Complex reflexives 1
A new account of simple and complex reflexives in Norwegian
Helge Lødrup
Helge Lødrup
University of Oslo
Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies
Pb. 1102, Blindern
N-0317 Oslo, Norway
helge.lodrup@ilf.uio.no
Phone +47 22854831
Complex reflexives 2
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.
1. Introduction
Several languages show a distinction between simple and complex reflexives,
and the principles for their distribution of have been the object of interesting
research. This article will focus upon Norwegian, which has the simple
reflexive seg and the complex reflexive seg selv1. Hellan (1988) proposed that
the complex reflexive is used in local binding, while the simple reflexive is
used in non-local binding (see also Hellan 1991). Local binding was
understood as binding by a coargument. On this view, a typical case of the
complex reflexive is (1), while a typical case of the simple reflexive is (2)2.
(1) Han elsker seg selv
he
loves
REFL SELF
He loves himself
Complex reflexives 3
(2) Han bad oss hjelpe seg
he
asked us help REFL
He asked us to help him
Binding by a coargument means that the antecedent and the reflexive are
arguments of the same predicate (called 'strict coarguments' in Hellan
1988:69). Reflexives in PPs are different in this respect. An adjunct PP, as in
(3), is outside the coargument domain of the subject. Complement PPs fall in
two groups. If their preposition is semantically empty, as in (4), it is not
considered a predicate, and the reflexive is a coargument of the subject. If
their preposition is semantically contentful, as in (5), it is considered a
predicate. The reflexive is then an argument of the preposition, and thus not a
coargument of the subject.
(3) Dovregubben trenger rom rundt seg
Dovregubben needs space around REFL
Dovregubben needs room around him
(4) Han tenkte på
seg
selv
he thought of REFL SELF
He thought of himself
(5) Han drar den mot
he
seg
pulls it towards REFL
He pulls it towards him
Hellan's generalizations about simple and complex reflexives in Norwegian
have been a basis for later work on this and other languages. For example,
Complex reflexives 4
Dalrymple (1993), Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and Safir (2004) implement
corresponding generalizations in different ways.
I will show that these generalizations are not empirically correct; complex
reflexives can be used in (what was taken to be) non-local domains, and
simple reflexives can be used in (what was taken to be) local domains.
Focusing upon reflexives that are objects of prepositions, I show that the
simple reflexive is used when the preposition is locational, while the complex
reflexive is used when the preposition is non-locational (sections 2 and 3).
This generalization is independent of the grammatical status of the PP as a
complement or an adjunct. I will argue that coargumenthood has no role to
play in an account of simple and complex reflexives. Both are used in the local
domain, but this domain is usually the minimal clause (section 4). I then
argue that the generalization for simple reflexives as objects of prepositions
can be extended to cover simple reflexives as objects of verbs (section 5). In
both cases, the physical aspect of the referent of the binder is in focus; it is his
or her physical body that is relevant. These results then serve as the basis for
an account of the distribution of reflexives in which inalienables are taken as
the point of departure (section 6). The simple reflexive is seen as an
inalienable denoting the body of the referent of the binder, and its
distribution follows an independently established binding principle for
inalienables. The complex reflexive is seen as an elsewhere form.
This article is based upon data from electronic corpora and the world wide
web. Most example sentences are from these sources (except in section 6).
Complex reflexives 5
2. Binding in adjunct PPs
Section 2 shows that both simple and complex reflexives are used in adjunct
PPs; the simple reflexive is used with locational PPs, while the complex
reflexive is used with non-locational PPs.
Adjuncts have never been in the center of research on binding. However,
they are important to the understanding of the distribution of simple and
complex reflexives. Norwegian is especially interesting in this respect, for two
reasons:
Norwegian pronouns are usually anti-subject oriented (Hestvik 1990, 1992);
they cannot be bound by the subject of the minimal clause they are part of, as
shown in (6). (But see notes 4 and 6.)
(6) Per så
en slange bak
*ham / seg
Per saw a snake behind him/ REFL
Per saw a snake behind him
Because of this anti-subject orientation, a reflexive must be used when the
subject is a clause-internal binder; a pronominal is not an option (unlike
English John looked around him/himself).
Besides, Norwegian does not have sentences like (7) and (8) that violate
basic binding theory by having antecedents that are too far away from the
anaphor, as in (7), or not more prominent than the anaphor, as in (8) (see
Hestvik and Philip 2001). Examples (7)-(8) are based upon sentences in
Pollard and Sag (1994:270, 272) which are grammatical in English.
Complex reflexives 6
(7) Johni skulle bli skuls med Mary. *Bildet av seg (selv)i i avisen ville virkelig
ergre henne
John should get even with Mary. picture-DEF of REFL SELF in paper-DEF
would really annoy her
'John was going to get even with Mary. The picture of himself in the paper
would really annoy her'
(8) *Bildet
av seg (selv)i i Newsweek dominerte
Johnsi tanker
picture-DEF of REFL SELF in Newsweek dominated John's thoughts
The picture of himself in Newsweek dominated John's thoughts
The lack of these 'exempt' (or 'logophoric') anaphors is important, because it
means that all anaphors in Norwegian should be expected to follow the basic
binding principles3.
Hellan's view of simple and complex reflexives predicts that the complex
reflexive should not be possible in an adjunct PP, because an adjunct PP is not
a coargument of the subject of the sentence. Hellan's view implies that a
reflexive in an adjunct PP must be a case of non-local binding, and it should
therefore be simple. Hestvik (1990:290-91) argues that this is correct, on the
basis of some sentences with locational adjuncts like (9).
(9) Jon følte/hørte noe
Jon felt/
nær seg
*selv (Hestvik 1990:291)
heard something near REFL SELF
Jon felt/heard something near him
Complex reflexives 7
However, these predictions are only true of the locational adjuncts. In all
other types of adjuncts, the complex reflexive is used, as will be shown in the
following overview of simple and complex reflexives in adjunct PPs.
Prepositions can be divided into two groups (parallel to Zwarts 1997 on
Dutch). One group is the traditional prepositions that have or can have a
concrete locational meaning, for example i 'in', over 'over', om 'around', etc.
When these prepositions are used with a locational meaning, they take the
simple reflexive, as standardly pointed out in the literature. Examples are
(10)-(12)
(10) (de
så) et stort skrog (…) over seg
they saw a
large hull
over REFL
They saw a large hull above them
(11) Trond arkiverer kopi av faktura hos seg
Trond files
copy
of invoice at REFL
Trond files a copy of the invoice with him
(12) Dovregubben trenger rom rundt seg
Dovregubben needs space around REFL
Dovregubben needs room around him
A fact that is not mentioned in the literature is that the these prepositions take
the complex reflexive when they are used with a non-locational meaning.
Examples are (13)-(15).
Complex reflexives 8
(13) Man var i et system hvor man ble bondefanget av seg selv
one was in a system where one was tricked
by REFL SELF
One was in a system where one was tricked by oneself
(14) Jernbaneverket
skal konkurrere med seg selv
railroad-agency-DEF shall compete
with REFL SELF
The railroad agency is going to compete with itself
(15) (det) smertet ham mere enn han ville
it
pained him more than he
innrømme overfor seg selv
would admit
to
REFL SELF
It pained him more than he would admit to himself
One might suggest that the reason complex reflexives are used in (13)-(15) is
that the adjuncts are argument-like, in the sense that they denote participants
in an event. However, this idea cannot be generalized to the sentences with
the next group of prepositions.
The second group of prepositions is prepositions that only have an abstract
meaning. Examples are angående 'concerning', av hensyn til 'out of
consideration for', ifølge 'according to', på grunn av 'because of'. Some of these
prepositions consist of two or three words, and the boundary between multiword prepositions and more complex structures is not clear. This question is
of no real consequence in this context, however; the important point is that
the reflexive will be part of an adjunct independently of analysis. These
prepositions always take the complex reflexive4. Examples are (16)-(18).
(16) Noen (…) ringer angående seg selv
some
call
concerning REFL SELF
Some people call concerning themselves
Complex reflexives 9
(17) hun har ikke vært ute av arbeidslivet
på grunn av seg
she has not been out of employment-DEF because of
selv
REFL SELF
She has not been out of employment because of herself
(18) Mobberne
må stanses (…) av hensyn
harassers-DEF must stop-PASS
til seg
selv
out-of concern forREFL SELF
The harassers must be stopped out of concern for themselves
One might suggest that the complex reflexives in sentences like (16)-(18) are
bound by a local 'semantic subject' (proposed in Barbiers (2000) for Dutch).
This suggestion does not work, however. The intuitive semantic subject of an
adjunct is not the syntactic subject of the sentence. For example, the adjunct in
(16) does not say what the syntactic subject 'some people' are about (but
rather what the calling is about), and the adjunct in (17) does not say what the
syntactic subject 'she' is caused by (but rather what her being out of
employment is caused by)5.
Examples (10)-(18) show that there is a division between adjuncts that take
the simple reflexive, as in examples (10)-(12), and adjuncts that take the
complex reflexive, as in examples (13)-(18). The semantic distinction between
these two groups of adjuncts is clear. In (10)-(12), the adjunct has a concrete
locational meaning, while in (13)-(18), it has a more abstract meaning. What
kind of abstract meaning is not relevant. For the purposes of binding theory,
it is sufficient to distinguish locational and non-locational meaning, with one
provisio. The simple reflexive does not only require that the adjunct is
locational; the location must be relative to the physical body of the referent of
the binder.
Complex reflexives 10
The physical body referred to does not have to be the human body. It can
also be natural or artificial objects of various kinds6, as in (19).
(19) Høyhus med store vindusflater kan forårsake mye ødeleggelser rundt
seg
high-rise-buildings with large window-faces can cause much damages around REFL
High-rise buildings with large window faces can cause much damage around
them
It is important, however, that the location is relative to the binder's own
physical body. When the location is relative to a "proxy", as in (20), the
complex reflexive is used. A proxy is "in some way a representation or
representative of its antecedent" (Safir 2004:112), like a figure, a picture, a
novel, etc. (see Rooryck and Wyngaerd 1998, 1999, Lidz 2001).
(20) Per oppdaget Kari like ved seg
selv / *seg på bildet
Per discovered Kari close by REFL SELF / REFL in picture-DEF
Per discovered Kari close by himself in the picture
If the reflexive must be interpreted as referring to the mind of the binder, as in
(21), the complex reflexive is used.
(21) (de søkte) løsningen
på sine
dilemmaer utenfor seg selv
they sought solution-DEF to REFL-POSS dilemmas
outside REF SELF
They sought the solution to their dilemmas outside them
Complex reflexives 11
It is possible to construct minimal pairs in which a simple and a complex
reflexive give rise to different interpretations. An example is (22).
(22) Per kunne ikke finne den hos seg / seg selv
Per could not find it with REFL / REFL SELF
With the simple reflexive, the adjunct refers to Per's home or office, and 'it'
must refer to a concrete object, like a book. With the complex reflexive, the
adjunct refers to Per's mind, and 'it' must refer to a property or a feeling.
3. Reflexives in complement PPs
This section shows that reflexives in complement PPs are distributed
according to the same principle as in adjunct PPs.
3.1. Hestvik's analysis and beyond
Complements and adjuncts are traditionally assumed to behave differently
with respect to a number of syntactic phenomena, including binding. At the
same time, the complement - adjunct distinction is known to be problematic,
see for example Bouma et al. (2001). The account proposed here does not
depend upon this distinction, as will be seen later.
Hellan's view of simple and complex reflexives predicts that a complement
PP with an argument-taking preposition should take the simple reflexive as a
Complex reflexives 12
case of non-local binding. This prediction is supported by sentences like (23),
with the simple reflexive.
(23) John kikket bak
seg (Hestvik 1990:290)
John looked behind REFL
John looked behind him
The question is what the prediction is for a complex reflexive in a
complement PP. Given the view that the complex reflexive and its binder
must be coarguments, the prediction is that the complex reflexive is not
possible with an argument-taking preposition.
A different view of the distribution of complex reflexives can be found in
Hestvik (1990), (1991), who claims that both the simple and the complex
reflexive can occur in a complement PP with an argument-taking preposition.
Hestvik assumes that there are binding domains without subjects (building
upon work by Joan Bresnan). In his theory, a PP can be a subjectless binding
domain. The simple reflexive in a sentence like (23) is then a non-local
reflexive that is free in the PP domain. Hestvik proposes that a complex
reflexive does not have to be a coargument of its binder. His alternative is that
a complex reflexive and its binder must be in a minimal domain that contains
a subject7. For a complex reflexive in a complement PP, this domain is the
minimal clause that contains the PP.
Hestvik gives examples like (24)-(25) to support his claim that both the
simple and the complex reflexive are possible in complement PPs.
Complex reflexives 13
(24) John kikket bak seg /
seg
selv (Hestvik 1990:290)
John looked behind REFL / REFL SELF
John looked behind him
(25) John skjøv Marit fra
seg /
seg selv (Hestvik 1990:290)
John pushed Marit from REFL / REFL SELF
John pushed Marit from him
Hestvik finds both the simple and the complex reflexive acceptable in (24)(25), but he notes that there are speakers who don't accept the complex
reflexive.
For one of his example sentences, (26) below, Hestvik (1991:470) observes
that the choice between the simple and the complex reflexive gives a
difference in meaning.
(26) John satte Marit foran
seg /
seg
selv (Hestvik 1991:470)
John put Marit in front of REFL / REFL SELF
John put Marit in front of him
With the simple reflexive, (26) means that John positions Marit physically,
relative to his body. With the complex reflexive, it means that John evaluates
Marit relative to his own person (for example as an artist, a surgeon, etc.).
This is the same kind of difference between locational and non-locational
meaning that was found with adjuncts. The basic generalization for
complement PPs turns out to be the same as for adjunct PPs. Complement PPs
with locational (including directional) prepositions have the simple reflexive,
as in (27)-(29).
Complex reflexives 14
(27) de er
i ferd med å skylle av seg vaskevannet
they are in process of to rinse off REFL wash-water-DEF
They are rinsing off the wash water
(28) Hun tok hånden hans og
la
den mot
seg
She took hand-DEF his and put it towards REFL
She took his hand and put it towards her
(29) (hun) tar et handkle om
she
puts a
towel
seg
around REFL
She puts a towel around her
Sentences with non-locational complements have the complex reflexive, as in
(30)-(32).
(30) Brink burde
kreve
Brink should demand
mer av seg
selv
more of REFL SELF
Brink should demand more of himself
(31) Noen folk må reddes fra seg selv
some people must save-PASS from REFL SELF
Some people must be saved from themselves
(32) Han tenkte på
seg
selv
he thought of REFL SELF
He thought of himself
Complex reflexives 15
3.2 Metaphorical use
It is not clear if the prepositions in sentences like (30)-(32) constitute
predicates, or if they should be considered semantically empty. If they do not
constitute predicates, their object is a coargument of the subject of the clause,
and Hellan's view correctly predicts the complex reflexive in (30)-(32).
However, at least for some complement PPs with non-locational meanings, it
could be argued that their prepositions are not semantically empty, but rather
used metaphorically. They would then constitute predicates, and Hellan's
theory would predict that they take the simple reflexive. In the account of
reflexives presented here, complement PPs are predicted to take the complex
reflexive when they are not locational, independently of the predicate status
of their preposition.
Some prepositions show a rather clear-cut division between a locational and
a metaphorical use. The distribution of reflexives is as expected; the
metaphorical use takes the complex reflexive, and the locational use takes the
simple reflexive. One example is the preposition mot, whose meaning is either
the directional 'towards' or the metaphorical 'against' (Kristoffersen 2001), as
in (33)-(34). In a similar way, the meaning of the preposition om is either the
locational 'around' or the metaphorical 'concerning', as in (35)-(36).
(33) (han) drar den mot seg
he
pulls it towards REFL
He pulls it towards him
Complex reflexives 16
(34) Forbrukerrådet
argumenterer mot
consumer-council-DEF argues
seg
selv
against REFL SELF
The consumer council argues against itself
(35) de spredte en karakteristisk odør om seg
they spread a characteristic smell around REFL
They spread a characteristic smell around them
(36) De vil fortelle om seg selv
they will tell about REFL SELF
They will tell about themselves
In other cases, as in (26) above, it is not the preposition in itself that is used
metaphorically, but rather the verb and the preposition together.
3.3 Fixed expressions
There is a number of more or less idiomatic fixed expressions in which the
simple reflexive is the object of a preposition, for example (37)-(40).
(37) koste på seg noe
treat on REFL something
treat oneself to something
(38) ha
press på seg
have pressure on REFL
be under pressure
Complex reflexives 17
(39) legge noe
put
under seg
something under REFL
conquer something
(40) ta
mot
til seg
take courage to REFL
pluck up courage
This kind of idioms take the simple reflexive (see Everaert 1986:47-49 on
Dutch). This fact might be unexpected, because their meaning is not
locational. On the other hand, the reflexive cannot be replaced by an ordinary
noun phrase (without losing the idiomatic meaning). They could therefore be
seen as non-thematic. Non-thematic reflexives are always simple, see note 28.
4. Binding domains
This section discusses binding domains for reflexives, arguing that both
simple and complex reflexive are used in local binding, and that the local
domain should be defined as the minimal clause
The basic generalization is the same with adjunct and complement PPs: The
simple reflexive is used in a PP that denotes location relative to the physical
body of the referent of the binder. The complex reflexive is used elsewhere.
This account is very different from Hellan's view that the simple reflexive is
used in non-local binding, while the complex reflexive is used in local
binding. Hellan's view predicts a syntactically conditioned complementary
Complex reflexives 18
distribution that is not empirically correct (see especially (10)-(12) versus (13)(15), and (22)).
The account proposed here has consequences for the understanding of
binding domains. Hellan takes local binding to be binding by a coargument,
predicting that the complex reflexive can only be bound by a coargument. It
was shown, however, that both adjunct and complement PPs take the
complex reflexive when the meaning is not locational. To single out the
obvious cases of non-local binding that require the simple reflexive9, it is
necessary to redefine the concept of local domain for Norwegian reflexives.
Their local domain must be larger than is usually assumed.
It is necessary to go back to a simpler definition of binding domains. In the
first generative work on reflexives, locality was defined in terms of the binder
and the reflexive being in the "same simplex sentence" (Lees and Klima 1963),
or being "clause mates" (Postal 1971:13). The local domain that is needed here
is the clause, understood as a predication with a subject and a predicate, and
complements and adjuncts, if any. This concept also covers secondary
predications, as in (41)-(43).
(41) Vi ba [hami kikke bak
we asked him look
segi]
behind REFL
We asked him to look behind him
(42) Vi gjorde [hami stolt
we made him
proud
av seg selvi]
of REFL SELF
We made him proud of himself
Complex reflexives 19
(43) Vi gjorde [hami til talsmann for seg
we made him
selvi]
into spokesman for REFL SELF
We made him a spokesman for himself
This clausal domain is the domain in which both the simple and the complex
reflexive are used, depending upon meaning. The clausal domain is also the
domain for the anti-subject-orientation of pronouns (which requires a special
domain in Hellan's theory). Outside this local domain, the simple reflexive is
used.
An independent argument for this view is given by the proxy reflexives.
They must always be complex. The only exception involves non-local binding
(Safir 2004:132), as in (44), in which the proxy is in an embedded non-finite
clause.
(44) Karii bad
meg kikke ved siden av segi på bildet
Kari asked me
look
beside
REFL in picture-DEF
Kari asked me to look beside her in the picture
This generalization - and exception - require locality to be defined as above.
Proxy reflexives cannot be simple in the other contexts that are non-local
when locality means coargumenthood. For example, proxy reflexives must
always be complex in adjunct PPs, see (20) above.
Binding domains cannot be discussed without mentioning reflexives in
noun phrases. They introduce problems for the understanding of binding
domains, which can only be discussed briefly here.
Complex reflexives 20
Hellan assumed (as is usual in the literature) that noun phrases define
separate binding domains when the head noun has argument structure.
Consider (45), from Hellan 1988:69, with his question marks.
(45) ??Jon leste [noen omtaler av seg selv]
Jon read
some reviews of REFL SELF
Jon read some reviews of himself
On Hellan's view, (45) is a case of non-local binding. The reflexive is within
the noun phrase, and the binder is the clausal subject. The binder and the
reflexive are not coarguments, and the prediction is that the reflexive should
be simple. However, web searches show that the complex reflexive is most
often used with omtale 'review' and comparable nominalizations. Sentences
with the simple reflexive are unusual in texts, even if they are usually
acceptable to me and other speakers. This seems to be the basic tendency with
other nominalizations as well. Examples are (46)-(47).
(46) (Han) opplevde virkelig [overgrep mot seg selv]
he experienced really harassments against REFL SELF
He really experienced harassments against himself
(47) ingen bør påtvinges [følsom informasjon om seg selv]
nobody should force-upon-PASS sensitive information about REFL SELF
Nobody should be forced to receive sensitive information about
themselves
Complex reflexives 21
Even in noun phrases with possessives, the complex reflexive is often found
when the binder is outside the noun phrase, as in (48).
(48) huni vil påkalle [politiets interesse for seg selvi]
she will evoke the police's interest for REFL SELF
She wants to evoke the police's interest for her
This is an important indication that noun phrases are not necessarily separate
binding domains (see Keller and Asudeh 2001, Asudeh and Keller 2001 on
English picture nouns).
5. Reflexive objects of verbs
This section argues that the generalization for simple and complex reflexives
in PPs is an instance of a more general principle for the distribution of simple
and complex reflexives.
Hellan (1988) pointed out that the verbs that take a complex reflexive object
(like elske 'love') "express a relation with a mental object as the second part, or
what we might call a ´full personality´, rather than just a physical aspect of a
person" Hellan (1988:113). The verbs that take the simple reflexive, on the
other hand, denote actions that are directed towards 'a physical aspect of a
person'. Typical examples are verbs denoting grooming actions, but there are
also verbs that denote other actions directed towards the body, for example
piske 'flog'. Differing from Hellan (1988:104-30), Hestvik (1990:94-120) and
others, it is assumed here that these verbs can have an analysis as ordinary
Complex reflexives 22
transitive verbs with the simple reflexive as a thematic object. Some
arguments can be found in Everaert (1986:96-98), Lødrup (1999), Kiparsky
(2002:212), Bergeton (2004: 231-263)10.
There is one generalization that covers these verbs and the locational
prepositions: the physical aspect of the referent of the binder is in focus; it is
his or her physical body that is relevant. This is called a physical context in
Lødrup (1999), see also Bresnan (2001:254-61). Physical contexts can be
defined as those in which the action is on or in relation to a person's physical
body, or something is located relative to a person's physical body (modified
from Bresnan 2001:258). Note that a reflexive in a physical context is
fundamentally different from a proxy. A reflexive in a physical context refers
to the physical body of the referent of the antecedent. A proxy, on the other
hand, refers to an object that is distinct from (but related to) the referent of the
antecedent.
A person is conceptualized as having two 'parts', the body and the mind (or
the 'self' and the 'subject' of Lakoff (1996)). The simple reflexive stands for the
body of the binder. However, it is not clear that the complex reflexive stands
for his or her mind (as hinted in the Hellan quotation above). For example,
Norwegian forakte 'despise' and snakke om 'talk about' both take the complex
reflexive, but neither excludes one's body from being a part of what is
despised or talked about. It would probably be better to see the complex
reflexive as an elsewhere form that is used outside the physical contexts. The
distribution of the simple and complex reflexive can then be described in the
following way: In a local domain (in the sense of section 4), the simple
reflexive is used in a physical context, while the complex reflexive is used
elsewhere.
Complex reflexives 23
6. Inalienables
The question is now why the simple reflexive should stand for the body of the
binder, or, more generally, why the concept of the physical body is relevant to
the distribution of reflexives. The answer is to be found in the relation
between reflexives and inalienables. I will argue that the simple reflexive is an
inalienable, whose distribution follows an independently established binding
principle for inalienables.
A traditional idea is that there is some kind of similarity between
inalienables and the complex reflexive, or the self element (Faltz 1985:31-34,
Guéron 1985, Pica 1987, Safir 1996, Pica and Snyder 1997, Postma 1997,
Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd 1998, 1999, Safir 2004:195-98). Lødrup (1999)
makes use of the relation between reflexives and inalienables in a different
way. This approach was based upon the grammatical similarity between
inalienables and simple reflexives (an observation attributed to L[ars] Johnsen
in Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992:622, note 37)).
Inalienables usually require a possessor to be syntactically realized. The
possessor can be realized internally or externally to the phrase that contains
the inalienable. It is internal in (49), in which it is realized as a possessive, and
external in (50), in which it is realized as the subject of the sentence.
(49) Han elsker hendene
he
loves
sine
hands-DEF REFL-POSS
He loves his hands
Complex reflexives 24
(50) Han vasker hendene
he washes hands-DEF
He washed his hands
The external possessor is always the subject in Norwegian, except in
sentences with possessor raising (Hun vasket ham på hendene 'She washed him
on the hands')11.
An important fact about inalienables is that they do not occur freely with
external possessors. For example, (49) above would have been ungrammatical
without the internal possessor. Lødrup (1999) shows that definite inalienables
with external possessors can be used in the same contexts as the simple
reflexive, namely the physical contexts12. Examples are (51)-(53).
(51) Han vasket seg
he
/ hendene
washed REFL / hands-DEF
He washed himself / his hands
(52) Hun tar et handkle om
she puts a towel
seg /
hodet
around REFL / head-DEF
She puts a towel around her / her head
(53) Han kjente sagmugg under seg /
he
felt
føttene
sawdust under REFL / feet-DEF
He felt sawdust under him / his feet
Contexts that require the complex reflexive require inalienables with internal
possessors, as in (54)-(56). (To avoid the interpretation where the inalienables
Complex reflexives 25
are used as ordinary definite nouns, one could think of the example sentences
as the first sentence of a discourse.)
(54) Kongen elsker seg *(selv) / hendene
king-DEF loves
*(sine)
REFL SELF / hands-DEF REFL-POSS
The king loves himself / his hands
(55) Kongen tenkte på seg *(selv) / hendene *(sine)
king-DEF thought of REFL SELF / hands-DEF REFL-POSS
The king thought of himself / his hands
(56) Kongen betrodde seg til meg angående seg *(selv) / hendene ?? (sine)
king-DEF confided REFL to me concerning REFL SELF / hands-DEF REFLPOSS
The king confided in me concerning himself / his hands
The proxy reading requires complex reflexives, and it also requires
inalienables with internal possessors. Examples (57)-(58) can only have the
'wax museum interpretation' (Jackendoff 1992) when the inalienables have
internal possessors.
(57) Ringo vasket hendene
(sine)
Ringo washed hands-DEF REFL-POSS
Ringo washed his hands
(58) Ringo tar et håndkle om
Ringo puts a towel
hodet
(sitt)
around head-DEF REFL-POSS
Ringo puts a towel around his head
Complex reflexives 26
We see, then, that the distribution of inalienables with external possessors
parallels the distribution of simple reflexives. Inalienables with external
possessors are used in physical contexts, while inalienables with internal
possessors are used elsewhere. Binding theory must have a principle saying
that an inalienable is bound by its possessor in a physical context (Lødrup
1999, Bresnan 2001:254-61). This principle will also account for the simple
reflexive in its local use, where it should be seen as an inalienable that denotes
the body as a whole. This gives a principled basis for its distribution.
The domain in which inalienables are bound by their external possessors is
the clause. There are no non-local inalienables with external possessors, as
shown in (59).
(59) Hani ba meg vaske hendene ??(sinei)
he asked me wash hands-DEF REFL-POSS
He asked me to wash his hands
This means that the local binding domain for inalienables is the one that was
proposed for reflexives, namely the minimal clause. This follows from the
definition of physical contexts, and gives an argument for the approach to
binding domains taken here.
Complex reflexives 27
7. Problems and alternatives
7.1 The intensifier selv 'self'
The main problem for the present proposal - and probably for any account of
simple and complex reflexives in a language like Norwegian - is the existence
of selv 'self' as a focusing or intensifying particle (Hellan 1988:63-4, Bergeton
2004). The intensifier selv 'self' is used independently of reflexives. All
occurrences of the simple reflexive, except non-thematic and non-local uses,
can have intensifying selv 'self', with varying degrees of naturalness.
Examples are (60)-(61).
(60) Han pisket seg
(selv)
he flogged REFL SELF
He flogged himself
(61) Han så en slange bak
seg
(selv)
he saw a snake behind REFL SELF
He saw a snake behind him
The complex reflexive looks like the simple reflexive followed by the
intensifier. It is possible to distinguish between them, however (see Hellan
1988:63-64). The intensifier selv 'self' introduces a "contrastive, contrary-toexpectation element" (Levinson 1991:131). This element is a part of the
interpretation of both (60) and (61) - more naturally in (60), in which the
meaning of verb makes agent-patient coreference unexpected (see Faltz
1985:239-43).
Complex reflexives 28
The complex reflexive is also different from the simple reflexive followed by
the intensifier in that the complex reflexive does not necessarily introduce the
"contrastive, contrary-to-expectation element". For example, verbs that
require the complex reflexive as an object (like elske 'love'), cannot give up this
requirement, even if the context makes coreference expected13.
Even if the complex reflexive can be distinguished from the simple reflexive
followed by the intensifier, care must be taken when simple and complex
reflexives are investigated. The question to ask is not where seg selv is possible
(because it very often is), but rather where seg is possible, and where seg selv is
obligatory.
7.2 Semantic approaches
There are other approaches to the distribution of simple and complex
reflexives in local domains that have in common with the present approach
that they are based on meaning. Even if Norwegian has not been in the focus,
they deserve a short mention here.
Haiman (1983) proposed that the simple reflexive is used when the verb
denotes actions that one usually performs upon oneself, while the complex
reflexive is used when the verb denotes actions that one usually performs
upon others. This approach is discussed by Smith (2004), who points out its
weaknesses, for example its inability to account for the fact that the
Norwegian verb piske 'flog' takes the simple reflexive (which is predicted by
the present approach). Haiman (1983) also proposed an additional factor, the
degree to which the participants in the event denoted by the sentence are
Complex reflexives 29
distinguishable; Smith (2004) shows that this principle is empirically
inadequate, and that it is problematic on conceptual grounds.
9. Conclusion
It has been shown that the local domain for binding must be the clause, rather
than a predicate and its arguments, and that this is the local domain for both
simple and complex reflexives in Norwegian. The distribution of the simple
and complex reflexives in this domain is semantically based. The simple
reflexive is an inalienable denoting the physical body of the referent of the
binder, while the complex reflexive is an elsewhere form. This gives a very
different picture of the distribution of simple and complex reflexives, and of
binding domains, than is usually seen in the literature.
Danish, Swedish and Dutch have simple and complex reflexives whose
distribution is known to be rather similar to Norwegian. No explicit
comparison exists, however, and it remains to be seen if the account
presented here carries over to these languages.
Complex reflexives 30
Notes
1
Forms like ham selv 'him self' (consisting of a non-reflexive pronoun and selv
'self') are assumed to be anaphors in Hellan (1988). I assume that selv with a
non-reflexive pronoun is an intensifying particle, which is not subject to
binding theory (see Bergeton 2004:212-220).
2
Non-thematic reflexives, as in (i)-(ii), are always simple (Hellan 1988:120);
they will be put aside in this article.
(i) Han innfant seg
på kontoret
he appeared REFL at office-DEF
He appeared at the office
(ii) Han løp seg
he
svett
ran REFL sweaty
He ran himself sweaty
3
Norwegian has reflexives without visible binders, as in (i).
(i) Judo utvikler (…) respekt for seg selv og andre
judo develops
respect for REFL SELF and others
Judo develops respect for oneself and others
These reflexives always have a generic interpretation, and they are not
directly relevant to the discussion here (see Lødrup 2007).
