This section has discussed some of the salient binding properties of reflexive and referential personal pronouns. Some of the generalizations have been formulated in terms of the notion of anaphoric domain, as in classical binding theory (cf. Chomsky 1981), and we have seen that this theory still provides a satisfactory account of the distribution of referential, complex reflexive, and reciprocal personal pronouns.

Classical binding theory, however, is less adequate to account for the binding behavior of the simplex reflexive zich; cf. Vat (1980). Everaert’s (1986) work, which is probably the most comprehensive survey of the distribution of zich to date, builds crucially on this observation and has inspired much later work. For example, it discusses extensively the relevance of the notion of co-argument, which plays an important role in the influential reflexivity framework (Reinhart & Reuland 1993), according to which the morpheme -zelf is required to mark a verb as reflexive; this immediately predicts that the complex reflexive zichzelf is obligatory when we are dealing with binding between co-arguments. However, we rejected the reflexivity framework because it rests on the questionable claim that complex reflexives in non-argument position are logophors or exempt anaphors, as Reuland (2011:91) calls them; cf. also De Vries (1999: §3.2) and Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd (2011: §4.4).

The distribution of zich was described as exhibiting mixed properties in Vat (1980); zich must be free in its local domain, like the referential personal pronouns, but bound within its minimal clause, like the complex anaphor zichzelf; refinements of this proposal can be found in Everaert (1986), Koster (1987), and Broekhuis (1987/1992). An alternative account of the distribution of zich, again based on insights found in Everaert (1986), is that zich is not an anaphor at all, but an unaccusativity marker, an idea that has been further explored in Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd (2011) and Broekhuis (2022). The discussion in Section 22.4.2 is largely based on this idea, and claims that the relation between simplex reflexives and their antecedent is not a relation of binding, but one of inalienable possession. If viable, this would mean that the distribution of zich is irrelevant for binding theory, so that some version of classical binding theory based on the notion of anaphoric domain would still suffice to describe the binding behavior of referential and reflexive personal pronouns. This fits perfectly with the linguistic tradition since Chomsky (1981) of unifying the locality constraints on binding, A-movement, and inalienable possession; cf. Chomsky (1981), Guéron (1985), Hornstein (2001), and Grohmann (2003), among others, for earlier proposals. For more detailed information on the so-called inherently reflexive verbs, see Section V2.5.2.

References

Barbiers, Sjef et al. 2008. Syntactische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten [Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects], Volume II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Barrs, Andrew & Howard Lasnik. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347-357.

Broekhuis, Hans. 1987. Chain-government. The Linguistic Review 4: 297-374. [(Published in 1991)].

Broekhuis, Hans. 1988. Small clause PPs en binding. Glot 11: 243-280.

Broekhuis, Hans. 1992. Chain-government: issues in Dutch syntax. University of Amsterdam/HIL: PhD thesis.

Broekhuis, Hans. 2008. Derivations and evaluations: object shift in the Germanic languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Broekhuis, Hans. 2022. The distribution of SE-reflexives in Dutch. Glossa 7, https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5821.

Broekhuis, Hans & Leonie Cornips. 1997. Inalienable possession in locational constructions. Lingua 101: 185-209.

Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: a government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Burzio, Luigi. 1991. The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics: 81-105.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. Its nature, origin, and use. New York/Westport/London: Praeger.

Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and parameters in comparative syntax, ed. Robert Freidin, 417-454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Daalder, Saskia & Aleid Blom. 1976. De strukturele positie van reflexieve en reciproke pronomina. Spektator 5.

De Geest, Wim. 1972. Complementaire constructies bij verba sentiendi in het Nederlands. Gent: Higro.

De Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. University of Groningen: PhD thesis.

De Vries, Mark. 1999. Het schemergebied tussen pronomina en anaforen. Nederlandse Taalkunde 4: 125-160.

Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

É. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge (UK)/New York: Cambridge University Press.

Everaert, Martin. 1981. Zich. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1981, eds. Saskia Daalder and Marinel Gerritsen, 73-83. Amsterdam/Oxford/New York: Foris Publications.

Everaert, Martin. 1986. The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht/Riverton: Foris Publications.

