24/05/2014 Tanya Bondarenko, MSU

Reflexivization strategies and argument structure in Georgian

Languages like Georgian posit a problem for the universal typology of . It’s tempting to think that there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the forms (pronouns) and sets of properties ([- obviative, +reflexive (locally bound)], [+obviative, - reflexive (referentially independent)] etc.), so that every in every language would be categorized by some set and every set if present in a language would be expressed by a pronoun. But, first of all, there are languages that have verbal means of encoding the same sets of properties – for example, Georgian has verbal reflexivization in addition to reflexive pronouns. Secondly, it seems that sometimes a set of properties is distributed between a lexical entity (pronoun) and a syntactic operation. This is the case with another reflexivization strategy in Georgian which is partly nominal and partly verbal – it consists of a pronoun and an operation on the . If there is no one-to-one correspondence, it seems that our typological approach is a unidirectional investigation: we want to know what properties can pronouns have, but we are not interested in what expression can the properties receive. Is this a right way to go? Pondering over this question, let’s take a look at the Georgian material.

I Means of Reflexivization in Georgian

There are two reflexive pronouns in the : one simple and one complex. The simple “tav” is a grammaticalized “head”. The complex pronoun is composed of a pronoun and the simple “tav” (further referred to as “POSS+tav”). In the complex pronoun each part is declined, so this results in the following forms:

SG PL 1 possessive čem- tav- čven- tav- 2 possessive šen- tav- tkven- tav- 3 possessive mis- tav- mat- tav- 3 possessive & reflexive tavis- tav- taviant- tav-

Both pronouns have very similar properties with respect to binding. Before we turn to examples, it’s important to note that in Georgian indirect objects are structurally higher than direct objects (and subjects are structurally higher than indirect objects), so we get the following picture:

 Subject binds Direct object – OK!  Subject binds Indirect object – OK!  Indirect object binds Direct object – OK!  *Indirect object binds Subject  *Direct object binds Subject  *Direct object binds Indirect Object

1

The binding properties which the simple “tav” and the POSS+tav share:

1) Both pronouns need to have a c-commanding co-argument antecedent in the same clause. For example (from [Amiridze 2006]):

1 (1) mam-iko-si uxaria [rom anaj [tavis tav-s]*i/j k’argad uvlis] father-DIM2-DAT is glad that Ana.NOM 3ReflPossSg self-DAT well takes care Daddy is glad that Ana takes care of herself / *him well

(2) levan-ii pikrobs, rom mej tav-i*i/j vike Levan-NOM thinks that I.ACT3 self-NOM praised Levan thinks that I praised myself / *him

The first sentence shows that POSS+tav pronoun should be bound within the subordinate clause; it can’t be bound by the subject of the matrix clause “daddy”. The second sentence shows the same point for the simple “tav” pronoun – it can’t be bound by “Levan”, but can be bound by the subject of the subordinate clause “me”. In her work “Reflexivization strategies in Georgian” Nino Amiridze investigates all the binding possibilities and arrives at a conclusion that c-commanding and being a co-argument are both necessary properties of being a binder for both reflexive pronouns.

2) Both can’t have logophoric uses (“on behalf of myself…” – is not possible in Georgian) or function in any way as long-distance anaphors. Here are the ungrammatical attempts of the logophoric uses:

(3) *[šen-i tav-is] garda nebismier-i šeamčnevs 2PossSg-NOM self-GEN except anybody-NOM will notice p’rezident’-is uvicoba-s-a da p’olit’ik’ur sibece-s president-GEN ignorance-DAT-EV4 and political cross.eye-DAT The intended reading: “Anyone but yourself will notice the president’s ignorance and being politically cross eyed” (4) *tav-is msgavs-i xalx-is-a-tvis dikt’at’or-s qoveltvis self-GEN alike-NOM people-GEN-EV-for dictator-DAT always moedzebneba ert-i sak’an-i can be searched one-NOM prison.cell-NOM Literally: For people like yourself there can always be searched a prison cell by the dictator “For people like yourself the dictator always has a prison cell”

3) Word order, case marking and agreement with the verb don’t affect their binding. This is also shown accurately in [Amiridze 2006].

I think that at this point the similarity between the two reflexive pronouns should be suspicious. Why would a language have two pronouns with the same distribution and with identical binding properties? It contradicts principles of economy that we believe the natural language has. We’ll turn to this question a

1 I will omit the proper glossing of the verbal forms for the means of simplification when they are not important to the point. 2 DIM – diminutive suffix 3 ACT – “active” case – a case of Agent in active argument coding (Agents of transitive and unergative have one case, Patients of transitive and unaccusative verbs – another) 4 EV - epenthetic vowel

2 little bit later, when we’ll talk about the strategies and the readings. And now let’s look at the verbal means of reflexivization in Georgian.

Apart from the two pronouns discussed above, there can be a change in the verb form. Verbal wordform has a complex structure in Georgian, and there is a special slot in the form for “preradical vowels” - -i-/-e- /-a-/-u. These vowels have different functions – they are used in formation of synthetic passives, they appear in unaccusatives and unergatives and in some cases of agreement. So sometimes reflexive predicates undergo the following change: any preradical vowel in the verb (if present) is deleted and –i- occupies the “pre-radical vowel” slot. For example:

(5) a=a-šen-eb-s a=i-šen-eb-s PV=PRV-build-TS-3SG PV=PRV-build-TS-3SG5 he/she/it builds it he/she/it builds something for himself/herself/itself

As we see from the meaning, the predicate becomes reflexive. This change on the verb can occur on its own as in (5) but it can also co-occur with the reflexive pronouns. What is more, if we use a simple pronoun “tav”, the change in the verb is obligatory6:

(6) me [čem-s tav-s] v-i-xatav I.NOM 1PossSg-DAT self-DAT 1SG-PRV-draw.1SG I draw MYSELF (7) me [čem-s tav-s] v-xatav I.NOM 1PossSg-DAT self-DAT 1SG-draw.1SG I draw myself

(8) me tav-s v-i-xatav I.NOM self-DAT 1SG-PRV-draw.1SG I draw myself. (9) *me tav-s v-xatav I.NOM self-DAT 1SG-draw.1SG I draw myself.

As we see from examples (6)-(7), POSS+tav pronoun is grammatical both with the verbal change and without it (the difference in meaning will be discussed later), while the simple “tav” pronoun (examples (8)-(9)) is ungrammatical without the operation on verb. This is the main difference between the two pronouns.

So, we outlined the means of reflexivization in Georgian, they are: the simple “tav” pronoun, the complex POSS+tav pronoun and the operation on the verb. These three means can combine with each other in different ways, giving us co-called “reflexivization strategies”. In the next section we’ll look at what combinations are possible and what are impossible and why.

5 PV – preverb, PRV – preradical vowel, TS – thematic suffix 6 Note that in example (2) the verb also undergoes a change: in “v-i-ke” (“praised”) we see a preradical vowel “i” as opposed to the form “v-a-ke” with the preradical vowel “a”. In (4), where “tavi” is a complement of a preposition, there’s simply no verb to undergo the change.

3

II The Reflexivization strategies in Georgian

Many phenomena in the Georgian language revolve around the argument structure of the verb, and reflexivization is not an exception. The possibility of a given combination of reflexivization’s means depends on the argument structure of the verb. Here is the table that summarizes all the possibilities:

Table 1 Number of The operation Binder – Bindee Pronoun Readings arguments on the verb SU – DO bound 3-argument verbs SU – IO IO – DO Ø bound, coreferential POSS+tav SU – IO bound bound, coreferential SU – DO 2-argument verbs tav SU – IO -i- bound overt arguments: Ø SU, DO

Let’s first look at the verbs that have three arguments. There is only one strategy that is possible for them: to reflexivize the predicate one needs to use a complex POSS+tav pronoun and take a verb without any change7. When the subject is the binder, only bound readings are possible. When the indirect object binds the direct object, both readings are possible.

When a verb has two overt arguments, the picture becomes more complicated. First of all, we need to distinguish two types of verbs: those with the overt indirect object and those with the overt direct object. The former verbs behave just like those verbs that have three arguments: they need a POSS+tav pronoun to become reflexive and they don’t undergo the change. The verbs with the overt direct object have four possibilities:

1) Direct object is a POSS+tav pronoun, there is no change in the verb (and with this strategy both bound and coreferential readings are possible!) 2) Direct object is a POSS+tav pronoun, there is a change in the verb 3) Direct object is a simple “tav” pronoun, there is a change in the verb 4) No reflexive pronouns are used, the verb undergoes the change

Every time there is an operation on the verb only bound variable readings are possible. Right now the picture still looks messy – the possible and impossible combinations, not to talk about readings, don’t constitute a consistent system. Things will become better, when we’ll determine what exactly it is that the operation on the verb does.

7 Some informants can use a simple “tav” with the three-argument verbs in colloquial speech, but it seems that structurally it’s still a POSS+tav pronoun just with the possessive pronoun omitted. This intuition arises because when informants get such a sentence without any context, it seems incoherent to them – they either interpret “tavi” as a noun “head” or ask “whose self” do we mean. The same conclusion is argued for in [Amiridze 2006]: “…the POSS can be optional in the complex reflexive phrase POSS+tav- which results in reflexive tav- that stands alone”.

4

III Verbal reflexivization: benefactive reflexive applicative

I propose that the “i” morpheme that is responsible for the reflexivization of predicates does the same thing in all four “strategies”: it introduces an applicative argument bound by the subject into the argument structure. It is obvious that that is what it does only for the case when no reflexive pronouns are used. Consider the following sentences:

(10) me namcxvar-i mo-v-Ø-č’eri I.ACT cake-NOM PVB-1SG-Ø-cut.AOR I cut a cake (11) me namcxvar-i mo-v-i-č’eri I.ACT cake-NOM PVB-1SG-PRV-cut.AOR I cut a cake for myself (12) *me deda-s namcxvar-i mo-v-i-č’eri I.ACT mother-DAT cake-NOM PVB-1SG-PRV-cut.AOR Intended reading: I cut myself a cake for the mother (13) me deda-s namcxvar-i mo-v-u-č’eri I.ACT mother-DAT PVB-1SG-PRV-cut.AOR I cut a cake for the mother

In (10) we see a simple sentence without any benefactive argument, and there’s no preradical vowel at all. In (10) the verb undergoes an operation – the preradical vowel “i” is added to the verb, and a benefactive argument is added to the argument structure. Now the event of cutting the cake includes an agent (“I”), a patient (“cake”) and a benefactive argument that is co-indexed with the agent (“I”). How do we know that this benefactive argument is in the indirect object position? We try to add another indirect object to the sentence. The intended reading is something like “I cut myself a cake for my mother” – for example, one could say so if he doesn’t want a cake, but his mother wants him to have some, so he cuts himself a piece to please his mother. If the benefactive argument “for myself” is not in the indirect object position, there should be no problem with filling this position with another benefactive argument. But as we see from the sentence in (12), it’s ungrammatical. So we conclude that the benefactive argument “i” introduces is in an indirect object position. (13) shows that there was nothing wrong with the sentence (12) apart from the filled indirect object position: the verb “cut” can have an overt benefactive argument, when the place for the indirect object is free. So, we see a bidirectional correlation: when the verb has an argument in the indirect object position (see Table 1), the verb can’t undergo the change, and when the verb has undergone the change, it can’t add a benefactive argument anymore.

What about the other two cases, where the change in the verb co-occurs with one of the reflexive pronouns? It’s not so obvious that what we deal with there is an addition of an applicative argument into the structure. But I’ll try to give some arguments in favor of that. First of all, let’s look at a sentence with both POSS+tav pronoun and the change in the verb:

(14) me [čem-s tav-s] v-i-xatav I.NOM 1PossSg-DAT self-DAT 1SG-PRV-draw.1SG a) I draw MYSELF b) I draw myself in something that belongs to me (for example, in my album) c) I draw myself on something that belongs to me (most frequently, on myself – on my forehead, on my leg etc.)

5

Most informants consider this sentence grammatical, but note that it sounds unnatural and strange without some special context. As we see from the translation, the combination of the operation on the verb and the use of the complex pronoun results in either focused or shifted meaning. My idea is that these strange readings arise because informants try to add one more argument into the argument structure of the verb. It is not clear how a focused reading would be the result, but the readings (14b) and (14c) receive then some explanation: the introduced applicative argument is bound by the subject and interpreted as a possessor of some omitted adjunct DP. Now let’s look at the sentence with a simple “tav” pronoun which opposed to the POSS+tav receives a natural reading (sentence (8) repeated here as (15)):

(15) me tav-s v-i-xatav I.NOM self-DAT 1SG-PRV-draw.1SG I draw myself.

There seems to be no additional argument in the meaning of the sentence, it can’t mean “I draw myself for myself” or anything like that. But I propose that there is an applicative argument in the structure – I think that the introduced argument is interpreted as a possessor of the direct object “tav”. To explain my intuitions about it I’ll have to say a few words about Pylkkänen’s analysis of low recipient applicatives. In her dissertation ([Pylkkänen 2008]) Pylkkänen examines applicative constructions in different languages. And my Georgian material reminded me the co-called “low recipient” applicatives she talks about. She proposes the following structure for them:

As opposed to the high applicatives that add another participant to the event described by the verb (and attach after the VP has been built), in low applicatives the applied argument bears no semantic relation to the verb whatsoever: it bears only transfer of possession relation to the direct object. Note that this analysis doesn’t contradict the binding properties of indirect objects in Georgian: whether the applicative arguments attach at the VP level or right to the direct object, the c-commanding relations would be the same: the subject c-commands the indirect object, the indirect object c-commands the direct object. But why should we think that applicatives in Georgian are “low” and not “high”? Pylkkänen proposes different tests for determining the type of an applicative; I’ll mention the only two I’ve tried on Georgian. First of all, Pylkkänen asserts that it should be impossible for low applicatives to be derived from unergative verbs, because a low applicative can’t appear in a structure that lacks a direct object: low applicative heads denote a relation between the direct object and the indirect object. As we see from (16), the results of this test correspond to our hypothesis: Georgian applicatives can’t be formed from unergative verbs:

(16) *bavšvi i-tamašobs child.NOM PRV-plays Intended reading: “The child plays for himself”

6

The second diagnostic Pylkkänen proposes concerns the semantic type of the verb: she argues that low applicatives can’t be derived from stative verbs, because low applicatives imply a transfer of possession: “…for example, an event of holding a bag does not plausibly result in the bag’s ending up in someone’s possession” ([Pylkkänen 2008]). Let’s look at the Georgian sentence:

(17) *is lursmn-eb-s i-čers he.NOM nail-PL-DAT PRV-holds Intended reading: “He holds nails for himself”

We see that (17) is ungrammatical – it’s impossible to derive an applicative from a in Georgian. I haven’t done some other tests Pylkkänen mentions, because they involve special constructions that one should first work on at least a little bit before using them as tests.

But if what we deal with is a low applicative indeed, then I think the following analysis may be a possible analysis for the simple “tav” strategy: “tavs” has a PRO possessor which is controlled by the applicative object (represented by the “i” morpheme). As a controller, the applicative object bears a role 8 of a possessor too – so what we really get is “ youk paint ik’s self” for the sentence in (15):

This is a very controversial analysis, which I don’t have now enough arguments and data to prove. But it would nicely explain the similarities between two reflexive pronouns, similarity between this strategy (in sentence (15)) and the use of POSS+tav without the verbal change (in sentence (7) repeated here as (18)):

(18) me [čem-s tav-s] v-xatav I.NOM 1PossSg-DAT self-DAT 1SG-draw.1SG I draw myself

Actually, we could think of (15) and (18) as the same strategy: there is a “self”-pronoun “tav” which has a possessor. But if in (18) this possessor is overtly expressed by a lexical item, in (15) it is encoded in the verbal word form by a morpheme “i”.

8 The tree is drawn this way because Georgian is a left-branching language, and I assume that it is left-branching at all levels. But if we would draw it as a right-branching tree, nothing important would change

7

IV The types of the simple “tav” and POSS+tav pronouns

Despite my idea that the simple “tav” and POSS+tav may actually represent the same reflexivization strategy, let’s look at their own properties and their typological characterization. There are different typologies of pronouns – I’ll consider two of them: Reinhart and Reuland’s ([Reinhart&Reuland 1993]) and Kiparsky’s ([Kiparsky 2002]). The applicability of Reinhart and Reuland’s typology of anaphoric expressions to the Georgian material is thoroughly discussed in [Amiridze 2006]. This is the analysis in terms of [R&R1993] Amiridze proposes:

tav- [-R] [-SELF] SE-type POSS+tav [+R] [+SELF] ?

Let’s first look at the properties of the simple “tav” pronoun. It is not specified for person or number – it can have any person or number noun phrase as its antecedent. This means that its lacks the full specification for φ-features, and it makes it [-R]. We also know that it can’t reflexivize a predicate on its own – it needs a change in the verb to do so, that’s why the simple “tav” is [-SELF]. This results in the SE-type anaphor. The complex pronoun POSS+tav, on the other hand, is [+R], because it is specified for person and number features and it bears structural case. It is also [+SELF], because it reflexivizes predicates which are not lexically reflexive. There is no special name for this type of pronouns, because the authors of the Reflexivity theory do not discuss the properties of possessive anaphors (to which POSS+tav belongs), which are nevertheless cross-linguistically widespread. For example, to this type belongs the Greek “o eaftos tu”, as was suggested in such works as [Anagnostopoulou &Everaert 1995], [Everaert&Anagnostopoulou 1997], [Anagnostopoulou &Everaert 1999] and [Everaert 2003].

If we follow the Kiparsky’s approach ([Kiparsky 2002], [Kiparsky 2012]), we have two features to look at. First of all, it is antecedent domain – a domain in which our pronoun should be bound. This feature can have values “locally bound”, “finite bound”, “reflexive”, “referentially dependent”, “referentially independent”. Secondly, it is obviation: a pronoun is obviative iff it has disjoint reference with its co- arguments and non-obviative otherwise. The Georgian reflexive pronouns would have the following characteristics according to the Kiparsky’s approach:

tav- [locally bound] [-obviative] POSS+tav [locally bound] [-obviative]

Both pronouns are locally bound, because they both require an antecedent in the first accessible subject domain (as shown in [Amiridze 2006]). They are both [-obviative], because they don’t have disjoint reference with their co-arguments – they actually must have the same reference as one of their co- arguments. As far as I understand it, Kiparsky’s notion of a reflexive pronoun says nothing about its ability to reflexivize the predicate (as opposed to [Reinhart&Reuland 1993]). In [Kiparsky 2002] he gives the following definition to the reflexive pronouns: “Reflexive pronouns need a syntactic antecedent”. Both Georgian pronouns need syntactic antecedents, so they fit under the definition (although only POSS+tav pronoun can reflexivize the predicate on its own). For Kiparsky’s typology specification for φ-features and the ability to bear a structural case are also irrelevant. So, this leads to a funny result:

8

The simple “tav” and the complex POSS+tav pronouns in Georgian have exactly the same properties according to Kiparsky, but exactly opposite properties according to [Reinhart&Reuland 1993].

I think this different typological characterization is predictable: Kiparsky looks at the argument structure and at the syntactic structure, and they are the same for sentences with POSS+tav and with the simple “tav” (if the things are as I proposed in section III). Reinhart and Reuland, on the other hand, look at the features of lexical items – φ-feature specification of a lexical item, its ability to reflexivize a verb. And they are, of course, different for POSS+tav and the simple “tav”, because with the simple “tav” strategy it is the “i”-morpheme that is responsible for the reflexivization of a predicate and the φ-feature specification (if the latter takes place at all). So, depending on what we look at, POSS+tav and “tav” pronouns have either identical properties or totally different.

V The possible readings

Whenever the verb undergoes the change, only bound readings are possible:

(19) me namcxvar-i mo-v-i-č’eri, da gog-ma-c I.ACT cake-NOM PVB-1SG-PRV-cut.AOR.1SG and Gog-ACT-too I cut a cake for myself, and so did Gogi.

This sentence can’t mean that Gogi also cut a cake for me, it can only mean that Gogi cut a cake for himself. Bound readings are the only possibility for all the cases where the verb acquires “i” morpheme. For example, this is the sentence for the strategy with the simple “tav”:

(20) mxolod šen tav-s i-xatav only you.NOM self-DAT PRV-draw.2SG

The sentence in (20) implies that the others don’t draw themselves; it can’t imply that the others don’t draw “you”. So, for whatever reasons, the benefactive argument which is introduced into the argument structure by the applicative derivation needs to be bound. I could get only two cases where coreferential readings were possible. The first case is when a verb has three arguments and there is a POSS+tav direct object bound by the indirect object. In this case “tavi” has a possessive but not reflexive possessive “misi” (if one uses the reflexive “tavisi” instead, it would be interpreted as bound by the subject):

(21) mxolod šota-s [mis-i tav-i ] vačvene potosurat-ze only Shota-DAT 3PossSg-NOM self-NOM show.AOR.1SG photo.DAT-on ‘I showed only Shota himself on the photo’

This sentence can have two readings: 21a) I didn’t show the others themselves on the photo (bound variable reading) 21b) I didn’t show the others Shota on the photo (coreferential reading) I suspect that the possibility of the coreferential reading may have something to do with the fact that “misi” is not a reflexive possessor, but I don’t know how to verify or formalize this suspicion. The other case where I could get a coreferential reading is when a 2-argument verb that hasn’t undergone the operation has a POSS+tav direct object:

9

(22) mxolod šen [šen-s tav-s] Ø-xatav only you.NOM you-DAT self-DAT Ø-draw.PRES.2SG Only you draw yourself The two possible readings are: 22a) The others don’t draw themselves (bound variable reading) 22b) The others don’t draw you (coreferential reading) I don’t know the reasons why the coreferential reading arises here, but what is interesting is that the possibility of a coreferential reading is what distinguishes this reflexivization strategy from “the simple tav + i” strategy. Take a look at the following sentence:

(23) mxolod šen [tav-s] i-xatav only you.NOM self-DAT PRV-draw.PRES.2SG Only you draw yourself

Here the simple “tav” is used instead and the verb undergoes the operation. But the meaning is the same (and only these two reflexivization strategies have identical meanings) – it looks like there is no semantic difference between (22) and (23). But it turns out that there is –for (22) the coreferential reading is possible, while for (23) it is not: 23a) The others don’t draw themselves (bound variable reading) 23b) *The others don’t draw you (coreferential reading) So, apart from all the similarities between the POSS+tav and the simple “tav” pronouns in syntactic and argument structure, there is a crucial difference in their semantics: the “i” morpheme that goes hand in hand with the simple “tav” makes it receive bound variable readings only, while POSS+tav can sometimes receive a coreferential reading.

VI The problems for building the typology of pronouns

After looking at the Georgian material let’s return back to the problems of a pronouns’ typology. I suppose that it would be hard to formalize the Georgian system in OT terms – but I think it’s not the main problem that the Georgian material posits. Before selecting and ordering restrictions, one needs to decide what he wants to restrict. Do we want to impose restrictions on pronouns as lexical items or on the reflexivization strategies? If we choose the former opportunity (as both Kiparsky and Reinhart&Reuland do), we can’t analyze the Georgian material properly. The system that combines nominal and verbal means of reflexivization just won’t fit in the narrow bounds of a lexical approach. The latter opportunity is frightening and unexplored. I see it this way: we have to talk about reflexivization in terms of constituents in the syntactic representation of the argument structure. It’s a constituent that has such features as [+/-R], [+/-SELF], or needs to be bound in a certain domain, not the lexical item. So, for example, if we assume the simple “tav” analysis I suggested, it is ApplP that is [+R], [+SELF], which is locally bound and [-obviative], not the simple “tav” pronoun. ApplP doesn’t correspond to any lexical item in the sentence – it consists of the “i”-morpheme and the direct object, which are found in different word forms, but on the level of the argument structure they are generated near one another and form a constituent. From my point of view, if we want to account nicely for all the reflexivization phenomena in different languages, we’ll have to depart not from the lexical items, but from the syntactic representation. There’s “no escape from syntax”, as we know.

10

VII References:

1. E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert. How exceptional are nominative anaphors? A case study of Greek. In L. Nash, G. Tsoulas, and A. Zribi-Hertz, editors, Actes du deuxieme colloque Langues et Grammaire 1995, pages 19–32. Department of Language Sciences, Paris VIII, Paris, 1995. 2. E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert. Towards a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions. Linguistic Inquiry, 30:97–119, 1999. 3. Amiridze, Nino. 2006. Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian. Utrecht: LOT International dissertation series 4. Aronson, Howard I. 1990. ‘Georgian: A Reading Grammar; corrected edition’. Slavica Publishers, Inc. 5. Basheleishvili, L.O. 2007. “A textbook of Georgian language”, part I.,IAAS MSU; “Eastern literature” RAS 6. Büring, Daniel. 2004. Binding Theory: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7. M. Everaert and E. Anagnostopoulou. Thematic hierarchies and binding theory: Evidence from Greek. In F. Gorblin, D. Godard, and J.-M. 1997 8. M. Everaert. Reflexivanaphern und Reflexivdomänen. In L. Gunkel, G. Müller, and G. Zifonun, editors, Arbeiten zur Reflexivierung, pages 1–23. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 2003. 9. Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. In More than Words, eds. Ingrid Kaufmann and Barbara Stiebels, 179-226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10. Kiparsky “Greek Anaphora in Gross-Linguistic Perspective”, Journal of Greek Linguistics 12: 84-117, 2012. 11. Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 12. Reinhart and E. Reuland. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24:657–720,1993.

11