We explore the proposal in Charnavel 2019, 2020 that nonlocal anaphor binding is only apparent and reduces to local binding by a silent pronominal element— pro log —as the subject of a logophoric operator OP LOG in the left periphery of the anaphor’s local domain. Like any pronominal, pro log can be valued by a distant antecedent and should license split antecedents and partial binding for the anaphor it binds. We show that ϕ-deficient anaphors in different language families allow nonlocal binding, while disallowing split antecedents and partial binding, contra the main hypothesis of the pro log approach. We describe a Multiple Agree–based analysis that accounts for the patterns observed.

Reinhart and Reuland (1993) propose the following typology of anaphoric expressions: SELF anaphors (+SELF, −R), SE anaphors (−SELF, −R), and pronouns (−SELF, +R). We argue that the Greek anaphor o eaftos tu ‘the self his’ exemplifies a fourth type, predicted by Reinhart and Reuland's typology but not instantiated in their system: an “inalienable possession” anaphor (+SELF, +R). Within Reinhart and Reuland's framework such anaphors are allowed provided that (a) they do not enter into chain formation and (b) they satisfy the (reflexivity) binding conditions through abstract incorporation of the nominal head into the predicate they reflexivize. The proposed analysis makes valid predictions concerning the distribution of Greek anaphors as opposed to English/Dutch anaphors.