2.1 Linguistic Properties and Literature Review of Italian and Cinese Reflexives
2.1.1 Anaphoric Reflexives
Anaphoric reflexives are reflexives in argument positions and they can refer to antecedents in a context. Giorgi (2006:1012) claimed that ‘neither Italian possessive proprio nor Chinese
ziji can be used for deixis’; hence, both of them are anaphoric reflexives. However, Chinese taziji is excluded in the present study since we only focus on Chinese ziji and Italian proprio.
In Chapter One, we have already discussed the important properties of anaphoric reflexives, such as LD binding (see Seciton 2.1.1.1), blocking effects (see Section 2.1.1.2) and subject orientation (see Section 2.1.1.3). As mentioned previously, both Italian and Chinese anaphoric reflexives have long-distance binding; however, their binding conditions are attributed to different factors. Moreover, the LD binding is not free from restrictions in both languages, namely blocking effects. Lastly, these two languages behave differently with respect to subject orientation.
14
2.1.1.1 Long-distance Binding
Many researchers (Battistella & Xu, 1990; Giorgi, 2006, 2007; Rivero, 2001; Tang, 1989;
Yeh, 2000) have pointed out that Binding Theory proposed by Chomsky (1981) cannot ensure the proper binding of Italian proprio and Chinese ziji. In Italian, a first person pronoun cannot be an antecedent while the possessive proprio is always third person. Hence, when an antecedent-less anaphor appears, the sentence is ungrammatical (Giorgi, 2006:1033):
(3)
*Io amo la propria madre.I love the self mother ‘I love self’s mother.’
On the contrary, in Chinese the first person pronoun can be an antecedent for the reflexive ziji, as shown in (4).
(4) Wo ai ziji de mama.
I love self’s mother ‘I love my mother.’
With respect to their distributions, Italian proprio is a possessive anaphor (Giorgi (2006), as in (5):
(5)
Gianni
icrede che Paolo
jodi la propria
i/jmoglie.
Gianni believes that Paolo hates the self wife
‘Gianni believes that Paolo hates (SUBJ) self’s wife.’
Sentence (5) is ambiguous since both Gianni and Paolo are possible antecedents. As noted by Giorgi, Paolo is a co-argument of the DP containing an anaphor, which also satisfies the c-command requirement. Regarding Gianni, the extended projection to the MOODP1 of the verb
1 Giorgi and Pianesi (2001) and Giorgi (2009) have noted that there are two distinct complementizers singled
15
credere ‘believe’ is marked as unsaturated while the bearer-of-attitude
2 is locally available.Hence, Gianni can be selected as a possible antecedent for la propria. The unsaturated position of the MOODP is finally spelled out as a LDA and theta-identified with Gianni.
In Chinese, the long-distance binding with respect to the analogous structure also occurs, as in (6).
(6) Zhangsani xiangxin Lisij taoyan zijii/j de laopuo.
Zhangsan believe Lisi hate self DE wife
‘Zhangsan believes that Lisi hates his wife.’
In (5) and (6), we can see that the LD binding in the sentence triggers the ambiguity to the addressee. In addition to bi-clausal structures, both Italian and Chinese exhibit LD binding in tri-clausal structures, as in (7) and (8), respectively.
(7) Italian:
[
S1Mario
isupponeva [
S2che Gianni
jcredesse [
S3che Paolo
kodiasse la propria
i/j/kmoglie]]].
‘Mario supposed that Gianni believed (SUBJ) that Paolo hated (SUBJ) self’s wife.’
(8) Chinese:
[S1Zhangsani renwei [S2Lisij xiangxin [S3Wangwuk taoyan zijii/j/k de laopuo]].
‘Zhangsani supposed that Lisi believed that Wangwu hated his wife.’
out in embedded clauses. According to their split-C framework, the lower complementizer, called MOOD, occurs with an embedded subjunctive verb while the higher complementizer C is strictly associated with Double Access Readings (DAR), which is further explained in footnote 4.
2 The notion of the bearer-of-attitude is proposed by Giorgi and Pianesi (2001), who claim that some Italian verbs with communication functions, such as dire ‘’say, express the subject’s attitude. This is like an implication of the speech act.
16
Although both Italian and Chinese reflexives can select their antecedents across the binding domain, it should be noted that their domain of binding is constrained by blocking, which will be discussed in the following section.
2.1.1.2 Blocking Effects
When an anaphor is restricted to its antecedents under certain circumstances, the blocking effects occur. According to (Giorgi, 2006), the blocking conditions in Italian and Chinese reflexivization across domains are different. Italian is a language with mood distinction, and the domain of LDA can be defined by its indicative mood (IND) and subjective mood (SUBJ).
Italian blocking occurs with respect to indicative verbs and also the speaker’s coordinate, which is initiated by certain verbs, such as dire ‘say’. When the speaker’s coordination is initiated by the indicative verbs, the bearer-of-attitude is locally available and the saturated MOODP will not be extended, namely blocking. In (9), Italian LD binding is due to the subject’s coordinate and the bearer-of-attitude.
(9) [S1Giannii crede [S2che Paoloj supponga [S3che Mariok odi la propriai/j/k moglie.]]]
Gianni believes that Paolo supposes that Mario hates the self wife
‘Gianni believes that Paolo supposes (SUBJ) that Mario hates (SUBJ) self’s wife.’
