1. Binding (Chomsky 1981) Bound anaphors non-pronominal [no antecedent] marked argumentJohn a possible antecedent pronominal ‘John feels he’s well-shaved’ [antecedent] John a necessary antecedent ‘ John believes himself well-shaved’ The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 1

2. Binding (Chomsky 1981) Bound anaphors Principle C marked Principle B argument Principle A The locality is the IP (binding domain) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 2

3. Problem: Long and short reflexives (Dutch, Icelandic) 1.short reflexive a morphologically complex and stressable reflexive as co-argument, opposition (Dutch: zichzelf) 2.long reflexive a simple weak and non-stressable reflexive (Dutch: zich) no theta opposition is optional as co-argument Examples Eva zag de slang boven d’r (non-reflexive) zich (long reflexive) *zichzelf (short reflexive ) (Eve saw the snake above her(self)) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 3

4. Binding (Chomsky 1981) The former Principle A and B distinguished between inside and outside of the binding domain IP (does not consider long reflexives) Anti-Subset: Blocking co-argument bound anaphorno co-argument free anaphor The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 4

5. Binding Anti Subset Principle: Blocking co-argument no co-argument superset: free pronoun subset: reflexive (enters superset) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 5

6. Reinhart & Reuland (1993) if/than principles A PF syntactic predicate B LF semantic predicate (theta structure) This extends the notion co-argument to predicate- chain and allows for long reflexives. Long reflexives do not appear in English, but they are quite common in other languages. The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 6 reflexive marked argument co-reference

7. Reinhart & Reuland (1993): Rule I (Blocking principle) If the LF form with argument co-reference can be expressed by a reflexive, it is illegitimate to express it by a free anaphor The principle of Blocking is a far more general phenomenon The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 7

8. Blocking (DiScullio & Williams 1987) Blocking If there are two or more grammatical (PF) forms that express the same meaning (LF), choose for the lexically more specified one. Examples: a.brings blocks *does bring b.is blocks *bees (cf. ‘he frees the prisoners’) c.brought blocks *bringed d.himself blocks *him See: van Kampen (2003) for acquisition The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 8

9. Long reflexives a single main IP Co-arguments due to complex predicates unites several theta-assigners Dutchtilde boven(1 chain) Englishheld next to(no chain) Dutchliet kruipen naar(1 chain) Englishlet come to(no chain) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 9

10. Long reflexives Example 1: Small clause *herself Eve i held a snake next to her i no predicative chain Eva i tilde de slang boven zich i uit  -role predicative chain, no  -role opposition (Eve lifted the snake above zich up) The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 10

11. Long reflexives Example 2: ACI (ECM) complement  -role Eva i liet [ de slang naar zich i toe kruipen] predicative chain, no  -role opposition (Eve i let the snake to zich i crawl) Eve i let the snake come to her i no predicative chain The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 11

12. Acquisition of anaphors What has all of this to do with language acquisition? A lot Are free anaphors acquired before reflexives in English and Dutch? Are long reflexives acquired after long chains in Dutch? What drives the acquisition of long reflexives in Dutch/German? Why does that fail in English? The Acquisition of Anaphors Week 3-Tuesday 12