2.1 Inalienability and implicit arguments of RNs

We define RNs strictly as nouns which have an extra possessor argument. In other words, the relational meaning comes from RNs’ lexical meaning (Barker Reference Barker1995). This type of RNs is called inherent RNs in Partee’s terminology (Partee & Borschev Reference Partee, Borschev, Lang, Maienborn and Fabricius-Hansen2003, Partee Reference Partee2004, but see Asudeh Reference Asudeh2005 for a broader definition). This is because this type of RNs have in their lexical meaning an inherent (implicit) argument, from which the RNs obtain their reference.

Regarding the semantic and syntactic representation of the implicit argument of RNs, previous studies in formal semantics agree that the implicit argument of RNs in general should be a pronominal variable, although it is still under debate whether this implicit argument is syntactically projected. One line of research including Partee (Reference Partee, van Benthem and Meulen1983/1997) proposes an ‘inherent R’ to connect the implicit argument of RNs with another entity in the context (see also Vikner & Jensen Reference Vikner and Jensen2002 and Asudeh Reference Asudeh2005). This inherent R can connect the implicit argument to an entity salient in the context, which suggests that the implicit argument is pronominal. In that approach, this pronominal argument is not syntactically projected, but is instead only a semantic variable. Another line of research, including Stanley (Reference Stanley2000, Reference Stanley2002, Reference Stanley2004), Stanley & Szabó (Reference Stanley and Szabó2000) and Martí (Reference Martí2006, Reference Martí2015), maintains the semantic-approach view that the implicit argument of an RN can link or refer to a salient entity in the context, but argues that this implicit arguments must be syntactically projected. In Stanley’s (Reference Stanley2000, Reference Stanley2002, Reference Stanley2004) approach, as long as an implicit argument has an effect on the truth-condition of an assertion, the argument must be present at LF, which is the ‘real structure’ of the assertion. Given that LF is where syntactic structures are interpreted, it follows that if an implicit argument has an effect on the truth-conditions of an assertion, it must also be present in the syntactic structure.

However, the syntactic presence of the implicit argument of inalienable RNs (primarily BPNs and KNs, and sometimes part–whole relations) is less controversial in previous studies. A wide range of studies on inalienable nouns across languages share the conclusion that inalienable nouns are associated with a syntactically present inalienable possessor as their inherent implicit argument (e.g. Alexiadou Reference Alexiadou2003 for Greek; Ritter & Rosen Reference Ritter and Rosen2014 for Blackfoot; Huang, Li & Li Reference Huang, Li and Li2009 and Niu Reference Niu2016, among other studies that we return to in the next section, for Mandarin Chinese; and Guéron Reference Guéron, Guéron, Obenauer and Pollock1985, Reference Guéron2003, Vergnaud & Zubizarreta Reference Vergnaud and Zubizarreta1992, and Nakamoto Reference Nakamoto2010, for French; see Chappell & McGregory Reference Chappell and McGregory1996 and Coene & D’hulst Reference Coene and D’hulst2003 for various other languages).

Body-part terms in French can be used without an explicit local possessor directly attached to them. Guéron (Reference Guéron, Guéron, Obenauer and Pollock1985) argues that the syntactic constraints on inalienable BPNs in French, as listed in (3), are essentially the same as those on anaphoric binding.

We will show in this paper that bare inalienable RNs in Chinese have similar properties regarding the requirement for a c-commanding possessor, although BPNs and KNs in Chinese split into two classes regarding their partially distinct locality requirements for this possessor antecedent.

2.2 Chinese inalienable RNs

It has been noted that inalienable RNs can occur in some special constructions in Chinese. Chappell (Reference Chappell, Chappell and McGregor1996) discusses RNs in so called ‘double subject constructions’, exemplified in (4) (the structure projections are added by us).

The observation is that inside VP1 there is another ‘subject’ argument in addition to the regular subject ta ‘s/he’. Importantly, the third person singular pronoun ta and the BPN yanjing ‘eye’ must be in an inalienable possession relation, that is, the eye must be hers/his, whoever the pronoun ta ‘s/he’ refers to, and not someone else’s.

Notice that the two subjects are not necessarily adjacent to each other, as shown in (5a).

In fact, the possessor can be implicit, linking to a referent established in the previous clause (5b), a possibility that we will address in our final discussion, after laying out our analysis of inalienable RNs. Therefore, Chappell (Reference Chappell, Chappell and McGregor1996) suggests that the implicit possessor in such cases is a zero anaphor. Her corpus analysis further suggests that it must refer to an element within two clauses in the preceding context.

Cheng & Ritter (Reference Cheng and Ritter1987: 72) provide an analysis for another type of inalienable possession construction, as in (6a), with the corresponding syntactic structure shown in (6b).

Cheng & Ritter (Reference Cheng and Ritter1987) assume that an empty anaphor, e in (6b), is projected inside the complex nominal NP1 and is bound by the complement of ba, juzi ‘orange’. Cheng & Ritter (Reference Cheng and Ritter1987) also assume that ba is a preposition that assigns the theta-role of affected theme to its complement. This complement ‘weak[ly] c-commands’ the anaphor since the node immediately dominating it c-commands the anaphor (Huang Reference Huang1982: 373). Although they provide no details regarding how the inalienable possessive relation comes into place between the null anaphor and the BPN pi ‘skin’, Cheng & Ritter (Reference Cheng and Ritter1987) seem to consider the null anaphor an argument of the BPN, which they treat as a predicate.

The idea of taking the argument of an inalienable BPN as an anaphoric element is preserved in Huang et al.’s (Reference Huang, Li and Li2009: 140–147) discussion of still another type of possessive construction, the ‘possessive passive’ construction, as in (7).

They assume that bei is a predicate that selects an experiencer subject Zhangsan and an IP denoting an event. The IP has an adjunct null operator OP controlled by the subject. For them, this control relation is realized under bei- predication. The OP, in turn, moves from the outer object of the VP dasi-le Pro baba, leaving a trace in the specifier of that VP. This trace, i.e. the VP specifier, is assigned the role affectee by the V'. Finally, the trace of the OP controls the null Pro, which is the possessor of the inalienable RN baba ‘father’.

Huang et al. (Reference Huang, Li and Li2009) do not explain what a Pro is in their account, but refer readers back to Huang (Reference Huang, Jaeggli and Safir1989). Huang (Reference Huang, Jaeggli and Safir1989) discusses two types of empty categories, pro and PRO, so ‘Pro’ must be one of them. Huang (Reference Huang, Jaeggli and Safir1989: 193) proposes that both pro and PRO are subject to a Generalized Control Rule, which implies that these two types of empty categories must be controlled in their control domain. The Generalized Control Rule and the control domain are respectively very similar to Binding Condition A and the binding domain in Chomsky (Reference Chomsky1981, Reference Chomsky1986), suggesting that the Pro associated with the inalienable nouns in ‘possessive passive’ constructions such as (7) are treated similarly to a (locally-bound) anaphor.

Unlike the studies above, Niu (Reference Niu2016) assumes that the implicit argument of RNs, specifically KNs, is a null pro that is realized independently of whether there is an overt possessor (e.g. a pronoun) in the structure. Niu’s syntactic structure for ta baba ‘her/his father’ is in (8).

Niu (Reference Niu2016) proposes that in (8), the null pro agrees with the pronoun, which occupies the D head. Unfortunately, Niu (Reference Niu2016) does not explain why the null argument of KNs must be a pro. Since pro usually stands for a null pronoun, it is reasonable to assume that Niu treats it as a pronoun rather than a reflexive. Niu (Reference Niu2016: 60) also argues that BPNs do not have an implicit argument and are not RNs, contrary to what we will show in this paper. Finally, she restricts her analysis to what she refers to as juxtaposed possessives, such as ta baba ‘her/his father’ in (8), in which the possessor is overtly realized by a pronominal element with the DP projection of the RN.

In sum, Chappell (Reference Chappell, Chappell and McGregor1996), Cheng & Ritter (Reference Cheng and Ritter1987), Huang et al.’s (Reference Huang, Li and Li2009) and Niu (Reference Niu2016) treat the empty category associated with inalienable RNs in Chinese either as an anaphor which co-indexes with an antecedent (possibly through binding or control),Footnote ⁶ or as a pronoun (normally a pro) which agrees and co-refers with its antecedent. Therefore, the syntactic nature of the implicit argument of RNs remains controversial. In addition, these studies examine only special possessive constructions such as double subject constructions, ba- constructions and bei- constructions, which seem to involve special theta-role assignments. For instance, the double subject constructions have two ‘agents’, and ba- and bei- constructions include an affectee or an experiencer that is related to the possessor of the inalienable RN. These constructions are not ideal for the study of implicit arguments of RNs, because in addition to binding/agreement/control, possessor raising/movement can also be involved, obscuring the syntactic nature of the implicit argument. Finally, and importantly, previous studies also do not recognize important syntactic differences between the implicit arguments of two types of inalienable RNs, namely BPNs and KNs, as we will do in this paper.

Therefore, we turn our attention back to inalienable RNs that occur as bare nouns heading an NP, as we specify below, which provide us cleaner empirical basis to investigate the syntactic nature of the implicit argument of RNs.

3.1 Bare BPNs bear locally bound reflexive arguments

If the hypothesis that bare RNs have a reflexive argument is on the right track, a question immediately comes up: do body-part and kinship RNs have the same type of implicit reflexive argument? This question is important because Chinese has two types of reflexives, morphologically complex reflexives pronoun-ziji (e.g. ta-ziji ‘her-/him-self’) and morphologically simple reflexives (ziji ‘self’). Complex reflexives are similar to English reflexives which must be locally bound in the minimal TP (or DP) with an accessible subject, where the reflexive is located (Chomsky Reference Chomsky1986, Huang et al. Reference Huang, Li and Li2009; see Yu Reference Yu1996 and Pan Reference Pan1998 for exceptions).Footnote ⁸ On the other hand, the simple reflexive is a long-distance bound reflexive which allows a c-commanding antecedent in a higher TP. We show in this subsection that the implicit argument of BPNs shares with complex reflexives the requirement that both must be locally bound, whereas in Section 3.2 we show that the implicit argument of KNs behaves like the simple reflexive since both can be long-distance bound.

An important note should be made before we proceed: although we will argue that the implicit argument of BPNs is a locally bound reflexive, we do not commit to the conclusion that the implicit reflexive argument in this case must be a complex reflexive. The only reason we relate the implicit argument of BPNs to complex reflexives is because both happen to be locally bound (in canonical contexts).

Similar to complex reflexives, the implicit argument of bare BPNs in Chinese must be c-commanded and locally bound by its antecedent. In (17a) Zhangsan but not Lisi can be the antecedent of the implicit possessor argument of the BPN tui ‘leg’ because the former c-commands tui but the latter does not. Substituting tui with a complex reflexive ta-ziji ‘her-/him-self’ leads to the same restriction (17b).

The structure in (18a) shows that shou ‘hand’ must be locally bound, allowing only the local subject Lisi as its antecedent.

This is similar to (18b), where a complex reflexive possessor is inserted before shou and the same interpretation is obtained. If we instead insert a simple reflexive ziji ‘self’ as the possessor in (18c), the sentence has a different interpretation; (18c) is now ambiguous in that the simple reflexive can be locally or long-distance bound.

3.2 KNs bear long-distance bound reflexive arguments

We have shown that BPNs bear a locally bound reflexive argument, now let us test KNs. If KNs had a locally bound reflexive argument, we would expect them to have the same distribution as BPNs. However, if KNs instead have a long-distance reflexive as their implicit argument, then we expect it to have the core, if not all, syntactic properties of the long-distance simple reflexive ziji. This latter prediction is borne out: the implicit argument of KNs shows the binding properties of a simple reflexive. In order to compare KNs with simple reflexives, we examine the syntactic properties in (19).

The list of properties in (19) have been identified as the most important syntactic characteristics of Chinese simple reflexives in the literature (e.g. Huang & Tang Reference Huang, Tang, Koster and Reuland1991, Cole & Sung Reference Cole and Sung1994, Xue, Pollard & Sag Reference Xue, Pollard, Sag, Aranovich, Byrne, Preuss and Senturia1994, Pan Reference Pan2001, Wang & Pan Reference Wang and Pan2015; see also Charnavel et al. Reference Charnavel, Huang, Cole, Hermon, Everaert and van Riemsdijk2017 for a comprehensive review). We have already shown the c-command requirement at the beginning of Section 3; below we focus on the three other properties.

3.2.1 Long-distance binding

Fuqin ‘father’ in (20a) can be either John’s or Tom’s father, which means that the implicit argument of father can be either locally or long-distance bound. We find that the interpretation is the same as (20b), where an overt simple reflexive is inserted as the possessor of the KN, unlike (20c), where a complex reflexive is added as the possessor.

The examples in (21) provide additional evidence showing a clear contrast between BPNs and KNs, because the two sentences differ minimally regarding whether a BPN or a KN is involved (as boldfaced). We find that the implicit possessor argument requires local binding with the BPN in (21a), but allows either local or long-distance binding with the KN in (21b).

3.2.2 Subject orientation

Although any NP that c-commands ziji can in principle be taken as its antecedent, there is a strong preference to take the subject rather than the object as the antecedent (Huang Reference Huang1982, but see Huang et al. Reference Huang, Li and Li2009 for exceptions). For example, in (22a), ziji refers to the subject Zhangsan rather than the object Lisi. Both Zhangsan and Lisi c-command ziji, so it is surprising that only Zhangsan can be taken as the antecedent of ziji. We do not see such a strong subject-orientation effect for the complex reflexive (22b), but the pattern for KNs is similar to that of the simple reflexive (22c).Footnote ⁹

On the other hand, (23a) shows that the BPN lian ‘face’ is not subject-oriented. (23b) further shows that the interpretation is similar to the overt complex reflexive possessor case, which is also not subject-oriented, rather than the overt simple reflexive possessor case.

3.2.3 Blocking effects

Further evidence for the contrast between BPNs and KNs regarding their local vs. long-distance binding, respectively, comes from a comparison of BPNs and KNs in their syntactic behavior regarding blocking effects, another well-known syntactic property of long-distance reflexives (Huang & Tang Reference Huang, Tang, Koster and Reuland1991, Xue et al. Reference Xue, Pollard, Sag, Aranovich, Byrne, Preuss and Senturia1994, Pan Reference Pan2001).

It has long been noticed that first- and second-person pronouns can block third-person NPs from long-distance binding of ziji. (24a) reveals that in general, any c-commanding third person nouns can be the antecedent of ziji. However, in (24b), although Yuehan ‘John’, wo ‘I’, ni ‘you’, and Tangmu ‘Tom’ all c-command ziji and are all in principle possible antecedents, only the lowest c-commanding NP, Tangmu can serve as the antecedent. This is because the first- or second-person pronoun prevents the reflexive from taking the first NP Yuehan ‘John’ as its antecedent (see Charnavel et al. Reference Charnavel, Huang, Cole, Hermon, Everaert and van Riemsdijk2017 and references therein for competing explanations of the blocking effect).

Crucially, similar blocking effects are observed with the implicit argument of KNs. For instance, when we replace the simple reflexive ziji with the KN erzi ‘son’, exactly the same contrast as in (24a, b) is detected between (25a, b).

3.3 Some other contrasts between BPNs and KNs

We have shown that the implicit arguments of body-part and kinship RNs are different in that the former must be locally bound whereas the latter can be either locally or long-distance bound. In this section, we would like to directly contrast BPNs and KNs in other special circumstances. As in English, a DP with an accessible subject, e.g. a nominalized DP (26) or a relative clause (27), is a binding domain in Chinese, and it will block long-distance binding outside the local binding domain of a BPN as in (26a) and (27a), but not that of a KN as in (26b) and (27b).

