Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:41:24.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animacy and long distance binding in Norwegian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Helge Lødrup
Helge Lødrup*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo, Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, Pb 1102, Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway. helge.lodrup@ilf.uio.no
Get access

Abstract

Norwegian allows binding into finite subordinate clauses when the subordinate subject is inanimate and has a thematic role that is low on the hierarchy of thematic roles (e.g. Hun trodde hun gjorde det som var best for seg selv ‘she thought she did that which was best for refl self’). This kind of long distance binding is productive, and generally acceptable, but it has never been mentioned in the literature. This article discusses its syntactic and semantic properties. It is shown that the reflexives in question are not necessarily logophoric, and that they prefer a distributive interpretation. The general binding properties of inanimate subjects are discussed, and it is proposed that binding theory must have the option to disregard them. Binding across inanimate subjects can then be treated as local binding.

Keywords

animacybindinglong distance bindingNorwegianreflexives
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , June 2009 , pp. 111 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2009

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

REFERENCES

Aass, Kristin Hauge. 1979. Refleksivitet i moderne norsk: Bruken av seg og sin [Reflexivity in Modern Norwegian: The use of seg and sin]. Cand. philol. thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21 (3), 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anward, Jan. 1974. Swedish reflexivization. In Dahl, Östen (ed.), The First Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 17–35. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet, Avd, för lingvistik.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2000. Argument structure and animacy restrictions on anaphora. In Chang, Steve S., Liaw, Lily & Ruppenhofer, Josef (eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 25, 2–13. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella & Huang, C.-T. James. 2001. Introduction: Long-distance reflexives: The state of the art. In Cole et al. (eds.), xiii–xlv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella & Huang, C.-T. James (eds.) (2001a). Long-distance Reflexives (Syntax and Semantics 33). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 2001. Long-distance anaphors in Hindi/Urdu: Syntactic and semantic issues. In Cole et al. (eds.), 47–82.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1937. Om pronominerne sig og sin [On the pronouns sig and sin]. Acta Philologica Scandinavica 13, 1–92.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk [Norwegian reference grammar]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hestvik, Arild. 1990. LF Movement of Pronouns and the Computation of Binding Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild. 1992. LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (4), 557–594.Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild & Philip, William. 2001. Syntactic vs. logophoric binding: Evidence from Norwegian child language. In Cole et al. (eds.), 119–139.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 2002. Distributivity and reflexivity. In Tang, Sze-Wing & Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther (eds.), The Formal Way to Chinese Languages, 21–44. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James & Liu, C.-S. Luther. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes and ziji at the interface. In Cole et al. (eds.), 141–195.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. In Kaufmann, Ingrid & Stiebels, Barbara (eds.), More than Words, 179–226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan & Reuland, Eric (eds.). 1991. Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 1999. Linking and optimality in the Norwegian presentational focus construction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22 (2), 205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2007a. Norwegian anaphors without visible binders. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19 (1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2007b. A new account of simple and complex reflexives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10 (3), 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2008. Objects binding reflexives in Norwegian. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 26 (2), 30–54.Google Scholar
Moshagen, Sjur N. & Trosterud, Trond. 1990. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 46, 47–52.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2001. Long-distance reflexivization in Chechen and Inguish. In Cole et al. (eds.), 255–278.Google Scholar
Pan, Haihua. 1998. Closeness, prominence, and binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16 (4), 771–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4), 657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Anaphors, logophors and binding. In Cole et al. (eds.), 343–370.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Everaert, Martin. 2001. Deconstructing binding. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 634–669. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Koster, Jan. 1991. Long-distance anaphora: An overview. In Koster & Reuland (eds.), 1–25.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1997. Symmetry and unity in the theory of anaphora. In Bennis, Hans, Pica, Pierre & Rooryck, Johan (eds.), Atomism and Binding, 341–380. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. The Syntax of Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18 (3), 445–479.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 1990. Long distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. In Maling, Joan & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Modern Icelandic Syntax (Syntax and Semantics 24), 309–346. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strahan, Tania E. 2003. Long-distance Reflexives in Norwegian: A Quantitative Study. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska akademiens grammatik [The Swedish Academy grammar], vol. 2. Stockholm: Svenska akademien.Google Scholar
Vinje, Finn-Erik. 2002. Moderne norsk [Modern Norwegian]. Bergen: FagbokforlagetGoogle Scholar
Xue, Ping, Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. A new perspective on Chinese ziji. In Aranovich, Raul, Byrne, William, Preuss, Susanne & Senturia, Martha (eds.), The West Coast Confererence on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 13, 432–447, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar