{"title":"把希腊语的“o - eaftos mu”作为一个规则的比喻:理论意义","authors":"Nikos Angelopoulos, Dominique Sportiche","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Binding theory Condition A must be so formulated as to accommodate the range of behaviors exhibited by anaphors crosslinguistically. In this respect, the behavior of the Modern Greek anaphor o eaos mu is theoretically important as it has been reported to display a number of unusual distributional properties, thus leading to treatments by Iatridou (1988) or Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) dierent from that of standard anaphors represented by English himself and thus requiring a rethinking of the classic Condition A descriptive generalization and its theoretical derivation. is paper revisits the distribution of this expression documenting rst that previous discussions are subject to a confound as this expression is not always a reexive. Controlling for this confound and relying on new data surveys, we conclude that when anaphoric, o eaos mu is in fact a well behaved standard anaphor from the point of view of the standard Condition A (akin to Chomsky 1986). ese surveys support some aspects of the empirical picture presented in Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) but not others. It does support two important conclusions of theirs, namely that this expression cannot be used logophorically and that as nominative subject, it is allowed but in derived subject positions only. is in turn leads to a number of new (theoretical) consequences and predictions: (a) the absence of logophoric usage can be used to determine the domain of application of Condition A independently from the inanimacy criterion used in Charnavel and Sportiche (2016), and yields a picture consistent with its ndings, (b) the ability of anaphors to function as nominative subjects can be reduced to dierences in their internal structure (Greek o eaos mu 6= English himself), (c) an inuential theoretical innovation made in Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) which takes the reexivization mechanism to be self incorporation as a general solution to why self induces reexive readings cannot be maintained as a general mechanism underlying anaphor binding in Greek. ∗Email contact: n.angelopouloss1@gmail.com, sportich@g.ucla.edu","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treating Greek o eaftos mu as a Regular Anaphor: Theoretical Implications\",\"authors\":\"Nikos Angelopoulos, Dominique Sportiche\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/ling_a_00508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Binding theory Condition A must be so formulated as to accommodate the range of behaviors exhibited by anaphors crosslinguistically. In this respect, the behavior of the Modern Greek anaphor o eaos mu is theoretically important as it has been reported to display a number of unusual distributional properties, thus leading to treatments by Iatridou (1988) or Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) dierent from that of standard anaphors represented by English himself and thus requiring a rethinking of the classic Condition A descriptive generalization and its theoretical derivation. is paper revisits the distribution of this expression documenting rst that previous discussions are subject to a confound as this expression is not always a reexive. Controlling for this confound and relying on new data surveys, we conclude that when anaphoric, o eaos mu is in fact a well behaved standard anaphor from the point of view of the standard Condition A (akin to Chomsky 1986). ese surveys support some aspects of the empirical picture presented in Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) but not others. It does support two important conclusions of theirs, namely that this expression cannot be used logophorically and that as nominative subject, it is allowed but in derived subject positions only. is in turn leads to a number of new (theoretical) consequences and predictions: (a) the absence of logophoric usage can be used to determine the domain of application of Condition A independently from the inanimacy criterion used in Charnavel and Sportiche (2016), and yields a picture consistent with its ndings, (b) the ability of anaphors to function as nominative subjects can be reduced to dierences in their internal structure (Greek o eaos mu 6= English himself), (c) an inuential theoretical innovation made in Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) which takes the reexivization mechanism to be self incorporation as a general solution to why self induces reexive readings cannot be maintained as a general mechanism underlying anaphor binding in Greek. ∗Email contact: n.angelopouloss1@gmail.com, sportich@g.ucla.edu\",\"PeriodicalId\":48044,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistic Inquiry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistic Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00508\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00508","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
约束理论:条件A的制定必须能适应回指在跨语言上所表现出的行为范围。在这方面,现代希腊语对ea ø os mu的比喻行为在理论上是重要的,因为据报道,它显示出许多不寻常的分布特性,因此导致Iatridou(1988)或Anagnostopoulou和Everaert(1999)的处理与英语本人所代表的标准比喻不同,因此需要重新思考经典条件a描述性概括及其理论推导。他的论文回顾了这个表达式的分布,首先证明了之前的讨论是混乱的,因为这个表达式并不总是一个合理的。控制这种混淆并依靠新的数据调查,我们得出结论,当回指时,从标准条件a的角度来看,实际上是一个表现良好的标准回指(类似于乔姆斯基1986)。这些调查支持Anagnostopoulou和Everaert(1999)中提出的实证图景的某些方面,但不支持其他方面。它确实支持了他们的两个重要结论,即,这个表达不能在词义上使用,作为主格主语,它是允许的,但只能在派生的主语位置上使用。’反过来又导致了许多新的(理论的)结果和预测:(a)的缺失logophoric使用可以用来确定应用程序的域的条件独立于inanimacy准则用于Charnavel和Sportiche(2016),和收益率一幅符合其扩散连接,(b)照应语的功能作为记名的对象可以减少dierences在他们的内部结构(希腊o eaos 6μ=英语自己),(c) Anagnostopoulou和Everaert(1999)的一项关于隐喻的理论创新,该理论将自我整合的隐喻化机制作为一般解决方案,以解释为什么自我诱导的隐喻阅读不能作为希腊语中隐喻结合的一般机制。*电子邮件联系方式:n.angelopouloss1@gmail.com, sportich@g.ucla.edu
Treating Greek o eaftos mu as a Regular Anaphor: Theoretical Implications
Binding theory Condition A must be so formulated as to accommodate the range of behaviors exhibited by anaphors crosslinguistically. In this respect, the behavior of the Modern Greek anaphor o eaos mu is theoretically important as it has been reported to display a number of unusual distributional properties, thus leading to treatments by Iatridou (1988) or Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) dierent from that of standard anaphors represented by English himself and thus requiring a rethinking of the classic Condition A descriptive generalization and its theoretical derivation. is paper revisits the distribution of this expression documenting rst that previous discussions are subject to a confound as this expression is not always a reexive. Controlling for this confound and relying on new data surveys, we conclude that when anaphoric, o eaos mu is in fact a well behaved standard anaphor from the point of view of the standard Condition A (akin to Chomsky 1986). ese surveys support some aspects of the empirical picture presented in Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) but not others. It does support two important conclusions of theirs, namely that this expression cannot be used logophorically and that as nominative subject, it is allowed but in derived subject positions only. is in turn leads to a number of new (theoretical) consequences and predictions: (a) the absence of logophoric usage can be used to determine the domain of application of Condition A independently from the inanimacy criterion used in Charnavel and Sportiche (2016), and yields a picture consistent with its ndings, (b) the ability of anaphors to function as nominative subjects can be reduced to dierences in their internal structure (Greek o eaos mu 6= English himself), (c) an inuential theoretical innovation made in Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) which takes the reexivization mechanism to be self incorporation as a general solution to why self induces reexive readings cannot be maintained as a general mechanism underlying anaphor binding in Greek. ∗Email contact: n.angelopouloss1@gmail.com, sportich@g.ucla.edu
期刊介绍:
Linguistic Inquiry leads the field in research on current topics in linguistics. This key resource explores new theoretical developments based on the latest international scholarship, capturing the excitement of contemporary debate in full-scale articles as well as shorter contributions (Squibs and Discussion) and more extensive commentary (Remarks and Replies).