.png){kind=icon}
Return
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
En 中文
Reinhart and Reuland (1993) partition the set of anaphors into two syntactic subclasses: SELF anaphors, which reflexivize predicates, and, SE anaphors, which, like pronominals, do not. This partition is intended to capture the antilocality of the SE anaphors. I argue that the appropriate partitioning of anaphors is semantic and not syntactic. Reinhart and Reuland's SELF anaphors are “near-reflexives,” interpreted as a representation of their antecedents, whereas their SE anaphors are “pure-reflexives,” requiring identity with their antecedents. The antilocality effects with pure reflexives are due to Condition R, a principle requiring reflexivity to be lexically expressed. The Condition R approach correctly accounts for the meanings of the two kinds of anaphors, grouping the near reflexives with pronominals and names, and correctly dissociates semantic reflexivity from the calculation of syntactic binding domains.
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
No journal information available
Organization
No organization information available
Cited Papers
No cited papers available