Classical/Standard Binding Theory was inadequate to handle the differences in the way anaphoric relations are expressed across languages. And, Minimalism which did away with many of the concepts central to the Binding theory did not have an alternative to account for anaphoricity and logophoricity. Although the parametric approach outlined in Manzini and Wexler seems to be a promising one, it predates Minimalism and hence does not discuss some of the problems related to anaphora. Besides, given the huge cross-linguistic variations, it would be too difficult to come up with a set of parameters to accommodate Telugu, English and several other language therefore we need to look at elsewhere for factors that define something as complex as anaphora. Studies of anaphora have claimed that lexical anaphors and logophors, particularly LDR are subject-oriented. This study focuses on this aspect of reflexives in English and Telugu and provides further supporting evidence from crosslinguistic data for the reflexive nature of lexical anaphors/logophors, and find out in what ways anaphors differ from pronouns. I would like to look at referential properties of anaphors/logophors and to see how they are encoded morphosyntactically in Telugu, English, and a few other languages, and see in what morpho-syntactic conditions, they are anaphoric or reflexive.weiterlesen