Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.
Béjar, Susana and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Anna Teresa Perez-Leroux and Yves Roberge (eds.) Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 49–62.
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291–352.
Boeckx, Cedric and Norbert Hornstein and Jairo Nunes. 2008. Copy-reflexive and copy-control constructions. A movement analysis. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8. 61–100.
Bondaruk, Anna. 2017. The syntax of accusative and dative experiencer in Polish. A paper presented at the LingBaW Conference at the Catholic Univeristy of Lublin, 18-19.10.2017.
Bondaruk, Anna and Bogdan Szymanek. 2007. Polish nominativeless constructions with dative experiencers: Form, meaning and structure. Studies in Polish Linguistics 4. 61–97.
Bondaruk, Anna, Bożena Rozwadowska and Wojciech Witkowski. 2017. Passivization of Polish experiencer verbs vs. the unaccusativity hypothesis (part 1). Studies in Polish Linguistics 12. 57–73.
Bondaruk, Anna and Bożena Rozwadowska. 2018. Passives of subject experiencer verbs in Polish. A paper presented at the Formal Description of Slavic Languages conference, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 5-7 December.
Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59 (1). 1–45.
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 589–644.
Bošković, Željko. 2012. Phases in NPs and DPs. In Ángel J. Gallego (ed.) Phases: Developing the framework. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. 343–383.
Bošković, Željko. 2013. Phases beyond clauses. In Lilia Schürcks, Anastasia Giannakidou and Urtzi Etxeberria (eds.) The nominal structure in Slavic and beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 75–128.
Bošković, Željko. 2014. More on the edge of the edge. In Cassandra Chapman, Olena Kit and Ivona Kučerová (eds.) Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The McMaster meeting 2013 (FASL 22). Michigan, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 44–66.
Burzio, Luigi. 1996. The role of the antecedent in anaphoric relations. In Robert Freidin (ed.) Current Issues in Comparative Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1–45.
Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke. 1994. The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 41–109.
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser (eds.) The view from building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka and Samuel J Keyser (eds.) Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 89–156.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 1–52.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.) Foundational issues in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 133–166.
Citko, Barbara, Allison Germain and Jacek Witkoś. 2018. If you cannot agree, move on! On labels and non-nominative subjects. Glossa 3 (1). 28.
Cole, Peter, Gabriela Hermon and LI-May Sung. 1993. Feature percolation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2. 91–118.
Delsing, Lars‐Olof. 1993. On attributive adjectives in Scandinavian and other languages. Studia Linguistica 47 (2). 105–125.
Featherston, Sam. 2002. Coreferential objects in German: Experimental evidence on reflexivity. Linguistische Berichte 192. 45–484.
Germain, Allison. 2015. Nullifying null expletives: Accounting for EPP in Russian Impersonal and nominative in situ constructions. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 23. 418–438.
Germain, Allison. 2017. Non-nominative subjects in Russian and Lithuanian: Case, argument structure and anaphor binding. Seattle, University of Washington, Doctoral dissertation.
Gogłoza, Aleksandra, Paulina Łęska, Roland Meyer and Jacek Witkoś. forthcoming-a. Binding by objects in Polish double object constructions – acceptability and correlation with object order. In Proceedings of FASL 26. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
)| false . , Gogłoza, Aleksandra , Paulina Łęska and Roland Meyer Jacek Witkoś forthcoming-a. Binding by objects in Polish double object constructions – acceptability and correlation with object order. In Proceedings of FASL 26. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Gogłoza, Aleksandra, Paulina Łęska and Jacek Witkoś. forthcoming-b. Binding by Polish Experiencer Datives and the AAE. In Proceedings of FASL 27. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Grewendorf, Gunter and Joachim Sabel. 1999. Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus multiple specifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. 1–65.
Hasegawa, Hiroshi. 2005. Reflexive binding as agreement and its interactions with the pahse system. In: Noriko Imanishi (ed.) The world of linguistic research: A festschrift for Kinsuke Hasegawa on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 53–69.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
)| false . Hasegawa, Hiroshi 2005. Reflexive binding as agreement and its interactions with the pahse system. In: (ed.) The world of linguistic research: A festschrift for Kinsuke Hasegawa on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Noriko Imanishi Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 53– 69.
Heinat, Fredrik. 2006. Probing phrases, pronouns, and binding. The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 19–37.
Jimenez-Fernandez, Ángel Luis and Bożena Rozwadowska. 2016. The information structure of Dative Experiencer psych-verbs. In Bozena Cetnarowska and Marcin Kuczok and Marcin Zabawa (eds.) Various dimensions of contrastive studies. Katowice: Wydawnictwo UŚ. 100–121.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
)| false . and Jimenez-Fernandez, Ángel Luis Bożena Rozwadowska 2016. The information structure of Dative Experiencer psych-verbs. In (eds.) Various dimensions of contrastive studies. and Bozena Cetnarowska and Marcin Kuczok Marcin Zabawa Katowice: Wydawnictwo UŚ. 100– 121.
Kayne, Richard. 1985. Principles of particle constructions. In Jacqueline Guéron and Hans-Georg Obenauer and Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.) Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris. 101–140.
Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Samuel Epstein and Daniel Seely (eds.) Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell. 133–166.
Klimek, Dorota and Bożena Rozwadowska. 2004. From psych adjectives to psych verbs. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 39. 59–72.
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence for case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26 (4). 877–924.
Lavine, James and Steven Franks. 2008. On accusative first. In Andrei Antonenko and John F. Bailyn and Christina Y. Bethin and Jindrich Toman (eds.) Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16. Michigan Slavic Publications 16. 231–247.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. The Structure of DPs: Some Principles, Parameters, and Problems. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell. 562–603.
Marvin, Tatjana and Adrian Stegovec. 2012. On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in Slovenian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59. 177–203.
Miechowicz-Mathiasen, Katarzyna and Paweł Scheffler. 2008. A corpus-based analysis of the peculiar behaviour of the Polish verb podobać się. In Gisbert Fanselow (ed.) Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A comparative view. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. 89–112.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
)| false . and Miechowicz-Mathiasen, Katarzyna Paweł Scheffler 2008. A corpus-based analysis of the peculiar behaviour of the Polish verb. In podobać się (ed.) Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A comparative view. Gisbert Fanselow Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. 89– 112.
Moore, John and David M. Perlmutter. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18 (2). 373–416.
Müller, Gereon. 2017. Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa: A Journal for Generative Linguistics 2 (1). 28. 1–53.
Müller, Gereon. 2018. Structure removal in complex prefields. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36. 219–264.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale, a Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 355–426.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.) The syntax of time. Cambridge: The MIT Press .
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian and Wendy K Wilkins (eds.) Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguitics Today 101.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 262–294.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
)| false . and Pesetsky, David Esther Torrego 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In (eds.) Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguitics Today 101.). , Simin Karimi and Vida Samiian Wendy K Wilkins Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 262– 294. 10.1075/la.101.14pes
Pica, Pierre. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 17 (2). 483–500.
Pica, Pierre. 1991. On the interaction between Antecedent-Government and Binding: The case of long-distance reflexivization. In Jan Koster and Eric Reuland (eds.) Long Distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 119–135.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
)| false . Pica, Pierre 1991. On the interaction between Antecedent-Government and Binding: The case of long-distance reflexivization. In (eds.) Long Distance Anaphora. and Jan Koster Eric Reuland Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 119– 135. 10.1017/CBO9780511627835.006
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993. Long-distance reflexives: Movement to Infl versus Relativized SUBJECT. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4). 755–772.
Reinders-Machowska, Ewa. 1991. Binding in Polish. In J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds.) Long-distance Anaphora.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 137–150.
Reis, Marga. 1976. Reflexivierung in deutschen ACI-Konstruktionen: Ein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma. Papiere zur Linguistik 9. 5–82.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.) Elements of grammar. Handbook of generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 281–337.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2014. On the elements of syntactic variation. Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, Carme. Picallo, 13–35. Oxford: Oxford. University Press.
Roberts, Ian. 1992. A formal account of grammaticalisation in the history of romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica 13 (1/2). 219–258.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Ann Zaring (eds.) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 213–276.
Stegovec, Adrian. 2016. What we aren’t given: Selection and ditrasitive passives in Slovenian. Paper presented at the Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Cornell University, May 13th 2016.
Tajsner, Przemysław. 1990. Case marking in English and Polish: A government and binding study. Doctoral dissertation. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.
Wiland, Bartosz. 2016. Le Charme Discret of Remnant Movement: Crossing and nesting in Polish OVS sentences. Studies in Polish Linguistics 11 (3). 133–165.
Willim, Ewa. 1989. On word-order: A government-binding study of English and Polish. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Willim, Ewa. 2018. On the dative experiencer in Polish reflexive impersonal middles. Paper presented at Berlin Dative Days workshop, 24-25 May 2018.
Witkoś, Jacek. 1993. Some aspects of phrasal movement in English and Polish. Doctoral dissertation. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.
Witkoś, Jacek. 2008. On the correlation between A-type scrambling and Weak Crossover Effects. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 44. 297–328.
Witkos, Jacek, Dominika Dziubała-Szrejbrowska and Paulina Łęska. 2018. Binding as agree and index raising: The case of Polish accusative object experiencers. In Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54. 469–507.
Witkoś, Jacek, Paulina Łęska, Dominika Dziubała-Szrejbrowska and Aleksandra Gogłoza. 2020. Bind me tender, bind me do! Dative and accusative arguments as antecedents for reflexives in Polish. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1). 111–130.
Zubkov, Petr. 2018. The grammar of binding. A study with reference to Russian. Doctoral dissertation. LOT: Utrecht. University of Utrecht.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2002. Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In Samuel Epstein and Daniel Seely (eds.) Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell. 269–304.
Żychliński, Sylwiusz. 2013. On some aspects of the syntax of Object Experiencers in Polish and English. Doctoral dissertation. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.
A reviewer for Acta Linguistica notices that when the pronoun nim ‘him’ in (1a) is emphasized by sam ‘alone’ and the noun zdjęcie ‘picture’ in (1b) is modified by an adjective własne ‘own’, as in ‘his own picture’, the coreferent reading between the pronoun and the subject is acceptable. The reason for this effect could be that the addition of a modifier with reflexive-like semantics to a pronoun may be considered as a strategy to form lexical reflexives, as proposed in Reuland (2011). If this is the case, a pronoun plus an emphatic adjective should count as a secondary reflexive, which would explain why, unlike a lone pronoun, it can be bound by the subject. However, since the primary reflexivisation strategy is preferred, the use of reflexives in this context is still more acceptable. As will became clearer later in the text, under our analysis, the dependent element with a variable feature and a φ-feature of the subject must be lexicalized as a reflexive, be it a reflexive or a secondary reflexive (a pronoun emphasized by sam). Some supporting evidence for treating this emphasis as a secondary or a repair reflexivisation strategy is provided in an experimental study reported in Gogłoza et al. (forthcoming-a) and discussed in more detail in Witkoś et al. (forthcoming) in the context of object coreference in Polish Double Object Constructions, where it is shown that a higher object can be an antecedent for a lower object only when the lower object is lexicalized as a secondary reflexive (a pronoun plus sam ‘alone’) (see also fn.17). This work was based on previous studies of the German adverb selbst ‘self's’ (Reis 1976; Primus 1992; Featherston 2002) which aimed to establish its status as either a focus adverb or an emphatic reflexive. The reader is referred to these works for more details.
A detailed analysis of dative object experiencers of both verbal and non-verbal psychological predicates remains beyond the scope of this contribution. See Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016) and Bondaruk, Rozwadowska and Witkowski (2017), Bondaruk and Rozwadowska (2018) for recent analyses.
The key Principles of Binding Theory are formulated in Chomsky (1981: 188) as follows:
A. Anaphors must be bound in their binding domains.
B. Pronouns must be free in their binding domains.
C. R-expressions must be free everywhere.
This state of affairs is best captured by observations voiced in Safir (2014) on dependent identity readings in VP-ellipsis. In different languages the depenedent identity readings seem to be available in local domains with reflexive and pronominal forms in the antecedent VP. Safir (2014:106–107) submits that the same account of identity readings carries over to the most indexically dependent form (called D-bound, see the definition in (12)) realized morphologically as reflexive:
(i) Zelda [VPa judges herself] more harshly than I ever do [VP e].
(ii) Zelda [VPa judges D-bound+3fsg] more harshly than I ever do [VP judge D-bound]
(iii) Zelda [VPa judges D-bound+3fsg] more harshly than I ever do [VP judge 3fsg]
The sloppy reading in (ii) results from the copying of the D-bound itself, while the strict reading in (iii) results from the copying of the φ-features of the D-bound only, which amounts to a regular pronoun.
A reviewer points out that a more precise term to use for predicates which allow for both reflexives and pronouns to be bound by a dative antecedent would be ‘non-verbal psych predicates’. While it is true that most of the predicates allowing for this peculiar binding pattern are non-verbal, there are also verbal psych predicates with dative binders which show this pattern, as e.g. the verb brakować ‘to miss’ in (i). The most crucial property of these predicates (both verbal and non-verbal) which allows them to antecede reflexives is that they take non-nominative theme arguments (see the discussion on Anaphor Agreement effect in section 5).
|‘Maria missed her sister.’|
Following the lead in Huang (1983), Chomsky (1986: 169) defines the Complete Functional Complex (CFC) in the following manner: CFC is a minimal category such that all grammatical functions compatible with its head are realized in it – the complements, necessarily, by the projection principle, and the subject, which is optional unless required to license a predicate.
Manzini and Wexler (1987: 421) assume the following notion of the governing category/binding domain: γ is a governing category for α if γ is the minimal category that contains α and a governor for α and can have a subject β or, for α anaphoric, has a subject β, β ≠ α; if, for α anaphoric, β is accessible to α.
Therefore we prefer using the term antecedent to the term binder, as the latter one is typically understood in the CBT as a local antecedent to a reflexive form. The term antecedent is more neutral when discussing elements which locally c-command maximally dependent forms spelled out as pronouns.
For instance, Ionin (2001) observes that preverbal arguments in neutral intonation SVO/OVS sentences are topics (topic being ‘what the sentence is about’), either order can answer general questions of the ‘what happened’ type.
Germain (2015) argues that feature transfer from the phase head to its complement head can be split (Split Feature Inheritance) and either both φ-features and the [+EPP] property are inherited by the complement head to the phase head or only the φ- features are inherited and the transfer of the [+EPP] property is withheld. She analyses Russian constructions in which the [+EPP] property is not satisfied by nominative-marked DPs and concludes that in such cases, three (conflicting) properties should be taken into account. First, the fronted constituent does not reconstruct, which indicates that its landing site is an A-position, as observed in Bailyn (2004). Second, the OVS word order with the non-nominative argument in the initial position can facilitate a neutral wide-scope reading, which Germain takes to indicate the A-movement status of the object. Third, the non-nominative DP cannot function as an antecedent to reflexives from its landing site, which casts doubt on its A-position status. Germain proposes that these conflicting characteristics find a natural explanation if feature inheritance is split and the phase head C (Fin in her account where Rizzi's (1997) split CP architecture is assumed in (i)) passes on only φ-features to T but retains the [+EPP] property. Hence nominative case can be valued under Agree on the postverbal DP, while the non-nominative DP can move up to [spec, FinP] to satisfy the EPP-property.
(i) [ForceP Force [TopP Top [FocP Foc [FinP Fin]]]] (Russian Left Periphery, Germain 2015: 428)
In our representations we keep placing the dative-marked experiencer in the TP area without committing ourselves to either possibility.
Exceptions include clause (15c) and co-argumental reflexivisation, where pronouns show not only strong anti-subject orientation but also anti-object orientation (i–ii).
|‘Mother showed Maria her (in mirror).’|
|‘Mother showed Maria to her (in mirror).’|
An interesting finding regarding object binders in Double Object Constructions, as in (i-ii), was reported in an experimental study in Gogłoza et al. (forthcoming-a). Their results showed that binding of a pronoun by the higher object is significantly improved when that pronoun is emphasized by an adverbial sam ‘alone’. The addition of sam may be thus considered as a repair strategy for reflexivization in Polish coargument contexts in which the binder is not merged in a reflexivization site (vP/TP). This idea is in line with Reuland (2011), who takes the combination of the pronoun and an emphatic element to be one of leading crosslinguistic strategies in forming lexical reflexives. This issue, however, remains beyond the scope of the current contribution (see Gogłoza et al. (forthcoming-a) for a detailed analysis couched in the Index Raising framework).
Baker (1988) argues extensively that heads incorporated into other heads (where incorporation is a showcase example of head movement) cease to act upon elements they used to c-command before incorporation. So, head movement (incorporation) does not extend their c-domain, quite the contrary. For example, in Mohawk, the incorporated N no longer governs (under c/m-command) its possessor and does not license case on it, the verb as the incorporation host governs the possessor instead.
