Xiaoming think mum will come meet self 'Xiaoming! thinks that Mum 2 will come to collect him!.' b. ? Xiaoming yiwei mama hui qu jie ziji. Xiaoming think mum will go meet self ? 'Xiaomingi thinks that Mum 2 will go to collect himi.' Here, in (5.32a) the use of lai 'come' is a clear indication that the mental state is reported from the point of view of Xiaoming, hence the use of the long-distance reflexive ziji. On the other hand, in (5.32b) the use of qu 'go' makes clear the description of the mental state is not from Xiaoming's point of view, hence the use of the long-distance reflexive ziji is much less natural here (see also Kuno's 1987: 255, 261 discussion of similar examples from Japanese and Turkish). This issue will be taken up again in section 6.6 of chapter 6. Next, consider (5.33). (5.33)a. Xiaoming baoyuan shuo mama zhishi zebei ziji, Xiaoming complain COMP mum only blame self er bu zebei didi. CTR not blame younger brother 'Xiaomingi complains that Mum 2 blames only himi/?herself2, but not his younger brother.'

134

The pragmatics of anaphora b. Xiaoming baoyuan shuo mama zhishi zebei ta, Xiaoming complain COMP mum only blame 3SG er bu zebei didi. CTR not blame younger brother 'Xiaoming i complains that Mum 2 blames only himi /3 , but not his younger brother.'

The use of the contrastive particle re makes clear that (5.33) describes a contrastive situation. This seems to explain why intuitively (5.33a) sounds slightly more natural than (5.33b). Whatever this unexpectedness may turn out to be, we can give it a full account in terms of the M-principle; the use of ziji in these locations will convey a message that would not be conveyed by the use of either a pronoun or a zero anaphor. This M-implicature, being not in conflict with the semantics of the reflexive (namely the property of referential dependence) and/or world knowledge, will then pass through unchecked. We shall have more to say about unexpectedness in the next chapter. This brings with it another, related question: why does the Mimplicated contrast in expectedness obtain only in locations where there is no systematic contrast in reference between reflexives, on the one hand, and pronouns and zero anaphors, on the other? Currently, one of the most plausible views (Levinson 1991) suggests that this is because given that the DRP is irrelevant in these locations, the issue of reference is no longer the most salient one here. Consequently, in these locations, the Minduced opposition will frequently be one of expectedness (though it may well be one of reference) (see also Hellan 1988, 1991, Reinhart & Reuland 1991). Returning now to (5.31), what remains to be accounted for is why the M-implicated non-coreferential interpretation between the pronoun and the matrix subject in (5.31b) does not arise. As a step towards answering this question, let us first consider some other examples. (5.34)a. Xiaoming yi jin wu, 0jiu ba men Xiaoming as soon as enter room EMP BA door guan shang le. close RV CRS 'As soon as Xiaomingi enters the house, (hei /2 /I/you/we/ they . . . ) closes/close the door.'

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

135

b. Xiaoming yi jin wu, ta jiu ba men Xiaoming as soon as enter room 3SG EMP BA door guan shang le. close RV CRS 'As soon as Xiaoming! enters the house, he 2 closes the door.' (5.35) a. Lao Wang yiwei Lao Li zhidao 0 xiawu Lao Wang think Lao Li know afternoon yao qu kaihui. will go have a meeting 'Wangi thinks that Li 2 knows that (he2/i/3/I/you/we/they . . . ) will have a meeting to go to this afternoon.' b. Lao Wang yiwei Lao Li zhidao ta xiawu Lao Wang think Lao Li know 3SG afternoon yao qu kaihui. will go have a meeting 'Wang! thinks that Li 2 knows that he 1/2/3 will have a meeting to go to this afternoon. (5.36) a. Lao Li yinwei bing le, suoyi 0 bu neng lai. Lao Li because ill CRS so not can come 'Because Li t is ill, (hei) cannot come.' b. Lao Li yinwei bing le, suoyi ta bu neng lai. Lao Li because ill CRS so 3SG not can come 'Because Lii is ill, hei cannot come.' Example (5.34) illustrates the effect of the M-implicature: the use of a more prolix pronoun in (5.34b) where a zero anaphor could occur, as in (5.34a), M-implicates a contrast in reference; the coreferential interpretation between the zero anaphor and Xiaoming in (5.34a) does not by preference hold for the pronoun and Xiaoming in (5.34b). Example (5.35) again shows this M-contrast (although it is much weaker in (5.35) than in (5.34)): the use of the pronoun in (5.35b) M-implicates that the preferred, coreferential interpretation associated with the use of the zero anaphor in (5.35a) does not obtain. (In effect, what the M-principle does in examples such as (5.35) is to suggest often but not invariably a contrast in how local coreference may be: the use of a zero anaphor I-implicates the immediate subject as the antecedent while the use of a pronoun Mimplicates the more distant subject as the antecedent. We thus have at

136

The pragmatics of anaphora

least a partial explanation as to why (5.42b) sounds slightly more natural than (5.42a) below.) However, when we come to examples like (5.31) and (5.36), the same M-effect seems to disappear: the employment of the pronoun in (5.31b) and (5.36b) does not generate an M-preference to the effect that the pronoun is disjoint in reference with the matrix subject. Thus, we come back to the problem raised earlier in section 5.3.2: the Mprinciple seems to produce correct predictions for some M-contrast sets, but not for others. There are several possible alternative ways to tackle this problem. First, we might simply abolish the M-principle in our analysis. One direct consequence will be that we have to explain why, given the I-principle, the pronoun in (5.34b) is still preferably disjoint in reference with the local subject. We would also have to provide an account of how the name and the lexical NP in examples like (5.3Id) and (5.3le) are interpreted. A further consequence would be the possible loss of a useful constraint on the overoperation of the I-principle. A second alternative might be to claim that the pronoun is marked in (5.34b) and (5.35b) but not in (5.31b) and (5.36b). This argument, however, runs a clear risk of circularity, as we have already seen. Thirdly, we might argue that the M-implicated contrast in reference may be relativised depending on the syntax of Chinese. Thus, [ta9 0] may be subject to the M-principle in some syntactic structures such as the adverbial construction, but not in other syntactic structures such as the correlative construction (see, for example, Liu 1981, for the distinction between adverbial and correlative constructions). Such a proposal, however, seems to be empirically impracticable, to say the least. For example, the M-contrast in reference can also obtain in the correlative construction - contra Liu. (5.37)a. Lao Wang yue shuo, 0 yue xingfen. Lao Wang more talk more excited T h e more Wangi talks, the more (hei /2 /I/you/we/they . . . ) gets/get excited.' b. Lao Wang yue shuo, ta yue xingfen. Lao Wang more talk 3SG more excited 'The more Wang! talks, the more he 2 gets excited.' This brings us to our final alternative. We assume that [ta, 0] does fall under the M-principle and then try to explain why and how the Mimplicature in reference vanishes in examples such as (5.31b).

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

137

As we saw in section 1.2 of chapter 1, conversational implicatures exhibit a number of distinguishing properties: notably (i) cancellability (or defeasibility), (ii) non-detachability, (iii) calculability, (iv) nonconventionality, (v) reinforceability, and (vi) universality. Of these properties, defeasibility - conversational implicatures can simply evaporate in certain linguistic or non-linguistic context - is generally taken to be the most important property for all pragmatic inferences. How, then, can conversational implicatures be cancelled? According to current pragmatic theory, they tend to disappear in the face of inconsistency with (i) background assumptions (or world knowledge), (ii) meaning.nn, (iii) semantic entailments, (iv) context and (v) priority pragmatic inferences. Let me illustrate these briefly with some non-anaphora examples from English. Consider first (5.38) (I shall use the symbol * +> to indicate the conversational implicature that is cancelled.) (5.38)

a. John and Mary tested a TV set. +> John and Mary tested a TV set together, b. The Americans and the Russians tested an atom bomb in 1966. * +> The Americans and the Russians tested an atom bomb together in 1966.

Example (5.38a) illustrates what is called 'mirror image' inference: from X and Y do Z, we derive the I-implicature that X and Y do Z together. However, given our knowledge about the world, no such implicature would arise in (5.38b). Secondly, conversational implicatures can be cancelled by adding additional premises. In other words, they are suspended in the face of inconsistency with semantic entailments. This is precisely the phenomenon displayed by examples such as (5.39b). (5.39)

a. John has two cars. +> John has two cars and no more, b. John has two cars, if not more. * +> John has two cars and no more.

Next, there are cases where conversational implicatures disappear when it is clear from the context that such inferences could not be introduced as part of the utterance's full communicative import. Suppose the following exchange occurs at the entrance of a museum.

138 (5.40)

The pragmatics of anaphora Mary: It's going to cost three pounds to get in here, and I haven't got any money on me. John: That's alright. I've got six pounds. * +> I've got six pounds and no more.

Clearly, John's reply here does not commit him to the Q-inference that he has got only six pounds. This is because it is clear from the context that the information which is (implicitly) required and (explicitly) provided is whether John has enough money for him and Mary to visit the museum, not the exact amount of money he might in fact have got. Finally, conversational implicatures can be cancelled by prevailing conversational implicatures. Consider (5.41). (5.41)

If you make a donation to the library, the librarian will let you see the manuscript; he might let you see it anyway. a. Q +> The librarian might or might not let you see the manuscript. b. I +> If and only if you make a donation to the library will the librarian let you see the manuscript. c. Q > I +> Possibly the librarian will let you see the manuscript.

Here, there should be a Q-implicature of conditional weakness. But there should also be an I-implicature of conditional perfection. Clearly, the two inferences are inconsistent with each other. By the resolution schema in (5.25), the I-implicature is defeated by the Q-implicature. The same can be said of the evaporation of the M-implicated contrast in reference. First, the M-contrast is constrained by the requirement of consistency with world knowledge; no referential contrast would arise if it is not in keeping with background assumptions. As an illustrative example, take (5.42). (5.42)a. Yisheng shuo bingren zhidao 0 mingtian gei ta kaidao. doctor say patient know tomorrow for 3SG operate The surgeon 1 says that the patient 2 knows that (hei/3/I/you/we/ they . . . ) will operate on him2 tomorrow.'

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

139

b. Yisheng shuo bingren zhidao ta mingtian gei ta kaidao. doctor say patient know 3SG tomorrow for 3SG operate 'The surgeon! says that the patient 2 knows that hei /3 will operate on him2 tomorrow.' In (5.42b), ta is used where a zero anaphor could occur, as in (5.42a). Given the M-principle, ta would be interpreted as preferably disjoint in reference with yisheng 'surgeon'. Such an interpretation, however, clearly runs counter to our background assumption that it is stereotypically surgeons who do operations. Therefore, the M-implicature disappears and the use of ta is subject to the I-principle, from which follows the coreferential interpretation between ta and yisheng in (5.42b). Secondly, the M-contrast in reference must be consistent with what the speaker might clearly intend (i.e. mean. nn ) given the assumed state of mutual knowledge. To explain by an example, let us return to (5.34). Since there is (5.34a), the use of ta in (5.34b) will M-implicate a local noncoreferential interpretation. But now suppose that the hearer knows that the speaker intends to use (5.34b) to mean (5.34a) (for whatever reason), he is expecting the speaker to do so, and the speaker knows that the hearer knows all that. Then, the speaker uses (5.34b) instead of (5.34a). In that case, what the speaker clearly means. nn is that ta and Xiaoming are coreferential with each other. This is enough to cancel the M-implicature that the use of ta in (5.34b) might otherwise generate. Thirdly, the M-contrast in reference tends to disappear when it is inconsistent with semantic constraints. This is nicely illustrated by the use of ziji in (5.31c) above. The M-implicated local non-coreferential interpretation is outlawed by the semantics of referential dependence. Consequently, the use of ziji in (5.31c) falls under the I-principle. Fourthly, the M-contrast in reference tends to vanish in the face of inconsistency with what is the most salient/relevant. This can be seen by the fact that when there is a topic, the M-implicated referential opposition associated with the use of a pronoun where a zero anaphor could occur appears to evaporate. The use of both the zero anaphor and the pronoun is then subject to the I-implicated coreferentiality with the topic. A good example for illustration is given below.

140

The pragmatics of anaphora

(5.43)a. Xiaohua, Xiaoming yi jin wu, 0jiu ba Xiaohua Xiaoming as soon as enter room EMP BA men guan shang le. door close RV CRS 'Xiaohua i, as soon as Xiaoming2 enters the house, (hei) closes the door.' b. Xiaohua, Xiaoming yi jin wu, ta jiu ba Xiaohua Xiaoming as soon as enter room 3SG EMP BA men guan shang le. door close RV CRS 'Xiaohua 1? as soon as Xiaoming2 enters the house, hej closes the door.' Example (5.43) without the topic Xiaohua is in fact example (5.34) cited earlier. Clearly, when there is a topic, the original M-contrast in reference vanishes. This seems to be attributable to inconsistency with what is the most salient/relevant. It is clear, at least intuitively, that the topic is the most salient element in a topic construction, around which the comment clause centres. This intuition has been captured by various versions of what is called the 'aboutness' hypothesis concerning the well-formedness of a topic construction in a 'topic-prominent' language (Li & Thompson 1976). The essence of 'aboutness' is that it is both a necessary and a sufficient condition that the comment clause of a topic construction must say something about the topic (Li & Thompson 1976, Y. Huang 1984, Xu & Langendoen 1985, Kratochvil 1986, C.-T. J. Huang 1987 and section 6.3 of chapter 6 below). If this is correct, then it is very natural for both the zero anaphor in (5.43a) and the pronoun in (5.43b) to be related to the topic, and hence the disappearance of the M-implicature.10 Finally, the M-contrast in reference tends to evaporate when it is at variance with what is implicated by the close semantico-conceptual relationship between two clauses. Building on the work of Silverstein (1976), Foley & Van Valin (1984: 269) set up an Interclausal Semantic Relations Hierarchy in (5.44).

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora (5.44)

141

Foley and Van Valin's Interclausal Semantic Relations Hierarchy Strongest Causative Modality Psych-action Jussive Direct perception complements Indirect discourse complements Temporal adverbial clauses Conditionals Simultaneous actions Sequential actions (overlapping) Sequential actions (non-overlapping) Weakest Action-action (unspecified linkage)

They further observe that cross-linguistically there is a correlation between the degree of interclausal semantic connectivity and the use of anaphoric expressions; the tighter the linkage, the more likely the coreferential arguments will be encoded by zero anaphors or pronouns (see also Silverstein 1976, Li & Thompson 1979, Ariel 1990: 134-8). This seems to be the case with (5.31b) and (5.36b): in the former there is a relation of indirect discourse complement, and in the latter a relation of causality. Such a tight interclausal semantic linkage, as Levinson (1987a) has pointed out, tends to give rise to a 'same agent/patient as the last clause' effect, hence the suspension of the M-implicature. 11 Now, a question that may come up is this: given that the M-induced contrast in reference in the last two cases is cancelled neither by background assumptions, nor by meaning_ nn , nor by semantic entailments, is it defeated by some prevailing pragmatic implicature, and if so, by which one? The answer appears to be that the Mimplicature under discussion is curbed by some implicature which has priority, namely an I-implicature. How, then, could this be possible, given the hierarchy Q > M > I? The answer to this question, I believe, may be sought in the 'matrix wins' hypothesis concerning the projection of implicatures (Gazdar 1979, Levinson 1983: 142-3, 224). According to this hypothesis, given the cyclic nature of implicature projection, implicatures due to higher constructions may cancel implicatures due to lower constructions. We briefly discussed this with an example in section 1.2 of chapter 1. Following is yet another example (adapted from Levinson 1983: 144).

142 (5.45)

The pragmatics of anaphora Some of the Ming vases are fakes, and either the rest of them are too, or they are inferior originals. &• Q-clause

+> Possibly the rest of the Ming vases are +> Possibly the rest of the Ming vases are +> Possibly the rest of the Ming vases are +> Possibly the rest of the Ming vases originals.

fakes too. not fakes too. inferior originals. are not inferior

b. Q-scalar

+>Not all of the Ming vases are fakes. C Q-clausal

>

Q-scalar

+> Possibly the rest of the Ming vases are +>Possibly the rest of the Ming vases are +> Possibly the rest of the Ming vases are +> Possibly the rest of the Ming vases originals.

fakes too. not fakes too. inferior originals. are not inferior

In this utterance, there should be four Q.ciausai implicatures due to the use of the disjunction in the second conjunct of the sentence. But there should also be a Q.SCaiar implicature due to the use of the Horn-scale alternate some. Clearly, these implicatures are inconsistent with each other. Now, on the 'matrix wins' hypothesis, the scalar implicature is cancelled by the clausal implicatures, because the latter arise from a higher construction, namely a matrix sentence, hence the implicature projection hierarchy Q.ciausai > Q-scaiar- Coming back to anaphoric interpretation, what this hypothesis in effect does is to allow the order of precedence regarding the application of the M- and I-principles, namely M > I, be overridden when an I-implicature is due to a higher construction and/or an antecedent that is higher in saliency. Thus consider (5.43), where the M-induced non-coreferential interpretation due to the matrix sentence is rejected by the I-implicated coreferential interpretation due to the topic-comment construction. We come finally to (5.46). (5.46)a. Yang Daniang danxin niier bu ken cihou 0. Yang Grandma worry daughter not willing look after 'Grandma Yangi is worried that her daughter 2 is not willing to look after (her 1/3/herself2/me/you/us/them . . . ) . '

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora 143 b. Yang Daniang danxin niier bu ken cihou ta. Yang Grandma worry daughter not willing look after 3SG 'Grandma Yang! is worried that her daughter2 is not willing to look after heri/3.' c. Yang Daniang danxin niier bu ken cihou ziji. Yang Grandma worry daughter not willing look after self 'Grandma Yangi is worried that her daughter2 is not willing to look after heri/herself2.' d. Yang Daniang danxin niier bu ken cihou Yang Grandma worry daughter not willing look after Yang Daniang. Yang Grandma 'Grandma Yangi is worried that her daughter2 is not willing to look after Grandma Yang3/heri.' e. Yang Daniang danxin niier bu ken cihou Yang Grandma worry daughter not willing look after zhe wei lao daniang. this CL old woman 'Grandma Yangi is worried that her daugher2 is not willing to look after the old woman3.' Consider first (5.46a). The potential coreferential interpretation between the zero anaphor and the subject of the embedded clause encouraged by the I-principle as the preferred interpretation is halted by the DRP, as would be expected. Consequently, the zero anaphor is subject to the I-implicated coreferentiality with the matrix subject.12 Next, let us move on to (5.46b). By the M-principle, the pronoun would be interpreted as being preferably disjoint in reference with the matrix subject. This interpretation seems to be ruled out by the 'matrix wins' mechanism, namely by the rival I-implicature derived from the matrix construction, given that the matrix subject occupies the most prominent position in the whole sentence. Take next (5.46c). The use of ziji in (5.46c) would first trigger an I-implicature to the effect that ziji is referentially dependent on the embedded subject. Although this is a plausible interpretation, being barred neither by the semantics of ziji nor by the DRP, evidently it is not the best interpretation, that is to say, the interpretation that makes the most sense pragmatically in accord with our knowledge about the world. This is enough for the interpretation to

144

The pragmatics of anaphora

be cancelled, and as a consequence, the I-principle will then promote an interpretation that ziji is by preference referentially dependent on the matrix subject - an interpretation that fits our intuition best. As for the M-implicated contrast in expectedness between ziji, on the one hand, and the pronoun and the zero anaphor, on the other, it will go through unblocked. Finally, the use of both the name in (5.46d) and the lexical NP in (5.46e) follows directly from the M-principle, which invites a noncoreferential interpretation between the name/lexical NP and the matrix subject as the preferred interpretation. At this point, we may ask, can this analysis in principle be applied to languages like English? The answer appears to be encouragingly positive. To see how it works, let us return to (5.19). Consider first (5.19a). Since the DRP is not in force here, himself is subject to the Iinferred coreferentiality with the local subject, and this interpretation is further reinforced by the semantics of himself We move next to (5.19b). The potential, coreferential interpretation between him and the local subject encouraged by the I-principle is suspended by the DRP, as would be predicted. Note next that by the M-principle, he in (5.19c) would be read as being preferably disjoint in reference with the local subject, since it is used where a zero anaphor could occur. However, given the 'matrix wins' apparatus, such an interpretation is desirably neutralised, and consequently, the identification of the local subject as the preferred antecedent for he follows directly from the I-principle. Next, the use of both the second Chomsky in (5.19e) and the man in (5.19f) M-suggests a local non-coreferential interpretation. Finally, the contrast between (5.19g) and (5.19h) is explained by both the I- and Mprinciples: given the I-principle, the unstressed pronoun in (5.19g) is invited to have a local coreferential interpretation with the matrix subject, and given the M-principle, the stressed pronoun in (5.19h) is encouraged to have a local coreferential interpretation with the matrix object. To sum up, the pragmatic theory I have developed for the analysis of anaphora can be schematically presented as follows. (5.47)

A pragmatic theory of anaphora a. Interpretation principles Assuming that a reflexive is necessarily referentially dependent, and a pronoun and a zero anaphor are optionally but preferably referentially dependent,

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

145

(i)

the use of a zero anaphor will I-implicate a local coreferential interpretation; (ii) the use of a pronoun will I-implicate a local coreferential interpretation, unless the pronoun is used where a zero anaphor could occur, in which case, the use of the pronoun will M-implicate the complement of the Iimplicature associated with the use of the zero anaphor; (iii) the use of a reflexive will I-implicate a local coreferential interpretation, unless the reflexive is used where a pronoun or a zero anaphor could occur, in which case, the use of the reflexive will M-implicate the complement of the I-implicature associated with the use of the pronoun or the zero anaphor, in terms of either reference or expectedness; and (iv) the use of a name or a lexical NP where a pronoun or a zero anaphor could occur, will M-implicate the complement of the I-implicature associated with the use of the pronoun or the zero anaphor, in terms of either reference or expectedness. b. Consistency constraints Any interpretation implicated by (a) is subject to the requirement of consistency with (i) the DRP; (ii) information saliency, so that (a) implicatures due to higher constructions may take precedence over implicatures due to lower constructions (i.e. 'matrix wins'), and (b) implicatures to coreference may be preferred according to the saliency of antecedent in line with the following hierarchy: topic > subject > object, etc.; and (iii) general implicature constraints, namely, (a) background assumptions, (b) meaning_nn, and (c) semantic entailments (e.g. referential dependence). The pragmatic theory of anaphora developed here is not ad hoc; rather, it is the direct outcome, in the sphere of anaphoric reference, of the systematic interaction of two neo-Gricean pragmatic principles,

146

The pragmatics of anaphora

constrained by the DRP, information saliency and general consistency conditions on conversational implicature. The information saliency constraint is set up primarily in response to the excessive power generated by the M-principle in examples such as (5.31b) and (5.36b). The underlying idea here is that given the cyclic nature of implicature projection, the hierarchy of preference regarding the application of the M- and I-principles may be overridden if the I-implicature is due to a higher construction or an antecedent that is higher on the saliency hierarchy. As for the general implicature constraints, they are consistent with Gazdar's (1979: 135) assumption that the informational content of an utterance can be considered to be an ordered set of semantic entailments, conversational implicatures, presuppositions and so on. Each incrementation of the informational content of an utterance must be consistent with the informational content that already exists, otherwise it will be cancelled according to the following hierarchy (adapted from Gazdar 1979, and Y. Huang 1991a, see also Levinson 1983: 142-4, 21216 for further discussion): (5.48)

The implicature cancellation procedure a. background assumptions b. semantic entailments c. conversational implicatures (i) Q-implicatures (1) Q-clausal (2) Q-scalar

(ii) M-implicatures (iii) I-implicatures d. presuppositions The consistency constraints will have a twofold function: on the one hand, they will force an evaporation of any interpretation that runs contrary to them; and on the other, they will simultaneously promote another interpretation. This procedure will go on recursively until the interpretation that is most compatible with our knowledge about the world is achieved. In other words, the interpretation generated by our apparatus is essentially an inference to an interpretation that is best in keeping with our knowledge about the world.

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora 5.5

147

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have constructed a pragmatic theory of anaphora within the neo-Gricean framework of conversational implicature. In this theory, anaphora is largely determined by the systematic interaction of two neoGricean pragmatic principles, namely the M- and I-principles (in that order of priority), constrained by the DRP, information saliency and general consistency conditions on conversational implicature. In the next chapter, this theory will further be applied to more data from Chinese.

6

Further applications of the theory

6.1

Introduction

In the last chapter, I developed a neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. In this theory, we assume that there is a distinction of referential dependence between reflexives on the one hand, and other types of anaphoric expression on the other, and we attribute this difference to semantics. The interpretation of zero anaphors, pronouns, reflexives and lexical NPs can then be largely reduced to the systematic interplay of two neo-Gricean pragmatic principles, namely the M- and Iprinciples (with that order of preference), counterbalanced by the DRP, information saliency and general consistency conditions on conversational implicatures. Such a pragmatic theory, of course, does not deny the existence of distinct syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels and modes of explanation in the study of anaphora. On the contrary, it presumes the independence, or at least partial independence, of an irreducible grammaticalised stratum for pragmatically motivated constraints on anaphora. What pragmatics does here is to provide a set of complementary, explanatory principles which constrains the interpretation or production of an anaphoric expression whose linguistic representation has already been antecedently cognised. However, these are important and indispensable principles for any adequate theory of anaphora, for as we already saw in the last chapter, they can effect substantial simplifications in the syntax of anaphora. In this chapter, I shall put the theory on further testing against more data from Chinese. I shall begin with zero anaphors. I shall look at zero anaphors in the control construction in section 6.2, in the topic construction in section 6.3 and in the relative construction in section 6.4. Section 6.5 then considers the zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast, arguing that Chomsky's (1981) 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle follows directly from the interaction of the I- and M-principles. Next, in section 148

Further applications of the theory

149

6.6, I shall examine long-distance reflexivisation. Finally, the focus of section 6.7 will be on the binding condition C pattern in Chinese.

6.2

Zero anaphors in the control construction

As we saw in section 3.1 of chapter 3, control in Chinese exhibits a number of distinctive properties: notably (i) although there is in general a distinction between subject- and object-control verbs, there are verbs that allow either subject or object control, and there are even verbs that sometimes prefer subject control and sometimes prefer object control depending on context and world knowledge; (ii) Chinese allows - rather freely - remote or long-distance control; (iii) in an object-control construction, the direct-object controller sometimes can be dropped, contrary to Bach's Generalisation; and (iv) control can be done by way of split antecedency. Simply put, control involves the interpretation of a zero anaphor in embedded subject position. Under the pragmatic theory of anaphora developed here, the interpretation of zero anaphors is subject to the Iprinciple. What the I-principle does is to elicit a local coreferential interpretation, provided that such an interpretation is consistent with the DRP, information saliency and general consistency conditions on conversational implicatures. In fact, there appears to be a fairly rigid Iheuristic involved in the assignment of antecedent for zero anaphors: a local subject is in general preferred to a local object, and a non-split antecedent, to a split one; if none of these NPs seems to qualify as a possible antecedent, the next, more remote clause will be examined for possibilities in the same order, and so on until the root clause is reached. Failure to find an intrasentential antecedent will lead to the search for a previous discourse antecedent, preferably a topic; if there is still no suitable antecedent, then the inference will be to an 'arbitrary' interpretation. This antecedent search procedure may be informally represented as follows. (6.1)

An antecedent search procedure for zero anaphors In a structure of the sort [s2[s,0]L where 0 is a zero anaphor, 0 is interpreted as referentially dependent according to the following preference order: (i) 0 is referentially dependent on the local subject; failing which:

150

The pragmatics of anaphora (ii)

0 is referentially dependent on the local object; failing which: (iii) 0 is referentially dependent on both the local subject and the local object (split antecedents); failing which: (iv) (i)-(iii) is recursively applied to the next, higher clause until an antecedent is found; failing which: (v) find the nearest antecedent in the discourse, preferably a topic; failing which: (vi) settle for an 'arbitrary' interpretation.1 Clearly, the choice of controller is also very much a function of the lexical semantics of the control verb involved. It has been commonly assumed that verbs of a certain semantic type take subject control, whereas verbs of a different semantic type take object control (e.g. Radford, 1981: 381, Ruzicka 1983, Comrie 1984, Foley & Van Valin 1984:. 307-11, Xu 1985, Culicover & Wilkins 1986, Farkas 1988, Sag & Pollard 1991). Sag & Pollard (1991), for example, classify control verbs in English into three types: (i) the order/permit-type verbs which take object control, (ii) the promise-type verbs which take subject control, and (iii) the want/expect-typQ verbs which also take subject control. Furthermore, each of the three types of control verb has some semantic regularity. The semantics of the order/permit-class verbs involves a state of affair (SOA) whose relation is of influence type. The typical case is that a certain participant is influenced by another participant to perform a certain action (SOA-AGR). On the other hand, the semantics of the promiseclass verbs involves an SOA which contains a relation of commitment. The relation of commitment involves a committor and an action the committor commits to performing (SOA-AGR). Finally, the verbs in the want/expec/-class also show semantic uniformity: they involve desire, expectation or similar mental orientation toward a given SOA whose relation is of orientation type. This relation also involves two semantic roles, an experiencer and an SOA toward which the experience is oriented (SOA-AGR). The assignment of controller is then determined by a rolebased semantic principle, which is stated in (6.2). (6.2)

Sag and Pollard's Controller Assignment Principle Given a non-finite VP or predicative complement C, whose semantic content C is the SOA-AGR of an SOA S whose relation is R, the unexpressed subject of C is linked to:

Further applications of the theory

151

(a) the influenced participant of S, if R is of influence type, (b) the committor participant of S, if R is of commitment type, (c) the experiencer participant of S, if R is of orientation type. Along similar lines, Xu (1985) also argues that more attention should be paid to the semantic/thematic role played by control verbs. He claims that embedded zero subjects in Chinese derive their reference mainly from the lexical semantics of the matrix verbs. More specifically, he postulates two Control Selection Features (CSFs): [obligatory coreference] and [preferable coreference], each of which contains three values: [ + ], [ —] and [unspecified], and suggests assigning them to the 0-grid of each verb. Thus, for verbs the 0-grid of which contains a single 9-role, we have (6.3); and for verbs whose 0-grid has more than one 0-role, we have (6.4) (oc = obligatory coreference, pc = preferable coreference, u = unspecified). (6.3)

a. shefa 'try': AGENT, OC [ + ] pc [ + ] b. jueding 'decide': AGENT, OC [U] pc [ + ] c. zhidao 'know': EXPERIENCER, OC [U] pc [u]

(6.4)

a. yaoqing 'invite': AGENT, OC [ —] pc [ —] GOAL, OC [ + ] pc [ + ]

b. shuofu 'persuade': c. gaosu 'tell': AGENT

AGENT, OC [U] pc

[—] GOAL,

OC [U]

pc [ + ]

The different CSF values assigned to the different verbs in (6.3) and (6.4) reflect the scalar nature of the control force associated with these verbs. This is represented by a five-point scale of coreference in (6.5). (6.5)

Xu's scale of coreference ~m coreferring shefa jueding zhidao zhuzhang 'try' 'decide' 'know' 'advocate' non-coreferring

jinzhi 'prohibit' •

The controller is then chosen on the basis of the CSF values assigned to the verbs in terms of an indexing rule. (6.6)

Xu's Controlled Empty Category Indexing Rule Controlled empty NPs must be indexed on the basis of the marked value of the CSFs.

I agree with both Xu (1985) and Sag & Pollard (1991) that the lexical semantics of control verbs does play an important role in predicting

152

The pragmatics of anaphora

controller choice. However, on our account, the lexical semantics of control verbs merely plays a role in the selection of controller exactly analogous to the way in which semantic constraints affect pragmatic inferences. In other words, the lexical semantics of control verbs does not determine the choice of controller; it merely delimits the set of possible controllers. (If the choice of controller were merely determined by the lexical semantics of control verbs, then control would be an entirely semantic issue.) For example, verbs such as daying 'promise' and shuofu 'persuade' can be used to express different speech acts; given their lexical semantics, it is merely predicted that the possible set of controllers should normally be delimited to the matrix subject (or the AGENT) and the matrix object (or the GOAL). The actual choice between the matrix subject and the matrix object as the preferred controller is then determined by the Iprinciple in keeping with, say, context and/or world knowledge. Thus, to summarise, the I-principle, together with the interpretation heuristic in (6.1), will predict the following pattern for control: subject control will be selected or preferred where consistent with the lexical semantics of the control verbs and general consistency conditions on conversational implicatures; otherwise, object control will be selected or preferred. If neither subject nor object control appears to be possible, then control by split antecedency will be considered; and failing that, the search for a controller will follow the recursive cycle through higher matrix clauses. Failure to find an intrasentential controller will lead to the search for a remote controller in the prior discourse. If there is still no suitable controller, then the interpretation will be an arbitrary one. To see how this can be done, let us look at some examples. (6.7)

Xiaoming dasuan 0 xue like. Xiaoming intend study science 'Xiaoming intends to study science.'

(6.8)

Baba bi Xiaoming 0 du yike. dad force Xiaoming read medicine 'Dad forces Xiaoming to read medicine.'

In (6.7), the verb dasuan 'intend' is a commissive speech act verb (Searle 1975, Foley & Van Valin 1984) or a verb whose SOA is of commitment type (Sag & Pollard 1991). The propositional content of control verbs of this type is that the committor participant would commit himself to some future course of action A. By contrast, in (6.8), the verb

Further applications of the theory

153

hi 'force' is a directive speech act verb or a verb the SOA of which contains a relation of influence type. The propositional content of control verbs of this type is that the influenced participant would do some future course of action A. Thus, given the lexical semantics of the two verbs and the interpretation heuristic in (6.1), subject control is correctly predicted for (6.7) and object control, for (6.8). However, the same interpretations can also be obtained under either a syntactic or a semantic approach. The advantage of our pragmatic approach can be best seen in handling those cases of control that have proved to be very resistant to either a syntactic or a semantic approach. Consider first (6.9) and (6.10). (6.9)a. Xuesheng daying laoshi 0 mingtian jiao zuowen. pupil promise teacher tomorrow submit essay 'The pupil 1 promises the teacher2 that (he! . . . ) will hand in the essay tomorrow.' b. Laoshi daying xuesheng 0 mingtian fang yi tian jia. teacher promise pupil tomorrow have one day holiday 'The teacher! promises the pupil2 that (he2 . . . ) will have a day off tomorrow.' (6.10)a. Xuesheng shuofu laoshi 0 xiawu gei ta buke. pupil persuade teacher afternoon for 3SG make up lesson 'The pupil 1 persuades the teacher2 that (he2 . . . ) will make up the lessons for him! in the afternoon.' b. Laoshi shuofu xuesheng 0 xiawu gei ta buke. teacher persuade pupil afternoon for 3SG make up lesson 'The teacher! persuades the pupil2 that (hei . . . ) will make up the lessons for him2 in the afternoon.' As we saw in section 3.2.1 of chapter 3, daying 'promise' can be used to express either a commitment-to-action or a commitment-to-permission, and shuofu 'persuade' can be employed to convey either a request-foraction or a request-for-permission. In unmarked cases, where the sentence is an iconic reflection of the way the world stereotypically is, daying expresses a commitment-to-action, and shuofu expresses a request-for-action. Hence the former is a verb of subject control, and the latter, a verb of object control, as in the (a) sentence of (6.9) and (6.10). However, the unmarked interpretation of daying and shuofu is merely a strongly favoured one; it can simply be defeated in the face of

154

The pragmatics of anaphora

inconsistency with, say, context and/or world knowledge. This is exactly what happens in the (b) sentence of (6.9) and (6.10). Given our knowledge about the world, it is more likely that the speech act expressed is a commitment-to-permission in (6.9b) and a request-for-permission in (6.10b). Consequently, there is a shift of preference for the choice of controller here: by the interpretation heuristic in (6.1), the object control reading becomes the preferred reading in (6.9b), and the subject control reading, the preferred reading in (6.10b). This analysis is in part reminiscent of the family of analyses by Foley & Van Valin (1984), Farkas (1988) and Sag & Pollard (1991). On Foley & Van Valin's (1984: 309) view, it is the speech acts a control verb may express rather than its lexical meanings that govern controller assignment. Farkas (1988) uses an abstract notion of responsibility to predict controller choice. The essence of responsibility is that if x can bring a course of action A about, x is potentially responsible for A. Thus, shift of controller is essentially the result of shift of responsibility on this account (see also Larson 1991). Sag & Pollard (1991) are of the opinion that the controller assignment mechanism should be tied to the SOAs described by linguistic expressions rather than linguistic expressions themselves. On this view, then, controller switch involves a kind of 'accommodation' of interpretation dubbed 'coercion', that is, the semantic content of the controlled complement is 'coerced' into being compatible with the semantics of the control verb involved. It is clear that these analyses are somewhat similar to the one developed here in attempting to account for controller shift on a non-configurational basis. However, they differ from the present one on the issue of whether shift of controller is semantic or pragmatic in nature. While Foley & Van Valin (1984), Farkas (1988) and Sag & Pollard (1991) treat shift of controller as a semantic issue, I take it to be essentially a pragmatic issue. What evidence there is in Chinese seems to favour my position rather than theirs. Note that the object control reading in (6.9b) and the subject control reading in (6.10b) are only the preferred reading; the other readings, namely the subject control reading and the object control reading are not impossible. In other words, in examples like (6.9) and (6.10), there are (at least) two possible controllers, one of which is the default but defeasible one. Following Donnellan (1966), Stalnaker (1972) and Horn (1988), we might call the systematic ambiguity displayed by these verbs a pragmatic ambiguity, namely a built-in duality of use. There is thus clear evidence that it is pragmatics that comes to the fore to

Further applications of the theory

155

make correct predictions for the choice of controller where syntax and/or lexical semantics fail to do so.2 Next, consider (6.11). (6.11)a. Laoshi shuo Xiaoming jueding 0 xue like. teacher say Xiaoming decide read science 'The teacher i says that Xiaoming2 has decided that (he2 . . . ) will read science.' b. Xiaoming shuo laoshi jueding 0 xue like. Xiaoming say teacher decide read science 'Xiaomingi says that the teacher2 has decided that (hei . . . ) will read science.' By the interpretation heuristic in (6.1), the preferred controller of the zero anaphor in (6.11a) is correctly I-predicted to be the subject of the intermediate clause. By the same mechanism, the zero anaphor in (6.11b) would first be I-interpreted as being preferably coreferential with the intermediate subject. But such an interpretation runs counter to the background assumption that it is more likely that a pupil rather than a teacher needs to study a subject. This has the immediate consequence that the interpretation is ruled out as the preferred interpretation. As a result, the zero anaphor is correctly I-implicated to be preferably coreferential with the matrix subject. The same can be said of violations of Bach's Generalisation, i.e. those object control constructions whose direct object controller is dropped. (6.12)

Xiaoming shuo mama jiao [0 ba di sao yi sao]. Xiaoming say mum ask BA floor sweep one sweep 'Xiaoming! says that Mum 2 tells (him! . . . ) to sweep the floor.'

(6.13)

Baba bu rang [0 qu huaxue]. dad not allow go ski 'Dadi does not allow (me/you/him2/us/them . . . ) to go skiing.'

(6.14)

Zhanshimenju qi le qiang, 0 miaozhun le baxin, soldiers raise RV PFV gun aim PFV bull's eye zheshi, banzhang mingling [0 kaihuo]. at this moment squad leader order open fire 'The soldiersi raised (their) guns and aimed at the bull's eyes. At this moment, the squad leader2 ordered (themi) to open fire.'

156

The pragmatics of anaphora

In these examples, it is the structurally unrepresented direct object of the immediate, matrix clause that controls the zero subject of the embedded clause. The controlled clause thus has no controller within the next, higher clause that contains it (cf. section 3.2.1 of chapter 3). By (6.1), it would be predicted that the controller in (6.12) be mama 'mum', that in (6.13) be baba 'dad' and that in (6.14) be banzhang 'squad leader'. However, these interpretations are not consistent with the lexical semantics of jiao 'ask', rang 'allow' and mingling 'order', which are causative verbs or verbs whose SOA is of influence type. Consequently, they are cancelled. Since there is no structurally represented matrix object in these sentences, by (6.1), the (preferred) 'controller' would go to Xiaoming in (6.12), an NP in the prior discourse context in (6.13) and zhanshimen 'soldiers' in (6.14). These interpretations would go through unblocked, since the 'controllers' selected are not an argument of the control verbs, hence are immune to the lexical semantics of these verbs. Thus, under our analysis, control in examples such as (6.12)—(6.14) is done by a matrix direct object, but by one which is not structurally explicitly expressed in the minimal dominating clause but which can be anaphorically traced in the next, higher clause or in the immediate discourse context. 3 Next, we turn to control by split antecedency. (6.15)

Xiaoming jianyi Xiaohua 0 qu da wangqiu. Xiaoming suggest Xiaohua go play tennis 'Xiaomingi suggests to Xiaohua 2 02/0,2} to play tennis.'

(6.16)

Xiaoming shuofu Xiaohua yiqi qu da wangqiu. Xiaoming persuade Xiaohua together go play tennis 'Xiaomingi persuades Xiaohua 2 to play tennis together.'

Jianyi 'suggest' in (6.15) is a directive speech act verb, but it is a 'public' (Thompson 1973) or 'collaborative' verb (Shannon 1987) as well. By (6.1), the zero anaphor in (6.15) could be I-controlled either by the matrix object alone (in line with the causative semantics of the verb) or jointly by the matrix subject and the matrix object (in keeping with the collaborative semantics of the verb). By contrast, shuofu 'persuade' in (6.16) is not a collaborative verb. Given (6.1), (6.16) would preferably be I-predicted to take object control, but such an interpretation is inconsistent with the semantics of yiqi 'together', which requires the zero anaphor to have a plural antecedent. This is enough to cancel the original I-inferred object control reading, and consequently triggers

Further applications of the theory

157

another operation of the I-principle, from which follows the splitantecedent interpretation.4 Finally, consider (6.17), which is an example of control involving referential overlap of some kind. (6.17)

Changzhang dailing diaocha zu 0 qu le factory director lead investigation group go PFV shigu xianchang. accident scene 'The factory director led the inquiry team to go to the scene of the accident.'

Here, given our knowledge about the world, the matrix subject is most naturally interpreted by the I-principle as included within the controllee. At this point, it is useful to return to a question raised in section 2.4.1 of chapter 2. The question is that given that there are only finite clauses in Chinese, why the anaphoric element in (6.18) cannot be lexically expressed, in contrast to that in (6.19) and (6.20). (6.18)a. Xiaoming shefa 0 tiantian shui ge wu jiao. Xiaoming try daily sleep CL noon sleep 'Xiaoming tries to take a nap after lunch every day.' b. *Xiaoming shefa ta tiantian shui ge wu jiao. Xiaoming try 3SG daily sleep CL noon sleep 'Xiaoming tries to take a nap after lunch every day.' (6.19)a. Wang Zhuren jueding 0 mingtian qu Shanghai. Wang Director decide tomorrow go Shanghai 'Director Wangi decides that (hei/2/I/you/we/they . . . ) should go to Shanghai tomorrow.' b. Wang Zhuren jueding ta mingtian qu Shanghai. Wang Director decide 3SG tomorrow go Shanghai 'Director Wang! decides that he2/i should go to Shanghai tomorrow.' (6.20)a. Xiaoming zhidao 0 de le yi deng jiang. Xiaoming know win PFV first class prize 'Xiaoming! knows that (he 1/2/I/you/we/they . . . ) has/have won first prize.'

158

The pragmatics of anaphora b. Xiaoming zhidao ta de le yi deng jiang. Xiaoming know 3SG win PFV first class prize 'Xiaomingi knows that he 1/2 has won first prize.'

Towards an answer, I shall follow Xu (1985) in arguing that whether or not an embedded anaphoric expression in Chinese must remain phonologically null is due largely to the lexical semantics of, or the speech act performed by, the matrix verb involved. Note that from a semantic point of view, shefa 'try', jueding 'decide' and zhidao 'know' have different control forces. Since shefa has a very strong control force and requires obligatory coreference between the matrix and embedded subjects, the controller in (6.18) is already somewhat 'given' and can be 'recovered' without any difficulty. Therefore, it would be redundant to repeat it with an overt linguistic expression. 5 On the other hand, jueding has a rather weak control force and only requires preferable coreference. This means that the matrix subject is a preferred but not an invariable controller in (6.19). In unmarked cases such as (6.19a), the preferred controller is the matrix subject. Since this is what is expected, the controller does not need to be redundantly spelt out. By contrast, in marked cases such as (6.19b), the preferred controller is not the matrix subject, hence it needs to be explicitly specified in lexical terms. As we saw in the last chapter (cf. section 5.4 of chapter 5), the contrast described here follows directly from the interaction of the I- and M-principles. By the I-principle, the use of the zero anaphor in (6.19a) generates a preferred, local coreferential interpretation; by the M-principle, the use of the pronoun in (6.19b) engenders a preferred, local non-coreferential interpretation. Finally, zhidao has no control force at all. Consequently, there is no control restriction whatsoever on the choice of antecedent for the anaphoric expression in (6.20). As a result, the anaphoric element in (6.20) can be either overt or empty. This explanation can further be instantiated by contrasting (6.21) with (6.22). (6.21)a. Xiaomingi gaosu Xiaohua2 02 xiawu qu jichang. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua afternoon go airport 'Xiaoming tells Xiaohua to go to the airport in the afternoon.' b. *Xiaomingi gaosu Xiaohua2 ta2 xiawu qu jichang. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua 3SG afternoon go airport 'Xiaoming tells Xiaohua to go to the airport in the afternoon.'

