Bound pronouns and non-local anaphors:

the case of earlier English[1]

Elly van Gelderen

Languages employ fully referential, somewhat referential and non-referential nominal expressions. They act differently where anaphora is concerned. In Modern English, full Noun Phrases such as the manatee cannot be coreferential with another argument in a sentence; personal pronouns such as me and him are barred from being bound, i.e. referring, to arguments in a local domain; and specially marked forms such as myself are bound in a local domain, i.e. refer to other arguments (cf. Chomsky 1981; Koster 1993; Reinhart & Reuland 1993). The latter elements will be referred to as anaphors or reflexives (no distinction between these is made in this paper). When a referring item is not an argument (e.g. not a direct or prepositional object position), it is referred to as an emphatic (cf. König & Siemund 1997).

In this paper, I will be concerned with cases where pronouns can be used anaphorically in a local domain (i.e. the opposite of what is expected) and I will argue that, when they do, they do not have full referential features (to be made precise later). I will also be concerned with cases where specially marked anaphors occur that are bound to arguments outside the local domain (again unexpected).

Locality is defined through governing category (Chomsky 1981), or the domain of AGR(eement) (Koster 1993), or the domain of a predicate and its arguments (Reinhart & Reuland 1993). This locality captures a generalization across languages (cf. Faltz 1977) that direct objects are more likely to be specially marked, for instance, through -self, than adjuncts or indirect objects. Thus, one expects (1) and (2) to be grammatical but not (3). Similarly, there are varieties of English where (4) is grammatical because the anaphorically used pronoun is an indirect object (see also Baker 1995; Haiman 1995; van der Leek 1994):

(1) I see myself.

(2) I saw a snake near me.

(3) *I saw me.

(4) I 'll buy me a dictionary.

Older versions of English do not display this complementarity. In fact, the reverse is true. For instance, in Gawain and the Green Knight and in Chaucer, (a) pronouns are locally bound in direct object position but (b) forms marked with `self' appear in prepositional object position. Thus, the Middle English domain within which reflexivity is licensed seems very different from the Modern English one. However, rather than doing away with the notion of domain for Middle English and yet to account for (a), I examine the possibility that (Old and) Middle English objects have inherent Case (as in Chomsky 1986). In Old English, objects can be argued to have inherent Case and, in accordance with Reinhart & Reuland's (1993) Chain Condition, pronominal objects are thus not fully specified and can function anaphorically. Once structural Case is introduced in Middle English (perhaps activating AGRoP), first and second person pronouns continue to be used reflexively, again in accordance with the Chain Condition, because they are also less specified in terms of phi-features (i.e. person, number and gender features); third person ones are not. The evidence for the difference in feature strength comes from pro-drop and lack of agreement. With respect to question (b), I argue that `self' marked forms cannot appear in direct object position, i.e. in structurally Case marked position, because the reflexive forms are not fully specified for structural Case due to the change that takes place in `self' from adjective to pronoun. Thus, the pronominal form is genitive rather than accusative. This means the Case features continue to be inherent and the `self'-marked forms only occur in prepositional and indirect object position, i.e. in non-structurally Case marked positions. First and second person forms lag behind here too.

After a brief theoretical discussion, the outline of the paper is chronological. I start by discussing two Old English texts (Beowulf and Junius) where specially marked reflexives do not occur, and two where they start to (Alfred and Aelfric). After turning to early Middle English Layamon's Brut where the morphological change in `self' from adjective to (pro)noun is taking place, I examine two fourteenth century works (Gawain and the Green Knight and Chaucer). Then, the fifteenth century Paston Letters are addressed as well as some subsequent texts (Shakespeare's 2 Henry IV and Hume's Enquiry). The historical texts are examined synchronically rather than diachronically. Thus, I make very few claims as to why one stage would develop into another.

1 Some theoretical background

In this section, I discuss the theoretical background relevant to anaphora as well as to Case.

Chomsky (1981; 1986) formulates three well-known Binding principles: (A) an anaphor must be bound in its governing category, (B) A pronoun must be free in its governing category, and (C) An R-expression must be free. The governing domain for an element is the minimal domain containing the governor, the element itself and a subject. The formulation of A and B assumes that anaphors and pronouns are in complementary distribution. One of the problems with principles A and B and one that has prompted reformulations is the cross-linguistic variation with respect to the famous `snake' sentences. It is well-known that in English, as in (2) above, the pronoun can be coreferential to the subject; in German, as in (5), ihr cannot and the reflexive sich is needed; and in Dutch, as in (6), both are possible (even though some speakers do not accept haar):

(5) Sie sah eine Schlange neben sich/*ihr,

`She saw a snake next to herself/her'.

