Section 19.2.1 concluded by noting that referential, reflexive, and reciprocal personal pronouns can, and sometimes must, have an antecedent within their sentence. A satisfactory introduction to these pronouns should pay attention to the syntactic constraints on their interpretation, since it is not the case that they can be coreferential with just any noun phrase in the sentence. This chapter discusses the constraints on such referential dependencies, known as binding, which have been central to much generative research in the last fifty years. Since it is impossible to do full justice to this research, we focus on the data, review the main empirical generalizations from the literature, and make only a few general remarks about the theoretical accounts of these data and generalizations. Sections 23.1 to 23.3 deal with the classical binding theory as formulated in Chomsky (1981), which specifically aims to explain the complementary distribution of referential and reflexive/reciprocal personal pronouns. The reflexive pronouns discussed in these sections are the complex forms with the bound morpheme –zelf, such as zichzelfhim/herself. Section 23.4 deals with the distribution of the simplex reflexive zich, which does not seem to fall within the scope of classical binding theory.