TOWARDS A THEORY OF SPLIT BINDING: A PRELIMINARY SKETCH *Nao Ishino and Hiroyuki Ura
Kwansei Gakuin University

1.

Introduction

It has been alleged to hold universally valid that a locally-bound reflexive (such as
themselves in English) cannot be bound by more than one antecedent;1 that is, a local anaphor
disallows split-binding (cf. Koster 1984, Lebeaux 1984, and Fiengo and May 1994). For example, the third-person plural non-local pronominal in English (i.e., them) permits
split-binding, as shown by the well-formedness of the examples in (1a) and (1a′) below,
whereas its locally-bound counterpart (i.e., themselves) disallows it regardless of whether or
not its purported antecedents co-occur within the minimal tensed-clause including the anaphor, as shown by the ill-formedness of the examples in (1b) and (1b′) below:(1)

Englisha.
Johnk talked to Billh about themk+h.
a′.

Johnk told Billh that the police criticized themk+h.

b.

*Johnk told Billh about themselvesk+h.

(Fiengo and May 1994)(Heim 2008)(Lebeaux 1984)

b′. * Johnk told Billh that the police criticized themselvesk+h.
Likewise, as shown in the examples in (2) and (3) below, the locally-bound reflexives in
Dutch and Chinese (i.e., zichzelf and tamen-ziji) disallow split-binding, as expected:2* Portions of this paper were presented at Tohoku University, Yokohama National University andKwansei Gakuin University. We wish to thank the audience at those meetings for comments andjudgments. Special thanks go to Jun Abe, Tomohiro Fujii, Ken Hiraiwa, Kiyomi Kusumoto, Masatoshi
Koizumi, Roger Martin, Toshifusa Oka, and Yuji Takano, for their helpful suggestions and valuablecomments on materials presented herein. Needless to say, all remaining inadequacies are ours alone.
1

Throughout this paper, the term “local(ly-bound) anaphor/reflexive” is meant for an anaphor/reflexive that must be syntactically bound within the minimal tensed-clause including it.

2

According to our experimental survey (see Ishino 2012), 10 out of the 12 native speakers of Chinese(i.e., 83.3%) disallow the split antecedents for tamen-ziji.
Nanzan Linguistics 8, 17–45©2012 Nao Ishino and Hiroyuki Ura

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(2)

Dutch (Koster 1984, Hicks 2009)
Johnk sprak Peterh over zichzelfk/h/*k+h.
‘Johnk told Peterh about himselfk/h/*themselvesk+h.’(3)

Chinese*Zhangsanj gaosu Lisik youguan
Zhangsan tellLisi about

tamen-zijij+k.
SELF(PL)‘Zhangsan told Lisi about SELF(PL).’
Turning our attention to Japanese, we recognize that Japanese has two types of local
anaphor, zibun-(tati)-zisin (‘SELF-(PL)-self’) and Pronoun+zisin (such as kare-zisin ‘himself’or karera-zisin ‘themselves’). As shown in (4), these (plural) reflexive forms in Japanese must
be bound within the minimal tensed clause containing it (cf. Kurata 1986, Nakamura 1989,
Katada 1991, and Aikawa 1993), except where it is used logophorically or emphatically (cf.
Kuno 1972, 1987 and Aikawa 1994).
(4)a.

Johnk-ga [CP Billj-ga zibun-zisin*k/j/kare-zisin*k/j-o hihansi-ta
to ] it-ta.
John-NOM
Bill-NOM SELF-self/himself-ACC
criticize-PST C say-PST‘John said that Bill criticized SELF.’b.

[John to Bill]k-ga [CP keisatuj-ga zibun-tati-zisin*k/j/karera-zisin*k/j-oJohn and Bill-NOM
police-NOM SELF-PL-self/them-self-ACC
hihansi-ta
to ] it-ta.
criticize-PST C say-PST‘John and Bill said that the police criticized SELF(PL).’

If it is universally true that a locally-bound reflexive cannot be split-bound, we are naturally led to the prediction that zibun-tati-zisin and karera-zisin, if not used emphatically/logophorically, cannot have split-antecedents within its local domain, because
zibun-tati-zisin and karera-zisin in Japanese are both a locally-bound anaphor as shown in (4).
Surprisingly enough, however, zibun-tati-zisin is likely to allow local split-binding, as exemplified in (5) below:3

3

The observation that Japanese plural reflexives allow split-binding was reported in Katada (1991),
who contended that karera-zisin (the other form of the Japanese local reflexive) in addition to
zibun-tati-zisin, allows split-binding, the judgment which was also endorsed in Kasai (2000). According to Ishino’s (2012) experimental survey, however, 102 out of the 116 native speakers of Japanese(i.e., 87.9%) allow the split antecedents for zibun-tati-zisin, but 41 out of the 116 Japanese (i.e.,
35.3%) accept the split antecedence of pronouns+zisin (karera-zisin/kanojo-tati-zisin). Later we will
return directly to the comparison between zibun-tati-zisin and karera-zisin with respect to split-binding.
Incidentally, Kasai (2000) provided ample data which show that the Korean counterpart ofzibun-tati-zisin also allows local split-binding.

- 18 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

(5)

a.

Johnk-ga
Billj-ni zibun-tati-zisink+j-nituite
John-NOM Bill-DAT SELF-PL-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk+j.’b.

Chomskyk-ga
Lasnikj-ni zibun-tati-zisink+j-o
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT SELF-PL-self-ACC

hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PST‘Chomskyk made Lasnikj criticize SELFk+j.’
Given the fact in (5), we draw the conclusion that a local reflexive allows split-binding inJapanese (and Korean). On the other hand, it has been reported, in the literature, that the
split-binding for a locally-bound reflexive is also disallowed in French (Pica 1984), Italian(Napoli 1976), Greek (Chiou 2007), Tamil (Selvanathan 2009), Icelandic (Everaert 1986),
Arabic (Tsukanova and Nikolaeva 2008), Hebrew (Doron 1983), and Quechua (van de Kerke1991); therefore, we have come to the conclusion that Japanese and Korean (Katada 1991,
Kasai 2000) are the only languages in which we have detected that split-binding is allowed fora local reflexive.
Now our issue is to explain the above cross-linguistic difference in terms of split-binding
for a local reflexive. Notice here that neither Faltz’s (1977) typological classification in termsof morphological complexity nor Burzio’s (1991) typological classification in terms of
φ-defectiveness can work for the purpose of explaining the above cross-linguistic variation.
Drawing a comparison between Dutch and Japanese, we detect that Dutch is parallel to Japanese in that zichzelf in Dutch and zibun(-tati)-zisin in Japanese are both φ-defective (zichzelf
lacks its gender- and number-features, and zibun(-tati)-zisin lacks its person- and gender-features) and they are both morphologically complex; that is to say, the locally-boundplural reflexives in Dutch and Japanese are equal with respect to their morphologicalcomplexity and φ-defectiveness. It is important, nonetheless, to recall that Japanese, but not
Dutch, allows split-binding for a local reflexive, as noted above.
Two theoretically significant issues to be addressed here are: (i) What syntactic
mechanism makes it possible for a locally-bound reflexive in Japanese (and Korean) to be
split-bound?; and (ii) Why is it that only Japanese (and Korean) allow split-binding thoughmany other languages disallow it despite the fact that some of the languages which disallow
split binding have a reflexive whose binding-theoretic properties are very similar to the onesin Japanese (and Korean).
Hence, the purpose of this paper is twofold: The first purpose is to attest our empiricalobservation that a locally-bound reflexive in Japanese can be syntactically split-bound within
its local domain. In §2, we will first classify the locally split-bound reflexives into a syntactically bound anaphor or a contextually emphatic logophor. Then we will also explicate thelocality for the syntactically split-bound reflexives in §3. The second purpose is to explain theparametric difference between the languages allowing local split-binding and the ones disallowing it. In §4, we will elucidate the syntactic mechanism that enables a local anaphor to be- 19 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

bound by more than one antecedent. In §5, we will clarify under what conditions local
split-binding is possible. Significant consequences and theoretical implications of our proposals will be discussed in §6. Finally, §7 will conclude the present paper.
2. Split Antecedence: Binding or Coreference?
Here, we are aiming at demonstrating that, despite the similarities in terms of their morphological complexity and their locality concerning syntactic binding, zibun-tati-zisin but not
karera-zisin can be syntactically bound by split antecedents within its local domain. Before
clarifying a distinction between them, we have to make a clear distinction between a syntactically bound anaphor and a (contextually emphatic) logophor that gets its referential antecedent through non-syntactic coreference (cf. Reinhart 1983).
First, let us summarize the difference between non-local/local anaphors in terms of their
split-antecedence. A non-local anaphor (such as ordinary pronouns in English and Dutch) can
be bound by more than one antecedent, as shown in (7) below:(7) a.
OK

English (Seely 1993, Berman and Hestvik 1997)
Johnk said [ that Billh hated themk+h ].