(6) Zij zag een slang naast zich/haar,

`She saw a snake next to herself/her'.

Other languages display a similar variety (cf. de Jong 1995; 1996 for Romance) which is problematic since the governing category for an element should not be so different for different languages. Chomsky's approach is also problematic for (4).

To remedy this, different types of solutions have been proposed. Reinhart & Reuland (1993) argue that Binding Theory should be formulated as a condition on predicates rather than as a condition on anaphors and pronouns. In (1), the predicate is reflexive-marked (one of its arguments has -self) and therefore two of its arguments must be coindexed. This condition is met. Condition B is stated such that a predicate that has two coindexed arguments must have reflexive marking. Hence, (3) is ungrammatical. If, in (2) and (4), me is not a proper argument to the predicates see and buy respectively, reflexive marking is not needed and the sentences should be grammatical. In addition, they claim there is a Chain Condition that allows pronouns to be locally bound if they are not fully marked for Case and phi-features. Even though they do not mention (4), the Chain Condition might allow locally bound me if one argues that indirect objects do not check structural Case but have inherent Case connected to thematic structure and would not be fully specified. Similarly, one could argue that prepositions as in (2) assign inherent Case and that is the reason the pronoun can be locally bound[2].

As to structural Case assignment, since Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1989), structural Case is assumed to be checked in a Specifier-Head relationship. Thus, nominative is checked with AGRs and objective is checked with AGRo as in (7):

(7) AGRsP

Spec AGRs'

AGRs AGRoP

Spec AGRo'

AGRo VP

Spec V'

V NP

Zoya saw Bela

Languages differ as to whether or not movement of the subject and object to the Specifier of AGRsP and AGRoP respectively is overt. English is said to have overt movement to the Spec of AGRsP. Inherent Case is assigned under government; it is a lexical Case.

Koster (1993) reformulates the notion of governing category in Minimalist terms (cf. Chomsky 1995) and crucially uses Case checking. He argues that morphologically marked anaphors are strong and must be checked with AGR(eement). Languages differ as to where the feature is located: with AGRs as in German (and Slavic) or with AGRo as in English. Thus, in German, the entire sentence is a binding domain and within it, bound pronouns would violate Principle B; in English, there is a smaller domain and pronouns may function anaphorically if they are not direct arguments of the verb. In (5), the reflexive is in the domain of AGRs, i.e. the entire sentence, and checks its feature; in (2), it is not and a pronoun appears. The anaphor in (1) is in the domain of AGRo and checks its structural Case there. Since inherent (or oblique) Case is not checked in AGR, obliquely marked pronouns can function anaphorically.

Thus, the domain is crucial for both Reinhart & Reuland and for Koster: languages either choose a domain that only includes direct arguments, or the domain is extended to include adjuncts as well. The Chain Condition, however, focusses on pronouns and the conditions where they are referential. I will present some data that are the opposite of the data in (1) to (4) where specially marked forms and simple pronouns are concerned and then use the Chain Condition to deal with the problems that Middle English poses. I start with some unproblematic Old English texts.

2 The data

2.1 Old English

As is well-known, Old English lacks a specially marked reflexive (cf. Penning 1875; Farr 1905; Hermodsson 1952; Ogura 1989). In Beowulf, one of the earliest Old English texts (the manuscript is 10th century but the composition is earlier), simple pronouns function anaphorically as direct, indirect and prepositional objects, as in (8), (9) and (10) respectively:

(8) Beowulf, 677-8[3]

No ic me an herewæsmun hnagran talige

guþgeweorca, þonne Grendel hine

not I me regarding prowess smaller consider

wardeeds than Grendel him

`I think of myself for my prowess and wardeeds no less than Grendel does of himself'.

(9) Beowulf, 932-3

þæt ic ænigra me weana ne wende

that I any-GEN.P me hope not expected

`that I expected any hope for myself'.

(10) Beowulf, 2523-4

forðon ic me on hafu bord ond byrnan

therefore I me on have shield and coat-of-mail

`therefore I shall have on me a shield and a coat of arms'.

There is (even though Visser 1963: 420 and Mitchell 1985: 189-90 deny this) an early form of `self' that marks a reflexive object as in (11). This instance of `self' is assumed to be an emphatic since it is the only instance; the other forms mainly refer to subjects. If hyne sylfne in (11) were an early instance of a reflexive, this occurrence would be in accordance with the observation that if any anaphors are specially marked, they will be the direct object ones. Thus, Beowulf presents no special problems even though the use of `self' is probably emphatic to the reflexive object, due to the rarity of (11). `Self' in these early texts is an adjective inflected for person, number and gender modifying the argument pronoun (cf. König & Siemund 1997 for a discussion on the origin of emphatics). For instance, sylfne in (11) is marked for accusative, masculine singular (indefinite declension) and sylfe in (12) for nominative, masculine plural indefinite (cf. Quirk & Wrenn 1955):

(11) Beowulf, 2875

þæt he hyne sylfne gewræc

that he him-ACC self-ACC.M.S avenged

`that he avenged himself'.

(12) Beowulf, 1995-7

þæt þu ... lete Suð-Dene sylfe geweorðan guðe wið Grendel

that you ... let Danes self-NOM.M.P fight against Grendel

`that you let the Danes themselves fight against Grendel'.

In other Early Old English texts, the same is not true. In the Junius Manuscript (c1000 but composed earlier), `self' does not mark anaphoric direct objects but prepositional objects as in (13). There are 3 possible reflexives, given here:

(13) Genesis 438

Sittan læte ic hine wið me sylfne

remain let I him-ACC with me-ACC self-ACC.M.S

`I let him remain with myself'.

(14) Genesis, 2628

heht hie bringan to him selfum

ordered her-ACC bring to him-DAT self-DAT

`ordered (them) to bring her to himself'.

(15) Genesis 885-6

Nu ic þæs tacen wege

sweotol on me selfum

now I the token carry evident on me-DAT self-DAT

`Now I clearly carry the sign upon me'.

Assuming the forms in (11) to (15) are emphatic, not anaphoric (cf. Faltz 1989), no problems occur. If they were anaphoric, it would be strange that the specially marked form occurs outside the immediate domain in (13).

As mentioned above, Visser (1963: 421) says that by the time of Alfred, the reflexive pronoun is often followed by `self'. The examples he mentions (pp. 421-3) have inflected forms of `self' and modify genitive and accusative objects as in (16) and (17):

(16) Alfred, Pastoral Care 34.7

mon forgit his selfes

man forgets his-GEN self-GEN.S

`Man forgets himself'.

(17) Idem, Orosius 166.23

[he] hiene selfne ofslog

him-ACC self-ACC.M.S killed

`he killed himself'.

In Alfred's Boethius, there are many others, for instance, `self' modifies a prepositional object as in (18). Wülfing (1894: 358), in his two-volume syntax of Alfred's works, lists many with all kinds of endings, e.g. modifying an indirect object in (19):

(18) Boethius 13.13-4

Wastu oþres bi þe selfum to secganne

know-you other by you-DAT self-DAT to say

`Do you yourself know to say anything else'.

(19) Pastoral Care, 4.22

Ac ic þa sona eft me selfum andwyrde

but I then soon after me-DAT self-DAT answered

`But soon after, I soon answered myself'.

The simple pronoun remains used reflexively as in (20). Wülfing (1894: 356) claims that this is the preferred way of expressing the reflexive and provides several pages of instances, not only where the pronoun is a direct object as in (20) but also as an indirect or prepositional object as in (21):

(20) Pastoral Care 409.33

ðu ðin scamige

you you-GEN shame

`Be ashamed of yourself'.

(21) Orosius 154.15

hie namon heora fultum mid him

`they took their support with them'.

Thus, Alfred's reflexive use of pronominals is the same as that in other Old English texts even though more forms of `self' serve as reinforcements of reflexive pronouns (cf. also Wülfing's 1901: 2-18 lists of reflexive verbs).

The late Old English works of Aelfric indicate that `self' is regularly used to reinforce a reflexive pronoun and could be said to be part of it. Looking through the instances in Aelfric's Homilies, sylf is used emphatically with singular nominatives as in (22), sylfe with plural nominatives, sylfes with genitives, sylfne with accusatives as in (23) and sylfum with datives as in (24), occur frequently. Accusative and dative forms are possibly reflexive in (23) and (24):

(22) Hom II 8.173

He sylf clypode to me

he self-NOM said to me

`He himself said to me'.

(23) Hom II 93.51

Þa beðohte he hine sylfne

then bethought he him-ACC self-ACC

`Then he reconsidered'.

(24) Hom II 45.117

Se ðe him sylfum leofað

The that him-DAT self-DAT loves

`Who that loves himself'.

