The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 183–201 | Cite as

A new account of simple and complex reflexives in Norwegian

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

This article argues that the complex reflexive in Norwegian has a wider distribution than is usually assumed in the literature (for example, Hellan 1988). Both simple and complex reflexives are used in the local domain, which must be defined as the minimal clause. The simple reflexive is used when the physical aspect of the referent of the binder is in focus. It is seen as an inalienable denoting the body of the referent of the binder. Its distribution follows an independently established binding principle for inalienables, while the complex reflexive is an elsewhere form.

Keywords

Binding theory Norwegian Simple reflexives Complex reflexives Inalienables 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asudeh, A., & Keller, F. (2001). Experimental evidence for a predication-based binding theory. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston & S. Neuvel (Eds.), CLS 37: The main session (pp. 1–14). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  2. Barbiers, S. (2000). On the interpretation of movement and agreement: PPs and binding. In H. Bennis, M. Everaert & E. Reuland (Eds.), Interface strategies: Proceedings of the colloquium, Amsterdam, 24–26 September 1999 (pp 21–36). Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
  3. Bergeton, U. (2004). The independence of binding and intensification, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  4. Bouma, G., Malouf, R., & Sag, I. A. (2001). Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical–functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Dalrymple, M. (1993). The syntax of anaphoric binding. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  7. Everaert, M. (1986). The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  8. Faltz, L. M. (1985). Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. Garland: New York.Google Scholar
  9. Guéron, J. (1985). Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In J. Guéron, Obenauer, H.-G. & Pollock J.-Y. (Eds.), Grammatical representation (pp. 43–86). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  10. Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59(4), 781–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hellan, L. (1988). Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  12. Hestvik, A. (1990). LF movement of pronouns and the computation of binding domains, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  13. Hestvik, A. (1991). Subjectless binding domains. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9(3), 455–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hestvik, A. (1992). LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 557–594.Google Scholar
  15. Hestvik, A. & Philip, W. (2001). Syntactic vs. logophoric binding: Evidence from Norwegian child language. In P. Cole, G. Hermon & J. Huang (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Long distance reflexives, vol. 33 (pp. 119–139). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Huang, C.-T. J. (1983). A note on the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(3), 554–560.Google Scholar
  17. Jackendoff, R. (1992) Madame Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keller, F. & Asudeh, A. (2001). Constraints on linguistic coreference: Structural vs. pragmatic factors. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 483–488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Kiparsky, P (2002). Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. In I. Kaufmann & B. Stiebels (Eds.), More than words (pp. 179–226). Studia Grammatica 53, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Kristoffersen, K. (2001). Semantic structure of the Norwegian preposition mot. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 3–28.Google Scholar
  21. Lakoff, G. (1996). Sorry, I’m not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammars (pp. 91–123). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lees, R. B. & Klima, E. S. (1963). Rules for English pronominalization. Language, 39(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lidz, J. (2001). Anti-antilocality. In P. Cole, G. Hermon & J. Huang (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Long distance reflexives, vol. 33 (pp. 227–254), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lødrup, H. (1999). Inalienables in Norwegian and binding theory. Linguistics, 37(3), 365–388.Google Scholar
  26. Lødrup, H. (2006). Animacy and long distance binding: The case of Norwegian. http://www.folk.uio.no/helgelo/index.html.
  27. Lødrup, H. (2007). Norwegian anaphors without visible binders. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 19(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pica, P. (1987). On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In J. McDonough & B. Plunkett (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 17 (pp. 483–499). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  29. Pica, P. & Snyder W. (1997). On the syntax and semantics of local anaphors in French and English. In A.-M. Di Sciullo (ed.), Projections and interface conditions: Essays on modularity (pp. 235–250). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  31. Postal, P. M. (1971). Cross-over Phenomena. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Postma, G. (1997). Logical entailment and the possessive nature of reflexive pronouns. In H. Bennis, P. Pica & J. Rooryck (Eds.), Atomism and binding (pp. 295–322). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  33. Rooryck, J. & Wyngaerd G. V. (1998). The self as other: A minimalist account of zich and zichzelf in Dutch. In P. Tamanji & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 28 (pp. 359–373). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  34. Rooryck, J. & Wyngaerd G. V. (1999). Puzzles of identity: Binding at the interface. In P. Tamanji, M. Hirotani & N. Hall (Eds), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 29. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  35. Safir, K. (1996). Semantic atoms of anaphora. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 545–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Safir, K. (2004). The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sells, P., Zaenen, A., & Zec D. (1987). Reflexivization variation: Relations between syntax, semantics, and lexical structure. In M. Iida, S. Wechsler & D. Zec (Eds.), Working papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure (pp. 169–238). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, M. (2004). Light and heavy reflexives. Linguistics, 42(3), 573–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vergnaud, J.-R. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (1992). The definite determiner and the inalienable construction in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 595–652.Google Scholar
  40. Zwarts, J. (1997). Complex prepositions and P-stranding in Dutch. Linguistics, 35(6), 1091–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian StudiesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations