Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19Agreement and Concord
- 20Head Dependencies
- 21A-dependencies
- 22Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
22 - Anaphoric Dependencies
from Part III - Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19Agreement and Concord
- 20Head Dependencies
- 21A-dependencies
- 22Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
We review a variety of patterns in anaphoric dependencies as they are found in languages of the world. We discuss cross-linguistic variation together with language universals as presented in the literature, and show how differences and similarities between languages are captured by general principles of the grammatical computational system interacting with the morphosyntactic properties of pronouns and reflexives, and with properties of their syntactic environment. Small differences in structure may have major interpretive effects. Such effects result from the interaction of many factors, including Minimality restrictions and local identity avoidance. Thus, to understand patterns of anaphora in a language one must take into account many factors from different parts of the grammar. This has far-reaching methodological implications. One can no longer ‘‘falsify’’ an analysis based on a simple isolated observation about anaphors in language x, y, or z, as is often attempted. Serious cross-linguistic, typological work is therefore crucial for our understanding of the limits of language variation.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 714 - 747Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Amiridze, N. 1998. Georgian grammaticalized body-part tav and the economic motivation of language. Bulletin of the Georgian Academy of Sciences 157(1): 160–163.Google Scholar
Amiridze, N. 2006. Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, R. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Kannada. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 49–112.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E., and Everaert, M.. 1996. How exceptional are nominative anaphors? A case study of Greek. In Nash, L., Tsoulas, G., and Zribi-Hertz, A. (eds.), Actes du deuxieme colloque Langue et Grammaire, Paris VIII, 19–32. Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 1986. The typology of anaphoric dependencies: Icelandic (and other) reflexives. In Hellan, L. and Christensen, K. Koch (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, 65–88. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 351–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, C. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4): 614–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battistella, E. 1987. Chinese reflexivization. Paper presented at the Second Harbin Conference on Generative Grammar, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, People’s Republic of China; Ms., University of Alabama at Birmingham.Google Scholar
Bavelier, D. 1994. Repetition blindness between visually different items: The case of pictures and words. Cognition 51: 199–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N., and Nunes, J.. 2007. Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: A Movement analysis. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 1–45.Google Scholar
Bond, O. 2019. Canonical typology. In Audring, J. and Masini, F. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory, 409–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2020. Reflexive and reciprocal personal pronouns. Taalportaal. https://taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-13998813311587583.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2021. Generalizing the presuppositional approach to the Binding Conditions. Syntax 24(4): 417–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, I. 2019. Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, I. 2020. Logophoricity and locality: A view from French anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 51(4): 671–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, I., and Sportiche, D.. 2016. Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show. Linguistic Inquiry 47(1): 35–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, I., Huang, C.-T., Cole, P., and Hermon, G.. 2017. Long-distance anaphora: Syntax and discourse. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom074.Google Scholar
Chief, L.-C. 1998. Mandarin intransitive reflexive verbs and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Language, Information and Computation 12:48–59.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C., and Zubizarreta, M.-L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Sung, L.-M.. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Yanti, . 2015. Grammar of binding in languages of the world: Innate or learned? Cognition 141: 138–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy, S. 2007. I’m going to do me a talk on personal datives … but not really. Syntax Lunch Talk, February 21. Published as Personal datives in Appalachian English as a reflexive pronoun. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 63–88. https://bibbase.org/network/publication/conroy-thepersonaldativeinappalachianenglishasareflexivepronoun-2007.Google Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M., and Manfredi, V.. 1994. Binding domains in Haitian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12: 203–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M., and Wiltschko, M.. 2017. A formal typology of reflexives. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 60–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delfitto, D., and Fiorin, G.. 2011. Person features and pronominal anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 42(2): 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, A. 2012. An event semantics for the Theta System. In Everaert, M., Marelj, M., and Siloni, T. (eds.), The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface, 308–353. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, A., and Everaert, M.. 2004. Typological perspectives on anaphora. In Suihkonen, P. and Comrie, B. (eds.), International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Collection of Papers, 51–67. Udmurt State University.Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, A., and Everaert, M.. 2014. How many theta-roles in a reflexive verb? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61: 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, A., and Que, M.. 2009. The doubly marked reflexive in Chinese. In Lalitha Devi, S., Branco, A., and Mitkov, R. (eds.), Anaphora Processing and Applications [Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5847], 80–90. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1988. A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Doàn, N. 2022. Anaphoric Dependencies in Vietnamese: A Syntactic Approach. PhD dissertation, Amsterdam: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Doàn, N., Reuland, E., and Everaert, M. 2024. The blocking effect in Vietnamese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics. 33: 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., and Levinson, S.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everaert, M. 1990. Nominative anaphors in Icelandic: Morphology or syntax? In Abraham, W., Kosmeijer, W., and Reuland, E. (eds.), Issues in Germanic Syntax, 277–307. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, M. 1991. Contextual determination of the anaphor/pronominal distinction. In Koster, and Reuland, (eds.), 49–75.Google Scholar
Everaert, M. 2000. Types of anaphoric expressions: Reflexives and reciprocals. In Frajzyngier, Z. and Curl, T. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 63–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Everaert, M., and Anagnostopoulou, E.. 1999. Toward a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 97–118.Google Scholar
Faltz, L. 1977/1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of California. [Published in 1985. New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Finer, D. 1984. The Formal Grammar of Switch-Reference. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst [distributed by GLSA].Google Scholar
Forker, D. 2014. Are there subject anaphors? Linguistic Typology 18 1): 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franssen, F. 2010. Australian and Austronesian Anaphora: An Archival Approach. MA thesis, Utrecht University. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/5675.Google Scholar
Gast, V., and Haas, F.. 2008. Reflexive and reciprocal readings of anaphors in German and other European languages. In König, E. and Gast, V. (eds.), Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations, 307–346. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, J., and Ritter, E.. 1996. Binding, possessives, and the structure of DP. North East Linguistics Society 26(1): 87–100.Google Scholar
Giblin, I. 2016. Agreement Restrictions in Mandarin Long-Distance Binding. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Green, G. 1973. Some remarks on split controller phenomena, In Corum, C., Smith Stark, T. C., and Weiser, A. (eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 128–138. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hara, T. 2002. Anaphoric dependencies in Japanese. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Harbour, D. 2014. Paucity, abundance and the theory of number. Language 90(1): 185–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnish, R., and Farmer, A.. 1984. Pragmatics and the modularity of the linguistic system. Lingua 63: 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2008. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6( 1): 40–63.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2023. Comparing reflexive constructions in the world’s languages. In Janic, K., Puddu, N., and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), Reflexive Constructions in the World’s Languages, 19–62. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.]Google Scholar
Hellan, L. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, G. 2009. The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2001. Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese. In Matushansky, O. and Szczegielniak, A. (eds.), The Proceedings of the 1st HUMIT Student Conference in Language Research (HUMIT 2000), 67–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2005. Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hoji, H. 1991. Kare. In Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honors of S.-Y. Kuroda, 287–304. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, J. I., and Ortiz de Urbina, J.. 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T., and Liu, C.-S.. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Huang, C.-T. (eds.), Long-Distance Reflexives, 141–192. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T., and Tang, C.-C. J.. 1991. The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In Koster, and Reuland, (eds.), 263–282.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1992. Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 1997. Anaphors as pronouns. Studia Linguistica 51(2): 186–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Malayalam. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 113–168.Google Scholar
Jeanne, L. M., and Hale, K.. 1985. Argument Obviation and Switch-Reference in Hopi. Ms., MIT. http://lingphil.mit.edu/papers/hale/papers/hale002.pdf.Google Scholar
Kartono, B. 2013. A Puzzle in Binding: Half Reflexive and Locally Bound Pronouns: A Comparative Study of Anaphoric Systems in Indonesian, Javanese, Palembangnese, City Jambi and Village Jambi. MA thesis, Utrecht University. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/14187.Google Scholar
Kartono, B., Reuland, E, and Everaert, M. 2021. Introducing diri: Understanding the role of diri as a reflexivizer. Oceanic Linguistics 60(2): 412–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, K. 2001. Verbal reflexives and the middle voice. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., and Raible, W. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2, 916–927. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2000. An Historical Explanation of Some Binding Theoretic Facts in English. Ms., UCLA; presented at the UCSD conference on Explanation in Linguistics, 1999.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2009. Voice determines co-argument anaphora in W. Austronesian. In The Proceedings of AFLA 16, 77–91.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Keller, R. E. 1961. German Dialects: Phonology and Morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, C. 1981. Anaphora in Japanese: Kare and zibun. In Farmer, A. and Kitagawa, C. (eds.), Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics from A to Z 2: Proceedings of the Arizona Conference on Japanese Linguistics, the Formal Grammar Sessions, 61–75. Tucson, Az: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
