Chapter 3
Anaphors and/or Pronouns?
3.1. Introduction
In this chapter, I will discuss the binding data in Bulgarian from the point of
view of the classical Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986). An account of
binding in Bulgarian in terms of the classical Binding Theory faces
considerable problems for the treatment of Bulgarian facts. On the one hand,
there are forms which behave like anaphors (e.g. sebe si) and pronouns (e.g.
nego) in terms of the classical Binding Theory; but on the other, there exist
forms which cannot be classified as either anaphors or pronouns. For
example, one form (nego si) can be both locally and long-distance bound.
Moreover, nego si patterns both with reflexives and pronouns. This makes it
difficult to define which forms in Bulgarian are anaphors and which
pronominals. The classical Binding Theory does not predict the existence of
"non-anaphoric and non-pronominal forms" next to the "regular" overt
forms, i.e., the anaphors and pronominals. As pointed out above, some
forms like sebe si or svoj behave like anaphors where local domains are
easily derived and other forms like nego are typical pronouns. But if the
split between anaphoric and pronominal types does not apply to all forms in
Bulgarian, we should apparently look for other means of classifying them.
There is a striking abundance of forms in Bulgarian. A comparison
with their English counterparts leads to the following: himself corresponds
to four forms in Bulgarian and him to three forms. Moreover, these
numerous counterparts of himself overlap with the counterparts of him, thus
making the distinction between anaphors and pronouns quite obscure, as
pointed out above. The problems for the classical Binding Theory, posed by
the Bulgarian facts are listed in (1):
51
(1)
(i) The division between anaphors and pronouns is only partially
borne out.
(ii) The locality requirement is met by some forms (sebe si, svoj,
si) but disregarded by others (nego si, negov si). There is a
striking overlap of forms in the local domain.
The problems presented above call for a new classification of the Bulgarian
forms. I find the theory of NP classification based on the features
[±anaphoric] and [±pronominal] unsatisfactory for encompassing the
Bulgarian facts. In this chapter, I elaborate on the problems presented in (1),
my major goals being to show that this NP classification is not sustainable
for the Bulgarian facts. Hence in Chapter 4 I will suggest oppositions which
feature values originating from the morphological system of Bulgarian.
This, in turn, will require a reformulation of the Binding Theory for
Bulgarian. In other words, my major claim is that binding depends on
morphological factors.
Section 2 presents some basic facts about the Bulgarian pronouns
and their distribution.
Section 3 demonstrates the distribution of the long forms and the
short forms (clitics) of the personal and possessive pronouns.
Section 4 highlights the problems (see (1)) which the classical
Binding Theory encounters. The contradictory character of some forms is
brought into focus. The local domains and the contexts of overlap are
delineated.
In Section 5, a comparison with the English forms sharpens the
problems and justifies the needs for a new classification of the Bulgarian
forms.
3.2. Pronouns in Bulgarian - paradigms and distribution
Pronouns in Modern Bulgarian show case, gender and number. Bulgarian
does not have subject clitics. Here follow the paradigms of all pronouns
which have full forms and clitics:
52
(2)
Sg
Pl
Personal Pronouns
Full pronouns
Clitics
Nom
az
I
Obj
mene
me
Acc
me
me
Dat
mi
me
ti
you
tebe
you
te
you
ti
you
toj
he
nego
him
go
him
mu
him
tja
she
neja
her
ja
her
i
her
to
it
nego
it
go
it
mu
it
nie
we
nas
us
ni
us
ni
us
vie
you
vas
you
vi
you
vi
you
te
them
tjax
them
gi
them
im
them
53
(3)
a. Personal Reflexive Pronouns
Full Pronouns
sebe si
self
myself, yourself, etc
for all persons and cases in sg and pl
Clitics
Acc
se
Dat
si
myself, yourself, etc
for all persons in sg and
pl
b. Colloquial Personal Reflexive Pronouns
Full Pronouns
Sg
mene si
myself
Pl
nas si
ourselves
tebe si
yourself
vas si
yourselves
nego si
himself
tjax si
themselves
neja si
herself
nego si/
neja si
himself/
herself/itself
From the paradigms in (2) and (3b) we see that the personal pronouns and
the colloquial personal reflexive pronouns distinguish person, number, and
gender. In contrast, the personal reflexive pronouns in (3a) lack these
distinctions. Referring back to the notions of the classical Binding Theory,
the personal reflexive pronouns (3a) have a typical anaphoric character, the
personal pronouns in (2) show a pronominal character, whereas the
54
colloquial personal reflexive pronouns (3b) have questionable status – they
are neither anaphors, nor pronouns.
The distinction between full pronouns and clitics also exists for
possessive pronouns (4), possessive reflexive (5) and reciprocal pronouns
(6). Both kinds of full possessive pronouns have separate forms for
masculine (e.g. moj, tvoj, svoj, etc), feminine (e.g. moja, tvoja, svoja, etc),
neuter (e.g. moe, tvoe, svoe) and plural (e.g. moi, tvoi, svoi). The clitic forms
in (4) do not exhibit gender, while in (5) we observe only one clitic form
without any person, number or gender distinctions. Reciprocal pronouns
show case, gender and number.
(4)
Sg
Possessive Pronouns
Full Pronouns
Masc
Fem
moj
moja
my/mine
Clitics
Neut
moe
Pl
moi
mi
my
tvoj
your/yours
tvoja
tvoe
tvoi
ti
your
negov
his
negova
negovo
negovi
mu
his
nein
her/hers
nejna
nejno
nejni
i
her
negovo
negovi
mu/i
his/
her/
its
negov
negova
his/her/hers/its
55
Pl
(5)
naš
our/ours
naša
naše
naši
ni
our
vaš
your/yours
vaša
vaše
vaši
vi
your
texen
their/theirs
tjaxna
tjaxno
texni
im
their
a. Possessive Reflexive Pronouns
Full Pronouns
svoj (sg masc)
my, your, etc (1-3sg)
Clitics
si
my, your, etc
for 1-3sg and
1-3pl
svoja (sg fem)
my, your, etc (1-3sg)
svoe (sg neut)
my, your, etc (1-3sg)
svoi (pl)
our, your, etc (1-3pl)
56
b. Colloquial Possessive Reflexive Pronouns
Sg
Pl
Full Pronouns
Masc
Fem
moj si
moja si
my (for all genders and pl)
Neut
moe si
Pl
moi si
tvoj si
tvoja si
tvoe si
your (for all genders and pl)
tvoi si
negov si
negova si
his (for all genders and pl)
negovo si
negovi si
nein si
nejna si
her (for all genders and pl)
nejno si
nejni si
negov si
negova si
negovo si
his/her/its (for all genders and pl)
negov si
naš si
naša si
our (for all genders and pl)
naše si
naši si
vaš si
vaša si
vaše si
your (for all genders and pl)
vaši si
texen si
tjaxna si
tjaxno si
their (for all genders and pl)
texni si
57
c. Colloquial Emphatic Possessive Pronouns
svoj si (sg masc)
my, your, etc (1-3sg)
svoja si (sg fem)
my, your, etc (1-3sg)
svoe si (sg neut)
my, your, etc (1-3sg)
svoi si (pl)
our, your, etc (1-3pl)
(6)
Reciprocal Pronouns
Full Pronouns
Acc
edin drug (sg masc)
each other
Clitics
Acc Dat
se
si
each other, one
another for all
forms (1-3sg and
1-3pl)
edna druga (sg fem)
each other, one another
edno drugo (sg neut)
each other, one another
edni drugi (pl)
each other, one another
Nouns in modern Bulgarian have almost completely lost their case endings.
Remnants of the Accusative, Dative and Locative are still to be found in
folk literature and songs (7), in the writings of Bulgarian classics, (8) or in
some dialects (9):
58
(7)
a. Štoto mi
beše na sǔne,
to da mi bǔde na jave
(Bulgarian proverb)
what me-DAT was in dream-LOC it to me be-FUT in real-LOC
“I would like my dreams to come true.”
b. Stojan bratu
dumaše:... (Bulgarian folk song)
Stojan brother-DAT said
“Stojan said to his brother...”
(8)
Janko......ostavi pismo na djada
Moska (by J. Jovkov)
Janko left letter to grandpa-ACC Mosko-ACC
“Janko ....left a letter for grandpa Mosko.”
(9)
a. Kmeto
ide (West Bulgarian dialect)
mayor-ACC come
“The mayor is coming.”
b. Kažete na Petra
tell-IMP to Petǔr-ACC
“Tell Petǔr!”
As a way of comparison, the nominative counterpart of sǔne (dream-LOC)
would be sǔn (see (7a)), bratu (brother-DAT) has a nominative form brat
(see (7b)), the dative djada (grandpa-DAT) - a nominative djado (see (8))
and the accusatives kmeto and Petra – nominatives kmet and Petǔr (see (9a)
and (9b)). The most resistant case endings, surviving in contemporary
Bulgarian forms are Vocative, as demonstrated in (10), and possessive
adjectives with examples given in (11):
(10)
a. Prijatelju moj
friend-VOC my
“My dear friend,...”
b. Bože,
kakvo šte pravja?
God-VOC, what will do
“My God, what am I going to do?”
c. Stojane, koga šte se vǔrneš?
stojan-VOC when will REFL come back
“Stojan, when are you going to come back?”
59
(11)
a. Vidjaxme Ivanovata žena
saw-1PL Ivan-GEN-the wife
“We saw Ivan’s wife.”
b. Viždaš li njakǔde lelinija
bastun?
see-2sg Q somewhere aunt-GEN-the walking stick
“Can you see somewhere my (our) aunt’s walking stick?”
3.3. Long forms and short forms
In structural Case positions, both the long forms sebe si , nego si and the
short forms se and si are possible, as illustrated in (12) – (13) below.
(12)
Ivan mrazi sebe si
/ nego
si
Ivan hates REFL REFL-CL/PRON-3SG-MASC REFL-CL
“Ivan hates himself.”
(13)
Ivan se
mrazi
Ivan REFL-CL hate
"Ivan hates himself."
The long form nego and the short form go cannot be bound by Ivan:
(14)
*Ivan mrazi nego
Ivan hates PRON-3SG-MASC
Ivan hates him
(15)
*Ivan go
mrazi
Ivan CL-3SG-MASC hates
Ivan hates him
In (12), the long form sebe si is bound by its antecedent Ivan, the subject of
the clause. In the same example, the long form nego si is also bound by the
subject of the clause, Ivan. In (13), the short form (clitic) se is bound by the
same subject of the clause, that is, Ivan. The long form of the pronoun nego
in (14) and the short form go in (15) can never be bound by the subject Ivan.
Similar are the examples with a plural antecedent (16) - (19):
60
(16)
Momčetata pitat sebe si/
tjax
si
boys-the ask REFL REFL-CL/PRON-3PL REFL-CL
“The boys ask themselves.”
(17)
Momčetata se
pitat
boys-the REFL-CL ask
“The boys ask themselves.”
(18)
*Momčetata pitat
tjax
PRON-3PL
boys-the ask
The boys ask them
(19)
*Momčetata gi
pitat
boys-the CL-3PL ask
The boys ask them
(16) shows that the long form sebe si is bound by a plural subject,
momčetata. The long form tjax si is also bound by the plural subject,
momčetata. The short form se is bound by the plural subject in (17). The
long form of the pronoun tjax cannot be an antcedent of the plural subject
momčetata in (18). The short form of the pronoun gi cannot be bound by
momčetata, as illustrated in (19).
Verbs like govorja "talk" and razčitam "rely" require a prepositional
complement or a dative clitic. In (20) and (21), the subject Ivan binds the
long forms sebe si and nego si, respectively. In (22), the short form is the
Dative reflexive clitic si and it is bound by the subject Ivan. In (23) we
witness the case of a bound pronoun, i.e., the long form of the pronoun nego
can be bound by the subject Ivan. In (24), the short form mu cannot be
bound by the subject Ivan.
(20)
Ivan govori na sebe si
Ivan talks to REFL REFL-CL
“Ivan talks to himself.”
(21)
Ivan govori na nego
si
Ivan talks to PRON-3SG-MASC REFL-CL
“Ivan talks to himself.”
61
(22)
Ivan si
govori
Ivan REFL-CL talks
“Ivan talks to himself.”
(23)
a. Ivan govori na nego
Ivan talks to PRON-3SG-MASC
“Ivan talks to himself.”
b. Ivan misli za nego
Ivan thinks about PRON-3SG-MASC
“Ivan thinks about himself.”
(24)
*Ivan mu
govori
Ivan CL-3SG-MASC talks
Ivan talks to him
When we choose a plural subject with the same verbs, the situation does not
change. The long forms sebe si and tjax si are bound by the plural subject
momčetata in (25). The Dative reflexive clitic si is bound by the plural
subject momčetata in (26). In (27), we observe the case of a pronoun (tjax)
which has a possible antecedent (momčetata) within the minimal clause. In
(28), the short form im cannot be perceived as an antecedent for momčetata:
(25)
Momčetata razčitat na sebe si/
tjax
si
boys-the rely on REFL REFL-CL/PRON-3PL REFL-CL
“The boys rely on themselves.”
(26)
Momčetata si
razčitat
boys-the REFL-CL rely
“The boys rely on themselves.”
(27)
Momčetata razčitat na tjax
boys-the rely on PRON-3PL
“The boys rely on themselves.”
(28)
*Momčetata im
razčitat
CL-3PL rely
boys-the
The boys rely on them
62
The next examples in (29) - (32) illustrate the distribution of the long forms
and the short forms of the possessive reflexives which patterns (more or
less) the distribution of the personal pronoun reflexives:
(29)
Ivan pokaza svojata/svojata si kniga
Ivan showed REFL-POSS-FEM-the book
“Ivan showed his book.”
(30)
a. Ivan pokaza knigata si
Ivan showed book-the REFL-POSS-CL
“Ivan showed his book.”
b. Ivan si
pokaza knigata
Ivan REFL-POSS-CL showed book-the
“Ivan showed his book.”
(31)
Momčetata pokazaxa svoite/svoite si knigi
boys-the showed REFL-POSS-PL-the books
“The boys showed their books”
(32)
a. Momčetata pokazaxa knigite si
boys-the showed books-the REFL-POSS-CL
“The boys showed their books.”
b. Momčetata si
pokazaxa knigite
boys-the REFL-POSS-CL showed books-the
“The boys showed their books.”
In (29), the long forms of the possessive reflexive svojata/svojata si can
have only Ivan as its antecedent. In (30a) and (30b), the short form si is
bound by Ivan. In (30b), we witness a possessor raising to the verbal
complex (the form si). In (31), where the antecedent is plural, i.e.,
momčetata, it can bind only the possessive reflexive svoite/svoite si in the
same sentence. The short form si in (32a) is a possesive clitic in the DP [DP
knigite si]. The examples in (30b) and (32b) demonstrate the possessor
raising phenomenon. It is interesting to note that the pronominal clitic is
ruled out in the same configuration (compare with (35) and (36) below).
In Bulgarian, as in English, it is also possible to use the possessive
pronoun to be bound by the subject of the sentence. The result leads to
ambiguity in both languages. Let us regard the two pairs of examples from
English (33) and Bulgarian (34):
63
(33)
Ivan showed his book
his = Ivan's
his = somebody else's
(34)
Ivan pokaza negovata
kniga
Ivan showed PRON-POSS-3SG-MASC-the book
“Ivan showed his book.”
(i) negovata (his) = Ivan's
(ii) negovata (his) = somebody else's
In the English example (33), the pronoun his can be either bound by the
subject Ivan, or it can be free, referring to another person in the discourse.
The pattern can also be seen in the Bulgarian example (34), where the
pronoun negovata can be bound by the subject Ivan, or has a different
antecedent outside the sentence. In (35) - (36), the short form of the
possessive pronoun mu is used:
(35)
Ivan pritežava knigata mu
Ivan owns
book-the CL-POSS-3SG-MASC
“Ivan owns his book.”
