Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T17:58:26.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflexivization across clause boundaries in Italian1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Donna Jo Napoli
Donna Jo Napoli
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At first glance Reflexivization in Italian seems to obey the same restrictions we find in English. Thus, if we consider the proposal that reflexive pronouns and their antecedents must be clausemates in English, we find in Italian that the same clausemate condition holds and that for any two coreferential pronouns within the same clause, the second of them is a reflexive pronoun. If, on the other hand, we consider the proposal that a reflexive pronoun and its antecedent may be indefinitely far apart provided that certain circumstances are not present, such as an intervening specified subject or the reflexive's being in a tensed S to which the antecedent does not belong (as in Chomsky (1973)), again the same conditions hold for Italian Reflexivization; as illustrated in (I)–(3).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 1979 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

REFERENCES

Bordelois, I. (1972). Untitled mimeo on infinitives in Spanish, French and English, MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on Nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on Transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975) Reflections on language, New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2. 303–351.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1975). On the cyclicity of verb raising. Unpublished mimeo. Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
Clements, G. (1974). Super-Equi and the Intervention Constraint. North Eastern Linguistic Society (Harvard University). 5. 13–28.Google Scholar
Green, G. (1973). Some remarks on split controller phenomena. CLS 9. 123–135.Google Scholar
Grinder, J. (1970). Super-Equi-NP-Deletion, CLS 6. 297–317.Google Scholar
Hale, W. & Buck, C. (1903). A Latin grammar. Forge Village, Ma.: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Hamlin, F., Ricketts, P.Hathaway, J. (1967). Introduction á l'étude de l'ancien Provençal. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972). Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. LIn 3. 161–196.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Irregularity in syntax, New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (1970). The Cyclic Character of Eskimo Reflexivization. AL 13. 1–31.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1973). The two si's of Italian. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard. Available through Indiana University Lingiustics Club.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1974). Reflexivization across S in Italian. Paper presented at the winter meeting of the LSA.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1976a). Infinitival relatives in Italian. In Luján, M. & Hensey, F. (eds), Current Studies in Romance Linguistics. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 300–329.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1976b). A look at some adverbs and prepositions in Italian. Presented at the Sixth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages at the University of Montreal.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. & Nesper, M. (1976). Negatives in comparatives. Lg 52. 811–838.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1970). On Coreferential Complement Subject Deletion. LIn I. 439–500.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1977a). Italian syntax: transformational and relational grammar. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1977b). Agentive causatives in relational grammar: accessibility versus ergativity. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Reis, M. (1973). A note on German reflexives. Mimeo, MIT.Google Scholar
Ronat, M. (1973). Three deep structures in French complementation. In Corum, C.et al., You take the high node and I'll take the low node. Paravolume to CLS 9. 200–210.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. (1972). A propos d'une classe de verbes psychologiques. Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. 181–251.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, M. (1974a). Reference and mood in Italian. In Campbell, J. et al. (eds) Linguistic studies in romance languages. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, M. (1974b). Pestulati per una teoria semantica delle preposizioni comparative. Fenomeni morfologici e sintattici nell'italiano contemporaneo. Rome: Bulzoni. 283–300.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. (1976). Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 6. University of Montreal. 225–240.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (1975). Anaphoric pronouns and bound variables, Lg 55. 368–383.Google Scholar