OK

Dutch (Koster 1986)
Johnk zei [ dat Peterh henk+h haat ].

b.

‘Johnk said that Peterh hates themk+h.’
On the other hand, a locally-bound plural reflexive such as themselves in English and zichzelf
in Dutch, which exhibits clause-boundedness as its binding locality, cannot permit
split-binding even when the purported antecedents occur within the minimal tensed clauseincluding it, as noted in the previous section.
Lebeaux (1984) and Fiengo and May (1994) have tried to explain the ill-formedness of
split-binding in English by attributing it to a violation of the traditional binding theory ofChomsky (1981), according to which no locally-bound anaphor can be bound by more than
one antecedent. Then, it may come as a surprise to see that a local anaphor in Japanese allows
split-binding, as shown in (5) above and in (8) below:(8)a.

Maryk-ga Janeh-kara zibun-tati-zisink+h/??kanojo-tati-zisink+h-nituite
Mary-NOM Jane-from SELF-PL-self / them-PL-selfabout

kii-ta.
hear-PST‘Maryk heard from Janeh about SELFk+h.’b.

Johnk-ga
Billj-niJohn-NOM Bill-DAT

zibun-tati-zisink+h/?*karera-zisink+h-ni kibisikus-ase-ta.
SELF-PL-self / them-self-DAT
do bitter-CAUS-PST‘Johnk made Billh get tough with SELFk+h.’- 20 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

Seemingly, it looks like zibun-tati, the non-local plural anaphor in Japanese, also allows split
antecedents (see Katada 1991 and Kasai 2000).
(9)a.

Johnk-ga
Billj-niJohn-NOM Bill-DAT

zibun-tatik+j-nituite katar-ta.
SELF-PL about tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk+j.’b.

Maryk-gaMary-NOM

Janej-kara zibun-tatik+j-nituite kii-ta.
Jane-from SELF-PL about hear-PST‘Maryk heard from Janej about SELFk+j.’c.

Chomskyk-ga
Lasnikj-ni zibun-tatik+j-o
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT SELF-PL-ACC

hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PST‘Chomskyk made Lasnikj criticize SELFk+j.’
Abe (1992) argues, however, that the split binding illustrated by the examples in (9) is not a
genuine one, but it is obtained as a special case of the group reading for zibun-tati (cf. Kawasaki 1989).4 That is, the anaphoric interpretation demonstrated in (9) is achieved not throughsyntactic binding but through coreference in discourse.
Then, for the purpose of attesting our claim that zibun-tati-zisin allows split-binding insyntax, it is very significant to clarify a fine distinction between a syntactically bound anaphor
and a contextually emphatic logophor in discourse. To detect it, we adopt Hoji’s (2003) proposal that Comparative Ellipsis with Case-marker in Japanese is parallel to VP Deletion in
English: the sloppy identity reading cannot be obtained unless an anaphoric (i.e., syntacticallybound) element is involved in each of these constructions. Consider the following English
examples:(10) a.

Johnk’s friends will vote for Johnk, and I want Billj’s friends to Ø, too.
Ø = ‘vote for Johnk’, Ø ≠ ‘vote for Billk’b.

(strict reading only)

Maryk will accept our present to herk, and we want Janej to Ø, too.
Ø = ‘accept our present to Maryk’, Ø = ‘accept our present to Janek’(strict & sloppy)c.

Johnk will vote for himselfk, and I want Billj to Ø, too.
Ø ≠ ‘vote for Johnk’, Ø = ‘vote for Billk’(sloppy reading only)(10c) has only a sloppy interpretation (that is, ‘John will vote for John and I want Bill to votefor Bill.’) and it can be safely said that a syntactically bound element himself is involved in4

See Appendix II for some discussion on zibun-tati, which we will ignore theretofore.

- 21 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

the elliptic part. On the other hand, (10b) has both the sloppy reading and the strict reading.
According to Reinhart (1983) and Heim and Kratzer (1998), only a syntactically bound anaphor in the elliptic part has a sloppy interpretation, but a referential pronominal can have astrict interpretation by way of coreference in discourse. Thus, the sloppy reading is not available in (10a), where no syntactic binding is involved.
The examples in (11) below show the comparative ellipsis with Case-marker in Japanese:(11) a.

Yakunin-ga [ Toodaik-no
gakusei-ni Ø yorimo sakini ],officer-NOM
Tokyo U.-GEN students-DAT
than earlier
gakusei-ni
Kyoodaij-no
kyooju-ohihans-ase-ta.
students-DAT Kyoto U.-GEN professor-ACC criticize-CAUS-PST

Kyoodaij-no
Kyoto U.-GENØ = ‘criticized a professor at Kyoto U.j’, Ø ≠ ‘criticized a professor at Tokyo U.k’
(strict only)b.

Yakunin-ga [ Toodaik-no
gakusei-ni Ø yorimo sakini ],officer-NOM
Tokyo U.-GEN students-DAT
than earlier
gakusei-ni
sokoj-no kyooju-ohihans-ase-ta.
students-DAT it-GEN
professor-ACC criticize-CAUS-PST

Kyoodaij-no
Kyoto U.-GENØ = ‘criticized a professor at Kyoto U.j’, Ø = ‘criticized a professor at Tokyo U.k’
(strict & sloppy)c.

Yakunin-ga [ Toodaik-no
gakusei-ni Ø yorimo sakini ],officer-NOM
Tokyo U.-GEN students-DAT
than earlier
gakusei-ni
mizukaraj-o hihans-ase-ta.
students-DAT SELF-ACC criticize-CAUS-PST

Kyoodaij-no
Kyoto U.-GENØ ≠ ‘criticized the student at Kyoto U.j’, Ø = ‘criticized the student at Tokyo U.k’
(sloppy only)
The fact shown in (11) indicates that, under the Japanese construction of Comparative Ellipsis
with Case-marker, a syntactically free R-expression yields only the strict reading, a locally
free pronominal yields both the strict reading and the sloppy reading, and a locally-bound reflexive yields only the sloppy reading. Accordingly, this fact conforms to Hoji’s (2003) claim.
Hoji (2003) therefore proposes to utilize Comparative Ellipsis with Case-marker for the purpose of detecting whether a given anaphoric expression is syntactically bound or contextually
coreferential.
Now, we are applying Hoji’s (2003) test to the following examples:- 22 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

(12) a.

Iinkai-ga[ Johnk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Billj-ni
committee-NOM John-DAT
than earlier
Bill-DAT
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticized Billj’, Ø ≠ ‘criticized Johnk’b.

c.

(strict only)

Iinkai-ga[ Johnk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Billj-ni
committee-NOM John-DAT
than earlier
Bill-DAT
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticized Billj’, Ø = ‘criticized Johnk’zibunj/zibun-zisinj-o
SELF/SELF-self-ACC(strict & sloppy)

Iinkai-ga[ Johnk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Billj-ni
committee-NOM John-DAT
than earlier
Bill-DAT
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ ≠ ‘criticized Billj’, Ø = ‘criticized Johnk’kare-zisinj-o
him-self-ACC

mizukaraj/onorej-o
SELF/SELF-ACC(sloppy only)

As shown in (12a), it can be safely said that kare-zisin allows only the strict reading because
kare cannot be a bound variable (Hoji 1991, Noguchi 1997). In passing, from the fact that(12c) has the sloppy reading alone, we can conclude that mizukara (‘SELF’) and onore(‘SELF’), both of which are simplex reflexive forms in Japanese, are a genuine locally-boundreflexive in Japanese (see Ishino and Ura 2011 for relevant discussion (cf., also, Kitagawa
1986)).
We will next examine whether zibun-tati-zisin and karera-zisin, both of which Katada(1991) has alleged to allow the split binding, allow the sloppy reading or not under theconstruction of Comparative Ellipsis with Case-marker. Pronouns+zisin, such as karera/
kanojotati-zisin ‘themselves’ can have the strict reading alone, as shown in the examples in(13) below:(13) a.

Johnk-ga [ Billj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Tomg-ni karera-zisink+g-nituite
John-NOM Bill-DAT
than earlier
Tom-DAT them-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PSTØ = ‘told SELF*k+j(+else g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’- 23 -(strict only)Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012b.

Maryk-ga [ Janej-kara Ø yorimo sakini ], Sueg-kara kanojo-tatik+g-zisin-nituite
Mary-NOM Jane-from than earlier
Sue-from them-PL-selfabout
kii-ta.
hear-PSTØ = ‘heard about SELF*k+j(+else g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’c.