(i)
mu (his) = Ivan's
(ii)
mu (his) = somebody else's
(36)
Ivan mu
pritežava knigata
Ivan CL-POSS-3SG-MASC owns
book-the
(i)
mu (his) ¹ Ivan or *mu = Ivan
(ii)
mu (his) = somebody else's
It is clear from (35) that the short form mu, similar to the long form negov
can be either bound by the subject Ivan, or it can refer to another antecedent
in the discourse. But if we move the possessor mu outside the DP [DP
knigata mu] upwards to the verb, it can never be perceived as an antecedent
of Ivan, as demonstrated in (36). The only possible reading with the short
possessives is that in (36ii). If we compare (30a-b) with (35) and (36), a
question arises why the movement of the possessive reflexive clitic does not
cause a change of the meaning, whereas the movement of the pronominal
clitic does. We will come back to this issue after investigating the same
phenomenon with a plural antecedent. This is illustrated next in (37) - (40):
64
(37)
The boys own their books
(i) their = the boys'
(ii) their = other people's
(38)
Momčetata pritežavat texnite
knigi
boys-the own
PRON-POSS-3PL-the books
“The boys own their books.”
(i) texnite (their) = momčetata (the boys')
(ii) texnite (their) = other people's
(39)
Momčetata pritežavat knigite im
boys-the own
books-the CL-POSS-3PL
“The boys own their books.”
(i) im (their) = momčetata (the boys')
(ii) im (their) = other people's
(40)
Momčetata im
pritežavat knigite
book-the
boys-the CL-POSS-3PL own
“The boys own their books.”
(i) im (their) ¹ momčetata (the boys') or *im = momčetata
(ii) im (their) = other people's
In the English example (37), the plural subject the boys either binds the
pronoun their in the sentence, or refers to another antecedent in the
discourse. Similarly, in the Bulgarian sentence (38), the plural subject
momčetata binds the pronoun texnite within the sentence, or refers to a
plural antecedent outside it. In the configuration shown in (39), the short
possessive pronoun im can have both bound and free readings. In (40), the
possessor im has moved out of the DP [DP knigite im] and has stuck to the
verbal complex. Similar to the case described in (36), the short pronoun
(pronominal clitic) im allows only the free reading.
Let us now summarize the problematic cases in (30), (32), (35), (36),
(39) and (40) but grouped and repeated below with respect to the puzzling
contrast which they show:
65
(41)
a. Ivan pritežava knigata si
Ivan owns
book-the REFL-POSS-CL
“Ivan owns his (Ivan's) book.”
b. Ivan pritežava knigata mu
Ivan owns
book-the CL-POSS-3SG-MASC
“Ivan owns his book.”
(i) mu (his) = Ivan's
(ii) mu (his) = somebody else's
(42)
a. Ivan si
pritežava knigata
Ivan REFL-POSS-CL owns
book-the
“Ivan owns his (Ivan's) book.”
b. Ivan mu
pritežava knigata
Ivan CL-POSS-3SG-MASC owns
book-the
“Ivan owns his (somebody else`s) book
(i) mu (his) ¹ Ivan's or *mu = Ivan
(ii) mu (his) = somebody else's
(43)
a. Momčetata pritežavat knigite si
boys-the own
books-the REFL-POSS-CL
“The boys own their (the boys') books.”
b. Momčetata pritežavat knigite im
boys-the own
books-the CL-POSS-3PL
“The boys own their books."
(i) im (their) = momčetata (the boys')
(ii) im (their) = other people's
(44)
a. Momčetata si
prtežavat knigite
boys-the REFL-POSS-CL own
books-the
“The boys own their (the boys') books."
b. Momčetata im
pritežavat knigite
books-the
boys-the CL-POSS-3PL own
"The boys own their books."
(i) im (their) ¹ momčetata (the boys') or *im = momčetata
(ii) im (their) = other people's
In (41) and (43), the reflexive possessive clitic si and the pronominal
possessive clitics mu and im are part of the DPs [DP knigata si], [DP knigata
mu], [DP knigite si], [DP knigite im], respectively. In these examples, the
66
reflexive clitics are obligatorily bound by the subjects Ivan and momčetata,
and the pronouns can optionally be bound by these same subjects. The
situation changes once the reflexive clitic and the pronominal clitics leave
the DP boundaries (as we pointed out earlier, this is the possessor raising
phenomenon): in (42a) and (44a), the reflexive possessive clitic si moves to
the verbal domain but the binding relations remain intact, i.e., the clausal
subjects are their only antecedents; in contrast, in examples (42b) and (44b),
the moved pronominal clitics can never be bound by the subjects – a
possible antecedent can be found only in the discourse.
What has caused the change of binding relations in a different
configuration? I claim that the possessor raising phenomenon happens in
syntax. A more detailed analysis of the issue will be postponed until Chapter
5. At this point, it is pertinent to say something about possessor raising. It
was argued in Chapter 1 (Section 1.6) that in Bulgarian, the Asp (Aspect)
and T (Tense) heads possess a strong N-feature. It is exactly this feature
which causes the movement of the clitics out of the DP to the verbal domain
in possessor raising. This is an overt movement which happens in the
syntactic component. In other words, the Asp and T heads containing the
strong N-feature attract the clitic, make it move to these heads and adjoin to
them.
The possessive reflexives of the type negov si can also appear in the
contexts above. With these types of forms the possibility of ambiguity is
ruled out:
(45)
a. Ivan pritežava negovata
si
kniga
Ivan owns
PRON-POSS-3SG-MASC-the REFL-CL book
“Ivan owns his book.”
(i) negovata si = Ivan's
(ii) *negovata si = somebody else's
b. Petǔr kaza, če Marija pritežava negovata
Petǔr said that Marija owns
PRON-POSS-3SG-MASC-the
kniga
si
REFL-CL book
“Peter said that Marija owned his book.”
(i) negovata si = Petǔr’s
(ii) *negovata si = somebody else’s
67
(46)
a. Momčetata pritežavat texnite
si
knigi
boys-the own
PRON-POSS-3PL-the REFL-CL books
“The boys own their books.”
(i) texnite si = momčetata (the boys’)
(ii) *texnite si = other people's
b. Sǔsedite
kazaxa, če Marija pritežava texnite
neighbors-the said
that Marija owns
PRON-POSS-3PL-the
si
knigi
REFL-CL books
“The neighbors said that Marija owned their books.”
(i) texnite si = the neighbors’
(ii) *texnite si = other people’s
In (45a), the possessive reflexive negovata si can be bound only by the
agreeing antecedent Ivan. In (45b), the same form is bound by the agreeing
antecedent in the main clause Petǔr. In (46a), the only option for the
possessive reflexive texnite si, is to be bound by the plural agreeing phrase,
momčetata. (46b) shows that texnite si is bound by the higher (agreeing in
person and number) phrase in the main clause, i.e., sǔsedite.22 If we had
svoite instead of texnite si in the two (b) sentences, the only possible
antecedent would be Marija.
In Bulgarian, as in other languages (Dutch, most of Romance and
even English), pronouns and reflexive forms sometimes overlap in oblique
contexts. These pronouns have a reading according to which they can be
bound by the subject of the sentence. In other words, in oblique contexts,
both reflexive forms and pronouns can appear. Typical examples are
locative and directional PPs, illustrated in (47) - (52) and representational
NPs in (53) - (57).23 Only the long forms of the reflexives and pronouns are
22
The fact that nego si fails to obey the c-command requirement (see also (57) ), is
illustrated below:
(i)
Az kazax na Petǔr, če Marija pritežava negovata
I said to Petǔr that Marija owns
PRON-POSS-3SG-MASC-the
si
kniga
REFL-CL book
“I told Petur that Marija owns his (Petǔr’s) book.”
This form can be bound by any phrase agreeing in person, number and gender.
68
allowed in locative and directional PPs and representational NPs. In (47a),
(48a) and (49a), the reflexive pronoun sebe si is obligatorily bound by the
subject Ivan. The reflexive pronoun nego si has similar behavior and within
the minimal clause its only antecedent is Ivan (see (47b), (48b) and
(49b)).The respective (c) examples show that nego si can be bound by a
phrase agreeing in person, number and gender (in this case Petǔr) outside
the minimal clause. A use of sebe si in these examples presupposes Marija
as its antecedent. The pronoun nego in the (d) sentences is either bound by
the subject Ivan, or it has a free interpretation:
(47)
a. Ivan vidja zmija do
sebe si
Ivan saw snake next –to REFL REFL-CL
"Ivan saw a snake next to him."
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) *sebe si = somebody else
b. Ivan vidja zmija do
nego
si
Ivan saw snake next -to PRON-3SG-MASC REFL-CL
"Ivan saw a snake next to him."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) *nego si = somebody else
c. Petǔr kaza, če Marija vidja zmija do
nego
Petǔr said that Marija saw snake next-to PRON-3SG-MASC
si
REFL-CL
“Petǔr said that Marija saw a snake next to him.”
(i) nego si = Petǔr
(ii) *nego si = somebody else
23
Tenny (1997) introduces the term "representational NPs" and I borrow this term from her
throughout this work. Tenny (p.c.) quotes the example in (i), which originally belongs to
Reinhart and Reuland (1993:685), for the definition of representational NPs, given in (ii):
(i)
Max likes jokes about him
(ii)
Representational NPs involve some kind of representation of the entity
indicated by the pronoun.
69
d. Ivan vidja zmija do
nego
Ivan saw snake next -to PRON-3SG-MASC
"Ivan saw a snake next to him."
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii)
nego = anybody else (3SG-MASC)
(48)
a. Ivan postavi kufarite
zad sebe si
Ivan put
suitcases-the behind REFL REFL-CL
"Ivan put the suicases behind him."
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) *sebe si = somebody else
b. Ivan postavi kufarite
zad
nego
si
Ivan put
suitcases-the behind PRON-3SG-MASC REFL-CL
"Ivan put the suicases behind him."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) *nego si = somebody else
c. Petǔr kaza, če Marija postavi kufarite
zad
Petǔr said that Marija put
suitcases-the behind
nego
si
PRON-3SG-MASC REFL-CL
“Petǔr said that Marija put the suitcases behind him.”
(i) nego si = Petǔr
(ii) *nego si = somebody else
d. Ivan postavi kufarite
zad
nego
Ivan put
suitcases-the behind PRON-3SG-MASC
"Ivan put the suicases behind him."
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii) nego = anybody else (3SG-MASC)
70
(49)
a. Ivan butna knigata kǔm sebe si
Ivan pulled book-the toward REFL REFL-CL
"Ivan pulled the book toward him."
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) *sebe si = somebody else
b. Ivan butna knigata kǔm nego
si
Ivan pulled book-the toward PRON-3SG-MASC REFL-CL
"Ivan pulled the book toward him."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) *nego si = somebody else
c. Petǔr kaza, če Marija butna knigata kǔm nego
Petǔr said that Marija pulled book-the toward PRON-3SG-MASC
si
REFL-CL
“Petǔr said that Marija pulled the book toward him.”
(i) nego si = Petǔr
(ii) *nego si = somebody else
d. Ivan butna knigata kǔm nego
Ivan pulled book-the toward PRON-3SG-MASC
"Ivan pulled the book toward him."
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii) nego = anybody else (3SG-MASC)
The reflexive form nego si does not obey the structural requirements of the
classical Binding Theory. Its description in terms of the features
[+anaphoric, -pronominal] and [-anaphoric, +pronominal] is definitely
problematic. In (50a) and (50b), the subject Marija is a compulsory binder
only for the reflexive pronouns sebe si and neja si. In (50c), the antecedent
of neja si is the phrase Marija, agreeing in person, number and gender. If we
used the form sebe si, the only possible binder would be the subject of the
clause, Ivan. In (50d) neja can refer to both Marija or anyone else
(containing the same person, number, gender value) in the discourse.
71
(50)
a. Marija nameri knigite pred
sebe si
Marija found books-the in front of REFL REFL-CL
"Marija found the books in front of her."
(i) sebe si = Marija
(ii) *sebe si = somebody else
b. Marija nameri knigite pred
neja si
Marija found books-the in front of PRON-3SG-FEM REFL-CL
"Marija found the books in front of her."
(i) neja si = Marija
(ii) *neja si = somebody else
c. Marija kaza, če Ivan nameri knigite pred
Marija said that Ivan found books-the in front of
neja
si
PRON-3SG-FEM REFL-CL
“Marija said that Ivan found the books in front of her.”
(i) neja si = Marija
(ii) *neja si = somebody else
d. Marija nameri knigite pred
neja
Marija found books-the in front of PRON-3SG-FEM
"Marija found the books in front of her."
(i) neja = Marija
(ii) neja = anybody else (3SG-FEM)
The picture remains unchanged in sentences containing locative and
directional PPs with a plural antecedent, like those in (51) - (52):
(51)
a. Momčetata vidjaxa zmija do
sebe si
boys-the saw
snake next-to REFL REFL-CL
"The boys saw a snake next to them."
(i) sebe si = momčetata
(ii) *sebe si = other people
b. Momčetata vidjaxa zmija do
tjax
si
boys-the saw
snake next-to PRON-3PL REFL-CL
"The boys saw a snake next to them."
(i) tjax si = momčetata
(ii) *tjax si = other people
72
c. Momčetata kazaxa, če nie vidjaxme zmija do
tjax
boys-the said
that we saw
snake next-to PRON-3PL
si
REFL-CL
“The boys said that we saw a snake next to them.”
(i) tjax si = momčetata
(ii) *tjax si = other people
d. Momčetata vidjaxa zmija do
tjax
boys-the saw snake next-to PRON-3PL
"The boys saw a snake next to them."
(i) tjax = momčetata
(ii) tjax = any other people (3PL)
(52)
a. Momčetata namerixa knigite pred
sebe si
boys-the found books-the in front of REFL REFL-CL
"The boys found the books in front of them."
(i) sebe si = momčetata
(ii) *sebe si = other people
b. Momčetata namerixa knigite pred
tjax
si
boys-the found books-the in front of PRON-3PL REFL-CL
"The boys found the books in front of them."
(i) tjax si = momčetata
(ii) *tjax si = other people
c. Momčetata kazaxa, če nie namerixme knigite pred
boys-the said
that we found
books in front of
tjax
si
PRON-3PL REFL-CL
“The boys said that we found the books in front of them”
(i) tjax si = momčetata
(ii) *tjax si = other people
d. Momčetata namerixa knigite pred
tjax
boys-the found books-the in front of PRON-3PL
"The boys found the books in front of them."
(i) tjax = momčetata
(ii) tjax = any other people (3PL)
In the above examples (51a), (52a), the plural antecedent momčetata
obligatorily binds the reflexive form sebe si. In (51b) and (52b), the same
holds true for the reflexive tjax si. The corresponding (c) sentences illustrate
73
the non-local reading of tjax si. On the other hand, tjax in the (d) sentences
can have both bound and free readings.
With the examples containing representational NPs (53) - (54), it is
again the case that sebe si must be bound by the subject of the minimal
clause (the (a) sentences, respectively) while the reflexives nego si, and tjax
si have a dual character: they are locally bound (the (b) sentences) and have
non-local readings (the (c) sentences). The pronominal forms nego and tjax
(the (d) sentences) can be bound by the minimal clause subject, or have a
free reading.
(53)
a. Ivan razkazva istorii za sebe si
Ivan tells
stories about REFL REFL-CL
"Ivan tells stories about him."
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) *sebe si = somebody else
b. Ivan razkazva istorii za
nego
si
Ivan tells
stories about PRON-3SG-MASC REFL-CL
"Ivan tells stories about him."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) *nego si = somebody else
c. Petǔr kaza če Marija razkazva istorii za nego
Petǔr said that Marija tells
stories about PRON-3SG-MASC
si
REFL-CL
“Petǔr said that Marija told stories about him.”
(i) nego si = Petǔr
(ii) *nego si = somebody else
d. Ivan razkazva istorii za
nego
Ivan tells
stories about PRON-3SG-MASC
"Ivan tells stories about him."
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii) nego = anybody else (3SG-MASC)
(54)
a. Momčetata razkazvat istorii za sebe si
boys-the tell
stories about REFL REFL-CL
"The boys tell stories about them."
(i) sebe si = momčetata
(ii) *sebe si = other people
74
b. Momčetata razkazvat istorii za tjax
si
boys-the tell
stories about PRON-3PL REFL CL
"The boys tell stories about them."
(i) tjax si = momčetata
(ii) *tjax si = other people
c. Momčetata kazaxa, če nie razkazvame istorii za tjax
boys-the said
that we tell
stories about PRON-3PL
si
REFL-CL
“The boys said that we told stories about them”
(i) tjax si = momcetata
(ii) *tjax si = other people
d. Momčetata razkazvat istorii za tjax
boys-the tell
stories about PRON-3PL
"The boys tell stories about them."
(i) tjax = momčetata
(ii) tjax = any other people (3PL)
The plural subject in (54) shows that there is no deviation from the pattern
discussed so far, namely, that the subject of these sentences, momčetata,
obligatorily binds the reflexive forms sebe si and tjax si within the minimal
clause. The reflexive tjax si can be bound by a phrase, outside the minimal
clause but this phrase must have the same person, number and gender values
as tjax si. The pronoun tjax can choose between the minimal clause
antecedent and an antecedent in the discourse.
3.4. Binding properties and domains
The focus of this section is to bring up the basic problematic facts about the
distribution of the different types of reflexives and pronouns in Bulgarian.
The two major goals which I set in discussing these facts are the following:
(55)
(i) to show that the theory of NP classification on which the
classical Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986) is based, is
inadequate in accounting for binding phenomena in Bulgarian.
(ii) to demonstrate the striking overlap of forms in a local domain.
75
After a closer look at the distribution of the different forms in Bulgarian, we
face problems with accounting for the binding phenomena in Bulgarian in
terms of the classical Binding Theory. A clearcut distinction between
anaphors and pronouns exists only for certain forms, e.g. sebe si, se, si, svoj,
si (refl) versus nego, negov (pron). There are forms like nego si and negov si
which behave neither like anaphors nor like pronouns. These forms may be
characterized as [+anaphoric] and [+pronominal] in the light of the theory of
NP classification. But overt elements containing this combination of
features are impossible, as stated in Chomsky (1982:78-89, 1986:164). This
will lead us to seek for another type of classification which suits the
Bulgarian data.
3.4.1. Personal Reflexives
Let us recall that the personal reflexive pronouns include the long forms,
sebe si and nego si, and the short forms (clitics) se (Acc) and si (Dat). For
these forms I argue for the points listed below in (56):
(56)
(i)
The form sebe si is oriented towards the subject of the
minimal clause or the subject of the DP if it is DP-internal.
The antecedent must always precede it.
(ii) The form nego si does not obey the c-command and locality
requirements. The terms subject and precedence are
irrelevant for it.
(iii) The short forms (reflexive clitics) se and si are subjectoriented. They do not occur in the complement domain of V
or inside DPs.24
To illustrate (56i) and (56ii), let us regard the following examples:
24
The reflexive clitics in question are part of the verbal complex and their place is as close
as possible to the antecedent in a c-commanding phrase. I explain why these clitics are
always adjoined to the verb by claiming that the strong N-feature of the Asp and T heads in
Bulgarian attracts (moves) the clitic to the verbal domain. For more details on the strong Nfeature of Asp and T see the structure of the Bulgarian clause given in Section 1.6 of
Chapter 1.
76
(57)
a. Ivanovijat1 bašta2 kritikuva sebe si*1 2
"Ivan's father criticizes himself."
(i) sebe si = bašta (father)
(ii) *sebe si = Ivan
b. Ivanovijat1 bašta2 kritikuva nego si1 2
"Ivan's father criticizes himself."
(i) nego si = bašta (father)
(ii) nego si = Ivan
c. Sinǔt1 na Ivanovija2 brat3 kritikuva sebe si1*2*3
"The son of Ivan's brother criticizes himself."
(i) sebe si = sin (son)
(ii) *sebe si = Ivan
(iii) *sebe si = brat (brother)
d. Sinǔt1 na Ivanovija2 brat3 kritikuva nego si1 2 3
"The son of Ivan's brother criticizes himself."
(i) nego si = sin (son)
(ii) nego si = Ivan
(iii) nego si = brat (brother)
(58)
a. Ivan1 vidja Petrovata2 statija za sebe si1 2
"Ivan saw Petǔr’s article about himself."
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) sebe si = Petǔr
b. Ivan1 vidja Petrovata2 statija za nego si1 2
"Ivan saw Petǔr’s article about himself."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) sebe si = Petǔr
(59)
a. Ivan1 popita Petrovija2 bašta3 za sebe si1*2 3
"Ivan asked Petǔr's father about himself."
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) *sebe si = Petǔr
(iii) sebe si = bašta
b. Ivan1 popita Petrovija2 bašta3 za nego si1 2 3
"Ivan asked Petǔr's father about himself."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) nego si = Petǔr
(iii) nego si = bašta
77
In (57a), the long reflexive sebe si is bound only by the c-commanding
phrase which is actually the subject of the clause, that is, bašta ("father"),
and fails to bind the possessor Ivanovijat ("Ivan's") which does not ccommand this form. On the other hand, nego si in (57b) is bound by
everything within the possessor phrase, that is, both bašta ("father") and
Ivanovijat ("Ivan's"). In other words, sebe si is bound only by the ccommanding phrase, while nego si can be bound either by the ccommanding phrase (containing the subject of the sentence) or by the non-ccommanding phrase (the subject of the possessor phrase). (57c) and (57d)
illustrate the above contrasts even more sharply. In (58), each of the forms
sebe si and nego si can take Ivan or Petǔr as antecedents. The possessor
subject Petrovata does not c-command sebe si, but there is a binding
relation between them on account of the fact that Petrovata ("Petǔr's") is the
subject of the possessor phrase. The sentence is ambiguous since the reader
can freely assign antecedence to either Ivan or Petǔr. The reason for this
ambiguity can be sought in the fact that sebe si in (58a) refers either to the
subject of the “large” DP [DP Petrovata statija za sebe si] or to the subject of
the minimal clause, Ivan. Exactly the same holds for nego si in (58b). In
(59), the form sebe si can be bound by the two c-commanding phrases, the
subject of the minimal clause, Ivan and the head of the DP bašta ("father").
The non-c-commanding possessor subject Petrovija ("Petǔr's") cannot bind
sebe si (compare with (58)). The reason is an immediate c-commanding
phrase. Thus the contrast between (58) and (59) highlights the subjectorientation of sebe si. Returning to (59) only, the form nego si, on the other
hand, can have as antecedents the c-commanding phrases Ivan and bašta
and the non-c-commanding phrase Petrovija. The dual character of nego si
is illustrated by (60) below:
(60)
a. Javor1 kaza, če [Ivan2 vidja Petrovata3 statija za sebe si*1 2 3]
"Javor said that Ivan saw Petǔr's article about himself."
(i) *sebe si = Javor
(ii) sebe si = Ivan
(iii) sebe si = Petǔr
b. Javor1 kaza, če [Ivan2 vidja Petrovata3 statija za nego si1 2 3]
"Javor said that Ivan saw Petǔr's article about himself."
(i) nego si = Javor
(ii) nego si = Ivan
(iii) nego si = Petǔr
c. [Da razkažeš šegi za sebe si] ne učudva Javor
78
“The fact that you tell stories about yourself doesn’t surprise
Javor.”
(i) sebe si = pro
(ii) *sebe si = Javor
d. [Da razkažes šegi za nego si] ne učudva Javor
“The fact that you tell stories about him does not surprise
Javor.”
(i) nego si = Javor
(ii) *nego si = pro
e. *[Šegi za sebe si] interesuvat Ivan
“Jokes about himself interest Ivan.”
f. [Šegi za nego si] interesuvat Ivan
“Jokes about himself interest Ivan.”
