A preliminary study on Whether binding theory is adapted to the reflexive pronouns in Chinese and ziji‘self’in Chinese

Introduction： Based on Chomskys Binding theory （1981）， this essay tries to discuses reflexive pronouns work in Chinese language. First， it is necessary to explain some concepts such as R-expression， anaphor， antecedent， and coindexed. Second， though comparing grammatical and ungrammatical sentences to confirm the syntactic restrictions on different elements exist in sentences. Finally， applying binding principle A （final） to ananlyse ziji ‘self in Chinese.

At the beginning of this essay， it is essential to explain the meaning of NPs in Chinese. There are some NPs which can be acquired from the context or discourse， for example， in the sentence（a）：

（a）Xiao Hong xie le yi ben shu guan yu zhanzheng de. [Chinese]

Xiao Hong wrote a book about war.

If we heard this sentence in daily life， the speaker is assuming that you know who Xiao Hong is and there is a book about war which is contextually relevant. Although you have not heard about it， this sentence inform you that a person named Xiao Hong who wrote a book， and this book is about war. We can acquire information that both Xiao Hong and a book about war in the real world. This kind of NP is called an R-expression. （Carnie， 2007）

However， that is not mean that all NPs are R-expression， for instance， the following sentence（b）：

（b） Xiao Hong i yong zhuantou da le ta ziji i de tou. [Chinese]

Xiao Hong with brick bop herself DE head.

Xiao Hong i bopped herself i on the head with a brick.

In this sentence， Xiao Hong is an R-expression and taziji must refer Xiao Hong， only in this corresponding， this sentence is grammatical， taziji can not refer to Xiao Ming or some other people. This kind of NP， taziji must get its meaning from another NP in the sentence is called anaphor. In Chinese， taziji stand for herself， himself， itself in English， but taziji must stand for a female， and Xiao Hong must be a female. In this sentence， we can not even speak like （c）：

（c） * Taiziji yong zhuantou da Xiao Hong de tou. [Chinese]

Herself with brick bopped Xiao Hongs head.

* Herself i bopped Xiao Hong i s head with a brick.

This sentence is ungrammatical， because we can not make sure taziji refer to whom and can not get the meaning in the real world， so， there is a Binding theory tend to restrict where these different NP types can appear in specific positions. Taziji is called anaphor， the NP Xiao Hong can give the original meaning to anaphor， NP Xiao Hong is called antecedent. Taziji is bound by Xiao Hong， Xiao Hong is the binder and taziji is the bindee and these two elements can not reverse. Take sentence（b）as an example：

（b） Xiao Hong j yong zhuan dale taziji j de tou.

Xiao Hong is the source to give taziji a meaning， and taziji refer to Xiao Hong， two NPs that get the same index are said to be coindexed. We use same sign in the right corner of NPs， the sign is called index.

Binding principles in Chinese

Principle A （primary）： an anaphor must be bound， the binder or antecedent must do the c-commanding of the bindee， not reverse. Locality conditions on the binding of anaphors. （Carnie， 2007）

（d） [Xiao Hong k DE mama] i yong zhuan dashang taziji i DE tou. [Chinese]

Xiao Hongs mother with brick bopped herself DE head.

[Xiao Hong k s mother] i bopped herself i on the head with brick.

According principle A： there is a distance between taziji and Xiao Hong， taziji can only refer to Xiao Hongs mother， and it can not refer to an NP embedded inside the subject NP. Xiao Hongs mother c-command herself and herself is bound by Xiao Hongs mother； these two NPs are restricted in a same sentence.

（e）[NP Xiao Hong i]shuo taziji i henshou huanying. [Chinese]

*Xiao Hong i said [that herself i is appealing].

As we can see the anaphor taziji is bound by its antecedent [NP Xiao Hong]， and Xiao Hong c-commands [NP taziji]， meanwhile， coindex with taziji. Regarding to the principle A （primary）， this sentence is grammatical. However， when we translate this Chinese sentence into English， this sentence is ungrammatical， we need discuses another concept： binding domain which means the anaphor just can find its antecedent in the same clause. In English， there are no language behaviours of reflexive pronouns to be the subject. If we change the sentence like： Xiao Hong i said that she i is appealing. We can see this sentence is grammatical. When we use ‘she instead of ‘herself in this sentence， there is a principle B （primary） a pronoun can not be bound by an antecedent. （Carnie， 2007） In this paper， we still pay attention on analyzing reflexive pronoun. Until now we can see principle A （primary） need to be revised. Now， let us compare these following sentence （ⅰ）（ⅱ）：

Xiao Hong shuo [taziji henshou huanying]. [Chinese]

*Xiao Hong said [that herself was appealing]

（ⅱ） [Xiao Hong xiang rang taziji ]shou huanying. [Chinese]

[Xiao Hong wants herself ] to be appealing.

