Reflexivity and Anti-locality in Tamil

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Reinhart and Reuland (1993) divide anaphors into two types—SE-anaphors and SELF anaphors—based on their ability to reflexivize the predicates that they are arguments of. Lidz (1995, 2001a) presents anaphors from Kannada, a Dravidian language, as a clear case of evidence for Reinhart and Reuland’s SE/SELF distinction. In this paper, I examine anaphors of Tamil, another Dravidian language, and show, contra Lidz, that they do not support but in fact falsify the SE/SELF distinction. The same conclusion is drawn for Kannada anaphors.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Reinhart, T, "The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations" 36 (36): 389-436, 2005

2 Lidz, J., "The argument structure of verbal reflexives" 19 (19): 311-353, 2001

3 Selvanathan, N, "Taan, Ko(n) and Anaphoric dependences in Tamil" National University of Singapore 2009

4 Lidz, J., "Reply to Reinhart from Lidz (Part 2)"

5 Reinhart, T., "Reflexivity" 24 (24): 657-720, 1993

6 Lidz, J., "Morphological reflexive marking: Evidence from Kannada" 26 (26): 705-710, 1995

7 Annamalai, E, "Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Tamil, In Lexical pronouns and anaphors in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology" Mouton De Gruyter 169-216, 1999

8 Chomsky, N., "Lectures on government and binding" Foris 1981

9 Chomsky, N, "Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use" Praeger 1986

10 Lidz, J., "Condition R" 32 (32): 123-140, 2001

11 Sim, C., "Anaphoric Expressions in Telugu"

12 Bruening, B., "Against predicate-based reflexivity: Anaphors as subjects of embedded clauses"

13 Lehmann, T, "A grammar of modern Tamil" Pondicherry Publications 1989