Limits of this publication do not allow us to refer in detail to other recent minimalist theories of anaphoric binding, such as Kayne (2002), Zwart (2002), Hasegawa (2005), Heinat (2006), Boeckx, et al. (2008), Reuland (2011), Antonenko (2012) or Zubkov (2018).
Zeijlstra's original definition uses the term uninterpretable, rather than unvalued, as he basically follows Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2008), where uninterpretable features are unvalued, while we are more sympathetic to the classification of syntactic features in Pesetsky and Torrego (2004, 2007) and Hicks (2009), where valuation and interpretability are kept distinct. Zeijlstra (2012) advocates the idea that upward Agree is the only canonical mode for Agree, while Rezac (2004) and Béjar and Rezac (2009) argue that in principle Agree should be allowed to operate in both modes (‘flipping’ Agree): the downward one is the default but the upward one switches on when the probe cannot find an appropriate matching goal within its c-domain.
We follow the idea that binding is Agree for [var:_], rather than Agree for [φ] (Reuland 2011). It allows us to abstract away from problematic aspects of the correlation between structural case and binding (the binder/bindee as a non-structural case bearer ((3)–(5), object binder, etc.). Reuland's proposal straightforwardly covers only constructions in which both the binder and the bindee bear structural case and it does not easily lend itself to applications where either the binder or the bindee bear inherent/quirky case.
The analogy between Index raising and clitic movement is forcefully argued for in Hestvik (1992), who analyses differences between English and Norwegian and points out that Norwegian pronouns show anti-subject orientation in the sense that they do not mind being bound by a c-commanding object but they cannot be bound by the subject.
The idea that the clitic is impoverished in terms of its φ-feature composition and must move to a functional head is applied to account for particular order of clitics within the clitic cluster in Slavic, the Person Case Constraint: In a combination of clitic pronouns, the last one has to be 3rd person (Franks 2017).
In their analysis of the Person Case Constraint (PCC), Béjar and Rezac (2003: 53) propose the Person Licensing Constraint (PLC) axiom: An interpretable 1st/2nd person feature must be licensed by entering into and Agree relation with a functional category. The PLC, as well as the idea that the [person] feature is a separate probe from the [number] feature, implies that 1st/2nd person clitics appear at the head of the cluster.
Pesetsky and Torrego (2004, 2007) allow for Agree (and movement relations) involving probes/goals sharing unvalued features which later obtain a value at a further stage of the derivation. The unvalued [person] feature on v later receives the value of the [person] feature of the antecedent to the D-bound/Index.
A reviewer notes that since [[phi][var:1] D] moves via head movement and adjoins to v, it does not c-command its trace in the base position, which indicates that the binding dependency is established at LF indirectly. We concur with the reviewer's suggestion that in this case, it may be that binding holds between the antecedent and the trace of the D0 in the base position while the D0 head's variable feature in the v-adjoined position, which is valued under upward Agree with the antecedent's variable feature, only mediates this relation.
As deletion operations apply at the end of each cycle determined by phase-based Spell-Out (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2013), we take φ-feature deletion on [[φ][var_] D] to apply after the clitic climbing operations it participates in.
A similar idea of an element raising (to the edge of the vP Phase) and having its copy pronounced as reflexive is applied in an analysis of binding in German in Safir (2004) and in Lee-Schoenfeld (2008: 291). According to the latter source the licensing of sich ‘self’ co-indexed with Mutter requires covert movement:
|(i)||Die Mutteri||lässt||[vP||die||Kleinej||sich?i/j/ihri/*j||die Schokolade||in den||Mund||stecken].|
|the mother||lets||the||little_one||self/her||the chocolate||in the||mouth||to_stick|
|‘The mother lets the little girl stick the chocolate in her mouth.’|
There is an area of Polish grammar where a bindee behaves in the English-like manner. Reciprocal constructions in Polish have properties markedly distinct from reflexives and identical to Russian reciprocals (Willim 1989; Reinders-Machowska 1991; see Rappaport 1986 for Russian). For instance, in contrast to reflexives, reciprocals are not subject oriented and can be bound by the object as well:
|(i)||Policjanci1||wypytywali ich2||o||siebie1,2,||/jednego o drugiego2.|
|‘The policemeni questioned themj about each otheri/j.|
Reciprocals cannot be bound across a closer potential antecedent, such as a nominal possessor in [spec, NP] or the PRO subject of the infinitive:
|‘Writers read reminiscences about each other.’|
|‘Writers read the reminiscences of Tolstoj about each other.’|
|‘The boys read the girls’ memories about themselves/them.’|
|(v)||My1||kazaliśmy||im2 [PRO2||nalać||sobie*1/2/jeden drugiemu*1/2||herbaty]|
|‘We1 asked them2 PRO2 to pour each other*1/2 tea.|
In the terms of our analysis of reflexives presented here, the reciprocal pronouns in Polish can express their φ-features in situ and do not undergo clitic-like movement to v/T. Hence the lack of subject-orientation and long-distance binding effects.
