In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12: Selected papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Campinas, Brazil
Edited by Ruth E.V. Lopes, Juanito Ornelas de Avelar and Sonia M. L. Cyrino
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12] 2017
► pp. 15–28
Chapter 2Exempt anaphors and logophoricity in French
Published online: 19 October 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.12.02cha
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.12.02cha
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to account for instances of anaphors that appear to be exempt from Condition A, based on the French anaphors son propre (‘his own’) and lui-même (≈ ‘himself’). Drawing on specific tests, I show that such anaphors must be anteceded by logophoric centers, specifically either by attitude holders or by empathy loci. This generalization is explained if we suppose the existence of silent logophoric operators that corefer with the antecedent and locally bind the anaphor: apparently exempt anaphors are in fact not exempt. This accounts for why they have the same form as anaphors standardly obeying Condition A: they are one and the same element. Their specific distribution and interpretation derives from their silent logophoric binder.
Keywords: anaphor, exemption from Condition A, logophoricity, French
Article outline
- Introduction
- 1.Issue: How to identify exempt anaphors?
- 1.1How to define locality requirements of anaphors
- 1.2The inanimacy strategy
- 1.3Specific caveats for French anaphors
- 2.Descriptive generalization: Logophoricity of exempt anaphors
- 2.1Logophoricity
- 2.2French exempt anaphors in attitude contexts
- 2.3French exempt anaphors in non-attitude contexts
-
3.Analysis: Binding by logophoric operators
- 3.1Logophoric operators
- 3.2The position of logophoric operators
- 3.3Interaction between logophoric centers
- 4.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (22)
Charnavel, I. 2012. On her own: Probing Syntax and Semantics with French propre. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.
Charnavel I. & D. Sportiche. 2016. “Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show”. Linguistic Inquiry 47(1): 35–87.
Clements, G. N. 1975. “The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177.
Dubinsky, S., & R. Hamilton. 1998. “Epithets as antilogophoric pronouns”. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 685–693.
Frege, G. 1980/1892. “On sense and meaning”. In Tranlations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, ed. by P. Geach & M. Black, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell.
Huang, C.-T. J., & C.-S. L. Liu. 2001. “Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface”. In Syntax and Semantics 33: Long Distance Reflexives, ed. by P. Cole, G. Hermon, & C.-T. J. Huang, 141–195. San Diego: Academic Press.
Koopman, H., & D. Sportiche. 1989. “Pronouns, logical variables, and logophoricity in Abe”. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 555–588.
Kuno, S. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maling, J. 1984. “Non-clause bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic”. Linguistic and Philosophy 7: 211–241.
Oshima, D. Y. 2007. “On empathic and logophoric binding”. Research on Language and Computation 5: 19–35.
Pollard, C. & I. A. Sag. 1992. “Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 261–303.
Schlenker, P. 2003. “Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns”. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II, ed. by J. Lecarme, 409–428. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sundaresan, S. 2012. Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces. University of Tromsø and University of Stuttgart, Tromsø, dissertation.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Marty, Paul
Charnavel, Isabelle
2018. Long-distance binding of French reflexive soi
. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 14], ► pp. 21 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
