Anti-reflexivity and logophoricity: an account of unexpected reflexivization contrasts

Abstract

In this article, I will provide an account of unexpected reflexivization contrasts (URCs) which have been problematic for analyses of English reflexives since the early days of Generative Grammar (Jackendoff 1969; Postal 1968; Lakoff 1968). These contrasts were the main motivation for introducing thematic conditions on reflexivization (Jackendoff 1972; Wilkins 1988). I will argue that thematically-based accounts are empirically inadequate and that, when the reflexivity-and-chains approach of Reinhart & Reuland (1993) is paired with an enriched conception of compositionality and a theory of logophoric discourse roles, the problem of URCs can be reduced to the more tractable problem of logophoric reflexives. This, however, requires that logophoric reflexives be seen not as exempt, but as tolerable violations of Condition A (Menuzzi 1999). I will argue that these violations, under adequate circumstances (e.g., when they occur within anti-reflexive predicates), give rise to logophoric interpretations. The unexpected reflexivization contrasts turn out to be a byproduct of the particular animacy requirement logophoric expressions place on their antecedents.

The disunity of Principle B Effects

“…Something similar goes on in cases where the meaning of the p-pronoun is not identical to that of its antecedent, but is shifted to denote a representational proxy of the latter (Jackendoff, 1992;Safir, 2004;Varaschin, 2020…”