Scholarlink

<p>This paper investigates <i>cross-categorial reflexive marking</i> (CCRM) in modern Khalkha Mongolian, where the reflexive possessive (<span>refl.poss</span>) morphology appears in nominal and certain clausal domains to license subject-oriented interpretation. We argue that CCRM reduces to binding: <span>refl.poss</span> realizes agreement with a null minimal pronoun bound from <i>v</i>, the head that introduces the subject. This minimal-pronoun analysis unifies reflexive and control-like patterns associated with CCRM. Furthermore, the null minimal pronoun must occupy a position targeted by overt agreement. In Khalkha, overt agreement is confined to nominal(ized) domains, and there is no verbal agreement. Consequently, the minimal pronoun—and thus <span>refl.poss</span>—is licensed only inside nominals and nominalized clauses. These results link CCRM to both binding and independently attested agreement mechanisms, suggesting that minimal pronouns in Khalkha require both binding from <i>v</i> (e.g., Kratzer in Linguist Inq 40(2):187–237, 2009) and licensing via overt agreement with D.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

On the syntax of cross-categorial reflexive marking in Khalkha Mongolian

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月10日

查看全文
  • Zhiyu Mia Gong,
  • Miloje Despić

摘要

This paper investigates cross-categorial reflexive marking (CCRM) in modern Khalkha Mongolian, where the reflexive possessive (refl.poss) morphology appears in nominal and certain clausal domains to license subject-oriented interpretation. We argue that CCRM reduces to binding: refl.poss realizes agreement with a null minimal pronoun bound from v, the head that introduces the subject. This minimal-pronoun analysis unifies reflexive and control-like patterns associated with CCRM. Furthermore, the null minimal pronoun must occupy a position targeted by overt agreement. In Khalkha, overt agreement is confined to nominal(ized) domains, and there is no verbal agreement. Consequently, the minimal pronoun—and thus refl.poss—is licensed only inside nominals and nominalized clauses. These results link CCRM to both binding and independently attested agreement mechanisms, suggesting that minimal pronouns in Khalkha require both binding from v (e.g., Kratzer in Linguist Inq 40(2):187–237, 2009) and licensing via overt agreement with D.