(strict only)

Chomskyk-ga [ Lasnikj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Halleg-ni karera-zisink+g-o
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT
than earlier
Halle-DAT them-self-ACC
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticize SELF*k+j(+else g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’(strict only)

In (13a), the index k+g(+else) indicates the interpretation ‘Before John told Tom about Johnand Tom, John told Bill about John and Tom’, the interpretation of which corresponds to thestrict reading, and the index k+j(+else g) indicates the interpretation ‘Before John told Tom
about John and Tom, John told Bill about John and Bill’, the interpretation of which corresponds to the sloppy reading. It is important to note that the sloppy reading in (13a) is missing.
In terms of the index k+g+j(+else), the index g is included when the group reading is available. The facts shown in (13a,b,c) show that there is no sloppy reading in the examples in(13). Therefore, we can say that karera/kanojotati-zisin has only the strict reading, but not thesloppy reading. The conclusion we have reached here is that pronouns+zisin in Japanese does
not allow the split binding in syntax, though it seemingly looks as if it has its split antecedents, which takes only by way of coreference in discourse.
Zibun-tati-zisin, on the other hand, indeed allows the sloppy reading, as shown in theexamples in (14) below:(14) a.

Johnk-ga [ Billj-ni Ø yorimo sakini], Tomg-ni zibun-tati-zisink+g-nituite
John-NOM Bill-DAT
than earlier
Tom-DAT SELF-PL-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PSTØ = ‘told SELFk+j/k+g/k+g+j(+else).’b.

(strict & sloppy)

Maryk-ga [ Janej-kara Ø yorimo sakini ], Sueg-kara
Mary-NOM Jane-from than earlier
Sue-from
kii-ta.
hear-PSTØ = ‘heard about SELFk+j/k+g/k+g+j(+else).’- 24 -

zibun-tati-zisink+g-nituite
SELF-PL-self
about(strict & sloppy)

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)c.

Chomskyk-ga [ Lasnikj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Halleg-ni zibun-tati-zisink+g-o
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT than earlier
Halle-DAT SELF-PL-self-ACC
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticize SELFk+j/k+g/k+g+j(+else).’(strict & sloppy)

The index k+j in (14a) indicates the interpretation ‘Before John told Tom about John andTom, John told Bill about John and Bill’, the interpretation of which corresponds to thesloppy reading. The fact that zibun-tati-zisin has the strict reading has no significance for our
discussion here. What we should notice here is that zibun-tati-zisin yields the sloppy reading
under the construction of Comparative Ellipsis with Case-marker. From the facts in (14), we
draw the conclusion that zibun-tati-zisin can be syntactically split-bound. Let us, again, notice
the fact that the sloppy identity reading is missing in (13) though it is readily available in (14);as a consequence, pronoun(PL)+zisin cannot be syntactically split-bound, contrary to the claim
made by Katada (1991) and Kasai (2000).
In addition, the following examples including VP-deletions show that karera-zisin in(15a) cannot allow the sloppy reading, but zibun-tati-zisin in (15b) can. These facts also lendfurther support to our claim that zibun-tati-zisin can be syntactically split-bound:(15) a.

[ Chomskyk-ga Lasnikj-ni [VP karera-zisink+j-o hihans]-ase-ta
kara ],
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT
them-self-ACC
criticize-CAUS-PST because
Sagg-mo Pollardp-ni Ø s-ase-ta.
Sag-also Pollard-DAT
did-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticized Chomskyk and Lasnikj’, Ø ≠ ‘criticized Sagg and Pollardp’(strict only)b.

[ Chomskyk-ga Lasnikj-ni [VP zibunn-tati-zisink+j-o hihans]-ase-ta
kara ],
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT
SELF-PL-self-ACC criticize-CAUS-PST because
Sagg-mo Pollardp-ni Ø s-ase-ta.
Sag-also Pollard-DAT
did-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticized Chomskyk and Lasnikj’, Ø = ‘criticized Sagg and Pollardp’(strict & sloppy)

Another piece of supporting evidence can be seen in the examples in (16) below:(16) a. OKDaremok-ga darekah-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h-nituite katar-ta.
‘For every x, there was some y such that x told y about x and y, (and, x told y about
the group including x and y.)- 25 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

b. OK Daremok-ga darekah-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h-nokoto-o soodansi-ta.
‘For every x, there was some y such that x conferred with y about x and y, (and x
conferred with y about the group including x and y.)’According to Reinhart (1983) and Heim and Kratzer (1998), the bound variable reading of ananaphor manifests itself iff it is syntactically bound. The well-formedness of the examples in(16) also shows that zibun-tati-zisin can be syntactically split-bound.
To sum up, we have reached the conclusion that, among the locally-bound plural anaphora in Japanese, zibun-tati-zisin alone can be syntactically bound by split antecedents andpronoun(PL)+zisin takes its split antecedents only through coreference in discourse.5
3.

Locality of Split Binding

In this section, we will demonstrate that the syntactic mechanism for the split binding insyntax obeys a locality condition.
First, as shown in (17) below, when both of the antecedents of zibun-tati-zisin are locatedwithin the clause containing zibun-tati-zisin, the split binding is allowed:(17) a.

Johnk-ga
Tomg-niJohn-NOM Tom-DAT

zibun-tati-zisink+g-nituite
SELF-PL-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Tomg about SELFk+g.’b.

Johnk-ga [ Billj-ni Ø yorimo sakini], Tomg-ni zibun-tati-zisink+g-nituite
John-NOM Bill-DAT
than earlier
Tom-DAT SELF-PL-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PSTØ = ‘told about SELFk+j(-g).’(sloppy OK)

Next, as shown in (18) below, when one of the antecedents of zibun-tati-zisin is locatedwithin the tensed-clause containing zibun-tati-zisin and the other is on the outside of thetensed-clause, the split binding is disallowed:(18) a.

Kannonbosatu-wa Gokuuk-ni [ Gojoog-ga zibun-tati-zisink+g-ni situboosi-ta
Kuan Yin-TOP
Gokuu-DAT Gojoo-NOM SELF-PL-self-DAT
despair-PST
to ] hookokus-ase-ta.
Creport-CAUS-PST‘Kaun Yin made Gokuuk report [ that Gojoog despaired of themk+g ].’5

See Appendix III for split binding in English.

- 26 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)b.

Kannonbosatu-wa [ Gokuuk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Hakkaij-ni [ Gojoog-ga
Kuan Yin-TOP
Gokuu-DAT
than earlier
Hakkai-DAT Gojoo-NOM
zibun-tati-zisinj+g-ni situboosi-ta to ] hookoku-sase-ta.
SELF-PL-self-DAT
despair-PST C
report-CAUS-PSTØ ≠ ‘report that Gojoog despaired of SELFk+g(-j).’(sloppy NG)Ø = ‘report that Gojoog despaired of SELFj+g.’(strict OK)

In (18b), the sloppy reading is missing. One might conjecture that the split binding indicatedwith the index displayed in (18a) is acceptable, but it should be noted again that the lack of
the sloppy reading there implies that zibun-tati-zisin in this example is not syntactically boundby the purported split antecedents.
Finally, when both of the antecedents of zibun-tati-zisin are on the outside of thetensed-clause containing zibun-tati-zisin, the split binding is never allowed. Take a look at thefollowing example:(19) a.

Sanzoog-ga Gokuuk-ni [ mamono-ga
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT goblin-NOM
nir-tei-ta
to ] tuge-ta.
resemble-PROG-PST C
tell-PST

zibun-tati-zisink+g-ni
SELF-PL-self-DAT‘Sanzoog told Gokuuk [ that goblins resembled themk+g ].’b.

Sanzoog-ga [ Gokuuk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Hakkaij-ni [ mamono-ga
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT
than earlier
Hakkai-DAT goblin-NOM
zibun-tati-zisink+g-ni nir-tei-ta
to ] tuge-ta.
SELF-PL-self-DAT
resemble-PROG-PST C
tell-PSTØ ≠ ‘told that goblins resembled SELFk+g(-j).’ (sloppy NG)Ø = ‘told that goblins resembled SELFj+g.’(strict OK)

As indicated by the fact that the strict reading of zibun-tati-zisin is missing in (19b), the split
binding of zibun-tati-zisin in (19a) is obtained not through the syntactic binding, but throughthe coreference in discourse; as a consequence, the syntactic split binding is impossible whenboth of the antecedents of zibun-tati-zisin are on the outside of the tensed-clause containing
zibun-tati-zisin.
To recapitulate, the observations carried out in this section reveal that no tensed-clauseboundary can intervene between zibun-tati-zisin and any one of its split antecedents.
4.

Explanation of Split Binding

In this section, we will try to explicate the syntactic mechanism of split binding. In theprevious sections, we observed that zibun-tati-zisin, one of the locally-bound reflexive forms
in Japanese tolerates the split antecedence, the observation of which necessitates reformula-- 27 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012tion of any existing theory of (Japanese binding), no matter how it might have been formalized. Abandoning the traditional binding theory owing to its aforementioned empirical insufficiency, we propose to supplant it with a new theory of binding, according to which thebinding relation between an anaphoric expression and its antecedent is materialized not
through c-command plus referential coindexing (i.e., through the binding relation formulated
under the traditional Binding Theory in Chomsky (1981)) but through Agree, the approach
which has recently been developed and defended by not a few researchers (Heinat 2008, Reuland 2008, Quicoli 2008, Lee-Schoenfeld 2008, Hicks 2009, inter alia).
4.1.

Assumptions and Proposals

In recent studies on syntax of reflexive binding, it has often been proposed (see Reuland
2008, Uriagereka and Gallego 2006, and Gallego 2010) that a φ-defective reflexive must be
φ-complete at LF (cf., also, Bouchard 1984, Burzio 1991), where every element must be
properly interpreted (Chomsky 1995). Consequently, the syntactic binding of (φ-defective)reflexives can be recast within the Agree theory under the current minimalist Probe-Goalframework (Chomsky 2001 and subsequent work).
Following, basically, the theory of Binding through Agree proposed in Uriagereka andGallego (2006) and Gallego (2010), we will make the following four assumptions: (I) A
φ-defective reflexive must have its φ-features valued by a Probe with the whole φ-featureamalgam in order to become φ-complete; (II) α binds β if they are both Goals of a single relevant Probe; otherwise, α and β are obviative; and (III) we particularly hypothesize that Twith the whole φ-feature amalgam supplies φ-features through Agree to a φ-defective anaphor
at a post-Spell-Out level (because the referential interpretation is supposed to take place atLF); that is, T with the whole φ-feature amalgam serves as a Probe for a φ-defective anaphor;and (IV) the φ-completeness for anaphoric expressions is a requirement for interpretation (cf.
Bouchard 1984 and Burzio 1991).
It is important to note, here, that these assumptions demand that the feature-binding
through Agree should take place at a post-Spell-Out (i.e., at LF); as a consequence, a PHASE,
being a cycle for Spell-Out, never bears on the locality of Binding through Agree under ourassumptions.
4.2.

Binding by a Single Antecedent

With the abovementioned assumptions in mind, let us take consideration of an ordinary
binding by a single antecedent. Look at the following Japanese example, which includes
zibun-zisin at the object position of a tensed clause and the subject DP of the clause:(20) a.

Johnk-gazibun-zisink-okirat-tei-ta(koto).
John-NOM SELF-self-ACC hate-PROG-PST (fact)‘(the fact that) Johnk hated himselfk’- 28 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)b.

a__-------OK--------_l[TP John-ga [vP zibun-zisin-o V ]T[φ] ]c.

a__-------OK--------_l[TP Johnk-ga [vP zibun-zisink-o V ] T[φ] ]z_---OK---m

T[+tense] agrees with the subject DP to provide it with the nominative Case before Spell-Out,
as illustrated in (20b). Then, T[+tense] with the whole φ-feature amalgam can agree with aφ-defective reflexive in order to supply it with φ-features at LF, as illustrated in (20c). Because zibun-(tati-)zisin lacks the specifications for person and gender, it must be suppliedwith φ-features by T[+tense] through Agree. As a consequence, Agree has established thebinding relation between the subject and the reflexive through the mediation of T.
Next, we will show that the clause-boundedness of zibun-zisin, which we noted in §1,also follows directly. Consider the structure in (21) below:(21)[TP DP-ga ..... [CP [TP DP-ga [vP zibun-zisin-oV] T[φ] ]C]T[φ] ]

T[+tense] in the embedded CP has the whole φ-feature amalgam and T in the embedded CP is
the nearest Probe for zibun-zisin; as a consequence, Agree between the matrix T andzibun-zisin is prohibited, as (22a) below illustrates, and only the agree relation between the
DP at the subject position of the embedded CP and zibun-zisin can hold, as illustrated in (22b)
below:(22) a.

b.

4.3.

[TP DP-ga ..... [CP [TP DP-ga [vP zibun-zisin-o V ] T[φ] ] C ] T[φ] ]z----OK-_-_-mz--------+ --_-----ma--------__OK-------__l[TP DPk-ga ..... [CP [TP DPh-ga [vP zibun-zisin*k/h-o V ] T[φ] ]z-----OK-----mC]

T[φ] ]

Split Binding

Here, let us assume that T[+tense] in Japanese (and Korean) is capable of agreeing withmore than one Goal other than its canonical subject DP (see Ura 1996 and Hiraiwa 2005 formuch relevant discussion). Given this assumption, we will explicate the syntactic mechanismof the split binding through Agree. First, let us take a look at the example in (23a) below:(23) a.

Johnk-ga
Billh-niJohn-NOM Bill-DAT

zibun-tati-zisink+h-nituite
SELF-PL-selfabout‘Johnk told Billh about themselvesk+h.’- 29 -

katar-ta.
tell-PSTNanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012b.

c.

a__------------OK------------_l[TP John-ga [vP Bill-ni zibun-tati-zisin-nituite V ] T[φ] ]z_----OK-----ma__------------OK--------------_l[TP Johnk-ga [vP Billh-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h-nituite V ] T[φ] ]z_-----OK-----mz----------OK----------m

As illustrated in (23b), T agrees with the subject DP to provide it with the nominative Case.
Then, in (23c), T[+tense] with the whole φ-feature amalgam agrees with zibun-tati-zisin,which is a φ-defective reflexive, to supply it with φ-features; moreover, (23c) illustrates that T
can agree optionally with another DP when the DP is within the same clause thanks to T’s
multiple checking ability in Japanese (and Korean). If this situation arises, T with the whole
φ-feature amalgam mediates three Goals; namely, the subject DP, the φ-defective reflexive,
and the non-subject DP within its clause, as illustrated in (23c). Under our theory of binding,this gives rise to a situation where the φ-defective reflexive is syntactically bound by the subject DP and another DP within the clause; whence, split-binding emerges, as required.6
This reasoning leads us to the prediction that split-binding is not materialized wheneither or both of the split antecedents is/are not within the same clause in which the reflexive
is embedded, as shown in (24) and (25) below:(24) a.

Kannonbosatu-wa [ Gokuuk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Hakkaij-ni [ Gojoog-ga
Kuan Yin-TOP
Gokuu-DAT
than earlier
Hakkai-DAT Gojoo-NOM
zibun-tati-zisinj+g-ni situboosi-ta to ] hookoku-sase-ta.
SELF-PL-self-DAT
despair-PST C
report-CAUS-PSTØ ≠ ‘report that Gojoog despaired of SELFk+g(-j).’(sloppy NG)Ø = ‘report that Gojoog despaired of SELFj+g.’(strict OK)

6

It is highly probable that D also has the φ-feature specifications, resulting in the Probe for aφ-defective reflexive to supply it with the φ-features. As a consequence, the split binding can be allowed within a DP containing zibun-tati-zisin. For example, look at (i), where the plural reflexive allows split antecedents in syntax, as is confirmed by the fact that it is interpreted as a variable bound by
one of its antecedents:(i) OK kaku
iink-noiintyouh-nitaisuru
zibun-tazi-zisink+h-nitaisuru
eachcommitteeman-GEN committee chair-towards SELF-PL-self-against
kokuhatsu
accusation‘Each committeeman’s accusation against SELF towards the chair’Given that D in Japanese can have a multiple checking ability with some φ-feature specification, it isnatural that the split binding within a DP is allowed in Japanese. We will leave it to future research topursue this issue further, however.

- 30 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)b.

Sanzoog-ga [ Gokuuk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Hakkaij-ni [ mamono-ga
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT
than earlier
Hakkai-DAT goblin-NOM
zibun-tati-zisink+g-ni nir-tei-ta
to ] tuge-ta.
SELF-PL-self-DAT
resemble-PROG-PST C
tell-PSTØ ≠ ‘told that goblins resembled SELFk+g(-j).’ (sloppy NG)Ø = ‘told that goblins resembled SELFj+g.’ (strict OK)(25) a.

* Daremok-ga sensei-ni [darekah-ga zibun-tati-zisink+h-o hihansi-ta to ] it-ta.
≠ ‘For every x, there is some y such that x told the teacher that y criticized x and y.’b.

*Daremok-ga darekah-ni [sensei-ga zibun-tati-zisink+h-o hihansi-ta to ] it-ta.
≠ ‘For every x, there is some y such that x told y that the teacher criticized x and y.’

In (25), the tensed-clause boundary intervenes between zibun-tati-zisin and one/both of its
antecedents. (25a) is unacceptable when the reflexive is construed as a variable bound by the
split antecedents. This lends strong support to our proposed theory of Binding through Agree.
It should be noticed that, under our theory of Binding through Agree, split-binding insyntax emerges iff T optionally agrees with some elements other than the subject DP withwhich T agrees for the purpose of providing nominative Case to it. Look at (26) below:(26) a.

[ Johnk to Billh ]-ga Maryj-ni
zibun-tati-zisink+h/k+h+j-nituite katar-ta.
[ John and Bill-NOM Mary-DAT SELF-PL-self
about tell-PST‘Johnk and Billh told Maryj about themselvesk+h/k+h+j.’b.

c.

a__--------------OK----------------_l[TP [ Johnk to Billh ]-ga [vP Maryj-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h-nituite V ] T[φ] ]z_-----OK------ma__--------------OK----------------_l[TP [ Johnk to Billh ]-ga [vP Maryj-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h+j-nituite V ] T[φ] ]z_-----OK------m
z_--------OK----------m(26a) has two interpretations because of T’s optional feature checking. When T does not execute an optional agreement with anything other than the conjoined plural subject, the ordinary
binding between zibun-tati-zisin and the conjoined subject is established, as illustrated in(26b). If, on the other hand, T happens to execute an optional agreement with Mary in addition to its obligatory agreement with the conjoined plural subject, then the split binding is
successfully established as shown in (26c).

- 31 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

4.4.

Interim Summary

In this section, we have argued (i) that zibun(-tati)-zisin is a φ-defective anaphor, whichneeds to be licensed through Agree by T with the φ-complete specifications, (ii) that thebinding relation between zibun(tati)-zisin and its antecedent(s) is mediated through Agree byT, and (iii) that, when the situation occurs in which T may agree with some element other thanits subject DP, the split binding of zibun-tati-zisin emerges.
5.

Split Binding and Its Parametric Variation

Up through the previous sections, we have demonstrated how the theory of Binding
through Agree enables us to explain the syntactic mechanism of the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive. To elucidate the cross-linguistic variation concerning split binding is
our remaining issue in this paper. In this section, we will thus attempt to deduce the contrast
between the languages allowing the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive and the ones
disallowing it from some independently motivated assumptions concerning parametric differences in human language. Recall that we observed in §1 that the split-binding for a locally-bound reflexive is disallowed in English, Dutch, Chinese, French, Italian, Greek, Tamil,
Icelandic, Arabic, Hebrew, and Quechua, whereas, as we extensively argued, Japanese (andKorean) allow the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive.
In §4, we demonstrated (A) that a binding relation through Agree is essential for the split
binding; and (B) that the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive can be materialized only if
T has the ability of multiple checking. Because only φ-defective reflexives need to be boundby way of binding through Agree, the fact (A) means that the split binding for a locally-boundreflexive in a language L is materialized only if the locally-bound reflexive in L is a
φ-defective anaphor. Thus, we have reached the following conclusion:(27) Split-binding for a locally-bound reflexive is materialized in a language L iff both (i)and (ii) hold:(i) the locally-bound reflexive in L is a φ-defective anaphor;(ii) T in L is capable of multiple feature checking.
Indeed, the conditions stated in (27) are very pertinent to the aforementioned observation
concerning the cross-linguistic variation concerning split binding: Notice that English,
French, Italian and Modern Greek disallow the split binding because they deviate from bothof (i) and (ii); for, the reflexives in those languages have a full-fledged specification of the
φ-features and T does not allow multiple checking in those languages. On the other hand,
Dutch, Tamil, Icelandic and Chinese have a locally-bound φ-defective reflexive, they disallow
the split binding for it; for, they deviate from condition (ii); that is, they do not allow T tocheck more than one nominative. In Arabic and Quechua, in contrast, T has a multiple checking ability because they allow the multiple nominative construction (see Ura 1994, 1996);
nevertheless, they disallow the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive; for, they deviate- 32 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

from the condition (i); that is, their locally-bound reflexives have a complete specification of
their φ-features. Finally, it is because Japanese (and Korean) comply with both (i) and (ii) thatthey allow the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive. In (28) below, we summarize theparametric variation of the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive:(28) Parametric variation concerning the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive
Split binding is prohibited:a. English, French, Italian, and Modern Greek: deviant both from (i) and from (ii)(cf. French (Pica 1984); Italian (Napoli 1976); Modern Greek (Chiou 2007))b. Dutch, Tamil, Icelandic, and Chinese: deviant from (ii)(cf. Dutch (Koster 1984); Tamil (Selvanathan 2009);
Icelandic (Everaert 1986))
c. Arabic, Hebrew, and Quechua: deviant from (i)(cf. Arabic (Tsukanova and Nikolaeva 2008); Hebrew (Doron 1983);
Quechua (van de Kerke 1991))
Split binding is permitted:
d. Japanese and Korean (& Kumyk): compliant both with (i) and with (ii)(cf. Korean (Kasai 2000))In this section we argued that our theory of split binding is adequate enough to explain the
cross-linguistically detected parametric difference in terms of split binding.
6.

Consequences and Theoretical Implications of the Feature Binding in JapaneseIn this section we will sketch out some consequences of our theory of split binding.

6.1.

Subject Orientation

Given that T agrees usually with the subject DP in a tensed clause in order to provide
nominative Case to the subject DP, the subject orientation of zibun(-zisin) can be explained
straightforwardly: Because zibun(-zisin) must agree with T in order to make its defective
φ-features complete, T always mediates the agreement between the subject DP andzibun(-zisin) in terms of binding relation. Thus, our proposed theory of Binding throughAgree naturally enables us to explain that zibun(-tati)-zisin (and zibun(-tati)) show subject
orientation. Look at the examples of multiple Nominative construction in Japanese in (29)
below:- 33 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(29) a.

Johnj-dake-ga imootok-ga
John-only-NOM sister-NOM

zibun-tati-zisinj+k-o hihanshi-ta.
SELF-PL-self-ACC criticize-PST‘As for only John, his sister criticized SELFj+k.’b.

Johnj-dake-ga imootok-ga
John-only-NOM sister-NOM
katar-ta.
tell-PST

Maryl-nizibun-tati-zisinj+k/j+k+l/*j+l/*k+l-nituite
Mary- DAT SELF-PL-self
about‘As for only John, his sister told Mary about SELFj+k/j+k+l/*j+l/*k+l.’
It has been assumed (cf. Ura 1996 and Hiraiwa 2005) that a single T in Japanese may enter
into multiple nominative Case feature checking relations with multiple Subjects. Given ourtheory of Binding through Agree, according to which T mediates a binding relation between asubject DP and a φ-defective reflexive within its clause, it can be naturally explained that(29a) has the interpretation ‘John’s sister criticized John and herself,’ because T individuallyagrees with John and with imooto ‘sister’ in the nominative Case and their φ-features. Then, T
provides zibun-tati-zisin with their φ-features.
Next, consider the example in (29b). In (29b) T agrees obligatorily with the two subjects
John and imooto to provide them with nominative Case. Additionally, if T agrees optionallywith the non-subject DP Mary, zibun-tati-zisin can be split bound by the two subjects andMary, resulting in the split binding, as shown by the index ‘j+k+l’. An empirically interesting
point here is that the split binding by one of its subjects (nominative DPs) and the non-subject
DP is never allowed, as shown by the index ‘*j+l’ and ‘*k+l’. That is, there is no way for the
subjects (nominative DPs) with which T agrees not to enter into the binding relation withzibun-tati-zisin in (29b), but only the non-subject DP is allowed to be free from the binding
relation because T may or may not agree with it in (29b). This lends a piece of strong supporting evidence for the syntactic mechanism of split binding through the mediation of T.
6.2.

Φ-complete Anaphora as a Reflexivizer

Because pronoun+zisin (such as kare(ra)-zisin), another locally-bound reflexive in Japanese, is φ-complete, it needs no φ-feature agreement with T; rather, we assume, following
Aikawa (1993), that pronoun+zisin is a reflexivizer à la Reinhart and Reuland (1993). Given
this, the binding relation between pronoun+zisin and its antecedent is materialized not throughsyntactic binding but through co-argumenthood; as a result, its strict locality follows. Contra
Aikawa (1993), however, we hypothesize that the other reflexives in Japanese are not a reflexivizer. The fact that pronoun+zisin needs no φ-feature agreement with T results in its lackof subject orientation.
6.3. Zibun vs. Zibun-zisin
As for the non-local reflexive zibun(-tati) in Japanese, its lack of person- and gen-- 34 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

der-features indicates that it is φ-defective. Thus, we predict that zibun-tati permits split binding. The syntactic mechanism of the split binding of zibun-tati can be explained consistently
with our proposed theory of Binding through Agree (See Appendix II for a diagnosis of syntactically split binding with respect to zibun-tati). Why is it that zibun(-tati) behaves differently from zibun(-tati)-zisin in terms of the locality of binding dependency? We follow theidea that the former, being morphologically simple, may undergo (sometimes long-distance)
LF movement (à la Pica 1991, Katada 1991, Hestvik 1992, etc.).7 In addition, we assume thatbinding through the Probe-Goal agreement should take place after zibun undergoes
long-distant LF movement. Therefore, if zibun in an embedded tensed clause moves up to thematrix clause, the matrix T can agree with zibun after its long-distant movement. As a result,the long-distant binding between the subject DP and zibun can be established through the mediation of the matrix T at LF. This indicates that zibun allows the long-distant binding over atensed-clause boundary.
Then, an empirically significant question arises: Why is it that the split binding ofzibun-tati with the property of long-distant LF movement is not allowed when thetensed-clause boundary intervenes between zibun-tati and one of its antecedents? Consider thefollowing examples in (30) by comparing it with the examples of zibun-tati-zisin in (25)above.
(30) a.

* Daremok-ga sensei-ni [darekah-ga zibun-tatik+h-o hihansi-ta to ] it-ta.
≠ ‘For every x, there is some y such that x told the teacher that y criticized x and y.’b. OK Daremok-ga darekah-ni [sensei-ga zibun-tatik+h-o hihansi-ta to ] it-ta.
= ‘For every x, there is some y such that x told y that the teacher criticized x and y.’Given that zibun-tati in an embedded tensed clause can undergo long-distant LF movement, it
can be naturally explained why (30b) is acceptable in contradiction to the ill-formed examplesof zibun-tati-zisin, as shown in (25b). When one of its antecedents is on the outside of theembedded tensed clause, as shown in (30a), the binding relation between zibun-tati and thesubject DP of the matrix clause can be established through the mediation of the matrix T, but
the matrix T cannot agree with another possible antecedent in the embedded tensed clause(i.e., the subject DP in the embedded tensed clause), because T in the embedded tensed clauseagrees with the embedded subject DP. Then the derivation crashes at LF, and this is why(30a) is unacceptable. However, when both of its antecedents are on the outside of the embedded tensed clause, we predict that the split binding of zibun-tati (i.e., the binding relation
between the subject DP and the non-subject DP in the matrix clause and zibun-tati within theembedded tensed clause) is allowed, unlike the same situation of zibun-tati-zisin. This is bor7

In Appendix I, we argue that other Japanese morphologically simplex reflexives mizukara and onore
are locally bound. This is because we assume mizukara and onore cannot move at LF. As a result, it
can be naturally explained that they show the same locality for the binding dependency as that ofzibun-zisin; that is, they can be bound over the non-tensed-clause boundary, but they cannot be boundwhen the tensed-clause boundary intervenes between them and their antecedents.

- 35 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012ne out, as shown in (30b).
6.4.

Binding within Causative Clauses

It is very interesting to consider how our theory of split binding enables us to explain thata φ-defective anaphor in a causative clause can be bound by a causer over the non-tensed
clause boundary. This fact was first reported in Kuroda (1965), as shown in (31a) below:(31) a.

Johnk-ga[ Billh-ni
John-NOM Bill-DAT

zibun-zisink/h-o mi]-sase-ta. (Kuroda 1965)
SELF-self-ACC see-CAUS-PST‘John made Bill see SELF.’b.

Johnk-ga[ Billh-ni
Johkn-NOM Bill-DAT

kare-zisin*k/h-ohimself-ACCmi]-sase-ta. (Kurata 1986)
see-CAUS-PST‘John made Bill see himself.’
In (31a), the local reflexive zibun-zisin can be bound by the causer John over the non-tensed
clause boundary, even though it cannot undergo LF movement. In contrast, kare-zisin, theother local reflexive in Japanese, cannot be bound over a non-tensed clause boundary, as
shown by the ill-formedness of (31b).
6.4.1.

Two Types of Causative Clause

Under our theory of split binding, the antecedent(s) of a φ-defective anaphor is/are always destined to be the one with which T agrees. In this paper, we assume that the causative
clause may or may not have T[−tense] with the φ-complete specifications (see Kitagawa 1986
for a similar idea). If the causative clause does not have T[−tense] (in this case, the causative
clause is vP, as shown in (32) below), there is no Probe for a φ-defective reflexive in vP
within the causative clause:(32) causative clause = vP
a__-----OK----_--_l[TP DPk-ga [vP DPh-ni zibun-zisink/*h-o V ] CAUS T[φ] ]z------------_-OK--------_-_---m
As a result, T[+tense] in the matrix clause turns out to be a Probe and agrees with the reflexive and it also agrees with the subject DP. Here it should be recalled that a binding dependency through Agree is established at LF, where phases are irrelevant to any operation. Thus,
the binding relation between the causer at the matrix clause and the φ-defective reflexive
within the causative clause over the non-tensed clause boundary can safely be established, as
required, when the causative clause does not have T.
On the other hand, if the causative clause has T[−tense] with the φ-complete specifications (in this case, the causative clause is TP, as shown in (33) below), T in the causative- 36 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

clause can agree with the causee within the causative clause, but it cannot agree with thecauser at the matrix clause, because T in the embedded clause is the T nearest to the causee,
but it is not the T nearest to the causer (because the matrix T is the nearest to the causer).
Thus, the φ-defective reflexive within the causative clause can be bound by the causee
through the mediation of the embedded T, but it cannot be bound by the causer at the matrix
clause when the causative clause has T.
(33) causative clause = non-tensed TP with φ-complete specifications
a__--OK----l[TP DPk-ga [TP DPh-ni zibun-zisin*k/h-o V T[φ]] CAUS T[φ] ]z-------OK----_-_-m
To sum up, a φ-defective reflexive within the causative clause is bound by the causee within
the causative clause when the causative clause has T, while it is bound by the causer at thematrix clause when the causative clause does not have T.
6.4.2. Ban on Crossover-Binding
In this subsection, we will provide a piece of supporting evidence for the above conclusion that there are two types of causative clause in Japanese. Look at the following example in(34), where crossover-binding is blocked; that is, the two occurrences of zibun-zisin musthave the same single binder:(34)

John-wa [ Taro-ni
zibun-zisin-no hahaoya-ni
John-TOP Taro-DAT SELF-self-GEN mother-DAT
koibito-oshookais]-ase]-ta.
girl friend-ACC introduce-CAUSE-PAST.

zibun-zisin-no
SELF-self-GEN‘John made Taro introduce SELF’s girl friend to SELF’s mother.’
In (34), the two occurrences of zibun-zisin must have Taro as their binder or they must haveJohn as their binder, but it cannot be the case that one of them has Taro and the other has
John as their binders. It should be noted, however, that crossover-binding is possible in general, as shown in (35):(35)

Toyota-saek-ga
dono sitauke-gaisyaj-ni-mo
Toyota-even-NOM every subsidiary-DAT-PRT
sokok-no syain-oukeire-sase-ta.
it-GEN
staff-ACC take in-CAUS-PST

sokoj-noit-GENkeiei-bumon-emanaging section-to‘Even Toyotak made every subsidiaryj take in itsk staff to itsj managing section.’
Why is the crossover-binding impossible in (34)? If the causative clause in (34) happens
to have T, then our theory described in §6.4.1 above demands that the two occurrences ofzibun-zisin should be feature-bound by the causee, which agrees with the T within the causative clause; accordingly, they must have the causee as their binder. On the other hand, if the- 37 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012causative clause in (34) happens to lack T, then our theory demands that the two occurrencesof zibun-zisin should be feature-bound by the matrix T, which agrees with the causer at theSpec of the matrix T; accordingly, they must have the causer as their binder. It is important to
notice, here, that our theory appropriately explains that there is no crossover-binding in (34).
6.4.3.

Subjecthood of Causee

Given Ura’s (1996, 2000) assumption that a DP assumes subjecthood when the DP
agrees with T, then we are led to predict (I) that the causee in a causative clause has subjecthood when zibun-zisin is bound by the causee, and (II) that the causee in a causative clausedoes not have subjecthood when zibun-zisin within the causative clause is bound by the causer
at the matrix clause. Look at (36):(36)

Maryk-wa [ Johnh-ni [ PRO okori-nagara ] zibun-zisin-o hihans]-ase-ta.
Mary-TOP John-DAT
angry-while
SELF-self-ACC criticize-CAUS-PAST‘Mary made John criticize SELF, while PRO being angry.’

The factual interpretation for (36) is as follows: If zibun-zisin is to be bound by John, PRO in
the adjunct adverbial clause must be construed as John, and if zibun-zisin is to be bound by
Mary, PRO in the adjunct adverbial clause must be construed as Mary. This fact becomes
clearer if we take a closer look at the interpretation for (37) below:(37) a.

Maryk-wa [ karerah-ni [ PRO*k/h okori-nagara ] zibun-tati-zisinh-oMary-TOP them-DAT
angry-while
SELF-self-ACC
hihans]-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PAST‘Maryk made themh criticize SELFh, while PRO*k/h being angry.’b.