Further applications of the theory

159

(6.22)a. Xiaoming gaosu Xiaohua 0 xiawu qu jichang. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua afternoon go airport 'Xiaomingi tells Xiaohua 2 that (hei /3 /I/you/we/they . . . ) will go to the airport in the afternoon.' b. Xiaoming gaosu Xiaohua ta xiawu qu jichang. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua 3SG afternoon go airport 'Xiaoming! tells Xiaohua 2 that he 1/3 will go to the airport in the afternoon.' Verbs like gaosu 'tell' and tongzhi 'inform' can be used to express different speech acts. When they are employed to convey a directive speech act (as in (6.21)), their control force is strong. As such, we would expect that the controllee in (6.21) cannot be lexically filled. On the other hand, when they are used to express a non-directive speech act (as in (6.22)), they have no control force. Consequently, we would expect that the anaphoric expression in (6.22) can be either overt or empty. This prediction is borne out, as has been shown by the contrast between (6.21) and (6.22).6 By way of summary, in this section, I have shown that the properties exhibited by control in Chinese follow straightforwardly from the pragmatic theory advanced here, once the lexical semantics of control verbs is taken into consideration. Taking control as a special case of zero anaphora, our pragmatic approach succeeds in eliminating the need for a separate theory of control, at least as far as the choice of controller is concerned.

6.3

Zero anaphors in the topic construction

In the preceding section, I have looked at zero anaphors in the control construction. In this section, I shall turn to zero anaphors in the topic construction. By topic construction is meant a construction containing two parts: a topic, which occurs first, and a comment, a clause which follows the topic and says something about it (Li & Thompson 1976, 1981, Xu & Langendoen 1985). Topic constructions in Chinese can roughly be divided into two types: those whose comment clause is syntactically related to the topic and those whose comment clause is not syntactically but semantically and/or pragmatically related to the topic. Following Chafe (1976) and Xu & Langendoen (1985), we might call the former 'English-style' and the latter

160

The pragmatics of anaphora

'Chinese-style' topic constructions. They are illustrated in (6.23) and (6.24) respectively. (6.23)

Xiaoming, wo piping guo 0. Xiaoming 1SG criticise EXP 'Xiaoming, I criticised.'

(6.24)

Beijing Gugong zui churning. Beijing Imperial Palace most famous 'Beijing, the Imperial Palace is most famous.'

In (6.23), the comment clause contains a zero anaphor (i.e. a w/z-trace on a GB analysis) which is anaphorically related to the topic. But there is no such syntactic relation between the topic and the comment clause in (6.24); the topic does not correspond to any extraction site within the comment clause. Instead, the topic and the comment clause are related with each other pragmatically. Chinese-style topic constructions are widespread in Chinese and other East Asian and South East Asian languages such as Japanese, Korean, Lahu and Lisu. They are even considered by some scholars to be the basic grammatical relation in the sentential structure of these languages (e.g. Li & Thompson 1976). However, unlike English-style topic constructions, Chinese-style topic constructions remain little explored. Therefore, in the remainder of this section, I shall concentrate on them. Example (6.24) constitutes a typical Chinese-style topic construction, where there is an unmarked sequence of two NPs followed by a VP. The construction is frequently called the 'double-subject construction' in the literature, because traditionally, Chinese linguists and grammarians analyse it as having two subjects. Chao (1968), for example, calls the first NP the main subject and the second the minor subject. However, in Li & Thompson (1976, 1981), the first NP is analysed as the topic and the second as the subject. This analysis is partially echoed in Kratochvil (1986), who, while agreeing with Li and Thompson that the construction under consideration is a topic construction, argues that both NPs are topics, but with different domains. Mention should be made at this point that Chinese-style topic constructions are not restricted to one-topic structures. They can contain multiple topics, provided that the well-formedness condition on the topic construction is met.

Further applications of the theory (6.25)

161

Yingguo daxue Niujin Jianqiao xuesheng zhiliang gao. England university Oxford Cambridge student quality high 'England, universities, Oxford and Cambridge, students, quality is high.'

Example (6.25) contains four topic constructions. Schematically, it may be represented as follows (cf. Xu & Langendoen 1985).

Yingguo Spec 'England' I daxue Spec 'university' Niujin Spec Jianqiao I 'Oxford xuesheng Cambridge' 'student'

C

zhiliang 'quality'

I

What, then, are the essential properties of Chinese-style topic constructions? Following Li & Thompson (1976, 1981) and Tsao (1977, 1987), we might summarise them as follows: (i) the topic must be definite (in its broad sense, according to which proper and generic NPs are understood as definite), (ii) the topic, apart from being optionally morphologically marked, must be in sentence-initial position (but see Foley & Van Valin 1984: 127-9), (hi) the topic, but not the subject, may be separated from the rest of the construction by a pause particle such as a (or its variant ya), ne, me and ba (cf. Chao 1968: 67), (iv) there is a

162

The pragmatics of anaphora

particular semantic relationship between the topic and the subject; the topic is the whole of which the subject is a part,7 and (v) the subject is in a 'doing' or 'being' semantic relationship with the VP, but there is no such relationship between the topic and the VP. We might further formulate the well-formedness condition on the topic construction as follows. (6.27)

The well-formedness condition on the topic construction In a topic construction, some constituent of the comment clause or the comment clause as a whole must say something about the topic.

Now, in Chinese-style topic constructions, the relation between the topic and the comment clause is established via semantic and/or pragmatic rather than syntactic means. Consider, for example, the topic constructions in (6.28), which are drawn from a number of 'topicprominent' languages. (6.28) a. (Chinese) Hua wo zui xihuan meigui. flower 1SG most like rose 'Flowers, I like roses most.' b. (Lahu, Li & Thompson 1976) ho 5 na-qhoyi ve yo. elephant TOP nose long PRT DECL 'Elephants, noses are long.' c. (Chinese, Li & Thompson 1976) Nei chang huo xingkui xiaofangdui lai de kuai. that CL fire fortunately fire-brigade come CSC quickly 'That fire, fortunately the fire-brigade came quickly.' d. (Korean, Cole, Hermon & Sung 1990) Enehak-un Chomsky-ka elyep-ta. linguistics-TOP Chomsky-NOM difficult-DECL 'Linguistics, Chomsky is hard to read.' e. (Chinese) Jiu ge yanjiusheng ba ge de le nine CL research student eight CL obtain PFV boshi xuewei. doctorate degree 'Of the nine research students, eight obtained a doctorate.'

Further applications of the theory

163

f. (Chinese) Shengwulunlixue wo shi menwaihan. bioethics 1SG be layman 'Bioethics, I'm a layman.' The comment clauses in (6.28a)-(6.28c) all contain a lexical item that is semantically related to the topic. In (6.28a), meigui 'rose' is a hyponym of hua 'flower'; in (6.28b), na-qho'nosQ' is a part of ho 'elephant'; in (6.28c), xiaofangdui 'fire-brigade' and huo 'fire' are from the same semantic field. On the other hand, in (6.28d)-(6.28f), the topic and the comment clause are associated with each other pragmatically. In (6.28d), Chomsky is linked to enehak 'linguistics', but the relation is established by the additional premise that Chomsky is a linguist and writes about linguistics. Clearly, this premise is not part of Chomsky but is something which has to be added to the interpretation of the utterance via our background knowledge. This phenomenon, whereby a definite NP can be linked to some antecedent, is called 'bridging cross-reference' (Clark & Haviland 1977), and, as we have seen, is pragmatic in nature (cf. section 1.2 of chapter 1). Next, in (6.28e), the eight students mentioned in the comment clause are drawn from among the nine students specified in the topic. Finally, in (6.28f), bioethics is something about which the speaker is a layman. In these cases, as Chafe (1976: 50) notes, the topic appears 'to limit the applicability of the main predication to a certain restricted domain . . . [It] sets a spatial, temporal, or individual framework within which the main predication holds.' In other words, the topic seems to establish a frame or domain of reference for the following comment clause or for some constituent in it (Xu & Langendoen 1985). Moreover, a Chinese-style topic construction can sometimes be ambiguous; its interpretation is determined essentially by context and/or world knowledge. Following are two examples from Lisu (Li & Thompson 1976). (6.29)

lathyu nya ana khu-a people TOP dog bite-DECL a. 'People, dogs bite (them).' b. 'People, (they) bite dogs.'

(6.30)

ana nya lathyu khu-a dog TOP people bite-DECL a. 'Dogs, (they) bite people.' b. 'Dogs, people bite (them).'

164

The pragmatics of anaphora

As the translation indicates, both (6.29) and (6.30) are ambiguous. This is due to the fact that a simple, transitive, declarative clause in Lisu does not distinguish between AGENT and PATIENT structurally. Of course, the two sentences are different, but they differ only in terms of topic: Idthyu 'people' is the topic in (6.29), whereas and 'dog' is the topic in (6.30). However, given our knowledge about the world, there is no difficulty in determining which interpretation is the preferred one in both (6.29) and (6.30). Having discussed the characteristics of Chinese-style topic constructions, let us turn to zero anaphors in these constructions. One of the most common types of zero anaphora found in Chinese-style topic constructions is the following. (6.31)

Lao Wang jixing huai, 0 piqi ye huai. Lao Wang memory poor temper also bad 'Wang, memory is poor and temper is bad.'

The two clauses in (6.31) form a chain of Chinese-style topic constructions, where the topic of the second topic construction is dropped. Let us call this 'topic-drop'. The interpretation of the topiczero anaphor in a topic chain like (6.31) falls neatly in line with the Iprinciple. By the interpretation apparatus in (6.1), the zero anaphor would be I-implicated to be coindexed with the chain-initial topic, given that a topic-zero anaphor cannot in general be anteceded by an NP that is lower on the saliency hierarchy. Or, seen the other way round, given the 'matrix wins' mechanism, the I-principle will ensure that in 'topicdrop', the topic established in the first topic construction would serve as the antecedent of the unrealised topics in the chain of topic constructions following it. More or less the same analysis can be applied to examples like (6.32). (6.32)

Xiaoming tui kai men, 0 zou jin wu, Xiaoming push open door walk into room 0 dao le yi bei cha, 0 zuo le xia lai. pour PFV one CL tea sit PFV down RV 'Xiaoming pushed the door open, walked into the room, poured a cup of tea and sat down.'

In this example, there is a chain of zero subjects which occur in sentence-initial position. In this chain, the subject of each clause except

Further applications of the theory

165

that of the chain-initial clause is dropped. Let us call this 'subject/topicdrop'. Again, given (6.1), the subject-zero anaphors in the chain are I-implicated to be coreferential with the chain-initial subject. This Iinferred interpretation of coreference is further reinforced by an independently derived I-inference of clause linkage, an inference to a close semantico-conceptual relation between clauses (cf. section 5.4 of chapter 5). Note that 'subject/topic-drop' also requires a common semantic denominator; the initial subject is followed by a chain of description about it. Therefore, by the I-triggered process of clause linkage, 'subject/topic-drop' in (6.32) also tends to invite some non-truthconditional connections such as sequentiality, causality and intensionality among the juxtaposed clauses in it, as in the case of 'conjunction buttressing' derived from the use of and in English (cf. section 1.2 of chapter 1) (e.g. Levinson 1987a). 8 Coming back to zero anaphors in Chinese-style topic constructions, as our next example, take (6.33). (6.33)a. Xiaoming gebo teng, 0 shui bu zhao jiao. Xiaoming arm ache sleep not sleep 'Xiaoming has a pain in the arm and (he) cannot fall asleep.' b. Xiaoming gebo teng, 0 zhong le qilai. Xiaoming arm ache swell PFV up 'Xiaoming has a pain in the arm and (it) has swollen up.' In both (6.33a) and (6.33b), there is a zero anaphor that occupies the subject position of the clause that immediately follows the initial topic construction. Li & Thompson (1976, 1981) and Tsao (1977, 1987) have attempted to give an account of the zero anaphor under discussion in terms of a 'topic determination' hypothesis. The basic idea is that the reference of an anaphoric element (such as a pronoun or a zero anaphor) in the clauses following a topic construction is determined by the topic. This is true of (6.33a) but false of (6.33b). Clearly, given the lexical semantics of the predicate verb zhong 'swell up', the zero anaphor in (6.33b) can only refer to the subject but not the topic of the preceding topic construction. This indicates that the 'topic determination' hypothesis needs to be refined. Now, under our analysis, by (6.1), the assignment of the reference of the zero anaphor in (6.33a) will go to the topic but not the subject of the preceding topic construction. This is because the topic is higher in saliency than the subject, and the topic but

166

The pragmatics of anaphora

not the subject is consistent with the lexical semantics of the predicate verb shui 'sleep'. Turning next to (6.33b), although the topic is higher on the saliency hierarchy, it is inconsistent with the lexical semantics of the predicate verb. Therefore, it is cancelled as the antecedent for the zero anaphor (given that semantic constraints always cancel inconsistent pragmatic inferences in our system). Consequently, the subject will be chosen by the I-principle as the antecedent for the zero anaphor. More or less the same point can be made with (6.34), where it is background assumption that helps to select the intended referent. (6.34) a. Xiaoming mama bing le, 0 bu neng qu shangxue. Xiaoming mum ill CRS not can go go to school 'Xiaoming's mum is ill and (he) cannot go to school.' b. Xiaoming mama bing le, 0 bu neng qu shangban. Xiaoming mum ill CRS not can go go to work 'Xiaoming's mum is ill and (she) cannot go to work.' Here, given the background assumption about who is most likely to go to school and who is most likely to go to work, by the I-principle, the topic is correctly selected as the preferred antecedent for the zero anaphor in (6.34a), and the subject, as the preferred antecedent for the zero anaphor in (6.34b). Thus, for examples like (6.33) and (6.34), our pragmatic apparatus would predict that the topic has the priority in determining the reference of the zero anaphor in the clauses following the topic construction, provided that it is consistent with both the lexical semantics of the verb involved and world knowledge. In other words, given the I-principle and the 'matrix wins' mechanism, the assignment of the reference of the zero anaphor in these examples is predicted to go to the topic unless there is lexical, contextual and/or background information to the contrary. This seems to be a correct prediction, as can be seen by a consideration of the following example, where there is neither lexical, nor contextual, nor background information to help to choose the antecedent for the zero anaphor, but where the topic interpretation is intuitively felt to be the preferred interpretation. (6.35)

Xiaoming mama bing le, 0 bu neng qu Beijing. Xiaoming mum ill CRS not can go Beijing a. 'Xiaoming's mum is ill and (he) cannot go to Beijing.' b. 'Xiaoming's mum is ill and (she) cannot go to Beijing.'

Further applications of the theory

167

Before leaving this section, let us briefly consider zero anaphors in English-style topic constructions. (6.36)

Xiaohua, Xiaoming shuo 0 xia ge yue jiehun. Xiaohua Xiaoming say next CL month marry 'Xiaohua 1, Xiaoming2 says that (heO will get married next month.'

(6.37)

Liu Daniang, Yang Daniang danxin niier bu Liu Grandma Yang Grandma worry daughter not ken cihou 0. willing look after 'Grandma Liu b Grandma Yang2 is worried that her daughter3 is not willing to look after (hen).'

Examples (6.36) and (6.37) without the topic Xiaohua and Liu Daniang 'Grandma Liu' are in fact examples (5.31a) and (5.46a) discussed in an earlier chapter (cf. section 5.4 of chapter 5). Clearly, when there is a topic, the original interpretation that the zero anaphor is preferably coreferential with the matrix subject vanishes. Instead, the zero anaphors in both (6.36) and (6.37) are related to the topic. This relation is, of course, syntactic in nature (cf. note 10 of chapter 5). However, the same interpretation can be (redundantly) obtained by the pragmatic approach advanced here. It is clear, at least intuitively, that the topic is the 'centre of attention' (Li & Thompson 1976) in a topic construction, to which some constituent of the comment clause or the comment clause as a whole is associated (cf. the well-formedness condition in (6.27)). If this is correct, then, by the I-principle, the use of the zero anaphor in a comment clause is most naturally interpreted as coreferential with the topic. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that although the relation between the topic and the zero anaphor in the comment clause in both (6.36) and (6.37) is syntactic in nature, it may be pragmatically motivated and it certainly can be pragmatically explained. In other words, the syntactic pattern may be treated as 'fossilised', 'conventionalised' or 'frozen' pragmatics (e.g. Comrie 1984, Horn 1984, 1988, Levinson 1987a, Y. Huang 1991). Next, what is perhaps more interesting, from a pragmatic point of view, are English-style topic constructions of the following kind.

168 (6.38)

The pragmatics of anaphora Ji 0 chi wan 0 le. chicken eat up CRS a. T h e chicken, (e.g. we) have eaten (it) up.' b. T h e chicken, (it) has eaten (e.g. the feed) up.'

Example (6.38) is an English-style topic construction; there is a dependency between the topic and a binding cite in the comment clause. However, since the comment clause contains two possible binding cites, the topic construction is ambiguous, as the translation indicates. The actual interpretation is then left to be determined by pragmatics, as would be expected. For example, given an appropriate context, (6.38) will be disambiguated as in (6.39). (6.39)a. Ji 0 chi wan 0 le, rou 0 hai you 0. chicken eat up CRS meat still have The chicken, (e.g. we) have eaten (it) up; the meat, (e.g. we) still have (some).' b. Ji 0 chi wan 0 le, 0 yao bu yao chicken eat up CRS should not should zai wei 0 dianr shi? again feed a bit feed T h e chicken, (it) has eaten (e.g. the feed) up. Should (e.g. I) give (it) a bit more feed?' Next, consider (6.40) and (6.41) below. (6.40)

Xiaoming, ta danxin laoshi you yao piping 0 le. Xiaoming 3SG worry teacher again will criticise CRS 'Xiaoming!, hei . . . is worried that the teacher will criticise (himi . . . ) again.'

(6.41)

Xiaoming, tamen shuo 0 xiwang laoshi bu yao Xiaoming 3PL say hope teacher not will zai piping 0 le. again criticise CRS 'Xiaoming!, they say that (hei . . . ) hopes that the teacher will not criticise (himi • • • ) again.'

Examples (6.40) and (6.41) are also instances of English-style topic constructions; their comment clause consists of anaphoric expressions that are syntactically related to the topic. In an earlier chapter (cf. section

Further applications of the theory

169

2.5.2 of chapter 2), following Xu & Langendoen (1985), I used examples of this kind to argue against C.-T. J. Huang's (1984) variable analysis of object-zero anaphors on the grounds that (6.40) violates the strong crossover condition and (6.41), the bijection principle. In fact, apart from the indicated interpretation, (6.40) and (6.41) can also have a range of other interpretations. In other words, (6.40) and (6.41) are ambiguous. However, under the pragmatic theory developed here, the preferred interpretation of (6.40) and (6.41) will fall naturally out of the I-principle, since the topic is not barred from relating itself simultaneously to ta and the zero anaphor in (6.40) and to more than one distinct zero anaphor in (6.41) under it. Finally, we come to (6.42), which is adapted from Xu & Langendoen (1985). (6.42)

Caiyuanzi Lao Wang yijing zhong shang 0 le. vegetable garden Lao Wang already plant RV CRS T h e vegetable garden, Wang has already grown (e.g. vegetables) in (it).'

On Xu and Langendoen's view, (6.42) provides a natural 'bridge' between clearly Chinese-style and clearly English-style topic constructions. The comment clause of (6.42) contains a zero anaphor (as in an English-style topic construction), but the zero anaphor is not syntactically related to the topic (as in a Chinese-style topic construction). The antecedent of the zero anaphor has to be 'bridge'-inferred from the extended domain of reference. Clearly, given our knowledge about the world, the zero anaphor refers most naturally to the vegetables in the garden rather than the garden itself. By the I-principle, which is essentially a principle of 'inference to the best interpretation' (Atlas & Levinson 1981), a 'bridging-inference' will be made to that effect. (For discussion about inferred anaphora, see e.g. Sandford & Garrod 1981, Bosch 1982, Erku & Gundel 1987 and Ariel 1990.)

6.4

Zero anaphors in the relative construction

We proceed next to zero anaphors in the relative construction. In a Chinese relative construction, the relative clause precedes its head and is closed by a modifier marker de. No overt w/z-word is involved (e.g. Xu & Langendoen 1985).

170

The pragmatics of anaphora

Relative constructions in Chinese can also be divided into two types: English-style and Chinese-style. In addition, there is a third type, an 'inbetween' type, which provides a natural 'bridge' between clearly Englishstyle and clearly Chinese-style relative constructions. These three types of relative construction, which correspond to the three types of topic construction we illustrated in (6.23), (6.28c) and (6.42), are given in (6.43)-(6.45). (6.43)

[[0 youlan guo Changcheng de] ren] tour EXP Great Wall MM person 'the person who has visited the Great Wall'

(6.44)

[[xingkui xiaofangdui lai de kuai de] fortunately fire-brigade come CSC quickly MM nei chang huo] that CL fire 'the fire to which fortunately the fire-brigade came quickly'

(6.45)

[[Lao Wang yijing zhong shang 0 le de] caiyuanzi] Lao Wang already plant RV CRS MM vegetable garden 'the vegetable garden in which Wang has already grown (vegetables)'

Clearly, as in the case of topic constructions, Chinese-style and semiChihese-style relative constructions can only be accounted for by a pragmatic approach. But it can also be readily shown that even some English-style relative constructions in Chinese are difficult to be interpreted in the same way as their counterparts in English have been interpreted. Of some particular interest is an English-style relative construction like (6.46), which is cited from C.-T. J. Huang (1984). (6.46)

Li Xiaojie hai zhao bu dao [yi ge [0 xin zhong Li Miss still find not RV one CL heart in xihuan 0 de] nanren]. like MM man 'Miss Li still cannot find a man whom (she) loves in (her) heart.'

In the relative clause in (6.46), there are two zero anaphors, one subject and one object. According to C.-T. J. Huang (1984), the object-zero anaphor can only be A-bound by the head of the relative clause nanren 'man', but cannot be A-bound by the subject of the main clause Li Xiaojie

Further applications of the theory

171

'Miss Li'. This alleged restriction is then explained in terms of the variable analysis which claims that an object-zero anaphor can only be an A-bound variable but not a Pronominal (cf. section 2.5.1 of chapter 2). I presented detailed arguments against the variable analysis of objectzero anaphors in sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 of chapter 2, so I shall not repeat them here. But what is at issue here is whether C.-T. J. Huang's variable analysis of object-zero anaphors in the relative construction can hold. The answer is again negative (see also Xu & Langendoen 1985 for the same conclusion). Consider the following pair. (6.47)a. Laoshi hai zhao bu dao [yi ge [0 keyi jiao 0 de] xuesheng]. teacher still find not RV one CL can teach MM pupil 'The teacher still cannot find a pupil whom (he) can teach.' b. Xuesheng hai zhao bu dao [yi ge [0 keyi jiao 0 de]. laoshi]. pupil still find not RV one CL can teach MM teacher 'The pupil still cannot find a teacher who can teach (him).' Given our knowledge about the world, the preferred interpretation for (6.47a) and (6.47b) is exactly the opposite: while the object-zero anaphor in (6.47a) is interpreted as being preferably A-bound by the head of the relative clause, the object-zero anaphor in (6.47b) is interpreted as being preferably A-bound by the subject of the main clause. More or less the same can be shown to hold for Japanese. Following is an example provided by Nakamura (1986). (6.48)

Johni-ga [[01/2 01/2 siken-ni otosita] hitO2-o] nikunde-iru. John-NOM examination flunk person hate a. 'John! hates the person 2 who flunked (him^.' b. 'Johni hates the person 2 whom (hei) flunked.'

According to Nakamura, (6.48) is ambiguous: the object-zero anaphor can either be A-bound by the head of the relative clause or be A-bound by the subject of the main clause. Essentially the same can also be said of zero anaphors in so-called free (i.e. headless) relative constructions. In contrast to (6.49), which is cited from C.-T. J. Huang (1984), we have (6.50), whose interpretation is the reverse of that of (6.49). (6.49)

[[0 mai 0 de]] gen [[0 zu 0 de]] dou hao. buy MM and rent MM all good 'What (one) buys and what (one) rents are both good.'

172 (6.50)

The pragmatics of anaphora [[0 yuanyi mai 0 de]] gen [[0 yuanyi zu 0 de]] dou hao. willing buy MM and willing rent MM all good 'Whoever is willing to buy (e.g. a house) and whoever is willing to rent (e.g. a house) are both good.'

All this seems to be another sound indication that C.-T. J. Huang's variable analysis of object-zero anaphors is wrong. Now, how can zero anaphors in English-style relative constructions of this kind be interpreted under our theory? The zero anaphors can be given their preferred interpretation via the interaction of the I-principle and the DRP. Take (6.47) as an example. In the case of (6.47a), by (6.1), the subject-zero anaphor is first I-implicated to be coreferential with the subject of the main clause. Then by the DRP, the object-zero anaphor is interpreted to be disjoint in reference with the subject-zero anaphor. The next possible, local antecedent for the object-zero anaphor is the head of the relative clause, hence by the I-principle, the object-zero anaphor is implicated to be coindexed with it. However, in the case of (6.47b), such an interpretation is inconsistent with our knowledge about the world and therefore it is cancelled. This has the immediate consequence of activating another application of the I-principle, which will induce an opposite interpretation.

6.5

The zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast: Chomsky's 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle reinterpreted

Chomsky (1981: 65, 1982: 25) invokes an 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle to account for the preference of a zero anaphor over an overt pronoun where there is such an option. Given this principle, it predicts that where there is a zero anaphor/overt pronoun choice left open by the grammar, a zero anaphor is chosen where a local coreferential interpretation is intended. This has the effect that where a coreferential zero anaphor may appear, the use of an overt pronoun will tend to be taken to solicit disjoint reference. This principle, in fact, follows automatically from our more general neo-Gricean pragmatic theory, especially from the interaction of the Iand M-principles. As already suggested in section 5.4 of chapter 5, on the interaction of the I- and M-principles, where there is a possible referential opposition between a zero anaphor and an overt pronoun, a complementary interpretation arises: the use of the zero anaphor will

Further applications of the theory

173

I-implicate coreference, whereas the use of an overt pronoun will Mimplicate disjoint reference. A few examples may help to illustrate this point. Let us start with the zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast in the quantified construction. We saw in section 2.4.2 of chapter 2 that in Chinese an overt pronoun in general cannot admit of a quantifiervariable interpretation where a zero anaphor can. This contrast can be shown in (6.51). (6.51) a. Mei ge ren dou shuo 0 xihuan Zhongguocai. every CL person all say like Chinese food 'Everybodyi says that (I/you/he1/2/we/they . . . ) like/likes Chinese cuisine.' b. Mei ge ren dou shuo ta xihuan Zhongguocai. every CL person all say 3SG like Chinese food 'Everybodyi says that he2 likes Chinese cuisine.' In (6.51a), the zero anaphor is ambiguous: it can be interpreted either as a variable bound to the quantificational NP mei ge ren 'everybody' or as a referential pronoun coindexed with, say, a topic in the preceding discourse. However, the quantifier-variable interpretation is intuitively the preferred interpretation. By contrast, in (6.51b), the overt pronoun can only be interpreted as a referential pronoun. This contrast is captured by e.g. Montalbetti's (1984) Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC) in GB, a special case of the 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle (see also Hermon 1985, and especially Burzio 1991 for discussion about the hierarchy of choice for bound NPs). (6.52)

Montalbetti's Overt Pronoun Constraint Overt pronouns cannot link to formal variables if and only if the alternation overt/empty obtains.

However, the OPC (and the more general 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle) clearly has a pragmatic flavour (e.g. Chomsky 1981: 227, Hyams 1986: 96, Ariel 1990: 101, C.-T. J. Huang 1991).9 In fact, it follows directly from the interaction of the I- and M-principles. By the I-principle, it will (redundantly) ensure that the zero anaphor in (6.51a) takes the quantificational subject NP as its preferred antecedent. (The Iimplicated interpretation is redundant because the quantifier-variable relation is essentially grammatical in nature and can be captured by a

174

The pragmatics of anaphora

syntactic rule such as Reinhart's (1983) coindexing rule (cf. section 5.2 of chapter 5)). On the other hand, since the pronoun in (6.51b) is used where a zero anaphor could occur, and since (6.51a) is what the speaker should have opted for if he intended a quantifier-variable interpretation, the use of a marked, overt pronoun in (6.51b) will fall under the M-principle, from which a non-quantifier-variable interpretation will be derived. Secondly, the same can be shown to hold for the zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast in the resultative construction. (6.53)a. Xiaoming ku de 0 hen shangxin. Xiaoming cry CSC very sad 'Xiaoming got very sad from crying.' b. Xiaoming ku de ta hen shangxin. Xiaoming cry CSC 3SG very sad 'Xiaoming! cried and he2 got very sad.' Here, the zero anaphor in (6.53a) and the overt pronoun in (6.53b) are in complementary distribution. Again, under our theory, preference will be given to the zero anaphor in (6.53a) by the I-principle for a coreferential interpretation and to the overt pronoun in (6.53b) by the Mprinciple for a disjoint interpretation. Next, the zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast in backward anaphora also falls naturally out of the interaction of the I- and M-principles. It is generally the case that in Chinese, where a zero anaphor can be used backwardly, an overt pronoun cannot be employed for the same purpose (see e.g. McCray 1980, Carden 1982, Mittwoch 1983, Macleod 1984 and Ariel 1990 for discussion about backward anaphora). (6.54)a. 0 yue shuo, Xiaoming yue gaoxing. more talk Xiaoming more happy The more (he1/2/I/you/we/they . . . ) talks/talk, the happier Xiaomingi becomes.' b. Ta yue shuo, Xiaoming yue gaoxing. 3SG more talk Xiaoming more happy The more hei talks, the happier Xiaoming2 becomes.' This is exactly what would be expected under our account. Given the Iprinciple, the use of the zero anaphor in (6.54a) will by preference invite a local coreferential interpretation. Since the overt pronoun in (6.54b) is used where a zero anaphor could have been used but was avoided, the use

Further applications of the theory

175

of it will generate an M-implicature to the effect that the coreferential interpretation does not hold as the preferred interpretation. We come finally to the zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast in the correlative construction. By correlative construction is meant a construction in which there are two clauses linked together by a pair of adverbs with each in a different clause. The pair of adverbs are called correlative markers (CMs). The distribution of zero anaphors and overt pronouns in the correlative construction is closely related to the position of the CM with respect to the subject (S) in each clause. This correlation is summed up by Liu (1981) as follows. (6.55)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

S CM, S CM S CM, CM S CM S, S CM CM S, CM S

obligatory zero anaphor optional zero anaphor optional zero anaphor pronoun preferred

Following Liang (1986), we can rearrange (6.55) according to the topic (T) prominence of the subject in each clause, as in (6.56). (6.56)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

T CM, T CM T CM, CM S CM S, T CM CM S, CM S

zero anaphor obligatory zero anaphor optional but preferred zero anaphor optional pronoun preferred

Now, a clearer pattern has emerged: the choice between the use of a zero anaphor and that of a pronoun with respect to the coreferential subject of the second clause in the correlative construction seems to be largely dictated by topicness. When both subjects are in the topic position, zero anaphors are obligatory; when one subject is in the topic position, zero anaphors are optional but preferred; when neither subject is in the topic position, zero anaphors are dispreferred and pronouns are preferred. Some examples follow. (6.57)a. Xiaoming yue shuo, 0 yue gaoxing. Xiaoming more talk more happy 'The more Xiaomingi talks, the happier (hei/2/I/you/we/ they . . . ) becomes/become.' b. Xiaoming yue shuo, ta yue gaoxing. Xiaoming more talk 3SG more happy The more Xiaomingi talks, the happier he2 becomes.'

176

The pragmatics of anaphora

(6.58)a. Lao Li yinwei hen mang, suoyi 0 bu neng lai. Lao Li because very busy so not can come 'Because Lii is busy, (heO cannot come.' b. Lao Li yinwei hen mang, suoyi ta bu neng lai. Lao Li because very busy so 3SG not can come 'Because Lii is busy, hei cannot come.' (6.59)a. Suiran Xiaoming hen congming, 0 haishi mei xuehui. although Xiaoming very clever yet not learn 'Although Xiaoming 1 is clever, yet (heO has not learned (it).' b. Suiran Xiaoming hen congming, ta haishi mei xuehui. although Xiaoming very clever 3SG yet not learn 'Although Xiaomingi is clever, yet hei has not learned (it).' (6.60)a. ?Yexu Xiaoming hui lai, yexu 0 bu hui lai. maybe Xiaoming will come maybe not will come 'Maybe Xiaomingi will come and maybe (hei) will not.' b. Yexu Xiaoming hui lai, yexu ta bu hui lai. maybe Xiaoming will come maybe 3SG not will come 'Maybe Xiaomingi will come and maybe hei will not.' Of the four types of correlative construction, the first follows straightforwardly the interaction of the I- and M-principles. The use of a zero anaphor will I-elicit coreference and the use of an overt pronoun (the semantics permitting) will M-trigger disjoint reference, as shown in (6.57a) and (6.57b). By contrast, in the other three types of correlative construction, the zero anaphor/overt pronoun opposition is either very weak or simply disappears. Why? One of the advantages of reducing the 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle to the interaction of the I- and M-principles is that conversational implicatures being cancellable, we can give a principled account of those cases where no contrast in reference arises although an overt pronoun is used where a zero anaphor could occur. The arguments are essentially the same as in section 5.4 of chapter 5, so here I shall summarise them with little discussion. In the first place, the zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast would disappear in the face of inconsistency with background assumptions. Secondly, it would be suspended if it is not in keeping with what the speaker might clearly intend (that is, mean. nn ) given the assumed state of shared knowledge. Returning to (6.51), suppose now that the speaker intends to

Further applications of the theory

177

use (6.51b) to mean (6.51a) (for whatever reason). The hearer knows the speaker's intention and is expecting the speaker to do so. Then the speaker uses (6.51b) instead of (6.51a). In that case, what the speaker clearly means is that (6.51b) should have the quantifier-variable reading, hence the disappearance of the original contrast. Thirdly, no zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast would arise when it is inconsistent with semantic constraints. Fourthly, the contrast would be defeated when it is clear from the context of utterance that such an inference could not be introduced as part of the utterance's full communicative import. Fifthly, the opposition would vanish if it is not consistent with what is the most salient/relevant. This can be shown by the fact that the original contrast in (6.54) and (6.57) would disappear under topicalisation. And finally, no contrast would obtain when such an inference is not consistent with the tightness of the semantico-conceptual linkage between two clauses. This seems to be the case of (6.58), (6.59) and (6.60). Summarising, Chomsky's 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle can be eliminated under our theory: where it works, it is the direct consequence of the interaction of the I- and M-principles; where it does not work, it is predicted and explained by our theory. 6.6

Long-distance reflexivisation

We turn next to long-distance reflexivisation in Chinese. As we saw in section 4.1 of chapter 4, there are (at least) four issues that any adequate theory of long-distance reflexivisation must address: (i) the specification of a domain within which an antecedent can be found, (ii) the identification of potential antecedents within the domain specified, (iii) the selection of one out of a number of possible antecedents, and (iv) the explanation of the motivation behind the use of a long-distance reflexive. Under the pragmatic theory developed here, the interpretation of a reflexive is subject to the I-principle. All the I-principle does is to find an antecedent for the reflexive that gives the most informative, stereotypical interpretation in keeping with our knowledge about the world. Again, there seems to be a fairly rigid I-heuristic here, paralleling the antecedent search procedure yielding ordered preferences for zero anaphors in (6.1). Thus, to find an antecedent for a reflexive, a local subject is in general preferred to a local object, and a non-split antecedent, to a split one; if none of these NPs seems to qualify as a possible antecedent, the next, more remote clause will be checked, and so on recursively until the root clause is

178

The pragmatics of anaphora

reached. Failure to find an intrasentential antecedent leads to the search for a previous discourse antecedent, preferably a topic. If there is still no suitable antecedent, then an arbitrary interpretation will be tried. This antecedent search procedure may be informally presented as follows. (6.61)

An antecedent search procedure for reflexives In a structure of the sort [s2 [$x R]], where R is a reflexive, R is interpreted as referentially dependent according to the following preference order: (i) R is referentially dependent on the local subject; failing which: (ii) R, especially when morphologically complex, is referentially dependent on the local object; failing which: (iii) R, especially when morphologically complex, is referentially dependent on both the local subject and the local object (split antecedents); failing which: (iv) (i)-(iii) is recursively applied to the next, higher clause, until an antecedent is found; failing which: (v) find the nearest antecedent in the discourse, preferably a topic; failing which: (vi) settle for an 'arbitrary' interpretation.

Let me now spell out this procedure in more detail. As before, I shall concentrate on the Chinese simplex reflexive ziji. Specification of domain As shown in section 4.5.1 of chapter 4, the domain in which a Chinese reflexive can be anteceded is not restricted to the root sentence. In other words, the size of the domain cannot be mechanically computed at the sentence level. This problem is tackled in GB by isolating three different domains for reflexives: a local domain, a medium-distance domain and a long-distance domain (cf. section 4.5.1 of chapter 4). However, such an approach is both theoretically and empirically undesirable. By contrast, our theory allows the domain to be expanded to the discourse level, and therefore provides a single, unified domain, hence eliminating the need for relativised or parameterised domains for reflexives in Chinese. Identification of possible antecedents Once the domain is demarcated, what needs to be done next is to identify possible antecedents within it. We saw in section 4.2 of chapter 4 that

Further applications of the theory

179

possible antecedents of reflexives in Chinese are normally restricted to animate, (subject) NPs in an appropriately defined command relation. Consider (6.62) and (6.63). (6.62)

Xiaoming de didi xiangxin ziji. Xiaoming MM younger brother trust self 'Xiaoming'si younger brother 2 trusts himself2.'

(6.63)

Xiaoming de cuxin hai le ziji. Xiaoming MM carelessness harm PFV self 'Xiaoming'si carelessness2 has brought harm to him!.'

In (6.62), ziji can only be bound to Xiaoming de didi 'Xiaoming's brother' which c-commands it. However, in (6.63), where there is an animate genitive NP located within the Spec of the subject NP which is itself not animate, ziji can only be bound to the animate genitive NP, i.e. Xiaoming. To capture this, Tang (1989) stipulates a sub-command condition which in effect allows the genitive NP to 'bind' a reflexive if the subject which contains it is itself not a potential binder. However, as we have already seen (cf. section 4.5.2 of chapter 4), while the sub-command condition is syntactic in nature, the condition under which the unmarked c-command condition is relaxed and the marked sub-command condition is activated is semantic and/or pragmatic in nature. This can be seen by noting that (i) the choice of antecedent is frequently but not invariably affected by a semantically-oriented animacy hierarchy in (6.64), which is adapted from Kuno (1987: 179), and (ii) the sub-command condition has to be further relaxed in keeping with, say, world knowledge. (6.64)

The animacy hierarchy human animate > non-human animate > inanimate

(6.65)

[[Xiaomingi de] gou]2 ba ziji de yifu nong zang le. Xiaoming MM dog BA self MM clothes get dirty CRS 'Xiaoming'si dog 2 has got hisi/its 2 clothes dirty.'

(6.66)

[[[Xiaomingi (de)] fuqin2 de] turan qushi]3 dui ziji Xiaoming MM father MM sudden death to self daji hen zhong. strike a blow very heavily 'Xiaoming'si father's2 sudden death 3 struck a heavy blow on

180

The pragmatics of anaphora

In (6.65), both NPi and NP 2 are animate. Contrary to Tang's analysis, however, NPj can act as a binder. Moreover, not only can it act as a binder, but it also is the preferred binder, as predicted by the animacy hierarchy. In (6.66), discussed in an earlier chapter (cf. section 4.5.2 of chapter 4), given our knowledge about the world, only Xiaoming can be the antecedent of ziji. Thus, in determining the potential antecedents for reflexives, we have at once the c-command and sub-command conditions, which are of a syntactic characteristic, and the animacy condition and the consistency conditions on conversational implicatures, which are of a semantic and/or pragmatic characteristic.

Selection of (preferred) antecedent Next, the question arises how to select the actual (preferred) antecedent out of the set of possible antecedents specified. To see how this can be done, let us look at some examples. Consider first (6.67). (6.67)

Xiaoming xiangxin ziji. Xiaoming trust self 'Xiaoming trusts himself.'

By the I-principle, ziji is correctly interpreted as being referentially dependent on the local subject. Next, consider (6.63) above. Given the Iprinciple, ziji would first be implicated to be bound to the subject NP which c-commands it. However, this inference is not consistent with the semantically oriented animacy condition. Therefore, it is ruled out. Since Xiaoming is the next local NP which is available, by the I-principle it is chosen as the antecedent. We move next to (6.68)-(6.72). (6.68)

Ziji de erzi de le jiang shi Lao Wang hen gaoxing. self MM son win PFV prize make Lao Wang very happy That hisi son has won a prize makes Wang! very happy.'

(6.69)

Xiaoming gaosu Xiaohua Xiaoqiang bu xiangxin tamen ziji. Xiaoming tell Xiaohua Xiaoqiang not trust 3PL self 'Xiaomingi tells Xiaohua 2 that Xiaoqiang 3 does not trust them{1>2}.'

Further applications of the theory (6.70)

Wo a jiushi qiang dui zhe ziji de xiongtang, 1SG PP EMP gun point EXP self MM chest 0 ye bu pa. EMP not afraid 'I, even if a gun is pointed at my chest, (I) won't be afraid.'

(6.71)

Ziji pian ziji bu hao. self deceive self not good 'To deceive oneself is not good.'

(6.72)

Xiaoming shuo ziji pian ziji bu hao. Xiaoming say self deceive self not good 'Xiaoming says that deceiving himself/oneself is not good.'

181

Example (6.68) is a psych-sentence. The psych-sentence in Chinese usually takes the form of a causative structure (shichengju), i.e. X causes Y happiness etc., which corresponds roughly to Xpleases Y etc. in English. Since there is no subject binder in (6.68), by the heuristic in (6.61), the object binding reading is obtained. This interpretation is further reinforced by the semantics of the pysch-sentence, namely the relation of causality. Next, (6.69) illustrates the split-antecedency interpretation for the complex reflexive tamen ziji, while (6.70) contains a topic construction. Since there is no antecedent in the comment clause, by the I-principle, the topic is selected as the antecedent. Then, in (6.71), the second ziji is bound to the first ziji but the first ziji is not bound at all, hence we obtain the arbitrary interpretation. However, when we come to (6.72), we are faced with a problem: here ziji may be understood as arbitrary despite the presence of the c-commanding matrix subject. In other words, (6.72) is ambiguous, as the translation indicates. But the point to note is that in examples like (6.72), ziji can be arbitrary only if the embedded clause can have an arbitrary interpretation on its own, as in (6.71). This seems to differentiate (6.72) from sentences like (6.73), where no arbitrary interpretation is possible. We may capture this generalisation by stating that ziji can be I-inferred to have an arbitrary interpretation if it does not have an antecedent or if the construction in which it occurs can have an arbitrary interpretation on its own. 10 Notice that ziji in (6.63), (6.67), (6.68) and (6.70), for example, can be substituted by pronoun + ziji and what has been said of ziji in general holds also for pronoun + ziji.

182 (6.73)

The pragmatics of anaphora Xiaoming shuo ziji xihuan he kele. Xiaoming say self like drink cola 'Xiaomingi says that hei likes to drink cola.'

Perhaps what is more interesting, from a pragmatic point of view, are examples of the following kind, where there are two or more structurally possible antecedents. (6.74)

Lao Wang yiwei Lao Li bu zhidao ziji hui jisuanji. Lao Wang think Lao Li not know self know computer 'Wangi thinks that Li2 does not know that hei /2 knows how to use a computer.'

Here, by the heuristic in (6.61), ziji would first be interpreted to be bound to the subject of the intermediate clause. This face-value inference, however, would be rejected for reasons connected with background assumptions, namely a person normally knows whether or not he can use a computer. This would then induce another operation of the I-principle to the effect that the subject of the matrix clause is implicated to be the preferred antecedent. Next, consider (6.75). (6.75)

Nii pengyou kanbuqi ziji shi Xiao Liu girl friend look down upon self make Xiao Liu hen shangxin. very sad That (his) girlfriend! looks down upon him2/herselfi saddens Xiao Liu 2 .'

Given the semantics of the psych-sentence in (6.75), the set of possible antecedents for ziji would be delimited to nil pengyou 'girlfriend' and Xiao Liu. By the antecedent search procedure in (6.61), nil pengyou would be Iimplicated to be the preferred antecedent. However, given background assumptions, it is more likely that Liu's sadness is caused by his girlfriend's looking down upon him rather than herself. Consequently, the original I-induced preferred interpretation evaporates, and ziji would then be I-implicated to be preferably bound to Xiao Liu. The same point can be made with (6.76). (6.76)

Xiaoming xihuan [[ biaoyang ziji de] laoshi]. Xiaoming like praise self MM teacher 'Xiaoming! likes the teacher2 who praises himi/himself2.'

Further applications of the theory

183

Here, as in the case of (6.75), the interpretation that Xiaoming is the antecedent is preferred for purely pragmatic reasons. Next, note that the preferred interpretation arising from the most likely scenario can be altered by lexical choice. This is illustrated by (6.77). (6.77)a. Xiaoming wen Xiaohua 0 zhi bu zhidao Xiaoming ask Xiaohua know not know ziji de shu. self MM book 'Xiaoming 1 asks Xiaohua 2 whether (he2 . . lost his 3 book.' b. Xiaoming wen Xiaohua 0 zhi bu zhidao Xiaoming ask Xiaohua know not know ziji de shu. self MM book 'Xiaomingi asks Xiaohua 2 whether (he2 . . taken hisx book.'

shei diu le who lose PFV

. ) knows who 3 has shei na le who take PFV

. ) knows who 3 has

In (6.77a), by the I-principle, the antecedent for ziji is the quantificational NP shei 'who'. However, in (6.77b), the verb of the embedded clause is changed, so is the most likely scenario. This has the effect that the matrix subject Xiaoming is I-implicated to be the preferred antecedent in (6.77b). Following is yet another example. (6.78)a. Wang Xiansheng xiwang Xu Xiaojie jia gei ziji. Wang Mr hope Xu Miss marry to self 'Mr Wangi hopes that Miss Xu 2 will marry himi/herself2.' b. Xu Xiaojie xiwang Wang Xiansheng qu ziji. Xu Miss hope Wang Mr marry self 'Miss Xui hopes that Mr Wang 2 will marry heri/himself2.' In (6.87a), the verb jia 'marry off is used, whose semantics requires that its AGENT be a female. By contrast, in (6.78b), the verb qu 'marry in' is employed, the semantics of which requires a male AGENT. Given our common-sense knowledge about marriage, by the I-principle, Wang Xiansheng 'Mr Wang' and Xu Xiaojie 'Miss Xu' are chosen as the preferred binder for (6.78a) and (6.78b) respectively. Finally, the choice of the preferred antecedent is also subject to contextual variation.

184

The pragmatics of anaphora

Clearly, in the context of (6.79a), by the I-principle, Chen Xiansheng 'Mr Chen' is the most likely choice for antecedent of ziji, whereas in the context of (6.79b), Liu Xiansheng 'Mr Liu' becomes the most likely candidate for antecedent of ziji. (6.79)a. Chen Xiansheng renwei Liu Xiansheng tai kuangwang, Chen Mr think Liu Mr too arrogant 0 zongshi kanbuqi ziji. always look down upon self 'Mr Cheni thinks that Mr Liu2 is too arrogant, and (he2) always looks down upon himi.' b. Chen Xiansheng renwei Liu Xiansheng tai zibei, Chen Mr think Liu Mr too self-abased 0 zongshi kanbuqi ziji. always look down upon self 'Mr Chen! thinks that Mr Liu2 is too self-critical, and (he2) always looks down upon himself2.' All this must suffice to point to the conclusion that it is pragmatics that is responsible for determining the actual, preferred antecedent where there is more than one structurally possible antecedent. Motivation behind the use of long-distance reflexives Long-distance reflexives are used where plain pronouns could have occurred. This raises the question of why they (which are marked) are chosen over (unmarked) plain pronouns. As already mentioned in section 5.4 of chapter 5, the use of long-distance reflexives in locations where there is a potential referential overlap seems to indicate some sort of unexpectedness. Examined in a more careful way, this unexpectedness seems to be of two kinds: logophoricity and emphaticness/contrastiveness. Let us take each of them in turn. Logophoricity Logophoricity refers to the phenomenon whereby the 'point of view' of an internal protagonist of a discourse, as opposed to that of the current, external speaker, is reported. The concept of logophoricity was introduced in studies of African languages like Ewe, Tuburi and

Further applications of the theory

185

Mundang, where there is a separate paradigm of pronouns (called logophoric pronouns) which is used to refer to an antecedent 'whose speech, thoughts, feelings, or general status of consciousness are reported' (Clements 1975: 141, see also Hagege 1974). Cross linguistically, logophoricity may be expressed by one or more of the following mechanisms: (i) a separate paradigm of logophoric pronouns which may take free forms (e.g. Igbo) (Hyman & Comrie 1981) or be cliticised to the verb (e.g. Ewe) (Hagege 1974), (ii) logophoric verbal suffixes (e.g. Gokana) (Hyman & Comrie 1981), (iii) regular pronouns (e.g. English), and (iv) long-distance reflexives (e.g. Chinese, Icelandic and Italian). Logophoric pronouns, or logophors, usually occur in a logophoric domain. This domain is commonly introduced by a logocentric trigger which is of two types: (i) logocentric verbs, and (ii) logocentric complementisers. The most common type of logocentric verb is verbs of speech and thought. Thus, logophors are found to occur predominantly within clausal complements of predicates of communication and consciousness. However, other types of verb, such as those of mental state and perception, can also trigger a logophoric domain. Languages differ in allowing precisely which type of verb to function as a logocentric trigger,11 but cross-linguistically there seems to exist an implicational universal for these verbs (adapted from Stirling 1993: 259). (6.80)

An implicational universal for logocentric verbs speech verb > epistemic verb > psychological verb > perceptive verb

What (6.80) basically says is this: if a language allows verbs of, say, psychological state to establish a logophoric domain, then it will allow verbs of thought and communication to do the same. The other common type of logocentric trigger is what Stirling (1993: 260) calls 'reportopening' complementisers, such as be in Ewe, ko in Gokana, ad in Icelandic, se in Mundang and gd in Tuburi (see also Sells 1987). These logocentric complementisers are often homophonous with the verb 'say' and are often developed historically out of it (e.g. Clements 1975, Lord 1976, Ransom 1988, Heine, Claudi & Hunnemeyer 1991: 180, 216, 2467). Thus, a logophoric domain can be set up by either type of logocentric trigger or by both. 12

186

The pragmatics of anaphora

Finally, mention should also be made of logocentric NPs, namely those NPs that can act as an antecedent for a logophor. Logocentric NPs are generally constrained to be some subcategorised-for nominal argument of the logocentric verb, typically the subject NP of a matrix clause. However, in some languages, they can also be some other, non-subject argument, provided that this argument is the 'source' of the proposition or the 'experiencer' of the mental state that is being reported (e.g. Sells 1987, Yoon 1989, Stirling 1993: 264, 269). In recent years, the notion of logophoricity has been invoked in accounting for long-distance reflexivisation (e.g. Bremen 1984, Kameyama 1984, Maling 1984, Hintikka & Kulas 1985, Kuno 1987, O'Conner 1987, Sells 1987, Y. Huang 1989, 1991, Yoon 1989, Zribi-Hertz 1989, Hellan 1991, Hintikka & Sandu 1991, Levinson 1991, Reinhart & Reuland 1991, Stirling 1993; see also earlier works by Kuno 1972a, b, Cantrall 1973, 1974, Kuroda 1973, Kuno & Kaburaki 1977). For example, in her analysis of Icelandic, Maling (1984) observes that the antecedent of a long-distance reflexive in the language must be both a logocentric NP and a grammatical subject. Kuno (1987) argues that the difference between the use of a long-distance reflexive and that of a plain pronoun where the choice is not structurally conditioned is essentially one of point of view. Zribi-Hertz (1989) hypothesises that a long-distance reflexive can be employed if it refers to a minimal subject of consciousness. Hellan (1991) is of the opinion that long-distance reflexivisation in Norwegian and Icelandic abides by a containment condition, which states that a long-distance reflexive a, bound by an antecedent (3, is contained within a constituent y if y is, among other things, in the scope, or perspective, of (3. He calls this a relation of perspective command. Along somewhat similar lines, Hintikka & Sandu (1991) propose to derive the contrast between reflexives and pronouns in locative PPs in English from a distinction between perspective and descriptive identifications. The basic insight underlying all these analyses is that the use of a long-distance reflexive seems to be closely correlated with a 'logophoric' point of view, roughly that of an internal protagonist, as opposed to the external speaker. The use of long-distance reflexives in Chinese generally confirms this line of analysis. Without attempting an exact formulation of logophoricity, I shall adopt Sells's (1987: 457) analysis of the concept in terms of three more primitive discourse-semantic notions: (i) the source, namely the 'one who is the intentional agent of the communication'; (ii) the self,

Further applications of the theory

187

namely the 'one whose mental state or attitude the content of the proposition describes'; and (iii) the pivot, namely the 'one with respect to whose (time-space) location the content of the proposition is evaluated' (cf. Kuno & Kaburaki's 1977 and Kuno's 1987 notion of camera-angle/ empathy) (see also Stirling 1993 for an alternative, bipartite decomposition of the concept). 13 Further, Sells spells out four discourse environments defined by these discourse-semantic roles. The first represents direct speech. In this context, all three discourse-semantic roles coincide on one individual, namely the current, external speaker. Second, there is what Sells calls the context of 'third-person point of view', in which the external speaker has the source and self roles, but the internal protagonist bears the pivot role. Third, then, is the discourse setting for 'psych-verbs'. In this logophoric context, whereas the source role is predicated of the external speaker, the self and pivot roles go to the internal protagonist. The final, fourth type of discourse environment involves what Sells calls 'logophoric verbs', namely verbs of saying and thinking. This constitutes the prototypical logophoric context and all three discourse-semantic roles coincide on the internal protagonist. These four discourse contexts can be listed in Table 6.1. Coming back to Chinese, it is easy to see that the use of long-distance reflexives is partially conditioned by these logophoric constraints. Longdistance reflexives in Chinese are typically found to occur in a logophoric domain. The logophoric domain in Chinese is usually triggered by a logocentric verb. All the four types of verb listed on the hierarchy in (6.80) are allowed in Chinese to act as a logocentric trigger. This explains why long-distance reflexivisation in Chinese appears predominantly within sentential arguments of predicates of speech, thought, psychological attitude and perception. Following are some of these verbs.

Table 6.1 Sells's discourse environments

source self pivot

Direct speech

Third-person point of view

Psych-verb

Logophoric-verb

external external external

external external internal

external internal internal

internal internal internal

188 (6.81)

The pragmatics of anaphora a. Speech verbs shuo 'say', baogao 'report', biaoshi 'express', tichu 'put forward', jianyi 'suggest', wen 'ask', gaosu 'tell', tongzhi 'inform' b. Epistemic verbs renwei 'think', xiangxin 'believe', xiwang 'hope', qidai 'expect', yiwei 'think', juede 'think', zhidao 'know', huaiyi 'suspect', yishidao 'realise' c. Psychological verbs xihuan 'like', ai 'love', hen 'hate', danxin 'worry', haipa 'fear' d. Perceptive verbs kanjian 'see', tingjian 'hear'

In addition, the logophoric domain in Chinese can also be introduced by the semi-complementiser shuo (but see Xu & Langendoen 1985 for a different point of view). The semi-complementiser shuo is homophonous with the verb shuo 'say' and still carries the force of speech. This can be evidenced by the fact that (i) it cannot co-occur with the verb shuo, as in (6.82); and (ii) it can co-occur only with verbs of saying, as in (6.83). (6.82)

*Xiaoming shuo shuo mama zui xihuan ziji. Xiaoming say COMP mum most like self 'Xiaomingi says that Mum 2 likes himi/herself2 most.'

(6.83)

Xiaoming gaosu Xiaohua shuo Xiaoqiang Xiaoming tell Xiaohua COMP Xiaoqiang kanbuqi ziji. look down upon self 'Xiaomingi tells Xiaohua 2 that Xiaoqiang 3 looks down upon him!/himself3.'

Further, as we already saw in chapter 4, the logophoric domain in which long-distance reflexives occur is not restricted to clausal complements of a logocentric verb in Chinese. It can be extended to other types of construction such as the topic construction and the relative construction. It can even operate across sentence boundaries, extending over an arbitrarily long stretch of discourse, provided that this portion of discourse falls under the scope, or perspective, of the logocentric NP which antecedes the long-distance reflexive. Summarising, we can define the logophoric domain for long-distance reflexives in Chinese as follows:

Further applications of the theory (6.84)

189

The logophoric domain for long-distance reflexives The logophoric domain for long-distance reflexives in Chinese consists of (i) clausal complements of the verb shuo 'say'; these cannot be introduced by the semi-complementiser shuo; (ii) clausal complements of other verbs of speech; these can be introduced by the semi-complementiser shuo; (iii) clausal complements of other logocentric verbs, namely verbs of thought, psychological state, and perception; these cannot be introduced by the semi-complementiser shuo; (iv) other constructions such as topic constructions and relative constructions, usually introduced by a logocentric verb; and (v) a stretch of discourse, usually introduced by a logocentric verb, provided that this portion of discourse is in the scope, or perspective, of the logocentric NP that is the antecedent of the long-distance reflexive.

Now, let us take a look at some examples to see how long-distance reflexivisation in Chinese operates in the three types of logophoric context we have seen earlier. Take (6.85) first. (6.85)

Xiaoming shuo mama zui xihuan ziji. Xiaoming say mum most like self 'Xiaomingi says that Mum 2 likes himi/herself2 most.'

Example (6.85) constitutes an archetypal logophoric context in Chinese; it describes a reported speech event. In this discourse setting, the internal protagonist which is the matrix subject of the sentence assumes all three discourse-semantic roles, namely the roles of source, self, and pivot. Hence, it becomes the antecedent of the long-distance reflexive. Following Sells (1987), we may represent logophoricity in terms of Discourse Representation Structures (DRSs) developed within the framework of Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp 1981). Using the notations in (6.86), the DRS of (6.85) can be given in (6.87) (ignoring the short-distance binding reading). (6.86)

a (p 9 S

represents represents represents represents

the the the the

source self pivot external speaker

190

The pragmatics of anaphora

(6.87)

S u p Xiaoming (u) u shuo p P-

cr(u) cp(u)

V

Z

mama (v) v zui xihuan z z = y

The same can be said of Japanese and Korean. (6.88)* (Japanese, Sells 1987) Taroo wa Yosiko ga zibun o aisiteiru to itta. Taroo TOP Yosiko SUBJ self OBJ loved COMP said Tarooi said that Yosiko 2 loved him!.' b. (Korean, Yoon 1989) John-i Mary-ka caki-lul salangha-n-ta-ko John-NOM Mary-NOM self-ACC love-PRES-DECL-COMP sayngkakha-n-ta. think-PRES-DECL 'Johni thinks that Mary 2 loves himi.' Next, consider (6.89). (6.89)

Mama biaoyang le ziji shi Xiaoming hen gaoxing. mum praise PFV self make Xiaoming very happy 'That Mum! praised him 2/herselfi makes Xiaoming 2 very happy.'

Example (6.89) is a psych-sentence in Chinese. In this sentence, while the external speaker has the source role, the internal protagonist which is the object of the main clause has the self and pivot roles. In other words, Xiaoming is the person whose mental state is being reported. It follows, therefore, that ziji can be bound by Xiaoming. We can represent the DRS of the long-distance binding reading of (6.89) as follows.

Further applications of the theory 191 S u p Xiaoming (u) p shi u hen gaoxing

(6.90)

p:

a(S) cp(u) S?(u) V

Z

mama (v) v biaoyang le z z = 9

The same point can be made with Japanese and Korean. (6.91)a. (Japanese, Sells 1987) Yosiko ga zibun o nikundeiru koto ga Mitiko Yosiko SUBJ self OBJ be-hating COMP SUBJ Mitiko o zetuboo e oiyatta. OBJ desperation to drive That Yosikoi hated her2 drove Mitiko2 to desperation.' b. (Korean, Yoon 1989) John-i caki-lul miweha-n-ta-nun sasili-i John-NOM self-ACC hate-PRES-DECL-COMP fact-NOM Mary-lul kwelop-hi-ess-ta. Mary-ACC bother-CAUSE-PAST-DECL That Johni hates her2 bothered Mary2.' Next, consider (6.92) and (6.93). (6.92)a. Xiaoming shuo mama yihuir hui lai kan ziji. Xiaoming say mum soon will come see self 'Xiaomingi says that Mum2 will come to see himi soon.' ? b. Xiaoming shuo mama yihuir hui qu kan ziji. Xiaoming say mum soon will go see self 'Xiaomingi says that Mum2 will go to see himi soon.'

192

The pragmatics of anaphora

(6.93)a. Yinwei mama lai kan guo ziji le, because mum come see EXP self PFV suoyi Xiaoming hen gaoxing. so Xiaoming very happy 'Xiaoming i was very happy because Mum 2 had come to see b. ?Yinwei mama qu kan guo ziji le, because mum go see EXP self PFV suoyi Xiaoming hen gaoxing. so Xiaoming very happy ? 'Xiaomingi was very happy because Mum 2 had gone to see In (6.92) and (6.93) (notice that (6.93) represents a paradigmatic logophoric setting for what Sells calls 'third-person point of view', where only the pivot role is predicated of the internal protagonist), the use of lai 'come' in the (a) sentence makes clear that what is reported is from the space location of Xiaoming, therefore Xiaoming is the pivot or the relativised 'centre of deixis' in the logophoric context, hence the possibility of long-distance reflexivisation. On the other hand, the use of qu 'go' in the (b) sentence is an indication that what is described is not from Xiaoming's camera angle. In other words, the use of qu indicates movement away from rather than towards Xiaoming, therefore Xiaoming is not the pivot. Hence long-distance reflexivisation is rather bad. The deictic nature of the pivot can further be seen by the fact that (6.92b), for example, can be improved if one imagines that Xiaoming is now not in his usual place and his mother will go to see him in the place where he is normally supposed to be (see e.g. Yoon's 1989 similar analysis with respect to Korean). The DRS of (6.93a) (for example) can be represented in (6.94).

Further applications of the theory 193 (6.94)

S u p Xiaoming (u) yinwei p suoyi u hen gaoxing p:

a(S) cp(S) ^(u) V Z

mama (v) v lai kan guo z Z = *s?

What we have seen here can again be observed in Japanese and Korean. In what follows, (6.95) and (6.96) are roughly equivalent to (6.92), and (6.97) and (6.98), to (6.93). (6.95)

?

(Japanese, Kuno 1987) a. Taroo wa zibun ni ai ni kita hito ni wa, Taroo TOP self to see to came people dare-demo, syokuzi o dasu. whoever meal offer Tarooi offers a meal to anybody who has come to see him!.' b. * Taroo wa zibun ni ai ni itta hito ni wa, Taroo TOP self to see to went people dare-demo, syokuzi o dasu. whoever meal offer

Tarooi offers a meal to anybody who has gone to see

(6.96)

(Korean, Yoon 1989) a. John-i Mary-eykey Tom-i caki-lul John-NOM Mary-DAT Tom-NOM self-ACC po-le-o-ass-ta-ko malha-ess-ta. see-to-come-PAST-DECL-COMPtell-PAST-DECL 'John! told Mary2 that Tom3 came to see

194

The pragmatics of anaphora b. *John-i Mary-eykey Tom-i caki-lul John-NOM Mary-DAT Tom-NOM self-ACC po-le-ka-ass-ta-ko malha-ess-ta. see-to-go-PAST-DECL-COMPtell-PAST-DECL ?t John! told Mary 2 that Tom 3 went to see him!.'

(6.97)

(Japanese, Sells 1987) a. Takasi wa Yosiko ga zibun o tazunete-kita Takasi TOP Yosiko SUBJ self OBJ visit-came node uresigatta. because happy Takasii was happy because Yosiko 2 came to visit him! b. Takasi wa Yosiko ga zibun o tazunete-itta Takasi TOP Yosiko SUBJ self OBJ visit-went node uresigatta. because happy ?< Takasii was happy because Yosiko 2 went to visit him!

(6.98)

(Korean, Kuno 1987) a. John-un, Mary-ka macimakulo caki-lul po-la John-TOP Mary-NOM last self-ACC see-to w-ass-ul-ttay, aph-ass-ta. come-PAST-when sick-was 'John! was sick when Mary 2 came to see him! last.' b.

??

John-un, Mary-ka macimakulo caki-lul po-la John-TOP Mary-NOM last self-ACC see-to

ka-ss-ul-ttay, aph-ass-ta. go-PAST-when sick-was ?< John! was sick when Mary 2 went to see himi last.'

Further applications of the theory

195

We move next on to the logophoric use of long-distance reflexives in Chinese discourse. Consider first (4.16), repeated here as (6.99). (6.99)

0 ting le Lao Wang de fayan, Lao Li xinli yizhen bu hear PFV Lao Wang MM speech Lao Li heart a burst not gaoxing. Zhexie hua fenming shi chong zhe happy these remarks clearly SD- aimed at DUR ziji lai de. selfRV-SD 'Having listened to Wang's speech, Lii was not happy. Those remarks were clearly aimed at him!.'

Here, ziji occurs in a clause where there is no antecedent. However, the clause (which has the flavour of direct reported speech) is part of a larger discourse in which the external speaker has adopted the point of view of the internal protagonist. In other words, the clause in which ziji occurs is in the scope of the logocentric NP, namely the discourse topic Lao Wang. Hence the possibility of ziji being anteceded by Lao Wang. Still more interesting are examples of the following kind. (6.100)

Xiaoming zai sheng mama de qi, yinwei gangcai Xiaoming DUR take mum MM offence because just now baba shuo ziji shi, mama yi sheng ye bu heng. dad scold self time mum one sound EMP not utter 'Xiaoming! is getting angry with Mum, because she did not say a word when Dad scolded himi a moment ago.'

Here, ziji occurs in a clause with a potential clause-internal antecedent inside it, but is (preferably) not bound to it. Instead it is (preferably) bound to the discourse topic Xiaoming. Again, this is because the external speaker is taking the part of the internal protagonist: the use of yinwei 'because' makes clear that the external speaker is making a judgement about the clausal relation between the two events described in (6.100) from the internal protagonist's viewpoint. (Notice that yinwei is analysed as an instance of complementiser in C.-T. J. Huang 1982 and its counterpart in Japanese node 'because' is treated as a logocentric complementiser by both Sells 1987 and Stirling 1993.) This makes it possible for long-distance reflexivisation to take place across clauses in (6.100).

196

The pragmatics of anaphora

The notion of logophoricity may also be useful in explaining the blocking and maximality effects of long-distance reflexivisation in Chinese. As we saw in section 4.2 of chapter 4, while the complex reflexive pronoun + ziji does not exhibit the blocking effect, the simplex reflexive ziji does. In other words, long-distance binding of ziji is possible (normally) only in case all antecedents agree in person. (6.101) a. Xiaoming renwei wo Xiaoming think 1SG 'Xiaoming thinks that b. Xiaoming renwei wo Xiaoming think 1SG 'Xiaoming thinks that

tai xiangxin ta ziji le. too trust 3SG self CRS I trust him too much.' tai xiangxin ziji le. too trust self CRS I trust myself too much.'

One possible line of explanation of the blocking effect displayed in (6.101b) might be that logophoricity in Chinese can involve one and only one centre of point of view and may not allow a switch of it. In (6.101b), however, the intervening first-person singular pronoun introduces a new locus of point of view, perhaps a new external speaker, therefore there is a shift of the perspectival centre. This has the consequence that logophoricity can no longer take place, hence the blocking of longdistance reflexivisation.14 A second line of pragmatic explanation, which is independent of the one we have just seen, might be that since the grammar of Chinese allows (6.101a) to encode long-distance binding of a reflexive over an intervening NP that fails to agree with the target binder in person (which may not be a case of logophoricity), the speaker will use (6.101a) if such a long-distance binding is intended. If (6.101a) is not used but (6.101b) is used instead, a Q-implicature is created, namely such a longdistance binding is not intended, hence the blocking effect. Anyhow, that the blocking effect is at least partially pragmatic in nature can be evidenced by the fact that a long-distance binding interpretation can occasionally be forced even if there is an intervening first- or secondperson pronoun. This brings us back to an earlier example, discussed in connection with Tang's analysis in section 4.5.2 of chapter 4, which is repeated here as (6.102b).

Further applications of the theory (6.102) a. Zongtong qing wo zuo zai ta ziji president ask 1SG sit at 3SG self T h e presidenti asks me to sit beside b. Zongtong qing wo zuo zai ziji de president ask 1SG sit at self MM T h e presidenti asks me to sit beside

197

de shenbian. MM side himi.' shenbian. side

As a reflexive, ziji has to be referentially dependent. However, in (6.102b), it cannot be referentially dependent on wo given our knowledge about the world. Consequently, ziji is forced to be long-distance bound to the matrix subject. Note then that (6.102b) sounds much less natural than (6.102a). This is exactly what would be expected under our theory: since (6.102a) exists, the speaker will normally opt for (6.102a) if he intends a long-distance binding. 15 Turning next to the maximality effect, we saw in section 4.2 of chapter 4 that in sentences with three possible antecedents, such as sentences with three clauses, antecedent of ziji can in principle be the local, intermediate or root subject. But there is a preference for the root subject to be the antecedent. This can also be partially explained by the notion of logophoricity. A logophoric long-distance reflexive is typically used in a 'reportive context' to refer back to the internal protagonist whose point of view is reported in the embedded clause in which the long-distance reflexive occurs. Hence, the antecedent of a logophoric long-distance reflexive is typically the matrix subject (Maling 1984). This is in keeping with our intuition that when ziji is used in a prototypical logophoric context, the root subject is usually the preferred antecedent, as in (6.103).16 (6.103) Xiaoming yiwei Xiaohua zhidao Xiaoqiang bu xiangxin ziji. Xiaoming think Xiaohua know Xiaoqiang not trust self 'Xiaoming i thinks that Xiaohua 2 knows that Xiaoqiang 3 does not trust himi/himself3/him2.'

Emphaticness/con trastiveness A second type of unexpectedness arising from long-distance reflexivisation in Chinese involves emphaticness/contrastiveness. Consider first (6.104).

198

The pragmatics of anaphora

(6.104) Xiaoming xiwang laoshi biaoyang ziji. Xiaoming hope teacher praise self 'Xiaomingi hopes that the teacher2 will praise himi/himself2.' Here, the sentence (its logophoric interpretation aside) may be paraphrased roughly as 'Xiaoming hopes that the teacher will praise Xiaoming, but not any one else.' The effect of using long-distance reflexive here is thus (partially) 'to insist on the exact reference, to rebut a contrary suggestion or a stereotypical presumption, etc' (Levinson 1991: 129). This effect can be seen more clearly in an overt emphatic/ contrastive context. (6.105) a. Xiaoming zongshi yiwei ta dui bieren dou bu dui. Xiaoming always think 3SG right other all not right 'Xiaomingi always thinks that hei . . . is right but others are all wrong.' b. Xiaoming zongshi yiwei ziji dui bieren dou bu dui. Xiaoming always think self right other all not right 'Xiaoming! always thinks that hei is right but others are all wrong.' c. Xiaoming zongshi yiwei ta ziji dui bieren dou bu dui. Xiaoming always think 3SG self right other all not right 'Xiaoming i always thinks that he himself is right but others are all wrong.' The use of bieren 'others' is a clear indication that (6.105) describes an emphatic/contrastive situation. This seems to explain why intuitively, (6.105b) and (6.105c) sound more natural than (6.105a) on the indexed interpretation. Furthermore, (6.105c) is intuitively felt to be more emphatic/contrastive than (6.105b). This too can be explained by the pragmatic theory developed here. Given the M-principle, it is predicted that the use of a more prolix expression tends to give a more marked interpretation, hence a more emphatic/contrastive reading. Looked at from a slightly different point of view, also partly what is in operation here is the iconicity principle, namely the more coding material, the more emphatic/contrastive the message. Under our theory, the unexpectedness associated with long-distance reflexivisation falls naturally out of the M-principle; it is because the use of a reflexive in these locations would convey a message that would not

Further applications of the theory

199

be conveyed by the use of either a pronoun or a zero anaphor that it is chosen.17 6.7

The binding condition C pattern

We come finally to the binding condition C pattern. (6.106) Binding condition C An r-expression is free everywhere. Counterexamples to binding condition C, however, abound in Chinese. For ease of exposition, I shall divide them into two types: those where an r-expression is coindexed with another c-commanding r-expression, and those where an r-expression is coindexed with a c-commanding pronoun. Let us consider each of them in turn. Starting with the first type, the non-coreferential interpretation predicted by binding condition C for an r-expression in Chinese appears to be pragmatically implicated rather than syntactically stipulated. This can be evidenced by the fact that an r-expression can easily have a coreferential interpretation with another r-expression (cf. section 5.4 of chapter 5 and note 9 of chapter 5). (6.107) Xiaoming yiwei Xiaoming zui congming. Xiaoming think Xiaoming most clever 'Xiaomingi thinks that Xiaoming2/hei is cleverest.' (6.108) Meijie shuo shouxiang bu hui qufu yu Major say prime minister not will yield to fandui dang de yali. opposition party MM pressure 'Majori says that the prime ministeri will not yield to the pressure from the opposition parties.' 18 Furthermore, in examples of the following kind, the bound-variable interpretation seems to be the only possible interpretation. (6.109) Popo you popo de nanchu; mother-in-law have mother-in-law MM difficulty xifu you xifu de nanchu. daughter-in-law have daughter-in-law MM difficulty 'Every mother-in-lawi has her! difficulties, and every daughterin-law2 has her2 difficulties.'19

200

The pragmatics of anaphora

These are clearly counterexamples to binding condition C. However, following a suggestion by Chomsky (1981: 193, 227), Lasnik (1989, 1991) suggests that the problem can be solved by splitting binding condition C into two sub-conditions: (i) an r-expression is r-expression free (my phrasing), and (ii) an r-expression is pronoun-free, the latter being an instantiation of a generalisation in terms of referentiality (see also Burzio 1991). (6.110) Lasnik's referentiality generalisation A less referential expression may not bind a more referential one. Further, Lasnik claims that while sub-condition (i) is subject to parametric variation, sub-condition (ii) is universal. Lasnik's proposal, however, is not a real solution to the problem. First, even if the parametric analysis of sub-condition (i) can be maintained, there still remains the question of why it can be violated, say, in Chinese, Thai and Vietnamese, but not in English. (6.111) a. (Thai, Lasnik 1989) Coon khit waa Cooni chalaat. John think that John smart 'Johni thinks that Johni is smart.' b. (Vietnamese, Lasnik 1989) Johni tin John se tharig. John think John will win thinks that Johni will win.' Second, what makes the analysis less tenable is the fact, pointed out by Evans (1980), that sub-condition (ii) can also be violated, as in (6.112). (6.112) Zhexia, Yuan Shikai ke deyi le, ta yiwei thus Yuan Shikai EMP complacent CRS 3SG think dangjin Zhongguo zhiyou Yuan Shikai cai shi dang today China only Yuan Shikai only be act huangdi de liao. emperor MM material 'On that occasion, Yuan Shikai i was terribly complacent. Hei thought that in the China of that time only Yuan Shikai i had got the makings of an emperor.'

Further applications of the theory

201

Here, the r-expression in the second clause is c-commanded by a pronoun, yet it is coindexed with that pronoun (see e.g. Bolinger 1979, Evans 1980, McCray 1980, Carden 1982, Leech 1983, Mittwoch 1983, Reinhart 1983a, b, 1986 and Levinson 1987 for similar examples in English). To examples like this, it might be objected that they constitute apparent rather than real counterevidence to sub-condition (ii) (e.g. Higginbotham 1983), given that binding theory could be reinterpreted as a theory of referential dependence, perhaps formulated along the lines of (6.113) (Evans 1980). (6.113) Evans's theory of referential dependence A term can be referentially dependent upon an NP if and only if it does not precede and c-command that NP. On this view, the reference of ta in (6.112) has to be antecedently assigned and thus it can be held to be accidentally coindexed with the second Yuan Shikai. Such an escape route, however, would be more difficult to pursue when one is faced with examples like (6.114)(6.116). (6.114) [Tai Lao Wangi] ke shi ge rexin ren a! 3SG Lao Wang EMP be CL warm-hearted person SFP 'Wang is really a warm-hearted person!' (6.115) Zhe shir cheng yu bu cheng jiu kan this work accomplish or not accomplish EMP depend on [tai Lao Wangi] le! 3SG Lao Wang CRS 'Whether or not this work can be accomplished depends very much on Wang!' (6.116) [Tai zhe ge reni] a jiushi ai da guanqiang! 3SG this CL person PP EMP like speak official jargon 'This guy really loves to speak in a bureaucratic tone!' (6.117) Ta you zai gan zhe xiaozi yiguan gan de shi. 3SG again DUR do this guy always do MM thing 'Hei is once again doing what this guyi always does.' In (6.114)-(6.116), the r-expression is coindexed with a preceding and c-commanding pleonastic pronoun (Lii 1980),20 and in (6.117), it is

202

The pragmatics of anaphora

coindexed with a referential pronoun which precedes and c-commands it without invoking a prior context. None of these examples can be accommodated by Evans's theory of referential dependence. There thus seems to be no avoiding of the conclusion that binding condition C does not hold as a rule of grammar with respect to Chinese.21 At first sight, these counterexamples to binding condition C seem to remain counterexamples to our pragmatic approach as well. On a closer examination, however, it turns out that they can be easily explained by our theory. In the first place, a conversational implicature may fail to arise simply because the meaning or form contrast on which it is based does not exist. In (6.109), for example, the repetitibn of the r-expression appears to be the only way in which the grammar of Chinese allows the bound-variable relation to be encoded, hence no M-implicature will be generated via the use of the r-expression. Secondly, in examples like (6.108), given the defeasibility of conversational implicature in the face of inconsistency with background knowledge, there will be no M-implicated referential contrast from the use of Meijie 'Major', as opposed to ta, but there will be an M-implicature to the distinction between the man and his office (e.g. Levinson 1987b). Next, the repetition of the name, in contrast to the use of a pronoun, in (6.107) and (6.112) seems to involve some sort of contrastive emphasis, therefore an M-implicature will be induced to that effect. Finally, (6.114) —(6.117) are used to express the speaker's attitude towards the person he is talking about (Lu 1980: 460). This is also explicable in terms of the M-principle; it is because they can convey a message which cannot be carried by their corresponding, unmarked sentence that they are chosen.22'23 6.8

Conclusion

This chapter has been concerned with the further applications of the neoGricean pragmatic theory of anaphora I constructed in the last chapter. Anaphora in a number of syntactic constructions in Chinese was examined utilising the theory. Section 6.2 was devoted to the analysis of zero anaphors in the control construction. In section 6.3, I gave a detailed investigation of zero anaphors in the topic construction. Section 6.4 looked at zero anaphors in the relative construction. In section 6.5, I argued that Chomsky's 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle is the direct result of the interaction of the I- and M-principles and therefore can be eliminated from the grammar. Then, I went on to consider long-distance

Further applications of the theory

203

reflexivisation in section 6.6. Finally, the focus of section 6.7 was on the binding condition C pattern in Chinese; I concluded that what is predicted by binding condition C is at best a pragmatically motivated preference strategy with respect to Chinese.

7

Anaphoric production in conversation

7.1

Introduction

In the preceding chapters, I concentrated mainly on intrasentential anaphora in Chinese. I showed that a syntactic approach such as Chomsky's GB theory is inadequate in explaining intrasentential anaphora in the language. As an alternative, I developed a pragmatic theory of anaphora within the neo-Gricean framework of conversational implicature. In this theory, anaphora is largely determined by the systematic interaction of two neo-Gricean pragmatic principles, namely the M- and I-principles (in that order of priority), constrained by the DRP, information saliency and general consistency conditions on conversational implicatures. I demonstrated that by utilising the two neo-Gricean pragmatic principles and the resolution mechanism organising their interaction, many of the patterns of preferred interpretation regarding intrasentential anaphora in Chinese can be given a satisfactory explanation. Starting with this chapter, I shall turn my attention to discourse anaphora in Chinese - anaphora that is found in naturally occurring Chinese conversation.1 (For data sources and transcription conventions, see Appendix to this chapter.) I shall focus mainly on discourse anaphora in its prototypical use: how the establishment, shift and maintenance of reference to a third-person singular human entity is done in conversation (e.g. Du Bois 1980, Fox 1987: 2). According to Foley & Van Valin (1984: 322-5), there are four types of referencetracking systems operating in discourse, from which a given language may resort to one or more: (i) gender systems, (ii) switch-reference systems, (iii) switch-function systems and (iv) inference systems (see also Haiman & Munro 1983, Van Valin 1987, Comrie 1989b and Stirling 1993). Chinese is claimed to fall under the category of inference systems, which are characterised primarily by lack of any of the other 204

Anaphoric production in conversation 205 three (grammatical and/or lexical) systems, by the massive use of zero anaphora and (as the name rightly suggests) by the important role played by pragmatic inference. In the following two chapters, I shall show that the pragmatic apparatus developed for the analysis of intrasentential anaphora in Chinese can easily be extended to account for both anaphoric production and anaphoric resolution, the two sides of the same coin, in naturally occurring Chinese conversation. This chapter is devoted to anaphoric production in Chinese conversation. Doubtless, anaphoric production in conversation is a very complex process, involving, among other things, cognitive, interactional and structural factors. Nevertheless, I shall demonstrate that anaphoric production in Chinese conversation can largely be predicted in terms of the systematic interaction of the Q-, I- and Mprinciples, once politeness strategies and organisational properties of conversation are taken into consideration. The organisation of this chapter is as follows. In section 7.2, I shall present the basic distributional pattern of anaphora in Chinese conversation as found in our data. In section 7.3.1, I shall consider how the establishment of reference is done in Chinese conversation. In section 7.3.2, I shall proceed to discuss anaphoric production in relation to the shift of reference in Chinese conversation. Finally, in section 7.3.3, I shall examine how the maintenance of reference is encoded in Chinese conversation.

7.2

Anaphoric distribution in conversation

Let us begin with the basic distributional pattern of anaphora for the maintenance of reference in Chinese conversation. This pattern can be schematically presented as in (7.1). (7.1)

NP! . . . Pi... 0i

...

What the pattern in (7.1) basically says is this: after first mention, the anaphoric encoding for the maintenance of reference in Chinese conversation tends to descend step by step first from full lexical NPs to pronouns and then from pronouns to zero anaphors. For example:

206 (7.2)

—• -> —• —>

The pragmatics of anaphora (HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Ni jiali xianzai ( ) 2SG family now C2. Xiao Tian xianzai hai hao a? Xiao Tian now fairly well Q C3. B: Xiao Tian hai keyi Xiao Tian fairly well C4. A: Ta xianzai haishi zai lao danwei gongzuo a? 3SG now still in old unit work Q C5. B: 0 hai zai nabian still in there El. E2. E3. E4. E5.

A: Your family Is Xiao Tian quite well? B: Xiao Tian is quite well A: Does she still work in the same unit? B: (She) still does

The pattern has two variants, which are schematised in (7.3) and (7.4) and illustrated in (7.5) and (7.6). (7.3)

NPi . . . 0!

(7.4)

(7.5)

—» —•

...

NPi . . .

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Shui dao Nanjing lai guo de? who to Nanjing come EXP SFP C2. B: En Dahua jinnian lai guo de mhm Dahua this year come EXP SFP C3. A: Ao 0 shi hui jia tanqin oh either return home visit relative C4. haishi or jiushi hui jia tanqin C5. B: 0 . EMP return home visit relative

Anaphoric production in conversation C6. C7. El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. (7.6) —• -»

ye jiao also call A: Ao::: oh

207

liiyou jie- liixing jiehun tour wed- travel wedding ao oh

A: Who has been back to Nanjing? B: Mhm Dahua has been back this year A: Oh was (he) back visiting (his) relatives or ()? B: (He) was back visiting (his) relatives (He) was also on a wedding tour on honeymoon A: Oh

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Liu Laoshi chu le ben shu Liu Teacher publish PFV CL book C2. B: Ta shi ting yonggong de 3SG SD- quite hard-working-SD El. A: Teacher Liu has published a book E2. B: He is very hard-working

Next, the basic distributional pattern of anaphora for the shift of reference in Chinese conversation can be represented as follows. (7.7) NP 2 . . . There are two major types of reference-shift in Chinese conversation. In the first, the subject of the current utterance switches reference from the subject of the immediately preceding utterance back to the subject of some earlier utterance, as in (7.8). In the second, while the subject of the current utterance changes reference from the subject of the immediately preceding utterance, it maintains reference with the object of that utterance, as in (7.9). (7.8) —»

(RCE: 88-1) Cl. A: Cai Lin zai yinhang gongzuo Cai Lin in bank work

208

—>

The pragmatics of anaphora C2. B: Ta airen ne? 3SG spouse Q C3. A: 0 haoxiang zai xintuo gongsi seem in trust company C4. Ao Cai Lin qunian hai qu le tang Xianggang oh Cai Lin last year EMP go PFV CL Hongkong El. A: Cai Lin works in a bank E2. B: How about her husband? E3. A: (He) seems to work in a trust company E4. Oh Cai Lin even visited Hongkong last year

(7.9) —•

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Jiali ma ye yong le yi ge yongren family PP EMP employ PFV one CL servant

—>

C2.

Yongren ne ye servant

C3. C4.

hui zuo cai xi

yishang

PP EMP can cook dish wash clothes

0 nengli bijiao (pause) bijiao shi gao de ability quite quite SD- great -SD 0 guan xiaohair look after child

El. A: The family has actually employed a servant E2. The servant is good at cooking and washing E3. (She) really knows (her) job E4. (She) is also good at looking after the baby Combining (7.1) and (7.7), we can now derive the basic distributional pattern of anaphora in Chinese conversation as follows: (7.10)

The basic distributional pattern of anaphora in Chinese conversation (i) Establishment of reference tends to be achieved through the use of a lexical NP. (ii) Shift of reference tends to be achieved through the use of a lexical NP. (iii) Maintenance of reference tends to be achieved through the use first of a pronoun and then of a zero anaphor.

This pattern applies regardless of speaker- and/or turn-change in conversation.2

Anaphoric production in conversation 7.3

209

Anaphoric production in conversation

Having established the basic pattern of anaphoric distribution in Chinese conversation, I shall now address the question of anaphoric production, namely what contributes to the speaker's choice of a particular referential or anaphoric form at a particular point in Chinese conversation. There is general consensus in the literature that there are two principles operating in determining discourse anaphora: a principle of economy and a principle of clarity (e.g. Sacks & Schegloff 1979, Beaugrande 1980, 1984, Beaugrande & Dressier 1981, Givon 1983a, b, 1985, Leech 1983, Y. Huang 1987, 1989, Takami 1987, Ariel 1990, Geluykens 1991). Sacks & Schegloff (1979), for example, argue that there are two principles at work in the domain of reference to persons in English conversation: a principle of 'minimisation' and a principle of 'recipient design' or 'recognition'. The former amounts to a preference for the use of a 'single' reference form, and the latter amounts to a preference for the use of a 'recognitional' - a reference form that will allow the recognition of its referent to be achieved. Each preference is explicitly bounded in its applicability by the other. A similar line is pursued by Beaugrande and Dressier (Beaugrande 1980: 21, 1984: 33, Beaugrande & Dressier 1981: 34). Taking the view that the efficiency of a text results from its utilisation in communication with the greatest return for the least effort, Beaugrande and Dressier maintain that processing ease is achieved through the omission and/or the substitution of surface elements in a text under a principle of efficiency. This principle, however, is counterbalanced by a principle of effectiveness, which contributes to processing depth, namely the utilisation of a text in communication with the intensive impact on the text receiver. Effectiveness is achieved through the exact repetition and/or elegant variation of surface elements, since the repeated use of the same elements will usually make them more impressive on the text receiver. Moreover, the appropriateness of a text depends on the proportionality between efficiency and effectiveness. Therefore, a third principle, a principle of appropriateness, is introduced to mediate between the two opposing principles - efficiency and effectiveness - in order to strike a proper balance between them. Leech (1983) also echoes this line of approach. There we find a principle of economy within the 'textual rhetoric'. This principle has a maxim of Reduction ('Reduce where possible'), which is responsible for such syntactic reduction processes as pronominalisation, substitution and

210

The pragmatics of anaphora

deletion. The principle of economy is constrained by a principle of clarity; economy must be in keeping with ambiguity-avoidance, otherwise it tends to be sacrificed to avoid ambiguity. In addition, economy may also be inhibited by some expressive and aesthetic aspects of communication. Now, given the Q-principle ('Do not say less than is required') and the I-principle ('Do not say more than is required'), it is easy to see that the principle of clarity and the principle of economy singled out by e.g. Sacks and Schegloff, Beaugrande and Dressier, and Leech are not something ad hoc, but mere instantiations of the more general Q- and I-principles respectively. If this is the case, the question that concerns us next is how the Q- and I-principles interact to promote a preference for the use of a 'single recognitional' in the establishment, shift and maintenance of reference in Chinese conversation. 7.3.1

Establishment of reference

Let us start with the establishment of reference in Chinese conversation. When the speaker intends to introduce a person into conversation, he is faced with a problem: for any person to whom reference is to be made, there is a (potentially infinite) set of possible referential expressions each of which, by a correspondence test, is 'correct' and therefore could be used to identify that person. On any actual occasion of use, however, it is not the case that just any member of that set is 'right' or 'appropriate'. Therefore, the speaker has to select an 'appropriate' referential form from that set, but what constrains the choice (e.g. Schegloff 1972, Sacks & Schegloff 1979, Fornel 1987)? In conversation, both the speaker and the hearer make continuous assessments about each other's background assumptions (e.g. Clark & Marshall 1981). (Let me assume the mutual knowledge hypothesis without trying to give an account of how it is to be achieved without invoking infinite regress of the state of knowledge.) This holds, of course, for anaphoric production. Given that all referential work in conversation is essentially 'recipient-designed' (Sacks & Schegloff 1979), the speaker, in deciding on a particular referential form, has to ensure that it is one that can serve for the hearer to 'locate' the intended referent.3 Thus, anaphoric production in conversation depends crucially on the assumptions made by the speaker about how the hearer will recognise the intended referent. To begin with, the speaker has to decide whether the person to be introduced into conversation is known to the hearer. If the person is

Anaphoric production in conversation

211

judged to be known to the hearer, a definite expression is used; otherwise, an indefinite expression is employed, as illustrated by examples (7.11) and (7.12) below. (7.11) —>

(HC: 86-5) Cl. A: Sanmao ba xianzai? Sanmao PP now C2. B: Sanmao zai Shanghai Jiguang Yanjiusuo Sanmao in Shanghai Laser Research Institute El. A: And Sanmao now? E2. B: Sanmao is at the Shanghai Laser Research Institute

(7.12) -+

(ML: 86-3) Cl. A: 0 zhao le ge ayi employ PFV CL nanny C2. Ayi ye zou le nanny EMP go CRS El. A: (She) had employed a nanny E2. But the nanny actually left

Next, in cases where the first mention of a human referent is encoded in definite terms, the speaker has to determine whether the referent is to be identified through a definite description or a proper name. Generally speaking, a definite description will be used when the referent is to be identified via the relevant role, otherwise a proper name will be used (e.g. Fauconnier 1985, Fornel 1987). Following is an example illustrating the use of a definite description. (7.13) —>

(ML: 86-3) Cl. A: . . . Ni baba shenti ye keyi 2SG dad health EMP good C2. 0 hai dao-dao Huangshan wan le yixia even to to Yellow Mount tour PFV a bit El. A: . . . Your dad, (his) health is actually quite good E2. (He) even went to-to Mount Yellow for some sightseeing

Example (7.13) indicates that the choice between a definite description and a proper name is sometimes constrained by politeness considerations:

212

The pragmatics of anaphora

the use by the speaker of a name to refer to his elder or the hearer's elder is considered impolite and is usually avoided in Chinese. Apart from such politeness considerations, there is evidence that proper names generally take precedence over definite descriptions, thus becoming the predominant referential form for introducing known human referents into Chinese conversation.4 First, a proper name is often chosen over a definite description even in cases where the role of the referent is obviously relevant and thereby a definite description might have usefully been employed. (7.14) —•

(RCE: 88-1) (Yaxiang is the president of the student union.) Cl. A: Zhe shi a 0 zuihao haishi xian wen wen Yaxiang this matter PP had better EMP first ask Yaxiang El. A: This matter (we')d better consult Yaxiang first

Secondly, a proper name is often used immediately following a definite description. (7.15) —>

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Name zhixifu ne(.) Xiufang ye tebie hao well nephew's wife PP Xiufang EMP extremely nice El. A: Well (our) nephew's wife Xiufang is very nice

Thirdly, in cases where the speaker has a 'word-search' problem, and cannot find a referential form for the person he has in mind, it is normally the proper name that is solicited. (7.16) —>

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Ta ne nage Liu shenme? 3SG PP uhm Liu something C2. B: Liu Yihua Liu Yihua C3. A: Liu Yihua ai Liu Yihua right C4. B: Liu Yihua zai nar gan de ting hao de Liu Yihua in there do CSC quite well SFP

Anaphoric production in conversation

213

C5. A: Ao::: ao oh oh El. E2. E3. E4. E5.

A: B: A: B: A:

And he who is called uhm Liu something? Liu Yihua Oh Liu Yihua yes Liu Yihua is doing very well there Oh

Now, how can the use of a 'single recognitional' (in terms of either a proper name or a definite description) to introduce a known human referent into Chinese conversation be accounted for by the interaction of the Q- and I-principles? The answer is a straightforward one: given the hearer-based Q-principle alone, the speaker would have chosen an informationally richer and often more elaborate referential form such as a long description or a proper name coupled with a description, but this would run counter to minimisation (in terms of both meaning and expression). On the other hand, given the speaker-based I-principle alone, the speaker would have chosen an informationally poorer and often more minimal referential form such as a pronoun or even a zero anaphor (assuming again the semantic content hierarchy in (5.13)), but this would run counter to recognition. Therefore, a compromise is reached between these two potentially conflicting principles, resulting in a preference for the use of a 'single recognitional', which concurrently satisfies both recognition and minimisation. That the Q- and I-principles are separately involved in the establishment of reference in Chinese conversation is most in evidence on occasions when the two principles are not concurrently satisifed. These occasions arise in conversation due to discrepancy between the speaker's assessment and the hearer's actual state of knowledge. There are five cases of interest. In the first, the speaker is uncertain about the adequacy of the referential form being used for achieving recognition, and so inserts what I call a recognition check sequence immediately following the use of (usually) a proper name. 5 A standard formula for such a sequence is X, ni renshi bu renshi 'X, do you know (him)' where X is the problematic referential form. By being introduced typically in a prefatory sequence, this format, as Auer (1984) points out for a similar pattern in German conversation, often serves as a 'pre' for some more 'substantive' talks. (The start of these more 'substantive' talks is frequently marked by the repetition of a full lexical NP, usually a

214

The pragmatics of anaphora

proper name whose reference has just been established in the prefatory sequence designed for such purposes. This can be evidenced by example (7.16) above and examples (7.17), (7.18), (7.22) and (7.23) below.) Example (7.17) makes the point explicit. (The repetition of the proper name at line C6 will be taken up in section 7.3.3.) (7.17)

—• —»

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Jisuanjixi you yi ge Zhang Minghui computer department there be one CL Zhang Minghui C2. 0 bu zhidao ni renshi 0 a? not know 2SG know Q C3. B: Ai wo renshi 0 a oh 1SG know SFP C4. A: Ai Zhang Minghui meiyou(.) ti shang oh Zhang Minghui not promote up C5. 0 ye you yijian EMP have complaints C6. B: Danshi Zhang Minghui I" hai bei however Zhang Minghui EMP BEI C7. A: L Jiushi tamen dajia uh 3PL all C8. B: ping shang xianjin jiaoshi a shenmede elect to advanced teacher PP something C9. Dui bu dui right not right El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8. E9.

A: There is a Zhang Minghui in the Computer Department (I) wonder whether you know (him)? B: Yes, I know (him) A: Well Zhang Minghui was not promoted (He) actually had complaints B: However Zhang Minghui was actually A: Uh they all B: elected to a model teacher or whatsoever Is that true?

In terms of the sequential organisation of conversation, the use of a self-initiated recognition check sequence generates a subsequent sequence, in which success of recognition must be explicitly asserted in

Anaphoric production in conversation

215

the brief pause following the recognition check sequence, as is shown by the second arrowed turn in (7.17) above. A failure to insert such an assertion in the pause is then interpreted as pragmatically implicating a negative reply from the hearer. This will be followed by a step-by-step escalation on the part of the speaker in his efforts to secure recognition until recognition is achieved or abandoned. This can be seen by a consideration of (7.18) and (7.19). (7.18) (HC: 86-5) —• Cl. A: Pangzi ne ni xiaode wa? Fatty PP2SGknow Q C2. B: (pause) C3. A:

Dapangzi Big Fatty C4. B: Wo zhidao 0 lSGknow C5. A: Dapangzi zhege houlai you dao Danyang Big Fatty uhm afterwards again to Danyang C6. Weixiao shang le san nian Medical School study PFV three year El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6.

A: B: A: B: A:

Fatty, do you know (him)? (pause) Big Fatty I know (him) Later, uh Big Fatty attended Danyang Medical School for another three years.

(7.19) (SWZ: 86-4) —• Cl. A: Yu Xiaobin ni zhidao bu zhidao? Yu Xiaobin 2SG know not know -•

C2. B: (pause)

—>

C3. A: Ta shi gang lai de 3SG SD- just come -SD C4. B: Shi ma? really Q

216

The pragmatics of anaphora C5. C: 0 xue shenme de? study what SFP C6. A: 0 xue guoji jingjifa de study international economics law SFP C7. C: 0 ye shi Beida de? also SD- Beijing University -SD C8. A: 0 Beida Faliixi de Beijing University Law Department SFP El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8.

A: B: A: B: C: A: C: A:

Yu Xiaobin, do you know (him)? (pause) He has just come here Really? What is (he) reading? (He) is reading International Economics Law Is (he) also from Beijing University? (He) is from Beijing University the Law Department

In (7.18) and (7.19), as in (7.17), the speaker is uncertain about whether the referent is known to the hearer, and this uncertainty is expressed explicitly by inserting a self-initiated recognition check sequence following the use of a minimal recognitional form, i.e. the referent's nickname in (7.18) and the referent's name in (7.19). The sequence is followed by a pause, which is treated by the speaker as displaying the hearer's failure to recognise the referent. Consequently, the speaker steps up his efforts to achieve recognition by providing more information in the next turn. Thus, the operation of the Q-principle is evidenced by the fact that the kind of self-initiated check sequence we have just examined is essentially oriented to achieving recognition, and that of the I-principle is seen by the fact that more information is provided in a gradual way only after the initial, minimal reference form fails to secure recognition. The second occasion when the two principles are not concurrently satisfiable is where the speaker anticipates that the hearer is able to recognise the referent, but in fact the hearer cannot. In such cases, an other-initiated recognition search sequence often occurs, as in the following example.

Anaphoric production in conversation (7.20)

->

217

(RCE: 88-1) Cl. A: Xiao Liu gang lai guo Xiao Liu just come EXP C2. B: Neige Xiao Liu? which Xiao Liu C3. A: Liu Jianguo Liu Jianguo C4. B: Ao oh El. E2. E3. E4.

A: B: A: B:

Xiao Liu has just been here Which Xiao Liu? Liu, Jianguo Oh

This other-initiated recognition search sequence shares all the features of other-initiated self-repair in general (e.g. Moerman 1977, Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977). First, it is placed in the turn subsequent to the turn containing the problematic referential form, the position typically occupied by other-initiation. This shows that the hearer systematically withholds the other-initiated recognition search sequence until he sees that no self-initiated self-repair of the problematic referential form is likely to occur. Secondly, the sequence is characteristically done by a set of turn-constructional devices distinctive of other-initiation (see e.g. work by Moerman 1977 on Tai conversation), namely (i) it occupies an entire turn, (ii) it is relatively short, (iii) the turn-constructional devices can be graded according to their relative 'power' to locate the repairable referential form, and (iv) lowest-grade devices are shortest. Thirdly, it is done with a class of initiator techniques typical of other-initiation (e.g. Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977), the most common of which are (i) full-turn question words such as shui 'who', and (ii) partial repetition of the trouble-source turn plus a question word such as neige Xiao Liu 'which Xiao Liu'. Clearly, the other-initiated self-repair under discussion is an instance of A[ppropriateness]-repair in the sense of Levelt (1989), that is, the repair has to do with the felicitousness or appropriateness of the use of a certain referential expression. The other-initiated recognition search sequence generates a sequence in the subsequent conversation that is somewhat parallel to the sequence engendered by the self-initiated recognition check sequence we have seen

218

The pragmatics of anaphora

earlier. Thus, in example (7.20) above, upon the other-initiated recognition search sequence, a one-step escalation from the use of the referent's surname to the use of his full name is launched on the part of the speaker to secure recognition. Such a step-by-step escalation stops as soon as recognition is achieved. Once again, then, evidence for the application of both the Q- and I-principles: the other-initiation of the recognition search sequence is due to the Q-principle, and the gradual relaxation of the use of minimal referential forms is due to the I-principle. Thirdly, the two principles are not simultaneously compatible with each other when the speaker thinks that the referent is unknown to the hearer, and so uses a 'non-recognitional' form; but in fact the referent is known to the hearer. The hearer, having been given a 'non-recognitional' form, may find from some other information in the conversation that he might be able to identify the referent. In such cases, the hearer often seeks to confirm his suspicion by providing the referent's name or by asking for it. An example illustrating the first strategy is given below. (7.21)

->

(RCE: 88-1) Cl. A: Shang xingqi you lai le ge niisheng last week again come PFV CL girl student C2. B: 0 shi bu shi jiao Shang Subo? be not be call Shang Subo C3. A: Shia ni ye renshi 0? yes 2SG also know C4. B: Dui wo ye renshi 0 yes 1SG also know El. A: There came another girl student last week E2. B: Is (she) called Shang Subo? E3. A: Oh yes, you also know (her)? E4. B: Yes, I also know (her)

This example shows clearly that the Q-principle is in force here: one should try to achieve recognition whenever possible. On the other hand, that the I-principle is not irrelevant is also obvious: the hearer tries a minimal referential form first, i.e. the referent's name, even when the success of recognition is uncertain and when some other more elaborate referential forms could be used. 6 A fourth occasion when the two principles reveal themselves separately is where the speaker has a 'word-search' problem and cannot find the

Anaphoric production in conversation

219

name for the referent. He may then use a description to help recover the name from his own memory or to solicit it from the hearer. (The fact that there is a process of mental search on the part of the speaker for the name of the referent can be evidenced by the occurrence of various hesitation markers such as nage 'uhm'.) Once the name is provided, the description will be abandoned. For example. (7.22) —> —> —•

(HC: 86-5) Cl. A: Xianzai nage jiao shui a? now uhm call who Q C2 Wo gangcai jiang de 1SG just now mention NOM C3. Jiushi nage Damao ma haishi zai Beijing? EMP uhm Damao PP still

-»

in Beijing

C4. B: Ai Damao ai Damao zai Beijing oh Damao oh Damao in Beijing El. A: Now uhm what's (he) called? E2. The person I have just mentioned E3. I mean uhm Damao is (he) still in Beijing? E4. B: Oh Damao oh Damao is still in Beijing

(7.23)

—*

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Haiyou nage fen dao Beijing qu de further uhm assign to Beijing go NOM C2. nage nage bu da shuohua de Jiang shenmede? uhm uhm not too talk

—>

C3. B: Ao Jiang Yunan oh Jiang Yunan C4. A: Ai Jiang Yunan dui yes Jiang Yunan right C5. B: Jiang Yunan keneng ye

NOM Jiang something

chuqu

le

Jiang Yunan possibly EMP go abroad PFV C6. A: Ao:: oh C7. B: Ta ye lianxi de 3SG EMP inquire SFP

220

The pragmatics of anaphora C8.

0 guji 0 ye zou diao le reckon EMP go off CRS

El. A: There is also uhm the person who was assigned a job in Beijing E2. uhm uhm the one who was not very talkative called Jiang something? E3. B: Oh Jiang Yunan E4. A: Oh Jiang Yunan, that's right E5. B: Jiang Yunan may have possibly gone abroad E6. A: Oh E7. B: He actually was making some inquiries E8. (I) reckon that (he) has already gone Examples of this kind clearly evidence the operation of the I-principle: despite the fact that the recognition requirement is met, neither the speaker nor the hearer may be satisfied until the minimisation requirement is also fulfilled. Finally, there are cases where a proper name is employed for subsequent use even when its referent is not known to the hearer. Example (7.24) shows this usage. (7.24)

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Ta hai zai nabian hai pengdao yi ge yuanlai 3 S G E M P i n there EMP meet one CL originally C2. zai zhebian Ruishi de yi ge liuxuesheng in here

-•

—•

C3.

Swiss MM one CL foreign student

Ni hai jide 0 ba? 2SG still remember Q C4. B: (.) C5. A: 0 gezi bu tai gao height not too tall C6. B: Wo yinxiang yidian dou bu shen le 1SG impression a bit all not deep CRS C7. A: 0 ting yonggong de quite hard-working SFP C8. B: En:en mhm

Anaphoric production in conversation

221

C9. A: 0 jiao neige Fan Ke call uhm Fan Ke CIO. B:En mhm El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8. E9. E1O.

A: Oh there he also came across a former Swiss student here You still remember (him)? B:(.) A: (He) is not very tall B: I haven't the faintest impression A: (He) was quite hard-working B: Mhm A: (He) is called uhm Fan Ke B:Mhm

In this extract, the utterance at line C6 by the hearer clearly provides a negative response to the recognition check sequence initiated by the speaker at line C3. Yet, despite the fact that the speaker now knows that the hearer cannot recognise the referent, he introduces the referent's name into the conversation at line C9 in preparation for subsequent use, thus 'arming [the hearer] with the resources he may thereafter be supposed to have' (Sacks & Schegloff 1979: 17). This example seems to collaborate Sacks & Schegloff s (1979: 17) observation that recognition can be extended 'to involve not only maximum exploitation of the use of recognitionals consistent with some current state of "if possible", but to involve as well an interest in expanding the scope of possibility.' Of further interest to us is that in addition, these occasions also reveal the relative strengths of the Q- and I-principles regarding the establishment of reference in Chinese conversation. The weight of evidence suggested by the kind of occasions we have examined strongly indicates that the Q-based preference for recognition and the I-based preference for minimisation are generally simultaneously satisfied. In cases where the concurrent compatibility of the two preferences is not achieved, the Q-based preference for recognition generally takes precedence over the Ibased preference for minimisation; and the I-based preference for minimisation is generally relaxed step by step in favour of the Q-based preference for recognition. In other words, were minimisation preferred to recognition, then, when recognition through minimisation were doubtful, more minimal recognitional forms would be favoured; were

222

The pragmatics of anaphora

minimisation not relaxed step by step in favour of recognition, then, when recognition were doubtful, non-minimal recognitional forms would be preferred, neither of which our data show to be the case. Therefore, the resolution schema organising the interaction of the Q- and Iprinciples in (5.25) is once again evidenced.

7.3.2

Shift of reference

As we saw in an earlier section (cf. section 7.2), the shift of reference in Chinese conversation is done through the use of a lexical NP, as can be exemplified by example (7.8), repeated here as (7.25), and (7.26). (7.25) —»

—>

(RCE: 88-1) Cl. A: Cai Lin zai yinhang gongzuo Cai Lin in bank work C2. B: Ta airen 3SG spouse C3. A: 0 haoxiang seem C4. Ao Cai Lin oh Cai Lin

ne? Q zai xintuo gongsi in trust company qunian hai qu le tang Xianggang last year EMP go PFV CL Hongkong

El. A: Cai Lin works in a bank E2. B: How about her husband? E3. A: (He) seems to work in a trust company E4. Oh Cai Lin even visited Hongkong last year (7.26)

—> —>

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Ta airen ma ye shi sanbandao(.) niigong 3SG spouse PP EMP be three shift woman worker C2. 0 sheng le yi ge erzi give birth to PFV one CL son C3. Erzi dao shi man congming de son however SD- quite clever C4. C5.

0 hai hui changge EMP can sing Tiaowu 0 ye hui de dance also can SFP

-SD

Anaphoric production in conversation

223

El. A: His wife is actually a worker who works in three shifts E2. (She) has a baby son E3. (Her) baby son is very clever E4. (He) can sing E5. and dance (he) also can Clearly, the shift of reference can also be readily accounted for in terms of the interaction between the Q- and I-principles. As an illustration, take example (7.25). A zero anaphor might have occurred at line C4, but the use of such a minimal anaphoric form could possibly lead the hearer to an incorrect identification of the referent, taking the subject referent at line C3 rather than the subject referent at line Cl as the intended referent. Evidently, this would run counter to recognition. On the other hand, an elaborate description such as zai yinhang gongzuo de Cai Lin 'Cai Lin who works in the bank' might have been used as well, but this would run counter to minimisation. Therefore, the use of the proper name at line C4 allows the potential concurrent satisfiability of the Q- and I-based preferences to be realised. Informationally weaker anaphoric expressions such as pronouns and zero anaphors, however, are indeed occasionally used for the shift of reference in Chinese conversation, as in the following example. (7.27)

—>

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Ni zai zhebian hai pengdao nage Zhuang Guoou la? 2SG in here also meet uhm Zhuang Guoou Q C2. B: 0 meiyou a not SFP C3. Ta xianzai liu zai Wenyansuo la 3SG now remain in Literature Institute SFP El. A: Did you also meet uhm Zhuang Guoou here? E2. B: No, (I) didn't E3. He is now working in the Literature Institute

Here, the use of the pronoun ta at line C3 follows straightforwardly from the interaction between the Q- and I-principles. It is an anaphoric form that is both recognitional and minimal: it is recognitional in that it suffices to yield the correct identification of the referent, since it cannot refer to the subject referent of the preceding utterance; it is minimal in that the use of a zero anaphor could cause potential ambiguity.

224

The pragmatics of anaphora

Therefore, the use of ta here meets concurrently both the recognition and minimisation requirements. To sum up, the shift of reference behaves in a way parallel to the establishment of reference. Likewise, its basic distributional pattern can largely be predicted by the interaction between the Q-based principle of recognition and the I-based principle of minimisation.

7.3.3

Maintenance of reference

We come finally to the maintenance of reference in Chinese conversation. We saw in section 7.2 of this chapter that the maintenance of reference in Chinese conversation tends to receive first a pronoun and then a zero anaphor encoding, as exemplified by (7.2) above, and its two variants (7.28) and (7.29) below. (7.28)

—> —• —>

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Na ta nage ta- ta qizi gan shenme ne? uhm 3SG uhm 3SG 3SG wife do what Q C2. B: Ta qizi ma zuo gongren 3SG wife PP be worker C3. 0 suliao chang li gongzuo plastics plant in work C4. 0 ye bijiao mang EMP quite busy El. A: Uhm what's his uhm his his wife doing? E2. B: His wife is a worker E3. (She) works in a plastics plant E4. (She) is actually quite busy

(7.29)

—>

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Li Ruijing lai guo le Li Ruijing come EXP CRS C2. B: O oh C3. A: Li Ruijing Li Ruijing

Anaphoric production in conversation —•

C4. B: Ta xianzai hai zai Minhang? 3SGnow still in CAAC

—•

C5. A: Ta haoxiang ye kaoqu 3SG seem EMP pass examination le yanjiusheng le PFV graduate student CRS C6. B: 0:::0 dui dui dui wo ting wo ting oh oh yes yes yes 1SG hear 1SG hear C7. 0 xiangbuqi ting shui shuo guo not remember hear who say EXP El. E2. E3. E4. E5.

225

A: B: A: B: A:

Li Ruijing has been here Oh Li Ruijing Is he still in CAAC? He seems to have passed the examinations for graduate studies E6. B: Oh yes yes yes I heard I heard E7. (I) can't remember (I) heard who mentioned (it) Examples (7.28) and (7.29) are typical topic chains found in Chinese conversation, where the topic established in the first utterance serves as the referent for the unrealised topics in the chain of utterances following it. It has generally been acknowledged that anaphoric encoding in discourse is largely affected by topic continuity (Givon 1983a, b, 1985).7 The continuity of topic in discourse is often influenced by factors such as distance (the number of clauses between the two mentions of a referent), interference (the number of intervening referents) and thematic information (e.g. the maintenance or change of protagonist and/or episode). Roughly, the shorter the linear distance, the fewer the interfering referents, the more stable the thematic status of protagonist, the more continuous a topic; and the more continuous a topic, the more likely that it will be encoded by means of a reduced anaphoric expression (see also Ariel 1990: 28-9).8 Givon (1983a, b, 1985), for instance, ranks various topic-coding devices along the following scale.

226 (7.30)

The pragmatics of anaphora Givon's topic-coding device scale most continuous/accessible topic zero anaphora unstressed/bound pronouns or grammatical agreement stressed/independent pronouns R-dislocated DEF-NPs neutral-ordered DEF-NPs L-dislocated DEF-NPs Y-moved NPs ('contrastive topicalisation') cleft/focus constructions referential indefinite NPs most discontinuous/inaccessible topic

He goes on to suggest that there is an iconic coding-quantity principle underlying scale (7.30). (7.31)

Givon's topic coding-quantity principle The less predictable/accessible/continuous a topic is, the more coding material is used to represent it in language. 9

This is indeed the case of both (7.28) and (7.29). The topic of the utterances at lines C3 and C4 in (7.28) and the topic of the utterances at lines C4 and C5 in (7.29) maintain the reference from that of the previous utterances, hence registering high in continuity. It follows from the 'topic continuity' hypothesis that the topics in question are to be encoded by a reduced anaphoric expression. And this prediction is borne out. The same can also be predicted from the viewpoint of information flow in discourse under the rubric of 'given/new' information. (For an overview of this notion, see e.g. Allerton 1978, Prince 1981, Brown & Yule 1983: 154-89.)10 It is generally acknowledged that only 'given' entities can be encoded in terms of a reduced anaphoric expression such as a pronoun or a zero anaphor (e.g. Chafe 1976, Allerton 1978, Westergaard 1986: 64). Once the reference of an entity is established in conversation, the entity becomes 'given', therefore, it can receive a 'lexically attenuated' anaphoric encoding. This explains why zero anaphors and pronouns are used at lines C3 and C4 in (7.28) and at lines C4 and C5 in (7.29). In fact, both the 'topic continuity' hypothesis and the 'given-only' hypothesis, to the extent that they make correct predictions, may be subsumed under our more general neo-Gricean pragmatic principles. The

Anaphoric production in conversation

227

use of 'lexically attenuated' anaphoric forms is evidently oriented to the concurrent satisfaction of both the Q-based preference for recognition and the I-based preference for minimisation. One further point needs to be mentioned here. Notice that there is a recurring pattern involving the maintenance of reference that is observed in our data: a full lexical NP is often repeated in the second-pair part of a (question-answer) adjacency pair to encode the referent that is introduced in the first-pair part of that pair. Apart from example (7.28), we have the following. (7.32) —> —»

(HC: 86-5) Cl. A: Ni meimei mei name da? 2SG younger sister not that old C2. B: Wo meimei bi ta xiao dagai ban(.) 1SG younger sister than 3SG young about half C3. ban sui half year C4. A: Oyo na then oh ye bu xiao le C5. B: 0 EMP not young CRS El. E2. E3. E4. E5.

A: Your sister isn't that old? B: My sister is about half half a year younger than he is A: Oh in that case B: (She) is actually not very young

This is puzzling from the perspective of both the 'topic continuity' hypothesis and the 'given-only' hypothesis. Since what is repeated is the topic and is 'given', why is a reduced anaphoric expression not used? However, from an interactional point of view, the repetition of the speaker's topic by the hearer in his first turn available explicitly indicates his willingness to accept the speaker's topic as the common topic of the subsequent conversation. Once the common topic is established, reduced anaphoric expressions are used to maintain the reference, as would be expected. Clearly, in these cases, the interaction of the Q- and I-principles appears to allow the concurrent compatibility of both recognition and minimisation to be realised gradually. In other words, by the interaction

228

The pragmatics of anaphora

of the Q- and I-principles, there is an orientation towards the concurrent compatibility of recognition and minimisation.11'12 Our discussion of the maintenance of reference in Chinese conversation, however, will not be complete without mention of the following pattern where there is a reversion to a lexical NP or pronoun that 'breaks' the pronoun or zero-anaphor chain. The pattern is presented as follows. (7.33)

NPi • • • Pi/01

' • •

NPi/P! Now, the question is this: why does the speaker revert to the use of a less minimal anaphoric form where there is no shift in reference? The question, I believe, can be partially answered along the lines suggested by Li & Thompson (1979) and Chen (1984, 1986), which, in turn, can be explained by the M-principle. Li & Thompson (1979) propose that the occurrence of pronouns (as opposed to zero anaphors) in Chinese discourse is largely dictated by a conjoinability principle in the form of (7.34). (7.34)

Li and Thompson's conjoinability principle The degree of preference for the occurrence of a pronoun in a clause inversely corresponds to the degree of its conjoinability with the preceding clause.

By 'conjoinability' is meant 'the speaker's perception of the degree of "connection" between clauses in discourse' (cf. section 5.4 of chapter 5). This degree of 'connection', according to Li and Thompson, is greatly affected in three ways. In the first, the clauses in question shift from background information to foreground information, or vice versa. In the second, the clause that follows is marked with an adverbial expression or a contrastive morpheme. And in the third, the clauses in question constitute different turns in conversation. Consequently, on those occasions where conjoinability is low, a pronoun is likely to occur. Elsewhere, Li & Thompson (1981: 612) point to highlighting as another main factor for triggering the occurrence of pronouns; pronouns tend to be used when there is reason to highlight the referent in the context. These ideas of Li and Thompson's are elaborated in Chen (1984, 1986). In Chen (1984), conjoinability is defined in terms of topic continuity and semantic continuity. Conjoinability is affected when the interruption of topic continuity and/or semantic continuity takes place. Topic continuity

Anaphoric production in conversation

229

is interrupted by change of topic and semantic continuity is impaired by factors such as (i) turning from background information to foreground information, or vice versa, or turning to something downright unexpected from what has been established before, (ii) insertion of some digression into the theme development, (iii) insertion of temporal, locative, adversative adverbials, or other types of adverbial, (iv) pauses or hesitation, especially when the theme tends to become longer and longer, (v) paragraph boundary (cf. Tai 1978), and (vi) switch or turn in conversation. Later, Chen (1986) identifies two discourse features as the major factors triggering the choice of a pronoun over a zero anaphor or a lexical NP, that is , (i) the referent's location at a minor discontinuity of discourse, and (ii) the referent's high noteworthiness. Minor breaks in the continuity of discourse are marked by the presence of involvement with different referents, separate schemata and/or separate goals. The high versus low noteworthiness of a referent is manifested in two ways: (i) the high versus low of the referent's inherent saliency or plot saliency, and (ii) the anaphor's position in the nuclear clause versus the adjunct clause. Chen further argues that other things being equal, a pronoun is likely to be used when minor discontinuity in discourse occurs, when the referent is high in inherent/plot saliency, and/or when the anaphor is in the nuclear clause. We need not go into further details of Li and Thompson's and Chen's analyses, but the notion of conjoinability is insightful; it can accommodate to a large extent reversion to pronouns and lexical NPs found in our data. Consider, for example, (7.35) below.

(7.35)

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Namezhixifu ne(.) Xiufang ye tebie hao well nephew's wife PP Xiufang EMP extremely nice C2. Ta zhidao women yao qu 3SG know 1PL will go C3. Ziji hai yao shangban self EMP have to go to work C4. 0 feichang mang very busy

230

The pragmatics of anaphora C5.

C6. C7. C8. C9. CIO.

Tian hai mei liang en zongshi si- wu sky EMP not bright mhm always four five dianzhong o'clock de yangzi si dianzhong de yangzi MM likelihood four o'clock MM likelihood 0 jiu qilai maicai EMP get up buy food 0 maicai mai hao ma buy food buy finish PP 0 xi hao zuo hao wash finish cook finish 0 zai qu shangban then go go to work

Cll. C12. C13. C14.

Jiali lu yuan home distance far away 0 zhongwu bu huilai noon not return 0 wanshang huilai evening return 0 hai yao zuocai EMP have to cook

C15.

Buguo however de MM

ma ta ye you yixie buyukuai PP 3SG EMP have some unhappy shiqing matter

El. A: E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8. E9. E10.

Well (our) nephew's wife Xiufang is very nice She knew that we would go She herself still had to go to work (She) was very busy Before daybreak mhm always at about four-five o'clock four o'clock (she) would get up to go to market After (she) bought food (she) got it washed and cooked Then, (she) went to work

Anaphoric production in conversation El 1. E12. El3. El4.

Because (her) home was far away (she) didn't return home at noon (She) returned home in the evening (She) would still cook

El5.

However, she actually had some unhappy matters

231

In this extract, a pronoun is used at line C15 where conjoinability is low. This is evidenced by the occurrence of the adversative/contrastive adverbial buguo 'however'. Exactly the same explanation can be given for the reversion to Zhang Minghui at line C6 in example (7.17) above: the continuity of discourse clearly sustains a minor break there, which is indicated by the occurrence of the adversative/contrastive adverbial danshi 'but'. Next, consider (7.36) below. (7.36)

—•

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Ying Jiafei chuqu le Ying Jiafei go abroad CRS C2. B: 0 dao Meiguo go to America C3. A: 0 dao Meiguo go to America C4. B: Wo zhidao ta shi qu duanqi xue xinwenxue de 1SG know 3SG SD- go short-term read journalism -SD C5. Dui ba? right SA C6. A: Ai dagai 0 qima ye yao gao yi nian de well maybe at least EMP will do one year SFP C7. 0 kuai yao huilai le soon will return CRS C8. B: Ao oh C9. A: 0 xianzai kuai yao huilai le now soon will return CRS El. A: Ying Jiafei has gone abroad E2. B: (She) went to America E3. A: (She) went to America

232

The pragmatics of anaphora E4. B: I know she went there on a short-term course on journalism E5. Is that right? E6. A: Well maybe (she) will stay there at least for one year E7. (She) will return soon E8. B: Oh E9. A: (She) will return soon

Here, the occurrence of ta at line C4 can also be explained by conjoinability. Evidently, there is a minor break in the continuity of discourse at that line where the NP is changed from the subject position to the embedded subject position. As a final example, take (7.37) below.

(7.37)

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. B: Li Fei de daoshi ne (pause) qunian o Li Fei MM supervisor PP last year oh bushi qunian not last year C2. jinnian dao Beida lai jinxiu this year to Beijing University come do research bannian half a year C3. Wo pengdao ta 1SG come across 3SG C4. Ta tidao ni Nanda de 3SG mention 2SG Nanjing University SFP C5. Ni renshi bu renshi Li Fei 2SG know not know Li Fei C6. Wo shuo 0 renshi 0 a 1SG say know SFP C7. 0 shi women banshang tongxue be 1PL class fellow student C8. 0 zai women banshang xue de ting hao de a in 1PL class learn CSC quite well SFP SFP

Anaphoric production in conversation —•

C9.

233

Li Fei dagai shi qunian cai tongguo shuoshi Li Fei maybe SD- last year only pass MA dabian de viva -SD

El. B: Li Fei's supervisor last year oh no not last year E2. this year came to Beijing University to do research for half a year E3. I came across him E4. He said you are from Nanjing University E5. Do you know Li Fei E6. I said (I) know (him) E7. (He) was my classmate E8. (He) did quite well in our class uh E9. Li Fei did not pass the MA viva until last year In this passage, the occurrence of Li Fei at line C9 follows once again from the prediction of the conjoinability principle. Conjoinability is low there due to a switch from direct quotation to narration. Therefore, by the conjoinability principle, a more elaborate anaphoric expression is expected to be employed, and the prediction is borne out. All this makes clear that the speaker's perception of the degree of connection between utterances in conversation does play an important role in his reversion to pronouns and lexical NPs. Reversion to pronouns and lexical NPs in the sort of examples we have just examined can readily be attributed to the M-principle. Given the Mprinciple, it is predicted that a 'marked' linguistic form be used to express a 'marked' message. Assuming that low conjoinability is something marked, it is expectable that a less minimal anaphoric form (e.g. a reversed pronoun or lexical NP) will be employed to indicate it. Thus, we obtain a complementary pattern: other things being equal, the I-principle will favour the use of an 'unmarked' anaphoric form when conjoinability is high, whereas the M-principle will favour the use of a 'marked' anaphoric form when conjoinability is low.

7.4

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have formulated the basic distributional pattern of anaphora in Chinese conversation as observed in our data. I have demonstrated that the establishment, shift and maintenance of reference

234

The pragmatics of anaphora

in Chinese conversation can largely be accounted for by the interaction of the Q-, I- and M-principles. With regard to these findings, what is of particular interest is that allowing for some special, 'local' Chinese aspects of anaphoric production in conversation, there appear to be precise parallels between Chinese and other languages (e.g. English and German) in this area. 13 Appendix: data sources and transcription conventions 1

Data sources

Data for the analysis reported in this chapter and the next chapter contain eight audio-taped, naturally occurring Chinese conversations. Of these conversations, six are recorded in China and two, in Cambridge, England. All the participants are native speakers of Modern Standard Chinese (i.e. Putonghua). A brief description of each of the eight conversations is given below. 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

2

HQ: 86-1. A face-to-face interaction between two well-educated, male friends, recorded in China. FMH: 86-2. A face-to-face interaction between father, mother and son, all well-educated, recorded in China. ML: 86-3. Mother talking to adult daughter, recorded in China. SWZ: 86-4. A face-to-face, multi-party interaction involving as many as seven Chinese research students, recorded in Cambridge, England. HC: 86-5. A face-to-face interaction between two well-educated, male friends, recorded in China. RCE: 88-1. A face-to-face interaction between husband and wife, both well-educated, recorded in Cambridge, England. FWH: 86-6. A face-to-face interaction involving a young woman, her husband and her brother, recorded in China. LL: 86-7. A face-to-face interaction between husband and wife, recorded in China. Transcription conventions

Conversational data are transcribed in accordance with a much simplified version of the notational convention developed by Gail Jefferson, as in Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974). The conventions used here are:

Anaphoric production in conversation 235 [ indicates point at which the two utterances overlap (.) indicates short pause (pause) indicates long pause :: indicates lengthened syllables ? indicates questioning intonation indicates self-editing () indicates something said but not transcribable —> indicates location of phenomenon of direct interest to discussion (1)

(2)

All conversations are transcribed in Modern Standard Chinese (i.e. Putonghua). Words are marked the way they are pronounced in isolation, without regard to dialectal or contextual variation. Names of some of the persons mentioned in the conversations and their relevant details have been changed for the sake of privacy.

8

Anaphoric resolution in conversation

8.1

Introduction

In this chapter, I shall turn from a consideration of anaphoric production to an analysis of anaphoric resolution in Chinese conversation. I shall demonstrate that anaphoric resolution in Chinese conversation can largely be accounted for by the interaction of the I- and M-principles. Unlike most previous studies of discourse anaphora, which are based on written narrative, the analysis of anaphoric production in the last chapter and that of anaphoric resolution in this chapter are based on naturally occurring conversation. Although conversation introduces some additional complexities, it also offers some extra means to confirm (or disconfirm) an analysis. Therefore, I shall end this chapter with a brief illustration of how the analysis made here conforms to what the participants in conversation are actually oriented to.

8.2

Anaphoric resolution in conversation

There appear to be some precise parallels between intrasentential and discourse anaphora in Chinese: for an antecedent of an anaphoric expression in Chinese conversation, a local subject is preferred to a local object, and a non-split antecedent, to a split one. If none of these NPs seems to be the possible candidate, the next, more remote utterance in the conversation is examined for possibilities in the same order, and so on until the most remote utterance in the conversation is reached. Failure to locate a conversation-internal antecedent leads to an inference to an exophoric or arbitrary interpretation (cf. sections 6.2 and 6.6 of chapter 6). Let us now look at some illustrations of how anaphoric expressions in Chinese conversation are interpreted by the I- and M-principles. Consider first (8.1). 236

Anaphoric resolution in conversation (8.1)

-»

—• —• —>

237

(HC: 86-5) Cl. B: Damao xianzai zai nage Taikong Zhongxin Damao now at uhm Space Centre C2. zai Taikong Zhongxin at Space Centre C3. A: Shi shenme taikong zhongxin ne? be what space centre Q C4. B: Jiushi Zhongguo de zhege EMP China MM uhm C5. dimian weixing jieshouzhan jiushi ground satellite receiving station EMP C6. A: Name ta yijing bu zai nage (pause) then 3SG already not at uhm C7. I" Shuxuesuo le Mathematics Institute CRS C8. B: 0 L bu zai Shuxuesuo le not at Mathematics Institute CRS C9. 0 zao jiu bu zai le long EMP not at CRS CIO. 0 zao jiu diao chulai le long EMP transfer RV CRS El. B: Damao is at uhm the Space Centre E2. at the Space Centre E3. A: What kind of space centre? E4. B: Actually China's E5. ground satellite receiving station E6. A: In that case he is no longer at uhm E7. the Mathematics Institute E8. B: No (he) is no longer at the Mathematics Institute E9. (He) left (it) long ago E10. (He) was transferred from (it) long ago

In this extract, the anaphors constitute a topic chain. In the topic chain, there is a step-by-step descent from the use of pronouns to zero anaphors. By the I-principle, the pronoun ta at line C6 and the zero anaphors at lines C8, C9 and CIO are interpreted as coreferential with the topic. Following is yet another example of a topic chain.

238 (8.2)

—• —> —• —•

The pragmatics of anaphora (FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Shiyong ma haorongyi cong Heilongjiang Shiyong PP difficult from Heilongjiang C2. diao hui Ningbo le transfer back Ningbo CRS C3. 0 ye jie le hun EMP get PFV married C4. 0 cheng le jia start PFV family C5. 0 you yi ge xiao erzi have one CL little son C6.

0 haishi man xingfu man meiman de EMP quite happy quite contented SFP

El. A: Shiyong managed to get transferred E2. from Heilongjiang back to Ningbo E3. (He) got married E4. (He) started a family E5. (He) has a baby son E6. (He) is actually quite happy and contented Again, by the I-principle, all the four zero anaphors in the chain refer to the topic. Next, consider (8.3) (8.3)

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Li Haiping xianzai Li Haiping now C2. fu jiaoshou associate professor C3. B: Fu jiaoshou

shi sheng cheng be promote RV le ba? CRS SA

associate professor C4. A: Ta keneng zai Meiguo yi nian gongzuo 3SG maybe in America one year work C5. zuo de " haishi bucuo de do CSC EMP well SFP C6. B: .Ta yi sheng le yihou 3SG as soon as promote PFV after

Anaphoric resolution in conversation

239

C7.

—>

neige Zhang Minghui ne zhege jiushi haoxiang uhm Zhang Minghui PP uhm uhm seem C8. jiushi bu gaoxing uhm not happy C9. A: Shi shia yes yes CIO. B: 0 dangshi yiqi du de then together read SFP El. A: Has Li Haiping been promoted E2. to an associate professorship? E3. B: Yes, to an associate professorship E4. A: Maybe in the year he was in America E5. he did his research quite well E6. B: As soon as he was promoted E7. uhm Zhang Minghui uhm uhm seemed E8. a bit unhappy E9. A: Yes yes E10.B: In those days, (they) studied together

This is a more interesting example. It starts with a topic chain, with Li Haiping as the topic. The topic chain is ended at line C7 by B's employment of a lexical NP, which indicates that there is a shift of reference. Then, at line CIO, a zero anaphor is used. By the I-principle, a coreferential interpretation between the zero anaphor and Zhang Minghui would be implicated, but such an interpretation is ruled out by the semantics of yiqi 'together'. This has the consequence of triggering another operation of the I-principle to the effect that the zero anaphor under discussion takes local split antecedents, namely Li Haiping and Zhang Minghui. It is easy to see that examples (8.1)-(8.3) are straightforward cases: there is a topic chain; the antecedent is in linear order the last-mentioned referential/anaphoric form; there is no interfering NP between the anaphor and its antecedent. Next, let us turn to some more complicated cases. There is, however, one matter which needs to be disposed of before we can proceed. Consider (8.4) below.

240 (8.4)

The pragmatics of anaphora (HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: Lan Zhiyong hui lai le meiyou? Lan Zhiyong return RV PFV not C2. B: Lan Zhiyong meiyou Lan Zhiyong not C3. Zhang Xiangning ye guo qu le Zhang Xiangning also go RV CRS C4. A: O:::O oh oh C5. B: Suoyi zhe you shi yi ge chuguo de so this another SD- one CL go abroad -SD C6. A: O:::O qishi Lan Zhiyong yinggai xianzai hui oh oh EMP Lan Zhiyong should now return lai le RV PFV C7. B: (pause) C8. A : T a ( ) 3SG C9. B: Ta zai nali keneng zai nar gao zhege Ph.D. le 3SG in there possibly in there do uhm Ph.D. CRS CIO. A: Ao 0 you gao dao qian le oh

—>

EMP get RV money PFV

Cl 1.

I" Zhang Xiangning Zhang Xiangning C12. B:L (Ta zai) ta zai nar xue de zhuanye shi nage 3SG in 3SG in there study MM subject be uhm C13. A: guanli management C14. B: Xuexiao guanli gaodeng xuexiao guanli college management higher college management El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6.

A: Has Lan Zhiyong returned? B: Lan Zhiyong has not Zhang Xiangning went there, too A: Oh B: So this is another who went abroad A: Oh actually Lan Zhiyong should now have returned

Anaphoric resolution in conversation

241

E7. B: (pause) E8. A: H e ( ) E9. B: He's there possibly working for a Ph.D.

E10. A: Ell. El2. B: El3. A: El4. B:

Oh (he) got some money Zhang Xiangning (He's) the subject he's studying there is uhm management Education management higher education management

Of some interest here is the status of Zhang Xiangning at line C11. Can the lexical NP be treated as a potential antecedent? The answer is no. This is because from an interactional point of view, it does not succeed in actually entering into the conversation: A's attempt to reintroduce Zhang Xiangning into the conversation is blocked by B's bid for and thereafter occupation of the floor. This can be evidenced by (i) B's competitive move overlaps with Zhang Xiangning, (ii) as soon as the overlap occurs, A drops out, and (iii) as soon as A withdraws, B repeats the part of the turn obscured by the overlap. If this analysis is correct, then examples such as (8.4), where there is an apparent rather than real intefering antecedent, will not fall under the category of examples I shall now discuss. Let us being with (8.5), which is a continuation of (8.4). (8.5)

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. B: (Ta zai) ta zai nar xue de zhuanye shi nage 3SG in 3SG in there study MM subject be uhm C2. A: guanli management C3. B: Xuexiao guanli gaodeng xuexiao guanli college management higher college management C4. A: Shide shide 0 man hao de yes yes quite good SFP C5. Zhe ge zhuanye this CL subject C6. man hao de quite good SFP C7. B: 0 shi man hao de SD- quite good -SD

242 —>

The pragmatics of anaphora C8. C9. CIO. Cll. El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8. E9. E10. Ell.

0 hui lai dang xiaozhang return RV be principal A: 0 hui lai bu shi shuo dang xiaozhang return RV not be COMP be principal qima zuo gaoji(.) gaoji guanli renyuan at least be senior senior management personnel B: Duidui yes yes B: (He's) the subject he's reading there is uhm A: management B: Education management higher education management A: Yes yes (it) is good The subject is very good B: (It) is very good When (he) returns, (he) will be the principal A: When (he) returns, even if (he) will not be the principal at least (he) will be a senior management personnel B: Yes yes

Consider now how the zero anaphor at line C8 is interpreted. Intuitively, the antecedent is ta at line Cl rather than the zero anaphor at the immediately preceding line, i.e. line C7. How, then, is the zero anaphor at line C7 disqualified and ta at line Cl figured out as the antecedent? The answer, I think, lies in the lexical semantics of the predicate verb involved. Clearly, the lexical semantics of the predicate verb of the utterance at line C8 requires an animate/human subject, thus automatically ruling out the subject of the immediately preceding utterance, namely zhe ge zhuanye 'this subject', the last mention of which occurs at line C7 in terms of a zero anaphor, as the antecedent of the zero anaphor at line C8. Consequently, by the I-principle, the other NP available in the immediate conversational context, namely ta at line Cl, naturally comes forward in the hearer's inferential process as the antecedent of the zero anaphor under consideration. Another example illustrating this strategy appears below.

Anaphoric resolution in conversation (8.6)

—y

243

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Tamen ma xianzai(.) jingji qingkuang 3PL PP now economic situation C2. shi man hao de SD- quite good -SD C3. Bingxiang la xiyijishuanggang fridge PP washing machine twin-tub C4. xiyiji la 0 dou you le washing machine PP all have PFV C5. 0 dou zhibei qilai le all purchase RV PFV C6. 0 bi wo qian ji nian qu than 1SG ago several year go C7. na buzhidao yao hao duoshao that not know must good how much El. A: They, (their) current economic situation E2. is actually quite good E3. The fridge the washing machine the twin-tub E4. washing machine (they) all have E5. (they) all have purchased E6. (Their economic situation) is much much better E7. than when I went there several years ago

This passage contains a Chinese-style topic construction, namely A's first utterance at lines Cl and C2. The topic is tamen and the subject is jingji qingkuang 'economic situation'. In unmarked cases, the zero anaphors in the utterances following such a construction are coreferential with the topic rather than the subject (cf. the 'topic determination' hypothesis discussed in section 6.3 of chapter 6), as example (8.7) below indicates. But this is not the case with the zero anaphor at line C6 in (8.6). Again, given the lexical semantics of the predicate verb of the utterance at line C7, the assignment of the zero anaphor at line C6 can only go to the subject but not the topic of the topic construction, whose last mention takes place at line C5. This is also the case in (8.8). (8.7)

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Xiufang ma zhe zuocai de benling shi tebie gao Xiufang PP this cook MM skill be very good

244 —>

The pragmatics of anaphora C2.

0 mang le hao ji tian busy PFV quite several day

El. A: Xiufang, (her) cooking skill is extremely good E2. (She) was busy for quite a few days (8.8)

—•

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Wo juede Xu Ying zhe ge guandian haishi 1SG think Xu Ying this CL viewpoint EMP C2. bijiao chenjiu quite old-fashioned C3. B: 0 bijiao shi chenjiu quite be old-fashioned El. A: I think that Xu Ying, (her) point of view E2. is quite old-fashioned E3. B: Yes, (it) is quite old-fashioned

Next, the 'part-whole' semantic constraint on the relationship between the topic NP and the subject NP (i.e. the topic NP is the whole of which the subject NP is a part) also plays an important role in rejecting the undesirable antecedent and selecting the intended antecedent. This is illustrated by example (8.9). (8.9)

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Ta de meimei hai youdian congming de 3SG MM younger sister EMP quite clever SFP C2. B: Ta de meimei congming de 3SG MM younger sister clever SFP C3. 0 xianzai ma yijing kao shang le now PP already pass examination RV CRS C4. zhongdian zhongxue le key secondary school CRS C5. Ta meimei ne hai duocaiduoyi de 3SG younger sister PP also versatile SFP C6. Birushuo(.) youyong la daqiu la for example swim PP play ball games PP C7. 0 shenme dou keyi everything all pretty good

Anaphoric resolution in conversation C8. C9. CIO. Cll. C12. —>

C13.

—*

C14. El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8. E9. E10. Ell. E12. El3. El4.

245

A: 0 jiushi ren bu tai haokan EMP person not very pretty Shi ma? right Q B: (long pause) Ai 0 jiushi mao chayidianr oh EMP looks not good enough A: Ta de lian haishi zheyang a? 3SG MM face still so Q B: 0 haishi zheyang still so 0 mao chayidianr looks not good enough 0 ren shi man congming de person SD- quite clever -SD A: His younger sister is quite clever B: His younger sister is clever Now (she) has already entered into a key secondary school His younger sister is also versatile For example, swimming, playing ball games everything (she) is pretty good at A: But (she) isn't terribly good-looking Is that right? B: (long pause) Oh yes, (she) is plain A: Is her face still the same? B: Yes, (it) is still the same (She) is a bit plain But (she) is quite clever

Now, let us take a look at the last two utterances at lines C13 and C14. Both are Chinese-style topic constructions. The topic is ta meimei 'his younger sister', which is encoded in terms of a zero anaphor, and the subjects are mao 'looks' and ren 'person' respectively. Given the 'partwhole' semantic restriction which is imposed on the relationship between the topic and the subject of such a construction, the subject of the immediately prior utterance, namely ta de lian 'her face', the last mention of which is by means of a zero anaphor at line C12, cannot function as the topic of either of the topic constructions under discussion, thus being

246

The pragmatics of anaphora

excluded from candidacy as the possible antecedent of the zero anaphors at lines C13 and C14. This will then have as a consequence another application of the I-principle, giving rise to the correct interpretation that ta meimei 'his younger sister' is the intended antecedent of the zero anaphors in question. Next, consider (8.10) below. (8.10)

—• —• —•

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Xianzai zhe zhong xiao bawang now this sort little despot C2. ta yao tianshang yao yueliang 3SG want sky want moon C3. 0 ye dei wa gei ta EMP have to pick for 3SG C4. 0 haidi yao qu lao yu sea bottom want go catch fish C5. B: Suoyi xiaohair bu neng therefore child not should dei lao C6. A: 0 • ye EMP have to catch . Wo (pause) wo (long pause) C7. B: 1SG 1SG C8. A: 0 pi de budeliao naughty CSC exceedingly C9. B: Wo dao juede xiaohair bu neng tai guan 1SG EMP think child not should too spoil El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8. E9.

A: Nowadays a little brat of this sort even if he wants the moon in the sky (you) have to pick (it) for him Even if (he) wants to catch fish on the sea bottom B: Therefore children shouldn't A: (you) have to catch (them) B: I (pause) I (long pause) A: (He) is terribly naughty B: I actually think that children shouldn't be spoilt too much

What is particuarly interesting here is how the antecedents of the zero anaphors at lines C4 and C6 are identified. The answer seems to reside in

Anaphoric resolution in conversation

247

the concept of parallelism. At the heart of this notion lies the assumption that unless there is evidence to the contrary, parallel constructions tend to be interpreted in a parallel fashion (e.g. Grober, Beardsley & Caramazza 1978, Cowan 1980, Hirst 1981, Prince 1981, Solan 1983, Haiman 1985a, Kuno 1987). It is easy to see that the utterances at lines C4 and C6 nicely parallel those at lines C2 and C3 both syntactically and lexically. It follows, therefore, that the referent of the zero anaphor at line C4 is naturally I-inferred as coreferential with that of the pronoun at line C2, and the referent of the zero anaphor at line C6, with that of the zero anaphor at line C3. As our next example, take (8.11). (8.11)

—•

—>

(RCE: 88-1) Cl. A: Jieguo ma nabian nan de yijing consequently PP there male NOM already jiehun le get married CRS C2. 0 zao jiu jiehun le long ago EMP get married CRS C3. B: Ai:::ai oh oh C4. A: Ta bu tan yihou 3SG not court after C5. renjia tan de youdeshi ne people court NOM plenty PP C6. 0 laozao jiehun le long ago get married CRS El. A: Consequently the man there has already got married E2. (He) got married long ago E3. B: Uh:::uh E4. A: After she stopped courting (him) E5. there were plenty of women who were after (him) E6. (He) got married long ago

In this passage, there is a shift of reference at line C4. This switch of reference is encoded in terms of a pronoun, whose interpretation is subject to the M-principle. Two lines later, another shift of reference occurs: the zero anaphor at line C6 'pops' back to its reference that is introduced at line Cl and last mentioned at line C2. In between, there are

248

The pragmatics of anaphora

two interfering NPs, namely ta at line C4 and renjia 'people' at line C5, neither of which can be excluded from candidacy either syntactically or semantically. How is it, then, that the antecedent of the zero anaphor under discussion is figured out unambiguously? The answer seems quite straightforward: as Fox (1987: 31, 50) has observed for a similar case in English conversation, the repetition in the 'shifting' utterance at line C6 of nearly all the lexical items used in the 'shifted-back-to' utterance at line C2 has provided the most crucial clue in the hearer's inferential process that leads to such an I-implicated interpretation. Another illustration of the use of this device can be found in example (8.9) above. There, once again, we find in the repetition at line C13 of all the key lexical items originally used at line CIO an important factor contributing to the correct identification of the intended reference.1 Consider next (8.12). (8.12)

—>

—>

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. A: 0 gen ta airen yiqi lai de with 3SG spouse together come SFP C2. B: Ni kan dao ta airen le? 2SG see RV 3SG spouse Q C3. A: Ta dao wo zhebian lai de 3SG come 1SG here come SFP C4. B: En:: 0 kan dao ta airen meiyou a? uhm see RV 3SG spouse not Q C5. A: 0 kan dao le 0 see RV PFV C6. B: 0 zhang de zenmeyang? grow CSC how C7. 0 hai keyi? rather pretty C8. A: 0 hai keyi rather pretty El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6.

A: B: A: B: A: B:

(He) came together with (his) wife Did you see his wife? She came to my place Uhm did (you) see (her)? Yes (I) saw (her) How is (she) looking?

Anaphoric resolution in conversation

249

E7. Is (she) rather pretty? E8. A: (She) is rather pretty Of particular interest to us here is how the zero anaphor at line C6 is interpreted. Note that the two utterances at lines C5 and C6 form a 'process construction' (guochenglian jiegou) (Liao 1984) (see also van Dijk 1977 and Y. Huang 1985). The object NP of the utterance at line C5 becomes the subject NP of the utterance at line C6. The shift of reference here is not signalled by the use of a more elaborate anaphoric expression. However, there are other clues. For example, it is not unreasonable to assume that stereotypically, a speaker does not ask the hearer about his looks. If this is the case, then there follows an immediate consequence that any implicature to the effect of selecting the subject of the immediately prior utterance as the antecedent of the zero anaphor under discussion is ruled out, and as a result, the inference to the selection of the object of that utterance as the intended antecedent is encouraged and warranted by the I-principle. (Incidentally, the correct identification of the referent of the zero anaphor at line C4 in this segment can be partly attributed to the 'lexical repetition' strategy we have just discussed.) More or less the same can be said of the zero anaphor at line C8 in the following extract. (8.13)

(HQ: 86-2) Cl. A: 0 tingshuo Xiao Deng gen Qin Quan hear Xiao Deng with Qin Quan jiehun le get married CRS C2. Dui ba? right SA C3. B: Ai 0 jiehun le yes get married CRS C4. A: 0 zai Nanda ma? in Nanjing University Q C5. B: O:::o Xiao Deng xianzai zai oh oh Xiao Deng now in C6. Qin Quan xianzai zai nage (.) jiushi Qin Quan now in uhm uhm

250

The pragmatics of anaphora

C7. ->

Jihua Shengyu Xueyuan Family Planning Institute C8. A: 0 zai nar? in where C9. 0 zai Nanjing? in Nanjing CIO. B: 0 dagai zai nage jiushi perhaps in uhm uhm Cll. Zhongshanling nage difang Sun Yat-sen's Mausoleum that place C12. A: En mm El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8. E9.

A: (I) heard that Xiao Deng married Qin Quan

Is that right?

B: Yes (they) got married A: Are (they) at Nanjing University? B: Oh Xiao Deng uhm is at Nanjing University

Qin Quan is at at uhm the Family Planning Institute A: Where is (it)? Is (it) in Nanjing? E10. B: (It) is perhaps near Ell. uhm uhm Dr Sun Yat-sen's Mausoleum E12. A: Mm

In this extract, there is also a 'process construction', i.e. the two utterances at lines C7 and C8. Although no 'heavier' anaphoric expression is used at line C8 to indicate the switch of reference, yet the context makes clear that it is the whereabouts of the institute rather than the person being talked about that is questioned. By way of summary, given that referential/anaphoric work in conversation is essentially 'recipient-designed', it is reasonable to expect that some special techniques will be employed by the speaker to indicate the intended antecedent if it is not in the 'unmarked', immediately preceding utterance. The devices that are regularly used in Chinese conversation for such a purpose include (i) the lexical semantics of the predicate verb involved, (ii) the 'part-whole' constraint on the topic and subject NPs in a topic construction, (iii) parallel constructions, and (iv)

Anaphoric resolution in conversation

251

repetition of the lexical items used in the 'popped-back' utterance. These clues play an important role in the hearer's inferential strategy (e.g. the use of the I-principle) that leads to the correct identification of the referent.

8.3

The dynamic of conversation and its effects on anaphora

Conversation is primarily interactional and processual, and conversational data basically represent a process rather than a product (Brown & Yule 1983: 23-5). In this section, I shall briefly discuss two questions relating to the dynamic nature of conversation: (i) how are anaphoric production and anaphoric resolution in conversation affected by the dynamic of conversation, and (ii) assuming that the dynamic of conversation provides a crucial test procedure for an analysis, is there any evidence that can be derived from the conversations analysed here to confirm our pragmatic analysis? Let us take the first question first. The dynamic of conversation allows the potential compatibility of counterpoising pragmatic inferences to be achieved across a number of turns or utterance-units rather than within a single turn or utterance-unit. Two most obvious instances of this phenomenon regarding anaphoric production in conversation are (i) in the establishment of reference, there is often a step-by-step escalation on the part of the speaker in his use of referential forms to secure recognition in the absence of any acknowledgement of such recognition in response to the minimal referential forms he has initially used (cf. section 7.3.1 of chapter 7), and (ii) in the maintenance of reference, there is often a stepby-step descendent from the use of pronouns to zero anaphors, thus allowing the concurrent compatibility of recognition and minimisation to be realised in a gradual way (cf. section 7.3.3 of chapter 7). Next, from the perspective of anaphoric resolution, given the dynamic nature of conversation, there is often no need for the hearer to determine the reference of an ambiguous anaphoric expression at its occurrence. He can either make a guess or suspend the resolution until more information is provided through further talks. This is nicely illustrated by (8.14). (8.14)

(FMH: 86-2) Cl. A: Ta airen ne wo qu na shihou 3SG spouse PP 1SG go that time

252

The pragmatics of anaphora C2.

C3. C4. C5. —•

C6. C7.

shi huaiyun qi-ba ge yue le be pregnant seven-eight CL month CRS Zuijin ma 0 tingshuo recently PP hear wo(.) meimei laixin ma 1SG younger sister write letter PP 0 shuoshi ta sheng le ge xiao niihai say 3SG give birth to PFV CL little girl 0 feichang gaoxing very happy yinwei tamen xing Dong de yijia because 3PL

C8. C9. —>

CIO. El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8. E9. E10.

surname Dong MM whole family

yijing you san(.) si ge erzi san ge sunzi already have three four CL son three CL grandson Zheci 0 tian le ge sunnii ma this time add PFV CL granddaughter PP haishi quan jia man gaoxing de EMP whole family quite happy SFP A: His wife when I went there was seven-eight months pregnant Recently (I) heard my younger sister wrote to me (She) said that she had just had a baby girl (She) was very happy because they the Dong Family had already had three-four sons and three grandsons Although they had a granddaughter this time yet the whole family were quite happy

Now, look at the zero anaphor at line C6. It is simply ambiguous at this point: it can be coreferential either with wo meimei 'my sister', whose last mention is done by a zero anaphor at line C5 or with ta airen 'his wife', which is last-mentioned by ta at the same line. In other words, there is no way for the reference of the zero anaphor under discussion to be uniquely figured out by the hearer at this point. However, since the speaker is still talking, the hearer can simply wait, in the hope that more

Anaphoric resolution in conversation

253

information will be provided. This is indeed the case. When line CIO is reached, the reference can be inferred; it is preferably that of wo meimei 'my sister'. This is because the use of quanjia 'the whole family' at line CIO makes clear that the pregnant woman's mother-in-law (who is A's younger sister) is happy, given that it is usually mothers-in-law who are particularly unhappy when they have a granddaughter in China. 2 We move next on to the second question. It seems that the dynamic of conversation furnishes compelling evidence that the pragmatic analysis developed here is consistent with what the conversationalists themselves are actually oriented to. Conversation is characterised by turn-taking, that is, there is typically an A-B-A-B-A-B distribution of talks across two participants in a conversation. Given this, each turn in conversation is typically responded to by a second turn from the other participant. And it is in this second turn (or in some later turn) that there is a display of the analysis made by the recipient of the referential/anaphoric form used in the first turn. Therefore, if the referential/anaphoric form used in the first turn is inappropriate and is thus perceived by the recipient, then the recipient can signal his doubt by trying an other-initiation of self-repair or even by doing an other-initiated other-repair himself. Therefore, the dynamic nature of conversation offers a unique chance to confirm or disconfirm an analysis. Consider first (8.15) (8.15)

(HC: 86-5) Cl. A: Sanmao (pause) ta (pause) neige (pause) qizi Sanmao 3SG uhm wife C2. shi gan shenme de? SD- do what -SD C3. B: Sanmao (pause) zhege Sanmao zai Yizhong Sanmao uhm Sanmao in First Middle School C4. dang laoshi Yizhong be teacher First Middle School

-+

C5. A: Ta qizi? 3SG wife C6. B: Ai ta qizi yes 3SG wife C7. A: Bu shi ta? not be 3SG

-> ->

254 -»

The pragmatics of anaphora C8. B: Bu shi ta not be 3SG El. E2. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7. E8.

A: What does Sanmao (pause) uhm his (pause) uhm (pause) wife do? B: Sanmao (pause) uhm Sanmao is a teacher in the First Middle School in the First Middle School A: His wife? B: His wife A: Not him? B: Not him

Given the I-principle, it predicts that either the repetition of ta qizi 'his wife' or the use of a minimal anaphoric form (such as a pronoun or zero anaphor) would occur at line C3. However, Sanmao is used here. And this is not what is expected. The reason is obvious: the question by A is about Sanmao's wife rather than Sanmao. Naturally, suspicion arises that Sanmao may be used incorrectly. This is precisely what is perceived by the recipient in the conversation. Seeing that no self-initiated selfrepair is likely to occur at the end of B's turn at line C4, A does an other-initiated other-repair first at line C5 and then at line C7, which is confirmed by B in each of the subsequent turns. Next, consider (8.16). (8.16)

(HC: 86-5) Cl. A: Ta 3SG xiaoyou alumnus C2. yuanlai

de duixiang(.) ye suan shi women MM spouse EMP regard be 1PL le PFV Erzhong de ma

originally Second Middle School NOM SFP C3. B: Ao::ao oh oh C4. A: Zenmehuishi what's it all about C5. Ta fumu ye 3SG parents EMP nongcun de countryside -SD

ne? Q shi ye shi xia SD- EMP SD- go down

Anaphoric resolution in conversation C6. —> —•

C7. C8.

255

xiafang ganbu go down cadre Nameojiu zai Erzhong shangxue de then EMP in Second Middle School study SFP Ta dangshi ne dagai huahuajiu hua 3SG then PP perhaps paint EMP paint de bucuo CSC alright

El. A: Her husband can be regarded as our alumnus E2. originally from the Second Middle School E3. B: Oh E4. A: What's it all about? E5. His parents actually were sent down to the countryside E6. cadres sent down to the countryside E7. Then (he) was attending the Second Middle School E8. In those days he was perhaps already good at painting In this example, there is a change of reference from ta fumu 'his parents' to ta at line C7. Our analysis predicts that a more elaborate anaphoric form should preferably be used. That this is actually what is oriented to by the speaker is indicated by the self-initiated self-repair in the form of a pronoun in the immediately subsequent utterance. Finally, witness (8.17) below. (8.17)

—> —»

(HQ: 86-1) Cl. B: Wang Wei ye yao (pause) ye yao chuqu le Wang Wei EMP will EMP will go abroad CRS C2. A: Shi Mao Laoshi gao de? SD- Mao Teacher do -SD C3. B: 0 bu zhidao dagai 0 guji keneng shi ta (pause) not know probably gather maybe SD- 3SG C4. shi Mao Xiansheng bangmang de SD- Mao Professor help -SD C5. 0 kuai zou le soon leave CRS El. B: Wang Wei actually is going abroad E2. A: Is it Teacher Mao who managed? E3. B: (I) don't know probably (I) gather maybe it is she

256

The pragmatics of anaphora E4. E5.

it is Professor Mao who helped (He) is leaving soon

This example confirms our analysis that politeness considerations are sometimes primarily responsible for the use of a lexical NP where it would otherwise have been avoided. Here, the speaker first uses ta at line C3. Realising that it may not sound polite enough, he quickly changes it to Mao Xiansheng 'Professor Mao' by means of a self-initiated self-repair. 8.4

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have shown that anaphoric resolution in Chinese conversation is largely determined by the I-principle, constrained occasionally by the M-principle. I have also demonstrated that the evidence drawn from the dynamic of conversation conforms to our analysis of anaphoric production and anaphoric resolution in conversation.

9

Conclusions

Study of performance relies essentially on advances in understanding of competence. But since a competence theory must be incorporated in a performance model, evidence about the actual organization of behaviour may prove crucial to advancing the theory of underlying competence. Study of performance and study of competence are mutually supportive. Chomsky (1980a: 226) I shall now conclude by summarising the major findings of this book and discussing the theoretical implications of these findings for linguistic theory. The main contributions of this book, I think, are the following: (i) properties of anaphora in Chinese are characterised; (ii) inadequacies of Chomsky's GB theory to account for these properties are demonstrated; and (iii) a neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora is constructed.

9.1

Properties of anaphora in Chinese

Although our analysis has been developed in response to current syntactic and pragmatic theories, implicit in it is a general characterisation of the nature of anaphora in Chinese. Looked at from a relatively theory-neutral, descriptive point of view, anaphora in Chinese has the following properties: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Zero anaphors occur extremely freely and often take preference over pronouns. The use of pronouns is very much restricted, Reflexives occur very freely and often take long-distance antecedents, Lexical NPs are frequently used and are often repeated for an intended coreferential interpretation. 257

258 (v) (vi) (vii)

9.2

The pragmatics of anaphora The assignment of antecedent for anaphora is not so much restricted by grammatical rules as by pragmatic inferences. There are precise parallels in the assignment of antecedent for reflexives, pronouns and zero anaphors. There are precise parallels in the assignment of antecedent for intrasentential and discourse anaphora. Inadequacies of Chomsky's Government and Binding theory

These properties seem to pose serious problems for all current syntactic theories, especially Chomsky's GB theory. In this book, I have shown that (i)

(ii)

(iii) (iv)

The wide use of zero anaphors in Chinese is in direct contradiction with the predictions by the pro-drop/null subject parameter, Zero anaphors in Chinese, being realised by syntactically undifferentiated gaps rather than by specific empty syntactic categories, do not fit with Chomsky's quadripartite typology of ECs. Control in Chinese cannot be determined adequately by the relevant principles widely assumed within the GB framework, Long-distance reflexivisation in Chinese poses considerable problems for binding theory.

There is thus clear evidence that Chomsky's GB theory, despite the 'standard' arguments to the contrary, is inadequate in explaining anaphora in Chinese. 9.3

The development of a neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora

As an alternative, I have constructed a unified, neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. In this theory, anaphora is largely determined by the systematic interaction of two neo-Gricean pragmatic principles, namely the M- and I-principles (with that order of priority), constrained by the DRP, information saliency and general consistency conditions on conversational implicatures. I have demonstrated that by utilising the two neo-Gricean pragmatic principles and the resolution mechanism organising their interaction, many patterns of preferred interpretation regarding intrasentential anaphora in Chinese can be given a satisfactory

Conclusions

259

explanation. Furthermore, the pragmatic apparatus developed for the analysis of intrasentential anaphora can easily be extended to account for discourse anaphora - anaphora that occurs in naturally occurring Chinese conversation, once politeness strategies and organisational properties of conversation are taken into consideration. 9.4

Theoretical implications

The findings of this book call for a radical re-think of some of the current claims about the nature of grammatical rules and the way in which they interact with pragmatic principles. In the first place, many grammatical rules underlying linguistic universals are general tendencies rather than absolute restrictions (e.g. Matthews 1979: 88-96, Haiman 1985b). Secondly, certain grammatical rules may not be something sui generis, but rather may have their origins in language use. In other words, these grammatical rules may be viewed as, to use Levinson's (1987a, b) metaphor, 'frozen pragmatics' - the outcome of a gradual, diachronic process from utterance-token-meaning through utterance-type-meaning to sentence-type-meaning. Or, put in slogan form, some of today's syntax is yesterday's pragmatics. This, of course, does not mean that these rules as they are today are not part of grammar. On the contrary, they are and as such they should be dealt with in the grammar. But the point is that if they are the outcome of a diachronic process, they can no longer be seen as evidence for a biologically determined human linguistic faculty. Thirdly, syntax and pragmatics are interconnected, though they are distinct levels and modes of explanation. Moreover, syntactic rules can and sometimes must make reference to pragmatic principles, contrary to the autonomy of syntax hypothesis. The interface between syntax and pragmatics may in general be summarised in a Kantian apothegm: pragmatics without syntax is empty; syntax without pragmatics is blind.1 Furthermore, the extent to which syntax and pragmatics interact varies typologically. There seems to exist a class of language (such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean) where pragmatics appears to play a central role which in familiar European languages (such as English, French and German) is alleged to be played by grammar. In these 'pragmatic' languages, many of the constraints on the alleged grammatical processes such as intrasentential anaphora are, in fact, primarily due to principles of language use rather than rules of grammatical structure. From a diachronic perspective, languages seem to change from being more

260

The pragmatics of anaphora

'pragmatic' to more 'syntactic', and from a synchronic viewpoint, different languages may simply be at different stages of the diachronic cycle. The synchronic, 'clustering' properties of 'pragmatic' languages seem to be: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii)

little or no use of inflectional morphology wide use of Chinese-style or non-syntactic topic constructions existence of empty topic chains existence of Chinese-style or non-syntactic relative constructions massive occurrence of zero anaphora existence of non-syntactic control constructions existence of long-distance reflexivisation, which operates across discourse iconicity of word order2

In an attempt to account for some of the typological differences between English-type, 'syntactic' and Chinese-type, 'pragmatic' languages, C.-T. J. Huang (1984) sets up a 'syntactic' (sentence-oriented) versus 'pragmatic' (discourse-oriented) language typology parameter within the GB framework. But such a move would seem to pose considerable problems for GB; it would be a significant departure from the 'standard' position currently taken in GB with respect to parameter setting: namely a principle that is allegedly defined by a general theory of UG can allow only a small range of parametric options, among which individual languages may choose (e.g. McCloskey 1988) (cf. section 4.5.1 of chapter 4). Clearly, a parameter such as the 'syntactic' versus 'pragmatic' language typology one would certainly not be some minor revision of the existing GB machinery. For the notion of 'parametric variation' is not meant to be a way of removing all restrictions on a theory of UG; on the contrary, it is meant to allow only a highly restricted number and limited kinds of typological variants. Thus to allow a parameter that would in effect classify languages into [ + GB] and [ —GB] would render GB vacuous as a theory of UG. 3 And fourthly, somewhat related are issues of universals, innateness and learnability. Currently, there are two approaches to linguistic universals: a 'competence' approach and a 'performance' approach (e.g. Hawkins 1988a, 1989). The competence model explains universals in terms of innateness, that is, to view universals as deriving from a common linguistic inheritance of the human species. The logic of the innateness hypothesis is very much grounded in children's ability to learn, especially

Conclusions

261

in the belief known as 'the problem of poverty or deficiency of stimulus' (e.g. Chomsky 1986a, 1991a, b). 4 The performance model, by contrast, makes direct appeal to various aspects and principles of language use. On this view, linguistic universals are seen as mirroring our common perceptions about the world, as reflecting the common communicative functions of language, or as responding to the common demands of human processing mechanism (e.g. Haiman 1985a, b, Hawkins 1988a, 1989, Comrie 1989a[1981], Croft 1990, 1991). The findings of this book, of course, do not entirely contradict the innateness hypothesis, though the fact that zero anaphors in Chinese are explainable as learnable on the basis of language use does appear to decrease its plausibility, for zero anaphors as such can no longer be taken to be 'windows onto the mind'. It could even be argued that the development of the very concept of 'parametric variation' in GB has already somewhat undermined UG and the innateness doctrine, since the values for the parameters must be learned by children through experience. However, these findings do seem to suggest that the idea of innateness has in general been overstated. There are aspects of linguistic universals which clearly are of a grammatical characteristic; there are also aspects of linguistic universals which equally clearly are of a pragmatic characteristic.5 In other words, linguistic universals are the product of both 'nature and nurture' (Lyons 1981). The challenge before the linguist is, as Hawkins (1988a, 1989) has rightly emphasised, to work out what are the competence principles and what are the performance principles precisely, what is the relationship between them, and how they interact with each other. The analysis of anaphora made in this book clearly argues for a more interactive approach between the I[nternalised and intensional]- and E[xternalised and extensional]-models of language study. It seems unlikely that we can provide a satisfactory answer to what Chomsky (1991a, b) has referred to as Humboldt's problem and as (a special case of ) Plato's problem without even trying to tackle Descartes's problem.6 In other words, the full understanding of the nature and ontogency of knowledge of language appears to be partially dependent on a better understanding of the (creative) use of that knowledge. If these conclusions are correct, it seems then that a large portion of linguistic explanation currently sought in grammatical terms may need to be shifted to pragmatics, and pragmatics may no longer be treated as an 'epiphenomenon at best' (Chomsky 1986a: 25), at least with Chinese-type, 'pragmatic' languages.7 On the contrary, there is a pressing need for the development of the kind of

262

The pragmatics of anaphora

pragmatic theory advanced in this book.8 The urgency of this need is particularly felt in the domain of anaphoric reference, in part for reasons that have been so nicely summed up in a passage from Wasow (1986: 117-18): Probably the most gaping hole in our present understanding of anaphora is the absence of any explicit theory of the pragmatic factors involved. There is, of course, a good deal of relevant literature, but there are no theories of the pragmatic aspects of anaphora which can compare in rigor or coverage with the available accounts of the syntactic and semantic factors. This is a problem not limited to the study of anaphora: it is quite generally the case that the development of pragmatic theory has lagged behind that of syntactic and semantic theory. However, this lacuna is particularly noticeable in the domain of anaphora. Given the way in which pragmatic factors interact with and even override the syntactic and semantic factors in anaphora, it is very difficult to draw any firm conclusions at all about anaphora in the absence of a better understanding of the pragmatic factors. Seen in this light, the analysis made in this book will, I hope, be a step forward towards the construction of a better pragmatic theory of anaphora in linguistics.

Notes

1 A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory and anaphora 1

2

3

4

5

Recently Chomsky has repeatedly stated that the term 'Government and Binding (GB) theory' is misleading and should be abandoned (e.g. Chomsky 1991a, c). However, since it is a well-established term in the literature, I shall continue to use it throughout this book simply as a convenient label. Earlier attempts to reduce the original Gricean mechanism include Harnish (1976), in which the maxims of Quality and Quantity are collapsed into a single maxim of Quantity-Quality: Make the strongest relevant claim justifiable by your evidence (Harnish 1976: 362). See also O'Hair (1969) The main thesis of the Fodorian theory of cognitive modularity is that human cognition is modular in the sense of constituting a number of distinct systems, most notably vision, audition and language. These specialised systems, called modules, are domain-specific, informationally encapsulated and cognitively impenetrable. One of their major functions is to provide 'input' to the 'central processor' (Fodor 1983: 47-101). The characterisation of language as an input system, however, is challenged by Chomsky (e.g. 1986a: 148, 1991b). On Chomsky's (1991b: 51) view, the language faculty is 'a cognitive system, a system of knowledge, not an input or output system'. For further discussion of Fodor's theory, especially from a psycho- and neurolinguistic point of view, see e.g. Marshall (1984) and Shallice (1988). See also Kasher (1976a, 1991a) for the argument that the entire Gricean machinery can be seen as following from some sort of 'most effective, least effort' rationality principle. There is, of course, a strong tendency for the two distinct minimisations (or economies) to be conflated with each other. This general correlation, in fact, follows directly from the Zipflan theory of economy. Zipf s Principle of Economic Versatility stipulates a direct correlation between a lexical item's semantic versatility and its frequency of use ('the more semantically general, the more use'); his Law of Abbreviation postulates an inverse relation between a lexical item's frequency of use and its length ('the more use, the shorter'). Taken jointly, the prediction is 'the more semantically general, the shorter' (Zipf 1949, Horn 1984, Haiman 1985a, Levinson 1987b). Considered from a slightly different perspective, the general correlation between semantic minimisation and expression minimisation may be seen as an instance of iconicity (Haiman 1985a, b, Givon 1985). 263

264

Notes to pages 12-24

6 In a quite contrary spirit, Leech (1983) proposes that the Gricean maxims be proliferated. In particular, he argues that a politeness principle should be added to the Gricean mechanism and it should be taken as co-ordinate in nature to Grice's co-operative principle. For a critique of this expansionist approach, see Brown & Levinson (1987: 4-5). 7 The three reductionist programmes being reviewed here appear to fall into two categories: neo-Gricean theory and Relevance theory. There are a number of fundamental differences between these two theories. These differences may include: (i) whether an inferential theory of human communication should be based on the study of usage principles or cognitive principles; (ii) whether such a theory should contain two levels (i.e. a level of sentence-meaning versus a level of speaker-meaning, or, to make use of Lyons's 1977: 13-18 type-token distinction, a level of sentencetype-meaning versus a level of utterance-token-meaning) or three levels (i.e. a level of sentence-meaning versus a level of utterance-meaning versus a level of speaker-meaning, or, again, in terms of Lyons's type-token distinction, a level of sentence-type-meaning versus a level of utterance-type-meaning versus a level of utterance-token-meaning); (iii) whether Gricean inferential principles are a sort of general, functional guidelines agreed between the speaker and the hearer on the basis of the rational nature of human communication or they are merely the automatic reflex of the human mental capacity; (iv) whether the inferential tier of comprehension is governed by a set of specialised principles constituting a pragmatic 'module' or by a nonspecialised central inferential process; (v) whether conversational implicature is monotonic or non-monotonic in nature; and (vi) whether there are two types of conversational implicature (i.e. generalised conversational implicature and particularised conversational implicature), or there is only one type of conversational implicature but two types of context (i.e. default context and specific context), or there is neither any distinction in conversational implicature type nor any distinction in context type; all conversational implicatures can be reduced to a kind of context-induced, 'nonce'-inference. Since controversies in these areas are deep and farreaching, it would go well beyond the scope of this book to discuss them in any detail (but see e.g. Gazdar & Good 1982, Adler et al. 1987, Holdcroft 1987, Seuren 1988, Levinson 1989 for discussion). I shall use the neo-Gricean theory as the point of departure for the analysis, in the belief that this is the more promising theory. 2 Empty categories 1 Throughout this book, I shall use the capitalised 'Anaphor' and 'Pronominal' to refer to 'anaphor' and 'pronominal' in the sense of GB. 2 In a quite contrary spirit, Lasnik (1989, 1991) suggests that the EC types (and the lexical category types) should be expanded by incorporating into [±Anaphor] and [dbPronominal] a third feature preferential]. Thus, there are eight types of EC in his classification (cf. note 30 below). For a review of

Notes to pages 28-30

265

Lasnik (1989), see Y. Huang (1991c). 3 This can be seen by a consideration of (i). (i)

(C.-T. J. Huang 1982) *Wo zhunbei mingtian hui lai 1SG plan tomorrow will come 'I plan to come tomorrow.'

As Xu (1985) and Liang (1986) have pointed out, the unacceptability of (i) is due to semantics, for hui 'will, can' denotes not only futurity but possibility and uncertainty as well. From a semantic point of view, the modality of uncertain possibility is incompatible with a planned event. 4 The fact that an assumed non-finite clause in Chinese can take a modal auxiliary and/or an aspect marker is also independently observed by Xu (1985). At the time I wrote Y. Huang (1987, 1989, 1992a), I was not aware of Xu (1985). 5 Y. A. Li (1990: 18-22) also assumes the finiteness versus non-finiteness distinction in Chinese. She follows C.-T. J. Huang in referring to the existence of abstract tense in Chinese. In addition, she claims that only nonfinite, but not finite, clauses permit syntactic relations such as the licensing of time adverbials by an aspect marker in a different clause. But this is empirically wrong. (i)

Wo yiqian renwei ta xue guo Yingyu. 1SG before think 3SG learn EXP English 'I thought that he had learned English.'

For those who maintain the distinction, (i) would be considered to be finite, and yet it allows the licensing of yiqian 'before' by guo in a different clause. For a review of Y. A. Li (1990), see Y. Huang (1992c). 6 Even if my assumption were wrong and position (iii) were the least plausible one, my argument would still remain unaffected. The reasoning goes roughly thus: in the case of position (i), given that there are neither finite nor nonfinite clauses in Chinese, no PRO can be licensed in the language. In the case of position (ii), since there are only non-finite clauses in Chinese, every zero anaphor in the subject position of a Chinese clause has to be analysed as a PRO. This would not only allow PRO to occur too freely in Chinese but would also pose considerable problems for the GB analysis of zero anaphors in examples like (2.39)-(2.42). For example, to treat an expletive zero anaphor (i.e. the one in (2.40)) as a PRO would run contrary to the generally accepted GB assumption, captured in e.g. Safir's (1985) Emex Condition, that PRO cannot be expletive. Therefore, position (ii) has to be abandoned. 7 Mohanan (1983) also claims that PRO can occur in a governed position. According to him, in Malayalam, PRO can occur in a position that can be filled by a lexical NP, which receives dative or nominative Case, depending on the embedded verb. There is, however, no evidence in Chinese to support his claim.

266 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Notes to pages

31-34

On Battistella's account, there are two types of PRO in Chinese: governed and ungoverned. Following Manzini's (1983) generalised binding theory, Battistella suggests that governed PRO be subject to Chomsky's binding condition A and ungoverned PRO, to Manzini's binding condition A'. The former, but not the latter, is also required to obey a parameterised subject orientation principle. For a critique of Manzini's theory from a GB perspective, see e.g. Iwakura (1985), Borer (1989) and C.-T. J. Huang (1989). As we will shortly see, C.-T. J. Huang (1982, 1984, 1989) claims that pro can be sanctioned in Chinese even in the absence of Agreement]. This position, however, is challenged by Battistella. If C.-T. J. Huang's analysis of pro in Chinese is correct, asks Battistella, then why can pro not occur in the subject position of a non-finite clause in the language. This problem, of course, does not arise on Chomsky's (1982b) account of pro, in which pro is assumed to be locally identified by coindexing with Agr. However, such a problem would naturally arise with C.-T. J. Huang's analysis of pro, in which pro is claimed to be locally identified by being controlled in a control domain. This leads Battistella to reject C.-T. J. Huang's proposal that pro can occur in Chinese and to argue that zero anaphors in the subject position of both finite and non-finite clauses in Chinese are PROs (see also Hasegawa 1984). Since C.-T. J. Huang maintains the finiteness versus non-finiteness distinction in Chinese, the question raised by Battistella would remain a problem for his analysis. Presumably, Chinese is not the only language that does not have PRO. According to Philippaki-Warburton (1987), there is no PRO in Modern Greek, either. Philippaki-Warburton also argues that Modern Greek has provided further support for the standard GB definition of PRO as an ungoverned EC. A further piece of evidence against the lexical substitution test comes from C.-T. J. Huang himself (1987). Quoting McCloskey & Hale (1983), he points out that 'an overt pronoun subject is quite unnatural in Italian and unacceptable in Irish.' Generally speaking, if a language allows referential pro-drop, it will allow expletive pro-drop, but not vice versa (Jaeggli & Safir 1989a). Some pro-drop languages (e.g. Modern Hebrew (Borer 1989)) also permit overt expletives. Null subjects can occur in English, though in general under highly limited conditions. One such condition is what Haegeman (1990) calls the 'diary context' and null subjects there are treated as a variable A-bound by an empty topic. But Van Valin (1986) argues that there is a null subject in the co-ordinated construction in English and that it is either a pro or a PRO (but see Godard 1989 for arguments against this analysis). Finally, in a more recent paper, Farrell (1992) claims that the nominal complement of certain nouns in English is an EC and that this EC is a pro. This leads Farrel to speculate that English may have pro within NPs but not in clausal subject or object position. See also Brown (1983) and Valian (1990). According to Rizzi (1982), a pro-drop language tends to exhibit a cluster of three distinctive properties: (i) the possibility of dropping subject pronouns,

Notes to pages 34-37

15

16

17

18

267

(ii) the possibility of having free subject inversion, and (iii) the possibility of extracting a subject long distance over a lexically filled complementiser. These properties are said to correlate as a function of the positive value of the pro-drop parameter. But such a clustering of properties is neither necessary nor sufficient for a language to sanction pro-drop; they are conceptually and empirically independent from each other. See Zagona (1982) and Hyam (1986, 1989) for additional 'pro-drop' properties. There are considerable difficulties with an agreement-based theory of prodrop. First, its predictions are falsified in both directions. Secondly, given that many highly inflected languages do not exhibit pro-drop, one question arises (though logically, this question is independent of the pro-drop parameter): how 'rich' is inflectional morphology in a language 'rich' enough to allow pro-drop in that language? A third, related question is what is the crucial element in the inflected system of a language that is responsible for pronouns to be dropped. It has now been widely accepted that there does not seem to be a direct correlation between the richness of inflection and prodrop. For example, in Jaeggli's (1982) analysis, pro is formally licensed through Case and lack of government, and its referential content is recovered via agreement with cp-features in Infl; in Rizzi's (1986) 'pro module', licensing requires government (i.e. Case-assignment) by a designated licensing head, and identification requires (non-standard) binding by (p-features on the licensing head including 'rich' Agr (about which, see note 20 below); and in Safir's (1985) account, licensing is determined on account of whether NOM Case is droppable, and identification is determined on the basis of whether an SCL is present (e.g. Jaeggli & Safir 1989a). We will discuss Jaeggli & Safir's (1989a) approach shortly. Generalising, C.-T. J. Huang (1982, 1984) claims that pro-drop can occur only in languages with rich Agr or no Agr at all. But this generalisation is empirically incorrect; it fails to cover (i) languages like German and insular Scandinavians (e.g. Icelandic) which have rich Agr but disallow referential pro-drop (though allow expletive pro-drop); (ii) languages like Papiamentu and Tagalog which have no Agr but disallow referential pro-drop; and (iii) languages like Irish which have mixed/weak Agr but have both expletive and referential pro-drop. Irish has expletive pro-drop with its 'poorer' analytic forms and referential pro-drop with its 'richer' synthetic forms. See Hermon & Yoon (1989) for further discussion. Incidentally, the zero anaphor in (2.39) constitutes a counterexample to the generally accepted GB assumption that pro cannot be arbitrary in reference (Chomsky 1981: 262, 1982b). Cross-linguistic evidence, however, has been presented that this assumption may be wrong. It has been argued that pro can receive an arbitrary interpretation in Italian (Rizzi 1986), Spanish (Suner 1983, Authier 1989), Portuguese, Malayalam, Japanese (Mohanan 1983), Korean (Yang 1985) and other languages. If this is correct, then the fact that assumed pro in Chinese can be arbitrary in reference does not in itself constitute a piece of evidence against the existence of pro in the language.

268

Notes to pages 41-42

However, this brings with it another, equally strong piece of evidence against taking the zero anaphor in (2.39) to be a pro: the assumed pro is distinct in semantic construal from its overt counterpart, namely a pronoun, given that the latter is necessarily semantically definite. Anyhow, my argument in the text remains valid, since given the 1984 version of GCR, the zero anaphor in (2.39) cannot be a pro. 19 Defined thus, morphological uniformity seems to be a paradigmatic notion. But as Hermon & Yoon (1989) have noted, in the licensing of pro, it is morphological uniformity of a language as a whole rather than morphological uniformity of a paradigm that counts. If this is correct, then for a language to license pro-drop, all paradigms in that language have to be morphologically uniform. 20 We might also turn to Rizzi's (1986) alternative theory of pro and consider the question of whether pro can be identified in Chinese given it. In Rizzi's 'pro module', there are two principles: a licensing schema and a recovery convention. (i)

Rizzi's 'pro module' (a) Licensing schema pro is governed (i.e. Case-marked) by X°. (b) Recovery convention Let X be the licensing head of an occurrence of pro: then pro has the grammatical specification of the features on X coindexed with it.

Given (i), pro is now formally licensed through government (i.e. Caseassignment) by a specially designated licensing head and its content is recovered via coindexation with either 'rich' Agr or extended binding by (pfeatures on the licensing head. Rizzi suggests that (ia) be parameterised, allowing languages to vary from having an empty set of licensers (namely, no head is a possible licenser) to having a full set of licensers (namely, every head is a possible licenser). Thus, English, French and mainland Scandinavian languages do not instantiate the option for a licensing head, while Italian, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese do. He further stipulates that (ib) is at work only in languages containing Agr, in particular, using cp-features. When operating, (ib) interacts with (ii) to determine the range of occurrence of pro. (ii)

(a) An NP is referential only if it has the specification of person and number, (b) An NP is argumental only if it has the specification of number.

On this account, pro cannot be allowed in either subject or object position in Chinese, since the now familiar problem of how pro is locally determined in the language still remains unanswered. This is because, given this analysis, pro is locally identified by recovery of (p-features through head binding - the result of the interaction of (i) and (ii). Since these principles do not apply to Chinese, or, to put it another way, since they apply vacuously to Chinese, the

Notes to pages 43-47

269

question of how pro is locally determined remains a problem with regard to Chinese (though not with regard to Italian). In fact, Rizzi himself is aware that his 'pro module' does not apply to Chinese. He points out that if (i) and (ii) were extended to Chinese, then pro would wrongly be restricted to nonargumental use in the language. He also points out that his 'pro module' does not include what C.-T. J. Huang takes to be pro in the embedded subject position of a finite clause in Chinese. At this point, we might also mention Farrell's (1990) modification of Rizzi's 'pro module'. Farrell argues that identification needs to be broadened to include intrinsically specified features, in particular, the following condition should be added to Rizzi's recovery procedure. (iii)

21

22

23

24

(In the absence of identifying features on its governing head,) pro is intrinsically specified as [ + 3 person].

JJut (iii) does not seem to be extendible to Chinese, either, since assumed pro in both subject and object position in the language can also be first or second person. Generalising, Xu (1986) claims that overt pronouns cannot receive a quantifier-variable interpretation in Chinese. Although there is some factual inaccuracy in this claim (C.-T. J. Huang 1987), it seems that we cannot dismiss Xu's claim completely, since it is generally true that where zero anaphors can be used for a quantifier-variable interpretation, it is only zero anaphors but not overt pronouns that can take such an interpretation in Chinese. There is, however, some evidence that Chinese is moving away from this constraint, which may be due to the influence of translation of European languages. Notice that the assumption that Infl in East Asian languages is lexical and therefore can function as a proper governor is rather odd, to say the least. As Aoun, Hornstein, Lightfoot & Weinberg (1987) have pointed out, since these languages lack Agr, Infl in these languages is taken to be rather anaemic. Therefore, it is rather absurd to claim that Infl can act as a proper governor in these languages but not in languages in which Infl is morphologically realised. Consequences (i) and (ii) seem to indicate that topics of this type are inbuilt rather than moved. If this is correct, then (i) and (ii) may constitute evidence against rather than for the empty topic hypothesis. We will return to the topic construction in Chinese in section 6.3 of chapter 6. C.-T. J. Huang (1984) formulates the empty topic hypothesis as part of a more general discourse-oriented versus sentence-oriented language typology parameter. Authier (1988), however, argues that such an analysis has to be rejected, because, of the three properties assumed to be distinctive of a discourse-oriented language, namely topic prominence, topic chaining and long-distance, discourse-bound reflexivisation, only the last remains a possible candidate for KiNande. Similar arguments can also be found in Hermon & Yoon (1989) on the basis of survey of Imbabura Quechua, Hebrew and Vietnamese.

270

Notes to pages

48-57

25 Zero anaphors, of course, are commonly found in object position where there is a clitic (i) or a verb-object agreement marker (ii) to identify them. (i)

(Italian) 01 ti2 conoscoi 022SG know-PRES-lSG '(I) know (you).'

(ii)

(Pashto, C.-T. J. Huang 1989) ma 0 wa-xwar-a. 1SG PRF-eat-3FSG 'I ate (it).'

26 There is, however, a good deal of disagreement among GB analysts regarding whether the assumed empty topic is base-generated in topic position or in object position. Raposo (1986), for example, suggests that the empty topic in European Portuguese is base-generated in topic position. The null operator is base-generated in object position and is then moved to Comp (or Spec of CP) adjacent to topic position at S-structure. The empty topic and the null operator are then coindexed with each other by a rule of Predication operating at LF'. This position, however, is challenged by Authier (1988), who argues that the rule of Predication is not at work in null object constructions in KiNande. Instead, he proposes that the empty topic in KiNande is first base-generated in object position, then moved to Comp (or Spec of CP) at S-structure and finally coindexed with its trace at LF. 27 Cf. Massam & Roberge (1989), who claim that English does allow null objects in certain defined constructions such as what they have dubbed 'recipe contexts'. They further suggest that null objects of this kind be analysed either as variables or NP-traces. A more recent analysis of Massam (1992), however, argues that these null objects are better reclassified as basegenerated empty reflexives, on a par with null objects in middle constructions in English. 28 The effect of subjacency on the distribution of object-zero anaphors has long been interpreted as a diagnostic for determining whether an object-zero anaphor is a variable with respect to many languages. Therefore, to claim that subjacency is irrelevant to object-zero anaphors in Chinese is, to say the least, suspect. 29 A base-generated empty Anaphor has also been proposed independently by e.g. Gueron (1984), Hornstein & Lightfoot (1987), Cheng & Ritter (1988), Chung (1989), Steenbergen (1991) and Massam (1992). 30 More recently C.-T. J. Huang (1991) has suggested analysing object-zero anaphors as empty epithets with the features [ — Anaphoric, + Pronominal, + referential], essentially following Lasnik (1989, 1991). Such a proposal, however, is equally problematic; counterexamples to the variable analysis would remain counterexamples to the empty epithet analysis. 31 Xu (1990b) has shown convincingly that so-called parasitic gaps in Chinese

Notes to page 57

271

could be characterised (under our analysis) not only as variables, but also as empty pronouns, and even as empty Anaphors in the sense of GB, thus providing further support for our argument that object-zero anaphors in Chinese seem to form a syntactically undifferentiated class. Following is an example provided by Xu. (i)

[women [yinwei 0 changchang chuixu 0] yanli piping guo 1PL because often boast severely criticise EXP de] na ge ren MM that CL person 'the person whom we severely criticised because 0 often boasted of 0'

Here, the object-zero anaphor in the adjunct clause (within the inner brackets) constitutes a so-called parasitic gap in Chinese (see e.g. Engdahl 1983, Contreras 1984 for further discussion). Contrary to Chomsky (1986a, b), however, the object-zero anaphor in question could be analysed as a variable, an empty pronoun and an empty Anaphor, as in (ii), (iii) and (iv) respectively. (ii)

[women [yinwei 02 changchang chuixu 01] yanli piping guo 1PL because often boast severely criticise EXP 0i de] na ge reni MM that CL person 'the person whom we severely criticised because (someone) often boasted of (him)'

(iii)

[women [yinwei 0\ changchang chuixu 02] yanli piping guo 1PL because often boast severely criticise EXP 0i de] na ge reni MM that CL person 'the person whom we severely criticised because (he) often boasted of (someone else)'

(iv)

[wbmen [yinwei 01 changchang chuixu 01] yanli piping guo 1PL because often boast severely criticise EXP 0i de] na ge reni MM that CL person 'the person whom we severely criticised because (he) often boasted of (himself)'

Notice further that given our knowledge about the world, the empty Anaphor reading in (iv) is the preferred reading. 32 Xu (1986) proposes setting up a new class of EC for Chinese within the framework of GB, namely what he calls a 'Free Empty Category' (FEC) - an all-inclusive EC without specified features. Ironically enough, this proposal seems to undermine rather than strengthen GB approaches to zero anaphors:

272

Notes to pages 58-60 it significantly weakens the basic GB assumption that zero anaphors form syntactically differentiated classes.

3 Control 1 Given that there are only finite clauses in Chinese, the controllee can occur only in the subject position of a finite clause in the language. Cross-linguistic evidence can be adduced in support of this position. In many languages, the controllee may occur in a finite clause. This is the case at least with Chamorro (Chung 1989), Dogrib (Saxon 1984), Guugu Yimidhirr (Levinson 1987b), Japanese (Iida 1991), Korean (Yang 1985, Borer 1989), Modern Greek (Philippaki-Warburton 1987), Navajo (Xu 1985), Persian (Hashemipour 1988) and Serbo-Croatian (Zee 1987). 2 There is a good deal of disagreement among linguists as to the syntactic and semantic status of the controlled constituent and of the controlled element (i.e. the controllee). In GB, the controlled constituent is assumed to be syntactically sentential and semantically propositional and the controlled element, to be syntactically an EC, i.e. a PRO. This can be seen to follow from the fact that GB views control in a narrow, syntactic sense. By contrast, in Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), and in some semantics-based theories of control, the controlled constituent is taken to be syntactically a VP and semantically a propositional argument. Consequently, there is no reference to an empty syntactic category in these theories. In what follows, I shall assume (albeit tentatively) that in Chinese the controlled constituent is sentential and the controlled element is an NP-gap, i.e. a zero anaphor. See e.g. Koster & May (1982) for arguments in support of, and Dowty (1985) and Culicover & Wilkins (1986) for arguments against, the positing of an empty syntactic category in the control construction. 3 In the last chapter, I showed that there is no PRO in Chinese, since there are only finite clauses in the language. One direct consequence of this analysis is that there is no control in the sense ofGB in Chinese. However, this does not necessarily mean that there is no control in the language, given the definition of control in the preceding section and the fact that control is independent of PRO in theories other than (orthodox) GB. For example, there is no use of PRO in either Culicover & Wilkins's (1986) or Sag & Pollard's (1991) analysis of control. Control in Modern Greek - a language that does not have PRO (Philippaki-Warburton 1987) - is speculated by Culicover and Wilkins to be accomplished in terms of binding of pro. In light of these considerations, I shall assume that there is control in Chinese and raise the question whether it can be adequately accounted for under a GB approach. 4 Larson (1991) represents a recent GB attempt to resurrect the Rosenbaumtype, 'minimal-distance' approach to control. He claims that the 'special' control behaviour of promise in English follows directly from its status as a double-object verb structurally under the 'minimal-distance' principle, which applies at D-structure. But there is no evidence in Chinese to support this

Notes to pages 61-63

273

analysis. Anyhow, Larson's analysis, even if it were extendible to Chinese, would still fail to predict controller choice in examples like (3.3) above and (3.8), (3.11) and (3.14) below. Cf. Sag & Pollard (1991: 90) rightly conclude that the c-command condition, while valid for English, may need to be weakened for languages which allow finite control. Cf. Rizzi (1986) and Authier (1989, 1992) argue that a structurally represented null object can occur in Italian, French, KiNande and Tamil (though not in English), as is shown by the following examples (but see Bouchard 1989 for a different point of view). (i)

(Italian, Rizzi 1986) L'ambizione spesso spinge 0 a [PRO commettere errori]. the ambition often pushes make mistakes 'Ambition often pushes (one) to make mistakes.'

(ii)

(French, Authier 1989) L'ambition amene 0 a [PRO commettre des erreurs]. the ambition leads commit mistakes 'Ambition leads (one) to make mistakes.'

(iii)

* Ambition leads [PRO to make mistakes].

They further point out that the occurrence of a null object in control constructions of this kind is in general allowed only in generic sentences (but see Chierchia 1989: 149 for counterexamples from Italian). This arbitrary null object, both Rizzi (1986) and Authier (1992) take to be a pro. But such an analysis cannot apply to Chinese. First, the 'null object' in the control construction in Chinese can (and standardly does) have non-arbitrary, definite interpretation. Moreoever, from a GB point of view, to posit a pro object in the Chinese examples under discussion would lead to a theoryinternal contradiction; the pro would have to satisfy both the GCR and binding condition B (cf. section 2.5.1 of chapter 2). Visser's Generalisation ('subject control verbs do not passivise') seems in general to hold for Chinese. But it is important to bear in mind that objectcontrol verbs in Chinese do not undergo passivisation as freely as do their counterparts in English, perhaps due to the fact that passivisation is in general insignificant in Chinese. According to Comrie (1984), Farkas (1988) and Sag & Pollard (1991), for some speakers of English, (i) and (ii) are ambiguous: the controller may be either the matrix subject or object. They also point out that of the two readings, the dispreferred interpretation (secondary interpretation in the terminology of Comrie and marked interpretation in the terminology of Farkas) 'tends to be masked unless the context makes it plausible' (Comrie 1984: 452). (i)

The pupil asked the teacher to leave early.

274

Notes to pages 64-70 (ii)

The mother promised the children to stay up.

Similar cases can also be found in German. (iii)

(Comrie 1984) Helga versprach Otto, noch einmal einen Sieg zu erleben. Helga promised Otto once again a victory to experience 4 Helgai promised Otto2 01/2 to experience victory once again.'

(iv)

(Comrie 1984) Scipio iiberredete den Senat, frei handeln zu diirfen. Scipio persuaded the Senate free manage to be allowed a. 'Scipio persuaded the Senate that he should be permitted to have a free hand.' b. 'Scipio persuaded the Senate that it should be permitted to have a free hand.'

9 According to Mohanan (1983), there are three essential differences between LFG and GB with regard to control. First, in LFG, control is a property of the f|unctional]-structure that encodes grammatical functions rather than a property of the configurational structure that encodes the relation of precedence; whereas in GB, this question is not clearly addressed. Secondly, in LFG, a distinction is made between functional and anaphoric control; whereas in GB, no such distinction is made, and control is dealt with uniformly in terms of PRO. Thirdly, in LFG, 'PRO' (i.e. LFG-'PRO') with which anaphoric control is associated is a grammatical function in the f-structure that is conflgurationally unrealised; whereas in GB, PRO is present in the configurational structure. 10 In fact, this is also the position taken by Bresnan. To quote her (Bresnan 1982a: 350): 'It is interesting to compare this [LFG] explanation with an alternative proposal, due to Williams (1980) . . . Let us first observe that Williams's "obligatory control" corresponds to our functional control. That is, the central properties that Williams takes to be characteristic of obligatory control follow from our theory of functional control.' This, of course, does not mean that functional control in LFG equals only with obligatory control in GB. Roughly speaking, LFG's functional control includes subject-tosubject raising, subject-to-object raising, equi-NP deletion, etc. (e.g. Horrocks 1987: 254-6). 11 What has been said in relation to LRFC seems to hold also for Chierchia's (1983, 1989) controller assignment mechanism in terms of a hierarchy of thematic relations: Theme > Source > Goal > . . . 9. 12 One advantage of a semantic/thematic approach over a structural/ configurational approach is that it has extended the range of data covered. A number of control phenomena that are not captured by Chomsky's account can now be accommodated under Riizicka's approach. One such case is the so-called controller shift in the double-passive construction. (Note that Chinese does not allow this construction (cf. note 7 above).)

Notes to pages 74-75 (i)

275

a. John was promised to be allowed to leave. b. (German, Ruzicka 1983) ihm war versprochen worden 0 in die him-DAT (it) had been promised into the Nationalmannschaft aufgenommen zu werden. national team included to be 'He had been promised to be included on the national team.' c. (Russian, Ruzicka 1983) emu bylo obescano 0 byt' vkljucennym v him-DAT (it) was promised to be included into sbornuju komandu. the select team 'He was promised to be included on the select team.' d. (Czech, Ruzicka 1983) bylo mu slibeno 0 byt zafazen do (it) was him-DAT promised to be included into vybraneho muzstva. the select team 'He was promised to be included on the select team.'

13 There are other problems with Culicover and Wilkins's account. For example, the locality condition in the Coindexing Rule would wrongly rule out long-distance control of various kinds. Control by split antecedency cannot be sufficiently handled under this approach, either. Given Culicover and Wilkins's Coindexing Rule, R(X) cannot be coindexed with both R(NPi) and R(NP 2 ) concurrently. This would wrongly predict the ungrammaticality of examples like (3.15) and (3.27). 4

Long-distance reflexivisation 1

For example, there is a general correlation between long-distance reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic and between long-distance reflexives and infinitives in Mainland Scandinavian languages (e.g. Thrainsson 1991). 2 It has generally been assumed that the domain properties and the antecedent properties of reflexives are implicationally related, that is, long-distance reflexives are subject-oriented, whereas local ones are not (e.g. Safir 1987). But as Katada (1991) rightly points out, this implicational generalisation may not hold, since there exists a class of reflexive which is local but subjectoriented. This type of reflexive normally has the form of self + se/f (Hellan 1991, Reinhart & Reuland 1991). Examples will be given in the text later. 3 In some languages (e.g. Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic), the property of subject orientation for Anaphors is matched by a property of subject obviation (or, antisubject orientation) for Pronominals, i.e. in some

276

Notes to pages 76-79 constructions, Pronominals must be subject-free where Anaphors must be subject-bound (e.g. Vikner 1985, Anderson 1986, Manzini & Wexler 1987, Thrainsson 1991, Hestvik 1992). Following is an example from Icelandic illustrating this phenomenon (Thrainsson 1991). (i)

Peturi bad Jens2 [02 ad raka hannj/ #2 ]. Peter asked Jens to shave him 'Peter asked Jens to shave him.'

In order to account for this kind of subject orientation for Anaphors and subject obviation for Pronominals, Anderson (1986) suggests parameterising binding conditions A and B as follows (see also Vikner's 1985 bindingparameter and Manzini & Wexler's 1987 proper antecedent parameter). (ii)

A. An Anaphor must be (i) bound in its GC, or (ii) bound by a superordinate subject in its extended GC. B. A Pronominal must be (i) free in its GC, or (ii) subject-free (i.e. not bound by a superordinate subject) in its extended GC.

But more recently, Hestvik (1992) argues that subject obviation for Pronominals of this kind should be best analysed in terms of LF-movement, on a par with subject orientation for Anaphors. Furthermore, Safir (1987) claims that there is a tendency for subject-oriented Anaphors and subjectobviative Pronominals to occur in the same language. There is, however, no evidence in Chinese to support this claim. More cross-linguistic research is needed to confirm or disconfirm this hypothesis. 4 It may be of some interest to note that in C.-T. J. Huang (1982), longdistance reflexivisation is assumed to be impossible in Chinese. 5 Both ziji and pronoun + ziji can be preceded by a lexical NP, as in (i) and (ii) below.

6

(i)

Zhe ge ren ziji Ian de hen. this CL person self lazy CSC very 'The man himself is very lazy.'

(ii)

Wo mei jian guo Lin Xiaojie ta ziji. 1SG not see EXP Lin Miss 3SG self 'I haven't met Miss Lin herself.'

There is another generally accepted GB assumption, namely long-distance binding of Anaphors is restricted to reflexives; reciprocals cannot participate in long-distance binding (Yang 1983, Reuland & Koster 1991). Among the strongest evidence in support of this assumption is siebie in Polish. Siebie is an Anaphor which is ambiguous between a reflexive reading and a reciprocal reading. Long-distance binding is allowed only under the reflexive reading

Notes to page 79

277

but not under the reciprocal reading (Everaert 1991, Reinders-Machowska 1991, Reinhart & Reuland 1991), as can be shown by the following examples (Reinders-Machowska 1991). (i)

Chlopcyi rozmawiali ze soba^. boys-NOM talked with self/each other T h e boys talked with themselves/each other.'

(ii)a.

Chlopcyi czytali dziewczaj;2 wspomnienia o sobiei/ 2 . boys read of-girls memories about self 'The boys read the girls' memories about them/themselves.'

b.

Chlopcyi czytali dziewczaj^ wspomnienia o sobie*i/ 2. boys read of-girls memories about each other The boys read the girls' memories about each other.'

Coming back to Chinese, the use of the reciprocal bid 'each other' is very much restricted in the language. It occurs generally in subject position, rather infrequently in attributive position, and very rarely in object position. Moreover, reciprocity in Chinese is frequently expressed by means of (i) the parallel construction ni. . . wo, wo . . . ni, as in: (iii)

Xiaoliangkour [ni ai wo, wo ai ni]. young couple 2SG love 1SG 1SG love 2SG The young couple love each other.'

(ii) the parallel construction zhe(ge) 'this' . . . na(ge) 'that', na(ge) 'that' . . . zhe(ge) 'this', as in: (iv)

Tamen [zhege ye bu renshi nage, nage ye bu renshi zhege]. 3PL this EMP not know that that EMP not know this They don't know each other.'

and (iii) the construction shei 'who' . . . shei 'who', as in: (v)

Tamen Hang [shei ye shuo bu fu shei]. 3PL two who EMP persuade not convince who 'Neither of them can convince the other.'

Generally speaking, the behaviour of the reciprocal in Chinese conforms to the fore-mentioned GB assumption, but the following might be a counterexample. (vi)

Jiu you chong feng, bici dou hen jidong. old friend again meet each other all very excited 'Having met again, each of the old friends is excited.'

Here it may also be mentioned that marginal cases of 'real' long-distance binding of reciprocals are found in many languages, including English and

278

Notes to pages 82-86

Dutch (Chomsky 1981: 214, Kuno 1987: 85, Everaert 1991). Anyhow, as Lebeaux (1983) observes, there are fundamental differences between reflexives and reciprocals in distribution. Reinhart & Reuland (1991) also note that reciprocals do not allow logophoric use. These differences, on Safir's (1992) view, are disguised by the postulation of a single category of Anaphor in GB. There is some reason to believe that reciprocity might be generated via movement independent of binding conditions (Heim, Lasnik & May 1991). 7 However, the long-distance reflexive ziji in the following example can have both a bound-variable (i.e. sloppy) and a pragmatic-coreference (i.e. strict) interpretation. (i)

Xiaomingi shuo Xiaohua bu xihuan zijii de xuexiao, Xiaoming say Xiaohua not like self MM school Xiaoqiang2 ye bu xihuan 0. Xiaoqiang too not like 'Xiaomingi says that Xiaohua does not like hisi school, Xiaoqiang 2 does not like his 1/2 school, either.'

The same seems to hold for the long-distance reflexive sig in Icelandic (Thrainsson 1991). For an interesting discussion of this phenomenon, see Hellan (1991). 8 Iatridou (1986) observes that Anaphors and Pronominals in Modern Greek do not fit in with binding theory in its present form. On the basis of this observation, she proposes that binding theory be readjusted with respect to Modern Greek. Specifically, she suggests that a binding condition D be added.

Table (i) Iatridou's setting for binding parameters in Modern Greek

Free Bound

Narrow domain

Wide domain

pronouns (condition B) ton eafton tou (condition A)

r-expressions (condition C) 0 idhios (condition D)

Logically, Iatridou's proposal seems to be plausible, since binding theory as it stands now exhibits an asymmetry: it specifies two alternatives for binding within a narrow domain but only one alternative for binding within a wide domain. Notice that there is a gap in Chomsky's (1982b) typology of NPs, namely the slot of an overt Pronominal Anaphor with the features [ + Anaphor, + Pronominal] is vacant. However, it is because of the sort of contradiction

Notes to pages 87-88

279

we have just seen that leads to Chomsky's rejection of the idea that this slot could be filled by an overt nominal expression. 10 Both Tang (1989) and Battistella (1989) claim that ziji in a non-matrix subject position may be ambiguous between a reflexive reading and an intensifying reading, since Chinese allows null subjects, and consequently, a preverbal position can be an A- or A-position. This analysis seems to need a substantial justification. For what evidence there is favours the reflexive analysis rather than the ambiguity analysis. First, when negated, ziji in (i) occurs before rather than after the negative form bu (Lu 1983: 146-7). (i)

Zhang Xiansheng shuo ziji bu shi hua hua de. Zhang Mr say self not be draw picture NOM 'Mr Zhangi says that hei is not a painter.'

Secondly, ziji in (i) can even be modified by an adjective. And thirdly, on the assumption that ziji in (i) can be an intensifler anaphorically related to a pro, we should expect that (iia) is well-formed, since the pro in (iia) should be free to be coindexed with the topic, on a par with (iib). But this is not the case. (ii)

a. Wang Xiansheng, Zhang Xiansheng shuo Wang Mr Zhang Mr say 0 ziji shi hua hua de. self be draw picture NOM 'Mr Wangi, Mr Zhang 2 says that hei is a painter.' b. Wang Xiansheng, Zhang Xiansheng shuo Wang Mr Zhang Mr say 0 shi hua hua de. be draw picture NOM 'Mr Wangi, Mr Zhang 2 says that (hei) is a painter.'

On the strength of the evidence presented, I shall assume the generally accepted analysis in Chinese linguistics that ziji in examples of this kind is a reflexive (Chao 1968: 643, Wang 1985[1943]: 284^90, Lii 1983: 146-7, Gao 1986[1948]: 142-4). In fact, it has long been noted that unlike its counterpart in European languages, ziji can function as a subject by itself (Gao 1986[1948]: 143). 11 Along somewhat similar lines, Sportiche (1986) suggests that the overall system of overt Anaphors and Pronominals in Japanese be divided vertically (i.e. column by column) rather than horizontally (i.e. line by line) as in Table (i). Sportiche further speculates that the Japanese reflexive zibun covers both slots 1 and 3, whereas the Japanese pronoun kare covers only slot 4. This has the consequence that zibun would be able to occur in the union of the domains sanctioned by binding conditions A and B, being either an Anaphor

280

Notes to pages

88-99

Table (i) Sportiche's system of overt Anaphors and Pronominals in Japanese

Locality condition Antilocality condition

C-command required

C-command not required

1 anaphors 3 pronouns as variables

2 4 referential pronouns

or a Pronominal. However, as Kang (1988) notes, Sportiche's analysis of zibun cannot extend to caki in Korean. Parallel evidence can also be adduced to show that it cannot carry over to ziji in Chinese, either. 12 Another escape route that could be pursued might be to argue that the syntactic position where Anaphors and Pronominals alternate actually is not the same structural position. This approach is commonly applied to locative/ directive PP constructions such as the following (e.g. Chomsky 1981: 291, 1986a: 167, 173). (i)

John pulled the blanket towards him/himself.

But such an analysis does not seem to be extendible to the 'long-distance reflexivisation' examples discussed in this chapter. 13 Our argument that ziji in (4.32) is discourse-bound may be challenged by two alternative analyses. In the first, ziji might be analysed as being an intensifier that is anaphorically related to a pro (Tang 1989, see also Iatridou's 1986 analysis of o idhios in Modern Greek). Or, alternatively, one might argue that it involves binding by an empty topic, extending C.-T. J. Huang's (1984) empty topic analysis (see also Sportiche's 1986 analysis of zibun in Japanese). Neither proposal, however, is seriously entertainable. In the case of the first, C.-T. J. Huang himself (1984) rules out the possibility that ziji in examples of this kind is an adverb on the grounds that it can precede a time adverb. Suppose, then, for the sake of argument that ziji in (4.32) is an intensifier anaphorically related to a pro. This would raise the familiar problem of how the pro is locally identified. As for the second proposal, the same arguments that have been made against C.-T. J. Huang's empty topic analysis hold here. Finally, even if these arguments were totally implausible, my argument that ziji can be discourse-bound would still remain unaffected. This is because neither proposal is intended to and can cover discourse-binding of ziji in object position, as in (4.16). 14 As Tang (1989) has noted, relaxation of the c-command condition obeys subject orientation. In other words, the c-command condition can be relaxed only with respect to a non-c-commanding subject but not with respect to a non-c-commanding object. This can be illustrated by the following example (Tang 1989).

Notes to pages 99-115 (i)

281

[Woi ma ta2] dui zijii mei you haochu. 1SG scold 3SG to self not have advantage T h a t I scolded him did me no good.'

15 For convenience, I shall use the conventional term 'binding' to refer to coindexing of this kind (even though the standard definition of binding entails c-command). 16 The following definitions are given in Chomsky (1986b: 14-15). (i)

(ii)

(iii)

Barrier y is a barrier for P if and only if (a) or (b): (a) y immediately dominates 5, 5 a blocking category for (3; (b) y is a blocking category for P, y # IP. Blocking category Y is a blocking category for p if and only if y is not L-marked and y dominates p. L-marking a L-marks P if and only if a is a lexical category that 0-governs p.

17 Huang and Tang might contend that complex reflexives such as zibun zisin in Japanese and caki casin in Korean are inherently third person, hence having an intrinsic (p-index. Therefore, they can only be locally bound. While this explanation may be correct with respect to caki casin in Korean, it does not seem to be possible with regard to zibun zisin in Japanese, as the following example indicates. (i)

(Asami Kurosawa, personal communication) Watashi wa zibun-zisin o semeru. 1SG TOP self self OBJ criticise 'I criticise myself.'

Note then that Huang and Tang's proposal, to the extent that it is successful in accounting for the local binding behaviour of caki casin in Korean, would encounter another, equally 'difficult-to-solve' problem. On the assumption that caki casin is intrinsically third person, caki has also to be taken as intrinsically third person. But contrary to Huang and Tang's '(pfeature' hypothesis, caki can only be long-distance bound, as can be seen by (4.66b). 5

A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora 1

But the essential insight may go back at least as far as Lees & Klima (1963). They (1963: 18) note: 'We might suppose that when the subject and the object of a sentence are identical the object must be the corresponding -self form . . . Such a rule would then correctly explain why one understands that there are two people involved when one hears the sentence (/o) He sees him' More recently, this idea has re-emerged in the GB literature in terms of an 'elsewhere' principle (e.g. Hellan 1988, Burzio 1989, 1991). The essence of

282

Notes to pages 116-121

'elsewhere', which comes from phonology (e.g. Kiparsky 1973), is that given the complementarity between, say, Anaphors and Pronominals, we need only capture the distribution of one of them, and can then treat the other simply as a kind of residue or 'elsewhere' effect. However, in these works, it is not clear whether the 'elsewhere' case should be dealt with syntactically or pragmatically. 2 On Reinhart's account, pronouns that are bound by quantified NPs and pronouns that are bound by definite NPs are treated in the same manner: both are considered to be potential bound-variables. 3 However, the coindexing rule may not be altogether correct with respect to Chinese. For example, bound-variable binding in Chinese may not be subject to the c-command condition. (i)

Mei ge ren de huai piqi dou hui gei ziji every CL person MM bad temper all will for self dai lai xuduo mafan. bring RV much trouble 'Everyone'si bad temper will bring a lot of trouble to him!.'

4

On Reinhart's (1983a: 29, 142) view, there are three possible relations of coreference between NPs: they can be positively coindexed, negatively coindexed or neutrally (i.e. neither positively nor negatively) coindexed, as in (i) below. (i)

5

a. Obligatory (stipulated) coreference Chomsky! admires himselfi. b. Obligatory (stipulated) non-coreference Chomsky i admires him 2. c. Optional (free) coreference Chomskyi admires hisi /2 teachers.

This leads Reinhart to argue for a three-valued mechanism of coindexing. Consider also (i) below. (i)

John and Mary bought a house.

Example (i) has two interpretations, an 'independent' interpretation and a 'co-operative' interpretation as in (iia) and (iib) respectively. (ii)

a. John and Mary bought houses separately, b. John and Mary bought a house together.

Intuitively, the I-implicated 'co-operative' interpretation in (iib) is more informative than the 'independent' interpretation, that js, it is the preferred interpretation (cf. section 1.2 of chapter 1). This can also be seen to follow directly from the Popperian argument, since the logical form of (iib), i.e. (iiib), contains fewer existential quantifiers than that of (iia), i.e. (iiia). For further discussion, see Harnish (1976) and Atlas & Levinson (1981).

Notes to pages 124-140 (iii)

6

7

8

9

10

283

a. 3x3y3e3e'[HOUSE(x) & HOUSE(Y) & x # y & BUY(j,x,e) & BUY(m,y,e') & e ^ e']. b. 3x3e[HOusE(x) & BUY(j,x,e) & BUY(m,x,e)].

As pointed out by Levinson (1991), another major problem for the 'A-first' analysis is that there are many languages that simply do not have reflexives. These languages include the majority of Australian languages, some Austronesian languages and many pidgin and Creole languages. For further discussion, see Faltz (1985) and especially Levinson (1991). A question is raised in Levinson (1991) as to why ziji and ta fail to form a Horn-scale. To answer this question, we must face squarely the question of what constitutes a Horn-scale. Assuming (partly for lack of better alternatives) Atlas & Levinson's (1981) and Levinson's (1987a, b) definition of Horn-scales (see (1.6)), what is at issue here is whether ziji is semantically stronger than ta. The answer appears to be yes, since ziji is necessarily referentially dependent while ta is not. However, this contrast in semantic informativeness seems to be a weak one, given that there is a great flexibility in the specification of domain in which ziji is to be bound. Therefore, the semantic contrast between ziji and ta may simply be too weak for them to form a Horn-scale. This is also consistent with the well-known difficulty concerning the formulation of a Horn-scale: namely the semantic entailment constraint is a necessary but not a sufficient condition (Burton-Roberts 1984). Alternatively, we could attribute the DRP to the I-principle (as Levinson does), since what the I-principle induces is essentially an inference that is best in keeping with the most stereotypical and explanatory expectation. We could then stipulate that the DRP, when in operation, will override any Iimplicated coreferential interpretation. Either way, we would obtain the desired result. There is some variability among the native speakers I have consulted regarding which of the two interpretations in examples like (5.28d), (5.30d) and (5.3Id) is the preferred one. Some take the non-coreferential reading to be the preferred interpretation; others, the coreferential reading. Why should native speakers' preference for pragmatic inferences differ here? My speculation is that different speakers may give priority to different pragmatic principles. It seems to me that those who prefer the noncoreferential interpretation might be under the inference of the M-principle, while those who prefer the coreferential interpretation might be under the effect of some kind of Q-inference: if the two instances of Xiaoming are disjoint in reference, a distinguishing description of some sort would be used; therefore, the lack of such a distinguishing description would license one to Q-implicate that the speaker intends that the two instances of Xiaoming refer to one and the same person. This, of course, does not mean that the topic construction in (5.43) is not grammaticalised. As we will see in section 6.3 of chapter 6, (5.43) constitutes an 'English-style' topic construction, and as such it is grammaticalised. But

284

Notes to pages 141-154

the topic construction may in general be motivated pragmatically, as described by the 'aboutness' hypothesis. 11 This might raise a question: namely why is the M-induced contrast between the lexical NPs, on the one hand, and the pronoun and the zero anaphor, on the other, in (5.31) not cancelled by the I-implicature due to the same close semantico-conceptual relationship between the two clauses? Here, I do not have a well-grounded answer. Nevertheless, my speculation is that the Mcontrast between a lexical NP and, say, a pronoun is too sharp (as compared with the M-contrast between a pronoun and a zero anaphor) to be ruled out by the pertinent I-implicature. 12 Note also (i) below, which is drawn from C.-T. J. Huang (1984) (i)

Zhangsan shuo Lisi bu renshi 0. Zhangsan say Lisi not know 'Zhangsan said that Lisi did not know (him).'

According to C.-T. J. Huang, the zero anaphor in (i) can only be coindexed with an empty topic but not with the matrix subject, hence a variable (cf. section 2.5.1 of chapter 2). While the judgements are delicate, most of the native speakers I have consulted believe that the Pronominal interpretation is fully acceptable (see also Xu & Langendoen 1985 and Xu 1986). If this is the case, then (i) would pose no problem for the pragmatic apparatus developed here.

6 Further applications of the theory 1 Whether the notion of 'locality' involved here is a syntactic one (a matter of configuration), or a pragmatic one (a matter of linear distance), or a syntactico-pragmatic one is not clear; more research needs to be done in this area. Nevertheless, there seems to be a lot of evidence to indicate that 'locality' in Chinese is primarily of a pragmatic nature. For example, as we saw in section 4.2 of chapter 4, binding of ziji may not be subject to the ccommand condition. Anyhow, what is of interest to us here is simply that there is some requirement of 'locality' that is relevant to the application of pragmatic principles in the domain of anaphoric reference. 2 From a purely structural point of view, sentences like (6.9) are two-way ambiguous, as can be seen in (i). (i)

Xiaoming daying Xiaohua qu. Xiaoming promise Xiaohua go a. Xiaoming daying Xiaohua [0 qu]. 'Xiaoming promises Xiaohua to go.' b. Xiaoming daying [Xiaohua qu]. 'Xiaoming promises that Xiaohua will go.'

The interpretations show how readings (a) and (b) require different syntactic parsings. The syntactic ambiguity is evidenced by the fact that

Notes to page 156

285

reading (a) may be marked by a pause between Xiaohua and qu 'go', whereas reading (b), by a pause between daying 'promise' and Xiaohua. Further, reading (a) is in general preferred to reading (b). While pragmatic principles in general cannot be implicated in parsing syntactic structure, it seems that the I-principle is so implicated in predicting the preferred syntactic structure with respect to (i). Since it is noncontroversial that the felicity condition of promising requires that the person who makes promises should have high agentivity in doing the 'promised' action, a speaker would normally promise what he will do rather than what other people will do. It follows therefore that whenever (i) occurs, the I-principle will predict a preference for reading (a). Note then that the Iimplicated preference for reading (a) is subject to defeasibility. As an illustrative example, take (ii). (ii)

Zongtong daying neizhengbuzhang jiang diaocha ci shi. president promise interior minister will investigate this matter a. Zongtong daying neizhengbuzhang [0 jiang diaocha ci shi]. 'The president promises the interior minister to investigate this matter.' b. Zongtong daying [neizhengbuzhang jiang diaocha ci shi]. 'The president promises that the interior minister will investigate this matter.'

Syntactically speaking, (ii) is also ambiguous between readings (a) and (b). However, pragmatically speaking, it is non-controversial that the president is the person who has the power over his ministers and therefore he can promise what they will do. Consequently, the I-implicated preference for reading (a) is cancelled and by the I-principle, reading (b) will be selected as the preferred reading. Essentially the same analysis can be applied to violations of Bach's Generalisation in other languages. (i)

(German, Comrie 1984) Die Mutter bat, das Geschirr abzutragen. the mother asked the dishes away to clear 'The mother asked (someone) to clear away the dishes.'

(ii)

(Russian, Comrie 1984) Predsedatel' poprosil vojti v komnatu. chairman asked enter into room 'The chairman asked (somone) to enter the room.'

286 4

Notes to pages

156-165

The same can in principle be shown to hold for control by split antecedency in other languages. (i)

(Russian, Ruzicka 1983) Zybin predlozil mne 0 ne chodit' v skolu a Zybin suggested me-DAT not to go to school but pojti v kino. to go to movies 'Zybin! suggested to me 2 0{i,2} not to go to school but to go to the movies.'

(ii)

(Polish, Ruzicka 1983) Proponuje, pojsc do kina. suggest go to movies '(Ii) suggest to (someone2) 0{i,2} to go to the movies.'

5

Except when emphaticness/contrastiveness (for example) is involved (cf. section 5.4 of chapter 5 above and section 6.6 below). In that case, the reflexive ziji may be used. (i)

6

Xiaoming shefa ziji tiantian shui ge wu jiao. Xiaoming try self daily sleep CL noon sleep 'Xiaoming himself tries to take a nap after lunch every day.'

But it could be argued that ziji here is analysable as an adverb. This generalisation is codified by Xu (1985) in terms of an Obligatorily Controlled Empty Category Principle. (i)

Xu's Obligatorily Controlled Empty Category Principle An NP whose control is assigned on the basis of the feature [obligatory coreference] must be empty.

But the principle does not seem to hold good universally; for example, in the Korean equivalent of (6.18), the third person singular pronoun can occur where the zero anaphor occurs (e.g. Borer 1989). 7 This can be generalised to include the following semantic relations. (i)

topic set abstract process object generalisation

subject member instance step attribute specific

Some of these relations go under the rubric of elaboration in Mann and Thompson's Rhetorical Structure Theory. For further discussion, see e.g. van Dijk (1977: 106) and Mann & Thompson (1987). More or less the same can be said of serial verb constructions, constructions

Notes to pages 173-187

287

which contain a sequence of two or more predicates sharing a common core argument, juxtaposed without any complementiser or conjunction. Serial verb constructions may be interpreted as expressing either purpose or action which is consecutive, simultaneous or alternating. For example: (i)

Wang Xiansheng da dianhua jiao chuzu shang Wang Mr make phone call call taxi go yiyuan kan bingren. hospital visit patient 'Mr Wang made a phone call to hire a taxi to go to the hospital to visit the patient.'

9

Chomsky (1981, 1982: 25) leaves open the question of whether the 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle is grammatical or pragmatic in nature. 10 Examples such as (6.71) pose problems for the GB assumption that the antecedent of an Anaphor cannot itself be an unbound Anaphor (e.g. Higginbotham 1985, Barss 1986, Battistella 1989). Given the assumption, if ziji in (6.71) is specified as an Anaphor, then (6.71) will be ruled out as ungrammatical for violation of binding condition A. If, on the other hand, ziji under discussion is not classified as an Anaphor, then the binding of the second ziji will be impossible. Clearly, neither option is correct. Essentially the same point can be made with sentences of the following kind in Korean and Irish English, where the first self'may (only) be interpreted arbitrarily or deictically. (i)a.

b.

(Korean, Yang 1985) Caki-ka caki-lil soki-nrnk as-in nappi-ta. self-NOM self-ACC deceive-COMP-TOP bad-DECL 'Self deceiving self is bad.' (Irish English, Keenan 1988) Herself is getting herself ready.

11 For example, according to Stirling (1993: 260), while in Ewe, all four types of verb are allowed to act as a logocentric trigger, in Tuburi, verbs of perception are excluded, and in Mundang, only verbs of asserting, ordering, and more rarely, thinking can trigger a logophoric domain. There are even languages where logocentric verbs are further restricted. Igbo and Mapun are just such languages; the former restricts the logophoric domain to verbs of communication, and the latter, just to the verb 'say' (see also Sells 1987). 12 There are, of course, other characteristics of the logophoric domain. The most common one seems to be the requirement that verbs in such a domain take subjunctive mood, as in Icelandic and Ewe. 13 Simply put, while retaining the pivot, Stirling thinks that the source and the self can be reduced to one discourse-semantic role, namely that of the 'assigned epistemic validator'. The validator is informally defined as 'the individual to whom the speaker linguistically assigns responsibility for

288

Notes to page 196

validating a Discourse Representation Structure' (Stirling 1993: 283). Needless to say, a comparison of the two analyses would take us well beyond the scope of this book. 14 It is of some interest to note that the blocking effect does not seem to hold good universally. In the Scandinavian languages, for example, the presence of an intervening first- or second-person pronoun does not seem to block long-distance binding, as in (i), which is drawn from Thrainsson (1991). (i)a.

b.

Annai telur [J)ig hafa svikid sigi]. Anne believe you-ACC have-INF betray self 'Annei believes that you have betrayed her!.' Annei horte [mig snakke med dig om sigi]. Anne hear me talk-INF to you about self 'Annei heard me talking to you about heri.'

As an attempt to explain the blocking effect in Korean, Yoon (1989) argues that only third-person NPs can possibly be an antecedent for a longdistance reflexive, because a long-distance reflexive, being a logophor, is inherently third person. In other words, the antecedent for a long-distance reflexive must be a third-person centre of point of view. Successful as it is in ruling out the long-distance binding reading in (ii), this line of explanation will fail to account for both (iii), which exemplifies Sells's discourse setting for 'direct speech', and (6.101b) in the text. (ii)

Wo renwei Xiaoming tai xiangxin ziji le. 1SG think Xiaoming too trust self CRS 'I think that Xiaoming trusts himself too much.'

(iii)

Wo renwei wo tai xiangxin ziji le. 1SG think 1SG too trust self CRS 'I think that I trust myself too much.'

It seems that in most 'logophoric' languages, logophors are inherently third person, and possibly inherently singular. However, there are also languages which lack any such restriction. For example, it is reported in Kuno (1987: 146) that a logocentric NP in Ewe can be first or second person, singular or plural. (iv)

(Kuno 1987) a. e-be ye-a-va. you-say LOG-T-come 'Youi said youi (sg.) would come.' b. e-be yewo-a-va. you-say LOG-T-come said yoU{i + 2} (pi.) would come.'

Notes to page 197

289

In fact, Zribi-Hertz (1989) is of the opinion that the speaker and the addressee of a discourse should a priori be read as logocentric. 15 Recall (4.43) and (4.44), which are cited from Tang (1989) and which are repeated here as (i) and (ii). (i)

Ta zhidao tamen dui ziji mei xinxin. 3SG know 3PL to self have no confidence 'Hei knows that they2 have no confidence in himi/themselves 2.'

(ii)

Tamen zhidao ta dui ziji mei xinxin. 3PL know 3SG to self have no confidence 'Theyi know that he 2 has no confidence in himself2.'

As Tang notes, while an intervening third-person singular pronoun shows the blocking effect, an intervening third-person plural pronoun does not. This may also be partially explained by the concept of logophoricity. Notice first that there seems to be a parallel between (i) and (ii) above and (iii) and (iv) below. (iii)

Ta zhidao tamen ziji cuo le. 3SGknow 3PL self wrong CRS 'Hei knows that they themselveS{i + 2} are wrong.'

(iv)

Tamen zhidao ta ziji cuo le. 3PL know 3SG self wrong CRS Theyi know that he himself2 is wrong.'

Notice next that a common feature of morphologically distinct logophoric pronouns is that a third-person plural logophoric pronoun can be used to relate to a set of entities of which the third-person singular logocentric NP is a member, but not vice versa, as can be shown by the plural logophoric pronoun yewo in Ewe (Sells 1987, Stirling 1993: 255) (see also (iv(b)) of the last note). (v)

Kofi kpo be yewo-do go. Kofi see COMP LOG-PL-come out 'Kofi! saw that they{1 + 2} (including Kofi) had come out.'

With regard to the intervening first- and second-person plural pronouns, as in (vi) and (vii), the possibility for long-distance binding seems to be ruled out on independent grounds. (vi)

Wo zhidao women dui ziji mei xinxin. 1SG know 1PL to self have no confidence 'I know that we have no confidence in ourselves.'

290

Notes to pages 197-199 (vii)

Ni zhidao nimen dui ziji mei xinxin. 2SG know 2PL to self have no confidence 'You (sg.) know that you (pi.) have no confidence in yourselves.'

16 As we will see shortly, the logophoric aspect of long-distance reflexivisation falls under the M-principle. There is thus a potential conflict between the Iand M-principles regarding the interpretation of a long-distance reflexive. By the I-heuristic, a long-distance reflexive will tend to be implicated to be coreferential with the local subject; by the M-logophoricity, it will tend to be implicated to be coreferential with the root subject. However, given the resolution schema, namely Q > M > I in (5.25), the I-implicature will tend to give way to the M-implicature, hence the maximality effect. 17 At this point, it is useful to point out an implicational universal for reflexives, which may be given in (i) (adapted from Faltz 1985: 120, Hawkins 1989, Toman 1991). (i)

An implicational universal for reflexives (a) First-person reflexives imply second-person reflexives, and second-person reflexives imply third-person reflexives. (b) Reflexive possessives imply reflexive pronouns.

Consequently, there are three types of language with respect to the reflexive/non-reflexive distinction (ignoring the generalisation in (b) in (i)): (i) those languages with the distinction on all three persons (e.g. Chinese and English), (ii) those languages with the distinction on the second and third person only (e.g. Huichol), and (iii) those languages with the distinction on just one person (e.g. German). As Hawkins (1989) (who credits the central observation to Bernard Comrie) notes, there is an obvious functional explanation for this fact. Clearly, the third-person distinction is the most, and the first-person distinction, the least useful, with the second-person distinction in between. This is in fact motivated and explained by the interaction of the Q-principle ('Say as much as possible in order to be nonambiguous') and the I-principle ('Say as little as possible in order to be economical'). In addition, there is a fourth type of language in this respect, namely those languages with no reflexive at all (e.g. Gumbaynggir, an Australian language; Tahitian, an Austronesian language; and the northern dialect of Haitian Creole) (cf. note 6 of chapter 5). In these languages, reflexivity is often expressed by way of a pronoun, in violation of binding condition B. In fact, substantial evidence has been put forward to indicate that binding condition B itself may not hold as a rule of grammar, either. First, non-reflexive possessive pronouns in many languages need not be free in a syntactic domain. For example, in German, we can have (ii). (ii)

Hansj sah seini/2 Buch. Hans saw his book 'Hansi saw hisi /2 book.'

Notes to pages 199-200

291

Secondly, first- and second-person personal pronouns in languages that lack first- and second-person reflexives need not be free, either. This is the case with (for instance) Icelandic and Danish (Thrainsson 1991). (iii)a. (Icelandic) Egi rakadi migi. I shave me ? 'I shaved me.' b. (Danish) Jegi barberede migi. I shave me 'I shaved me.' Thirdly, even in languages where binding condition B generally holds, it is not so firmly grammaticalised in the first- and second-person cases as in the third-person cases - a fact pointed out by Morgan (1970), Horn (1984) and Langacker (1985), among others. A case in point is (iv) below, which can be used contrastively (Horn 1984). (iv)

I'm voting for me.

This seems to indicate that binding condition B too is at least partially motivated by the Q-based principle of ambiguity-avoidance. 18 It might be objected by some GB theorists (e.g. Lasnik 1989) that (6.108) is not a real counterexample to binding condition C on the grounds that shouxiang 'prime minister' is used attributively rather than referentially (see e.g. Donnellan 1966, 1978 for the attributive/referential distinction). However, this escape route will be blocked by examples of the following kind. (i)

Meijie shuo shouxiang Jiang qinzi qu Beijing. Major say prime minister will in person go Beijing 'Major! says that the prime minister! will go to Beijing in person.'

19 Also (i) below. (i)a.

Chuntian you chuntain de huaichu; spring have spring MM disadvantage dongtian you dongtian de haochu. winter have winter MM advantage 'Springs have their disadvantages; winters have their advantages.'

292

Notes to page 202 b.

*Chuntian you ziji de huaichu; spring have self MM disadvantage dongtian you ziji de haochu. winter have self MM advantage 'Springs have their disadvantages; winters have their advantages.'

c.

?

d.

*Chuntian you 0 de huaichu; spring have MM disadvantage dongtian you 0 de haochu. winter have MM advantage 'Springs have their disadvantages; winters have their advantages.'

Chuntian you ta de huaichu; spring have 3SG MM disadvantage dongtian you ta de haochu. winter have 3SG MM advantage 'Springs have their disadvantages; winters have their advantages.'

20 Alternatively, the r-expression in (6.114)-(6.116) can precede and ccommand a pleonastic pronoun, thus we can have [Lao Wangi tai] etc. 21 Notice that even the quantifier-variable dependency relation involving a definite lexical NP in Chinese is not immune to pragmatic principles. Consider (i) below. (i)

Mei ge yanjiusheng dou renwei daoshi you xuewen. every CL research student all think supervisor have learning 'Every research student thinks that the supervisor is learned.'

Example (i) allows a quantifier-variable dependency relation between daoshi 'the supervisor' and mei ge yanjiusheng 'every research student', namely on this interpretation, the supervisor is each research student's supervisor. As pointed out by Kempson (1988a, b) for a similar pattern in English, the dependency between daoshi and mei ge yanjiusheng is made by an additional premise, namely that every research student has a supervisor. But this premise is not part of the definition of the concept of student. Rather, it is something that has to be added to the interpretation of the utterance via the background assumption that research students at least do characteristically have supervisors. Thus, in cases like this, we have at once a quantifier-variable dependency, which is grammatical in character, and a 'bridge cross-reference' inference, which is pragmatic in nature. As we already saw in section 1.2 of chapter 1 and section 6.3 of chapter 6, such an inference falls under the I-principle. 22 In fact, Chomsky (1981) is aware that sub-condition (i) can be violated. In an effort to overcome the problem, he (1981: 227) invokes a 'general discourse principle'.

Notes to pages 202-213 (i)

293

Chomsky's 'general discourse principle' (a) Avoid repetition of r-expressions, except when conditions warrant. (b) When conditions warrant, repeat.

This principle can be subsumed under or explained by our neo-Gricean pragmatic principles: its first part corresponds to the I-principle and its second, to the Q-principle. Each part is also explicitly bounded in its applicability by the other (Horn 1984). 23 Notice that the repetition of r-expressions (in various forms) at the discourse level is extremely common in Chinese. For a discussion of this phenomenon, see Y. Huang (1984, 1986).

7

Anaphoric production in conversation 1

2

3

4

5

Conversation is defined here 'in a loose way as an equivalent of talk or spoken encounter' (Goffman 1976: 264). By 'naturally occurring conversation' is meant conversation that occurs in natural settings (as opposed to conversation that occurs in experimental or induced settings). For discussion about general theoretical and methodological principles of conversation analysis, see e.g. Schenkein 1978, Atkinson & Drew 1979, Goodwin 1981, Levinson 1983, Atkinson & Heritage 1984 and Drew & Heritage 1993. Allowing for some variations arising from different encoding conventions in different languages, the distributional pattern in (7.10) is quite universal cross-linguistically. A notable exception seems to be Finnish, as described in Hakulinen (1987). The phrase 'to locate the intended referent' is used here in a very loose way. The 'location' of such a referent may include: (i) the identification of an individual whom one has actually seen, known, spoken with, etc., as in the sense of Sacks & Schegloffs (1979) term 'recognition', (ii) the identification of some unique entity in the world (cf. the de dicto/de re distinction or the attributive/referential distinction (e.g. Donnellan 1966, 1978)), and (iii) the co-identification of a 'discourse referent' via its antecedent. On Hofstadter, Clossman & Meredith's (1982) view, the predominant use of proper names is attributable to a preference 'to communicate via the concrete image of a person rather than via the abstract and impersonal image that a description by role creates'. This, of course, does not mean that there is no conversational context in which preference for relevant role is stronger. For discussion about such contexts, see Fornel (1987). Sacks & Schegloff (1979) observe that in English conversation, when the speaker is uncertain about the recognition of the referent from the hearer, he typically uses a minimal recognitional form marked by an upward intonation contour and followed by a brief pause. This Sacks and Schegloff call a 'trymarker'. The most important 'try-' or 'indexicality-marker' the speaker employs in German conversation, according to Auer (1984), is the demonstrative article dies-.

294

Notes to pages

218-226

6

From an interactional point of view, both overestimation and underestimation are dispreferred acts. The former undermines the hearer's chance to achieve recognition and the latter threatens the hearer's face. 7 Evidence has been presented from Chinese narrative discourse to support the 'topic continuity' hypothesis. Li & Thompson (1979), for example, point out that the most frequently occurring type of zero anaphora in Chinese discourse is the topic chain (cf. section 6.3 of chapter 6). Chen (1986) also reports that referents that register high continuity in Chinese discourse tend to be encoded by zero anaphors or pronouns. In the twenty Pear Stories (Chafe 1980) Chen has investigated statistically, as many as 50 per cent of the topic/subject referents have zero anaphor encoding and as many as 30 per cent of the topic/subject referents have pronoun encoding (Chen 1986: Table 4.6). Finally, as Tai (1978) observes, when there are two or more referents, it is often the case that a reduced anaphoric form coincides with the topic referent whereas a non- or less-reduced anaphoric form, with the non-topic referent. A second, somewhat related point to note is that the topic referent is frequently the protagonist, or main character, in a narrative or conversation. The protagonist exhibits a number of distinctive characteristics: (i) it is usually agentive or intimately involved in causing the events that constitute the story's actions, (ii) it is higher in animacy than any competing character, (iii) it usually has a primary function in the story in terms of reaching a goal, (iv) it almost always gets named if any character does, (v) it is referred to more frequently than any other character, and (vi) it occurs in more than one scene and across more than one setting; it is introduced in the initial stage of a narrative (e.g. McGann & Schwartz 1988). There has been some general consensus in the literature that the protagonist enjoys a special thematic status in a narrative or conversation, thus frequently receiving a minimal anaphoric encoding after first mention. 8 There is also evidence from Chinese narrative discourse to support the distance-interference hypothesis. Based on a statistical analysis of twenty Pear Stories, Chen (1986) reports that the linear distance between the two mentions of a referent and the choice of an anaphoric form to encode it are intimately correlated. He observes that a zero anaphor or pronoun tends to be used to encode a referent with a short distance to its previous mention (Chen 1986: Tables 4.2 and 4.3). The same can be said of the effects of interference. A zero anaphor tends to be used where there is no interfering referent and a lexical NP, to be used where there is such a referent (Chen 1986: Table 4.4). 9 This coding-quantity principle is also formulated in terms of processing time and mental effort as follows (Givon 1985). (i)

The more mental effort is expended in processing a topic-NP (i.e. in establishing its referential identity in discourse), the more coding material is used to represent it in language.

10 Currently, there are at least three distinct senses of givenness (Prince 1981).

Notes to page 228

295

The first, givenness.p, is defined in terms of predictability (or recoverability). Thus, in a tone group or clause, a particular linguistic item is treated as given if it can be recovered either anaphorically or situationally (e.g. Halliday & Hasan 1976: 326, Kuno 1978). The second sense of givenness, givenness.s, is stated in terms of saliency: given information is that knowledge which the speaker assumes to be in the consciousness of the hearer at the time of the occurrence of the utterance (e.g. Chafe 1976). The third sense of givenness, givenness.k, is defined in terms of shared knowledge. Thus, for Clark, Haviland and Sanford, givenness represents the information that the speaker believes that the hearer already knows and can identify uniquely (e.g. Haviland & Clark 1974, Clark & Clark 1977: 92, Clark & Haviland 1977, Sanford & Garrod 1981). Clearly, while givenness.p is linguistics-oriented, givenness.s and givenness.k are psycho linguistics-oriented. The crucial difference seems to be that while the former is restricted to the information status within a tone group or clause, the latter is extended to include whatever knowledge the speaker and the hearer may share (Brown & Yule 1983: 183). A slightly different approach to givenness is adopted in Okamoto (1981). He draws a distinction between the status (i.e. givenness versus newness) of a linguistic item and the value (i.e. oldness versus newness) of the information conveyed by that linguistic item. He uses the term 'given/non-given' to refer to the former and the term 'old/new', to the latter. It is easy to see that the three notions of givenness are not entirely mutually independent: givenness.p might be regarded loosely as a subset of givenness. s, which, in turn, might be regarded loosely as a subset of givenness.k. This settheoretical relation can be represented as follows. (i)

G(p) C G(s) C G(k)

A final question relating to givenness is whether the given/new distinction is a discrete dichotomy or a matter of degree. Chafe (1976), for example, takes it to be a binary distinction. He (1976: 32) argues that givenness has a transitory status: 'One indisputable property of consciousness is that its capacity is very limited. As new ideas come into it, old ones leave. The speaker's treatment of an item as given, therefore, should cease when he judges that item to have left his addressee's consciousness.' By contrast, Allterton (1978) and Westergaard (1986) argue that the given/new distinction is a matter of more or less rather than yes or no. This point of view is consistent with the notion of Communicative Dynamic (CD) within the framework of Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP). The notion of CD presupposes a continuum of givenness: sentence elements are assumed to carry varying degrees of CD; a higher degree is linked with 'newness' and a low degree with 'givenness' (e.g. Firbas 1992). For a detailed critique of the notion of givenness, see Y. Huang (1989). 11 There are, of course, occurrences of repetition of lexical NPs that are not part of the distributional mechanism in (7.10). For example, many occurrences of repetition of lexical NPs are for the purpose of repairing the syntax of

296

Notes to pages 228-234 utterances, restarting the conversation, etc. Following is an example showing how a self-initiated self-repair changes the word order of the utterance (see Schegloff 1979 for discussion about repair on 'syntax-for-conversation'). (i)

—»

(HQ: 86-5) Cl. A: Gao Fei ye dao Faguo gu guo de Gao Fei EMP go France go EXP SFP C2. Gao Fei ye qu guo Faguo Gao Fei EMP go EXP France El. A: Gao Fei to France has actually been E2. Gao Fei has actually been to France

12 Notice the repetition of the lexical NP in the following example. (i)

(RCE: 88-1) Cl. A: Chen Xiansheng qushi le Chen Professor pass away CRS C2. B: Wo tingshuo le 1SG hear

—>

C3.

CRS

Chen Xiansheng shi ge hao ren Chen Professor be CL nice person

El. A: Professor Chen passed away E2. B: I heard (the news) E3. Professor Chen was a very nice man This is only an apparent counterexample to our pragmatic apparatus, because the repetition of Chen Xiansheng 'Professor Chen' here is readily explainable in terms of politeness: 'Personal pronouns should be avoided in the most respectful conversations. Where they could have occurred, it would be better to use respectful forms of address instead' (Wang 1985[1943]: 282) (my translation). Thus, although ta may just as well be used at line C3, it is less respectful than Chen Xiansheng, hence the repetition of the latter. Notice that as Brown & Levinson (1987: 5) have pointed out, a pragmatic theory of the Gricean sort defines an 'unmarked' or socially neutral presumptive framework for rational co-operation in communication. The basic assumption is 'Don't deviate from rational efficiency without a reason'. Politeness considerations are, however, one of the principled reasons for such a deviation. Therefore, politeness may be seen as being implicated in the classical way, with maximum theoretical parsimony, from the Gricean pragmatic apparatus on this view. For more discussion, see Brown & Levinson (1987). 13 It is interesting to note that on Fox's (1987) analysis, anaphoric production in English conversation is largely determined and itself determines the hierarchical structure of conversation. She (1987: 18-19) sets up the basic distributional pattern of anaphora in English conversation as follows.

Notes to pages 248-260 (i)

8

297

The basic distributional pattern of anaphora in English conversation (a) the first mention of a referent in a sequence is done with a full NP, (b) after the first mention of a referent, a pronoun is used to display an understanding of the sequence as not yet closed, (c) a full NP is used to display an understanding of the preceding sequence containing other mentions of the same referent as closed.

Anaphoric resolution in conversation 1

This is not to say that lexical repetition does not occur in cases where the antecedent of an anaphoric expression is in the 'unmarked', corresponding position of the immediately prior utterance. An example of repetition of this kind can be found in (8.9): the antecedent of the zero anaphor at line C12 is the subject of the immediate preceding utterance, and yet nearly all the lexical items used in that utterance are repeated at the current line. The point to note is, however, that in these 'unmarked' cases, lexical repetition is not a technique specially designed to indicate where the default antecedent can be located. 2 This seems to collaborate with the findings reported in some psycholinguistics literature (e.g. Tyler & Marslen-Wilson 1982). 9

Conclusions 1

Cf. Kant's original apothegm from Critique of pure reason: 'Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind.' 2 Cf. Givon's (1979: 98) list of 'syntactic' versus 'pragmatic' modes of communication, which is presented as follows. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

(v)

(vi) (vii)

Pragmatic mode topic-comment structure loose conjunction slow rate of delivery word-order is governed mostly by one PRAGMATIC principle: old information goes first, new information follows roughly one-to-one ratio of verbs-to-nouns in discourse, with the verbs being semantically simple no use of grammatical morphology prominent intonation-stress marks the focus of new information; topic intonation is less prominent

Syntactic mode subject-predicate structure tight subordination fast rate of delivery word-order is used to signal SEMANTIC case-functions (though it may also be used to indicate pragmatic-topicality relations) a large ratio of nouns-over-verbs in discourse, with the verbs being semantically complex elaborate use of grammatical morphology very much the same, but perhaps not exhibiting as high a functional load, and at least in some languages totally absent

See also Tai (1985) for the iconicity of word order in Chinese.

298

Notes to pages 260-262

3 In fact, even some GB theorists are worried about the current proliferation of UG parameters. Newmeyer (1991: 224), for example, rightly warns: 'In [the] worst-case scenario, the amount of parametric variation postulated among languages and the number of possible settings for each parameter would grow so large that the term "parameter" would end up being nothing but jargon for language-particular rule. In this scenario, as many different parameters and parameter-settings would be needed as there are construction-types in language. Thus doing GB would become nothing more than listing a set of "parameters", each one a description of a recalcitrant fact in some language.' 4 It is of some interest to note that Chomsky (1991a: 15) does not think that there is an 'innateness hypothesis' which is defined in general terms. 5 I agree with Hawkins (1988a, 1989) that there is a premature leap from UG to innateness. This is due at least in part to the fact that GB theorists are often driven to data by the assumption that only arbitrary universals are theoretically interesting. As a consequence, there is a general tendency in GB to accept as supporting evidence those data that are in line with assumptions about UG and innateness but to reject those that are not. 6 There is also what Chomsky has labelled Orwell's problem. But from a linguistic point of view, Orwell's problem seems to be less interesting. 7 More recently, Chomsky (1991b, c) has argued that both derivations and representations are subject to a kind of 'least effort' guideline: there are no superfluous steps in derivations and there are no superfluous symbols in representations (cf. the Principle of Full Interpretation). The economy of derivations and representations is linked to some notion of cost in relation to, among other things, UG principles and language-specific rules. UG principles are less costly than language-particular rules, therefore, they obtain wherever possible, with language-specific rules employed only if they are not applicable. Chomsky considers the least effort' principle of this kind specific to the human language faculty, but it is not hard to see that it is another instantiation of the more general I-principle. 8 An interesting question arises whether there is a pragmatic module or not. Answers to questions like this (and many others) await, of course, a fuller understanding of how language is put to use, nevertheless, it is reasonable to suppose that if a module is an input system which is structurally autonomous, informationally encapsulated and cognitively impenetrable (Fodbr 1983) (cf. note 3 of chapter 1), then pragmatics does not seem to constitute such a module. For further discussion, see Harnish & Farmer (1984), Horn (1992) and especially Kasher (1990, 1991a).

References

Adams, M. (1987). From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 1-32 Adler, J. E. et al. (1987). Open peer commentary on D. Sperber & D. Wilson, Relevance: communication and cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 10. 710-36 Afarli, T. & Creider, C. (1987). Nonsubject pro-drop in Norwegian. Linguistic Inquiry 18. ^ 3 9 ^ 5 Allterton, D. J. (1978). The notion of 'givenness' and its relations to presupposition and to theme. Lingua 44. 133-68 Anderson, S. R. (1986). The typology of anaphoric dependencies: Icelandic (and other) reflexives. In Hellan & Christensen (eds.). 65-88 Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.) (1973). A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Andrews, A. (1985). The major functions of the noun phrases. In Shopen (ed.). vol. 1. 62-154 Aoun, J. (1985). A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Aoun, J., Hornstein, N., Lightfoot, D. & Weinberg, A. (1987). Two types of locality. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 539-77 Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge Arnold, D., Atkinson, M., Durand, J., Grover, C. & Sadler, L. (eds.) (1989). Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press Atkinson, J. M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: the organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1984). Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Atkinson, M. (1992). Children's syntax: an introduction to principles and parameters theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Atlas, J. D. (1989). Philosophy without ambiguity: a logico-linguistic essay. Oxford: Clarendon Press Atlas, J. D. & Levinson, S. C. (1981). //-clefts, informativeness and logical form: radical pragmatics. In Cole (ed.). 1-61 Auer, J. C. P. (1984). Referential problems in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 8. 627-48 Authier, J.-M. P. (1988). Null object constructions in KiNande. Natural Language 299

300

References

and Linguistic Theory 6. 19-37 (1989). Arbitrary null objects and unselective binding. In Jaeggli & Safir (eds.). 45-67 (1992). A parametric account of V-governed arbitrary null arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 345-74 Avramides, A. (1989). Meaning and mind. Cambridge: MA. The MIT Press Bach, E. (1979). Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry. 10. 525-31 Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.) (1968). Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Bach, E. & Partee, B. (1980). Anaphora and semantic structure. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago Linguistic Society. 1-28 Bar-Hillel, Y. (ed.) (1964). Language and information. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley Bar-Hillel, Y. & Carnap, R. (1964). An outline of a theory of semantic information. In Bar-Hillel (ed.). 221-74 Barss, A. (1986). Chains and anaphoric dependence. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Battistella, E. (1985). On the distribution of PRO in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 317-40 (1989). Chinese reflexivization: a movement to INFL approach. Linguistics 27. 987-1012 Battistella, E. & Xu, Y. H. (1990). Remarks on the reflexive in Chinese. Linguistics 28. 205^0 Beaugrande, R. de. (1980). Text, discourse and process: toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. London: Longman (1984). Text production: toward a science of composition. Norwood: Ablex Beaugrande, R. de & Dressier, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text Linguistics. London: Longman Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and 0-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291-352 Benedicto, E. (1991). Latin long-distance anaphora. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 171-84 Bever, T., Katz, J. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds.) (1976). An integrated theory of linguistic ability. New York: T. Y. Crowell Bickerton, D. (1987). He himself, an anaphor, pronoun, or . . . Linguistic Inquiry 18. 345-8 Boer, S. & Lycan, W. (1973). Invited inferences and other unwelcome guests. Papers in Linguistics 6. 483-506 Bok-Bennema, R. (1984). On marked pronominal anaphors and Eskimo pro. In Gueron, Obenauer & Pollock (eds.). 1-18 Bolinger, D. (1979). Pronouns in discourse. In Givon (ed.). 289-309 Borer, H. (1989). Anaphoric Agr. In Jaeggli & Safir (eds.). 69-109 Bosch, P. (1983). Agreement and anaphora. London: Academic Press Bouchard, D. (1984). On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris (1989). Null objects and the theory of empty categories. In Kirschner & DeCesaris (eds.). 33-49

References

301

Bremen, K. von (1984). Anaphors: reference, binding and domains. Linguistic Analysis 14. 191-229 Bresnan, J. (1982a). Control and complementation. In Bresnan (ed.). 282-390 (ed.) (1982b). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Bright, W. (ed.) (1992). International encyclopaedia of linguistics. 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press Brody, M. (1984). On contextual definitions and the role of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 355-80 Brown, C. (1983). Topic continuity in written English narrative. In Givon (ed.). 313-42 Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Burton-Roberts, N. (1984). Modality and implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 181-206 Burzio, L. (1989). On the non-existence of disjoint reference principles. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 14. 3-27 (1991). The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27. 81-105 Campos, H. (1986a). Indefinite object drop. Linguistic Inquiry. 17. 354-9 (1986b). Complementos directos indefinidos en romance. Revista de Linguistica Teorica y Aplicada 24. 81-90 Cantrall, W. R. (1973). Why I would relate own, emphatic reflexives, and intensive pronouns, my own self. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 9. 57-67 (1974). Viewpoint, reflexives and the nature of noun phrases. The Hague: Mouton Carden, G. (1982). Backwards anaphora in discourse context. Journal of Linguistics. 18, 361-87 Carter, D. (1987). Interpreting anaphors in natural language texts. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li (ed.). 25-55 (ed.) (1980). The pear stories: cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood: Ablex Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: California University Press Charniak, E. (1972). Towards a model of children's story comprehension. MS. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Chen, P. (1984). A discourse analysis of third person zero anaphora in Chinese. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (1986). Referent introducing and tracking in Chinese narrative. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles Cheng, L. & Ritter, E. (1988). A small clause analysis of inalienable possession in Mandarin and French. Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society

302

References

18. 65-78 Chierchia, G. (1983). Outline of a semantic theory of (obligatory) control. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2. 19-31 (1989). Structural meanings, thematic roles and control. In Chierchia, Partee & Turner (eds.). 131-66 Chierchia, G., Partee, B. & Turner, R. (eds.) (1989). Properties, types and meaning vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Chomsky, N. (1980a). Rules and representations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (1980b). On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 1-46 (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris (1982a). On the generative enterprise: a discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris (1982b). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (1986a). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: the Managua Lectures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (1991a). Linguistics and adjacent fields: a personal view. In Kasher (ed.). 1-25 (1991b). Linguistics and cognitive science: problems and mysteries. In Kasher (ed.). 26-53 (1991c). Some notes on ecomony of derivation and representation. In Freidin (ed.). 417-54 Chung, S. (1984). Identifiability and null objects in Chamorro. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 116-30 (1989). On the notion of 'null anaphor' in Chamorro. In Jaeggli & Safir (eds.). 143-84 Chung, S. & McCloskey, J. (1987). Government, barriers, and small clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry, 18. 173-237 Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Clark, H. H. & Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contrast. In Freedle (ed.). 1-40 Clark, H. H. & Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, Webber & Sag (eds.). 10-63 Clements, G. N. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 2. 141-77 Cole, P. (ed.) (1978). Syntax and semantics 9: pragmatics. London: Academic Press (ed.) (1981). Radical pragmatics. London: Academic Press (1987). Null objects in universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 597-612 Cole, P., Hermon, G. & Sung, L-M. (1990). Principles and parameters of longdistance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 1-22 Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.) (1975). Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts. London: Academic Press Comrie, B. (1984). Subject and object control: syntax, semantics, pragmatics.

References

303

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 450-64 (1989a[1981]). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (1989b). Some general properties of reference-tracking systems. In Arnold et al. (eds.). 37-51 Contreras, H. (1984). A note on parasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 698-701 Cooper, R. (1979). The interpretation of pronouns. In Heny & Schnelle (eds.). 61-92 Cornish, F. (1986). Anaphoric relation in English and French: a discourse perspective. London: Croom Helm Cowan, J. R. (1980). The significance of parallel function in the assignment of intrasentential anaphora. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago Linguistic Society. 110-24 Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical universals. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Culicover, P. W. & Wilkins, W. (1986). Control, PRO, and the projection principle. Language 62. 120-53 Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds.) (1972). Semantics of natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ding, S. S. et al. (1981). Xiandai Hanyu yufa jianghua (Lectures on Modern Chinese grammar). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.) (1976). Grammatical categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Donnellan, K. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75. 281-304 (1978). Speaker reference, descriptions, and anaphora. In Cole (ed.). 47-68 Dowty, D. R. (1980). Comments on the paper by Bach and Partee. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago Linguistic Society. 29-40 (1985). On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 1-41 Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1993). Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Du Bois, J. (1980). Beyond definiteness: the trace of identify in discourse. In Chafe (ed.). 203-74 Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann Edmondson, J. A. & Plank, F. (1978). Great expectations: an intensive self analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 2. 373—413 Engdahl, E. (1983). Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 5-34 Epstein, S. D. (1983). A note on functional determination and strong crossover. The Linguistic Review 3. 299-305 Erkii, K. & Gundel, J. (1987). The pragmatics of indirect anaphors. In Verschueren & Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). 533-45

304

References

Evans, G. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 337-62 Everaert, M. (1986). The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris (1991). Contextual determination of the anaphor/pronominal distinction. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 77-118 Faltz, K. M. (1985). Reflexivization: a study in universal syntax. New York: Garland Farkas, D. F. (1988). On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 27-58 Farmer, A. K. & Harnish, R. M. (1987). Communicative reference with pronouns. In Verschueren & Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). 547-65 Farrell, P. (1990). Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 325^6 (1992). Null noun complements in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 147-56 Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structures. Linguistic Inquiry 6. 353-57 (1985). Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach & Harms (eds.). 1-88 Firbas, J. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Fornel, M. de (1987). Reference to persons in conversation. In Verschueren & Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). 131-40 Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Freedle, R. (ed.) (1977). Discourse production and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Freidin, R. (ed.) (1991). Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Fukui, N. (1984). Studies in Japanese anaphora. MS. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gao, M. K. (1986[1948]). Hanyu yufa lun (On Chinese grammar). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition and logical form. London: Academic Press Gazdar, G. & Good, D. (1982). On a notion of relevance. In Smith (ed.). 88-100 Geis, M. & Zwicky, A. (1971). On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 561-66 Geluykens, R. (1991). The pragmatics of discourse anaphora in English: evidence from conversational repair. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge George, L. & Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Heny (ed.). 105-27 Gilligan, G. M. (1987). A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Ph.D dissertation. University of Southern California Giorgi, A. (1983). Towards a theory of long distance anaphors: a GB approach. The Linguistic Review 3. 307-61 (1991). Prepositions, binding and 9-marking. In Koster & Reuland (eds.).

References

305

185-208 Givon, T. (1979a). From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. In Givon (ed.). 81-112 (1979b). Syntax and semantics 12: discourse and syntax. London: Academic Press (ed.) (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (1985). Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Haiman (ed.). 187-219 Godard, D. (1989). Empty categories as subjects of tensed Ss in English or French? Linguistic Inquiry 20. 497-506 Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in Society 5. 257-313 Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 66. 377-88 (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole & Morgan (eds.). 41-58 (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole (ed.). 113-28 (1982). Meaning revisited. In Smith (ed.). 223-43 (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Grober, W., Beardsley, W. & Caramazza, A. (1978). Parallel function strategy in pronoun assignment. Cognition 11. 1-27 Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T. & Stokhof, M. (eds.) (1982). Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum Gueron, J. (1984). Inalienable possession, PRO inclusion and lexical chains. In Gueron, Obenauer & Pollock (eds.). 43-86 Gueron, J., Obenauer, H.-G & Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.) (1984). Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. H. (eds.) (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Gundel, J. K. (1980). Zero NP-anaphora in Russian: a case of topic-prominence. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago Linguistic Society. 139-46 Gunderson, K. (ed.) (1975). Language, mind and knowledge. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press Haas, W. (1972). Meanings and rules. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 135-55 Haegeman, L. (1990). The nonovert subject in diary contexts. In Mascaro & Nespor (eds.). 167-74 Hagege, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 69. 287-310 Haiman, J. (1985a). Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (ed.) (1985b). Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Haiman, J. & Munro, P. (eds.) (1983). Switch-reference and universal grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Hakulinen, A. (1987). Avoiding personal reference in Finnish. In Verschueren & Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). 141-53

306

References

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 393^28 Harnish, R. M. (1976). Logical form and implicature. In Bever, Katz & Langendoen (eds.). 313-92 Harnish, R. & Farmer, A. (1984). Pragmatics and the modularity of the linguistic system. Lingua 63. 255-77 Hasegawa, N. (1984). On the so-called 'zero pronouns' in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 4. 289-341 Hashemipour, M. (1988). Finite control in Modern Persian. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7. 115-28 Hausser, R. (1979). How do pronouns denote? In Heny & Schnelle (eds.). 93-139 Haviland, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 13. 512-21 Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness^and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm (1988a). Explaining language universals. In Hawkins (ed.). 3-28 (ed.) (1988b). Explaining language universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (1989). Competence and performance in the explanation of language universals. In Arnold et al. (eds.). 119-52 Heim, I., Lasnik, H. & May, R. (1991). Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 63-101 Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hiinnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Hellan, L. (1988). Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris (1991). Containment and connectedness anaphors. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 27-48 Hellan, L. & Christensen, K. Koch (eds.) (1986). Topics in Scandinavian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel Heny, F. (ed.) (1981). Binding and filtering. London: Croom Helm Heny, F. & Schnelle, H. (eds.) (1979). Syntax and semantics 10. Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table. New York: Academic Press Hermon, G. (1985). Syntactic modularity. Dordrecht: Foris Hermon, G. & Yoon, J. (1989). The licencing and identification of pro and the typology of Agr. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 25. 174-92 Hestvik, A. (1992). LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 557-94 Higginbotham, J. (1983). Logical form, binding and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 395-420 (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 547-93 Hinds, J. (ed.) (1978). Anaphora in discourse. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc. Hintikka, J. & Kulas, J. (1985). Anaphora and definite descriptions: two applications of Game-Theoretical Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel Hintikka, J. & Sandu, G. (1991). On the methodology of Linguistics. Oxford: Basil

References

307

Blackwell Hirschbuhler, P. (1989). On the existence of null subjects in embedded clauses in Old and Middle French. In Kirschner & DeCesaris (eds.). 155-75 Hirst, G. (1981). Anaphora in natural language understanding: a survey. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Hofstadter, D., Clossman, G. & Meredith, M. (1982). Shakespeare's plays weren't written by him but by someone else of the same name: an essay on intentionality and frame-based knowledge representation systems. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club Holdcroft, D. (1987). Conversational relevance. In Verschueren & BertuccelliPapi (eds.). 477-95 Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD. dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin (ed.). 11-42 (1988). Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer (ed.) vol. 1. 113-45 (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (1992). Pragmatics, implicature, and presupposition. In Bright (ed.). vol. 1. 260-6 Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (1987). Predication and PRO. Language 63. 23-52 Horrocks, G. (1987). Generative grammar. London: Longman Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983). A note on the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 554-61 (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 531-74 (1987). Remarks on empty categories in Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 321-37 (1989). Pro-drop in Chinese: a generalized control theory. In Jaeggli & Safir (eds.). 185-214 (1991). Remarks on the status of the null object. In Freidin (ed.). 56-76 Huang, C.-T. J. & Tang, C.-C. J. (1989). The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistics Society 19 (1991). The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 263-82 Huang, Y. (1984). Lexical cohesion in English and Chinese. MA thesis. University of Nanking (1985). Shilun Yingyu zhuwei he shuwei (On theme-rheme in English). Waiguoyu 1985(5). 32-36 (1986). Lexical reiteration in Modern Standard Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association 21. 72-91 (1987). Zero anaphora in Chinese: toward a pragmatic analysis. Cambridge College Research Fellowship Competition dissertation (1989). Anaphora in Chinese: towards a pragmatic analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge (1991a). A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27. 301-35

308

References

(1991b). A pragmatic analysis of control in Chinese. In Verschueren (ed.). 113-45 (1991c). Review of H. Lasnik, Essays on anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27. 228-33 (1992a). Against Chomsky's typology of empty categories. Journal of Pragmatics 17. 1-29 (1992b). Hanyu de kongfanchou (Empty categories in Chinese). Zhongguo Yuwen 1992(5). 383-93 (1992c). Review of Y. A. Li, Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Linguistics 28. 251-6 (1993). Review of J. Hintikka & Sandu, G., On the methodology of linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 19. 487-93 Hyams, N. M. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel (1989). The null subject parameter in language acquisition. In Jaeggli & Safir (eds.). 215-38 Hyams, N. M. & Sigurjonsdottir, S. (1990). The development of 'long-distance anaphora': a cross-linguistic study with special reference to Icelandic. Language Acquisition 1. 57-93 Hyman, L. & Comrie, B. (1981). Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 3. 19-37 Iatridou, S. (1986). An anaphor not bound in its governing category. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 766-72 Iida, M. (1991). Context and binding in Japanese. MS. Stanford University Iida, M., Wechsler, S. & Zee, D. (eds.) (1987). Working papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure: interaction of morphology and discourse. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Iwakura, K. (1985). The binding theory and PRO. Linguistic Analysis 15. 29-55 Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 369-411 Jaeggli, O. A. (1982). Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Jaeggli, O. A. & Safir, K. J. (1989a). The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In Jaeggli & Safir (eds.). 1^4 (eds.) (1989b). The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer Jaeggli, O. A. & Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds.) (1986). Studies in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L. & Sag, I. A. (eds.) (1981). Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Kameyama, M. (1984). Subjective/logophoric bound anaphor zibun. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 20. 228-38 Kamp, H. (1982). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, Janssen & Stokhof (eds.). 277-321 Kang, B.-M (1988). Unbounded reflexives. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 415-56

References

309

Kaplan, R. M. & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-Functional Grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan (ed.). 173-281 Kasher, A. (1976a). Conversational maxims and rationality. In Kasher (ed.). 197-216 (ed.) (1976b). Language in focus: foundations, methods and systems. Dordrecht: Reidel (1990). On the pragmatic modules. Journal of Pragmatics 16. 381-97 (1991a). Pragmatics and Chomsky's research program. In Kasher (ed.). 122^49 (ed.) (1991b). The Chomskyan Turn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Katada, F. (1991). The LF representation of anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 287-313 Keenan, E. L. (1988). On semantics and the binding theory. In Hawkins (ed.). 105-44 Kempson, R. (1984a). Anaphora, the compositionality requirement and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistics Society 14. 183-206 (1984b). Pragmatics, anaphora and logical form. In Schiffrin (ed.). 1-10 (1988a). Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer (ed.). vol. 2. 139-63 (1988b). Logical form: the grammar cognition interface. Journal of Linguistics 24. 393-431 (1988c). On the grammar-cognition interface: the principle of full interpretation. In Kempson (ed.). 199-224 (ed.) (1988d). Mental representations: the interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Kiparsky, P. (1973). 'Elsewhere' in phonology. In Anderson & Kiparsky (eds.). Kirschner, C. & DeCesaris, J. (eds.) (1989). Studies in Romance linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D. (1982). Variables and the bijection principle. The Linguistic Review 2. 139-63 (1989). Pronouns, logical variables and logophoricity in Abe. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 555-89 Koster, J. (1984a). On binding and control. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 417-59 (1984b). Reflexives in Dutch. In Gueron, Obenauer & Pollock (eds.). 141-67 (1987). Domains and dynasties: the radical autonomy of syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Koster, J. & May, R. (1982). On the constituency of infinitives. Language 58. 116-43 Koster, J. & Reuland, E. (eds.) (1991). Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Kratochvil, P. (1986). Subject or topic? Extreme-orient Extreme-occident: Cahiers de Recherches Comparatives 8. 269-320 Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Kuno, S. (1972a). Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 161-95

310

References

(1972b). Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 269-320 (1987). Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Kuno, S. & Kaburaki, E. (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 627-72 Kuroda, S.-Y. (1973). On Kuno's direct discourse analysis of the Japanese reflexive zibun. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 2. 136-47 Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In Haiman (ed.). 109-50 Larson, R. (1991). Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 103-39 Lasnik, H. (1989). Essays on anaphora. Dordrecht: Kluwer (1991). On the necessity of binding conditions. In Freidin (ed.) 7-28 Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1984). On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 235-89 Lebeaux, D. (1983). A distributional difference between reciprocals and reflexives. Linguistics Inquiry 14. 723-30 Leech, G. N. (1981). Explorations in semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman Lees, R. & Klima, E. (1963). Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39. 17-28 Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1987a). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren & Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). 61-129 (1987b). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of Binding and Control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23. 379^34 (1989). Review of D. Sperber & D. Wilson, Relevance: communication and cognition. Journal of Linguistics 25. 455-72 (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27. 107-61 Li, C. N. (ed.). (1976). Subject and topic. London: Academic Press (1992). Chinese. In Bright (ed.). Vol. 1. 257-63 Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Li (ed.). 457-98 (1979). Third-person pronoun and zero anaphora in Chinese discourse. In Givon(ed.). 311-35 (1981). Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: California University Press Li, R. J. (1984). Guanyu ziji yiji you ziji goucheng de jiegou (On ziji and constructions with ziji). Zhongguo Yuwen. 1984(2). 102-27 Li, Y. A. (1990). Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer

References

311

Liang, T. (1986). Clause linkage and zero anaphora in Mandarin Chinese. University of California at Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 36-102 Liao, Q. Z. (1984). Xiandai Hanyu zhong dongci zhipei chengfen de shengliie (The omission of the dependent elements of the verb in Modern Chinese). Zhongguo Yuwen. 1984(4). 241^7 Lilje, G. (1972). Uninvited inferences. Linguistics Inquiry 3. 540-2 Lillo-Martin, D. (1986). Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 415-44 Liu, F. S. (1981). Zero-anaphora in Mandarin Chinese. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 17. 197-204 Lord, C. (1976). Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: from verb to complementizer in Kwa. Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society. 179-91 Lii, S. X. et al. (1980). Xiandai Hanyu babai ci (A dictionary of eight hundred words in Modern Chinese). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan (1983). Lii Shuxiang yuwen lunji. (Lii Shuxiang: essays on the Chinese Language). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan (1986[1942]). Zhongguo wenfa yaolue (Essentials of Chinese grammar). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan Lust, B. (1986a). Introduction. In Lust (ed.) vol. 1. 3-106 (ed.) (1986b). Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. 2 vols. Dordrecht: Reidel Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1979). Deixis and anaphora. In Myers (ed.). 88-103 (1981). Language and linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Macleod, N. (1984). More on background anaphora and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 8. 321-7 Maling, J. (1984). Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 211-41 Maling, J. & Zaenen, A. (ed.) (1990). Syntax and semantics 24: Modern Icelandic syntax. New York: Academic Press Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical Structure Theory: a theory of text organization. In Polanyi (ed.). Manzini, M. R. (1983). On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 421-46 Manzini, M. R. & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 413^44 Marshall, J. C. (1984). Multiple perspectives on modularity. Cognition 17. 209-42 Martinet, A. (1962). A functional view of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press Mascaro, J. & Nespor, M. (eds.) (1990). Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris Massam, D. (1992). Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics 28. 115-37 Massam, D. & Roberge, Y. (1989). Recipe context null objects in English. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 134-39 Matthews, P. H. (1979). Generative grammar and linguistic competence. London:

312

References

George Allen & Unwin May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology May, R. (1985). Logical form, its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press McCawley, J. D. (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Cole (ed.). 245-59 McCloskey, J. D. (1988). Syntactic theory. In Newmeyer (ed.). vol. 1. 18-59 McCloskey, J. D. & Hale, K. (1983). On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 487-534 McCray, A. (1980). The semantics of backward anaphora. Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistics Society 10, 329—44 McGann, W. & Schwartz, A. (1988). Main character in children's narrative. Linguistics 26. 215-33 McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: the extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill Mittwoch, A. (1983). Backward anaphora and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 1. 129-39^ Moerman, M. (1977). The preference for self-correction in Tai conversational corpus. Language 53. 872-82 Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Grammatical relations and anaphora in Malayalam. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 5. 163-90 (1983). Functional and anaphoric control. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 641-7 Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding: on the interpretation of pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Morgan, J. L. (1970). On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 6. 380-9 Myers, T. (ed.) (1979). The development of conversation and discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Nakamura, M. (1986). Japanese as a pro language. The Linguistic Review 6. 281-96 Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.) (1988). Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1991). Rules and principles in the historical development of generative syntax. In Kasher (ed.). 200-30 Nishigauchi, T. (1984). Control and the thematic domain. Language 60. 215-50 Nunberg, G. (1981). Validating pragmatic explanations. In Cole (ed.). 199-222 O'Connor, C. (1987). Disjoint reference and pragmatic inference. MS. University of California at Los Angeles. O'Hair, S. G. (1969). Meaning and implication. Theoria 35. 38-54 Okamoto, S. (1981). The notion of givenness and the use of pronouns and ellipsis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1. 222-35 Ouhalla, J. (1988). A note on bound pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 485-94 Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston

References

313

Pesetsky, D. (1987). Binding problems with experiencer verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 126-40 Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1987). The theory of empty categories and the prodrop parameter in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics 23. 289-318 Pica, P. (1984). Subject, tense and truth: towards a modular approach to binding. In Gueron, Obenauer & Pollock (eds.). 259-91 (1987). On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. Proceedings of the NorthEastern Linguistics Society 17 (1991). On the interaction between antecedent-government and binding: the case of long-distance reflexivization. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 119-35 Pingkarawat, N. (1985). Distribution and reference of empty pronouns in Thai. MS. University of Illinois Platzack, D. (1987). The Scandinavian languages and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 377-401 Polanyi, L. (ed.) (1987). The structure of discourse. Norwood: Ablex Pollard, C. & Sag, I. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 261-303 Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson (1973). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press Postal, P. (1971). Cross-over phenomenon. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole (ed.). 223-55 Progovac, L. (1992). Relativized SUBJECT: long-distance reflexives without movement. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 671-80 Psathas, G. (ed.) (1979). Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Radford, A. (1981). Transformational syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1988). Transformational grammar: a first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ransom, E. N. (1988). The gramaticalization of complementizers. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 364-74 Raposo, E. (1986). On the null object in European Portuguese. In Jaeggli & SilvaCorvalan (eds.). 373-90 Reinders-Machowska, E. (1991). Binding in Polish. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 137-50 Reinhart, T. (1983a). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm (1983b). Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 47-88 (1986). Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In Lust (ed.). vol. 1. 123-50 Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1991). Anaphors and logophors: an argument perspective. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 283-321 Reuland, E. & Koster, J. (1991). Long distance anaphora: an overview. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 1-25

314

References

Riemsdijk, H. van & Williams, E. (1986). Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501-57 Roberge, Y. (1991). On the recoverability of null objects. In Wanner & Kibbee (eds.). 299-312 Roeper, T. & Williams, E. S. (eds.) (1987). Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel Ronat, M. (1982). Une solution pour un apparent contre-exemple a la theorie du liage. Lingvisticae Investigationes 6. 189-98 Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Ross, J. R. (1982). Pronoun deleting processes in German. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America Ruzicka, R. (1983). Remarks on control. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 309-24 Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In Gumperz & Hymes (eds.). 325-45 Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas (ed.). 15-21 Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50. 696-735 Sadock, J. M. (1978). On testing for conversational implicature. In Cole (ed.). 281-98 Safir, K. J. (1985). Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1987). Comments on Wexler and Manzini. In Roeper & Williams (eds.). 77-89 Sag, I. & Pollard, C. (1991). An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67. 63-113 Saito, M. & Hoji, H. (1983). Weak crossover and move a in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 245-60 Saleemi, A. P. (1992). Universal grammar and language learnability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Sampson, G. (1989). Review of J. Norman, Chinese. Journal of Linguistics 25. 229-35 Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Saxon, L. (1984). Control and agreement in Dogrib. Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. 128-39 (1986). The syntax of pronouns in Dogrib (Atabaskan): some theoretical consequences. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at San Diego Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In Sudnow(ed.). 75-119 (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In Givon (ed.). 261-86 Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for selfcorrection in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53. 361-82 Schenkein, J. (ed.) (1978). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction.

