G I L B E R T C. R A P P A P O R T

ON A N A P H O R B I N D I N G IN R U S S I A N *

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N

One of the goals of current linguistic research has been to proyide a universal Sentence Grammar theory of coreference. Such a theory would isolate the factors which determine when two Noun Phrases (NPs) in the same sentence must, can, or cannot refer to the same entity. In the program for a theory of language elaborated by Chomsky (1981, 1982, 1984), BINDING THEORY identifies each lexical NP as belonging to one of three categories: ANAPHOR, PRONOMINAL, a n d REFERRING EXPRESSION.

These categories are defined in terms of general requirements for an antecedent; a set of binding conditions specifies the precise range Of antecedents permitted or excluded for NPs of each category.

The goal of this paper is to present a partia! description of the coreference properties exhibited by certain pronouns in Contemporary Standard Russian: the reflexive personal pronoun, the reflexive posses2 sive pronoun, and the reciprocal pronoun. This set of pronouns is a natural class in terms of Binding Theory: it represents all and only the lexical anaphors of the language. While certain unusual properties of the Russian reflexive pronouns have been investigated, the consequences of these properties for Binding Theory have not been explored; the reciprocal pronoun in Russian has not been investigated at all. The description presented here will be couched i n terms of the concepts o f Binding Theory; the relevance of the Russian facts to certain prob, lematic- aspects of the theory will be noted, and contrasts with other languages discussed in the literature will be drawn. The coreference properties of Russian anaphors are of theoretical interest because, while there ar.e similarities with the corresponding anaphors in certain other languages, there are also significant differences.

* I would like to thank Leonard Babby, Lee Baker, Sandra Chung, Samuel Gutmann, Frank Heny, Richard Kayne, Joan Maling, Robert Rothstein, Carlota Smith, and Alan Timberlake for their comments on earlier drafts. Portions of this work have been presented in lectures at the University of Texas at Austin (April 1982; April 1984) and at the Conference on Government and Binding, CorneU University (July 1982). An earlier version has appeared as Rappaport (1983). The research repor tedhere was Partially supported by the Research Institute of the University of Texas at Austin. Special thanks are due to the native informants I consulted during the preparation of this work, especially Vladimir Cherkasskij, Konstantin Gurevich, and Jurij Slezkin. The source of examples from literature or the press has not been indicated, because it is not relevant to this discussion; all such examples have been checked with informants.

Natural Languageand Linguistic Theory 4(1986) 97---120. © 1986 by D. Reide_! Publishing Company k

9 8 G I L B E R T C. R A P P A P O R T

2 . P R E L I M I N A R I E S

Before turning to the analysis of anaphor binding in Russian, some preliminaries are in order, this section contains an introduction to the morphology and syntax of reciprocal and reflexive pronouns in Russian, and a sketch of Binding Theory. Two aspects of coreference restrictions are factored out: ANTECEDENT SELECTION and LOCALITY DOMAIN. This distinction will be important for the ensuing discussion.

2.1. Lexical Anaphors in Russian: Reciprocal and Reflexive Pronouns

The reciprocal pronoun in Russian, corresponding to English each other, is drug drnga. An example is given in (1) -1

(1) Deti ljubjat drug drug-a. children-NOM love each other-ACC

The childreni love each other~.

The morphological form of drug druga does not distinguish person, number, or gender. The pronoun is a compound formed by reduplicating the stem drug, meaning 'other'. The first instance of the stem remains invariant, while the second takes the appropriate case ending (in (1), -a). Drug druga can appear in any case except the Nominative; the Ac- cusative is taken as the citation form.

If drug dlruga is the complement of a preposition, the preposition is inserted between the two components of the reciprocal; for example:

(2) Deti dumajut drug o drug-e. children-NOM think each about other-LOC

The children~ are thinking about each other~.

The two components of the reciprocal should be perceived as a lexical unit. In this regard, the Russian reciprocal should not be viewed as a syntactically discontinuous element such as the Italian reciprocal l'uno . . l 'al tro, discussed by Belletti (1982). The Italian reciprocal has the following two properties not shared by the Russian reciprocal drug druga. (a) The two components of the Italian reciprocal must be separated, and therefore the pronoun cannot function as a direct object;

Grammat ica l cases are identified in the literal gloss of a Russian example by the following abbreviat ions: N O M = Nominat ive , A C C = Accusat ive , G E N = Genit ive, D A T = Dative, L O C = Locat ive, and I N S T - Instrumental : Subscripts are used in the translation to in- dicate coindexing in tended or, if asterisked, prohibited.

ON A N A P H O R B I N D I N G IN R U S S I A N 99

this is not true in Russian, as illustrated by (1). (b) The two components of the Italian reciprocal can be separated b y categories other than a preposition (such as a noun or adjective), while the Russian reciprocal can be split only by a preposition. 2

Russian has two reflexive pronouns, the personal pronoun sebja and the possessive sva]. 3 Neither form is morphologically sensitive to the grammatical person, number, or gender of its referent. While both reflexives are more naturally used to denote animate entities, this is not a requirement (Padu~eva 1983).

The reflexive personal pronoun sebja, like the reciprocal, never occurs in the Nominative; the Accusative form sebja is used as its citation form. An example is given in (3):

(3) Volodja o~en' ljubit sebja. Volodja-NOM very-much loves self-ACC

Volodjai loves himselfi very much.

The Russian reflexive possessive svoj functions as the Specifier of an NP.

2 The interpolation of a preposition observed in the Russian reciprocal is shared by certain other pronouns in Russian, such as the negative pronouns ni~:ego and ne~ego 'nothing'. For example:

(i) My ni o ~em ne' dumali.

we-NOM not about anything-LOC not thought

We were not thinking about anything.

(ii) Nam ne o ~em govorit'.

us-DAT not about something-LOC to-talk

There is nothing for us to talk about.

The Polish counterpart to hi,ego does not exhibit this interpolation:

fiii) Mygleligmy o niczym. (=(i))

In some cases, the preposition may precede the entire reciprocal complex in Russian, although such usage is marginal:

(iv) Oni ljubjat vsex krome drug flrug-a.

they-NOM love eoeryone-ACC except each other-GEN

Theyi love everyone except each other~.

I know of no evidence that the variation in preposition interpolation across these con- structions has any syntactic consequences. 3 For descriptive work on Russian reflexives, a variety of theoretical perspectives, and further references, see, e.g., BiI~, (11981), Klenin (i974), Nichols et ai. (1980), Padu~eva

:(1983), Rappaport (1980, 1983, 1984a, 1984b), Timberlake (1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c), Veyrenc (1978), Yokoyama (1980), and Yokoyama and Klenin (1976).

1 0 0 G I L B E R T C . R A P P A P O R T

For example:

(4) Volodja rasskazyval o svoej ~izni.

Volod]a-NOM talked about sel['s life-LOC

Volodjai was talking about his own~ life.

The reflexive possessive has the complete six case, three gender paradigm of modifiers.

\

2:2. Binding Theory

In this paper we restrict our attention to the category of anaphors. We take the defining property of an anaphor to be tha t it must have an antecedent. More precisely, an anaphor must be coindexed with an NP which either (a) is syntactically expressed in the same sentence as the anaphor, or (b) is understood (via ellipsis) to function in that sentence. By this definition, the reciprocal and reflexive pronouns of Russian are anaphors.

The coreference properties of an anaphor are given by the anaphor binding condition (Chomsky 1981, p. 188):

(5) An anaphor is bound in its governing category.

The anaphor binding condition incorporates two classes of restriction on the set of possible antecedents of an anaphor. One is that of ANTE- CEDENT SELECTION, determined by the definition of binding. Following Chomsky (1981, p. 184) (and simplifying somewhat), we assume the following definition of binding:

(6) An NP A is BOUND if and only if there is an NP B such that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) A and B are coindexed; (b) B c-commands A;4

Coindexing applies freely, with the resulting structure subject to the anaphor binding condition. Thus, within the governing category, an NP should be an eligible antecedent for an anaphor if and only if the former NP c-commands that anaphor

4 We assume the following definition of c - c o m m a n d (there are others):

(i) B C-COMMANDS A if and only if all of the following condit ions are satisfied: (a) A is domina ted by the first branching node that domina tes B; (b) B is no t identical to A; (c) nei ther A nor B domina tes the other,

O N A N A P H O R B I N D I N G I N R U S S I A N 101

The principle of antecedent selection which applies to the Russian

reflexives is more restrictive than that of c -command. For example, in (7), both the subject and direct object c - c o m m a n d the reflexive personal pronoun, the object of a preposit ion functioning as a verb complement . However , only the subject is an eligible antecedent for the reflexive:

(7)

The same

(8)

Milicioner rasspra~ival a res tovannogo o sebe.

policeman-NOM questioned suspect-ACC about self-LOC

The policeman~ questioned the suspectj about himselfi,.j.

point can be illustrated for the reflexive possessive:

My dovezli rebenka do svoego doma.

we-NOM took child-ACC to self's home-GEN

Wei took the childj to ourJ*his i home.

In contrast, both the subject and direct object are eligible antecedents for the reciprocal pronoun in the following construction, configuration-

ally identical to (7):

(9) Milicionery rasspragivali ix ~ drug o

policemen-NOM questioned them-ACC each about

drug-e.

other- LOC

The policemen~ ques t ioned them~ about each other~,j.

It is tempting to describe the reflexive facts simply by stating that the

Russian reflexives must have a subject antecedent. This may in fact be true, but the issue is quite complex, and we will not pursue it here. 5

The second restriction on potential antecedents incorporated in the

anaphor binding condition is the LOCALITY DOMAIN: there is a category,

designated the governing category, within which an anaphor must be bound. We assume the following definition of a governing category: 6

5 See, for example, Timberlake (1980a, 1980c), Yokoyama (1980), and Rappaport (1984a, 1984b) for discussion and further references. 6 Various formulations of the definition of a governing category and their consequences are discussed in detail in Chomsky (1981). The definition given here is based on that given in Chomsky (1981, p. 211), although it is simplified for present purposes in tw, o ways. We omit mention of the obligatory presence of a governor, which is irrelevant to lexical anaphors. Also, condition (10c) is more complicated than simple c-command. We return to the latter point in section 4.

102 G I L B E R T C . R A P P A P O R T

(10) A category C is the GOVERNING CATEGORY Of a category A if and only if C is the minimal category in which all three of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) C contains A; (b) C contains a category B which is a SUBJECT, where a

SUBJECT is any of the following: (i) AGR, a nominal agreement element assumed to be

present in a finite clause as a sister node to the subject NP and the Verb Phrase.

(ii) the subject of a finite clause; (iii) the empty subject of an infinitival clause (PRO); (iv) the Specifier of a lexical category (e.g., of an NP).

(c) B c-commands A.

The application of this rather complex definition will be illustrated in the following two sections.

3. RUSSIAN ANAPHORS IN SUBJECT-EXTERNAL POSITION

In this section and the following one, the interpretation of Russian reciprocal and reflexive pronouns in various syntactic contexts will be investigated. The discussion in this section is restricted t o constructions in which the anaphor is SUBJECT-EXTERNAL, that is, outside the subject

o f the minimal clause containing it; SUBJECT-INTERNAL anaphors are taken up in section 4. Following Giorgi (1984), we adopt the ter- minological distinction between STRICT ANAPHORS and LONG DlSTANCE ANAPHORS. A strict anaphor is one which, in accordance with Binding Theory, must have an antecedent in its governing category; a long distance anaphor is one whose referent is not so constrained. It is demonstrated in this section that while the Russian reciprocal in a subject-external position is a strict anaphor, a reflexive pronoun in the same syntactic context is a long distance anaphor.

3.1. The Locality Domain of the Russian Anaph°rs

Consider first the case in which the anaphor is the complement of a finite verb. Example (11) illustrates that when a Russian reciprocal is in this position, the antecedent of the reciprocal must b e contained in the minimal clause containing the reciprocal. (Here and below, angle brackets are inserted to identify the governing category of the anaphor; square brackets are used to demarcate other relevant categories.)

