Ambiguity of Reflexives and Case Extension

Ambiguity of Reflexives and Case Extension* Richard Zuber CNRS, Paris, France Richard.Zuber@linguist.jussieu.fr Abstract. It is suggested that the difference between co-referential and bound reflexive pronouns found in many languages can be accounted for by using the notion of the case extension of a type <1> quantifier. Given this proposal the co-referential pronouns get their meaning when the corresponding NP takes nominal case extension first. Bound reflexives are reflexivisers in the sense that they are not case extensions of quantifiers although they also transform binary relations into sets. Examples from Japanese and from Polish are discussed. Keywords: Co-referential and bound reflexives, case extension of a quantifier. 1. Introduction One of well-known distinctions concerning reflexives, and more generally anaphors, is the distinction, introduced in Reinhart (1983), between co-referential and bound reflexives (or anaphors). In English the distinction between co-referential and bound reflexive can be illustrated by the possible ambiguity of the sentence in (1): (1) Only Leo washed himself. This sentence can mean, at least theoretically, either (2a), the co-referential reading of reflexive, or (2b), the bound reflexive: (2a) Only Leo washed Leo. (2b) Leo is the only person who washed himself. Obviously (2a) and (2b) are not equivalent: if nobody in addition to Leo washed himself and Leo was washed, in addition to Leo himself, by someone else then (2a) is false and (2b) is true; and if nobody, except Leo himself, washed Leo and some other person, in addition to Leo, washed him/herself that (2a) is true and (2b) is false. This distinction is related to the distinction between sloppy and strict readings of some pronouns (Dahl 1973) and is illustrated in (3)-(5); the possible interpretation of these sentences is given in the corresponding (b) and (c) sentences: (3a) Only Leo loves his wife (3b) Leo is the only person such that that person loves his own wife (3c) Leo is the only person such that that person loves Leo’s wife (4a) Leo loves his wife and so does Bill (4b) Leo loves his (own) wife and Bill loves Leo’s wife * Thanks to Yasunari Harada for the help with the Japanese data and to Robert Freidin for help with English. Copyright 2007 by Richard Zuber 542 (4c) Leo loves his (own) wife and Bill loves his own wife (5a) Leo considers himself competent, and so does Lea (5b) Leo considers himself competent and Lea considers Leo competent, too (5c) Leo considers himself competent and Lea considers herself competent too In (a) sentences we have a bound variable reading of the reflexive or possessive pronoun and thus the sloppy identity between the corresponding NPs (those related by the anaphor). In (b) sentences we have the strict identity and co-referential readings of pronouns. Notice that the ambiguity does not always arise. In (6) we have only sloppy reading: (6) Leo criticized himself and so did Bill This sentence cannot mean that Bill criticized Leo. In English the distinction between the bound variable reading and the co-referential reading of pronouns is not …

Content truncated to 500 words