Geerts, Guido et al. 1984. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst first edition. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Speech acts: Syntax and Semantics 3, eds. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.

Grice, Herbert Paul. 1989. Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific domains. On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Guéron, Jacqueline. 1985. Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In Grammatical representation, eds. Jacqueline Guéron et al., 43-86. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Haeseryn, Walter et al. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst, 2nd, revised edition. Groningen: Nijhoff.

Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. University of Massachusetts: PhD thesis.

Heim, Irene. 1983. File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of Language, eds. Bäuerle. Rainer et al., 164-189. Berlin: De Gruyter

Higginbotham, James. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. linguistic Inquiry 11: 679-708.

Hoekstra, Teun, Monic Lansu & Marion Westerduin. 1987. Complexe verba. Glot 10: 61-77. [An English translation by Frits Beukema appeared in Teun Hoekstra (2004). Arguments and structure. Studies on the architecture of the sentence. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter].

Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Malden, MA/Oxford (UK): Blackwell Publishers.

Klooster, Wim. 1990. Wat heeft zijn eigen ziel met zichzelf te maken? In Vragende wijs. Vragen over tekst, taal en taalgeschiedenis. Bundel aangeboden aan Leopold Peeters bij zijn afscheid als Hoogleraar Historische Taalkunde van het Nederlands aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, eds. Hans Den Besten and et al. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Klooster, Wim. 1997. Haari eigen baasi/j. In Grammaticaal spektakel. Artikelen aangeboden aan Ina Schermer-Vermeer, eds. Els Elffers-van Ketel et al., 147-158: Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntax. Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications.

Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2006. German possessor dative: raised and affected. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9: 101-142.

Lee, Young-Suk & Beatrice Santorini. 1994. Towards resolving Webelhuth's paradox: evidence from German and Korean. In Studies on Scrambling: movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena, eds. Norbert Corver and Henk Van Riemsdijk, 257-300. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lødrup, Helge. 1999. Inalienables in Norwegian and binding theory. Linguistics 37: 365-388.

Lødrup, Helge. 2007. A new account of simple and complex reflexives in Norwegian. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 183-201.

Partee, Barbara H. 1978. Bound variables and other anaphors. In Theoretical issues In natural language processing 2, ed. David L. Waltz. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. [Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in formal semantics: selected papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell, 110-121.].

Petter, Marga. 1998. Getting PRO under control. A syntactic analysis of the nature and distribution of unexpressed subjects in non-finite and verbless clauses. Free University Amsterdam: PhD thesis.

Postma, Gertjan. 1997. Logical entailment and the possessive nature of reflexive pronouns. In Atomism and binding, eds. Hans Bennis et al., 295-322. Dordrecht: Foris publications.

Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London/Sydney: Croom Helm.

Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1991. Anaphors and loghophors: an argument structure perspective. In Long-distance anaphora, eds. Jan Koster and Eric Reuland. Cambridge/New York/Port Chester/Melbourne/Sydney: Cambridge University Press.

Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657-720.

Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, Ma/London: MIT Press.

Rooryck, Johan & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2011. Dissolving binding theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Safir, Ken. 2004a. The syntax of anaphora. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Safir, Ken. 2004b. The syntax of (n)dependence. Cambridge, Ma/London: MIT Press.

Schaeffer, Jeannette C. 2000. The acquisition of direct object scrambling and clitic placement. Syntax and pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Scholten, Jolien. 2018. The ins and outs of external possession. A micro-comparative perspective. Utrecht University: PhD thesis.

Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1991. Long-distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Long-distance anaphora, eds. Jan Koster and Eric Reuland 49-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 1988. Raising-to-object in English and Dutch. Dutch Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics 14.

Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 1989. Verb projection raising and the status of infinitival complements. In Sentential complementation and the lexicon: studies in honour of Wim de Geest, eds. Dany Jaspers and Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Vat, Jan. 1980. Zich en zichzelf. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980, eds. Saskia Daalder and Marinel Gerritsen, 127-138. Amsterdam/Oxford/New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.

Webelhuth, G. 1989. Syntactic saturation phenomena and the modern Germanic languages: Diss.

Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach. University of Groningen: PhD thesis.

Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.