Consider③④， in the first sentence， taziji is belonged to a lower clause， in Chinese taziji can be a subject， taziji in the lower clause still refer to Xiao Hong， but in English herself can not be subject. Conversely， in second sentence， both English and Chinese are grammatical， because decedent and anaphor are within a clause， Xiao Hong is the subject c-command herself and herself is bound to Xiao Hong. Carnie（2007）in his book give the principle A （final）：one copy of an anaphor in a chain must be bound within the smallest CP or DP containing it and a potential antecedent. He applies movement of anaphor to modify binding principles， in his view， movement consists of two parts， copy an original elements and put it in some where and the silent original. The technical name for the two DPs in is the chain（Carnie，2007）. Let us look the following sentence（f）：

（f） * Xiao Hong i xiangxin [DP Xiao Ming dui taziji i DE miaoshu]. [Chinese]

XiaoHong believes Xiao Ming dui herself DE description.

*XiaoHong i believes Xiao Mings description of herself i.

If we consider ‘Xiao ming dui taziji de miaoshu as a dependent clause， this dependent clause can move its location before ‘Xiao Hong xiangxin like：

[CP2 Xiao Ming i dui taziji i de miaoshu] Xiao Hong xiangxin [CP1 Xiao Ming i dui taziji i de miaoshu]. As we can see CP1 is original location， after movement， there is a copy partCP2； the version of the anaphor in the trace is c-commanded by Xiao Ming. Binding principle A is met because one cope of the anaphor is c-commanded by local antecedent， there is a potential antecedent Xiao Ming. Therefore， taziji can not refer to Xiao Hong or any other person. Such sentence is grammatical：

（g） Xiao Hong i xiangxin [DP taziji i de renhe miaoshu]. [Chinese]

Xiao Hong believes herself DE any description.

Xiao Hong i believes any description of herself i.

Xiao Hong and herself are in a binding domain and are restricted in a same clause， Xiao Hong is the antecedent of herself， and herself is bound by Xiao Hong， Xiao Hong c-command herself， herself can and just can refer to Xiao Hong in this grammatical sentence. It is very useful to utilize principle A （final） argued by Carnie to illustrate some situation which can help us better understand binding theory. Sentence （f） （g） can be taken as examples：

Sentence （f） is ungrammatical because the DP here is the binding domain， there is a potential antecedent Xiao Ming. This means that the anaphor is not bound in its binding domain. While， let us consider sentence （g）， DP does not have a potential antecedent for the anaphor， the only antecedent is Xiao Hong. So the binding domain for this sentence is the whole clause.

ziji ‘self in Chinese

According to principle A （final） mentioned by Carnie， Further more， let us consider ziji ‘self in Chinese whether it is obey the rules. ‘self in Chinese is ‘ziji which take a ‘bare form. In English， there is no ‘self to be the anaphor， just exist ‘compound form which combine ziji with a pronoun： taziji ‘himself， tamenziji ‘themselves， and so forth. ziji ‘selfhave the ambiguity in semantic that can refer to not only one antecedent （ Huang， Li and Li， 2008）. Take sentence （h） as an example：

（h） Xiao Hong i renwei [DPXiao Ming k shang le zijii/ k].

Xiao Hong i thinks Xiao Ming k hurt ‘self k.

In English sentence， if it is grammatical， self can just refer to Xiao Ming because in the lower clause ziji as an anaphor has a potential antecedent which is Xiao Ming， the copy of anaphor is bound within DP. ziji can both refer to Xiao Ming and Xiao Hong， it seems ziji could be bound across specified subjects and Principle A can not restrict reference of ziji. Many specialist in linguistic have pointed out that reflexive anaphor and reciprocals work differently on other languages and， in particular， that reflexives could be bound across specified subjects and tense Ss （Zribi-Herts， 1989； Renihart and Reuland 1991； Safir， 1992）.

This essay applies extended principle A， especially principle A （final） modified by Carnie ziji to explain the reflexive pronouns in Chinese and ziji ‘self in Chinese and tries to underline that binding theory can not better explain ‘ziji， because of many reasons， such as ambiguous， uncertain of antecedents.

References：

[1]Aoun，J.（1985）.A Grammer of Anaphor.Cambridge：MIT Press.

[2]Chomsky，N.（1981）.Lectures on Government and Binding.Dordrecht：Foris

[3]Carnie，A.（2007）.Syntax.UK：B；ackwell Publishing.

[4]Haegeman，L.（1991）.Introduction to Government and Binding Theory.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[5]Huang，J.，Li，A.and Li，Y.（2008）.The Syntax of Chinese.Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

[6]Safir，K.（2004）.The Syntax of Anaphor.Oxford：Oxford University Press，146-181.

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】孫溦（1990.10.23- ），女，河北邢臺(tái)人，碩士研究生，邢臺(tái)學(xué)院，研究方向：二語(yǔ)習(xí)得。