Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T13:47:23.980Z 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

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

Information

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

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Long distance binding in Norwegian

Non-local reflexives in Norwegian have been discussed in the literature since Hellan (Reference Hellan1988). A typical example is (1), in which the reflexive is part of an embedded infinitival clause.

  1. (1)

In (1), the antecedent and the reflexive are arguments of different predicates. However, they are in the same minimal finite domain. Reuland & Koster (Reference Reuland and Koster1991) call this kind of binding medium distance binding. They reserve the term long distance binding for cases like (2), in which the reflexive is in a finite clause that does not contain the antecedent (Midnorwegian dialect, from Moshagen & Trosterud Reference Moshagen and Trosterud1990:49).

  1. (2)

This is the way the term long distance binding will be used here. However, there is no implication that long distance binding is a unitary phenomenon in linguistic theory; on the contrary, it is used as a descriptive term for phenomena that turn out to be rather diverse from a theoretical point of view.

Long distance binding (in the relevant sense) has traditionally been considered a marginal phenomenon in Norwegian. Scattered examples can be found in 19th- and 20th-century grammars and dialect descriptions (see references in Aass Reference Aass1979:299–366). The phenomenon is mentioned in Faarlund, Lie & Vannebo (Reference Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo1997:1161–1162), and in the normative Vinje (Reference Vinje2002:315–316) – in the latter case the advice is that it should be avoided.

Most work on binding theory considers long distance binding in Norwegian ungrammatical, either explicitly or implicitly (Hellan Reference Hellan1988:84–85). The only researchers who devote more than a couple of pages to long distance binding are Aass (Reference Aass1979:299–366), Moshagen & Trosterud (Reference Moshagen and Trosterud1990), and Strahan (Reference Strahan2003). They show that some speakers accept long distance binding in some cases.

The cases of long distance binding that have been mentioned in the literature are the following:Footnote 1

  1. (i) Example (2), repeated as (3), has a simple reflexive in a that-clause.

  2. (3)

Example (3) looks similar to the often-discussed Icelandic long distance binding, despite the fact that Norwegian does not have subjunctives. Sentences like (3) are very marginal in my own South East Norwegian dialect. The distribution of speakers who accept this kind of long distance binding (Strahan Reference Strahan2003) suggests that it must be considered an archaism in modern Norwegian.

  1. (ii) Example (4) has a simple reflexive in a relative clause.

  2. (4)

In sentences like (4), the verb in the main clause is often ha ‘have’, få ‘get’, trenge ‘need’, or a verb with a similar meaning. The head of the relative clause is usually an indefinite quantifier, which is often non-specific. Sentences without these properties, such as (5) are generally unacceptable.

  1. (5)

Sentences like (4) are hardly mentioned in the literature, except in Aass (Reference Aass1979:331–333). However, their Swedish counterpart is discussed in Teleman, Hellberg & Andersson (Reference Teleman, Hellberg and Andersson1999:343). This kind of sentence is revisited in section 4.6.

  1. (iii) The subject of the subordinate clause contains a reflexive possessive in (6), and a complex reflexive in (7).

  2. (6)

  3. (7)

It has been noted that sentences like (6) are often acceptable (Aass Reference Aass1979:352–354; Moshagen & Trosterud Reference Moshagen and Trosterud1990:48, note 2; Faarlund et al. Reference Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo1997:1161–1162). The acceptance rate for these sentences in Strahan (Reference Strahan2003:84–85) is surprisingly low, however.

Binding into a subordinate subject in sentences like (8) has been discussed several times (e.g. in Chomsky Reference Chomsky1981, Kuno Reference Kuno1987).

  1. (8) They thought that pictures of themselves would be on sale

Even if this is long distance binding according to the definition above, it can be treated as local binding (Chomsky Reference Chomsky1981:211, Reuland & Everaert Reference Reuland2001:639, Bresnan Reference Bresnan2001:218–219). Current versions of principle A standardly require a subject in the local domain. One possible wording is the following.

Principle A: An anaphor is bound in a local domain that contains a subject that is relationally superior.

The requirement that the subject is relationally superior means that it has a higher position in the relational hierarchy than the anaphor, or the argument containing the anaphor. This corresponds to c-command in configurational theories of binding. Principle A then allows sentences like (6)–(7). The subordinate clause cannot be the local binding domain, because its subject is not relationally superior to the reflexive. The local domain is therefore the whole sentence.

At the same time, principle B has no requirement for a subject. It allows a pronoun in sentences like (6)–(7).

Principle B: A pronoun is free in a local domain.

The alternation with pronouns makes reflexives in sentences like (6)–(7) different from regular local reflexives. It is also striking that many languages don't allow this kind of binding, for example Dutch and German (Büring Reference Büring2005:53, note 7).

