Abstract
Plural pronouns create the possibility of overlapping reference, which does not not fit naturally into the classical GB theory of anaphora, where each NP has a single integer as its referential index. Thus, one must either complicate the indexing system used in syntax or complicate the semantic interpretation of indices. This paper argues for the former approach based on the properties of a particular comitative-like construction found in Mohawk and certain other languages. This construction is analyzed as a type of Left Dislocation where the dislocated NP forms a syntactic chain with a pronoun that it overlaps in reference with. Several unusual characteristics of such chains can be accounted for if plural pronouns have sets of integers as their indices—characteristics involving bound anaphora, ellipsis interpretation, and connectivity effects. Certain implications for the theory of chains are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AissenJudith: 1989, ‘Agreement Controllers and Tzotzil Comitatives,’Language 65(3), 518–536.
AissenJudith: 1987,Tzotzil Clause Structure, Reidel, Dordrecht.
BakerMark: 1991, ‘On Some Subject/Object Nonasymmetries in Mohawk,’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9(4), 537–576.
Baker, Mark: to appear, ‘On the Absence of Certain Quantifiers in Mohawk,’ in Barbara Partee, Emmon Bach, Angelika Kratzer and Eloise Jelinek (eds.),Quantification in Natural Languages.
Barss, Andrew: 1986,Chains and Anaphoric Dependence: On Reconstruction and Its Implications, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
BresnanJoan and SamMchombo: 1987, ‘Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in Chichewa,’Language 63(4), 741–782.
BroadwellGeorge: 1986, ‘A-bar Anaphora and Relative Clauses,’NELS 16, 47–56.
ChomskyNoam: 1977, ‘OnWh-Movement,’ in PeterCulicover, ThomasWasow and AdrianAkmajian (eds.),Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, pp. 71–132.
ChomskyNoam: 1980, ‘On Binding,’Linguistic Inquiry 11(1), 1–46.
ChomskyNoam: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
ChomskyNoam: 1986,Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
CinqueGuglielmo: 1990,Types of A-bar Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
DeeringNora and HelgaDelisle: 1976,Mohawk: A Teaching Grammar, Thunderbird Press, Kahnawake, Quebec.
Dobrovie-SorinCarmen: 1990, ‘Clitic Doubling,Wh-Movement, and Quantification in Romanian,’Linguistic Inquiry 21(3), 351–397.
DowtyDavid: 1980, ‘Comments on the Paper by Bach and Partee,’ in K. J.Kreiman and A.E.Oteda (eds.),Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphors, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago.
Engdahl, Elizabeth: 1980,The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
EvansGareth: 1980, ‘Pronouns,’Linguistic Inquiry 11(2), 337–362.
Heim, Irene: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
HeimIrene, HowardLasnik, and RobertMay: 1991, ‘Reciprocity and Plurality,’Linguistic Inquiry 22(1), 63–102.
HigginbothamJames: 1983, ‘Logical Form, Binding, and Nominals,’Linguistic Inquiry 14(3), 395–420.
Huang, C.-T. James: 1982,Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Iatridou, Sabine: 1991, ‘Clitics and Island Effects,’ ms., MIT.
KoopmanHilda and DominiqueSportiche: 1982, ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle,’The Linguistic Review 2(2), 139–160.
Kornfilt, Jacqueline: 1991, ‘Turkish (Non-)Comitatives,’ ms., Syracuse University.
KunoSusumu: 1973,The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
LasnikHoward: 1981, ‘On Two Recent Treatments of Disjoint Reference,’Journal of Linguistic Research 1(4), 48–58.
LasnikHoward: 1989,Essays on Anaphora, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
LounsburyFloyd: 1953,Oneida Verb Morphology, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
MontalbettiMario and KennethWexler: 1985, ‘Binding is Linking,’WCCFL 4, 228–246.
PostalPaul: 1979,Some Syntactic Rules of Mohawk, Garland, New York.
ReinhartTanya: 1983a, ‘Coreference and Bound Anaphora: A Restatement of the Anaphora Questions,’Linguistics and Philosophy 6(1), 47–88.
ReinhartTanya: 1983b,Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
ReinhartTanya: 1986, ‘Center and Periphery in the Grammar of Anaphora,’ in BarbaraLust (ed.),Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, Reidel, Dordrecht.
RobertsCraige: 1985, ‘On the Assignment of Indices and Their Interpretation in Binding Theory,’NELS 15, 362–376.
Ross, John: 1967,Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
SafirKenneth: 1986, ‘Relative Clauses in a Theory of Binding and Levels,’Linguistic Inquiry 17(4), 663–690.
Sag, Ivan: 1976,Deletion and Logical Form, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
SporticheDominique: 1985, ‘Remarks on Crossover,’Linguistic Inquiry 16(3), 460–470.
WilliamsEdwin: 1977, ‘Discourse and Logical Form,’Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 101–139.
WilliamsEdwin: 1980, ‘Predication,’Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research reported here was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, grant # 410-90-0308, and by FCAR of Quebec, grant # 91-ER-0578. The Mohawk judgments that this work is based on were provided by Ms. Grace Curotte, Ms. Carolee Jacobs, and Mr. Frank Jacobs, all of Kahnawake, Quebec. In addition to these, I also wish to thank Brendan Gillon, Karina Wilkinson, Jose Bonneau, Adriana Chamorro, Edward Ikeda, Ken Hale, Ken Safir, Irene Heim, Angelika Kratzer, Luigi Rizzi, the audience of NELS 22, a colloquium audience at the University of Geneva, and the members of the McGill linguistics department for their help and comments on various stages of this research. Errors of fact and interpretation remain my responsibility.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baker, M.C. Unmatched chains and the representation of plural pronouns. Nat Lang Seman 1, 33–73 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342616
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342616