König, E. 2001. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., and Raible, W. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 1, 747–760. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
König, E., and Gast, V.. 2008. Reciprocity and reflexivity: Description, typology and theory. In König, E. and Gast, V. (eds.), Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Cross-Linguistic Explorations, 1–32. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, E., and Siemund, P.. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzyngier, Z. and Curl, T. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, E., and Vezzosi, L.. 2004. The role of predicate meaning in the development of reflexivity. In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N., and Wiemer, B. (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components, 213–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, E., Siemund, P., and Töpper, S.. 2013. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In Dryer, M. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, chapter 47. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/feature/47.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2001. Local and long-distance reflexives in Turkish. In Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Huang, C.-T. (eds.), Long-Distance Reflexives, 197–226. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koster, J., and Reuland, E. (eds.). 1991. Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. 2008. The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 833–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R., and Huang, C.. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang: With Annotated Texts and Glossary. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, C. 1998. Creole Genesis and the Acquisition of Grammar. The Case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. 2001. The argument structure of verbal reflexives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(2): 311–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C.-S. 1999 . Anaphora in Mandarin Chinese and Binding at the Interface. PhD dissertation, University of California Irvine.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Wali, K., Gair, J., and Subbārāo, K. V. (eds.). 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, J. 1982. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Icelandic. In Fretheim, T. and Hellan, L. (eds.), Papers from the Sixth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 90–107. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 1984. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 211–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., and Wexler, K.. 1987. Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 413–444.Google Scholar
Marelj, M., and Reuland, E.. 2016. Clitics and reflexives: Reducing the lexicon–syntax parameter. In Reinhart, T., Everaert, M., Marelj, M., and Reuland, E. (eds.), Concepts, Syntax and Their Interfaces: The Theta System, 175–252. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moshagen, S., and Trosterud, T.. 1990. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 46: 47–52.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, C. 2017. Reflexive markers in Oceanic languages. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murugesan, G. 2022. Deriving the anaphor–agreement effect and the violations of it. Syntax 25: 39–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 1993. Reflexes of Ibero-Romance reflexive clitic+verb combinations in Papiamentu: Thematic grids and grammatical relations. In Byrne, F. and Winford, D. (eds.), Focus and Grammatical Relations in Creole Languages, 285–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ndi, F. 2011. Limbum Reflexives. Paper presented at the Workshop “The World of Reflexives,” August 25–27, 2011, Utrecht University. See https://afranaphproject.afranaphdatabase.com/limbum-casemenu-202.Google Scholar
Noguchi, T. 1997. Two types of pronouns and variable binding. Language 73: 770–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patnaik, M., and Subbārāo, K. V.. 2000. An initial note on lexical anaphors and pronouns in Juang. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 841–859.Google Scholar
Pica, P. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In Proceedings of NELS 17. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Pica, P. 1991. On the interaction between antecedent-government and binding: The case of long-distance reflexivization. In Koster, and Reuland, (eds.), 119–135.Google Scholar
Pollard, C., and Sag, I.. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 261–305.Google Scholar
Pollard, C., and Xue, P.. 1998. Chinese reflexive ziji: Syntactic reflexives vs. nonsyntactic reflexives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potsdam, E. 1995. The long-distance anaphor in Fula. In Akinlabi, A. (ed.), Theoretical Approaches to African Linguistics, 167–182. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface Strategies: Reference Set Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T., and Siloni, T.. 2005. The lexicon–syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. 2005. Agreeing to bind. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, M. A. C., Kleinhenz, U., and Koster, J. (eds.), Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 505–513. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. 2016. Grammar of binding in the languages of the world: Unity versus diversity. Cognition 168: 370–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reuland, E. 2017a. Long-distance binding in Germanic languages (revised). In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom039.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. 2017b. Why is reflexivity so special? Understanding the world of reflexives. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 12–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E., and Everaert, M.. 2000. Deconstructing binding. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 634–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reuland, E., and Reinhart, T.. 1995. Pronouns, anaphors and Case. In Haider, H., Olsen, S., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 241–269. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E., and Zubkov, P.. 2022. Agreeing to bind: The case of Russian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 7(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5730.Google Scholar