1.2 The role of animacy

Some of the examples of long distance binding in Aass (Reference Aass1979:299–325) and Faarlund et al. (Reference Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo1997:1161) have an inanimate or expletive subject in the subordinate clause (this is true of all relevant examples in Faarlund et al. Reference Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo1997 when the type mentioned in note 1 is disregarded). This article shows that long distance binding is productive and acceptable in clauses with inanimate and expletive subordinate subjects.Footnote 2 This is the only case of non-local binding that allows the complex reflexive (with the exception of reflexives as part of subordinate subjects and the type mentioned in note 1). An example is (9).

  1. (9)

The fact that expletive subordinate subjects can have this effect in Norwegian was observed in Aass (Reference Aass1979:315), but it has never been observed for inanimate subjects.Footnote 3 (For simplicity, ‘animate’ will mean ‘human’ in this article; subjects denoting animals will be put aside.) To see that the crucial property of this kind of long distance binding is the inanimacy of the subordinate subject, compare (9) and (10).

  1. (10)

It might be objected that what makes (10) ungrammatical is not the animacy of the subordinate subject, but the intervention of a closer potential binder. This is not correct, however. Sentence (11) is as bad as (10), even if the subordinate subject is not a potential binder (because the subordinate subject is second person, while the reflexive is third person, like the main subject).

  1. (11)

Sentences with binding across inanimate subjects can be found in all kinds of texts (see section 1.3 below). The reflexives are not necessarily logophoric (section 2.1). It is striking, however, that they prefer a distributive interpretation (section 2.2). They have properties of bound anaphors, and it will be argued that they are not ‘outside’ binding theory (sections 3.1 and 3.2). It will be proposed that binding theory can disregard the subordinate subjects because they are lacking in prominence, being low on the hierarchies of animacy and thematic roles. Binding across inanimate subjects can then be accounted for as local binding (section 4).

1.3 Some data

The data used in this article was found on the web using various search strings. Unless otherwise indicated, all example sentences are from web pages; some of them have been shortened or edited. (Their sources are listed in the appendix.) Relevant sentences can be found in all kinds of texts, including texts from newspapers, schools, private companies, and the ministries. The example sentences in this article are reasonably acceptable to me and other linguists, if nothing else is indicated.Footnote 4

Sentences with binding across inanimate subjects often have a non-agentive verb in the subordinate clause, for example (12)–(14).

  1. (12)

  2. (13)

  3. (14)

Other sentences have passive verbs, for example (15)–(16).

  1. (15)

  2. (16)

In other sentences, the subordinate clause has a copular verb with an adjectival, nominal or prepositional predicate. Examples are (17)–(18).

  1. (17)

  2. (18)

Sentences with expletive subordinate subjects are given in (19)–(20).

  1. (19)

  2. (20)

Norwegian allows expletive subjects liberally both with active and passive verbs. The presentational focus construction has an expletive subject, and its ‘logical subject’ is realized as a grammatical object (Lødrup Reference Lødrup1999). Thus, this construction makes long distance binding possible into sentences whose ‘logical’ subject is animate.

In my data, there are practically no sentences with agentive or causative subordinate subjects. The subordinate subject has a thematic role that is low on the thematic hierarchy; or it has no thematic role, as in the presentational focus sentences (19)–(20). This fact is discussed further in section 4.5.

2. SOME PROPERTIES OF BINDING ACROSS INANIMATE SUBJECTS

2.1 Logophoricity

Logophoricity has been a central topic in the discussion of long distance reflexives in the world's languages for thirty years, and several languages have been reported to have logophoric long distance reflexives (see e.g. Kuno Reference Kuno1987, Sells Reference Sells1987, Sigurðsson Reference Sigurðsson, Maling and Zaenen1990:318–321, Bresnan Reference Bresnan2001:242–253). It will be assumed here, rather standardly, that a reflexive is logophoric when it refers to a person whose speech, thoughts or feelings are represented from his or her point of view. Examples that fit this description are easily found, for example (21)–(22).

  1. (21)

  2. (22)

In general, however, binding across inanimate subjects does not require any logophoricity or point-of-view effect. There are many acceptable sentences, like (23)–(24), in which the situation described is seen from the outside, and not from the point of view of the binder (see also (31)–(34) below).

  1. (23)

  2. (24)

2.2 Distributive–collective

A sentence with a plural subject and a locally bound reflexive will usually be ambiguous between a distributive and a collective interpretation (e.g. De kritiserte seg selv ‘they criticized themselves’). However, in sentences with long distance binding like (25)–(26), there is a clear tendency for the reflexive to prefer the distributive rather than the collective interpretation (see also (23)–(24) above). With pronouns, the collective reading would be preferred.

  1. (25)

  2. (26)

Consider (25). This sentence does not have the same truth value as the corresponding sentence with a pronoun. What (25) says is that each candidate in question knows what insurance scheme applies to him or her. With a pronoun, the preferred meaning would have been that the candidates knew what insurance scheme applies to the group of all candidates.Footnote 5

As the constructed example (27) shows, sentences that do not allow a distributive interpretation are not acceptable with reflexives.

  1. (27)

In many cases, the reason for choosing a reflexive seems to be the distributive meaning. For example, (26) above does not have any point-of-view effect. On the other hand, distributivity cannot be a necessary condition for this kind of long distance binding because many reflexives have a singular antecedent.Footnote 6 It is also clear that there is no disjunctive condition requiring either distributivity or point of view. For example, (28) has a singular antecedent, and no point-of-view effect (see also examples (31)–(34) below).

  1. (28)

A connection between reflexives and distributivity can also be found in Chinese, even if the facts are more complicated, see Huang (Reference Huang, Tang and Liu2002). In Chinese, ordinary plural noun phrases do not have a distributive reading without a special marker. This marker is necessary for a plural noun phrase to serve as the antecedent of long distance reflexive. In local binding, a distributive reading is the only option with a simple reflexive, but no marker is used. Huang considers this to be a different phenomenon, however. His explanation of the long distance facts is that the relevant contexts are de se contexts, assuming that only individuals, not groups, can have de se beliefs.Footnote 7 This assumption might be questioned, but even if it is accepted, it is clear that his explanation cannot be transferred to Norwegian. The reason is that long distance reflexives are more general than de se contexts; for example, (23) and (24) above are not de se contexts.

The affinity between reflexives and distributivity is not easy to explain. It is striking, however, that it is paralleled by an affinity between pronouns and collectivity. A pronoun can overlap in reference with an argument in its local domain if it is interpreted collectively, but not if it is interpreted distributively (Reinhart & Reuland Reference Reinhart and Reuland1993, Kiparsky Reference Kiparsky, Kaufmann and Stiebels2002), as in (29).

  1. (29)

Consider also the principle B violation in (30), which might be marginally acceptable if the interpretation is not distributive.

  1. (30)

If the players talk about their achievements as a team, the possessive pronoun deres might be possible, but not if they talk about their individual achievements. (According to Safir (Reference Safir2004:245), Arild Hestvik has said that Knut Tarald Taraldsen has pointed this out!)

2.3 Competition between forms

Many sentences with long distance binding would have been less acceptable with a personal pronoun – for reasons that are outside binding theory proper. Both the reflexive pronoun and the reflexive possessive in Norwegian are specified as third person, but they are not specified for the number or gender of their antecedent. They also lack the distinctions that can be found in the personal pronouns between human and non-human (with the distinction male–female within human). This underspecification seems to contribute to the choice of reflexives in some cases (see Diderichsen Reference Diderichsen1937:41).

In a sentence like (31), the use of the reflexive is a simple way of avoiding forms that sound unnatural even if they are impeccably ‘correct’: the neuter pronoun det ‘it’ referring to menneske ‘human’ (which is neuter), or the cumbersome expression ‘him or her’, or the stiff vedkommende ‘the person in question’. The same point is illustrated in (32), in which the forms avoided are possessive ‘his or her’, and vedkommendes ‘the person in question's’.

  1. (31)

  2. (32)

Another case in which avoiding a personal pronoun can be desirable concerns the pronominal possessives. The third person non-human forms dens (non-neuter) and dets (neuter) are stylistically marked. They have an air of writing, and do not sound natural in speech; this is especially true of dets. In (33) and (34), the subject of the main clause is non-human masculine and neuter, respectively, and the use of the reflexive possessive makes it possible to avoid the marked forms.

  1. (33)

  2. (34)

3. LONG DISTANCE REFLEXIVES IN A TYPOLOGY OF ANAPHORS

To establish the place of reflexives bound across inanimate subjects in a typology of anaphors, it is necessary to establish that their distribution is not outside binding theory, and that they are bound anaphors, and not pronouns.

3.1 Inside or outside binding theory

One possible approach to reflexives bound across inanimate subjects could be to say that they are outside binding theory, and that their distribution is governed by non-syntactic factors. It seems to be a common view in the literature that long distance reflexives belong to a group of reflexives that are outside binding theory. A division of reflexives into those that follow basic binding theory and those that do not is independently motivated for a number of languages, including English and Icelandic (for example Pollard & Sag Reference Pollard and Sag1994:266–272, Reuland & Everaert Reference Reuland, Everaert, Baltin and Collins2001:652). Examples (35)–(38) include sentences which violate binding theory by having antecedents that are either too far away from the anaphor, as in (35) and (36), or not relationally superior, as in (37) and (38).

  1. (35)

  2. (36)

  3. (37)

  4. (38)

Even anaphors outside binding theory cannot refer to just any antecedent, however. Work on English has shown that they must be bound by the closest possible binder. However, this binder must be referential and animate, as in (39)–(40), in which the subordinate inanimate or expletive subject does not count.

  1. (39)

  2. (40)

The relevant constraint is called the Intervention Constraint (Pollard & Sag, Reference Pollard and Sag1994:266–269, Asudeh Reference Asudeh, Chang, Liaw and Ruppenhofer2000; see also Xue, Pollard & Sag Reference Pollard and Sag1994 and Pan Reference Pan1998 on Chinese).

The Norwegian facts might look very similar to the English ones, but there is one crucial difference. There is no independent reason to assume that Norwegian has anaphors that are outside binding theory. There are no Norwegian equivalents of sentences like (35)–(38), which clearly need this kind of treatment. All Norwegian reflexives (except those mentioned in note 2) need an antecedent that is relationally superior (Hestvik & Philip Reference Hestvik and Philip2001), as shown by (41)–(42).Footnote 8

  1. (41)

  2. (42)

This fact is important to the interpretation of the Norwegian data. It means that Norwegian cannot be analyzed like English. There is no reason to assume that Norwegian has reflexives that are ‘outside’ binding theory proper.

3.2 Bound anaphors vs. pronouns

Cole, Hermon & Huang (Reference Huang and Liu2001:xvi) claim that long distance reflexives in the languages of the world are not a unitary phenomenon; they can have the distribution of bound anaphors or of pronouns. According to them, long distance reflexives are pronominal in, for example, Turkish and Malay, and anaphors in, for example, Kannada and Hindi/Urdu. Norwegian long distance reflexives have properties of bound anaphors. The important point is that Norwegian long distance reflexives can only have an antecedent that is relationally superior (as shown in 3.1). In Cole et al.'s (Reference Cole, Hermon and Huang2001) theory, some languages have long distance reflexives with mixed properties. English and Icelandic have forms that are primarily bound anaphors, but they can be used non-locally as pronouns under (what they call) logophoric conditions, as seen in (35)–(38) above.

4. LONG DISTANCE REFLEXIVES AND BINDING THEORY

4.1 Simple vs. complex reflexives

Binding across inanimate subjects can be found both with simple and complex reflexives. Other types of non-local binding do not allow complex reflexives (with the exception of reflexives as part of subordinate subjects and the type mentioned in note 1). Compare (43) with (44) and (45).

  1. (43)

  2. (44)

  3. (45)

A difference between these and simple sentences is that it is difficult to find clear cases of obligatory selv. Even if there are sentences like (46) that do not sound good without selv, the reason is probably the (pragmatic) need for an intensifier. The same verb can take the simple reflexive in other cases, as is shown in (47).

  1. (46)

  2. (47)

The intuitive generalization regarding binding across inanimate subjects is that a complex reflexive is possible if it would have been possible in the same kind of context in a simple sentence. The difference between this and local binding is that the complex reflexive is never obligatory.

For example, locatives generally take simple reflexives (Lødrup Reference Lødrup2007b), as in the classic example (48). This is also true of binding across inanimate subjects, as in (49), which would not be acceptable with the complex reflexive.

  1. (48)

  2. (49)

To take a different example, consider the observation in Hellan (Reference Hellan1988:113) that verbs that take a complex reflexive object (like forakte ‘despise’) ‘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’. This observation is also true of binding across inanimate subjects, where complex reflexives are found in the same kind of contexts, for example, as benefactive objects of verbs like gjelde ‘concern’, angå ‘concern’, ramme ‘affect’, (være) tilpasset ‘(be) adapted (to)’.

4.2 Problems for binding theory

This fact that long distance binding is possible with complex reflexives is problematic for one of the best established generalizations in binding theory (Faltz Reference Faltz1985:153–154): complex reflexives are locally bound. Exceptions and problems concerning this generalization are known to exist (see e.g. Pan Reference Pan1998), but only in languages that have long distance reflexives that are pronominal, according to Cole et al. (Reference Cole, Hermon and Huang2001:xxxi). Norwegian long distance reflexives are not pronominal, however; they are bound anaphors (see section 3.2 above). To find a solution to this problem, it is necessary to take a closer look at the requirement that the subordinate subject is inanimate.