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) *nego si = somebody else
In (60a) and (60b), sebe si can be bound either by the c-commanding phrase
containing the subject (possessor subject) Petrovata or by the subject of the
higher phrase Ivan. In both cases sebe si cannot be bound by the longdistance subject Javor. The form nego si can be bound by all three phrases
agreeing in person, number and gender. In (60c), sebe si is bound by pro in
the subject clause [proida razkažeš šegi za sebe sii] and impossible to be
bound by Javor whereas in (60d) pro doesn’t agree with nego si and
consequently cannot bind it but Javor undoubtedly can. In (60e) sebe si
precedes (is not c-commanded by) Ivan and it cannot be bound by this
antecedent. On the contrary, the form nego si in (60f) is bound by Ivan
despite nego si preceding the antecedent. Therefore, sebe si must always
have an antecedent which is a preceding subject but nego si allows
antecedents which follow it.
More typical long-distance contexts are illustrated further in (61) (63):
(61)
a. Marija1 kaza, če kralicata2 pokani Ivan3 i sebe si*1 2*3 na partito
"Marija said that the queen invited Ivan and herself to the party."
(i) *sebe si = Marija
(ii) sebe si = kralicata (the queen)
(iii) *sebe si = Ivan
b. Marija1 kaza, če kralicata2 pokani Ivan3 i neja si1 2*3 na partito
"Marija said that the queen invited Ivan and herself to the party."
79
(i) neja si = Marija
(ii) neja si = kralicata (the queen)
(iii) *neja si = Ivan
(62)
a. Javor1 kaza, če načalnikǔt2 kritikuva Marija3 i sebe si*1 2*3
"Javor said that the boss (a man) criticized Marija and himself."
(i) *sebe si = Javor
(ii) sebe si = načalnikǔt
(iii) *sebe si = Marija
b. Javor1 kaza, če načalnikǔt2 kritikuva Marija3 i nego si1 2*3
"Javor said that the boss (a man) criticized Marija and himself."
(i) nego si = Javor
(ii) nego si = načalnikǔt
(iii) *nego si = Marija
(63)
a. Ivan1 se poxvali, če statijata e napisana ot (Marija2) i sebe si*1*2
"Ivan boasted that the paper was written by Marija and himself."
(i) *sebe si = Ivan
(ii) *sebe si = Marija
b. Ivan1 se poxvali, če statijata e napisana ot (Marija2) i nego si1*2
"Ivan boasted that the paper was written by Marija and himself."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) *nego si = Marija
In (61) and (62), sebe si cannot refer to the long-distance subjects Marija
and Javor, respectively, it takes the closest subject as its antecedent, i.e.,
kralicata and načalnikǔt. The form neja si in (61) can have as its antecedent
either the long-distance agreeing phrase Marija, or the (agreeing) subject of
the minimal clause kralicata. The form nego si in (62) can take either the
long-distance agreeing phrase Javor or the (agreeing) subject of the minimal
clause načalnikǔt as its antecedents. In (63), the long-distance subject Ivan
cannot bind sebe si, it binds nego si.
Let us regard next the point in (56iii). My claim there is based on the
fact that se and si are always adjoined to the verb. These clitics are part of
the verbal complex. The short reflexive forms se and si cannot look for an
80
antecedent beyond the minimal clause - their position is as close as possible
to the c-commanding phrase.25 Compare the following sentences:
(64)
Ivan kaza, če [pro se mie]
“Ivan said that he washed himself.”
(65)
Ivan kaza, če [Petǔr se mie]
“Ivan said that Petǔr washed himself.”
In (64), there is no overt subject but the minimal clause has a pro subject,
that is, the short reflexive form se has the pro subject as its antecedent. In
(65), se is bound by the subject of the minimal clause Petǔr. The subject of
the higher clause, Ivan, cannot be an antecedent for se.
The distribution of the personal reflexive pronouns presented in this
section leads us to conclude that it is problematic to establish the distinction
between anaphors and pronominals in the sense of the classical Binding
Theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986). The "purely" anaphoric behavior is shown
by the long form sebe si and the short forms se and si. These forms must be
bound only by preceding subjects of the minimal clause or the DP. If these
forms are anaphors, what is nego si, then? It is a reflexive, but it does not
show local effects and it does not obey the c-command requirement. The
notion subject and precedence do not play roles either. Then it cannot be an
anaphor. Besides, nego si patterns with the pronouns, as we shall see in
Section 3.4.3. Therefore, some forms in Bulgarian fit into the definition for
anaphors and pronouns (in terms of the classical Binding Theory) but others
don't. Then it is quite natural to doubt the criteria for dividing these two
forms.
3.4.2. Possessive Reflexives
The possessive reflexives in Bulgarian include two long forms, that is, svoj
(glossed refl poss, meaning self's) and negov si (glossed pron poss-3sg-masc
25
But pro in (64) can have an antecedent in the discourse. A possible setting is suggested
in the following dialogue:
(i)
A: Kakvo pravi Petǔr?
"What is Petǔr doing?"
B: Ivan kaza, če se mie.
"Ivan said that he (Petǔr) was washing himself."
81
refl-cl poss, meaning self's) and one short form (clitic) si (glossed refl-cl
poss, meaning self's). There is an apparent and expected similarity in the
behavior of the personal reflexives and the possessive reflexives (compare
(56) and (66)). The following properties of the possessive reflexives can be
posed below:
(66)
(i) The form svoj is subject-oriented. The local domains for
svoj are the DP and the minimal clause.26 Its antecedent must
always precede. The same holds true for the Colloquial
Emphatic Possesive svoj si.
(ii) The form negov si ignores the c-command and locality
requirements. The notions subject and precedence are
irrelevant.
(iii) The short form si is subject-oriented. It is bound in the
DP or the minimal clause. Structurally it is a part of the
D (DP-internal) and it can be moved out of it (possessor
raising).27
The statements presented in (66), can be supported by the sentences in (67) (70):
(67)
a. Ivan1 čete Penčovata2 statija za svojata1 2/svojata si1 2 žena
"Ivan reads Penčo’s article about his wife."
(i) svojata/svojata si = Ivan's
(ii) svojata/svojata si = Penčo's
b. Ivan1 čete Penčovata2 statija za negovata si1 2 žena
"Ivan reads Penčo’s article about his wife."
(i) negovata si = Ivan's
(ii) negovata si = Penčo's
(68)
a. Ivan1 popita Penčovija2 sin3 za svoja1*2 3/svoja si1*2 3 prijatel
"Ivan asked Penčo's son about his friend."
(i) svoja/svoja si = Ivan's
(ii) *svoja/svoja si = Penčo's
26
If there are two or more c-commanding phrases which are subjects in the minimal clause,
they bind svoj. The form svoj can be bound by the subject of a possessor phrase only if
there is no intervening c-commanding subject.
27
I argue in Chapter 5, Section 5.6 that possessor raising is due to the strong N-feature of
the Asp and T heads in Bulgarian.
82
(iii) svoja/svoja si = sin (the son's)
b. Ivan1 popita Penčovija2 sin3 za negovija si1 2 3 prijatel
"Ivan asked Penčo's mother about his friend."
(i) negovija si = Ivan's
(ii) negovija si = Penčo's
(iii) negovija si = sin (the son's)
(69)
a. Ivan1 kaza, če Petǔr2 xaresva svojata*1 2/svojata si*1 2 kniga
"Ivan said that Petǔr liked his book."
(i) *svojata/svojata si = Ivan's
(ii) svojata/svojata si = Petǔr's
b. Ivan1 kaza, če Petǔr2 xaresva negovata si1 2 kniga
"Ivan said that Petǔr liked his book."
(i) negovata si = Ivan's
(ii) negovata si = Petǔr's
c. [Da popitaš za svojata/svojata si kniga] učudi Ivan
“The fact that you ask about your book surprised Ivan.”
(i) svojata/svojata si = pro
(ii) *svojata/svojata si = Ivan’s
d. [Da popitaš za negovata si kniga] učudi Ivan
“The fact that you ask about his book surprised Ivan.”
(i) negovata si = Ivan’s
(ii) *negovata si = pro
e. *[Mnenija za svojata/svojata si kniga] interesuvat Ivan
“Opinions about his book interest Ivan.”
f. [Mnenija za negovata si kniga] interesuvat Ivan
“Opinions about his book interest Ivan.”