Reuland, E., Wong, C. H., and Everaert, M.. 2020. How the complexity of Mandarin zi-ji simplifies the grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 51(4): 799–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, J., and Vanden Wyngaerd, G.. 2011. Dissolving Binding Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, G., Subbārāo, K. V., Kumar, R., and Everaert, M.. 2020. Kokborok and the simple-complex reflexive distinction. Studies in Language 45(2): 384–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudnev, P. 2017. Minimal pronouns, logophoricity and long-distance reflexivisation in Avar. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 154–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, M., and Hoji, H.. 1983 . Weak crossover and move α in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schadler, D. 2014. Reflexivity: Licensing or Enforcing. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Schadler, D. 2017. Reflexivity in two Zhuang dialects. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 136–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schladt, M. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Frajzyngier, Z. and Curl, T. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 125–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2005. Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of binding theory. Natural Language Semantics 13(1): 1–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sengupta, G. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Bangla. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 277–332.Google Scholar
Stimm, H. 1973. Medium und Reflexivkonstruktion im Surselvischen. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Subbārāo, K. V. 2012. South Asian languages: A Syntactic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subbārāo, K. V., and Lalitha Murthy, B.. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Telugu. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 217–276.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S. 2012. Context and (Co)Reference in the Syntax and Its Interfaces. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø and University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S. 2016 . Perspectival reflexivity and the kol morpheme. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to South Asian Languages 5, 123–142.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S. 2018 . Perspective is syntactic: Evidence from anaphora. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 128. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.81.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Haider, H., Olsen, S., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 307–327. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testelets, Y., and Toldova, S.. 1998. Refleksivnyje mestoimenija v dagestanskix jazykax i tipologija refleksiva [Reflexive pronouns in the Daghestanian languages and the typology of reflexive]. Voprosy Jazykoznania 4: 35–57.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Park, S.-Y., and Li, N.. 2006. A Reference Grammar of Wappo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1976. Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. In Proceedings of NELS 6, 225–239. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1991. Long-distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Koster, and Reuland, (eds.), 49–75.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, E. 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns: Person, Self, and Interpretability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. 2015. Die germanischen Sprachen und die Reflexivierungstypologie. Sprachwissenschaft 40(1): 3–44.Google Scholar
Vinokurova, N. 2005. Lexical Categories and Argument Structure: A Study with Reference to Sakha. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Volkova, A. 2014. Licensing Reflexivity: Unity and Variation Among Selected Uralic Languages. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Volkova, A. 2017. Reflexivity in Meadow Mari: Binding and Agree. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 178–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkova, A., and Reuland, E.. 2014. Reflexivity without reflexives? The Linguistic Review 31(3–4): 587–633. http://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2014-0012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wali, K., Lalitha Murthy, B., and Subbārāo, K. V.. 1991 . Bound pronominals in Marathi, Telugu and Mizo. Language Sciences 13(2): 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G., and Dannenberg, C.. 2006. Southern American personal datives: The theoretical significance of dialectal variation. American Speech 81(1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, C. H. 2021. Reflexivization in Mandarin: The Role of zi-ji and Its Components. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 1999. More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 257–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, D. 1985. Objects in Serbo-Croatian. In Niepokuj, M., VanClay, M., Nikiforidou, V., and Feder, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 358–371. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Zubkov, P. 2018. The Grammar of Binding: A Study with Reference to Russian. Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.