O N A N A P H O R B I N D I N G I N R U S S I A N 103

(11) Roditeli dumali (~to deti ljubjat parents-NOM thought that children-NOM love

drug drug-a) each other-ACC

The parents~ thought (that the children i loved each other.~j).

As indicated by the referential indices in the English translation, the reciprocal can be coindexed with the subject of its own clause, but not with the subject of the matrix clause. This follows directly from Binding Theory. The embedded clause is the governing category of the recipro- cal because it contains a subject (deti 'children') and AGR which c-command the reciprocal. This example has only the following inter- pretation: The parents thought that each child loved the other children. There is no pragmatic reason why (11) could not have a completely different interpretation: Each parent thought that the children loved the other parents. But this interpretation would require the reciprocal to be bound with an NP outside the governing category, and that is excluded.

The interpretation of reflexive pronouns in this syntactic context is analogous to that of the reciprocal. The: personal pronoun sebja in (12) and the possessive pronoun svoj in (13) each must be bound within its governing category, the embedded clause.

(12) Vanja znaet, (6to Volodja ljubit sebja). Van]a-NOM knows that Volodja-NOM loves self-ACC

Vanja~ knows (that Volodjaj loves himself.~,j).

(13) Vanja znaet, (~to Volodja ljubit [svoju Vanja-NOM knows that Volodja-NOM loves self's

sestru]). sister- A C C

Vanjai knows (that Volodja i loves *hisJhis own i sister).

The locality domain of the Russian reciprocal differs from that of the Russian reflexives when the anaphor functions as the verb complement in an infinitival clause. In (14), the only possible antecedent for the reciprocal pronoun is the understood subject of the infinitive, designated as PRO (PRO itself is assigned coreference with the direct object of the matrix clause by the independent process of control):

104 G I L B E R T C. R A P P A P O R T

(14) My poprosili ix (PRO nalit' drug drug-u we-NOM asked them-ACC to-pour each other-DAT

~ajku). tea-ACC

Wet asked themj (PROj to pour each other*i,i tea).

This example must be interpreted as follows: We~ asked that each of themj pour tea for the others of themj. I t cannot have the interpretation: Each of us~ asked that theyj pour tea for the others of usi. This is consistent with Binding Theory, because the embedded infinitival clause is the governing category of the reciprocal: an infinitival clausedoes not contain AGR, but its PRO subject serves as a SUBJECT for an anaphor which it c-commands.

In contrast, a reflexive pronoun in an analogous configurational con- text can take either its PRO clause subject or the matrix clause subject as its antecedent:

(15)a. On ne razregaet mne (PRO proizvodit'

he-NOM not permit me-DAT, to-perform

opyty nad sob0j). (Rozental' 1974)

experiments-ACC on self-INST

Hei does not allow mej (PROj to perform experiments on himself J mysel~ ).

b. Professor poprosil assistenta (PRO ~i ta t ' professor-NOM requested assistant- A CC to-read

svoj doklad). (Rozental' 1974)

sells report- A CC

The professori asked his assistantj (PROj to read his own~,j report).

The examples in (15) demonstrate that the null PRO subject of an infinitival clause is not sufficient to demarcate the locality domain of the Russian reflexive. That is, PRO is transparent to reflexive binding in Russian. 7 The binding of the Russian reflexive is truly a long distance

7 There is considerable variation in these structures with regard to the relative ac- ceptability of the reflexive p~'onoun vis-a-vis the non-reflexive for reference to the matrix clause subject. See especially Klenin (1974) and Timberlake (i979) for detailed discussion in the context of (and arguing against) a classical transformational approach to reflexiviza- tion.

O N A N A P H O R B I N D I N G I N R U S S I A N 105

phenomenon because, in principle, any number of PROs in adjacent clauses are transparent:

(16) General ne razre~aet sei~retar'~e [PRO pozvo!it' general-NOM not permit secretary-DAT to-permit

dvorniku (PRO nazyvat' sebja Valej)].

yard-keeper- DA T to-call self Valja- INST

(Klenin 1974)

The general~ does not permit the secretary i [PROj to allow the yard-keeperk (PROk to call hirr~/herflhimselfk Valja)].

Now consider cases in which the anaphor is contained in an NP. In (17a,b), a reciprocal pronoun is contained in a direct object NP; the two examples differ in that the object NP in (17a) contains no overt Specifier, while that in (17b) does: the possessive pronoun moi 'my'. The reciprocal can take an antecedent outside the NP containing it in the former example, but not in the latter:

(17)a. (Oni ~itali [~aloby drug na drag-a]). they-NOM read complaints-ACC each against other-ACC

(Theyl were reading [complaints against each otheri]).

b. *Oni ~itali (moi ~aloby drug na they-NOM read my complaints-ACC each against

drug-a). other- A C C

(Theyi were reading (my complaints against each otheri).)

These facts are consistent with Binding Theory. In (17a), there is no SUBJECT within the~object NP. The matrix clause qualifies as the governing category, because it contains SUBJECTs (a clause subject and AGR) which c-command the recipwcal; as a result, the subject of that clause oni 'they' is eligibleto be an antecedent for the reciprocal In (17b), the object NP contains a SUBJECT which c-commands the reciprocal: the possessive pronoun, an NP Specifier, This object NP, then, is the governing category of the reciprocal, and Oni 'they', standing outside this governing category, is no t an eligible antecedent I or the reciprocal.

Russian does not normally permit a lexical noun' in the Specifier

106 G I L B E R T C. R A P P A P O R T

position, analogous to "Tolstoj's memoirs!, s Instead, Russian uses an adnominal Genitive NP. This NP functions as a SUBJECT for the purposes of Binding Theory. Thus, while the reciprocal in (18a) can take the subject of the matrix clause as its antecedent, such coreference is blocked in (18b) by the presence of the adnominal Genitive NP:

(18)a. (Pisateli ~itali [vospominanija drug o

writers-NOM read reminiscences-ACC each about

drug-el). other- L OC

(Writers~ read [reminiscences about each otheri]).

b. *Pisateli ~itali (vospominanija Tolstoja writers-NOM read reminiscences-ACC Tolstoj-GEN

drug o drug-e). each about other-LOC

(Writers/ read (the reminiscences of Tolstoj about each other~).)

We will assume that such adnominal Genitive NPs are a form of NP Specifier.

An N P Specifier is transparent to reflexive binding, just as PRO is. For example:

(19)a. Ja ~ital (ego stat'ju o sebe). I - N O M read his article-ACC about self-LOC

Ii read (hisj article about myselfi/himselfj).

b. Ja ~ital. (ego stat'ju o svoej rabote). I - N O M read his article-ACC about self's work-LOC

Ii read (hisj article about myJhisj work).

The NP Specifier is transparent even though, as indicated by the indexes in the translation, it satisfies the subject antecedent requirement of the reflexive. As a result, the reference of the reflexives in (19a, b) is

In colloquial Russian, possessive adjectives can be derived from nouns of a particular declension class; e.g., Salia 'Sasha'--,Saldn 'Sasha's'. Such an adjective functions as a SUBJECT:

(i) *Oni ~itali (Satiny 2aloby drug na drug-a)

they-NOM read Sasha's complaints-ACC each against other-ACC

Theyl read (Sasha's complaints against each other~).

O N A N A P H O R B I N D I N G I N R U S S I A N 107

ambiguous. A textual example of the transparency of the adnominal. Genitive-NP is given in (20); the intended antecedent of the reflexive is obviously the clause subject, but the reflexive can also be bound with the Specifier of the NP:

(20) Vronskij soznaval (~tot vzgljad na sebja Vronskij was-conscious-of this view of self

tov.arig~ej).

comrades- GEN

Vronskiji was aware of [his comrades'j view of himselfdthem- selvesj].

The transparency of an NP Specifier puts the transparency of PRO in proper perspective. The latter is not a property peculiar to infinitives or to PRO. Rather, the Russian reflexive is a long distance anaphor, permitting coreference with an antecedent outside its governing cate- gory. The locality domain is easily defined: a Russian reflexive must be bound within the minimal finite clause containing the reflexive, no matter how many (infinitival) Ss or NPs with a Specifier intervene between this finite clause and the reflexive. To summarize:

(21)a. The locality domain of the Russian reciprocal is its governing category;

b. The locality domain of the Russian reflexive is the minimal finite clause containing it.

3.2. Discussion

The properties of the Russian reciprocal are important in order to demonstrate that the coreference properties of the Russian reflexive do not simply result from a distinctive definition of the governing category in Russian. Moreover, such a move would make the wrong predictions for the behavior of the phonologically null element NP-trace, which results from the movement of an NP to an argument position (e.g., in passivization and raising). In Bindin~ Theory, NP-trace is assumed to be an anaphor universally. If the governing category for all anaphors in Russian were defined to be identical to the locality domain of the reflexive, we would expect to find long distance passivization or raising, analogou s to the long distance coreference of the reflexive. In fact, we do not. Thus, simply assuming that the definition of the governing category is subject to parametric variation across languages would leave the facts of reciprocals and NP-trace in Russian unaccounted for.

1 0 8 G I L B E R T C. R A P P A P O R T

The long distance anaphora of subject-external pronouns has been reported in a variety of languages, including Gothic, Norwegian, Icelan- dic, Latin, Italian, Hindi, Malayalam, and Japanese. 9 Long distance anaphora, by definition, entails that Under the proper conditions the antecedent can be indefinitely far from the anaphor. However, there is considerable variation across languages in what these 'proper conditions' are. For example, in Malayalam and Japanese, there is no locality restriction at all. In Icelandic and Italian, the locality domain is the minimal finite indicative clause. That is, not only is PRO transparent to

binding, but so are the AGR and subject of a finite subjunctive clause; this is illustrated for the Icelandic reflexive sig in (22): 10

(22) J6n segir ab [Maria telji ab John says-IND that Maria believes' SUBJ that

[Haraldur vilji ab (Billi heims~eki sig)]]. Harold wants-SUBJ that Billy visit-SUBJ self

(Th~iinsson 1976)

Johni says that [Mariaj believes that [Haroldk wants that (Billyl visit hirr~/heriihimk/himself/i)]].

Russian and certain other languages (e.g., Hindi, Gothic) are more resrrictive than Icelandic and Italian, since the locality domain on binding in languages of the former type is the minimal finite clause. Subjunctive clauses in Russian, for example, are not transparent to binding:

(23) Vanja xo~et, (~toby vse ljubi!i Vanja-NOM wants-IND that everybody-NOM love-SUBJ

seb|a). self-ACC

Vanjai wants that (everybodyj love himselffl*hin~).

9 See, for example, Harbert (1982) on Gothic, Hellan (1980) on Norwegian, Thrgtinsson (1976, 1979), Anderson (1982), and Maling (1984, 1985) on Icelandic, Anderson (1982) on Latin, Giorgi (1984) on Italian, Kachru and Bhatia (t977) on Hindi, Mohanan (1982) on Malayalam, and Kuno (1973), Inoue (1976), and N. McCawley ( 1 9 7 6 ) o n Japanese. Statements made here about these languages are based on these sources. "~ IND identifies a verb in the indicative mood, while SUBJ indicates a verb i n the

subjimctive mood.

ON ANAPHOR BINDING IN RUSSIAN 109

A satisfactorily general explanation for this variation in locality domain across languages has yet to be proposed.

It is tempting to view the variation in locality domain on long d is tance anaphora a s simply a case of parametric variation in the definition of SUB JEC T which defines the locality domain of binding. One possibility, pursuing a suggestion by Anderson (1982), would be to assume that (a) finite clauses are characterized by agreement, regardless of mood, and (b) what distinguishes indicative clauses from subjunctive ones is the presence (versus absence) of tense. Furthermore, a clause may contain

agreement (AGR) and tense (TNS) elements in the syntactic position of inflection (INFL), which c-commands the subject of the clause. Then, the difference in the locality domain of long distance anaphora between, for example, Russian and Icelandic could be that in Russian this domain is defined by AGR, while in Icelandic it is defined by TNS. In Japanese and Malayalam, no locality domain would be specified at all. 11 However , not only would such an approach reduce the concept of parametric variation to a descriptive device, but it would obscure significant differences among the languages in question. In particular, there is an important difference between Russian, on the one hand, and both Icelandic and Italian, on the other, which requires explanation.

