C-locality and the Interaction of Reflexives and Ditransitives

In Kannada, ditransitives with benefactive morphology cannot have a reflexive indirect object, or have reflexive marking on the verb. This paper seeks to explain why. We argue that the benefactive structure, when its indirect object is a locally bound anaphor, is subject to two conflicting requirements. The anaphor must be local to its antecedent, and the direct object must be local to its Case licenser, but these conditions cannot be met in the same derivation. Thus reflexive benefactives are syntactically underivable. As the crucial conflict follows from the theory of object licensing introduced in Lidz and Williams 2002, our explanation provides additional support for that framework. The primary data are presented in (1-4). In (1) we see the two types of ditransitive found in Kannada: the plain ditransitive (1a) and the benefactive ditransitive (1b). (1b) includes the benefactive auxiliary koDu, which attaches to the main verb in its past participle form and bears the tense and agreement inflection.