Gilbert C. Rappaport

On anaphor binding in Russian

SummaryIt 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) 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.

The Aspectual System of Russian

Aspectual choice is salient perceptually and morphologically in Russian. The formal contrast of perfective and imperfective viewpoints appears in every finite verb form and in many nonfinite verb forms as well (the imperative, infinitive, and certain participial forms). Speakers are keenly aware of aspectual choices and of their pragmatic and rhetorical effects.1

The Czech Possessive Relative Pronoun Jehoz and Its Paradigm: Synchronic Morphosyntax and Developmental Pathways of the Slavic Relative Clause

Les A. analysent le pronom possessif relatif en tcheque contemporain «jehož» (en anglais «whose») et ses differentes formes, «jejiž» et «jejichž». Le but de cette etude est de proposer une analyse synchronique de la morphologie de differentes formes de «jehož» et de la placer dans un contexte diachronique des evolutions panslaves de la syntaxe dans la construction de la proposition relative. Selon leur these le pronom possessif relatif «jehož» a perdu le lien paradigmatique avec le pronom nominal relatif «jenž» (en anglais «which»), derive synchroniquement du pronom personnel possessif «jeho» (en anglais «his»). La synchronie et la diachronie de «jehož» est decrite dans le cadre de la theorie grammaticale qui marque une distinction entre le procede lexical presyntaxique et la morphologie flexionnelle postsyntaxique