4.3 Inanimate subjects in local binding

Animacy is important to the binding conditions in several languages. For example, Hindi/Urdu and Chinese usually require binders of simple reflexives to be animate (Davison Reference Davison2001:69, Xue et al. Reference Xue, Pollard, Sag, Aranovich, Byrne, Preuss and Senturia1994). Another kind of animacy requirement can be found in Chechen and Ingush (Northeast Caucasian), which only allow animate binders with long distance reflexives (Nichols Reference Nichols2001:268). Animacy can also have a role to play in languages in which it is less grammaticalized. For example, Kuno (Reference Kuno1987:178–179) points out that English picture-noun reflexivization is not good with an inanimate antecedent, as is shown in (50)–(51) (from Kuno Reference Kuno1987:179)

  1. (50) Ironically, Mary owed her success partly to that scandalous rumor about herself that was going around

  2. (51) *Ironically, the book owed its success partly to that scandalous rumor about itself that was going around

The role of animacy has never been a central topic in work on Scandinavian binding, even if it is mentioned in Diderichsen (Reference Diderichsen1937) and Anward (Reference Anward and Dahl1974). Animacy turns out to be important to binding in Norwegian, even when long distance binding is put aside. An animate subject binds a reflexive in a local domain.Footnote 9 An inanimate subject can bind a personal pronoun in a local domain in some cases, especially if it is low on the hierarchy of thematic roles. Examples are (52)–(53).Footnote 10

  1. (52)

  2. (53)

Norwegian personal pronouns are generally anti-subject oriented (Hestvik Reference Hestvik1990, Reference Hestvik1992), which means that they cannot be bound by the subject of the minimal clause that they are a part of. Even if this anti-subject orientation is generally strong in Norwegian, it does not necessarily override the effect of the subject not being animate. The choice between an anaphor and a personal pronoun seems to depend on several factors, which are not understood.

4.4 A binding theory implementation

Even if the Norwegian long distance reflexives should not be outside binding theory, there is one clear parallel between English and Norwegian. In both cases, an inanimate subject is passed over as a binder. It is a general fact that inanimate subjects can be passed over as binders of reflexives. They are ‘optional’ binders – even if this ‘optionality’ has semantic and pragmatic effects. This can be implemented by adding an optional ‘(animate)’ to principle A.

Principle A: An anaphor is bound in a local domain that contains a(n animate) subject that is relationally superior.

As was shown above, passing over an inanimate subject can have two different kinds of results: either no domain for anaphor binding is defined, and a pronoun is used instead of a reflexive, as in (52)–(53), or the local domain is extended to the superordinate clause, resulting in binding across an inanimate subject. In principle, more than one subordinate subject could be passed over (as with exempt reflexives in English; Asudeh Reference Asudeh, Chang, Liaw and Ruppenhofer2000), as in (54).

  1. (54)

When an inanimate subject is not passed over, principle B allows a pronoun in the subordinate clause.

One important theoretical consequence of the proposed analysis is that binding across inanimate subjects is reduced to local binding, in the sense that it takes place within (what binding theory constructs as) a local domain. Within this view, long distance binding across inanimate subjects is very different from ‘real’ long distance binding (as in example (2) above). As was pointed out in section 1.1, the term long distance binding is only descriptive, and it is applied to phenomena that are diverse from a theoretical point of view.

It was shown in section 4.1 that binding across inanimate subjects allows a complex reflexive if it is required in the same kind of context in a simple sentence. This is an argument for the ‘local’ analysis proposed here. It also makes it possible to maintain the classical generalization that complex reflexives are only possible in (what binding theory constructs as) a local domain. It must be admitted, however, that this analysis has nothing to say about the fact that complex reflexives are never obligatory with binding across inanimate subjects.

4.5 Thematic role

The problem with the analysis given so far is that it overgenerates. It was mentioned in section 1.3 that sentences from texts have subordinate subjects that are either low on the thematic hierarchy or expletives. Constructed sentences like (55)–(56), with agentive or causative subordinate subjects are not acceptable, even if the subject is inanimate. (However, with the simple reflexive, they could be acceptable to speakers who are liberal towards ‘real’ long distance binding, as in example (2) above.)

  1. (55)

  2. (56)

In addition to inanimacy, the subordinate subject must have a thematic role that is low on the thematic hierarchy. Note that this condition cannot replace the requirement for inanimacy, because of sentences like (10) above, repeated here.

  1. (57)

The restrictions on the subordinate subject concern animacy and thematic role. Why should these properties be relevant? A central insight in binding theory is that a binder is an argument that is prominent. Prominence is a many-faceted concept, however. Even if syntactic prominence is a central part of it, semantic properties are also known to play a role. Thematic roles represent one well known case (Jackendoff Reference Jackendoff1972:chapter 4, Hellan Reference Hellan1988:chapter 4). Being high on the thematic hierarchy contributes to an argument's prominence. Animacy represents another dimension of prominence (Aissen Reference Aissen2003). It differs from relational and thematic prominence in that the relevant factor is not the position of the argument relative to the reflexive in a hierarchy, only the (high) position of the argument.

The relative importance and contribution of the different dimensions of prominence is of course an empirical question. It is not expected to be the same for all languages, and it is probably not the same for all binding contexts. This situation could be compared to what is found with differential object marking (Aissen Reference Aissen2003): the general principle is that high-prominent objects are case-marked, while low-prominent objects are unmarked. However, some languages mark objects that are high on the animacy hierarchy, some mark objects that are high on the definiteness hierarchy, and some mark objects that are both. Furthermore, the cut-off points differ between languages.

