A new account of simple and complex reflexives in Norwegian

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.

Agreement and reconstruction correlate in Swedish

“…16,17 While it is quite clear, thus, that Swedish is different 16 Unbound reflexives are not much discussed in the literature on Swedish, presumably because they are not considered to be possible (see Engdahl 1986:107 andHeinat 2006:130-131, where the issue is briefly mentioned). In this regard, Swedish is like its closely related language Norwegian (see Lødrup 2007), but unlike English (the example in (ia) Reflexives in picture-nouns in Swedish also differ from their English counterparts in not allowing split antecedents. The possibility of having split antecedents has also been taken to indicate that the reflexive is not syntactically bound (on English, see Bouchard 1984, discussed in Charnavel andSportiche 2016:36) (the example in (iia) is from Charnavel and Sportiche 2016:36):…”

Implicit possessives and reflexive binding in Norwegian

“…Lødrup (1999; 2007a) argues that the general rule for the distribution of local reflexives in Norwegian is as follows: the simple reflexive is used in physical contexts, while the complex reflexive is an elsewhere form. Typical examples are (48)–(50), with physical contexts, and (51)–(53), with non‐physical contexts.…”

“…It must be admitted, however, that the use of the simple reflexive in non‐local binding could be considered problematic for this view. (See Lødrup 2007a: 198 for an argument that the non‐local simple reflexive should be seen as a different element from the local simple reflexive. )…”

“…Body‐part nouns are often used with implicit possessives, as shown by Lødrup (1999; 2007a). However, nouns that are not body‐part nouns can also be used this way; they will (clumsily) be called non‐body‐part nouns.…”

“…19 19 The same subset relation must be assumed for the simple reflexive if one accepts the view here (and in Lødrup 2007a) that the simple reflexive denotes the body of the referent of its binder. Given the classical split between ‘body’ and ‘soul’, the body is a subset of a person (see also Lakoff 1996).…”