It is interesting that modification of third person pronouns by forms in -ne or -um predominates. Thus, sylfne almost exclusively occurs with hine and sylfum does with him; both modify direct as well as prepositional objects. In both volumes of the Homilies, there are 121 instances of hine followed by sylfne; 9 of me with sylfne; 86 of him and sylfum and 10 of me with sylfum. In comparison, there are 934 instances of hine, 1608 instances of him, and 516 of me. Noticeable first al all is that even though there are almost twice as many instances of him than of hine, the latter is more often modified by a form of `self'. Counting him and hine together and comparing these to me, third person singular pronouns are followed by `self' in 8% of the cases; first person singular is in 3.7%. This third person preference, especially of the accusative form, is related to what is the case in later texts, namely that third person pronouns are the first to develop specially marked reflexives.

In conclusion, the situation in Old English is one where pronouns can be used reflexively. I will argue in section 3 that they can be used this way because they are not fully specified and do not violate the Chain Condition of section 1. The reflexive pronoun, however, is increasingly modified by a form of `self'. This occurs in all contexts by the time of Alfred and Aelfric, i.e. in direct, indirect and prepositional object positions.

2.2 Early Middle English

In this section, I discuss Layamon's Brut, which is from the early half of the 13th century[4]. The points of interest in this text, two versions of which exist, is (a) that `self' is grammaticalizing from an adjective into a noun, (b) that the innovations regarding first and second person pronouns lag behind those of third person pronouns, and (c) that the introduction of a reflexive is in oblique position (unexpected in the framework sketched in section 1).

In the thirteenth century, there is evidence (cf. van Gelderen 1996a) that the category of `self' changes from adjective to (pro)noun. The endings on `self' in both versions (Caligula and Otho) of Layamon's Brut `simplify' and are reanalyzed as Case markers (non-nominative in (30) and (26) below; cf. Diehn 1906: 60). The reason for this may be the general loss of endings on adjectives. In addition, `self' is merged with the pronoun (i.e. written as one word) which is genitive rather than accusative. In the early version of Layamon (beginning of the thirteenth century), there are some adjectival endings such as -ne in (25) and 16 `self' variants preceded by an accusative me occur as in (25); in the later version (second half of the same century), the endings are zero or -e and only 1 form occurs preceded by me:

(25) Caligula 4156

ah hit wes þurh me seolfne

but it was through me-ACC self-ACC

`but it was through myself'.

In Caligula, there are 9 forms of mi-self/mi-seolf, 2 of þi-`self', and 80 of him-`self'[5]. In the somewhat later Otho, the same numbers are 21, 12, and 54. (In Caligula, there is one miseolf, one himseolf and one himsuluen; in Otho, none). Otho is a text that is severely damaged and hence fewer lines are left, but the change from accusative to genitive pronoun is obvious. For instance, (25) becomes (26), (27) becomes (28). Some of the ones that disappear in Otho are (32), (34) and (36), as compared to (31), (33) and (35) in Caligula. Emphatics change as well in pronominal form, as from (29) to (30):

(26) Otho 4156

ac hit was þorh mi-seolue

`but it was through myself'.

(27) Caligula 4165

7 me sulfne heo þencheþ quellen

and me self-ACC they think to kill

`and they plan to kill me'.

(28) Otho 4165

and þench(eþ) mi-seolue cwelle

(29) Caligula 1594

þu seolf wurð al hisund

you self-NOM become all healthy

`you yourself become healthy'.

(30) Otho 1594

þou þi-seolf far hol and (sunde).

(31) Caligula 5466

7 he seolf him wolden specken wið

and he self-NOM him wanted speak with

`and he himself wanted to speak with him'.

(32) Otho 5466

he wolde come and speke him wiþ.

(33) Caligula 6195

7 heo seolf liðden forð

and they self-NOM went forth

`and they themselves slipped away'.

(34) Otho 6195

and hii flowe forþ.

(35) Caligula 10151

and wraðe hine sulfne

and angered him-ACC self-ACC

`and he angered him self'.

(36) Otho 10151

and wreþþede him swiþe[6].

I now examine the shape and function of pronouns followed by `self'. First and second person pronouns followed by `self' usually function emphatically. Third person pronouns continue to be accusative in form (himself rather than hisself) and about half of these forms are reflexive. I start with first person, then proceed to second and third.

