summary of conditions (was Re: PSAT Glitch)

[Arnold Zwicky]

this is a summary of all the perplexities that i know about in the
interpretation of the Possessive Antecedent Proscription (PAP),
using as a starting point the minimal formulation

  PAP: possessives cannot serve as antecedents for (personal)
    pronouns.


1.  query: just personal pronouns, or are other anaphors restricted?
this is an issue for formulations in which implicit/implied/imagined
antecedents play a role, since such formulations ought to apply not
only to personal pronouns, but also to other definite anaphors:

  personal pronouns. PAP certainly rejects:
    Morrison's books made her famous.
    Morrison's success meant that she could afford a new car.

  the + Nom.  maybe PAP rejects:
    Morrison's books made the writer famous.
    Morrison's success meant that the writer could afford a new car.

  this/that + Nom.  maybe PAP rejects:
    Morrison's books made this/that writer famous.
    Morrison's success meant that this/that writer famous.

  zero definite anaphors.  maybe PAP rejects:
    The army's treatment of anyone who joined ___ was scandalous.
    The recruits' complaint suggested that only two ___ had been injured.

  anaphoric adverbials there/then.  maybe PAP rejects:
    Norway's snowy beauty is famous, but I never go there in the
      winter.
    The afternoon's heavy traffic doesn't bother Chris, who sleeps
      soundly then, despite the noise.

2.  query: is only (forward) anaphora constrained by the PAP, or is
cataphora ("backward anaphora") also constrained?  formulations in
terms of implicitness should apply equally to both.

  maybe PAP rejects:
    Just before he fell, John's last thought was that
      the sidewalk needed fixing.

3.  query: are only possessive *noun* [well, really, NP] antecedents
prohibited, or are possessive pronouns prohibited as well?
formulations in terms of implicitness might affect both, depending on
whether "he" is viewed as being merely implicit in "his" (etc.) or
whether "he" is viewed as actually named in "his" (for those who claim
that "Sam" is merely implicit, and not actually named, in "Sam's").

  possessive NP antecedent.  PAP certainly rejects:
    Sam's books made him a millionaire.

  possessive pronoun antecedent.  maybe PAP rejects:
    His books made him a millionaire.

3'.  query: if 3rd person possessive pronoun antecdents are
prohibited, are 1st and 2nd person possessive pronoun antecedents also
prohibited?

  maybe PAP rejects:
    My success pleases me.
    Our mistakes mean that we have to work over the weekend.
    Your books should make you famous.

4.  query: are only non-possessive pronouns ineligible as anaphors, or
are possessive pronouns also unavailable?  (the handbooks go both
ways.  "implicitness" has been argued to *allow* possessive-possessive
linkages.)

  non-possessive anaphor.  PAP certainly rejects:
    Mary's success made her famous.

  possessive anaphor.  maybe PAP rejects:
    Mary's success made her family proud.

5.  query: are only dependent possessive antecedents proscribed, or
are independent, free-standing, ones also prohibited?  independent
possessives function as Subject/Direct Object/Object of P, but also
as Determiner ("adjective" in the handbooks); which function takes
precedence?

  dependent possessive antecedent.  PAP certainly rejects:
    No one read the books that Tom wrote,
      but Carrie's books made her famous.

  independent possessive antecedent.  maybe PAP rejects:
    No one read the books that Tom wrote,
      but Carrie's made her famous.

6.  query: are *any* of the NPs in a "group genitive" (one ending in
something other than the head N of the phrase) eligible to be
antecedents for a pronoun?  the head N doesn't have -'s, isn't
"possessive"; some other word does have -'s, is "possessive".  how
does the "implicitness" criterion apply here?

  maybe PAP rejects one or another of the anaphors (it, she, there)
  in the following:
    People have different attitudes towards the city they live in.
      In fact, my friend from Chicago's opinions about it have
      changed over the years she has lived there.

7.  query: is the PAP merely a special case of some larger
generalization about implicitness of antecedents?  the handbooks
provide a large number of possibly related types of examples, some
involving antecedents that are merely "in the air", others involving
pronouns of the "summarizing" type ("Chris disappeared into thin air,
which astonished me"), and a few at least superficially similar to
PAP violations:

7a.  anaphoric island violations, in which some phonologically
similar, and morphologically related, material is available in the
sentence, but no actual XP that could serve as an antecedent for a
pro-element is available.

  I wanted to be a violinist, but my parents wouldn't buy me one.
  The violinist stunned us by playing it with such extraordinary
    skill.
  I was surprised at Kim's savage criticism of the students, since
    I myself would certainly never do that. ['criticize the students
    savagely']

7b.  N+N compounds with count N as first element.  this first element
is normally unavailable as an antecedent for pronouns (though proper
and mass first elements, both of which could be construed with NP,
rather than mere N, interpretations, are often available as
antecedents, depending on the pragmatics of the situation).

  We couldn't schedule the piano recital,...
    because we couldn't find one.
    because it was out of tune.

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)