4
In non-local binding (as defined in section 4), the simple reflexive must be
used. With some of the prepositions in this group, forms like ham selv 'him
self' (consisting of a non-reflexive pronoun and selv 'self') would be a more or
less acceptable alternative to the reflexive, violating the general anti-subjectorientation of Norwegian pronouns.
5
Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd (1998) mention that the second group of
prepositions in Dutch take complex reflexives. They connect this property to
Complex reflexives 31
the fact that these prepositions do not allow preposition stranding, assuming
that the simple reflexive has to move covertly. Apart from the problems with
a movement analysis of reflexives (Safir 2004:164-66), this analysis gets less
attractive when one considers the fact that the previous group of prepositions
always allow preposition stranding; this is also the case when they are used
with a non-locational meaning and take the complex reflexive.
6
It is interesting, however, that an inanimate subject can in some cases bind a
pronoun, violating the general anti-subject orientation of pronouns in
Norwegian (Lødrup 2006). An example is (i).
(i) Enkelte LCD-skjermer har et elektroluminiserende panel bak dem
some
LCD-screens
have an electro-illuminating
panel behind them
'Some LCD screens have an electro-illuminating panel behind them'
7
Hestvik makes use of the well-known asymmetry between principle A and
principle B (Huang 1983): principle A requires a domain with a subject, while
principle B doesn't.
8
A case in which the simple reflexive is unexpected concerns the PP for seg
'for REFL' with verbs like betale 'pay' or svare 'answer'. This case differs from
(37)-(40) in that the reflexive can be replaced by an ordinary noun phrase.
Even so, the phrases in question might have been lexicalized as fixed
expressions. It is striking that the PP does not really add to the meaning; the
expression betale for seg 'pay for REFL' usually means the same without the
PP. (This is also true of adjunct PPs like uten kostnader for seg 'without
expenses for REFL'.)
9
I disregard sentences like (i), which can be reasonably acceptable with a
complex reflexive in non-local binding.
(i) hun trodde hun gjorde det som var best for seg
selv
Complex reflexives 32
she thought she did
that which was best for REFL SELF
She thought she did what was best for herself
Sentences like (i) are only acceptable when the subject of the subordinate
clause is inanimate. It is well known from many languages that inanimate
subjects do not always count as binders (Lødrup 2006).
10
In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish between simple reflexive objects
and lexical reflexives (see Lødrup 1999, especially notes 3 and 4). It could also
be mentioned that indirect object reflexives are most often complex, as in (i).
(i) De ga
seg
selv poeng
they gave REFL SELF points
They gave themselves points
This is expected, because a benefactive is usually a human or an institution,
whose abstract sphere of interests is affected by the action. However, a verb
like iføre 'put on' takes an indirect object that is not benefactive. It is locational,
and the simple reflexive is used, as in (ii).
(ii) Politikeren
iførte
seg
gorilladrakt
politician-DEF put-on REFL gorilla-suit
The politician put on a gorilla suit
11
Norwegian does not have the external dative possessors that can be found
in several European languages, for example German and French. An example
is the French sentence (i), from Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992:597). Note
that the inalienable is the direct object in this construction, while the possessor
is the direct object in possessor raising.
(i) Le médecin leur
the doctor
a examiné la gorge
to-them examined the throat
The doctor examined their throats
Complex reflexives 33
12
Inalienables with external possessors also share other properties with
simple reflexives. For example, they only allow the sloppy reading in
comparative deletion sentences like (i) and (ii) (see Sells, Zaenen and Zec
1987).
(i) Bestefar
vasket seg
bedre enn Lillebror
Grandfather washed REFL better than Little-brother
Grandfather washed himself better than Little brother
(ii) Bestefar
vasket hendene
bedre enn Lillebror
Grandfather washed hands-DEF better than Little-brother
Grandfather washed his hands better than Little brother
13
Bergeton (2004) proposes that the complex reflexive should always be seen
as seg followed by the intensifiser. This view seems to be hard to reconcile
with the fact that the complex reflexive is obligatory in many contexts.
Complex reflexives 34
Acknowledgements
This work has benefitted from discussions with audiences at Oslo and
Stanford, and the LSA Annual Meeting 2006 in Albuquerque, NM. I would
especially like to thank Jenny Graver, Trine Egebakken, Janne Bondi
Johannessen, Joan Bresnan, Peter Sells and Paul Kiparsky. Thanks also to the
three anonymous reviewers for detailed and useful comments.
Complex reflexives 35
References
Asudeh, Ash and Frank Keller: 2001, 'Experimental Evidence for a
Predication-based Binding Theory', in M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, and S.
Neuvel (eds.), CLS 37: The main session, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago,
pp. 1-14.
Barbiers, Sjef: 2000, 'On the Interpretation of Movement and Agreement: PPs
and Binding', in H. Bennis, M. Everaert and E. Reuland (eds.) Interface
strategies: Proceedings of the colloquium, Amsterdam, 24-26 September 1999,
Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, pp 2136.
Bergeton, Uffe: 2004, The Independence of Binding and Intensification,
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, USC.
Bouma, Gosse, Rob Malouf, and Ivan A. Sag: 2001, 'Satisfying Constraints on
Extraction and Adjunction', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 1, 1-65.
Bresnan, Joan: 2001, Lexical-Functional Syntax. Blackwell, Oxford.