In the early, Caligula, version, there are 16 forms with an accusative pronoun followed by `self' as in (37), (38) and (39), but none are reflexive objects. There are 8 forms of mi-seolf as in (40), one of miseolf as in (41), and one of mi-self, i.e. forms where a genitive pronoun precedes. Seven of these are emphatic as in (41), two are reflexive adverbials, shown in (40), and one is a reflexive following a copula in (42). However, Binding Theory around copulas is different. For instance, in Modern English, Binding Theory exhibits exceptions around copulas: He is Hamlet; Let Clinton be Clinton.Thus, mi-`self' is introduced in oblique position:

(37) Caligula 4156

ah hit wes þurh me seolfne

but it was through me-ACC self-ACC

`but it was through myself'.

(38) Idem, 12939

a uolden he me laiden. and lai mid me seoluen

but wanted he me lay and laid with me self-ACC

`but he wanted to lay me and he lay with me'.

(39) Caligula 14012

and þe leo i þan ulode. iwende wið me seolue

and the lion in the water went with me self

`and the lion went into the water, taking me with her'.

(40) Caligula 14004

Buten mi-seolf ich gon atstonden

outside myself I started stand

`I myself stood outside'.

(41) Caligula 8511

miseolf ich habbe inowe

myself I have enough

`I myself have enough'.

(42) Caligula 4397

Ah ich mi-seolf neore

but I myself not-was

`But I wasn't myself'.

Rather than using `self' for reflexives, simple pronouns as in (43) and (44) are used. Their functions are both direct and prepositional object. Looking through the entire text, I found 12 such cases, but this is not an exhaustive list:

(43) Caligula 9500

and ich me wulle ræsten

and I me want rest

`And I want to rest myself'.

(44) Caligula 10967

swa ich here biuoren me. mid æ3enen bihælde

such I here before me with eyes saw

`such as I saw here before me with my own eyes'.

First person plural pronouns are also used reflexively as in (45) and (46); there are 4 instances of a combination with a `self' form, as in (47) (and 2 of these are reflexive) and two with the dual as in (48) (one of which is reflexive):

(45) Caligula 2999

Wrake we us on Bruttes

Revenge we us on Brits

`Let us revenge ourselves on the Brittons'.

(46) Caligula 9176

7 leten we us ræden. of ure misdeden

and let we us council of our misdeeds

`and let us consider our misdeeds'.

(47) Caligula 1656

Vs selve we habbet cokes

us self we have cooks

`Ourselves, we have cooks'.

(48) Caligula 11809

þat fehten wit scullen unc seoluen

that fight we-DUAL shall us-DUAL self

`That we shell fight each other'.

With second persons, simple pronouns continue to be used reflexively; there are only two singular forms preceded by a genitive pronoun as in (49) but both are emphatic. The 10 forms preceded by an accusative as in (50) are mainly emphatic as well, even though some are ambiguous as in (51) and 2 are reflexive as in (52). There are 9 pronouns that I found (using the same method as with first persons) that function reflexively; 2 are given in (53) and (54):

(49) Caligula 8963

þat weore þu Uðer þi-seolf

that was you Uther yourself

`That was you Uther yourself'.

(50) Caligula 14048

and ich æm icumen to þe seoluen

And I am come to you self

`I have come to you'.

(51) Caligula 4907

7 þe seoluen 7 þin folc. falleð to grunde

and you-ACC self-ACC and your people fall to ground

`and you yourself and your people fall to the ground'

(52) Caligula 9915-6

a brutten þe seoluen.

halden la3en rihte

in britain you-ACC self-ACC hold law right

`In Britain, (you) hold yourself to the right law'.

(53) Caligula 8089

Nu þu scalt þe warmen þer

Now you-NOM shall you-ACC warm there

`Now you shall warm yourself'.

(54) Caligula 8596

7 þat weorc þu scalt bringen. mid þe to þissen londe

and that work you-NOM shall bring with you-DAT to this land

`and that work you shall bring with you to this land'.

With second person plural, I found 2 combinations with `self' and one between second dual and `self' but all are emphatic. Thus, with first and second person singular forms, `self' marks reflexivity in possibly 5 cases; whereas simple pronouns do this at least 21 times.

The situation with third person pronouns is different. Simple pronouns continue to be used in both prepositional and direct object positions (I found 4 instances of him and 16 of hine used reflexively in Caligula[7]). As in Beowulf, hine is used as direct object as in (56) and him as prepositional object as in (55). If hine represents the morphologically inherent Case, this fits with Reinhart & Reuland's (1993) Chain Condition: only pronouns not completely specified (in this circumstance for Case) function anaphorically. If him is already the structural Case form, it fits that it does not function anaphorically in the direct domain of the verb. Some instances are:

(55) Caligula 8908

naðeles he hafede mid him

nonetheless he had with him

`nonetheless he brought with him'

(56) Caligula 3302

he hine vncuð makede