Part of
Advances in Iranian LinguisticsEdited by Richard K. Larson, Sedigheh Moradi and Vida Samiian
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 351] 2020
► pp. 15–28
Edited by Richard K. Larson, Sedigheh Moradi and Vida Samiian
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 351] 2020
► pp. 15–28
Chapter 2Syntactic and semantic constraints on pronoun and anaphor resolution in Persian
This chapter investigates the mechanism of reference resolution for the colloquial pronoun un “(s)he” and the anaphor xod-eš “self-3sg” in Persian. The present analysis serves as another piece of evidence in support of the ‘multiple constraints’ framework for reference resolution advanced in Kaiser (2003) and Kaiser et al. (2009), while also contributing to the relatively scant analyses of Persian reference resolution. In identifying the differences in sensitivity to constraints, though, we argue that xod-eš and un are fundamentally different in their binding behaviour. Regarding the semantic constraints, we observed that un is more sensitive to a perceiver bias than xod-eš. We further reinforce the bound nature of xod-eš with the observation that it requires a c-commanding antecedent. This, along with the observed tolerance for (syntactic) binding both within and beyond the local clause, motivates its comparison with the Korean caki and Chinese ziji “self”, both of which share these properties.
Keywords: binding, pronouns, anaphors, logophoricity, multiple constraints framework
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Core Persian binding data
- 3.Multiple constraints
- 4.Long distance anaphors
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements -
Notes -
References
References (16)
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De de se. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (2). 159–219. 
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon & Li-May Sung. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 1–22.
Ghomeshi, Jila & Elizabeth Ritter. 1996. Binding, possessives, and the structure of DP. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the 26th North East Linguistics Society Conference (NELS), 87–100. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Han, Chung-hye & Dennis R. Storoshenko. 2012. Semantic binding of long distance anaphor caki in Korean. Language 88(4). 764–790.
Han, Chung-hye, Dennis R. Storoshenko, Betty Leung & Kyeong-min Kim. 2015. The time course of long-distance anaphor processing in Korean. Korean Linguistics 17(1). 1–32.
Kaiser, Elsi. 2003. The quest for a referent: A crosslinguistic look at reference resolution. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
Kaiser, Elsi, Jeffrey T. Runner, Rachel S. Sussman & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2009. Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition 112(1). 55–80.
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lees, Robert B. & Edward S. Klima. 1963. Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39(1), 17–28.
Moyne, John Abel. 1971. Reflexive and emphatic. Language 47. 141–163.
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4). 657–720.
Sohng, Hong-Ki. 2004. A minimalist analysis of X0 reflexivization in Chinese and Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 14 (3). 375–396.
Tenny, Carol. 2003. Short distance pronouns, argument structure, and the grammar of sentience. Manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University.
Yoon, Jeong-Me. 1989. Long-distance anaphors in Korean and their cross-linguistic implications. In Caroline Wiltshire, Randolph Graczyk & Music Bradley (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 479–495. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.