On Subject Anaphora in Georgian Nino Amiridze & Martin Everaert Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS A well-known problem in the syntax of anaphora is a tension between configurational and non- configurational effects on binding (cf. Reinhart & Reuland 1993, Huang 1994, a.o. for discussion). The traditional Principles and Parameters approach (Chomsky 1986) is that a reflexive anaphor must be c-commanded by its antecedent. It has, however, also been argued that a hierarchy of theta-roles governs anaphora (Wilkins 1988, a.o.). Basing ourselves on a thorough description of Georgian reflexives we will address the issue to what extent the distribution of anaphora is sensitive to nonconfigurational constraints. Observe the examples in (1-3): (1)a. *Himself loves Peter b. Peter loves himself (2)a. * tavis tav-s uqvar-s petre b. petre-s uqvar-s tavisi tav-i self’s head-Dat love-S3 Peter-Nom Peter-Dat love-S3 self’s head-Nom ‘Himself loves Peter’ ‘Peter loves himself’ (3) a. tavisi tav-i g'upav-s petre-s b. petre g'upav-s tavis tav-s self's head-Nom ruin-S3 Peter-Dat Peter-Nom ruin-S3 self's head-Dat ‘Himself ruins Peter’ ‘Peter ruins himself’ In English subject (nominative) anaphors are excluded, as is illustrated by the example in (1). This would follow both from a c-command or a thematic hierarchy approach. However, in the Georgian, the facts seem to be more complicated. Although the example in (2) might indicate that Georgian behaves as English, the examples in (3) make clear that this is not the case (cf. Boeder 1989, Harris 1981). Example (3a) is as grammatical as (3b) but different in meaning: in (3a) Peter ruins himself unconciously. So, Georgian allows anaphors in subject position which is not the case in English. The fact that Georgian allows subject reflexives is in accordance with Anagnostopoulou & Everaert (1999) claim that only ‘inalienable possession’ anaphors (such as the Georgian reflexive, cf. Amiridze 1998) are, under certain conditions, allowed in subject position. However, we will show that their analysis of Greek reflexives cannot be straightforwardly applied to the Georgian facts in (2-3). The examples in (4-5) show that Georgian allows subject anaphors with causatives (either inherent or marked) or with verbs allowing non-volitional subjects: (4) chem-ma tav-ma m-a-idzula me meqvira my-Erg head-Erg O1-Caus-force(Past) me-Dat to-shout ‘(It was) myself (who) forced me to shout’ (5) tavis-ma tav-ma dag'upa prezident-i self’s-Erg self-Erg he-ruin-him president-Nom “(It was) himself (who) destroyed the president” It appears that subject anaphoric sentences as in (4-5) acquire a non-volitional meaning (and emphatic), although there is no grammatical reflection of that. We will discuss in what way the semantics of these sentences influences binding possibilities. We want to pursue the position that the thematic constraints discussed in the literature might be derived from semantic/pragmatic factors, as mentioned above, as has also been argued for long distance/logophoric binding in languages like Chinese, Japanese and, Icelandic. References Amiridze, N. 1998 Georgian grammaticalized body parts: tav and the economic motivation of language, Bulletin of the Georgian Academy of Sciences 157.1:160-163; Asatiani, R. 1982 Typological analysis of the simple sentence. Mecnierba, Tbilisi; Anagnostopoulou, E.&M. Everaert. 1999. Towards a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions. Linguistic Inquiry 30:97-118; Boeder, W. 1989. Verbal person marking, noun phrase and word order in Georgian, in: Configurationality:159-184; Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use.Praeger; Harris, A.C. 1981. Georgian Syntax. CUP. Huang, Y. 1994. The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora.