| dc.description.abstract | Abstract This thesis is the result of a study on the Italian reflexive morpheme auto-, especially in verbal environments. The restrictions on the prefixation of auto- raise a number of questions related the interferences between the structures of the verbs and the Reflexivization operation. When observed through the lens of the Reinhart (2000, 2002)'s Theta System, the (im)possibility of the prefixation of auto- “unveils” the structure of a verb. For the reasons that will be discussed and because of its properties of lexical operation, the auto-prefixation can be used a probe to observe Grooming verbs and Reciprocals.
Abstract In section (1) I introduce informally verbs and Reflexivity; in section (2) I outline the notions of Anaphora and Binding, focusing on the distinction between Coreference and Binding. I explain Reinhart (2006)'s definition of logical syntax binding and subsequently the distinction between pronominal and anaphors, and the locality conditions on binding. Then I focus on the notion of Reflexivity as the case of co-argument binding. The problem posed by IDI is introduced as well as the solutions to it that languages have. In section (3) I present in detail Reinhart (2000, 2002)'s Theta System, the analysis of the verbs' argument structure and the operation that can apply to verbal entries. Reflexivity is one of these operations. The contrast between syntax and lexicon languages is introduced and the idea that reflexive morphemse are, in some cases, elements that take care of the residual case remained after Reflexivization applied. In the first part of section (4), the Intermezzo, I outline the traditional analysis of auto-; in the second part I discuss Italian reflexive nouns, which happen to be deverbal nominal auto-prefixed. The data is in support of the thesis presented in Hron (2009). Section (5) is dedicated to the distribution of auto-, first some observations on the productivity and, later on, on the restrictions. Following the Theta System analysis of the verbs, auto-verbs must have a [+c+m] argument in their structure. Since not all [+c+m] accept auto-prefixation, the exceptions are discussed. In the last section, (6), I discuss the concept of proxies as crucial to understand the semantics and pragmatics of auto-. The auto-prefixation, as a lexical operation, does not allow proxy-readings. But the concept of proxy may vary, as author/work proxies are allowed by auto-, as in the case of Translate-type verbs. In fact, when (non-statue) proxies are invoved, some [+c] verbs also allow auto-. | |
