-
16. Irreplaceable Pronominals
- The MIT Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
16 Irreplaceable Pronominals 16.1 The Issue In many cases, a grammatical instance of a pronominal can be replaced without loss of grammaticality by an imposter or camouflage DP having the same ultimate antecedent. (1) a. I/This unhappy customer want(s) a refund. b. Will you/Your Highness require a refund? However, a variety of pronominals cannot be replaced in this way. In this chapter , we inventory such cases. 16.2 Reflexives Although the judgments are somewhat unclear, the examples in (2) show that imposters other than number 1 (as discussed in chapter 15) cannot generally occur in positions where a reflexive pronoun is expected. (The judgments are clearer if stress is kept off the subject or object.) (2) a. ??I1 praised this reporter1. b. ??I1 voted for Daddy1. Such facts can be accounted for under the assumption that the pronominal core of an English imposter other than number 1 (discussed in section 15.6) cannot be an unstressed reflexive pronominal. Under that assumption, the examples in (2) violate Principle B. This follows since in (2a) for example, if I and this reporter are antecedent-linked, the latter cannot antecede the former because of Principle C. Therefore, the antecedence must go in the other direction, and then, via Antecedence/Pronominal Linkage (see (51) of chapter 5), I also antecedes the core pronominal, yielding the Principle B violation when the latter cannot be reflexive. 202 Chapter 16 While (2a,b) are unacceptable, when the imposter is stressed, they become better (or perfect). (3) a. I1 praised THIS REPORTER1. b. I1 voted for DADDY1. The contrast between (2) and (3) recalls the fact that stress can influence obviation judgments in the case of nonreflexive pronouns. (4) a. I praised myself/ME/*me. b. I voted for myself/ME/*me. If the unacceptability of the unstressed pronouns is due to Principle B, how can one account for the acceptability of the stressed pronouns? We speculate that examples like (4a,b) show that Principle B is defined on an abstract structure where the immediate antecedent of focused me does not have to be the subject I. Relevantly, Seuren (2004, sec. 7.2) (see also Seuren 1996, 315–321) argues essentially that a form like (5a) has a more abstract representation like (5b). (5) a. KYLE is interested. b. the x such that x is interested is Kyle Applying that view to (6a) would yield (6b). (6) a. I voted for ME b. the x such that I voted for x was me In this structure, the subjects of voted and me, being separated by a clause boundary, are indeed not in a local relation. So the view that in (6a) I and ME are not in a local relation, which might initially seem absurd, makes sense if (i) structures those like Seuren suggests are correct, and (ii) the locality condition relevant to Principle B looks at the abstract structures. These are of course complex and controversial matters, and we cannot hope to deal with them here or to soothe reader skepticism. Let us make the stress pattern in (2) explicit. (7) a. I1 voted for DADDY1. b. ??I1 VOTED for Daddy1. On the assumption that the core of an imposter like Daddy cannot be an unstressed reflexive pronoun, the lack of an imposter reading in (7b) can be seen as a Principle B violation. Then the acceptability of (7a) would be treated in the same way as the acceptability of (6a). [54.160.244.62] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:47 GMT) Irreplaceable Pronominals 203 16.3 Inherently Reflexive Verbs Neither imposters, camouflage DPs, nor stressed pronouns can appear as objects of inherently reflexive verbs. (8) a. I am behaving myself/*ME/*yours truly. b. I took it upon myself/*ME/*yours truly to inform her. c. I conducted myself/*ME/*Daddy well. d. I exerted myself/*ME/*Daddy. e. I availed myself/*ME/*this reporter of the opportunity. f. I don’t concern myself/*ME/*this reporter with politics. g. Did you avail yourself/*YOU/*Madam of that opportunity? h. You should behave yourself/*YOU/*Your Highness. i. Don’t exert yourself/*YOU/*Your Grumpiness. A possible account of this paradigm is that inherently reflexive verbs require a reflexive complement. Since in (8a), neither ME nor yours truly is reflexive, the ungrammaticality of the sentence would apparently be accounted for. Although the above account of paradigm (8) might seem obvious, it faces several difficulties. First, in contrast to ordinary reflexives like...