Co-referential reciprocals

Scrambling is predicted to be possible in principle unless an interpretable person feature does not precede any uninterpretable person feature.

Supporting evidence is put forward in (146) in which a reciprocal is used as a co-referential item.

When reciprocals are used as a co-referential argument with an R- expression, scrambling is freely allowed as shown below.

(146)a. [Hyeki-wa Mina]ⁱ-ka [seloⁱ-uy nonmwun]-ul ilke-la.

H.-and M.-nom each.other-gen paper-acc read-imp ‘Hyeki and Mina (= hearers) read each other’s paper!’

b. [Seloⁱ-uy nonmwun]-ul^j [Hyeki-wa Mina]ⁱ-ka e^j each.other-gen paper-acc H.-and M.-nom ilke-la.

read-imp

‘Hyeki and Mina (= hearers) read each other’s paper!’

Though the two co-referential elements, Hyeki-wa Mina and selo, are morphologically different from each other, the object which contains selo can move forward through the subject as in (146)b.

This shows that the higher copy of DP² does not causes Person Feature Intervention, as shown in (147). As marked with the dotted box in the tree, the reciprocal selo ‘each other’ does not trigger Person Feature Intervention after scrambling. This proves that selo does not have any interpretable person feature under the proposed analysis.

(147) JP =(146)b

TP J

λ[iPer: 2]

DP² TP

Each other's… No PFI

[uPer: 2]

vP T DP¹

H. and M.-nom VP v

[uPer: 2]

DP² each other’s … Movement [uPer: 2]

Note, however, that reciprocals are distinguished from R-expressions regarding a type of binding. They are treated as a co-referential element with an uninterpretable person feature, just like a non-third person R-expression here. However, they are bound by an antecedent DP, which I will refer to as A-binding, unlike an R-expression bound by a functional head (Jussive, here).

(148)a. * Seloⁱ-ka [[Hyeki-wa Mina]ⁱ-uy nonmwun]-ul ilke-la.

each.other-nom H.-and M.-gen paper-acc read-imp ‘Hyeki and Mina (= hearers) read each other’s paper!’

b. [[Hyeki-wa Mina]ⁱ-uy nonmwun]-ul^j seloⁱ-ka e^j ilke-la.

H.-and M-gen paper-acc each.other-nom read-imp ‘Hyeki and Mina (= hearers) read each other’s paper!’

(148)a is ungrammatical since there are no DP antecedents for selo ‘each other’, but it becomes grammatical when the object is scrambled as in (148)b.

This contrasts with the ungrammatical scrambling data in (119)-(120). As shown in (149), DP¹ can be J-bound without problems under the proposed analysis, so the ungrammaticality of (148)a resides in selo ‘each other’, but not in J-binding.

(149) JP =(148)a TP J

λ[iPer: 2]

vP T DP¹

No PFI each other-nom VP v [uPer: ]

DP² H. and M.’s…

[uPer: 2]

However, when the co-referential R-expression is scrambled before the reciprocal subject, it feeds the A-binding of the reciprocal as in (148)b. Since reciprocals are A-bound by a DP antecedent, the moved DP² with the co- referential R-expression can A-bind the reciprocal DP¹, and give a proper interpretation, as depicted below:

(150) JP =(148)b

TP J

λ[iPer: 2]

DP² TP

H. and M.’s…

[uPer: 2]

vP T DP¹

each other-nom VP v [uPer: 2]

DP² H. and M.’s…

Movement [uPer: 2]

a dotted line = A-binding a solid line = J-binding Apart from the fact that DP¹ can get its reference after the DP² has moved, multiple applications of J-binding are possible due to the absence of an

interpretable person feature. Consequently, all the co-referential arguments can get the same second person value.

Furthermore, reciprocals show a free distribution with a co-referential pronominal element, as well, as long as A-binding is available.

(151)a. Nehuyⁱ-ka [seloⁱ-uy nonmwun]-ul ilke-la. cf. (146) you.pl-nom each.other-gen paper-acc read-imp

‘Read each other’s paper!’

b. [Seloⁱ-uy nonmwun]-ul^j nehuyⁱ-ka e^j ilke-la.

each.other-gen paper-acc you.pl-nom read-imp ‘Read each other’s paper!’

This can be anticipated under my approach because the reciprocal selo with an uninterpretable person feature is licensed by a subject DP nehuy ‘you.pl’, so it is not subject to Person Feature Intervention, which the pronominal subject might induce in (151)a. Also, in (151)b, the reference of selo is maintained after the scrambling. This indicates that A-binding is derivational, contra J-binding, which is representational.

As in the previous R-expression case, the reciprocal subject has to follow a co-referential pronominal.

(152) a. * Seloⁱ-ka [nehuyⁱ-uy nonmwun]-ul ilke-la. cf. (148) each.other-nom you.pl-gen paper-acc read-imp ‘Read each other’s paper!’

b. [Nehuyⁱ-uy nonmwun]-ul^j seloⁱ-ka e^j ilke-la.

you.pl-gen paper-acc each.other-nom read-imp ‘Read each other’s paper!’

(152)a is ungrammatical because the reciprocal selo is unlicensed, as in (148)a.

In contrast, (152)b becomes grammatical as the result of scrambling of the object since the nehuy ‘you.pl’ inside the moved argument can A-bind the

reciprocal selo ‘each other’. This is the property of A-binding as mentioned above. Although selo bears an uninterpretable person feature like a co- referential R-expression, selo is properly bound by movement, unlike the R- expression.¹³⁶

This subsection implies that there are two types of binding depending on an antecedent: DP vs. Jussive. Kratzer (2009) convincingly argues that a variable (fake indexical) is bound by a functional head, not by a nominal antecedent. However, (148)b and (152)b show that a reciprocal selo ‘each other’ is bound by DP, and object scrambling feeds ordinary A-binding. The different properties of J-binding and A-binding prove the two types of binding, contrasting between a functional head and a maximal projection.

4.4.2. Unexpected movement: Rightward dislocation and