In this section I consider to which extent triple indices can also be used in binding phenomena that involve reflexives. As (173) shows, Dutch has two anaphors, the simplex anaphor zich (‘self’) and the complex anaphor zichzelf (‘him/herself’); both express coreference with their antecedent:
The presence of daar (the emphatic variant of er) is traditionally accounted for by assuming the presence of an empty locative preposition like in (‘in’) preceding Amsterdam. In LDL-configurations such as (i), Dutch allows preposition drop. The presence of a P is assumed because normally daar cannot refer to DPs:
(ii) * Amsterdam, daar ken ik niet. Amsterdam there know I not
However, regarding (i), it could also be suggested that the presence of daar is forced by a locative index on the DP Amsterdam, which then licenses the referential pronoun daar. I will not pursue such an analysis, however, because I would like to claim that all DPs have a locative variable, and not just the locative DPs.
75Note that the proximal forms have a high vowel (with a high second formant) and the distal forms have
a low vowel (with a low second formant). This correspondence between sound and meaning appears to be a strong cross-linguistic tendency, and has been argued to be sound-symbolic in nature (see e.g. Hinton et al. 1994). Other examples are Dutch hier/daar and Italian qui/qua.
(173) Harry(x,t,l) verdedigt zich(zelf)(x,t,l).
Harry defends himself ‘Harry defends himself.’
The interpretation of anaphors is regulated by principle A of the binding theory, which says that an anaphor must be bound in its governing category (see for instance Chomsky 1981). As expected, (173) therefore involves not only coreference at the pronominal level, but also at the temporal level, given that there is a single temporal domain, and at the spatial level. In other words, anaphors in this configuration do not present a challenge to my formalisation of binding in terms of a triple index. Note that it would appear as though in (173) zich and zichzelf are interchangeable. However, it has been noted that in other contexts the use of the simplex or complex anaphor brings with it a difference in interpretation (see Voskuil & Wehrmann 1990ab and Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd 1997). Consider the example in (174):
(174) Münchhausen trok zich(zelf) uit het moeras.
Münchhausen pulled self/himself out of the swamp
‘Münchhausen pulled himself out of the swamp.’ (Voskuil & Wehrmann 1990ab)
When zich is selected, the sentence has an interpretation in which Münchhausen pulled himself out of the swamp by holding on to (say) a branch or rope. In the case of zichzelf, the sentence has a reading that corresponds to Münchhausen’s own story, in which he removed himself from the swamp by pulling at his own hair. The latter interpretation is the result of what Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd refer to as the “duplication” or “Doppelgänger” effect: here Münchhausen is both the puller and “pullee”. (175) presents a clearer case of the duplication effect; note that here zich is in fact excluded:
(175) Dorian Gray zag zichzelf/*zich op het schilderij zoals hij werkelijk
Dorian Gray saw himself on the painting as he really
was. was
‘Dorian Gray saw himself in the painting as he really was.’ (Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd 1997:2)
Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd claim that a duplication reading is most prominent in contexts where a spatio-temporal distance between the subject and the anaphor is implied.
(176) a. Hermelien zag zich/zichzelf in de spiegel.
Hermione saw self/herself in the mirror ‘Hermione saw herself in the mirror.’
b. Hermelien zag ?zich/zichzelf op de foto. Hermione saw self/herself in the picture ‘Hermione saw herself in the picture.’
(176a) involves simultaneity of viewer and “viewee”, and both zich and zichzelf are allowed. However, viewing oneself in a picture, painting or on, say, a video recording, as in (176b), implies a temporal distance between viewer and “viewee”. In such cases speakers display a strong preference for zichzelf.
The question arises whether a duplication reading should be accounted for in terms of triple binding. In other words, should the Doppelgänger effect (which involves by its very nature a Doppelgänger of the subject that is at another location than the subject itself) be assigned the following syntactic representation?
(177) Dorian Gray(x,t,l) zag zichzelf(x,t,p)/*zich op het schilderij zoals
Dorian Gray saw himself on the painting as
hij werkelijk was. he really was
‘Dorian Gray saw himself in the painting as he really was.’
In this representation, Dorian Gray and the complex anaphor zichzelf have the same index at the level of pronominal reference. The index t for temporal reference is also identical because there is a single “seeing”-event, and therefore a single temporal domain. Given principle A, however, coreference at the spatial level is also expected but in this representation there is disjoint reference. In other words, (177) should be ruled out by principle A, but it is not.
It is possible that the complex anaphor zichzelf has some pronominal characteristics in certain contexts. This would imply, then, that zichzelf in examples such as (177) respects principle B. As such, disjoint reference at the spatial level is expected and explains in fact the grammaticality of (177). Note though, that the specific conditions under which zichzelf is a ‘pronominal’ anaphor are rather unclear. The question remains why the duplication effect arises more easily with some predicates than with others. Recall from (173) that the verb zich(zelf)
verdedigen allows both the simplex and the complex anaphors, but when the
complex anaphor is used, it is difficult to assign a duplication reading.76 Note in this
respect that Rooryck & VandenWyngaerd (1997:2) assert that
76Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd (1997:12) do in fact claim that there is a difference in interpretation
here: “When zich is used, the interpretation of verdedigen refers to a defence in response to an immediate attack, while the use of zichzelf is also compatible with an interpretation in which the subject defends a decision taken previously. Already, this interpretation affords a glimpse of “duplication” effects to the extent that the subject’s previous self is spatio-temporally different from the self that is taking care of the defence.” I do not share these judgements.
if the admittedly informal notion of “duplication” is to be formalized at all within Binding Theory, the traditional analysis of anaphoricity as involving identity/(co)reference in the world is insufficient. An alternative view on (co)reference and anaphoric binding is required, within which an interpretation of the type “same, but nevertheless (spatio-temporally) different” can be formally expressed.
Furthermore, if Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd’s observation that a duplication reading is most prominent in contexts where a spatio-temporal distance between the subject and the anaphor is implied is correct, then the spatio-temporal distance can also be attributed to pragmatice factors instead of syntactic factors like binding. The presence of words like picture or painting provides the pragmatic context for a spatio-temporal distance interpretation. I leave the duplication effect and its relation to binding theory as a topic for further research.