The revised principle A must allow a non-prominent subject to be passed over as a binder of a reflexive. What counts as prominent has to be specified further.

Principle A: An anaphor is bound in a local domain that contains a (prominent) subject that is relationally superior.

Independent evidence for this ‘multi-prominence’ approach can be found in Norwegian. Contrary to what is usually assumed in the literature, objects can bind reflexives in Norwegian (Lødrup Reference Lødrup2008). This kind of binding is optional. It requires that the object is relatively prominent; especially definiteness seems to be important. An example is (58).

  1. (58)

Objects binding reflexives require another reformulation of principle A, which will not be discussed here.

4.6 Definiteness

The multi-prominence approach to binding makes it possible to take a second look at a type of sentences with long distance reflexives that was mentioned in section 1.1. Example (4) above is reproduced here as (59), another example is (60).

  1. (59)

  2. (60)

The subordinate subject in these sentences can be animate, and it does not necessarily have a thematic role that is low on the thematic hierarchy. These properties make sentences like (59)–(60) different from other sentences discussed in this article. It is striking, however, that their subordinate subject must be very low on the definiteness hierarchy (Aissen Reference Aissen2003:437); it is normally indefinite, and often non-specific. The use of reflexives in sentences like (59)–(60) can then be interpreted as another instance of a subordinate subject being passed over as a binder because it is low on a central prominence hierarchy.Footnote 11 Examples can be found with different kinds of subordinate clauses. Embedded questions like (61)–(62) allow binding across the subordinate wh-subjects, which are low on the definiteness hierarchy.

  1. (61)

  2. (62)

Examples with that-clauses are (63), which is reasonably acceptable, and (64), which is somewhat less acceptable.

  1. (63)

  2. (64)

The reason for the difference in acceptability is not clear. However, both (63) and (64) would be less acceptable with a subordinate subject that was higher on the definiteness hierarchy.

Even if binding across an indefinite animate subject is possible in some cases, there are restrictions that are not known. This option also raises difficult questions about the relation between the different hierarchies of properties, which cannot be discussed further here.

4.7 Binding into subordinate subjects revisited

It is now possible to establish a connection between binding across inanimate subjects and binding into subordinate subjects. As mentioned in section 1.1, reflexives that are part of subordinate subjects are technically long distance reflexives, but they can be treated as local by binding theory. They share important properties with reflexives bound across inanimate subjects: they alternate with pronouns, they can be complex, and they support distributive interpretations.Footnote 12 The last two properties are illustrated in (65)–(66).

  1. (65)

  2. (66)

This local analysis has nothing to say about the distributivity facts. One might think that the optionality and/or non-locality of the reflexives are decisive, but it is striking that medium distance reflexives have no preference for distributive readings, cf. note 6.

4.8 Medium distance binding revisited

It has been shown that a non-prominent subject can be passed over as a binder. There is evidence that this is also possible in sentences with medium distance binding. Contrary to what is usually assumed in the literature, medium distance binding allows complex reflexives, as (67)–(68) illustrate.

  1. (67)

  2. (68)

The sentences in (67)–(68) need an analysis different from that of standard examples of medium distance binding like (69).

  1. (69)

The use of complex reflexives shows that the local binding domain in (67)–(68) must be extended to the superordinate clause.

Many sentences with medium distance binding will be ambiguous with respect to analysis. For example, (70) could be generated in the same way as examples with animate subordinate subjects, like (69). When the reflexive is simple, it is difficult to argue that the local domain has been extended.

  1. (70)

5. CONCLUSION

It has been shown that Norwegian has a rather general option for long distance binding across an inanimate subject. The reflexives in question are not necessarily logophoric. With a plural binder, they prefer a distributive interpretation.

Other properties of the subordinate subject are also relevant to the acceptability of long distance binding. The inanimate subject must not only be inanimate, it must also have a thematic role that is low on the thematic hierarchy. Furthermore, long distance binding is sometimes possible across an indefinite subordinate subject, independently of animacy and thematic role. This situation calls for further research within a multi-prominence approach to binding.

It has been shown that the kind of long distance binding discussed can be treated as local binding by binding theory. Real long distance binding (i.e. long distance binding that cannot be treated as local binding) still seems to be a rather marginal phenomenon in Norwegian.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my colleagues in the Oslo theoretical linguistics seminar for comments and discussion, especially Janne Bondi Johannessen, Kjell Johan Sæbø, Cathrine Fabricius Hansen, Jan Terje Faarlund and Terje Lohndal. Janne Bondi Johannessen gave me unpublished notes from field work carried out by the Nordic Centre of Excellence in Microcomparative Syntax (NORMS). Thanks also to the participants at the NORMS Workshop on Pronouns, Binding and Anaphora (Reykjavík 2007), especially Ken Safir, Øystein Nilsen and Tania Strahan. Special thanks to the three anonymous reviewers for very thorough and useful comments.

APPENDIX

Sources and dates (month/day/year) for the example sentences from the World Wide Web.

  1. (4) www.forfatterbloggen.no/roller/page/festival, 11/21/2007

  2. (6) groups.google.com/. . ./2001-05?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fno.alt.mat.drikke%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2001-05%3F&, 8/15/2006

  3. (7) www.stortinget.no/beso/beso-199899-083.html, 6/1/2006

  4. (9) www.dikt.no/index.php?page=vis_tekst&TekstID=152969, 8/5/2005

  5. (12) www.turistforeningen.no/files/GTT/Kalender%20for%20GTT%202006.pdf, 6/01/2006

  6. (13) www.personvernnemnda.no/vedtak/2005_2.htm, 6/1/2006

  7. (14) www.dagbladet.no/dinside/2005/12/20/452738.html, 6/1/2006

  8. (15) webster.hibo.no/alu/norsk2/virkelig.htm, 6/1/2006

  9. (16) no/nettavisen/it/article628409.ece, 8/11/2006

  10. (17) universitas.uio.no/index.php?sak=5561, 6/1/2006

  11. (18) www.t-a.no/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050604/KULTUR/10604006, 6/1/2006

  12. (19) www.elg-johansen.com/Svartufs/Sammendrag%20av%20hele%20beretningen.htm=clnk&cd=25&lr=lang_no, 6/1/2006

  13. (20) www.rendalen.kommune.no/FLIB/9300-050615FO-innkalling.doc, 6/1/2006

  14. (21) ez.kvinneguiden.no/article/view/937/1/51, 6/1/2006

  15. (22) www.bokklubben.no/SamboWeb/produkt.do?produktId=143560, 6/1/2006

  16. (23) www.nfh.uit.no/dok/prosjektrapport.doc, 6/1/2006

  17. (24) www.antipsykopat.org/miniBB/index.php?action=vthread&forum=1&topic=5176&page=1, 9/2/2005

  18. (25) www.uib.no/hms/handbok/kapittel1/doktorgradskandidater.rtf, 6/1/2006

  19. (26) debatt.sol.no/show.fcgi?category=3500000000000013&conference=324&posting=20500000000153722, 6/1/2006

  20. (28) cecilie.fjongt.com/pdf/essays/infografikk/skjema.pdf, 6/1/2006

  21. (31) forum.lavkarbo.no/showthread.php?p=39857, 11/18/2008

  22. (32) www.prodata.no/pro%20data%20as%20-%20salgsbetingelser%5B1%5D.htm, 6/1/2006

  23. (33) fotball.aftenposten.no/forum/listPosts.jhtml?threadID=127200001, 6/1/2006

  24. (34) www.bergen.kommune.no/info_/ekstern/nyheter4/200605_bystyrevedtak.html, 6/1/2006

  25. (43) www.dikt.no/index.php?page=vis_tekst&TekstID=152969, 8/5/2005

  26. (46) www.doktoronline.no/forum/bin/show.wa?msgid=2667264, 6/1/2006

  27. (47) cecilie.fjongt.com/pdf/essays/infografikk/skjema.pdf, 6/1/2006

  28. (49) www.elg-johansen.com/Svartufs/Sammendrag%20av%20hele%20beretningen. htm=clnk&cd=25&lr=lang_no, 6/1/2006

  29. (52) europe.nokia.com/support/tutorials/5100/norwegian/glossary.html, 8/11/2006

  30. (53) www.odin.no/ud/global/soek/bn.html?sok=rel&dok=032091-190022&sokeord=Statsnavn+og+hovedsteder+-+M, 6/1/2006

  31. (58) www11.nrk.no/urort/user/guestbook.aspx?id=47230, 12/11/2006

  32. (59) www.forfatterbloggen.no/roller/page/festival, 11/21/2007

  33. (60) www.khib.no/khib/ressurser/oppslagstavle/allmenningen/soeker_fotograf, 11/23/2007

  34. (61) www.byradet.oslo.kommune.no/pressemeldinger/article52464–7786.html, 11/28/2007

  35. (62) www.birken.no/rennet/2007/lokalstoff/alme/index.htm, 11/29/2007

  36. (63) www.oddsnet.com/forum/forum.php?action=shthread&t_id=674837&m_id=1635542, 11/20/2007

  37. (64) www.diskusjon.no/lofiversion/index.php/t849437.html, 11/19/2007

  38. (65) uit.no/breifilm/4277/7?Login=Yes, 8/4/2005

  39. (66) www.bergen-filmklubb.no/Forum/index.php/brukeravtale, 11/18/2008

  40. (67) www.tvnorge.no/phpBB/viewtopic.php?forum=17&start=45&topic=821, 6/1/2006

