Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:39:01.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 21 - Binding

The Morphology, Syntax, and Semantics of Reflexive and Nonreflexive Pronouns

from Part III - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses anaphoric elements, i.e., reflexive and nonreflexive pronouns, their syntactic distribution, their morphological structure, and how they get their reference (their semantics). While the main goal is to give a descriptive overview, the chapter also introduces two landmark theories proposed to account for the distribution of anaphoric elements: Chomsky’s (1981, 1986) classic Binding Theory and Reinhart and Reuland’s (1993) “Reflexivity” approach. The initial concern is with the basic complementarity of reflexive and nonreflexive pronouns in English and German but also with certain instances of noncomplementarity, including logophoric uses of reflexive pronouns in English. The chapter then deals with anaphoric elements in Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and Icelandic, focusing on so-called SELF versus SE anaphors, and, where applicable, also on possessive reflexives. Special attention is paid to the comparison between Dutch zichzelf and German sich (selbst).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergeton, U. 2004. The Independence of Binding and Intensification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Büring, D. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M. 1993. The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. Stanford: Center for the Studies of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Gast, V. 2006. The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Reflexives in Germanic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hestvik, A. 1991. “Subjectless binding domains,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9.3: 455496.Google Scholar
Holmes, P. and Hinchliffe, I. 1994. Swedish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. and Sigurjónsdóttir, S. 1990. “The development of ‘long-distance anaphora’: A cross-linguistic comparison with special reference to Icelandic,” Language Acquisition 1.1: 5793.Google Scholar
Kiparski, P. 2002. “Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns.” In Kaufmann, I. and Stiebels, B. (eds.), More than Words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 179226.Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, V. 2004. “Binding by phase: (Non-)complementarity in German,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16.2: 111171.Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, V. 2007. Beyond Coherence: The Syntax of Opacity in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, V. 2008. “Binding, phases, and locality,” Syntax 11.3: 281298.Google Scholar
Oosterhoff, J. 2015. Modern Dutch Grammar: A Practical Guide. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. and Reuland, E. 1993. “Reflexivity,” Linguistic Inquiry 24.4: 657720.Google Scholar
Safir, K. 2004. The Syntax of Anaphora. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shetter, W. Z. and Van der Cruysse-Van Antwerpen, I. 2004. Dutch: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2014. On Complementation in Icelandic. London: Routledge. Reprint of 1979 dissertation originally published by Garland.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. 1992. Clitics and the Chain Condition. Ms., Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1985. “Parameters of binder and of binding category in Danish,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 23: 161.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2002. “Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding.” In Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Malden: Blackwell: 269304.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2011. The Syntax of Dutch. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×