Finally, reconstruction provides another way to distinguish the implicit argument of BPNs from that of KNs. Similar to English reflexives (Huang Reference Huang1993, Heycock Reference Heycock1995), we expect the reflexive argument of BPNs and KNs to be subject to reconstruction. This prediction is borne out. We use the lian … dou ‘even … all’ focus construction to front the phrase with KNs or BPNs. As we can see in (28a, b), reconstruction occurs both with the fronted fuqin ‘father’ and lian ‘face’ (the elided lower copies are indicated by strikethroughs in the examples), resulting in the interpretation where Lisi binds the fronted KN and the BPN, although it does not c-command them in the surface form.

However, notice that there is also a clear difference between KNs and BPNs in (28a, b). In (28a), the implicit possessor argument of the KN fuqin ‘father’ can be bound by Zhangsan, an antecedent outside of the local CP. This is a property of long-distance binding. On the other hand, long-distance binding in this case is not possible with the BPN (28b).

We further notice that if a simple reflexive is inserted as the possessor before the KN in (28a), as shown in (29a), long-distance binding is still possible. On the other hand, long-distance binding is not available, just like in (28b), if we insert a complex reflexive as the possessor before the BPN (29b).

In sum, we have shown in this section that in Chinese the implicit argument shows local binding properties in BPNs, akin to the complex reflexive ta-ziji, and long-distance binding properties in KNs, akin to the simple reflexive ziji ‘self’.

4.1 Blocking effects

One such diagnostic is blocking effects in reflexive binding. Huang et al. (Reference Huang, Li and Li2009: Chapter 9) consider blocking effects a result of invalid shifts in perspectives. They thus predict that blocking effects occur only with long-distance reflexives, not with locally bound, non-logophoric ziji. This prediction is justified by the contrast in (30).

In (30a), the first- and second-person pronouns wo/ni ‘I/you’ prevent the reflexive from taking the long-distance NP Yuehan ‘John’ as its antecedent, whereas such blocking effect is absent with the locally bound reflexive in (30b).

In parallel, (31a) indicates that when the implicit argument of the KN erzi ‘son’ is locally bound, it is also not subject to blocking effects, although we have also seen in Section 3.2 that KNs exhibit blocking effects when they are long-distance bound.Footnote ¹⁴ Comparatively, as demonstrated by (31b), BPNs, like locally bound reflexives, are also exempt from blocking effects.

4.2 Sub-command effects

Sub-command effects, another diagnostic of logophoric use, reveal another disassociation between BPN non-logophors and KN logophors. Sub-command effects are a typical syntactic property of both the simple and complex reflexive in Chinese. Take (32) as an example, in which Zhangsan sub-commands the reflexives because it is at the specifier of a possessive phrase that c-commands the reflexive. Although Zhangsan does not c-command the reflexive, the sub-command relation suffices for it to be the antecedent of the reflexives because the possessee (jiao’ao ‘pride’) is inanimate.Footnote ¹⁵

Charnavel & Huang’s (Reference Charnavel, Huang, Hracs and Storoshenko2018) grammaticality judgment experiments indicate a correlation between sub-command effects and logophoricity. In addition, inanimate anaphors (anaphors that are bound by inanimate antecedents), which lack a mental state, are incompatible with logophoricity (see also Charnavel & Sportiche Reference Charnavel and Sportiche2016). Charnavel & Huang (Reference Charnavel, Huang, Hracs and Storoshenko2018: 140) find that inanimate anaphors also do not exhibit sub-command effects (33), confirming that sub-command effects are an artifact of logophoricity.

Below we present two additional pieces of evidence to support the argument that sub-command is an artifact of logophoricity.

We notice further that, unlike regular bound reflexives, sub-commanded reflexives cannot be reconstructed. For example, we focalize the sub-commanded reflexive in (32) over its antecedent, as in (34).

In this case, the reflexive cannot be reconstructed to its original position and be bound by the antecedent, although we showed in Section 3.3 that regularly bound reflexives do exhibit reconstruction effects in the same context. The absence of reconstruction effects further underpins Charnavel & Huang’s (Reference Charnavel, Huang, Hracs and Storoshenko2018) argument that sub-command effects are not regular binding and they signal logophoric uses.

In parallel, we also observe that KNs exhibit sub-command effects but BPNs do not, as illustrated in (35) and (36b), respectively.

The main difficulty our consultants have with (36a, b) is that they were not clear about who the possessors of the BPNs are. However, if an overt pronoun possessor is inserted right before the BPN, these two examples become perfectly acceptable. Therefore, KNs are compatible with logophoricity regarding the sub-command possibility, but BPNs are not.

Notice that a subset of native speakers reported that they accepted both (36a, b). However, the majority of these speakers got an arbitrary interpretation of the BPNs in (36), but not for the KNs in (35). That is, jiao ‘foot’ and shouzhi ‘finger’ in (36) can be a foot or a finger of someone other than Zhangsan; however, fuqin ‘father’ and didi ‘younger brother’ in (35) can only be Zhangsan’s father or younger brother. With the arbitrary interpretation, the BPNs can be any person’s body parts (including Zhangsan’s). Further evidence for the arbitrary interpretation of BPNs in (36) comes from (37).

All speakers we consulted found a distinction between these two reconstruction sentences. It is expected that (37a) is not acceptable, as we have seen in (34) that sub-command generally cannot be reconstructed. Consequently, our consultants complained that the reference of didi 'younger brother' was unclear, and they would like to add a pronominal possessor before it if it meant to refer to Zhangsan's brother. Why then is (37b) good? Consistent with our explanation of (36), we suggest that this is because jiao ‘foot’ is interpreted as a non-RN, receiving an arbitrary interpretation, although pragmatically Zhangsan is a more salient possessor. In the case of this arbitrary interpretation, the implicit argument of the BPN is arguably suppressed (Barker Reference Barker1995) or saturated (Zhang Reference Zhang2009) (see also footnote 6 above), thus not requiring to be bound by an antecedent.

4.3 VP ellipsis

VP ellipsis is another test that can help us tease apart logophoric and anaphoric properties. Reuland (Reference Reuland2001) proposes that logophoric use is a kind of pronominal use (see also Bouchard Reference Bouchard1982: 78; Cole, Hermon & Huang Reference Cole, Hermon and Huang2001: xvii). Anaphoric and logophoric reflexives are therefore predicted to be in complementary distribution, because the logophoric use is blocked in instances in which the anaphor can be locally bound. Huang & Liu (Reference Huang and Liu2001) apply this hypothesis to Chinese and suggest that long-distance reflexives in Chinese are logophors, different from locally bound reflexives. If this hypothesis is on track, we expect that long-distance reflexives should share certain properties with pronouns that are not observed with locally-bound anaphors. In support of this connection, we will show below that Chinese long-distance reflexives elided inside a VP will result in a strict reading in addition to a sloppy reading, a property shared with pronouns, contrary to what has been assumed in some previous studies (e.g. Cole et al. Reference Cole, Hermon and Huang2001, Huang & Liu Reference Huang and Liu2001, Charnavel et al. Reference Charnavel, Huang, Cole, Hermon, Everaert and van Riemsdijk2017).

In Section 3, we pointed out that VP ellipsis of locally bound reflexives allows the sloppy reading but not the strict reading, whereas VP ellipsis of pronouns allows either reading. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that long-distance bound reflexives under VP ellipsis, like pronouns, lead to either the strict or the sloppy readings. However, Cole et al. (Reference Cole, Hermon and Huang2001) and Huang & Liu (Reference Huang and Liu2001) suggest that this prediction is incorrect, and argue that logophoric reflexives do not give rise to a strict reading. Their examples in (38a, b) show that only the sloppy reading is available for both sentences. The corresponding sloppy readings are in (39a, b), respectively.

This is quite surprising, as it has been shown that long-distance reflexives lead to both strict and sloppy readings under VP ellipsis, in languages such as English (Lebeaux Reference Lebeaux1985, Hicks Reference Hicks2009), as illustrated in (40a), where the possible interpretations of pictures of himself in the elided VP are listed following the sentence. By contrast, locally bound reflexives in English exhibit only the sloppy reading (40b).

It is an open question as to why the sloppy reading is the dominant reading, if not the only reading, for the elided reflexives in (38a, b), but we argue that the unavailability of the strict reading in such cases should not be sufficient to rule out the idea that logophoric reflexives share properties with pronouns. It seems the strict reading is dispreferred in such examples due to independent reasons that remain unclear to us. In fact, if we replace the reflexive with a pronoun and keep everything else unchanged, the sloppy reading is still the dominant reading. Take (38a) as an example. If the reflexive is substituted by a pronoun, as in (41), the dominant reading for the elided VP is still the sloppy reading in (39b).Footnote ¹⁶

This suggests that the long-distance bound reflexive could still have pronoun properties, since the sloppy reading is still the dominant reading (or the only one accessible for a subset of speakers) even when a pronoun ta ‘him’ is used in these specific contexts.

Crucially, we would like to further point out that a confounding factor has obscured the test: Cole et al. (Reference Cole, Hermon and Huang2001) and Huang & Liu (Reference Huang and Liu2001) do not distinguish matrix and embedded VP ellipsis in the cases they considered. Take (38a) again. Either the matrix VP (42a) or the embedded VP (42b) can be potentially elided. This confounding factor might have concealed some interpretations of the sentences.Footnote ¹⁷

Indeed, we found that matrix and embedded VP ellipses lead to different interpretations. For the embedded VP ellipsis, we utilize ye/que shi ‘also/yet is’ to elicit VP ellipsis (Xu Reference Xu2003, Soh Reference Soh2007, Wei Reference Wei2009, Li & Wei Reference Li, Wei, Huang, Li and Simpson2014), like Cole et al. (Reference Cole, Hermon and Huang2001) and Huang & Liu (Reference Huang and Liu2001), but now unambiguously targeting the embedded VP. As exemplified in (43), when the reflexive ziji is locally bound by Zhangsan, only the sloppy reading (44a) is possible.

This is an example of VP ellipsis with a locally bound reflexive which leads to the sloppy reading but not the strict reading, as expected. Since what we are interested in are actually long-distance bound reflexives, we will ignore the locally bound reading in what follows. However, when the reflexive is long-distance bound by Lin Jiaoshou ‘Prof. Lin’ in (43), both the strict (45b) and the sloppy readings (45a) are available; to some speakers, the strict reading is actually preferred.

If we replace the reflexive with a pronoun, as indicated in (43), in accordance with our expectation, we can access either the sloppy or the strict reading in (45), similar to the long-distance bound reflexive.

A test using focused negation yi-dian ye bu ‘not at all’ (see Hsieh Reference Hsieh2001 and Soh Reference Soh2007) arrives at the same conclusion:

The use of the focused negation requires a contrastive context, and this requirement leads to a strong preference for the strict reading in (46).

For matrix VP ellipsis, since Chinese does not have a verbal pro-form equivalent to do in English as in do so, we use constructions with modals (e.g. hui ‘will’) as the licenser targeting matrix VP ellipsis (see Xu Reference Xu2003, Li & Wei Reference Li, Wei, Huang, Li and Simpson2014). The reflexives contained in the elided VP in (47) have the sloppy reading (48b) as their dominant reading, corresponding to the sloppy reading observed in (38) by Cole et al. (Reference Cole, Hermon and Huang2001) and Huang & Liu (Reference Huang and Liu2001). In such cases the strict reading (48a) is either dispreferred or inaccessible to speakers.

However, even if we consider that the strict reading is inaccessible in (47), it does not follow that long-distance bound reflexives lack pronoun properties, because if we replace the reflexive with a pronoun (49), the dominant interpretation is still the sloppy reading (48b).

Furthermore, in a proper context, the strict reading for (47) becomes more prominent. Sentences such as (47), copied below as (51), are more natural with contexts asserting the antecedent of the conditional, because they usually describe the consequent of certain conditional statements. If we now add such a context that favors the strict reading, as in (50), both a reflexive as (51) and a pronoun (53) in the elided VPs can lead to the strict reading in (52) (identical to (48a)).