(i) negovata si = Ivan’s
(ii) *negovata si = somebody else’s
(70)
Ivan1 popita Penčo2 za brat si1*2
"Ivan asked Penčo about his brother"
(i) si = Ivan
(ii) *si = Penčo
In (67), both Ivan and Penčo are possible antecedents for svojata/svojata si
and negovata si. In this case the forms svojata/svojata si can refer to both
the subject of the possessor phrase, Penčo, or the subject of the minimal
83
clause Ivan. The form negovata si also refers to both agreeing phrases. (68)
illustrates the fact that svoja/svoja si refers to the c-commanding subjects
Ivan and sin, whereas it cannot refer to the subject of the possessor phrase,
Penčovija. The form negovija si in the same sentence can refer to all already
mentioned antecedents in the minimal clause, i.e., Ivan, sin, and Penčovija.
In (69a) the form svojata/svojata si can only be bound by the subject of the
c-commanding subject, Petǔr. The form negovata si in (69b) can be bound
by the long distance (agreeing) phrase Ivan and the local agreeing phrase
Petǔr. In (69c), svojata/svojata si are bound by pro in [proi da popitaš za
svojatai/svojata sii kniga] and Ivan is ruled out as an antecedent. In (69d)
negovata si is bound by Ivan and pro cannot be its antecedent. (69e) is
disallowed with svojata/svojata si but it becomes grammatical with
negovata si (bound by Ivan) in (69f). The short form si in (70) can be bound
only by the c-commanding subject Ivan.
As already stated, when comparing the behavior of the personal
reflexives and the possesive reflexives, we find them very similar. Like sebe
si, the possessive reflexive svoj is subject-oriented.28 Both types of
reflexives have the same local domains – the DP and the minimal clause.
The possessive reflexive negov si exhibits similar properties to those of
nego si. They both have dual nature, namely, they do not distinguish local
domain and do not obey the c-command requirement, they pattern both with
anaphors (sebe si, svoj, se, si, si (poss)) and pronominals (nego, negov). The
short forms of the personal reflexives se and si have similar properties to the
possessive reflexive clitic si. As for the long forms, svoj and negov si, we
are encountered with the same range of problems presented about sebe si
and nego si earlier. The same question remains unanswered: if svoj is an
anaphor, what is negov si?
3.4.3. Pronominals and the overlap problem
Let us regard next the distributional properties of the pronominals with
respect to Principle B. This principle states that pronouns must not be bound
in the local domain. The pronouns in Bulgarian include the long form of the
pronoun nego (him), the respective short forms go (him-Acc) and mu (him28
The Colloquial Emphatic Possessive Pronoun svoj si will be ignored due to its parallel
distribution to svoj.
84
Dat), the possessive pronoun negov (his) and its short form mu. Consider the
examples below:
(71)
a. Ivan1 popita Petǔr2 za sebe si1*2
"Ivan asked Petǔr about himself."
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) *sebe si = Petǔr
b. Ivan1 popita Petǔr2 za nego si1 2
"Ivan asked Petǔr about himself."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) nego si = Petǔr
c. Ivan1 popita Petǔr2 za nego1 2
"Ivan asked Petǔr about him."
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii) nego = Petǔr
(72)
a. Ivan1 razkazva na Petǔr2 istorii za sebe si1*2
"Petǔr tells Ivan stories about himself."
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) *sebe si = Petǔr
b. Ivan1 razkazva na Petǔr2 istorii za nego si1 2
"Petǔr tells Ivan stories about himself."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) nego si = Petǔr
c. Ivan1 razkazva na Petǔr2 istorii za nego1 2
"Petǔr tells Ivan stories about him."
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii) nego = Petǔr
(73)
a. Ivan1 vidja Petrovata2 statija za sebe si1 2
"Ivan saw Petǔr’s article about himself."
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) sebe si = Petǔr
b. Ivan1 vidja Petrovata2 statija za nego si1 2
"Ivan saw Petǔr’s article about himself."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) nego si = Petǔr
c. Ivan1 vidja Petrovata2 statija za nego1 2
"Ivan saw Petǔr’s article about him."
85
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii) nego = Petǔr
In (71) and (72), the subject Ivan and the object Petǔr are possible
antecedents for the pronoun nego. The major difference between the forms
nego si and nego in these contexts is the fact that nego si can have either
Ivan or Petǔr as antecedents, i.e., it is local, bound in the minimal clause,
whereas nego can be bound by Ivan or Petǔr, but it can also refer to another
person in the discourse. Again in the same examples, sebe si cannot be
bound by the object Petǔr. In (73), a similar phenomenon, occurs, where
nego can be bound (but must not) by either the subject of the minimal clause
Ivan or the subject of the “large” DP [DP Petrovata statija za nego] Petǔr.
The form nego si is looking for its agreeing antecedents in the minimal
clause . The form sebe si can be bound only by the subject of the minimal
clause Ivan and the possessor subject Petrovata ("Petǔr's"). Next in (74),
which repeats (57a), in the contexts of two competing subjects – the subject
of the sentence and the subject of the possessor phrase, the pronoun nego
has the possessor subject as its preferred antecedent.
(74)
a. Ivanovijat1 bašta2 kritikuva sebe si*1 2
"Ivan's father criticizes himself."
(i) *sebe si = Ivan
(ii) sebe si = bašta
b. Ivanovijat1 bašta2 kritikuva nego si1 2
"Ivan's father criticizes himself."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) nego si = bašta or a higher subject
c. Ivanovijat1 bašta2 kritikuva nego1%2
"Ivan's father criticizes him."
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii) nego = bašta (for some speakers)
In (74), the form nego si can be bound either by bašta ("father") or
Ivanovijat ("Ivan's"). The form sebe si can be bound only by the ccommanding subject of the minimal clause, bašta. The possibility of nego
being bound by bašta is totally unexpected, although some speakers accept
that without problems. The preferred reading though remains that Ivanovijat
is the antecedent of nego. Another interesting case is shown in (75) where
nego si patterns with pronouns:
86
(75)
a. Ivan1 kazva, če Petǔr2 mrazi sebe si*1 2
"Ivan says that Petǔr hates himself."
(i) *sebe si = Ivan
(ii) sebe si = Petǔr
b. Ivan1 kazva, če Petǔr2 mrazi nego si1 2
"Ivan says that Petǔr hates himself."
(i) nego si = Ivan
(ii) nego si = Petǔr
c. Ivan1 kazva, če Petǔr2 mrazi nego1*2
"Ivan says that Petǔr hates him."
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii) *nego = Petǔr
We can see once again the inconsistent behavior of nego si – on the one
hand, it is local like sebe si, and on the other – it is long-distance bound and
behaves like the pronoun nego. Juxtaposing the three forms in the examples
(71) – (75) allows us to conclude that the standard division between
anaphors and pronominals is not borne out in Bulgarian.
The short counterparts of nego, that is, go and mu can never be
bound in the minimal clause. This is illustrated below in (76) - (77):
(76)
a. Ivan vidja nego
"He saw him."
(i) *nego = Ivan
(ii) nego = another person
b. Ivan go vidja
"He saw him."
(i) *go = Ivan
(ii) go = another person
(77)
a. Ivan govori na nego
"Ivan talks to him."
(i) nego = Ivan
(ii) nego = another person
b. Ivan mu govori
"Ivan talks to him."
(i) *mu = Ivan
(ii) mu = another person
87
The long form nego in (76a) can never be bound by the subject Ivan. The
subject Ivan can never be an antecedent for the short form go in (76b). With
a dative verb, the long form nego can be bound by Ivan, as illustrated in
(77a). But the short Dative form mu cannot be bound by the subject Ivan as
illustrated in (77b).29
Finally, let us regard examples with the possessive pronouns negov
(his) which is the long form, and its short counterpart mu (his).
(78)
a. Ivan1 popita Penčo2 za svoja1*2 brat
"Ivan asked Penčo about his brother."
(i) svoja = Ivan's
(ii) *svoja = Penčo's
b. Ivan1 popita Penčo2 za negovija si1 2 brat
"Ivan asked Penčo about his brother."
(i) negovija si = Ivan's
(ii) negovija si = Penčo's
c. Ivan1 popita Penčo2 za negovija1 2 brat
"Ivan asked Penčo about his brother."
(i) negovija = Ivan's
(ii) negovija = Penčo's
d. Ivan1 popita Penčo2 za brat si1*2
"Ivan asked Penčo about his brother."
(i) si = Ivan's
(ii) *si = Penčo's
e. Ivan1 popita Penčo2 za brat mu1 2
"Ivan asked Penčo about his brother."
(i) mu = Ivan's
(ii) mu = Penčo's
(79)
a. Ivan1 čete statijata na Penčo2 za svojata1 2 žena
"Ivan reads Penčo’s article about his wife."
(i) svojata = Ivan's
(ii) svojata = Penčo's
b. Ivan1 čete statijata na Penčo2 za negovata si1 2 žena
"Ivan reads Penčo’s article about his wife."
29
For the relevance of Case in binding phenomena see De Jong (1996), Koster (1994),
Reuland and Koster (1991) and Wigel (1996).
88
(i) negovata si = Ivan's
(ii) negovata si = Penčo's
c. Ivan1 čete statijata na Penčo2 za negovata1 2 žena
"Ivan reads Penčo’s article about his wife."
(i) negovata = Ivan's
(ii) negovata = Penčo's
d. Ivan1 čete statijata na Penčo2 za žena si1 2
"Ivan reads Penčo’s article about his wife."
(i) si = Ivan's
(ii) si = Penčo's
e. Ivan1 čete statijata na Penčo2 za žena mu1 2
"Ivan reads Penčo’s article about his wife."
(i) mu = Ivan's
(ii) mu = Penčo's
(80)
a. Ivan1 popita Penčo2 za brat si1*2
"Ivan asked Penčo about his brother."
(i) si = Ivan's
(ii) *si = Penčo's
b. Ivan1 popita Penčo2 za negovija1 2 brat
"Ivan asked Penčo about his brother."
(i) negovija = Ivan's
(ii) negovija = Penčo's
c. Ivan1 popita Penčo2 za brat mu1 2
"Ivan asked Penčo about his brother."
(i) mu = Ivan's
(ii) mu = Penčo's
In (78c), the long pronominal form negovija can (but must not) refer to the
subject Ivan or the object Penčo. The form negovija si in (78b) has its
agreeing antecedents (Ivan or Penčo) within the minimal clause. In (78e),
the short pronoun mu can refer to either Ivan or Penčo while the reflexive
form si in (78d) can be bound only by the subject Ivan. The local domain for
mu is the DP [DP brat mu], while the local domain for si is the minimal
clause. In (79c), the form negovata can (but must not) refer to either the
subject of the minimal clause Ivan or the subject of the DP Penčo. The
form, svojata in (79e) is bound either by the subject of the minimal clause
Ivan or by the possessor subject Penčo. The form negovata si in (79b) can
be bound by the two agreeing phrases Ivan or Penčo. In (79b), the short
89
form mu can refer to Ivan or Penčo, the subject of the minimal clause and
the possessor subject, respectively, while the short form si in (79d) must be
bound by these two subjects. In (80a), the short form si, as expected, is
bound by the subject of the minimal clause, Ivan. The form si cannot be
bound by the object Penčo in this context. In (80b) and (80c), the pronouns
negovija and mu can (but must not) refer to the subject of the minimal
clause Ivan or the object Penčo.
If we characterize the pronouns in Bulgarian as [+pronominal], [anaphoric], why can they be bound even by a c-commanding antecedent?
Why do nego si and negov si pattern at the same time with reflexives and
pronouns? Can these same forms, i.e., nego si, negov si be represented as
[+anaphoric, +pronominal]? This feature content is claimed to be impossible
for overt forms (Chomsky 1982, 1986). What is the reason for the multiple
overlap of all these forms? I will provide answers to this question in
Chapters 4 and 5. What remains to be said at this point is that the NP
classification distinguishing features [±anaphoric] and [±pronominal] is
hopeless for defining anaphors and pronouns in Bulgarian.
3.5. Comparison with English
If we take the English anaphor himself and the pronoun him as a point of
departure, the Bulgarian anaphors and pronouns look like this:
(81)
himself
(82)
ì
his è
î
ì
short-distance function - sebe si, nego si, se, si
î
long-distance function nego si
short-distance function svoj, svoj si, negov si, si
long-distance function negov si
the possessive pronouns negov, mu
Let us regard (81) first. The English himself bears both the short-distance
function and the long-distance function which are carried by different forms
in Bulgarian. The short-distance function is fulfilled by the long forms sebe
si and nego si and the short forms se and si. These patterns are summarized
90
below in (83) and (84). The English counterparts are given after each
example:
(83)
a. Ivan mrazi sebe si/ nego si
“Ivan hates himself.”
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) nego si = Ivan
b. Ivan se mrazi
“Ivan hates himself.”
(i) se = Ivan
(84)
a. Ivan govori na sebe si/na nego si
“Ivan talks to himself.”
(i) sebe si = Ivan
(ii) nego si = Ivan or a higher subject
b. Ivan si govori
“Ivan talks to himself.”
(i) si = Ivan
In (83a) and (84a), the form sebe si is obligatorily bound by Ivan. In the
same examples, nego si can also be bound by Ivan. In (83b) and (84b), the
subject Ivan binds the short forms se and si. The long-distance function of
himself is performed by nego si. This is illustrated in (85):
(85)
a. Javor1 kaza, če Ivan2 zadade na Petǔr3 vǔpros za sebe si*1 2*3
"Javor said that Ivan asked Petur a question about himself."
(i) *sebe si = Javor
(ii) sebe si = Ivan
(iii) *sebe si = Petǔr
b. Javor1 kaza, če [Ivan2 zadade na Petǔr3 vǔpros za nego si1 2 3]
"Javor said that Ivan asked Petur a question about himself."
(i) nego si = Javor
(ii) nego si = Ivan
(iii) nego si = Petǔr
(85) shows again that sebe si is always bound by the subject of the minimal
clause, Ivan. As expected, nego si can be bound by any agreeing phrase in
the sentence.
91
The claims presented in (82) turn out to be even more puzzling. The
English pronoun his corresponds to both the reflexive possessives, i.e., svoj,
svoj si, negov si, si and pronouns, i.e., negov and mu. This is illustrated by
the examples in (86) and (87):
(86)
a. Ivan vidja svojata/negovata si kniga
“Ivan saw his book.”
b. Ivan vidja knigata si
“Ivan saw his book.”
c. Ivan si vidja knigata
“Ivan saw his book.”
(87)
a. Ivan vidja negovata kniga
“Ivan saw his book.” (Ivan’s book, or someone else’s book)
b. Ivan vidja knigata mu
“Ivan saw his book.” (Ivan’s book, or someone else’s book)
c. Ivan mu vidja knigata
“Ivan saw his book.” (only someone else’s book)
In all cases of (86), the subject Ivan obligatorily binds the respective
possessive forms, i.e., svojata, negovata si, si. In (86c), the possessor si has
moved out of the DP [DP knigata si] and has become part of the verbal
complex. In (87), the long form negovata and the short form mu can be
bound either by Ivan, or by another person in the discourse. The longdistance function of negov si is demonstrated in (88):
(88)
a. Ivan1 kazva, če Petǔr2 xaresva svojata*1 2 kniga
"Ivan says that Petǔr likes his book."
(i) *svojata = Ivan
(ii) svojata = Petǔr
b. Ivan1 kazva, če Petǔr2 xaresva negovata si1 2 kniga
"Ivan says that Petǔr likes his book."
(i) negovata si = Ivan
(ii) negovata si = Petǔr
In (88), the form svojata is bound only by the subject of the minimal clause,
Petǔr, while negov si can be bound either by the long-distance agreeing
phrase Ivan, or the local agreeing phrase Petǔr.
92
3.6. Conclusion
I have argued for two main points in this chapter. The first point was that
the division between anaphors and pronouns based on the NP classification
[±anaphoric] and [±pronominal] does not work for Bulgarian. Given the
diverse behavior of the Bulgarian forms, these feature oppositions are not
active in the morphological system of Bulgarian. The second point was that
there is a striking overlap of forms in the local domain. These two points
characterize the major problems which the classical Binding Theory faces
for Bulgarian. It is these problems which require a new classification of the
Bulgarian forms which suits best the morphological system of this language.
93