We find little evidence for the movement of the D-bound/Index as XP in the verbal/clausal domain discussed here. However, phrasal movement is attested in binding into the nominal domain, an issue that remains beyond the scope of this contribution.
In addition, as mentioned by an anonymous reviewer, movement to position  violates anti-locality (Abels 2003) which is a ban on movement that is too short and does not bring the moving element any closer to its ultimate goal. In minimalist terms, such movement is rendered superfluous and must be blocked.
In his analysis of English possessive constructions Despić (2015) proposes a similar solution in that the pronominal possessor is placed at a lower level of the DP structure than the nominal possessor or the reciprocal possessor:
(i) [DP Mary/each other [D’ [D ‘s] [PossP my/their/her [Poss’ Poss [NP friends]]]]]
We still keep the distinction between co-argument reflexivisation and non-co-argument reflexivisation, Nikolaeva's (18d).
Movement relations respect Relativised Minimality in (A) and Agree and Move obey the Minimal Link Condition in (B).
|(A) Relativised Minimality (Roberts 1993: 32)|
|In the configuration (i), X antecedent-governs Z only if there is no W such that:|
|(ii) W is a typical potential antecedent-governor for Z;|
|(iii) W intervenes between X and Z.|
|(B) Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky 1995: 311, 356)|
|(i) K attracts α only if there is no β, β closer to K than α, such that K attracts β.|
|(ii) β is closer to K than α unless β is in the same minimal domain as (a) K or (b) α.|
Richards (1997, 1998) shows that in a number of cases a grammatical principle is observed once in a particular structure and then ignored by further operations applying to the same domain. For instance, in Bulgarian multiple wh-movement observes superiority but once the most superior wh-phrase has moved, the other ones can do so at will, e.g. kakavo ‘what’ cannot cross kogo in (iii) but it can do so in (iv), when koj ‘who’ has moved to C first:
|(i)||*[wh2-C …wh1 …t2]|
|(ii)||[wh1-wh3-wh2-C …t1 …t2…t3 ]|
|‘What did Ivan ask whom?’|
|‘Who asked whom what?’|
|Landau (2000: 70–71) discusses cases of subject control (across the object, as in: John promised Mary to do the dishes) in the following configuration:|
|(v)||[ T1…DP1 …v1 … DP2 [CP T-Agr1 [TP PRO1 ….]]]|
For Subject Control to hold here, T1 must access the complex T-Agr1 across another potential probe v1. The PMC allows for this, as T1 is first involved in a legitimate local Agree with DP1. Once this relation is executed T1 becomes involved in a less local minimality-violating relation with T-Agr1, across v1. This relation would be impossible on its own, without the first local relation.
We are grateful to a reviewer for advising us on relevant aspects of the issue of head-movement for our analysis.
Vicente (2007: 25–26) discusses the notion of the complex head (such as an inflected verb created through repeated head movement and adjunction) in the context of Chomsky's (1995) Bare Phrase Structure. He adopts the following definition of the word, following Julien (2002: 321):
(i) A word is a sequence of morphemes with internal cohesion and distribution.
This definition admits that words need not be constituents (though in most cases they are). In the following example from Chichewa the tense and agreement prefixes do not form a unit (a constituent) with the verbal stem and the applicative and perfective suffixes (which jointly form a complex head on their own). Yet, the entire complex is a word, as no lexical material intervenes between the [[[-umb] –ir] –a] complex head and the prefixes occupying their base positions in their respective separate projections:
|(ii)||[AgrsP a- [TP -na- [ApplP [[[-umb]||-r]||-a] [AspPt [VPt ]]]]]|
This structure is an indication that on the strength of the definition in (i) się REFL and a pronominal clitic/weak pronoun can be said to form PF-relevant words with the following/preceding heads without PF-merger.
A reviewer pointed out that the issue of copy pronunciation requires clarification if, as we originally submitted, the lexical content of the reflexive element corresponds to the NP complement to D, and this NP remains in situ. Our current modification solves this problem if the domain of lexicalisation involves a larger constituent of [DP [[φ][var_] D] [0D [NP ]]]. Alternatively, the operation of moving a null [[φ][var_] D] alone could work like wh-movement in languages with null wh-operators (e.g. Korean). That is, just like the D0 head of the D-bound, a null wh-operator moves for interpretation reasons (at LF) and determines the interpretation of the wh-phrase as a question phrase, but only the NP complement is lexicalized. Also, as suggested by the reviewer, the Polish reflexive clitic się, the distribution of which overlaps with the landing sites of the D0 head (see 23b), could have the structure [DP [[φ][var:1] D]] in which the D-bound is a projection of the Dmin/max in terms of BPS.
We are grateful to a reviewer for drawing our attention to this comparative issue.
While Bošković (2005) claimed that simple NPs were not phasal projections at all, his later publications (Boskovic 2012) made the claim that the maximal nominal projection was a phase (so the NP as well). The difference between the two language groups with respect to LBE was the placement of the adjective/possessive at the edge as an adjunct (Slavic) or its placement deeper within the DP structure (away from the edge).
The topic that we intend to turn to next is a comparative analysis of all NP-languages and postnominal DP-languages, examining the issue of a plausible co-occurrence in them of the phenomena of Left Branch Extraction, possessive reflexive placement and the Extended Anaphor Agreement Effect. This step is, however, beyond the scope of this contribution.
It must be noted that this conclusion does not hold for all Slavic languages. For example, Marvin and Stegovec (2012) show that in Slovenian, a quantifier in the higher dative object can bind a reflexive possessive in the lower object, as in (i).
|‘The thief returned every victim his car.’/‘The thief returned every victim his (the thief's) car.’|
Similarly, the accusative argument in the adversity impersonal construction is unable to bind an anaphor (Lavine & Franks 2008; Witkoś et al. 2018), which we take to indicate that its A-chain does not extend beyond VP:
|‘A/the sailor was killed after his watch.’|
|(ii)||[TP …[TP T [vP CAUSE Index-v [VP sailorACC killed-V [PP after [Index [watch]]]]]]]|
The head [[φ][var:_] D] is raised to its reflexivization site at v/T, beyond the c-domain of the accusative-argument in [spec, VP]. Although the accusative NP is moved further on to some clause-initial position in the left periphery of the clause, this movement does not extend its binding domain. This observation in fact confirms the analysis proposed for this construction in Lavine and Franks (2008), who argue that the accusative NP is a regular internal argument of the verb (object), with an abstract CAUSE element serving as the external one.
A more recent analysis of Impersonal constructions with Dative Experiencers in Polish is proposed in Willim (2018).
In terms of Minimality considerations, the movement of the NP MariaDAT to the position of XP facilitates an unobstructed relation between [−val person] on T and [[φ][var:1] D] and the attraction of the latter to the former.
The relevant representations take the following form:
(i)[TP MariaNOM [[φ][var:1] D]-T [vP
MariaNOM [v’ [[φ][var:1] D]-v [ żałuje [[*φ][var:1] D]]]]
(ii)[TP MariaNOM [[φ][var:1] D]-T [vP
MariaNOM [v’ [[φ][var:1] D]-v [ żałuje [[[*φ][var:1] D] koleżanki]]]
Other similar verbs in Polish are dokuczać ‘tease, vex’, nudzić ‘bore’ and szkodzić ‘harm’:
|‘Her school desk friend teased to Maria.’|
|‘Letters from his fans harmed Jan.’|
A reviewer raises a question of a potential correlation between the morphological form of the possessive (reflexive vs. pronominal) and alienable vs. inalienable possession (one's friend from (77) vs. one's looks from (80)). We have not tested this variable in our experiments but we are certain that this interpretive dimension deserves attention in our future research on this topic.