As can be seen in (9), the subjective verbs ‘suppose’ and ‘hate’ cannot saturate MOODP and
Gianni is locally available as a possible antecedent. However, when the anaphor in the clause
17
containing an indicative verb, LDA will be blocked, as seen in (10).
(10) [S1
Gianni
isa [
S2che Paolo
jha detto [
S3che Mario
kama la propria
*i/*j/kmadre.
Gianni knows that Paolo said that Mario loves the self mother
‘Gianni knows that Paolo said that Mario loves (IND) self’s mother.’
The possibility for the possessive la propria in (10) to have the matrix subject as its antecedent is blocked since the verb ama ‘love’ is indicative. Moreover, the verb detto ‘said’
expressed the bearer-of-attitude, which is different from the verb ama. This indicative verb ama is attributed to the double access reading (DAR) effect
3in Italian contexts (Giorgi &
Pianesi, 2001). In DAR contexts, the elements in T and C must be the same. However, the indicative verb cannot satisfy the bearer-of-attitude since the attitudes are different; hence, the only possible antecedent in (10) is Mario. Therefore, we can conclude that
the possessiveproprio can have an antecedent over the subjective clauses while the blocking effect occurs in
the indicative mood (Burzio, 1996; Giorgi, 2006).As for Chinese, its blocking effect occurs according to the person asymmetry
(Giorgi, 2006; Huang & Li, 1996; Huang & Liu, 2001; Yeh, 2000). As pointed out by Huang and Liu(2001), a third person LD antecedent may be blocked by a first/second person pronoun, as shown below:
(11) Zhangsan
irenwei wo/ni
jzhidao Lisi
ktaoyan ziji
*i/*j/k. Zhangsan think I/you know Lisi hate self
‘Zhangsan thinks that I/you know that Lisi hates himself.’
3 The Double Access Readings (DAR) only occurs in Romance languages that have abundant verbal morphology (Giorgi & Pianesi, 2001). Giorgi (2006) argues that in Italian, the binding of LDA coincides with DAR contexts whereas Chinese does not have any of DAR since it lacks the verbal morphology.
18
Giorgi (2006) named the Italian blocking effect as the ‘verbal blocking effect’ since
Italian’s LDA is limited by the presence of indicative verbal forms; however, the Chinese blocking effect is ‘nominal’ because the blocking effect appears in the clause in which the matrix and embedded participants do not agree in person.42.1.1.3 Subject Orientation
Another important property of anaphoric reflexives is subject orientation, which means that the only possible antecedent of the anaphor is the subject rather than other arguments, as illustrated in (12) and (13).
(12) Italian:
Gianni
iha informato Maria
jche la propria
i/* jcasa era in fiamme.
Gianni informed Maria that the self home was in flame
‘Gianni informed Maria that self’s house was on flame.’
(Giorgi, 2006:1013)
(13) Chinese:Zhangsani gaosu Lisij zijii/*j-de jia shihuo le.
Zhangsan inform Lisi self’s home on-flame PERS
‘Zhangsan informed that Lisi his
house was on flame.’
4 Giorgi (2006:1018) also noted that Italian is a ‘mild’ nominal blocking since the person asymmetry causes the blocking effect. However, the nominal blocking is not as strong as the subjunctive/indicative verbal blocking.
19
However, the bound anaphors in Italian are not obligatorily subject-oriented. For example:
(14) Ho convinto Mariai del proprioi valore. (Italian) convinced.1st Maria of self value
‘I convinced Maria of self’s value.’
(15) I informed Bill that he himself was selected by the committee. (English)
(Giorgi, 2006:1013)
As shown above, Italian and English pronouns can refer to objects. In both sentences, the reflexive proprio/himself is in object position and bound by the antecedent Maria/Bill. Italian possessive proprio is not necessarily bound with the subject.
On the contrary, Chinese pronouns are always subject-oriented, as can be seen in (16).
(16) Zhangsani song Lisij yi-chang zijii/*j-de chaopian.
Zhangsan give Lisi one-CL self’s picture
‘Zhangsan gave Lisi a picture of himself (Zhangsan).’
(Tang, 1989)
Hence, we can conclude that Chinese pronouns are obligatorily subject-oriented whereas Italian pronouns are not obligatory.
2.1.1.4 Summary
First of all, both Italian reflexive proprio and Chinese reflexive ziji demonstrate long-distance binding. Italian anaphor proprio is a possessive form while Chinese reflexive can be either morphological ziji or possessive ziji-de. However, the Italian and Chinese LDAs are blocked by different conditions: in Italian the blocking effect is verbal, but in Chinese the
20
blocking is nominal (Burzio, 1996; Giorgi, 2006). However, as also noted by Giorgi (2006), Italian is mild nominal since the person asymmetry can also cause blocking. Regarding subject orientation, Chinese is strictly subject oriented because the pronouns are always bound to the subject; however, Italian pronouns can refer to both participants and objects, which is similar to English. Their differences may be attributed to the typological difference between Italian and Chinese. Italian has abundant verbal morphology and the DAR effect while Chinese lacks these properties, as shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Comparisons between Italian and Chinese Anaphoric Reflexives
Italian proprio Chinese ziji-de
Emphatics reflexives are different from anaphoric reflexives since the former ones only occur in non-argument position while the latter ones must appear in argument position. In Italian, the morphologically complex anaphor se stesso ‘lit. self-same’ is a strictly local anaphor and the interpretation focuses on ‘self’ instead of the action of the statement, as in (17) and (18) (Burzio, 1996, 2008).