Dalrymple, Mary: 1993, The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. CSLI, Stanford.
Everaert, Martin: 1986, The Syntax of Reflexivization. Foris, Dordrecht.
Faltz, Leonard M.: 1985, Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. Garland,
New York.
Guéron, Jacqueline: 1985, 'Inalienable Possession, PRO-inclusion and Lexical
Chains', in J. Guéron, H.-G. Obenauer and J.-Y. Pollock (eds.) Grammatical
Representation, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 43-86.
Haiman, John: 1983, 'Iconic and Economic Motivation', Language 59, 4 781-819.
Hellan, Lars: 1988, Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar, Foris,
Dordrecht.
Complex reflexives 36
Hellan, Lars: 1991, 'Containment and Connectedness Anaphors', in J. Koster
and E. Reuland (eds.)
Long-Distance Anaphora, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 27-48.
Hestvik, Arild: 1990, LF Movement of Pronouns and the Computation of
Binding Domains, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University.
Hestvik, Arild: 1991, 'Subjectless Binding Domains', Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 9, 3, 455-496.
Hestvik, Arild: 1992, 'LF Movement of Pronouns and Antisubject Orientation',
Linguistic Inquiry 23, 557-594.
Hestvik, Arild and William Philip: 2001, 'Syntactic vs. Logophoric Binding:
Evidence from Norwegian Child Language', in P. Cole, G. Hermon and J.
Huang (eds). Syntax and Semantics: Long Distance Reflexives, vol. 33, Academic
Press, New York, pp. 119-39.
Huang, C.-T. James: 1983, 'A Note on the Binding Theory', Linguistic Inquiry
14, 3 554-60.
Jackendoff, Ray: 1992, 'Madame Tussaud meets the binding theory', Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory, 10, 1 1-31.
Keller, Frank and Ash Asudeh: 2001, 'Constraints on Linguistic Coreference:
Structural vs. Pragmatic Factors', in Proceedings of the 23rd. Annual Conference
of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 483-488.
Kiparsky, Paul: 2002, 'Disjoint Reference and the Typology of Pronouns', in I.
Kaufmann and B. Stiebels (eds.), More than Words, Studia Grammatica 53,
Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 179-226.
Kristoffersen, Kristian: 2001, 'Semantic Structure of the Norwegian
Preposition mot', Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24, 1, 3-28.
Complex reflexives 37
Lakoff, George: 1996, '"Sorry, I’m Not Myself Today": The Metaphor System
for Conceptualizing the Self', in G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser (eds.) Spaces,
Worlds, and Grammars, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 91-123.
Lees, Robert B. and Edward S. Klima: 1963, 'Rules for English
Pronominalization', Language 39, 1, 17-28.
Levinson, Stephen C.: 1991, 'Pragmatic Reduction of the Binding Conditions
Revisited', Journal of Linguistics 27, 107-161.
Lidz, Jeffrey: 2001, 'Anti-antilocality', in P. Cole, G. Hermon and J. Huang
(eds). Syntax and Semantics: Long Distance Reflexives, vol. 33, Academic Press,
New York, pp. 227-254.
Lødrup, Helge: 1999, 'Inalienables in Norwegian and Binding Theory',
Linguistics 37, 3, 365 - 388.
Lødrup, Helge: 2006, Animacy and Long Distance Binding: The Case of
Norwegian' http://folk.uio.no/helgelo/index.html
Lødrup, Helge: 2007, 'Norwegian Anaphors without Visible Binders'. Journal
of Germanic Linguistics 19, 1 1-22.
Pica, Pierre: 1987, 'On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle', in J.
McDonough and B. Plunkett (eds.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic
Society 17. GLSA, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, pp.
483-499.
Pica, Pierre and William Snyder: 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, Oxford University Press, New York,
pp. 235-250.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag: 1994, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Complex reflexives 38
Postal, Paul M.: 1971, Cross-over Phenomena. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York.
Postma, Gertjan: 1997, 'Logical Entailment and the Possessive Nature of
Reflexive Pronouns', in H. Bennis, P. Pica and J. Rooryck (eds.) Atomism and
Binding, Dordrecht, Foris, pp. 295-322.
Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland: 1993, 'Reflexivity', Linguistic Inquiry 24, 4,
657-720.
Rooryck, Johan and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd: 1998, 'The Self as Other: A
Minimalist Account of zich and zichzelf in Dutch', in P. Tamanji and K.
Kusumoto (eds.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 28, GLSA,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 359-373.
Rooryck, Johan and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd: 1999, 'Puzzles of Identity:
Binding at the Interface', in P. Tamanji, M. Hirotani and N. Hall (eds),
Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 29, GLSA, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst,
Safir, Ken: 1996, 'Semantic Atoms of Anaphora', Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 15, 545-589.
Safir, Ken: 2004, The Syntax of Anaphora. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sells, Peter, Annie Zaenen and Draga Zec: 1987, 'Reflexivization Variation:
Relations between Syntax, Semantics, and Lexical Structure', in M. Iida, S.
Wechsler and D. Zec (eds.) Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse
Structure, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp. 169-238.
Smith, Mark: 2004, 'Light and heavy reflexives', Linguistics 42, 3 573-615.
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta: 1992, 'The Definite
Determiner and the Inalienable Construction in French and English',
Linguistic Inquiry 23, 595-652.
Complex reflexives 39
Zwarts, Joost: 1997, 'Complex Prepositions and P-stranding in Dutch',
Linguistics 35, 6 1091-1112.