Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T20:51:26.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emphatic or reflexive? On the endophoric character of French lui-méme and similar complex pronouns1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Anne Zribi-Hertz
Anne Zribi-Hertz
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences du Langage, Université de Paris-8. URA 1720 (CNRS)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study examines the referential properties of a class of complex pronouns labelled M-PRONOUNS, exemplified by Old English HIMSELF, French LUI-MéME and English HISOWN. It is shown that M-pronouns exhibit some properties commonly taken as characterizing reflexive anaphors, and that they also occur as ‘intensive’ pronouns. It is shown, however, that they are not anaphors, and that labelling them ‘intensives’ does not suffice to account for their distribution. It is argued that the semantic properties of M-pronouns may be derived from their morphological structure. Their pronoun component (Old English HIM, French LUI, English HIS) is not a pronominal, in the sense of the Binding Theory, but a bindable expression unspecified for disjoint reference and locality. In the complex form created by M-adjunction, the pronoun is crucially de-stressed and, correlatively, interpreted as endophoric.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , September 1995 , pp. 333 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Attal, J. P. (1987). Grammaire et usage de l'anglais. Paris-Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally-free reflexives in British English. Language 71.1. 63–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37.1. 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, D. (1984). On the content of empty categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1989). On the non-existence of disjoint reference principles. Rivista di grammatica generativa 14. 3–27.Google Scholar
Cantrall, W. (1974). Viewpoint, reflexives, and the nature of noun phrases. Mouton: the Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (1986). On non-anaphor reflexives. Revue Quebecoise de Linguistique 15. 135–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (eds.) The view from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). Sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Corver, N. & Delfitto, D. (1993). Feature asymmetry and the nature of pronoun movement. OTS Working Papers. University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Dechaine, R. M. & Manfredi, V. (1993). Binding domains in Haitian. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst/Boston University.Google Scholar
Edmonson, J. A. & Plank, F. (1978). Great expectations: an intensive self analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy. 2. 373–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. & Lappin, S. (1983). Dominance and extraction: a reply to A. Grosu. Theoretical Linguistics 10.1. 81–96.Google Scholar
Everaert, M. (1991). Contextual determination of the anaphor/pronominal distinction. In Koster, & Reuland, (eds.). 77–118.Google Scholar
Faltz, L. (1985). Reflexivization: a study in universal syntax. New York/London: Garland.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R. & Higginbotham, J. (1981). Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis 17.4. 395–421.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. (1984). Norwegian EGEN (‘own’)-determiner or adjective? Working papers in linguistics 2. University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. (1984). Toward a theory of long-distance anaphors: a GB approach. The Linguistic Review 3. 307–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A. (1991). Prepositions, binding and theta-marking. In Koster, & Reuland, (eds.). 185–208.Google Scholar
Hagége, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Sociéteé de Linguistique de Paris 69. 287–310.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hellan, L. (1988). Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16.4. 547–593.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. (1986). An anaphor not bound in its governing category. Linguistic Inquiry 7.4. 766–772.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (1993). On the morphological specification of reflexives: implications for acquisition. In Gonzales, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 24.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. (1990). Anaphors as pronominals. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Department of Linguistics. Ms., 205–219. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975) French syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (1988). Complex anaphors and Bind-α. Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 216–232.Google Scholar
König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: a comparative approach. The Linguistic Review 3. 307–361.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1985). Reflexives in Dutch. In Gueron, J., Obenauer, H. G. & Pollock, J. Y. (eds.) Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris. 141–167.Google Scholar
Koster, J. & Reuland, E. (eds.) (1991). Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972). Pronominalization, reflexivization and direct discourse. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 161–195.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1968). Counterparts, or the problem of reference in transformational grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1983). A distributional difference between reciprocals and reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 14.4. 723–730.Google Scholar
Lees, R. & Kiima, E. (1963). Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39.1. 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27. 107–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, T. (1991). He himself: undiscovering and anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 368–373.Google Scholar
Pica, P. (1984). Quelques implications théoriques de l'etude des relations anaphoriques a longue distance. In Couquaux, D. & Ronat, M. (eds.) La grammaire modulaire. Paris: Minuit. 187–207.Google Scholar
Pica, P. (1986). Liage et contiguité. In Milner, J. C. (ed.) Recherches sur Tanaphore. Universite Paris-7. Departement de Recherches Linguistiques, collection ERA 642. 119–164.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of the Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 261–303.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1991). Anaphors and logophors: an argument structure perspective. In Koster, & Reuland, (eds.). 283–321.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 657–720.Google Scholar
Roggero, J. (1979). Grammaire anglaise. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Ronat, M. (1982). Une solution pour un apparent contre-exemple a la théorie du liage. Lingvisticae Investigationes VI.1. 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruwet, N. (1990). Enety: deux clitiques pronominaux antilogophoriques. Langages 97. 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safir, K. (1995). Semantic atoms of anaphora. Ms., Rutgers University. (To appear in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.)Google Scholar
Saxon, L. (1991). On One's Own: the semantics and pragmatics of reflexives. In Ishihara, R. & Georgopolis, C. (eds.) Interdisciplinary approaches to language: essays in honour of S. Y. Kuroda. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solä, J. (1993). A uniform analysis for SELF elements. Ms., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Tasmowski, L. & Verluyten, P. (1982).Linguistic control of pronouns. Journal of Semantics 1. 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, M. (1990). Emphatic anaphoric expressions in French and Binding Theory. In Di Sciullo, A. M. & Rochette, A. (eds.) Binding in Romance. Ottawa: special publication of the Canadian Linguistic Association. 233–258.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J. R. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (1992). The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 595–652.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963). An Historical syntax of the English language. (Part One.) Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1987). Implicit arguments, the Binding Theory, and control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 151–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. (1957). A handbook of English grammar. London: Longman, Green & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1980). Cor´f´chis; et pronoms reflechis: notes sur le contrast lui/lui-même en francais. Lingvisticae Investigationes IV. 131–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65.4. 695–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1990). Lui-même argument et le concept de ‘pronom A’. Langages 97. 100- 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. & Hanne, J. F. (1994). La structure du groupe nominal et la syntaxe des relatives en bambara de Bamako. Ms., Univesite Paris-8.Google Scholar