There is evidence that the nominative reflexive possessive can be legitimately bound under certain conditions. Tajsner (2008: 337) observes that swójNOM ‘self'sNOM’ can be bound, provided it does not form a chain with T, e.g. with a nominative-taking preposition jak ‘like’:
|Jarek.nom||looks||like||self's/his own||twin brother.nom|
|‘Jarek looks like his twin brother.’|
A similar structure is proposed in Bondaruk and Rozwadowska (2018) and Klimek and Rozwadowska (2004) for an analysis of accusative OEs, exemplified by the following sentence from Bondaruk and Szymanek (2007) in (i). (ii) Contains a variation of this example with possessives:
|‘Mary despises her own behaviour so much that it puts her off herself.’|
|‘Maria is put off by letters of her ex-husband.’|
A version of the same example with a QP subject is similar to (72), which confirms that LF-relevant binding is involved in this relation:
|‘Every new actress appealed to her new fans.’|
Thus the examples in (74) above are close derivational relatives of the following unergative constructions:
|‘Jan slept in his new bed.’|
|‘Maria drove her new car.’|
A related view is articulated in Bondaruk (2017), who attributes the lack of binding by dative OEs into nominative arguments to the AAE.
The second element of a theoretical justification for (92) is related strictly to Binding Theory and the impossibility of satisfying both Principle A and Principle B in the same domain:
(i) *antecedenti … [AgrP anaphori agreementi…]
In the structure of (i), assuming that the antecedent, AGR (pronominal) and the anaphor are in the same governing category/binding domain, Principles A and B mutually exclude each other: either the anaphor is bound by the antecedent, in line with Principle A, or the anaphor shares its index with AGR but this index must be different from (i), otherwise AGR will be bound by the antecedent, in violation of Principle B. In conclusion, the AAE prohibits nominative anaphors, because nominative elements also agree with the auxiliary/verb. In line with minimalist assumptions Reuland (2011) submits that reflexives have unvalued φ-features and the AAE is a consequence of them being φ-incomplete goals for the T probe.
In the context of the MLC, the proposed adjunction structure in (96)–(97) above implies that any probe c-commanding the NP goal also c-commands the adjunct, moreover, the NP category itself is not closer to the probe, as it does not c-command the adjunct. Thus, if both the adjunct (Index) and [NP Index [NP …N…]] share the features of the probe, they can be both related to it via Agree.
See the derivation of (28d-e) and (98)–(99). Deletion of φ-features on the reflexive (they are recoverable from the antecedent) turns the reflexive into an illicit goal for T. This is exactly how the AAE is accounted for in Reuland (2011). In a similar vein, Progovac (1992, 1993) submits that reflexives are too ‘weak’ to license AGR. She submits that the reflexive, just like a trace, becomes empty in LF, as all its (φ-)features are recoverable form its antecedent. As Agr requires feature sharing, an empty element, bereft of φ-features, cannot share them with Agr, hence the AAE.
In languages where possessives are genuine specifiers rather than adjuncts, possessive reflexives are allowed, as shown in Woolford (1999: 273–274).
Incidentally, this Albanian example perfectly translates into a Polish construction with a DAT OE:
|‘I felt pity for myself.’|
In this example T/V shows the default 3sg.n, while the Anaphor is 1st person singular.
We are grateful to a reviewer for bringing this aspect of the analysis of the Extended AAE to our attention. The topic that must be addressed in further research is to what extent the level of embedding of the reflexive possessive is a factor in analogous constructions in Russian, Bulgarian, etc.
A similar effect arises for the Anti-Cataphora Effect. Willim (1989: 82) reports that the following example is problematic, though many native speakers accept it as only mildly deviant:
|‘This review of my brother's book devastated him completely.’|
We presume that the scope of index propagation is a matter of speaker variation but the extent of the propagation is difficult to gauge on account of processing difficulties. Certainly, this issue deserves further empirical study.
For those speakers who accept the reflexive possessive embedded in a complex NP (84) there is a technical way of triggering Index Raising from an embedded position. Bošković (2005) allows for an amelioration of the ban on Deep Left Branch Extraction through a ‘smuggling’ movement, where step (ii) precedes (i):
|(i)||?(?)Cijei||je||on [NP ti||majke]j||vidio [NP||prijatelja tj].|
|‘A friend of whose mother did he see?’|
|(ii)||?(?)On||je [NP||njegove majke]j vidio [NP||prijatelja tj].|
|‘He saw a friend of his mother.’|
|In the same vein, we propose a covert equivalent to (i–ii) to allow for long IR:|
|(iii)||Index … [NP Index [NP AP [NP N]]] … [NP shape [NP Index AP N]]|