Chapter published in:
Advances in Iranian Linguistics
Edited by Richard K. Larson, Sedigheh Moradi and Vida Samiian
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 351] 2020
► pp. 15–27

Syntactic and semantic constraints on pronoun and anaphor resolution in Persian

| University of Calgary
| University of Calgary
This chapter investigates the mechanism of reference resolution for the colloquial pronoun un “(s)he” and the anaphor xod-eš “self-3sg” in Persian. The present analysis serves as another piece of evidence in support of the ‘multiple constraints’ framework for reference resolution advanced in Kaiser (2003) and Kaiser et al. (2009), while also contributing to the relatively scant analyses of Persian reference resolution. In identifying the differences in sensitivity to constraints, though, we argue that xod-eš and un are fundamentally different in their binding behaviour. Regarding the semantic constraints, we observed that un is more sensitive to a perceiver bias than xod-eš. We further reinforce the bound nature of xod-eš with the observation that it requires a c-commanding antecedent. This, along with the observed tolerance for (syntactic) binding both within and beyond the local clause, motivates its comparison with the Korean caki and Chinese ziji “self”, both of which share these properties.
Keywords: binding, pronouns, anaphors, logophoricity, multiple constraints framework
Published online: 22 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.351.02abd
References

References

Anand, Pranav
2006 De de se. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper
1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (2). 159–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2005 Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon & Li-May Sung
1990 Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 1–22.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila & Elizabeth Ritter
1996 Binding, possessives, and the structure of DP. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the 26th North East Linguistics Society Conference (NELS), 87–100. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye & Dennis R. Storoshenko
2012 Semantic binding of long distance anaphor caki in Korean. Language 88(4). 764–790. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, Dennis R. Storoshenko, Betty Leung & Kyeong-min Kim
2015 The time course of long-distance anaphor processing in Korean. Korean Linguistics 17(1). 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi
2003 The quest for a referent: A crosslinguistic look at reference resolution. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi, Jeffrey T. Runner, Rachel S. Sussman & Michael K. Tanenhaus
2009 Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition 112(1). 55–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1987 Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. & Edward S. Klima
1963 Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39(1), 17–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moyne, John Abel
1971 Reflexive and emphatic. Language 47. 141–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland
1993 Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4). 657–720.Google Scholar
Sohng, Hong-Ki
2004 A minimalist analysis of X0 reflexivization in Chinese and Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 14 (3). 375–396.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol
2003 Short distance pronouns, argument structure, and the grammar of sentience. Manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me
1989 Long-distance anaphors in Korean and their cross-linguistic implications. In Caroline Wiltshire, Randolph Graczyk & Music Bradley (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 479–495. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar