Binding as agree and index raising: The case of Polish accusative object experiencers

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>This paper aims to account for peculiar binding properties of non-nominative arguments of Polish psychological predicates focusing on accusative Object Experiencers (hence, OE). It has been observed that although Polish anaphors are subject oriented, they can be bound by accusative experiencers (Bondaruk and Szymanek 2007; Tajsner 2008; Wiland 2016). At the same time, these arguments, unlike nominative subjects, are also proper antecedents for both reflexive and pronominal possessives. This mixed behaviour poses a puzzle for the traditional formulation of Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986; Manzini and Wexler 1987; Rappaport 1986; Willim 1986/1989; Reinders-Machowska 1991), which assumes complementarity between anaphors and pronominals in their local domains and plainly states that the subject is the privileged binder in Slavic. We base our analysis on a number of recent proposals, including Hicks (2009), Safir (2014) and Nikolaeva (2014), following Hestvik (1992). The proposal implements the concept of binding as (upward) Agree as well as Index Raising (IR), where the head of the anaphoric/pronominal element (henceforth the index) is (covertly) moved and adjoined to v or T. Lexicalisation and distribution of anaphoric and pronominal elements is determined by two factors: the movement of the index and the case position of the binder.</jats:p>

On the distribution of scope ambiguities in Polish

“…We provided four arguments for the assumption that the direct object is structurally below the indirect object in both orders and that 22 The literature on Russian points out three asymmetries between direct and indirect object and interprets them as support for structure ( 8 Asymmetries (i) and (ii) do not exist in Polish. Reciprocal binding between IO and DO is strictly linear (Witkoś & Dziubała-Szrejbrowska & Łęska 2018), which can be implemented in terms of precede and m-command given our structures. Any adequate formulation of binding theory for Polish (i.e., obligatory (non-)coreference effects) needs to take into account hierarchical structure, linear order, and information structure (see Witkoś 2021 for discussion and references).…”

Argument and case linking of Polish Experiencers

“…This is illustrated in (i) below, taken from Tajsner (2008: 349): Mari-ę 1 irytowały [historie-ø ze swojego 1 dzieciństwa].Marie- acc irritated. ipfv stories- nom from self's childhood‘Stories from her childhood irritated Mary.’Tajsner (2008) as well as Witkoś et al (2018) claim that there is speaker variation with regard to the acceptability of (i). All of the native speakers I consulted found an example like (i) to be unacceptable with an anaphor.…”

“…Tajsner (2008) as well as Witkoś et al (2018) claim that there is speaker variation with regard to the acceptability of (i). All of the native speakers I consulted found an example like (i) to be unacceptable with an anaphor.…”