References

315

New York: Academic Press Schiffer, S. R. (1972). Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press Schiffrin, D. (ed.) (1984). Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press Schmerling, S. F. (1975). Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In Cole & Morgan (eds.). 211-32 Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Gunderson (ed.). 344-69 Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 445-79 Seuren, P. (1988). The self-styling of Relevance Theory. Journal of Semantics 5. 123-43 Shallice, T. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Shannon, T.F. (1987). Aspects of complementation and control in Modern German: the syntax and semantics of permissive verbs. Goppingen: Verlag Alfred Kummerle Shopen, T. (ed.) (1985). Language typology and syntactic description. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon (ed.). 112-71 Smith, N. V. (ed.) (1982). Mutual knowledge. London: Academic Press Solan, L. (1983). Pronominal reference: children language and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In Smith (ed.). 61-131 (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Sportiche, D. (1986). Zibun. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 369-74 Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In Davidson & Harman (eds.). 380-97 Steenbergen, M. van (1991). Long-distance binding in Finnish. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 231-44 Stirling, L. (1993). Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Strawson, P. (1964). Intension and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review 73. 439-60 Sudnow, D. (ed.) (1972). Studies in social action. New York: The Free Press Sufier, M. (1983). Proarh. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 188-91 Suner, M. & Yepez, M. (1988). Null definite objects in Quiteno. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 511-19 Sung, L.-M. & Cole, P. (1991). The effect of morphology on long-distance reflexives. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 19. 42-62 Tai, J. H.-Y. (1978). Anaphoric constraints in Mandarin Chinese narrative discourse. In Hinds (ed.). 279-338 (1985). Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. In Haiman (ed.). 49-72 Takami, K. I. (1987). Anaphora in Japanese: some semantic and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 169-91 Tang, C.-C. J. (1989). Chinese reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 93-121

316

References

Taraldsen, T. (1978). On the NIC, vacuous application, and the that-trace filter. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club Thomas, M. (1991). Universal grammar and the interpretation of reflexives in a second language. Language 67. 211-39 Thompson, S. (1973). On subjectless gerunds in English. The Foundations of Language 9. 374-83 Thrainsson, H. (1991). Long-distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 49-75 Toman, J. (1991). Anaphors in binding trees: an analysis of Czech reflexives. In Koster & Reuland (eds.). 151-70 Tsao, F. (1977). A functional study of topic in Chinese: the first step toward discourse analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California (1987). A topic-comment approach to the ba construction. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 15. 1-54 Tyler, L. K. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1982). The resolution of discourse anaphors: some on-line studies. Text 2. 263-91 Ueda, M. (1984). On Japanese reflexive zibun. MS. University of Massachusetts Valian, V. (1990). Null subjects: a problem for parameter-setting models of language acquisition. Cognition 35. 105-22 van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. London: Longman Van Valin, R. D. (1986). An empty category as the subject of a tensed S in English. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 581-6 (1987). Aspects of the interaction of syntax and pragmatics: discourse coreference mechanisms and the typology of grammatical systems. In Verschueren & Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). 513-31 Verschueren, J. (ed.) (1991). Levels of linguistic adaptation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Verschueren, J. & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds.) (1987). The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Vikner, S. (1985). Parameters of binder and binding category in Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 23 Wali, K. (1979). Two Marathi reflexives and the causative structure. Studies in Language 3. 405-38 Wang, J. L. & Stillings, J. T. (1984). Chinese reflexives. Proceedings of the First Harbin Conference on Generative Grammar. Harbin: Heilongjiang University Press. 100-9 Wang, L. (1984[1944]). Zhongguo yufa lilun (Theory of Chinese grammar). Jinan: Shangdon Jiaoyu Chubanshe (1985[1943]). Zhongguo xiandai yufa (Modern Chinese grammar). Jinan: Shangdon Jiaoyu Chubanshe Wanner, D. & Kibbee, D. A. (eds.) (1991). New analyses in Romance linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Wasow, T. (1986). Reflections on anaphora. In Lust (ed.). vol. 1. 107-22 Webber, B. L. (1979). A formal approach to discourse anaphora. New York:

Garland Westergaard, M. R. (1986). Definite NP anaphora: a pragmatic approach, Oslo:

References

317

Norwegian University Press Wexler, K. & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory. In Roeper & Williams (eds.). 41-76 Williams, E. (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 101-39 (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203-38 (1987). Implicit arguments, the binding theory, and control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 151-80 Wilt, van der K. (1985). Long distance anaphora in Dutch and Icelandic: a remark on learnability. Linguistic Analysis 15. 177-86 Wright, R. (1975). Meaning. nn and conversational implicature. In Cole & Morgan (eds.). 362-82 Xu, L. J. (1985). Towards a lexical-thematic theory of control. The Linguistic Review 5. 345-76 (1986). Free empty category. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 75-93 (1990a). Remarks on LF movement in Chinese questions. Linguistics 28. 355-82 (1990b). Are they parasitic gaps? In Mascaro & Nespor (eds.). 455-61 Xu, L. J. & Langendoen, D. T. (1985). Topic structures in Chinese. Language 61. 1-27 Yang, D.-W. (1983). The extended binding theory of anaphors. Language Research 19. 169-92 (1985). On the integrity of control theory. Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistics Society 15. 389^08 Yoon, J. (1985). On the treatment of empty categories in topic prominent languages. MS. University of Illinois Yoon, J. M. (1989). Long-distance anaphors in Korean and their cross-linguistic implications. Papers from the Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society 25. 479-95 Zagona, K. (1982). Government and proper government of verbal projections. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington at Seattle Zee, D. (1987). On obligatory control in clausal complements. In Iida, Wechsler & Zee (eds.). 139-68 Ziff, P. (1960). Semantic analysis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press (1967). On H. P. Grice's account of meaning. Analysis 28. 1-8 Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65. 695-727

Index of names

Adams, ML, 41 Adler, J. E., 264 Afarli, T., 48 Allerton, D. J., 226, 295 Anderson, S. R., 30, 88, 89, 276 Andrews, A., 58 Aoun, J., 24, 267 Ariel, M., 141, 169, 173, 174, 209, 225 Atkinson, J. M., 293 Atkinson, M., 35 Atlas, J. D., 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 120, 169, 282 Auer, J. C. P., 213, 293 Authier, J.-M. P., 46, 48, 267, 269, 270, 273 Avramides, A., 3 Bach, E., 58, 61, 66, 116, 149, 155, 285 Bar-Hillel, Y., 120 Barss, A., 56, 287 Battistella, E., 30-2, 75, 86, 89-90, 97-8, 101, 103-5, 107-8, 266, 279, 287 Beardsley, W., 247 Beaugrande, R. de, 209, 210 Belletti, A., 56, 103 Benedicto, E., 101 Bickerton, D., 86 Boer, S., 10 Bok-Bennema, R., 86 Bolinger, D., 201 Borer, H., 24, 31, 266, 272, 286 Bosch, P., 169 Bouchard, D., 24, 34, 80, 82, 84, 107, 273 Bremen, K. von, 82, 186 Bresnan, J., 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 74, 274 Brody, M , 51 Brown, C , 266 Brown, G., 226, 251, 295 Brown, P., 264, 296 Burton-Roberts, N., 283 Burzio, L., 24, 80, 97, 107, 108, 173, 281 Campos, H., 48 Cantrall, W. R., 186 Caramazza, A., 247

Carden, G., 174, 201 Carnap, R., 120 Carter, D., 15 Chafe, W. L., 46, 159, 163, 226, 294, 295 Chao, Y. R., 21, 61, 160, 161, 279 Charniak, E., 10 Chen, P., 228, 229, 294 Cheng, L., 270 Chierchia, G., 273, 274 Chomsky, R , 1-2, 18, 21-4, 26-7, 30, 32-8, 42, 44, 46, 50-2, 57-9, 69-70, 82, 86, 88, 101, 103, 105, 115, 129, 148, 172-3, 177, 200, 203, 204, 257-8, 261, 263, 266-7, 271, 278-81, 287, 292, 298 Christensen, K. Koch., 75 Chung, S., 24, 42, 45, 48, 51, 53, 270, 272 Clark, E. V., 295 Clark, H. H., 10, 163, 210, 295 Claudi, U., 185 Clements, G. N., 133, 185 Clossman, G., 293 Cole, P., 22, 45, 46, 48, 53, 54, 55, 75, 101, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 162 Comrie, B., 73, 150, 167, 185, 204, 261, 273, 274, 290 Contreras, H., 271 Cooper, B., 118 Cornish, F., 15 Cowan, J. R., 247 Creider, C , 48 Croft, W., 261 Culicover, P. W., 70, 73, 150, 272, 275 Descartes, 261 Ding, S. S., 61 Donnellan, K., 154, 291, 293 Dowty, D. R., 115, 116, 118, 121, 272 Dressier, W. U., 209, 210 Drew, P., 293 Du Bois, J., 204 Ducrot, O., 9 Edmondson, J. A., 133

319

320

Index of names

Engdahl, E., 271 Epstein, S. D., 51 Erkii, K., 169 Evans, G., 52, 118,200,201,202 Everaert, M., 31, 75, 82, 83, 86, 96, 101, 277, 278 Faltz, K. M.,75, 283, 290 Farkas, D. F., 58, 150, 154, 273 Farmer, A. K., 16, 124, 129, 298 Farrell, P., 48, 266, 269 Fauconnier, G., 9, 211 Fillmore, C , 69 Firbas, J., 295 Fodor, J. A., 5, 52, 263, 298 Foley, W. A., 71, 140, 141, 150, 152, 154, 161, 204 Fornel, M. de, 210, 211, 293 Fox, B. A., 204, 248, 296 Fukui, N., 84 Gao, M. K., 21, 279 Garrord, S. C , 119, 169, 295 Gazdar, G., 2, 7, 9, 13, 15, 141, 146, 264 Geis, M., 10 Geluykens, R., 209 George, L., 27 Gilligan, G. M., 33 Giorgi, A., 82, 89 Givon, T., 209, 225, 226, 263, 294, 297 Godard, D., 266 Goffman, E., 293 Good, D., 264 Goodwin, C , 293 Grice, H. P., 1, 3-7, 9-10, 15, 18, 72, 115, 118-20, 128-30, 145, 147-8, 172, 203^4, 226, 258, 263-4, 281 Grober, W., 247 Gueron, J., 270 Gundel, J., 21, 169 Haas, W., 10 Haegeman, L., 266 Hagege, C , 133, 185 Haiman, J., 204, 247, 259, 261, 263 Hakulinen, A., 293 Hale, K., 266 Halliday, M. A. K., 295 Hankamer, J., 116 Harnish, R. M., 3, 10, 16, 124, 129, 263, 282, 298 Hasan, R., 295 Hasegawa, R , 48, 266 Hashemipour, M., 272 Hausser, R., 118 Haviland, S. E., 10, 163, 295

Hawkins, J. A., 10, 260, 261, 290, 298 Hegel, 6 Heim, I. 278, Heine, B., 185 Hellan, L., 75, 80, 129, 134, 186, 275, 278, 281 Heritage, J., 293 Hermon, G., 22, 33, 35, 45, 75, 101, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 162, 173, 267, 268, 269 Hestvik, A., 101, 276 Higginbotham, J., 201, 287 Hintikka, J., 129, 186 Hirschbuhler, P., 42 Hirst, G., 15, 247 Hofstadter, D., 293 Hoji, H., 43 Holdcroft, D., 264 Horn, L. R., 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, 127-8, 154, 167, 263, 291, 293, 298 Hornstein, N., 24 Horrocks, G., 274 Huang, C.-T. J., 21-2, 24^40, 42, 44-8, 50-60, 63, 74-5, 87, 89, 91, 96, 101, 104, 107-8, 140, 169-73, 195, 260, 2657, 269-70, 280-1, 284 Huang, Y., 2, 15-16, 27, 75, 123-4, 128, 140, 146, 167, 186, 209, 249, 265, 293, 295 Humboldt, W. von, 261 Hiinnemeyer, F., 185 Hyams, N. M., 42, 75, 173, 267 Hyman, L., 185 Iatridou, S., 82, 83, 87, 278, 280 Iida, M., 272 Iwakura, K., 24, 266 Jackendoff, R., 69, 70 Jaeggli, O. A., 34, 35, 41, 42, 266, 267 Jefferson, G., 217, 234 Jespersen, O., 12, 34 Kaburaki, E., 186, 187 Kameyama, M., 80, 186 Kamp, H., 189 Kang, B.-M., 43, 94, 95, 280 Kant, L, 259, 297 Kaplan, R. M., 64 Kasher, A., 263, 298 Katada, F., 56, 75, 101, 108, 109, 110, 111 Keenan, E. L., 287 Kempson, R., 2, 118, 292 Kiparsky, P., 282, Klima, E., 281 Koopman, H., 49, 80 Kornfilt, J., 27

Index of names

321

Koster, J., 24, 61, 75, 83, 86, 95, 101, 272, 276 Kratochvil, P., 140, 160 Kuhn, T. S., 5 Kulas, J., 129, 186 Kuno, S., 2, 75, 107, 133, 179, 186, 187, 193, 194, 247, 278, 288, 295 Kuroda, S.-Y., 186

Meredith, M., 293 Mittwoch, A., 174, 201 Moerman, M., 217 Mohanan, K. P., 44, 58, 66, 68, 82, 86, 89, 99, 265, 267, 274 Montalbetti, M., 43, 173 Morgan, J. L., 291 Munro, P., 204

Langacker, R. W., 291 Langendoen, D. T., 49, 51, 140, 159, 169, 171, 188, 284 Larson, R., 61, 154,272-3 Lasnik, H., 31, 42, 45, 51, 200, 264-5, 270, 278, 291 Lebeaux, D., 101, 278 Leech, G. N., 5, 201, 209, 264 Lees, R., 281 Levelt, W. J. M., 217 Levinson, S. C , 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16, 75, 115, 118-21, 124, 126-8, 134, 141, 146, 165, 167, 169, 186, 198, 201-2, 259, 264, 272, 282-3, 293, 296 Li, C. N., 21, 28, 140-1, 159-63, 165, 167, 228-9, 286, 294 Li, R. J., 133 Li, Y. A., 39, 265 Liang, T., 175, 265 Liao, Q. Z., 249 Lightfoot, D., 24, 269-70 Lilje, G., 10 Lillo-Martin, D., 48 Liu, F. S., 136, 175 Lord, C , 185 Lu, S. X., 21, 202, 279 Lust, B., 1 Lycan, W., 10 Lyons, J., 15, 261, 264

Nakamura, M., 48, 54, 171 Newmeyer, F. J., 298 Nishigauchi, T., 35 Nunburg, G., 5

Macleod, N., 174 Maling, J., 75, 80, 186, 197 Mann, W. C , 286 Manzini, M. R., 24, 31, 35, 61, 75, 88-9, 92-5, 266, 276 Marshall, C , 210 Marshall, J. C , 263 Marslen-Wilson, W., 297 Martinet, A., 6 Massam, D., 270 Matthews, P. H., 259 May, R., 45, 108, 272, 278 McCawley, J. D., 12 McCloskey, J. D., 45, 95, 260, 266 McCray, A., 174, 201 McGann, W., 294 McLuhan, M., 21

O'Connor, C , 133, 186 O'Hair, S. G., 263 Okamoto, S., 295 Orwell, 298 Ouhalla, J., 43 Partee, B., 116 Perlmutter, D., 34 Pesetsky, D., 103 Philippaki-Warburton, I., 266, 272 Pica, P., 75, 101, 107 Pingkarawat, N., 48, 54 Plank, F., 133 Plato, 261 Platzack, C , 41 Pollard, C , 75, 79, 107, 150-2, 154, 273 Popper, K., 53, 120-1, 282 Postal, P., 49 Prince, E. F., 226, 247, 294 Progovac, L., 88 Radford, A., 28, 71, 150 Ransom, E. N., 185 Raposo, E., 48, 270 Reinders-Machowska, E., 96, 277 Reinhart, T., 2, 56, 75, 96, 101, 115-18, 121, 134, 174, 186, 201, 275, 277-8, 282 Reuland, E., 75, 96, 101, 134, 186, 275-8 Riemsdijk, H. van, 32 Ritter, E., 270 Rizzi, L., 34, 35, 38, 42, 46, 48, 56, 103, 266-9, 273 Roberge, Y., 48, 270 Ronat, M., 80 Rosembaum, P. S., 38, 59, 69, 272 Ross, J. R., 21 Ruzicka, R., 70-3, 150, 274-5, 286 Sacks, H., 10, 209, 210, 217, 221, 234, 293 Sadock, J. M., 3, 5 Safir, K., 35, 42, 107, 265, 266, 267, 275, 276, 278

322

Index of names

Sag, I., 75, 79, 107, 116, 150-2, 154, 273 Saito, M., 43, 45 Saleemi, A. P., 35 Sandu, G., 129, 185-6 Sanford, A. J., 119, 169,295 Saxon, L., 272 Schegloff, E. A., 209, 210, 217, 221, 234, 293, 296 Schenkein, J., 293 Schiffer, S. R., 3 Schmerling, S. F., 10 Schwartz, A., 294 Searle, J. R., 10, 152 Sells, P., 56, 75, 80, 133, 185-92, 194-5, 287-9 Seuren, P., 264 Shallice, T., 263 Shannon, T. F., 156 Sigurjonsdottir, S., 75 Silverstein, M , 140, 141 Solan, L., 247 Sperber, D., 5 Sportiche, D., 49, 80, 86, 280, 281 Stalnaker, R., 154 Steenbergen, M. van, 31, 101, 270 Stillings, J. T., 83, 86, 89-90 Stirling, L., 133, 185-7, 195, 204, 287-9 Strawson, P., 3 Suiier, M., 267 Sung, L.-M., 22, 45, 75, 101, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 162 Tai, J. H.-Y., 229, 294, 297 Takami, K. I., 209 Tang, C.-C. J., 75, 89, 93, 97-101, 104, 1078, 179, 196, 280-1, 289 Taraldsen, T., 34 Thomas, M., 75 Thompson, S., 21, 28, 140-1, 159-63, 165, 167, 228-9, 294 Thrainsson, H., 31, 83, 86, 275-6, 278, 288, 291 Toman, J., 290 Tsao, F., 45, 161, 165

Tyler, L. K., 297 Ueda, M., 84 Valian, V., 266 van Dijk, T., 249, 286 Van Valin, R. D., 71, 140, 141, 150, 152, 154, 161, 204, 266 Vikner, S., 276 Visser, F. Th., 273 Wali, K., 82 Wang, J. L., 83, 86, 89-90 Wang, L., 21, 130, 279, 296 Wasow, T., 1,15, 262 Webber, B. L., 15 Weinberg, A., 269 Westergaard, M. R., 226, 295 Wexler, K., 75, 88-9, 92-5, 276 Wilkins, W., 70, 73, 150, 272, 275 Williams, E., 32, 61, 116,272 Wilson, D., 5 Wright, R., 3 Xu, L. J., 43, 49, 51-2, 57, 62, 68, 104, 111, 140, 150-1, 157, 159, 163, 169, 171, 188, 265, 269, 270-2, 284, 286 Xu, Y. H., 75, 86, 88-90 Yang, D.-W., 34, 44, 83, 88, 267, 272, 276, 287 Yoon, J., 33, 35, 42, 48, 267-9 Yoon, J. M , 186, 190, 192-3, 288 Yule, G., 226, 251, 295 Zaenen, A., 75 Zagona, K., 267 Zee, D., 272 Ziff, P., 3, 72 Zipf, G. K., 6, 263 Zribi-Hertz, A., 75, 79, 107, 186, 289 Zwicky, A., 10

Index of languages

Icelandic, 42, 75, 92, 94, 95, 99, 107, 185, 186, 267, 275, 278, 287, 291 Igbo, 185, 287 Irish, 266, 267 Italian, 23, 26, 34, 36, 41, 43, 48, 75, 92, 95, 109, 185, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 273

African languages, 185 American Sign Language, 48 Arabic, 48 Australian languages, 283, 290 Austronesian languages, 283, 290 Chamorro, 48, 53, 272 Chinese, 1-2, 18, 21-2, 2^64, 66-9, 71-112, 115, 123-36, 138-40, 142-4, 147-9, 151-92, 195-261, 265-73, 276-97 Czech, 275

Japanese, 2, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 54, 92, 94, 95, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 133, 160, 171, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 267, 272, 280, 281

Danish, 41, 275, 291 Dogrib, 272 Dutch, 82, 109, 278 East Asian languages, 45, 160, 269 English, 2, 9-16, 23, 26, 3 3 ^ , 41, 48, 55-6, 70-1, 92, 107, 109, 116-17, 119, 121-2, 137-8, 142, 144, 150, 181, 185, 234, 248, 259-60, 266, 268, 270, 272-5, 277, 280-3, 290-3, 296 Irish English, 287 Ewe, 185, 287, 288, 289 Finnish, 293 French, 2, 26, 34, 48, 268, 273 Old French, 34, 41 German, 2, 26, 34, 42, 70, 213, 234, 267, 274, 275, 285, 290, 293 Bavarian German, 34 Gokana, 185 Greek, 82, 266, 272, 278, 280 Modern Greek, 82, 266, 272, 278, 280 Gumbaynggir, 290 Guugu Yimihirr, 272 Hatian Creole, 290 Hebrew, 266, 269 Modern Hebrew, 266, 269 Huichol, 290

KiNande, 48, 269, 270, 273 Korean, 2, 43, 44, 48, 54, 92, 94, 95, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 160, 162, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 267, 272, 280, 281, 286, 287, 288 Lahu, 160, 162 Lisu, 160, 162, 163 Malayalam, 44, 82, 83, 99, 265, 267 Mapun, 287 Marathi, 82 Mundang, 185, 287 Navajo, 272 Norwegian, 41, 48, 108, 109, 186, 275 Papiamentu, 34, 267 Pashto, 270 Persian, 272 Polish, 70, 276, 286 Portuguese, 26, 48, 54, 267, 268, 270 Brazilian Portuguese, 48, 54, 268 European Portuguese, 48, 270 Quechua, 48, 53, 269 Imbabura Quechua, 48, 53, 269 Russian, 70, 275, 285, 286

323

324

Index of languages

Scandinavian languages, 41, 267, 268, 275, 288 Insular Scandinavian, 267 Mainland Scandinavian, 41, 268, 275 Serbo-Croatian, 272 South East Asian languages, 160 Spanish, 26, 34, 43, 48, 267, 268 Swedish, 41

Tahitian, 290 Tai, 217 Tamil, 48, 273 Tarifit 43 . L -. ~ n n T, 1°**' 4 8 ' f' ^ Tubun ' 185' 2 8 7 Turkish, 133

Tagolog, 267

Vietnamese, 200, 269

Index of subjects

A-chains, 38-9 A-chains, 38-9 'A-first' analysis, 119-24, 283 'A-first' plus 'B-flrst' analysis, 127-8 A-position, 24, 279 A-position, 24, 48, 109, 279 A-repair, 217 Abbreviation, Law of, 263 'aboutness' hypothesis, 140, 284 accessibility, 30, 36, 38, 60, 89-95 adjacency pairs, 227 adverbial constructions, 136 Agr(eement), 33, 34, 35, 36, 104, 266-9 anaphora, 1-2, 15-18, 21-112, 115-298 backward, 174-5 bound-variable, 43, 56, 85, 117-18, 173-4, 177, 199-200, 202, 269, 278, 282, 292 definition of, 1, 15 discourse, 1, 83, 91, 94, 195, 204-34, 236-56, 260, 280 distributional pattern of, 208, 296-7 general pattern of, 16, 119-20 inferred, 169 intrasentential, 1, 15-203 neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of, 1-2, 15-18, 115-262, 283-4, 285-98 pragmatic analyses of, 1-2, 15-18, 115-262,283-4,285-98 pragmatic appratuses for, 16-17, 120, 144-5 properties of in Chinese, 257-8 semantic content hierarchy of, 16, 120, 213 typologies of, 15 zero, 21-74, 123-77, 204-34, 236-56, 264-75, 284-7 Anaphoric binding, 23, 26, 31-2, 78-111, 116-17, 121-2, 124-5, 266, 276, 278-80, 287 Anaphoric binding domain, 30-2, 83, 86-95, 103-4, 107, 117, 276 anaphoric distribution, 205-8, 293, 295-7

anaphoric production, 204-34 anaphoric resolution, 236-56 Anaphors, 2 2 ^ , 55-7, 79-88, 92, 95, 99-102, 107-11, 179-82, 275-9, 290 connectedness versus containment, 80, 129, 186 local versus long-distance, 76-8, 84-8, 99-102, 107-11, 179-82, 275-6, 279, 290 narrow versus wide domain, 82-4, 278 operator versus non-operator, 109-11 animacy condition, 76, 77, 99, 100, 131, 179-80, 294 animacy hierarchy, 100, 179-80 antecedent search procedure, 149-72, 178-99, 236 for reflexives, 178-99, 236 for zero anaphors, 149-72, 236 antilocality condition, 279-80 appropriateness, principle of, 209 arbitrary interpretation, 37, 43-4, 60, 62, 68, 87, 94,150, 152, 178, 181-2, 236, 267-8 arguments, 24, 268 aspect, 27-9, 265 attributive/referential distinction, 291, 293 Auditor's Economy, 6 autonomy of syntax hypothesis, 259 Aux(iliary), 27-9, 265 'Avoid Pronoun' Principle, 148, 172-7, 287 'avoid ambiguity' principle, 115-18, 209-10 'B-first' analysis, 124-7 Bach's Generalisation, 58, 61, 66-7, 149, 155-6, 285 background assumption, 7, 12, 15, 17, 21, 36, 58, 60, 62-3, 73, 9 3 ^ , 100, 103, 130, 137-8, 145-6, 152-5, 157, 1 6 3 ^ , 169, 171, 180, 182-4, 197, 271, 292 barriers, 104-7, 281 bijection principle, 49-50, 169 binding, 23, 26, 30-2, 43, 49, 52, 56, 76, 78-111, 116-18, 121-5, 129, 173-4,

325

326

Index of subjects

binding (cont'd) 177-82, 184-97, 199-202, 266, 269, 273-8, 282, 289-92 Anaphoric versus Pronominal, 23, 26, 31-2, 49, 52, 78-U1, 116-7, 121-2, 124-5, 129, 266, 273, 276, 278-80, 287, 290-1 bound-variable, 43, 56, 85, 117-18, 173-4, 177, 199-200, 202, 269, 278, 282, 292 definition of, 78 domain, 30-2, 83, 86-95, 103-^, 107, 117, 276 local versus long-distance, 76-78, 84-8, 99-102, 107-11, 179-82, 275-6, 279, 290 logophoric, 184-97, 289-90 quantifier-variable, 43, 56, 85, 117-18, 173-4, 177, 199-200, 202, 269, 278, 282, 292 binding condition A, 23, 26, 31-2, 78-111, 116-17, 121-2, 124-5, 266, 276, 278-80, 287 binding condition A', 266 binding condition B, 23, 26, 31-2, 49, 52, 78, 87, 116-17, 121-2, 129, 273, 276, 278-80, 290-1 binding condition C, 23, 52, 56, 122, 199-202, 278, 291 binding condition D, 82-84, 87, 278 binding theory, 24, 78, 266 generalised, 266 blocking categories, 105, 281 blocking effects, 76-7, 93, 97-9, 105, 196, 288-90 bound-variable anaphora, 43, 56, 85, 117-18, 173-4, 177, 199-200, 202, 269, 278, 282, 292 bound-variable binding, 43, 56, 85, 117-18, 173-4, 177, 199-200, 202, 269, 278, 282, 292 bound-variable interpretation, 43, 56, 85, 117-18, 1 7 3 ^ , 177, 199-200, 202, 269, 278, 282, 292 bridging inference, 10, 11, 163, 292 c-command, 59, 61, 77-9, 82, 96-7, 99-100, 117, 132, 179-81, 199, 201-2, 273, 280-2, 284 binding and, 77-9, 82, 96-7, 99-100, 117, 132, 179-81, 199, 201-2, 273, 280-2, 284 control and, 59, 61, 273 relaxation of, 96-7, 99-100, 132, 179-80, 273, 280-1 c-structure, 65

calculability, 5, 137 camera-angles, 187 cancellability, 4, 5, 137, 138 Case Filter, 33, 45 Case marking, 24, 31, 45 'Chinese-style' relative constructions, 169-72 'Chinese-style' topic constructions, 159-69 clarity, principle of, 209, 210 co-indexing rule, 70-1, 116-17, 174, 275, 282 communication, 297 syntactic versus pragmatic mode of, 297 competence, 260-1 Comp[lementiser], 25, 45-7, 117, 185-97, 270 complete functional complex (CFC), 88 conditional perfection, 10, 138 conjoinability principle, 228-33 conjunction buttressing, 10, 165 connectivity, 109-11 context, 52, 62, 98, 130, 137-8, 149, 152, 153, 1 6 3 ^ , 168, 177, 184, 264 and anaphora, 52, 62, 98, 149, 152-3, 163-4, 168, 184 default/unmarked versus specific/marked, 52, 130, 264 and implicature cancellation, 98, 137-8, 163-4, 168, 184 and implicature generalisation, 98, 137-8, 163-4, 168, 184 control, 25, 35-41, 58-74, 149-59, 272-5 anaphoric, 58, 64-9, 74, 274 complement, 58 definition of, 58 domain, 35-41, 49, 60-3 finite, 272, 273 functional, 58, 64-9, 74, 274 long-distance, 58-63, 149-59, 275 object, 58-73, 149-59, 273 properties of in Chinese, 58, 149 remote, 58-63, 149-59, 275 subject, 58-73, 149-59, 273 control constructions, 58-74, 149-59 Control Selection Features (CSFs), 151 control theory, 58-74, 149-59 generalised, 25 controller, 58-63, 149-59, 272-5 choice, 58-63, 149-59, 272 intrasentential, 58-63, 149-59, 212-A long-distance, 58-63, 149-59, 275 remote, 58-63, 149-59, 275 shift, 153-4 Controller Assignment Principle, 150, 151 conventionality, 5, 137 conversation, 204-56, 293-7

Index of subjects conversation, maxims of, 4 conversational implicature, 1-18, 115-262, 264, 282-5, 290 and anaphora, 115-262, 282-5, 290 consistency conditions on, 4, 5, 14, 15, 17, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 definition of, 4 generalised versus particularised, 4, 130, 264 and meaning. nn, 3, 137, 139, 176-7 projection of, 6-7, 13-15, 17, 126, 137-8, 141-3, 145, 164, 166,290 properties of, 4-5, 137 typologies of, 3-15 co-operative principle, 4 coreference, scale of, 151 correlative constructions, 136, 175-7 D-structure, 104, 272-3 de dicto/de re distinction, 293 defeasibility, 4, 5, 137, 138 definite descriptions, 210-13 deixis, 192 Descartes's problem, 261 detachability, 5, 137 discourse-oriented languages, 2, 21, 259-60, 269 discourse-semantic roles, 186-94, 287-8 Discourse Representation Structures (DRSs), 189-94, 287-8 Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), 189-94, 287-8 Disjoint Reference Presumption (DRP), 16-18, 115, 128-17, 148-9, 172, 204, 258, 283 distance-interference hypothesis, 225, 294 Diversification, Force of, 6 double-subject constructions, 159-69 E-language, 261 Economic Versatility, Principle of, 363 economy, principle of, 209-10 effectiveness, principle of, 209-10 efficiency, principle of, 209-10 'elsewhere' principle, 281-2 empathy, 187 emphaticness/contrastiveness, 133-4, 184, 197-9, 202, 228-30, 286 empty categories (ECs), 21-74, 264-75 definition of, 21 expletive, 23, 34, 42, 266-9 free (FECs), 271-2 functional versus inherent interpretation of, 50-1, 55-7 referential, 23

327

typologies of, 21-6, 264-5 Empty Category Principle (ECP), 23 empty operators, 22, 25-6, 44-7, 48, 266, 269, 280, 284 empty topics, 22, 25-6, 44-7, 48, 51-4, 266, 269, 280, 284 empty topic hypothesis, 22, 25-6, 44-7, 51-4, 266, 269, 280, 284 empty topic parameter, 22, 25-6, 44-7, 51-4, 266, 269, 280, 284 entailment, 15, 17, 120-1, 137, 139, 145-6 epithets, 270 empty, 270 Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions, 80 Exclusion Principle, 129 expectedness, 17, 133-4, 145, 184-99 expletives, 23, 34, 42, 266-9 Explicitness, submaxim of, 118 expression minimisation, 7, 263 Extended Projection Principle (EPP), 23 f-command, 66-9 f-structure, 64-9, 274 feature-copying rule, 96 finite/non-finite distinction, 25-33, 157-9, 265-6 non-existence of in Chinese, 27-33, 157-9, 265-6 Fodorian theory of cognitive modularity, 5, 52, 263, 298 frame-based inference, 10, 11 Free Empty Categories (FECs), 271-2 'frozen' pragmatics, 167, 259 Full Interpretation, Principle of, 298 Functional Control, Lexical Rule of (LRFC), 64, 66-8, 274 Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP), 295 Game-Theoretical Semantics (GTS), 129 gender system, 204 general discourse principle, 292-3 Generalised Control Rule (GCR), 25, 35-40, 48-9, 54, 59-63, 267-8, 273 Generalised Control Rule (GCR) parameter, 48, 54 given versus new information, 226, 294-5 'given-only' hypothesis, 226-7 governing category (GC), 26, 30-2, 49, 78, 83,86-95, 103-4, 107, 117,276 definition of, 30, 78, 92 for Anaphors, 30-2, 83, 86-95, 1 0 3 ^ , 107, 117, 276 for Pronominals, 30-2, 86-8, 95, 117, 276 narrow versus root, 90-1 governing category (GC) parameter, 92-5

328

Index of subjects

Government and Binding (GB) theory, 19-112, 257-8, 260-1, 263-81, 287, 298 Gricean pragmatic theory, 1-15, 263-4 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), 272 Horn-scales, 7, 9-10, 13-15, 122, 142, 283 Humboldt's problem, 261 I-implicature, 7-17, 119-33, 136-46, 147-9, 152, 155-8, 164-5, 169, 172-7, 180-4, 203-5, 210, 213, 216, 218, 220-8, 236-9, 242, 246, 249, 251, 256, 258, 282-5, 290 I-language, 261 I-principle, 7-17, 119-33, 136-46, 147-9, 152, 155-8, 164-5, 169, 172-7, 18(0-4, 203-5, 210, 213, 216, 218, 220-8, 236-9, 242, 246, 249, 251, 256, 258, 282-5, 290 iconicity, 153, 198, 226, 260, 263, 297 implicature cancellation procedure, 14-15, 146 inference to stereotype, 10, 11 inference system, 204-5 Infl(ection), 33-5, 44-5, 92, 101-3, 105, 107, 267, 269 information saliency, 17, 145, 164, 166 informativeness, 120-1, 282-3 innateness, 260-1, 298 input system, 263, 298 Interclausal Semantic Relation Hierarchy, 140-1 island constraints, 49 L-marking, 105, 281 ^-extraction, 117-18 learnability, 260-1 'least effort' principle, 298 Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), 59, 64-9, 74, 272, 274 lexical narrowing, 10, 11 lexical NPs, 22, 205, 207, 213, 222, 226, 228-9, 232-3, 236, 239, 242, 249, 257, 282, 296-7 LF-structure, 102-3 local domain, 88-96 abandonment of, 88-9 expansion of, 89-91 parameterisation of, 92-6 locality condition, 65, 280, 284 logical form, 117, 121, 282-3 logical form (LF), 79, 88, 101-5, 107-11 logocentric complementisers, 185-97 logocentric NPs, 186, 188, 195, 288-9 logocentric triggers, 185, 187-9, 287

logocentric verbs, 185, 187, 188, 189, 287 implicational universal for, 185 logophoric binding, 184-97, 289-90 logophoric context, 185, 187-95, 287 logophoric domain, 185, 187-95, 287 logorphoric long-distance reflexives, 133, 184-97, 289-90 logophoric point of view, 133, 251-69 logophoric pronouns, 185-6, 288 logophoric verbal suffixes, 185 logophoricity, 95, 127, 133, 184-97, 278, 289-90 logophors, 185-6, 288 long-distance binding, 75-112, 123, 126, 132-4, 143, 177-203, 257-8, 269, 275-6, 278-80, 288, 290 long-distance domain, 75-112, 123, 126, 132-4, 143, 177-203, 257-8, 269, 275-6, 278-80, 288, 290 long-distance reflexives, 75-112, 123, 126, 132^1, 143, 177-203, 257-8, 269, 275-6, 278-80, 288, 290 as Anaphors of a special kind, 82-4 as bound Pronominals, 84-6 as Pronominals, 80-2 as Pronominal Anaphors, 86-8 long-distance reflexivisation, 75-112, 123, 126, 132-4, 143, 177-203, 257-8, 269, 275-6, 278-80, 288, 290 in control constructions, 104 definition of, 75 in discourse, 83, 91, 94, 98, 195, 269, 280 and emphaticness/contrastiveness, 133-4, 197-8 and infinitives, 104, 275 licensing of, 107 and logophoricity, 133, 184-97, 289-90 properties of, 75-6 in psych-sentences, 103, 181, 182, 190-1 in relative constructions, 91, 183 and subjunctives, 275 in topic constructions, 80, 82, 83, 103 M-implicature, 7-8, 12-18, 119^6, 148, 158, 172-7, 198, 203, 205, 233, 236, 256, 258, 284, 290 M-principle, 7-8, 12-18, 119-46, 148, 158, 172-7, 198, 203, 205, 233, 236, 256, 258, 284, 290 Manner, maxim of, 4-6 'matrix wins' hypothesis, 17, 141, 142, 143, 145, 164, 166 maximality effects, 77, 90, 93, 196, 197, 290 meaning.nn, 3, 137, 139, 176-7 medium-distance domain, 95 membership categorisation, 10, 11

Index of subjects 'minimal distance' principle, 59, 69, 272 minimisation, principle of, 209 mirror maxim, 10, 11, 137 modified Occam's razor, 72, 84 morphological uniformity hypothesis, 41-2, 268 'most effective, least effort' principle, 263 movement, 101-5 head-to-head, 105 Infl-to-Comp-to-Infl, 105-7 Infl-to-Infl, 101-5 mutual knowledge hypothesis, 210 neo-Gricean pragmatic theory, 1-15, 263-4 neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora, 1-2, 15-18, 115-262, 283-4, 285-98 non-conventionality, 5, 137 non-detachability, 5, 137 NPs, 22, 205, 207, 213, 222, 226, 228-9, 232-3, 236, 239, 242, 249, 257, 282, 296-7 classification of, 22 lexical, 22, 205, 207, 213, 222, 226, 228-9, 232-3, 236, 239, 242, 249, 257, 282, 296-7 typology of, 22 NP-trace, 22-6, 38, 57, 270 null object parameter, 55 null objects, 48-57, 270-1, 273 variable versus pro analysis of, 48-9 null operators, 22, 25-6, 44-7, 48, 51-4, 226, 269, 280, 284 null subject parameter, 26, 34-6, 266-9 null subjects, 33-44, 266-9 object-drop, 48-57, 270-1, 273 Obviation Principle, 65-6 Occam's eraser, 72, 84 Occam's razor, 71 operators, 22, 25-6, 38, 44-8, 51-4, 102, 266, 269, 280, 284 Orwell's problem, 298 output system, 263 Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC), 173 parallelism, 247, 250 parallels, 258 between intrasentential and discourse anaphora, 258 between reflexives, pronouns and zero anaphors, 258 parameters, 22, 25-6, 34-6, 44-7, 51-5, 92-5, 260, 266-9, 280, 284, 298 parametric variation, 260, 298 parasitic gaps, 270-1 passivisation, 273-5

329

performance, 260-1 perspective command, 186 cp-features, 34-6, 40, 96-101, 104-5, 107-8, 267-8, 281 cp-index, 107-8, 281 pivot, 187-94, 287 Plato's problem, 261 pleonastic pronouns, 201-2, 292 point of view, 133, 251-69 politeness, 211-12, 256, 264, 296 pragmatic-coreference interpretation, 56, 85, 278 pragmatic division of labour, 6 pragmatic languages, 2, 21, 259-60, 269 'clustering' properties of, 260 pragmatic module, 264, 298 presupposition, 15, 146 principles-and-parameters theory, 75 PRO, 22-33, 57, 265-6 arguments against in Chinese, 26-33, 265-6 distribution of, 30-1 governed versus ungoverned, 31-2, 266 lexical substitution test for, 32-3, 266 properties of, 26-7, 33 PRO theorem, 26, 31 pro, 22-6, 33-44, 266-9 arguments against in Chinese, 33-44 cross-linguistic distribution of, 33-4 expletive, 33-4, 42, 266-9 and language typology, 26, 33-4 licensing of, 34-5, 40-2, 267-9 local determination of, 34-42, 267-9 recovery of, 34-42, 267-9 referential, 33-44, 266-9 pro-drop languages, 26, 33-4, 41, 266-9 pro-drop parameter, 26, 34, 35, 36, 266-9 pro module, 267-9 pro/PRO, 24-5, 27, 35, 37, 40 process constructions, 249-50 projection of implicatures, 6-7, 13-15, 17, 126, 137-8, 141-3, 145, 164, 166, 290 Projection Principle, 23 Pronominal Anaphors, 22-33, 57, 86-8, 265-6, 278-9 Pronominal binding, 23, 26, 31-2, 49, 52, 78, 87, 116-7, 121-2, 129, 273, 276, 278-80, 290-1 Pronominal binding domain, 30-2, 86-8, 117,276 Pronominals, 22-44, 48-9, 51-5, 57, 86-8, 264, 266-70, 275-6, 278-80 pronouns, 15-18, 42-4, 80-2, 84-6, 117, 119-36, 138^45, 172-7, 201-2, 205, 258, 269, 276, 290-2 stressed versus unstressed, 122-3, 144, 226

330

Index of subjects

proper antecedent parameter, 92 proper names, 211-13, 293 protagonists, 184, 187-90, 195, 225, 294 psych-sentences, 103, 181-2, 190-1 Q-ciausai implicature, 9, 13-15, 142, 146 Q-, I- and M-principles, interaction of, 13-15, 126, 130, 138, 141-2, 146, 290 Q-implicature, 7-10, 12-18, 119-30, 138, 141-6, 196, 205, 210, 213, 216, 218, 221, 222-4, 227-8, 283, 290 Q-principle, 7-10, 12-18, 119-30, 138, 141-6, 196, 205, 210, 213, 216, 218, 221, 2 2 2 ^ , 227-8, 283, 290 Q-scaiar implicature, 9, 13-15, 142, 146 Quality, maxim of, 4-7, 263 quantifier raising (QR), 108 quantifier-variable binding, 43, 56, 85, 117-18, 173-4, 177, 199-200, 202, 269, 278, 282, 292 quantifier-variable interpretation, 43, 56, 85, 117-18, 173-4, 177, 199-200, 202, 269, 278, 282, 292 Quantity, maxim of, 4-7, 263 Quantity-Quality, maxim of, 263 r-expressions, 24, 199-202, 292-3 r-index, 107-8 R-principle, 5-7 R-structure, 70 raising, 108-9, 294 Anaphor, 109 quantifier (QR), 108 subject-to-object, 274 subject-to-subject, 274 recipient design, principle of, 209-10 reciprocals, 79, 92, 95, 276-8 recognition, principle of, 209-10 reconstruction, 56 Reduction, maxim of, 209-10 reference, 210-33, 236-56 establishment of in conversation, 210-22, 251 maintenance of in conversation, 224-33, 251 shift of in conversation, 222-4, 239, 247-51, 255 reference-tracking system, 204-5 referential dependency, theory of, 52, 200-2 referentiality generalisation, 200 reflexives, 75-112, 123, 126, 132-4, 143, 177-203, 257-8, 269, 275-6, 278-80, 288, 290 implicational universal for, 290

long-distance versus local, 76-8, 84-8, 99-102, 107-11, 179-82, 275-6, 279, 290 morphologically simplex versus complex, 75-8, 107-11, 178, 275-6 properties of in Chinese, 76-8 typologies of, 109 reflexivisation, 75-112, 123, 126, 132-4, 143, 177-203, 257-8, 269, 275-6, 278-80, 288, 290 backward, 110-11 long-distance versus local, 76-8, 84-8, 99-102, 107-11, 179-82, 275-6, 279, 290 reindexing rule, 96 reinforceability, 5, 137 Relation, maxim of, 4, 6 relative constructions, 91, 169-72, 260 'Chinese-style', 170-1, 260 'English-style', 91, 170-1 free, 171-2 Relevance, principle of, 5 Relevance theory, 5, 264 repair, conversational, 213-14, 216-18, 221, 253-6, 295-6 other-initiated versus self-initiated, 213-14, 216-18, 221, 253-6, 295-6 other-repair versus self-repair, 213-14, 216-18, 221, 253-6, 295-6 responsibility, 154 Rhetorical Structure Theory, 286 S-structure, 102, 107-8, 270 scrambling, 109-10 self, 186-94, 287 semantic continuity, 229 semantic minimisation, 7, 263 sentence-meaning, 259, 264 sentence-oriented languages, 2, 21, 259-60, 269 sentence-type-meaning, 259, 264 serial verb constructions, 286-7 sloppy interpretation, 56, 85, 278 source, 186-94, 287 speaker-meaning, 264 Speaker's Economy, 6 specified subject condition (SSC), 95 Specifier], 25, 45, 47, 270 speech acts, 10, 11, 71, 73, 152-4, 158-9 split antecedents, 37, 58, 60, 63, 66-7, 79, 81-2, 84-5, 149-50, 152, 156, 177, 181, 236, 239, 286 states of affair (SOAs), 150-2, 154-6 strict interpretation, 56, 85, 278 strong crossover condition, 49, 169 sub-command, 96-7, 99-100, 132, 179-80

Index of subjects binding and, 96-7, 99-100, 132, 179-80 definition of, 96-7 subjacency, 49-50, 104, 270 subject of consciousness, 186 subject-object asymmetry, 50, 54 subject obviation, 275-6 subject orientation, 75-7, 81-2, 84-5, 101, 103, 108-9, 266, 275-6, 280 subject/suBJECT, 30, 36, 38, 60, 89-95 accessible, 30, 36, 38, 60, 89-95 subject/topic-drop, 164-5 subset principle, 92 switch-function system, 204 switch-reference system, 204 syntactic languages, 2, 21, 259-60, 269 syntax-pragmatics interface, 1-2, 259-62 tensed S condition (TSC), 95 that-lmce effects, 45 Thematic Distinctness Condition (TDC), 70-3 0-grid, 151 Thematic Identity Condition (TIC), 70-3 thematic information, 225, 229 0-roles, 24, 58, 70-3, 151 topic chains, 45, 164-6, 225, 237-9, 260, 269, 294 topic-coding device scale, 225-6 topic-coding quantity principle, 226, 294 topic constructions, 49-50, 80-1, 83, 91, 103, 140, 159-69, 283-4 'Chinese-style', 159-66, 169, 243-5, 260 definition of, 159 'English-style', 49-50, 80-1, 83, 103, 140, 167-9, 2 8 3 ^ typology of, 159-60 well-formedness condition on, 162 topic continuity, 225-7, 294 topic determination hypothesis, 165, 243 topic-drop, 164 topic-prominent languages, 162 topics, 22, 25-6, 44-54, 80-1, 83, 91, 103, 140, 159-69, 225-7, 237-9, 243-5, 260, 269, 280, 283-4, 294 empty, 22, 25-6, 44-8, 5 1 ^ , 266, 269, 280, 284 non-gap, 45, 159-66 null, 22, 25-6, 44-8, 51-4, 266, 269, 280, 284 turns, 208, 217, 228-9, 251, 253-4 turn-taking mechanism, 253

331

unexpectedness, 133-4, 184-99 Unification, Force of, 6 universal grammar (UG), 1, 21, 95, 260, 298 universality, 5, 137 universal, 260-1, 298 competence explanation of, 260-1 performance explanation of, 260-1 utterance-meaning, 259, 264 utterance-token-meaning, 259, 264 utterance-type-meaning, 259, 264 variables, 22-7, 43, 44-7, 56, 85, 117-18, 173-4, 177, 199-200, 202, 269, 278, 282, 292 verbs, 61, 156, 185-90, 287 causative, 61, 156 collaborative, 156 epistemic, 185, 187-90, 287 perceptive, 185, 187-90, 287 psychological, 185, 187-90, 287 speech, 185, 187-90, 287 Visser's Generalisation, 273 ^-movement, 25 Wz-operators, 102 world knowledge, 7, 12, 15, 17, 21, 36, 58, 60, 62-3, 73, 93^1, 100, 103, 130, 137, 138, 145, 146, 152, 153-5, 157, 163-4, 169, 171, 180, 182-4, 197, 271, 292 Zipfian economy, 6, 263 zero anaphor/overt pronoun contrast, 42-4, 172-7 in backward anaphora, 174-5 in correlative constructions, 175-7 in quantifier constructions, 173-4 in resultative constructions, 174 zero anaphors, 21-74, 123-77, 204-34, 236-56, 264-75, 284-7 in control constructions, 59-74, 149-59 in object position, 48-57, 270-1, 273 in relative constructions, 91, 170-2 in subject position, 26-47, 266-9 in topic constructions, 49-50, 140, 160, 163-9, 283-4 zero-topic hypothesis, 22, 25-6, 44-7, 51-4, 266, 269, 280, 284 zero-topic parameter, 22, 25-6, 44-7, 51-4, 266, 269, 280, 284 zero topics, 22, 25-6, 44-7, 51-4, 266, 269, 280, 284