West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (38th : 2020)

Demystifying Picture Noun Anaphora Bryant, Shannon; Charnavel, Isabelle 2020

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


73804-Bryant_S_et_al_Demystifying_WCCFL38_2020_poster.pdf [ 120.53kB ]
JSON: 73804-1.0389841.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389841-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389841-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389841-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389841-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389841-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389841-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

I.  Contexts with obligatory nominal subject projection** Creator vs. logophoric interpretation = probe into subject projection in NP ** ✔ Subject binding, i.e. creator interpretation, obligatory*[XP DP X ... prolog ... [NP prosubj N  herself ]][XP DP X ... prolog ... [NP prosubj N herself ]]• Reflexive goal arguments:(10)  a.  Ellis enjoyed the letter to himself.  [context: letter written by {a. Ellis; *b. Ellis’s sister}] b. John stole Mary’s letter to herself.  [context: letter written by {a. Mary; *b. Mary’s brother}] • Reflexive arguments within the complement of a creation verb:(see also Asudeh & Keller 2001, i.a.)(11)  Gordon {a. *wrote / b. enjoyed} Faye’s book about herself.  [context: book not written by Faye]✔ Binding across disjoint possessors impossible* [DP DPposs [NP prosubj N  herself ]](12) *Roger tore up Cora’s note to himself.  [context: note written by Roger](13) *David wrote Erica’s book about himself.II.  Contexts without obligatory nominal subject projection✔ Non-subject binding, i.e. non-creator interpretation, possible:(see also Asudeh & Keller 2001, Runner & Kaiser 2005, i.a.)[XP DP X ... prolog ... [NP N  herself ]](14) a. Erica hated the photo of herself.b.  Ben didn’t like Amanda’s portrait of himself.  [context: portrait not painted by Ben]1 (10)-(14): Judgements from 108 native English speakers via Amazon MTurk (Bryant & Charnavel, to appear) 5. Binding and subject projection in Picture Noun Phrases1Ø Extending the VP generalization: Picture Noun Anaphora can be logophorically bound only in the absence of a coargumental subject+ The subject of a picture noun is interpreted as creator (Chomsky 1986, i.a.). + English DPs may project only one external argument (Longobardi 2001, i.a.).3. Logophoric A-binding in Picture Noun Phrases✔ Covert binding licensed when logophorically interpreted (Charnavel 2020, to appear)• Anteceded by a mental perspective center (attitude holder, empathy locus)• In a phrase expressing the antecedent’s first person perspective(5)  a.  John knew [that prolog there was a picture of himself in the post office]. b. *Mary said about John [that prolog there was a picture of himself in the post office].  ✔ Exhaustive coreference constraint on locally co-occurring logophoric anaphors (Charnavel 2020, to appear)(6)  John told Mary …a.  [that prolog there was a story about himself in the paper]. b.  [that prolog there were some pictures of themselves in the paper].c. *[that prolog /prolog there were a story about himself and some pictures of themselves in the paper].Demystifying Picture Noun AnaphoraShannon Bryant and Isabelle CharnavelHarvard UniversityWCCFL 38 – University of British Columbia1. The problem with Picture Noun AnaphoraØ GB Condition A: Anaphors must be bound within the minimal XP containing them and a subject (Chomsky 1986)+ Picture Nouns may project covert agentive subjects.✔ Non-complementarity with pronouns (Chomsky 1986)(1)   a. They heard stories about themselves.b. They heard [PRO stories about them]. ❌ No need for overt local binder even when non-agentive(2)   Tom believes that there is a picture of himself hanging in the post office. (Jackendoff 1972)Ø Predicate-based Condition A: Anaphoric arguments of a predicate with a subject must be bound by a coargument (Pollard & Sag 1992, Reinhart & Reuland 1993)+ Anaphors lacking a coargument are exempt from Condition A and licensed by discourse factors like point of view.✔ Sensitivity to perspective(3) *Mary said about John that there was a picture of himself in the post office. (Kuno 1987)❌ No need for coargument even when non-perspectival (Charnavel & Sportiche 2016)(4)   a. The witty play contains a parody of itself.b. *The witty play convinced Bob to see a parody of itself.2. Solution: Condition A + Strong/Weak Competition Ø Condition A: An anaphor must be bound within the minimal Spell-out domain (Charnavel & Sportiche 2016) • No exemption, but anaphors can be locally bound by a covert logophoric pronoun prolog under appropriate perspectival conditions (Charnavel 2020, to appear).… (DP) … [Spell-out domain ... prolog ... herself ... ]Ø Competition: All else being equal, a weaker form excludes a stronger form (Cardinaletti & Starke 1999)• Proposal: English weak pro-forms (‘erself, ‘er) block strong pro-forms (herself, her).cf. French clitics se/la/lui block strong reflexive elle-même and strong pronoun elle (Charnavel & Sportiche 2016)• Prediction: Logophoric herself can only occur in positions that cannot host weak pro-forms in broad focus contexts.cf. French logophoric elle-même can only occur in non-cliticizablepositions (Charnavel 2020)4. Strong/Weak competition: generalization in English VPØ Weak ’erself vs. strong herself (Ahn 2015)• Anaphors bound by a deep and surface coargument subject are extrametrical in broad focus contexts (weak). • Weak anaphors must be bound by a coargument subject. (7)  a. Remy accidentally burned {a. Maríe / b. #hímself}. b. Remy accidentally búrned {a. #Marie / b. ‘imself}. (8)  a. Louis plays a character líke {a. #his brother / b. #’imself}.b. Louis plays a character like {a.  his bróther / b.  hímself}. Ø Logophoric herself: Anaphors can be logophorically bound only if they are strong, i.e., only if they lack a coargument subject (Charnavel 2020)(9)  a. *It angered him that she tried PRO to attract ’imself.b.  It angered him that she tried PRO to attract a man like himself.(Reinhart & Reuland 1993)6. REFERENCES Ahn 2015. Giving reflexivity a voice: Twin reflexives in English (Doctoral diss. UCLA).   Asudeh & Keller 2001. Experimental evidence for predication-based binding theory. Proc. CLS 37.   Bryant & Charnavel to appear. Effects of creator role on binding into Picture Noun Phrases. Proc. CLS55. Cardinaletti & Starke 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.   Charnavel to appear. Logophoricity and Locality: A view from French anaphors. LI.   Charnavel 2020. Locality and Logophoricity: A theory of Exempt Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford UP.   Charnavel & Sportiche 2016. Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show. LI 47(1). 35-87.   Chomsky 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.   Jackendoff 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.   Kuno 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: U Chicago Press.   Longobardi 2001. The structure of DPs: Some principles, parameters, and problems. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 562-603. Oxford: Blackwell.   Pollard & Sag 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. LI 23(2). 261-303.   Reinhart & Reuland 1993. Reflexivity. LI 24(4). 657-720.   Runner & Kaiser 2005. Binding in picture noun phrases: Implications for binding theory. Proc. HPSG05. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items