| This dissertation investigates the distribution of Iron Range English (IRE) reflexives, using judgments collected in a Magnitude Estimation task (Bard et al 1996), and presents a phase-based analysis for their distribution. IRE reflexives (e.g., himself) can corefer with nominal expressions outside their minimal clause in subject or object position. Coreference with an expression outside the minimal clause is not acceptable in two environments: (i) if there is an intervening subject that does not match the reflexive for person (c.f., Blocking Effects in Mandarin) or (ii) if the reflexive is in an island.;The distribution of IRE reflexives is unexpected because generally only monomorphemic reflexives behave this way (Pica 1987). Complex reflexives that behave this way, such as Malay diri-nya 'himself/herself' (Cole & Hermon 2003) and Turkish kendi-sin 'himself/herself' (Kornfilt 2001), are shown to have pronominal qualities. IRE reflexives do not have pronominal qualities since they exhibit Blocking Effects and island effects. Therefore, they are true long-distance reflexives.;Blocking and island effects provide evidence that the reflexive undergoes raising to [Spec, CP], as is suggested for long-distance reflexives in other languages (e.g., Katada 1991). From the [Spec, CP] position, the reflexive is able to corefer with a nominal expression in a higher clause, in accordance with the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001). Two processes are needed to account for the distribution of IRE long-distance reflexives (c.f., Cole & Wang 1996) since the set of expressions that are potential antecedents and the set of expressions that trigger Blocking Effects are not the same: a reflexive can corefer with a subject or an object, but only subjects trigger Blocking Effects. I posit that reflexives have a [VAR] feature that must be valued by a c-commanding nominal expression within the same phase via Agree, extending Hicks' (2009) analysis of English anaphors. Agree accounts for coreference and offers an inherent c-command relationship between the antecedent and reflexive. I account for Blocking Effects by considerably modifying Hasegawa's (2005) analysis for English anaphors. I suggest that a [+multi] feature on T licenses the reflexive and requires that the reflexive and the subject Agree for person. |
