Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

(52) a. O Yanisi theli i Maria na voithisi ton idhioi/*j
The J. wants the M. that helps him-himself
'Yanis wants Maria to help him himself'
(Greek, Iatridou (1986:767))
b. Johni told Billj's sister that he himselfi/*j had been arrested
(Bickerton (1987:346))
Then, they point out that actually there are exceptions, (Iatridou (1986) treats them as
only apparent). I think that the fact that these elements often appear in constructions where they
are bound is only an epiphenomenon which should not be granted theoretical status. If these
elements are logophoric or emphatic (see Zribi-Hertz (1990-a/b)), they require a discourse-
prominent antecedent (a subject of conscience, when logophoric). Of course, if one introduces
examples out of the blue, with no context, as in 0, then the most prominent element in the
discourse will be the main clause subject, or at least a preceding DP, for there is no other
available antecedent unless one makes up a plausible context having one. So I think the optimal
theory is one treating logophors and emphatic pronouns as pronominals in the BT technical
sense, leaving the account for their often bound status to discourse grammar (i.e., prominent
discourse antecedents can happen to be present in the sentence and even c-commanding the
emphatic/logophoric element). 35
There is in addition a strong theoretical argument against the claim that
logophoric/emphatic elements consisting of a pronoun and an adjoined SELF element are (long
distance) anaphors. It appears that the distribution of SELF is neutral w.r.t. the BT status of the
host. So in German we have:
35 I think that the distinction between logophoricity and
(referential) emphasis could easily be reduced to a single
concept, the distinction being then a matter of meaning nuance
or vagueness.
1