Liza Vostokova HSE 2014 Formal and Typology of Anaphora

Possessive and reflexive intensifiers in Spanish1

1. Introduction and Typology

In this paper will be discussed two types of anaphoric intensification in Spanish2: reflexive intensifier mismo (like English himself, Chinese ziji, French lui-mme, German selbst) and possessive intensifier propio (like English own, Russian sobstvennyj, French propre). According to [Hole & König 2002:361] there are three strategies for world's languages: 1. possessive and reflexive (default) intensification coincide in one expression; 2. possessive intensifier is derived from reflexive intensifier; 3. they are synchronically and diachronically different.

Spanish (example (1)) demonstrates typologically usual property of European languages to have different and not derived from each other possessive and reflexive intensifiers. This strategy is opposed to ‘asiatic type’, where the default intensifier is modified to form possessive intensifier – it can be illustrated with an example from Mandarin (example (2)).

(1) Spanish (Indo-European, Romance) a.Pepe se ve a sí mism-o pepe 3.RFL see.3SG.PRS DIR 3.EMP SELF-MASC.SG ‘Pepe sees himself.’ b.Teng-o mi-s propi-a-s llave-s have-1SG.PRS 1SG.POSS-PL own-FEM-PL key-PL ‘I have keys of my own/my own keys.’

(2) Mandarin (Sino-Tibetian, Chinese) a.Laowang kanjian-Ie ziji laowang look.at-ASP SELF ‘Laowang has seen himself.’ b.Wo you wo ziji-de yaoshi. 1SG have 1SG SELF-ATTR key ‘I have a key of my own/my own key.’

1 I would like to thank B.H. Partee for helpful advice and discussion. All the mistakes are my responsibility. 2 In this paper it is discussed Spanish of Latin America (Venezuela and Cuba). It is for further investigation, whether it is different from European Spanish or not. Thanks to my informants for their patience and great work done.

1 2. propio The term propio morphologically is an , while it agrees in gender and number with the head of the noun phrase. It can have different possible readings:

2.1 Lexical meaning ‘convenient, appropriate’ is represented by example (3). (3) Ese vestido no es propi-o para i-r al trabajo DEM dress NEG COP.3SG convenient-MASC.SG for go-INF LAT+DEF work ‘This dress is not convenient for going to work’ 2.2 emphatic use (like English even) In this case propio always stands between definite article and emphasized noun, like in example (4): propio goes after combined preposition and definite article (de + el = del) and before noun, that is contrasted. It has the meaning of unexpected event or unexpected actor, that cause this event.

(4) Dentro del propio Gobierno hub-o discusion-es in GEN+DEF EMPH government exist-3SG.PST discussion-PL ‘In the very Government there were discussions’ 2.3 possessive intensifier It points out the referent from the discourse, that can be demonstrated by example (5): while possessor in (5a) can be any discourse-salient person, in (5b) it is unambiguously Pepe.

(5) a.¿Siempre viaj-a Pepek con suk/w piano? always travel.PRS-3SG Pepe with 3.POSS piano ‘Does Pepe always travel with his piano?’

b.¿Siempre viaj-a Pepek con suk/*w propi-o piano? always travel.PRS-3SG Pepe with 3.POSS own-MASC.SG piano ‘Does Pepe always travel with his own piano?’ In [Charnavel 2011] it is argued that binding and intensification do not act in different domains of grammar, but interact with each other. It is discussed on the base of French cognate of Spanish propio – propre. According to the article it has following features: • used as intensifier propre can occur only with possessive DP • only prenominal position (while basic order is NAdj) • cannot be implied as a • cannot occur with other adjectival modifiers • compatible exclusively with the definite determiner • can behave like an anaphor: obeys syntactic constraints (principle A)

In Spanish many of these constraints can be violated: in example (6) propio is used predicatively, it stands after its head, lacks possessive DP. The latter can be due to the fact that possessive meaning is already implied in the verb: an example like (6), but with the verb from another semantic class cannot be constructed; or the antecedent is

2 the overt subject (Spanish is pro-drop language). In example (7a,b) propio occurs with another adjective. It demonstrates different propio-ADJ-Noun orders, but according to my consultants there's no pragmatic or other reason for this, than particularity of ordinal numbers. Another interesting point in which Spanish differs from French is that it is not constrained to animate possessor (examples (6), (9a)).

(6) el iPad tiene internet propi-o DEF ipad have.PRS.3SG internet own-MASC.SG ‘The iPad has its own internet’ (7) a. su primer coche propi-o 3.POSS first.MASC car own-MASC.SG ‘His/her first own car’ b. su propia bici amarill-a 3.POSS own-FEM.SG bicycle yellow-FEM.SG ‘His/her own yellow bicycle’

The example (8) shows that possessum is not obligatory determined, it can cooccur with indefinite article or with indefinite modifier (like English some, Russian kakoj-to):

(8) a. la creación de un propi-o sistema cosmogónico DEF creation GEN INDEF own-MASC.SG system cosmogonic ‘The creation of his own cosmogonic system’ b.hombre que no tiene capital algun-o propi-o man that NEG have.PRS.3SG capital some-MASC.SG own-MASC.SG ‘Man that don't have his own capital’

Example (9) shows that possessive + propio do not require c-commanding. In this example su propio titulo licences articulo as antecedent. It is impossible to determine scope of binding due to pro-drop. Thus, there is no data, whether it is locally locally bound or not. The construction violates half of the principle A (c-commanding) and no conclusions can be made about the second half of the principle.

(9) a.El tema del articulok no correspond-ía a suk propi-o titulo DEF theme GEN+DEF article NEG correspond-3SG.PST DIR 3.POSS own-MASC.SG title ‘The topic of the article didn't correspond to its own title’ b.el realismo está agotad-o porque ha DEF realism COP.3SG exhaust-PART.MASC because AUX.3SG sido víctima de su propi-o estilo COP.PART victim GEN 3.POSS own-MASC.SG style ‘The realism is exhausted, while ia is a victim of its own style.’

3 3. mismo It can be either an adjective or an adverbial. There various possible uses: emphatic (example (10a,b,c)), adverbial meaning emphatic alone (example (10d)) and predicative adjective meaning same. It can be used in a superlative degree (example (10c)).

(10) a.Ana mism-a abri-ó la puerta ana SELF-FEM.SG open-3SGPST DEF door ‘Ana herself opened the door’ b.Lo har-e maWana mismo 3SG.ACC do-1SG.FUT tomorrow EMPH ‘I will do it the very day of tomorrow’

c.El mism-ísim-o presidente estuv-o de acuerdo DEF SELF-SUP-MASC.SG president COP-3SG.PST GEN agreement ‘The self-superlative president agreed’ d.Juan mism-o compró la casa, nadie lo ayudó juan SELF-MASC.SG buy-3SG.PST DEF house nobody 3SG.ACC help-3SG.PST ‘Juan himself bought the house, nobody helped him’

Although the construction sí mismo acts like a reflexive, morphologically it is stressed pronoun + intensifier. In Table 1 are represented four types of Spanish pronouns (only masculine forms): personal pronouns are in the first column; second column represents personal pronouns in oblique case, they coincide in 1st and 2nd person with reflexive pronouns in the third column. Emphatic (stressed) pronouns appear in the last column and they are combined set of stressed reflexive pronouns and personal pronouns in direct case. All these pronouns are clitics.

PRON.PERS PRON.PERS.DAT PRON.RFL PRON.EMP 1SG yo me me mí 2SG tu te te tí 3SG el le se sí, el 1PL nosotros nos nos nosotros 2PL vosotros os os vosotros 3PL ellos les se sí, ellos Table 1. Pronouns

There is no constraint on animacy of subject: in example (11) it is implied in the middle-voice construction with inanimate abstract subject.

4 (11) El problema fu-e resuel-to por sí mismo DEF problem COP-3SG.PST resolve-PTCP by 3SG.EMPH SELF-MASC.SG ‘The problem was solved by itself’ Compared to Swedish sig (Kiparsky 2002) in Spanish the use of reflexive pronouns in coargumental position is not prohibited (example (12a)). Although the construction sí mismo has an emphatic use, it cannot be easily interchanged with the se-reflexive , but in almost every such case double marking can occur (12e).

(12) a.Pepe se consider-a amable pepe 3.RFL consider-3SG.PRS nice b.Pepe consider-a a sí mism-o amable pepe consider-3SG.PRS DIR 3.EMP SELF-MASC.SG nice ‘Pepe considers himself to be nice’ c.Pepe se odi-a pepe 3.RFL hate-3SG.PRS d.*Pepe odi-a a sí mism-o pepe hate-3SG.PRS DIR 3.EMP SELF-MASC.SG e.Pepe se odi-a a sí mism-o pepe 3.RFL hate-3SG.PRS DIR 3.EMP SELF-MASC.SG ‘Pepe hates himself’ It always gets sloppy reading: in example (13) también means that Pablo also hates himself, not that he hates Pepe. This construction gets bound by the subject (see example (14)), where the antecedent of sí is not the closest possible item (Jorge), but the subject of the whole sentence.

(13) a.Pepek sek odi-a a sík mism-o y Pablo tambien pepe 3.RFL hate-3SG.PRS DIR 3.EMP SELF-MASC.SG and pablo too ‘Pepe hates himself and so does Pablo (Pablo hates himself too)’

(14) Pepek cuent-a a Jorgew sobre sík/*w mism-o pepe tell-3SG.PRS DIR jorge about 3.EMP SELF-MASC.SG ‘Pepe tells Jorge about himself (about Pepe)’

Possessive NP makes trouble for the consultants to define the antecedent.

(15) Pepek hizo a Luisw leer los versos de sík/w mismo pepe make-3SG.PST DIR luis read-INF DEF verse-PL GEN 3.EMP SELF-MASC.SG ‘Pepe made Luis read his own poetry’

5 4. Conclusion According to the data both the possessive and reflexive intensifier in Spanish acts like a long-distance anaphors and they differ radically from the expressions with the same functions from other languages.

Bibliography: Charnavel, I. (2011). On French Possessive son propre ('his own'): Evidence for an Interaction between Intensification and Binding. Empirical Issues in and Semantics, 8, 53-74.

Hole, D. (1998). Intensifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 51, 256-275.

Hole, D., & König, E. (2002). Intensifiers and reflexivity: Eurotype vs. Asiatype. Linguistik jenseits des Strukturalismus. Akten des II. Ost-West-Kolloquiums für Sprachwissenschaft, Tübingen: Narr.

Kiparsky, P. (2002). Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. More than Words. Studia Grammatica, 53, 179-226.

Sánchez, L. (1993). On the licensing and interpretation of non-argumental nominals.

Other sources: Corpus of Spanish (http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/)

6