In both Icelandic and Italian, long distance anaphora is possible out of an adverbial clause if no indicative clause intervenes. This is illustrated by the following Icelandic example, cited by Maling (1984): 12

(24) Haraldur segir ab [J6n komi fyrst (Sigga

Harold says-IND that John is-coming because Sigga

bj6bi s&)].

invited self

Haroldl says that [John is coming because (Sigga invited himi)].

t l Giorgi (1984) argues that the locality domain of long distance anaphora is determined by the binary feature [+dependent] assigned to INFL. This offers no insight into the Russian facts, because there is no explanation for why the INFL of a subjunctive clause is [-dependent] in Russian, but [+dependent] in Icelandic and Italian. It also remains to be seen whether this approach satisfactorily accounts for languages such as Malayalam and Japanese, without any locality domain restriction at all. t2 In both Icelandic and Italian, a reflexive pronoun contained in an adverbial clause cannot take an antecedent in the clause immediately containing the adverbial clause. This is illustrated by the following Icelandic example (from Maling !984):

l l0 GILBERT C, RAPPAPORT

In contrast, long distance anaphora out of an infinitival adverbial clause in Russian is impossible:

(25) Ja poprosil ego [PRO absoljutno vse

I - N O M asked h i m - A C C absolutely all

den'gi otdat ' pre~de ~em (PRO

money- A C C to-turn-over before

prodat ' svo| dom)].

selling[infinitive] self' s house- A C C

Ii asked himj [PRO/ to turn over absolutely all the money (before PROj selling hisj/*myi house)].

Fur thermore, in Italian, long distance anaphora is possible out of a restrictive relative clause: ~3

(26) Un soldato valoroso uccide sempre [coloro che

a soldier brave kills always those that

(minacciano in armi il proprio paese)]. (Giorgi 1984)

threaten the self" s country

A brave soldierj always kills ~ [thosej (whoj threaten his~ country)].

Long distance anaphora is not possible out of an infinitival relative in Russian: 14

(27) Papa podaril mne [kartinu (PRO v s v o e j

p a p a - N O M gave m e - D A T pic ture-ACC in self' s

komnate povesit')].

room to- hang

Papa~ gave mej [a picture (PROj to hang in *hisJmyj room)].

(i) J6n kemur ekki nema Sigga bj6bi s~r John comes-IND not unless Sigga invites-SUBJ self

John~ does not come unless (Siggaj invites *hi~/herselfj).

This fact is irrelevant to the present discussion except that it causes examples of the phenomenon to contain more clauses than might otherwise appear to be necessary. ~3 I have not foundthe analogous facts discussed in the literature on Icelandic. ,4 While infinitival relatives are limited in Russian, they are characteristic of colloquial speech; see Rappaport (1985).

ON A N A P H O R B I N D I N G IN R U S S I A N I l l

To generalize, long distance anaphora is possible out of modifier clauses in Icelandic and Italian, but not in Russian. To assume that the former languages differ from Russian merely in a parametric choice such as TNS versus AGR would leave this fact unexplained.

4. A N A P H O R S IN S U B J E C T - I N T E R N A L P O S I T I O N

In this section, we consider the interpretation of Russian anaphors which are subject-internal, that is, contained in the subject of a clause. The discussion focuses on three coreference properties of subject-internal anaphors in Russian which are not consistent with current formulations of Binding Theory.

4.1. I / I Effect in Russian

In English, the binding possibilities of an anaphor functioning as a_ clause subject differ from those of an anaphor which is internal to its clause subject:

(28)a. *The men knew that [each other were doctors]. b. The men knew that [pictures of each other were on sale].

When an anaphor stands in the position of a finite clause subject, it cannot take an antecedent in a higher clause (28a). Nothing in its own clause can c-command it, so that the construction is ungrammatical. In contrast, when an anaphor is subject-internal (28b), it can take an antecedent in an immediately superordinate clause.

In Binding Theory as developed by Chomsky (1981, 1984), the governing categories Of the anaphors in (28a, b) differ: in (28a), the governing category is the embedded clause, while in (28b) it is the matrix clause. According to the definition of a governing category given in (10), the governing category should be the embedded clause in both cases: the embedded clause contains AGR which c-commands the anaphor. Chomsky's theory differentiates the tw5 cases by (in our terms) replacing (10c) in the definition of a governing category with the requirement that B be accessible to A, where accessibility is defined as follows:

(29) A NP B is ACCESSIBLE to a NP A if and only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) B c-commands A; (b) coindexing B and A does not violate the 'i-within-i'

weU-formedness condition: * [ c . . i D . . . ] , where C and D bear the same index.

t 12 G I L B E R T C. R A P P A P O R T

In (28b), the subject of the embedded clause is not accessible to the reflexive: since the subject contains the anaphor, coindexing the two would violate the 'i-within-i' condition on accessibility. Nor is the AGR of the embedded clause accessible to the reflexive. AGR must be coindexed with the clause subject; if the anaphor and AGR were coindexed, too, the result would be that the anaphor was coinde×ed with the subject. Since the subject contains the anaphor in (28b), this binding pattern would violate the '/-within-/' condition.

On the other hand, the main clause qualifies as a governing category, with a clause subject (the men) and AGR both accessible to the reflexive in the embedded clause. Each other, then, must be bound in the higher clause, to the men. We will term the coreference of a subject-internal' anaphor with an NP in an immediately superordinate clause the "i/i effect."

Russian anaphors do not exhibit the i/i effect. Contrast the acceptable English construction (28b) above with the following two Russi~n con- structions, both of which are uninterpretable. Example (30a) contains a subject-internal reciprocal, and (30b) contains reflexive pronouns:

(30)a. *Dissidenty dumali, ~to [[stat'i drug o dissidents-NOM thought that articles-NOM each about

drug-el pojavilis' v zapadnoj presse]. other-LOC appeared in Western press-LOC

(Dissidentsi thought that [[articles about each otheri] had appeared in the Western press].)

b. *Vanja znaet, ~to [[stat'ja o Vanja-NOM knows that article-NOM about

sebe/ svoej ~ene] pojavilas' v gazete]. self-LOC/sel['s wife-LOC appeared in newspaper-LOC

(Vanjai knows that [[an article about himself~his owni wife] appeared in the paper].)

The ungrammaticality of the Russian constructions would follow from simply retaining (10c), instead of introducing the accessibility require- ment of (29). The embedded clause then becomes the governing cate- gory, and the matrix subject, lying outside this category, !s not an eligible antecedent for the anaphor.

O N A N A P H O R B I N D I N G I N R U S S I A N i 13

4.2, Them Effect

It has been observed (e.g., by Reinhart 1983, Lebeaux 1983), that subject-internal anaphors in English can be coreferential with an NP which is the direct object of the same clause, in clear violation of the c-command requirement of binding:

(31)a.

b. C.

[The jokes about each otheri] amused the neighbors~. (Rein- hart 1983) [The rumors about each other's~ motives] concerned theme. [Pictures of himself~] please John~. (Lebeaux 1983)

The direct object must bear an appropriate semantic role (or, theta role, in the terminology of Chomsky (1981)); correspondingly, anaphors in such constructions will be said to exhibit the THETA EFFECT. The direct object NP must designate the Experiencer of some cognitive state, rather than an affected Theme. Contrast the sentences in (31) with the follow- ing constructions, in which the anaphor is uninterpretable:

(32)a. *[Rumors about each otheri] had preceded theme. b. *[Pictures of himself~] hit John~ in the face. (Lebeaux 1983) c. ?*[Pictures of himself~] show that John~ is pleased.

Examples (32a) and (32b) demonstrate that an NP which does not bear an appropriate theta role is not an eligible antecedent in this configura- tion, and (32c) illustrates that the NP with the theta role must be suitably local; it cannot be in a clause more deeply embedded than the anaphor it is coreferential with.

The theta effect is exhibited by the Russian reciprocal, but not the reflexive. Consider the following contrast for reciprocals, which illustrates the importance of the semantic role of the direct object:

(33)a. [Spletni drag o drag-e] nas udivili. rumors-NOM each about other-LOC us -ACC surprised

[Rumors about each otherl] surprised usi.

b. *[Spletni drug o drug-e] nas obo~li. rumors-NOM each about other-LOC us -ACC bypassed

([Rumors about each otheri] bypassed us.)

Coreference in this configuration is not possible for the Russian reflexives:

114

(34)

GILBERT C. RAPPAPORT

*[Spletni o sebe/ svoe| ~.ene]

rumors-NOM about sel[-LOC/sel['s wife-LOC

udivili Vanju.

surprised Vanja- A CC

([Rumors about hin~/hisi wife] surprised Vanjai.)

Thus, the c-command requirement of unrestricted binding can be relaxed for subject-internal anaphors, but the subject-antecedent requirement of restricted binding cannot be.

4.3. Arbitrary Reference

The most striking fact about the Russian reflexives is the possibility of arbitrary re[erence; that is, the pronoun need not have an antecedent. This property distinguishes Russian reflexives from both the Russian reciprocal and English reflexive, t5 The possibility of arbitrary reference is restricted to a relatively limited configurational context. This is un- doubtedly the reason that it has gone unrecognized as a normal mode of reference. When examples of arbitrary reference have been noted, they have been attributed to the effect of fixed phrases, lexicalization, or the possibility of non-subject antecedents (see below). The regular nature of the phenomenon will now be demonstrated.

The Russian possessive reflexive svaj exhibits arbitrary reference when it is the Specifier of a subject NP, as in:

(35) V xokkee, kak i v drugix vidax

in hockey-LOC as also in other forms-LOC

sporta, ([svoi steny] igrajut

athletics-GEN, self's walls-NOM play

zna~itel'nuju rol').

significant role- A CC

In hockey, as in other sports, ([one's own walls] play a significant role).

The reflexive has no de6nite referent, but rather serves as a form of

ts The English reflexive oneself does not admit arbitrary reference, but rather must be bound to an antecedent which itself has arbitrary reference: either PRO or the personal pronoun one. There is no indefinite pronoun in Russian analogous to English one.

O N A N A P H O R B I N D I N G I N R U S S I A N 1 1 5

universal quantification: the predication is true for any possessor. Arbi- trary reference is also possible when svoj is the Specifier of a predicate nominal. The fragment in (36) exemplifies svaj with arbitrary reference in both subject and predicate nominal position:

(36) U drugix, mo~et, deti i po lu~e , by others.GEN perhaps children-NOM both better

i poumnee, a (svoj vse ravno vsex and smarter but sel f 's-NOM nevertheless all

doro~e), potomu &o ((on)- svoj).

more-dear because i t -NOM self 's-NOM

Others, perhaps, have better and smarter children, but (one's own is nevertheless more dear), because (it is one's own) .

Arbitrary reference is not necessarily possible whenever a reflexive is contained in a subject or predicate nominal; the reflexive must be in the Specifier position of such an NP. Consider, for example, (37), in which svoj is contained in the complement of the subject NP:

(37) [Voprosy o svoej rodine] menja

questions-NOM about sel['s homeland-LOC m e - A C C

radujut.

make - happy

[Questions about one's homeland] make me happy.

This example cannot mean that it makes me happy when someone asks questions about anyone's homeland; it must mean that it makes me happy when someone asks me about his own homeland. That is, the reference of svo] in (37) is not truly arbitrary, but rather is bound at some linguistic level to the Specifier of voprosy 'questions'. We assume that the subject NP in (37) has a PR O Specifier which is the antecedent of the reflexive. The binding of the reflexive in (37) is then analogous to the NP-internai binding exhibited in (19b), except that the Specifier is phonologically empty in the former case, and lexical in the latter. The reason for the difference between (37), on the one hand, and (35) and (36), on the other, is this. In the first, the reflexive is in the complement of the subject NP, so that there is a possible antecedent for it: the Specifier of that NP. In the other two examples, the reflexive is the Specifier of the NP, so that there is no possible antecedent for it. What is distinctive about the

116 G I L B E R T C. R A P P A P O R T

Russian reflexive is that in the absence of a possible antecedent, the result is not ungrammaticality, but arbitrary reference.

The interpretive principle permitting arbitrary reference, roughly Stated, is that when a Russian reflexive is encountered, it seeks out an appropriately local subject as an antecedent. If it can find such an antecedent, including a PRO subject of an infinitive or PRO Specifier of an NP, arbitrary reference is impossible. If it cannot find such an ante- cedent, arbitrary reference is possible. An antecedent is not found when the reflexive is the Specifier of a subject NP (35) or predicate nominal NP (36). It is not obvious why arbitrary reference is possible when svoj is contained in a predicate nominal, such as (36), since the subject NP should be an eligible antecedent. This and other problems remain with formulating an adequate explanation for the contextual constraints on arbitrary reference. 16 In any event, it follows from the descriptive state- ment of the phenomenon that the reflexive personal pronoun sebja does not exhibit arbitrary reference because it cannot appear in the required position.

Earlier investigations have tended to view Russian reflexives with arbitrary reference (usually svoj) as involving lexicalization at some level (cf. Klenin 1974, Perlmutter 1978). Perlmutter cites the folk saying Svoja ruba~ka bilge k telu 'One's own shirt is closer to the skin' (with the sense of 'take care of yourself first'), attributing the use of the reflexive to its being in a fixed phrase. The range of examples cited in this section demonstrates that this is not an adequate explanation. Klenin claims that there is a homonym svoj meaning 'one's own'. Padu~eva (1983) goes so far as to identify a minimum of five lexicalized forms of svoj, in addition

~6 For example, to say 'he is his own worst enemy' , (i) is ra ther unnatural , while (ii) is much preferred:

(i) ?On svoj vrag.

he-NOM (is) sel['s enemy-NOM

(ii) On vrag . samomu sebe.

he-NOM (is) enemy-NOM EMPHASIS-DAT self-DAT

Also, arbitrary reference is not possible in an impersonal construction, in which there is no local subject available as an antecedent :

(iii) *Svoju ~enu vsegda to,nit .

self's wife-ACC always nauseated

(One 's own wife is always nauseated.)

These facts would follow from the stipulation that arbitrary reference is only possible when the NP containing svoj is not properly governed, but this stipulation appears to be otherwise unmotivated.

O N A N A P H O R B I N D I N G I N R U S S I A N 1 1 7

to its use as a possessive form of the reflexive pronoun sebja. However, the lexicalization approach does not explain why the arbitrary reference of svoj is restricted tb a well-defined configurational context. Apparent exceptions are limited to the lexicalized expression svoj ~:elovek 'self's person' (in the plural, svoi ljudi), in the sense of 'a trustworthy person', which appears not only in subject or predicate position but in oblique positions as well:

(38) Bilety idut inostrancam, na~al'stvu, tickets-NOM go foreigners-DAT administration-DAT

svoim ijudjam.

sel[" s people-DAT

The tickets go to foreigners, to the administration, to trusted people.

Sv0j can also take an antecedent which does no~t c-command it. Consider the following examples:

(39)a. V ~enskix imenax to~e est' svoi tonkosti. in female names-LOC also are sel~'s subtleties-NOM

Female names also have their own subtleties.

b. Me~du nimi ustanovilis' svoi osobye between them- INST were-established self" s special

otno~enija. (Timberlake 1980a)

relations- N O M

Their own special relations became established between them.

c. Na vse svoi pravila.

to everything sel['s rules

Everything has its own rules.

d. ldoly menjajutsja. Oni svoi u

idols-NOM change, they-NOM self 's-NOM by

kaidogo ~eloveka. each person- GEN

Idols change. Each person has his own.

Some such cases have been interpreted as instances of 'oblique con- trollers' for svoj (Timberlake 1980a). However, coreference in these

l 18 GILBERT C. RAPPAP O R T

constructions invariably involves svoj in a configuration which admits arbitrary reference. The 'oblique control' approach does not account for this essential fact. Rather, we view such instances of reflexive inter- pretation as akin to some similar facts relating to the interpretation of the PRO subject of an infinitive, as discussed by Williams (1980). In some configurational contexts, PRO exhibits 'Nonobligatory Control', one property of which is the possibility of arbitrary reference ('generic interpretation'). PRO contained in an infinitival clause subject is such a context, as in:

(40) [PRO to die] is no fun.

However, in some such contexts, PRO has a nongeneric interpretation:

(41) [PROi to leave] would be myi pleasure.

Williams assumes that in configurations of nonobligatory control, arbi- trary reference is assigned at one level of interpretation (Predicate Structure), and then 'rewritten' in Logical Form in the case of nongeneric interpretation. While the precise properties of the rewriting process is unclear in the case of both PRO and the Russian reflexive, the parallel between the two phenomena is striking.

5. SUMMARY

It has been demonstrated that the reciprocal pronoun in Russian is a strict anaphor: it must have an antecedent in its governing category. The only respect in which the reciprocal is problematic for the formulation of Binding Theory assumed here is the absence of the i/i effect. The absence of the i/i effect is shared by the Russian reflexive pronouns, suggesting that the governing category is defined differently in Russian than in English. In particular, English imposes the requirement that the SUBJECT of a governing category not violate the 'i-within-i' well- formedness condition given in (29b), while Russian does not.

In contrast to the reciprocal, the Russian reflexive pronouns are long distance anaphors. The locality domain of reflexive binding in Russian is the minimal finite clause containing the reflexive, a larger domain than the governing category. As noted in several investigations of the topic (such as Rappaport 1983, Yang 1983, Giorgi 1984), long distance anaphora universally appears to be possible only if the corresponding anaphor requires that its antecedent be a subject. The locality domain of long distance anaphora varies considerably from language to language, and the basis for this variation remains to be explained. Two other distinctive properties of the Russian reflexives have been discussed: (1)

ON A N A P H O R BINDING IN RUSSIAN I 19

the two reflexive pronouns do not exhibit the theta effect, and (2) the reflexive possessive svoj admits arbitrary reference. The present study raises the question as to why the Russian reflexives should have these properties. Further research should indicate the extent to which these properties are correlated with long distance anaphora in other languages.

R E F E R E N C E S

Anderson, Stephen R.: 1982, 'Types of Dependency in Anaphora: Icelandic (and Other) Reflexives', Journal of Linguistic Research 2, 1-22.

BeUetti, Adriana: 1982, 'On the Anaphoric Status of the Reciprocal Construction in Italian', Linguistic Review 2, 101-138.

Bfl~, Milan: 1981, Intrasentential Pronominalization and Functional Sentence Perspective (in Czech, Russian, and English), Lund Slavonic Monographs 1, University of Lund.

Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Studies in Generative Grammar 9, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.

. :1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 6, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

: 1984, 'Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins, and Use', unpublished, MIT. Chvany, Catherine V. and Richard D. Brecht (eds.); 1980, Morphosyntax in Slavic, Slavica

Publishers, Columbus, Ohio. Giorgi, Alessandra: 1984, 'Toward a Theory of Long Distance Anaphora: A GB Approach',

unpublished~ Istituto di Psieologia, Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche. Harbert, Wayne: 1982, 'In Defense of Tense', Linguistic Analysis 9, 1-18. Hellan, Lars: 1980, 'On Anaphora in Norwegian', in Jody Kreiman and Almerindo Ojeda

(eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 166-182.

Inoue, Kazuko: 1976, 'Reflexivizationf An Interpretative Approach', 'in Shibatani (ed.), (1976), pp. 117-200.

Kachru, Yamuna and Tej Bhatia: 1977, 'On Reflexivization in Hindi-Urdu and its Theoretical Implications', Indian Linguistics 38, 21-38.

Klenin, Emily: 1974, Russian Reflexive Pronouns and the Semantic Roles of Noun Phrases in Sentences, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, New Jersey.

Kuno, Susumo: 1973, The Structure of the Japanese Language, Current Studies in Linguistics 3, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Lebeaux, David: 1983, 'Locality and Anaphoric Binding', unpublished, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Maling, Joan: 1984, 'Non-Clause-Bounded Reflexives in Icelandic', Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 211-241,

: 1985, 'Clause Bounded Reflexives in Modern Icelandic', in Lars Hellan and K. Koch Christenson (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.

McCawley, N. A.~ 1976, 'Reflexivization: A Transformational Approach', in Shibatani (ed.), (1976), pp. 51-116.

Mohanan, K. P.: 1982, 'Grammatical Relations and Anaphora in Malayalam', in Alec Marantz and Tim Stowell (eds.), Papers in Syntax, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 4, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Nichols, Johanna; Gilbert Rappaport; and Alan Timberlake: ]980, 'Subject, Topic, and Control in Russian', in Bruce Caron et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley, Pl). 372-386.

Padua:eva, E. V.: 1983, 'Vozvratnoe mestoimenie s kosvennym antecedentom i semantika refleksivnosti', Semiotika i in[ormatika 21, 3-33.

120 GILBERT C. RAPPAP O RT

Perimutter, David: 1978, 'Evidence for Inversion in Russian, Japanese, and Kannada', unpublished, MIT.

Rappaport, Gilbert C.: 1980, 'Deixis and Detachment in the Adverbial Participles of Russian, in Chvany and Brecht (eds.), (1980), pp. 273-300.

: 1983, 'On Anaphora and Control in Russian', Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 201-221.

: 1984a, Grammatical~,Function and Syntactic Structure: The Adverbial Participles of Russian, UCLA Slavic Studies 8, Slavica Publishers, Columbus, Ohio.

: 1984b, 'On Binding in Russian', unpublished, University of Texas at Austin. _ _ . : forthcoming, 'On Syntactic Binding into Adjuncts in the Russian Noun Phrase'i in Denis

Bouchard and Carlota Smith (eds.), Formal Syntax and Semantics, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Reinhart, Tanya: 1983, 'Coreference andBound Anaphora: A Restatement of the Anaphora Questions', Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 47-88.

Rozental', D. I~.: 1974, Prakti&skaja salisaka russkogo jazyka, 3rd ed. Vys~aja skola, Moscow.

Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.): 1976, Japanese Generaave Grammar, Syntax and Semantics 5, Academic Press, New York.

Thrfiinsson, Htskuidur: 1976, 'Reflexives and Subjunctives in Icelandic', in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society, pp. 225-239.

: 1979, On Complementation in Icelandic, Garland Publishing, New York. Timberlake, Alan: 1979, 'Reflexivization and theCycle in Russian', Linguistic Inquiry 10,

iO9-141~ : 1980a, 'Oblique control of Russian Reflexivization', i'n Chvany and Brecht (eds.),

• (1980), pp. 235-259. : 1980b, 'Reference Conditions on Russian Reflexivization', Language 56, 777-796. : 1980c, 'Objects as Controllers (Russian Reflexivization)', unpublished, UCLA.

Veyrenc, Jacques: 1978, 'Cortftrence, emphase, et rtflexivitt', in Henrik Birnbaum et al. (eds.), SLA VICA, Peter de Ridder Press, Lisse, pp. 451-464.

Williams, Edwin: 1980, 'Predication', Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203-238. Yang, Dong-Whee: 1983, 'The Extended Binding Theory of Anaphors', Language Research

19, 169-192. Yokoyama, Olga: 1980, 'Studies in Russian Functional Syntax', in Susumo Kuno (ed.),

Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 451-794. [Harvard Uriiversity dissertation, 1979.]

Yokoyama, Olga and Emily Klenin: 1976, 'The Semantics of 'Optional' Rules: Russian Personal and Reflexive Possessives', in Ladislav Matejka (ed.), Sound, Sign, and Meaning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 249-270.

Received l~Jai~uary 1983 Revised ! August 1985

Dept. of Slavic Languages University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78713-7217 U.S.A.