Maryk-wa [ karerah-ni [ PROk/??h okori-nagara]
Mary-TOP them-DAT
angry-while
hihans]-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PASTzibun-zisink -o
SELF-self-ACC‘Maryk made themh criticize SELFk, while PROk/??h being angry.’In the case where (37a) is acceptable, it must be that zibun-tati-zisin is bound by the causee
karera, because it is a plural form. Thus, the causative clause in (37a) must be TP and
T[−tense] in the causative clause inevitably agrees both with the reflexive and with thecausee. Because there is no interpreting the controller of PRO in the adjunct adverbial clauseas any element other than karera in (35a), the prediction with our theory is borne out, as required. This lends strong support to our theory of Binding through Agree.

- 38 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

7.

Conclusion

Our aim in this paper was to clarify under what conditions the split binding is possible.
First, we have argued that one of the Japanese locally-bound reflexive form zibun-tati-zisin
can be syntactically bound by split antecedents within its local domain. Next, we have proposed the theory of Binding through Agree, and demonstrated that T with the ability ofmultiple checking mediates the agreement between a φ-defective reflexive and its split antecedents (i.e., the subject DP and the non-subject DP). We also explained the parametric difference between the languages allowing the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive and theones disallowing it.

Appendix I: Morphologically Simple Reflexives That Are Locally-boundMizukara and onore, being their φ-defective nature, show subject orientation, too (Ishino
and Ura 2011), as correctly predicted with our theory presented herein.
(I.1)

a.

Johnk-ga
John-NOM

Billj-niBill-DAT

mizukarak/*j/onorek/*j-nituite
SELF/SELF
about

katar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk/*j.’b.

Johnk-ga
John-NOM

Billj-niBill-DAT

zibun-zisink/*j/zibunk/*j-nituite
SELF-self/SELF
aboutkatar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk/*j.’c.

Johnk-ga
John-NOM

Billj-niBill-DAT

kare-zisink/j-nituite
he-self
about

katar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk/j.’
As observed in (11c) and (12c) above in the main text, mizukara and onore differ from zibunand zibun-zisin in that the former disallow the strict identity reading in an elliptical domain asa surface anaphor. Ishino and Ura (2011) argue that zibun and zibun-zisin can be used not
only as a φ-defective anaphor but also as a referential pronominal, which does not need any
syntactic binding, whereas mizukara and onore can only be used as a φ-defective anaphor insyntax.
The morphologically simple reflexive forms mizukara and onore in Japanese, unlike theother morphologically simple reflexive zibun, show the strict locality just like pronoun+zisin
and zibun-zisin (cf. Kitagawa 1986 and Ishino and Ura 2011). This fact is revealed by theill-formedness of (I.2a,b,c) below:- 39 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(I.2)

a. * Sanzook-ga
Gokuu-ni[ mamono-ga zibun-zisink/kare-zisink-o
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT goblin-NOM SELF-self/he-self-ACC
oikaker-teir-uto ] tuge-ta.
chase-PROG-PRES C
tell-PST‘Sanzok told Goku [ that goblins chased SELFk ].’b. * Sanzook-ga
Gokuu-ni[ mamono-ga
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT goblin-NOM
oikaker-teir-uto ] tuge-ta.
chase-PROG-PRES C
tell-PST

mizukarak/onorek-o
SELF/SELF-ACC‘Sanzok told Goku [ that goblins chased SELFk ].’c.

Sanzook-ga
Sanzoo-NOM
tuge-ta.
tell-PST

Gokuu-ni[ mamono-ga
Gokuu-DAT goblin-NOM

zibunk-ooikaker-teir-u
to ]SELF-ACC chase-PROG-PRES C‘Sanzok told Goku [ that goblins chased SELFk ].’This is very surprising, given Faltz’s (1977) and Pica’s (1987) generalization that morphologically simple reflexives with subject-orientation are tolerable with the long-distancebinding. Under our theory of feature-binding, the locally-bound nature of mizukara and onore
is naturally explained; for, φ-defective reflexives must be feature-bound through Agree, theoperation which is principally restricted within a single tensed clause, as we argued in themain text. The conclusion is that mizukara and onore, unlike zibun-zisin and zibun (both ofwhich can be used as a referential pronominal), can only be used as a genuine φ-defective
anaphor (Ishino and Ura 2011).
Appendix II: Split Binding and Zibun-tati
Abe (1992) claims that the split antecedence illustrated in (9) above in the text is not a
genuine one, but it is obtained as a special case of the group reading for zibun-tati (cf., also,
Kawasaki 1989), which depends not upon syntactic binding but upon coreference in discourse. This claim can be examined by detecting whether or not zibun-tati tolerates the sloppy
identity reading when being embedded in an elliptical domain as a surface anaphor.
(II.1) a.

Johnk-ga [ Billj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ],John-NOM Bill-DAT
than earlier
katar-ta.
tell-PST

Tomg-ni
Tom-DATØ = ‘told about SELFk+j(+else-g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’- 40 -

zibun-tatik+g(+else)-nituite
SELF-PLabout(strict/sloppy)

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)b.

Maryk-ga [ Janej-kara Ø yorimo sakini], Sueg-kara
Mary-NOM Jane-fromthan earlier
Sue-from
kii-ta.
hear-PSTØ = ‘heard about SELFk+j(+else-g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’c.

zibun-tatik+g(+else)-nituite
SELF-PLabout(strict/sloppy)

Chomskyk-ga [ Lasnikj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Halleg-ni zibun-tatik+g(+else)-o
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT
than earlier
Halle-DAT SELF-PL-ACC
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticize SELFk+j(+else-g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’(strict/sloppy)

As the interpretation of the above examples shows, zibun-tati yields the sloppy reading in addition to the strict reading. Under our theory, this implies that zibun-tati can be used as alogophor, which utilizes coreference in discourse. This, in turn, lends empirical support toAbe’s (1992) claim.
Appendix III:

Split Binding in English

It has widely been admitted that the English third-person plural reflexive themselves is alocally-bound reflexive and cannot be split bound.
(III.1) a. * Johnk told Billh about themselvesk+h.
b. * Johnk showed Maryh themselvesk+h in the mirror.

(Wasow 1979)(Fiengo and May 1994)

However, it has sometimes been reported in the literature that the split binding for themselves
is possible in a certain context.
(III.2) a. OKMaryk showed Paulh a nice picture of themselvesk+h.

(Carroll 1986)

b. OK John told Mary about interesting and important political ideas, while Billk told
Sueh only about themselvesk+h.
(Okada 1998)c.

[Mary and Sue told Jane that they all looked exactly alike, but Jane was the only
one who claimed not to be able to see the resemblance.]
OK
So Maryk showed Janeh themselvesk+h in the mirror, so that she could see theirfaces together and could compare them.
(Okada 1998)

It has also been reported that the English reflexives can be bound over the tensed-clauseboundary in a certain context. Our theory demands that the reflexives in these kinds of example should be an instance of the contextually emphatic logophor in discourse. Importantly,
this is, indeed, endorsed by the observation that they do not have the sloppy reading when
they are interpreted under the VP-deletion context. Consider the following:- 41 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

(III.3) a. OKMary thought that everyone was fond of pictures of herself.
(Cantall 1974, Lebeaux 1984, Pollard and Sag 1992, etc.)
b. OK John eventually realized that the girl was taller than himself.

(Zribi-Hertz 2007)

c. OKJack came to know that this bitch was in love with himself.

(Gast 2002)(III.4) a.

Mary thought that everyone was fond of pictures of herself, and Jane did Ø, too.
herself in Ø = Mary, ?herself in Ø = Jane (strict OK, sloppy ?)<Lebeaux 1984: possibility of the existence of PRO in the picture-noun>b.

John realized that the girl was taller than himself, and Bill did Ø, too.
himself in Ø = John, *?herself in Ø = Billc.

(strict OK, sloppy NG)

Jack came to know that this bitch was in love with himself, and Bill did, Ø too.
himself in Ø = John, *herself in Ø = Bill(strict OK, sloppy NG)

Logophorically/emphatically used reflexives cannot be a bound variable (cf. Sevcenco 2006).
The following examples also endorse this:(III.5) a.

Maryk showed Paulh a nice picture of themselvesk+h, and Janej did Ø, too.
Ø = showed Paul a nice picture of Mary and Paul, Ø ≠ showed Paul a nice pictureof Jane and Paul (strict OK, sloppy NG)b.

[ Under the same context as in (III.2b) ]Billk told Suek+h only about themselvesk+h, and Tomj did, Ø too.
Ø = told Sue about Bill and Sue, Ø ≠ told Sue about Tom and Sue(strict OK, sloppy NG)c.

[ Under the same context as in (III.2c) ]Maryk showed Janeh themselvesk+h in the mirror, but Suej didn’t want to Ø, too.
Ø = show Jane themselvesk+h, Ø ≠ show Jane themselvesk+j(strict OK, sloppy NG)

We therefore conclude that the split binding of a reflexive under special contexts in English(such as exemplified in (III.2)) is materialized only through the coreference in discourse.

References
Abe, J. (1992) “The Nature of Anaphors and Distributivity,” Generals paper, University of Connecticut.

- 42 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

Aikawa, T. (1993) Reflexivity in Japanese and LF-Analysis of zibun-Binding, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio
State University.
Aikawa, T. (1994) “Logophoric Use of the Japanese Reflexive Zibun-zisin ‘self-self’.” In M. Koizumi
and H. Ura, eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL1, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 24, 1–22.
Berman, S. and A. Hestvik (1997) “Split Antecedents, Noncoreference, and DRT.” In H. Bennis et al.,eds., Atomism and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht, 1–29.
Bouchard, D. (1984) On the Content of Empty Categories, Foris, Dordrecht.
Burzio, L. (1991) “The Morphological Basis of Anaphora,” Journal of Linguistics 27, 81–105.
Büring, D. (2005) Binding Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Cantall, W. (1974) Viewpoint, Reflexives, and the Nature of Noun Phrases, Mouton, The Hague.
Carroll, S. (1986) “On Non-Anaphor Reflexives,” Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 15, 135–165
Chiou, M. (2007) NP-Anaphora in Modern Greek: A Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Reading.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2001) “Derivation by Phase.” In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1–52.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On Phases.” In R. Freidin, C. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational
Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roget Vergnaud, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 133–167.
Doron, E. (1983) Verbless Predicates in Hebrew, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Everaert, M. (1986) The Synatx of Reflexivization, Foris, Dordrecht.
Faltz, L. (1977) Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. [published from Garland, 1985.]
Fiengo, R. and M. Haruna (1986) “Parameters in Binding Theory.” In T. Imai and M. Saito, eds., Issues in Japanese Linguistics, Foris, Dordrecht, 107–128.
Fiengo, R. and R. May (1994) Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Fujii, T. (2004) “Multiple Zibun,” in Y. Otsu, ed., The Proceedings of the Fifth Tokyo Conference on
Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 87–109.
Gallego, Á. (2010) “Binding through Agree,” Linguistic Analysis 34, 163–192.
Gast, V. (2002) The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Reflexives as Expressions of an Identity
Function, Ph.D. dissertation, Free University of Berlin.
Heim, I. (1998) “Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation: A Reinterpretation of Reinhart’s Approach.”
In U. Sauerland and O. Percus, eds., The Interpretive Tract, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25, 205–246.
Heim, I. (2008) “Features on Bound Pronouns.” In D. Harbour et al., eds., Phi Theory: Phi-Features
across Modules and Interfaces, Oxford University Press, New York, 35–56.
Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell, Malden.
Heinat, F. (2008) Probes, Pronouns, and Binding in the Minimalist Program, VDM Verlag, Saarbrücken.
Hestvik, A. (1992) “LF-Movement of Pronouns and Antisubject Orientation,” Linguistic Inquiry 23,
557–594.
Hestvik, A. (1995) “Reflexives and Ellipsis,” Natural Language Semantics 3, 211–237.
Hicks, G. (2009) The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Hinds, J. (1973) “Some Remarks on soo su-,” Papers in Japanese Linguistics 2, 18–30.
Hiraiwa, K. (2005) Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.

- 43 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

Hoji, H. (1991) “KARE,” in C. Georgopoulos and R. Ishihara, eds., Interdisciplinary Approaches toLanguage: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 287–304.
Hoji, H. (2003) “Surface and Deep Anaphora, Sloppy Identity, and Experiments in Syntax.” In A.
Barss, ed., Anaphora: A Reference Guide, Blackwell, Malden, 172–236.
Humnick, L. (2009) Pronouns in Kumyk Discourse, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Ishino, N. (2012) Feature Transfer and Feature Learning in Universal Grammar: A Comparative
Study of the Syntactic Mechanism for Second Language Acquisition, Ph.D. dissertation,
Kwansei Gakuin University.
Ishino, N. and H. Ura (2009) “Selective Transfer Hypothesis in L2 Acquisition and Multiple Parameters for Japanese Reflexives,” Talk presented at the 139th Annual Meeting of The Linguistic Society of Japan.
Ishino, N. and H. Ura (2010) “Light Verbs and the Licensing of VP-deletion in Japanese,” ms.,
Kwansei Gakuin University.
Ishino, N. and H. Ura (2011) “On Genuine Locally-bound Reflexives in Japanese,” ms., Kwansei Gakuin University.
Kasai, H. (2000) “Some Split Antecedents Are Not Split,” Linguistic Research 17, 47–60.
Katada, F. (1990) The Representation of Anaphoric Relations in Logical Form, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Southern California.
Katada, F. (1991) “The LF Representation of Anaphors,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 287–314.
Kawasaki, N. (1989) Jibun-tati and Non-Coreferential Anaphora, ms., University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Kitagawa, Y. (1986) Subjects in Japanese and English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Koster, J. (1984) “On Binding and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 15, 417–459.
Koster, J. (1986) Domains and Dynasties: The Radical Autonomy of Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
Kuno, S. (1972) “Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse,” Linguistic Inquiry 3,
161–195.
Kuno, S. (1987) Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Kurata, K. (1986) “Asymmetries in Japanese,” ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Lebeaux, D. (1984) “Locality and Anaphoric Binding,” The Linguistic Review 4, 343–363.
Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2008) “Binding, Phases, and Locality,” Syntax 11, 281–298.
Nakamura, M. (1989) “Reflexives in Japanese,” Gengo Kenkyu 95, 206–230.
Napoli, D. J. (1976) “Reflexivization across Clause Boundaries in Italian,” Journal of Linguistics 15,
1–27.
Noguchi, T. (1997) “Two Types of Pronouns and Variable Binding,” Language 73, 770–797.
Okada, M. (1998) “Reflexive Pronouns with Split Antecedents,” Journal of Pragmatics 30, 59–84.
Oshima, D. (2007) “On Empathic and Logophoric Binding,” Research on Language and Computation5, 19–35.
Pica, P. (1984) “On the Distinction between Argumental and Non-Argumental Anaphors.” In W. deGeest and Y. Putseys, eds., Sentential Complementation, Foris, Dordrecht, 185–193.
Pica, P. (1987) “On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle,” Proceedings of NELS 17, 483–499.
Pica, P. (1991) “On the Interaction between Antecedent-government and Binding: The Case of LongDistance Reflexivization.” In J. Koster and E. Reuland, eds., Long-Distance Anaphora,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 119–137.
Pollard, C. and I. Sag (1992) “Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303.

- 44 -

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

Quicolli, C. (2008) “Anaphora by Phase,” Syntax 11, 299–329.
Rappaport, G. (1986) “On Anaphor Binding in Russian,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4,
97–120.
Reinhart, T. (1983) Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, Croom Helm, London.
Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland (1991) “Anaphors and Logophors: An Argument Structure Perspective.”
In J. Koster and E. Reuland, eds., Long-Distance Anaphora, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 283–321.
Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland (1993) “Reflexivity,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.
Reuland, E. (2001) “Primitives of Binding,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439–492.
Reuland, E. (2008) “Anaphoric Dependencies: How Are They Encoded? Towards a Derivation-based
Typology.” In E. König and V. Gast, eds., Reciprocals and Reflexives, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin, 499–555.
Safir, K. (2004) The Syntax of Anaphora, Oxford University Press, New York.
Saito, M. (1992) “Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1,
69–118.
Seely, T. D. (1993) “Binding Plural Pronominals,” CLS 29 Vol. II, 305–317.
Sells, P. (1987) “Aspects of Logophoricity,” Linguistic Inquiry 18, 445–479.
Selvanathan, N. (2009) Taan, ko(n), and Anaphoric Dependencies in Tamil, Master thesis, National
University of Singapore.
Sevcenco, A. (2006) Terms of Binding, Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.
Speas, M. (1990) Phrase Structure in Natural Language, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Tada, H. (1993) A / A-bar Partition in Derivation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Tsukanova, V., and L. Nikolaeva (2008) “Ways To Express Reflexive in Arabic,” ms., Russian State
University.
Ura, H. (1994) Varieties of Raising and the Feature-based Bare Phrase Structure Theory, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7.
Ura, H. (1996) Multiple Feature-Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function Splitting, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Ura, H. (2000) Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar, Oxford University Press, New York.
Uriagereka, J. and Á. J. Gallego (2006) “(Multiple) Agree as Local (Binding and) Obviation,” Paper
presented at Going Romance XX, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
van de Kerke, S. (1991) “Co-Indexation in Predicate Argument Structure: The Characteristics ofQuechua ku,” Revue québécoise de linguistique 20, 79–97.
Wasow, T. (1979) Anaphora in Generative Grammar, Story-Scientia, Ghent.
Yang, D.-W. (1983) “The Extended Binding Theory of Anaphors,” Language Research 19, 169–192.
Zribi-Hertz, A. (2007) “From Intensive to Reflexive”, ms., Université Paris-8.

- 45 -