AnaphorAgreementEffect - More on the Anaphor Agreement...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect Ellen Woolford This article provides additional evidence for the universality of Rizzi’s (1990) anaphor agreement effect, under which the ungrammaticality of nominative anaphors in English, Italian, and Icelandic is due to the presence of agreement. Languages without agreement are shown to allow nominative anaphors. Objective anaphors cannot be associated with agreement, unless the agreement is a special anaphoric form. Superficial counterexamples to Rizzi’s proposal are shown not to be problematic. The relative merits of two formal accounts outlined by Rizzi (1990) are discussed. Finally, it is suggested that the anaphor agreement effect can be a diagnostic for the presence of covert agree- ment. Keywords: anaphora, agreement, reflexive, reciprocal, binding, coref- erence Rizzi (1990) proposes that the reason why anaphors are barred from the subject position of tensed clauses in examples such as (1) is that anaphors cannot agree. (1) *They think that each other are nice. According to Rizzi, this anaphor agreement effect ‘‘holds quite systematically in natural lan- guages’’ (1990:26). (2) The anaphor agreement effect Anaphors do not occur in syntactic positions construed with agreement. Rizzi supports his claim with Italian and Icelandic examples involving nominative subjects and nominative objects, showing that with both, the presence of agreement precludes a nominative anaphor. In this article I provide additional evidence for the universality of the anaphor agreement effect. Further, I show that there is one well-defined class of exceptions not discussed by Rizzi: anaphors can agree when there is a special anaphoric form of agreement. If Rizzi’s hypothesis is correct, the ungrammaticality of nominative subject anaphors has nothing to do with the fact that they have nominative Case (contra Brame 1977, Koster 1978, Anderson 1982, Maling 1984, Everaert 1991) and nothing to do with the fact that the anaphor is I would like to thank Lee Baker, Barbara Bullock, Maria Nella Carminati, Vicki Carstens, Dan Finer, Lyn Frazier, Kyle Johnson, Jo ´ hannes G. Jo ´ nsson, Kiyomi Kusumoto, Howard Lasnik, Regina Moorcroft, Luigi Rizzi, Peggy Speas, and Elisabeth Villalta for very helpful discussions of the issues in this article. I would also like to express my appreciation to Kathryn Carlson and Pat Deevy for proofreading and commenting on an earlier draft. Finally, I want to thank the anonymous LI reviewers for their valuable comments. 257 Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 30, Number 2, Spring 1999 257–287 q 1999 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
258 E L L E N W O O L F O R D in subject position (contra Kayne 1984, 1994, Chomsky 1986). Agreeing anaphors will always be ungrammatical, regardless of their Case or position. 1
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 31

AnaphorAgreementEffect - More on the Anaphor Agreement...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online