The Sarikoli reflexive pronoun

• Authors: Deborah Kim
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper describes χɯ, the Sarikoli reflexive personal and possessive pronoun, in terms of its agreement, relative prominence, and domain. The reflexive χɯ does not overtly agree with its antecedent, always maintaining the same form. It is subject-oriented and is complementarily distributed with nonreflexive pronouns. In both finite and non-finite subordinate clauses, χɯ is usually used as a local reflexive, with long-distance potential in one variety-the reason adverbial clause. Sarikoli provides confirmatory evidence for the correlation between long-distance reflexives and subject orientation (Pica 1987, 1991; Cole & Sung 1994), since χɯ is subject-oriented whether it refers to an antecedent within the same clause or across a clause boundary.

Keywords

EN

Sarikoli; Iranian languages; Pamir languages; reflexive; pronouns; long-distance reflexive; subject-orientation

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Open Linguistics
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 1
• Issue: 1

Dates

received

2015-06-10

accepted

2015-11-16

online

2015-12-31

Contributors

author

Deborah Kim

• Department of Humanities, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of
  China, 830046

References

• Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, C.-T. Huang. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(1):1-22.
• Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, C.-T. Huang. 2001. Long-distance reflexives: The state of the art. In Cole, P., G. Hermon, C.-T. Huang (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 33. New York: Academic Press.
• Cole, Peter, and Li-May Sung. 1994. Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3):355-406.
• Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and Basic Linguistic Theory. In Ameka, Felix K., Alan Dench, Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 207-234.
• Huang, Yan. 2006. Anaphora, cataphora, exophora, logophoricity. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 231-237.
• Johnson, David E. 1977. On relational constraints and grammars. In: Cole, P., J.M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 8:151-178. New York: Academic Press.
• Kim, Deborah. 2014. Subordination in Sarikoli. M.A. thesis. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota, USA.
• Kroeger, Paul R. 2004. Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lappin, Shalom, and Herbert Leass. 1994. An algorithm for pronominal anaphora resolution. Computational Linguistics, 20(4):535-561.
• Mitkov, Ruslan. 1999. Anaphora resolution: the state of the art. Working paper. University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton.
• Payne, John. 1989. Pamir languages. In Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, pp. 417-444. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
• Pica, Pierre. 1987. On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle. In McDonough, J., B. Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 1987. Amherst: GLSA.
• Pica, Pierre. 1991. On the interaction between antecedent-government and binding: The case of long distance reflexivization. In Koster, J., E. Reuland (eds.), Long distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(4):657-750.
• Windfuhr, Gernot L., John R. Perry. 2009. Persian and Tajik. In Windfuhr, Gernot L. (ed.), The Iranian languages, pp. 416-544. London: Routledge.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/opli-2015-0030