A summary of the results of the VP ellipsis test is provided in Table 1. In sum, when the embedded VP is elided, the strict reading is the primary interpretation, although the sloppy reading is also available, especially under appropriate contexts; however, when the matrix VP is elided, both readings are available, and to some speakers the strict reading is preferred. The ambiguity in both cases would be compatible with VP ellipsis properties of a pronoun argued for logophors. Although the cause of these preferences remains unclear, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that locally bound reflexives are ‘plain’ anaphors, whereas long-distance (LD in Table 1) reflexives, as logophors, share properties with pronouns.

Table 1

Interpretations of the elided reflexives and pronouns in matrix and embedded VP ellipsis. Corresponding examples’ numbers are provided in parentheses; LD = long distance.

After addressing the relevant issues concerning the use of VP ellipsis as a test for logophors in Chinese, let us return to the distinction between locally bound and long-distance bound implicit arguments of KNs.Footnote ²⁰ If our analysis so far is on the right track, additional tests should set the two types of RNs apart by relating the long-distance bound implicit argument of KNs to logophors and the locally bound implicit argument of KNs (as well as that of BPNs) to locally bound reflexives. For KNs, we find exactly the same interpretations in the four cases of VP ellipsis we examined for the simple reflexive. (54) is an example where the matrix VP is elided.

As in the case of reflexives, we should put aside the irrelevant case where the KN, fuqin ‘father’, is locally bound by Lin Jiaoshou ‘Professor Lin’. When the KN implicit argument is long-distance bound by Zhangsan, the dominant reading is the strict reading (55a), and the sloppy reading (55b) is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.

As we observed for reflexives, if we use the auxiliary hui ‘will’ to induce VP ellipsis (56), then the opposite result occurs: the sloppy reading is preferred, and the strict reading is degraded. Substituting the KN with a pronoun does not change this preference.

With the embedded VP ellipsis constructions, as in (58), if the implicit argument of the KN in the antecedent is locally bound by Lin Jiaoshou ‘Prof. Lin’, the only accessible interpretation is the sloppy reading in (59b); the strict reading (59a) is not possible.

But if the KN implicit argument is long-distance bound by Zhangsan, both readings are possible; to some speakers the strict reading (60a) is actually dominant, and the sloppy reading (60b) is degraded, showing that the elided long-distance bound KN leads to both the strict and the sloppy reading, behaving like a pronoun.

The contrast between locally bound and long-distance bound implicit possessors of KNs, on a par with the contrast we observed between locally and long-distance bound reflexives, reinforces other results in this paper: (i) the implicit argument of KNs bears syntactic properties that are similar to the simple reflexive in Chinese; (ii) reflexives and the implicit possessor arguments of KNs that are long-distance bound are different from their locally bound counterparts in that the former are logophors and share properties with pronouns under VP ellipsis.

In sum, both the implicit argument of BPNs and that of KNs can be locally bound anaphors, but these two types of implicit argument differ in that, when local binding does not take place, the latter can be a logophor, but the former cannot.Footnote ²¹

The null arguments of BPNs and KNs thus correspond to the locally bound reflexive ta-ziji ‘herself/himself/itself’ and the long-distance reflexive ziji ‘self’ in Chinese in terms of their interpretations, respectively. Note that the null argument of BPNs can be replaced by an overt non-locally bound reflexive (as in ziji de shou ‘self’s hand’) or a referential DP, and the null argument of KNs can be replaced by an overt non-long-distance bound reflexive (as in ta-ziji de fuqin ‘his own father’) or a referential DP.Footnote ²² However, if the arguments are null, the bare RNs will end up getting the ‘default’ interpretations: for BPNs, the null argument will be interpreted as a locally bound reflexive, and for KNs, long-distance reflexive.Footnote ²³ The reader may wonder where these default interpretations are originated from. In the next section, we will briefly discuss three reasons that might have caused the distinctive default interpretations of BPNs and KNs.