  41. (68) www.vtt.fi/inf/nordep/projects/scup/html196/haaland.htm, 6/1/2006

  42. (70) www.liverpool.no/cda/storypg.aspx?id=6117&zone=1&Parentzone=0, 8/24/2006

  1. Note 1, (i) odin.dep.no/krd/norsk/dok/regpubl/stmeld/016001-040019/hov001-bn.html, 11/4/2005

  2. Note 2, (ii) www.ringerikekk.com/rkk_print.php?modul=print&tekst_id=813, 6/1/2006

  3. Note 3, (i) www.bryllup.dk/bryllupsforum/index.php?act=findpost&pid=24970, 8/17/2006

  4. Note 3, (ii) www.idt.mdh.se/utbildning/exjobb/files/TR0253.pdf, 8/17/2006

  5. Note 8, (ii) www.ntnui.no/judo/index.php?page=judo&sub=what, 8/22/2005

  6. Note 8, (iii) pda.viken.skog.no/Fulltekst.asp?ID=560, 4/12/2006

  7. Note 9, (i) www.nrk.no/nyheter/kommentar/1676857.html, 6/01/2006

  8. Note 12, (i) www.stortinget.no/beso/beso-199899-083.html, 6/1/2006

  9. Note 12, (ii) www.nhh.no/fagforeninger/ff/FFNHHRyssdaluttalelse.doc, 8/15/2006

Footnotes

1. Safir (Reference Safir, Bennis, Pica and Rooryck1997) points out that ‘similarity predicates’ and ‘exclusion predicates’ often allow long distance binding. This is true of Norwegian, as illustrated in (i), but this kind of sentences will be put aside here.

  1. (i)

2. Some speakers of Norwegian allow reflexive forms to be unbound (Lødrup Reference Lødrup2007a), as in (i).

  1. (i)

Unbound reflexives always have a generic meaning (‘oneself’). This makes the analysis of an example like (ii) problematic. The subject of the main clause is generic; should the reflexive be considered unbound, or long distance?

  1. (ii)

To avoid this problem, reflexives that could be replaced by en selv ‘oneself’ are not used as data for this article. (That said, (ii) seems to be an instance of long distance binding because it is reasonably acceptable to speakers who do not have unbound reflexives.)

3. Unsystematic web searches seem to indicate that this kind of long distance binding also exists in Danish, (i), and Swedish, (ii).

  1. (i)

  2. (ii)

It can also be found in the conservative Älvdalen dialect of Swedish. Janne Bondi Johannessen tested four relevant sentences on eleven Älvdalen informants. The sentences were modified versions of examples (9) and (25), and ‘He feels that this kind of problems don't concern refl (self)’ and ‘People probably only read the letters that are for refl (self)’. Their average score on a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) was between 4.6 and 4.9. On the other hand, a sentence with an animate subordinate subject had an average score of 1 (sic). (The sentence was ‘He said that you should help refl’.)

4. The sentences mentioned in note 3 were tested on four informants in Stange (south-eastern Norway) by Arne Martinus Lindstad. Their average score on a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) was between 4.3. and 5 (disregarding sentences that had a higher average score when the complex reflexive was substituted with the simple reflexive, or vice versa). They were also tested on four informants in Drevsjø (south-eastern Norway) by Kristin Hagen, with an average score between 3.5 and 5.

5. A collective reading is not really impossible, however, as e.g. in the following sentence (from Kjell Johan Sæbø p.c.):

  1. (i)

6. Medium distance binding does not seem to give any preference to distributive readings. The constructed (i) is ambiguous between collective and distributive readings.

  1. (i)

7. It has been observed that long distance reflexives support de se interpretations (Huang & Liu Reference Huang and Liu2001:155 and references there). This is also true of Norwegian. Consider (i).

  1. (i)

With the reflexive possessive, the preferred interpretation is that Per was aware that the person who got the prize was his son (de se). With the possessive pronoun, there is no such effect. It can be argued, however, that de se interpretations are just one aspect of logophoricity (Huang & Liu Reference Huang and Liu2001:155).

8. It might be interesting to compare (41)–(42) to the well-formed (i), from Hellan (Reference Hellan1988:176).

  1. (i)

The crucial difference between (41)–(42) and (i) is that there is a binder in (i), the implicit agent argument of bok ‘book’. This kind of analysis is not available for (41)–(42).

Norwegian has a general option for implicit arguments as binders of reflexives, illustrated in (ii). These binders would be more prominent than the reflexive on a semantic scale, and they are not directly relevant to the discussion here (see Lødrup Reference Lødrup2007a).

  1. (ii)

It can also be noted that sentences like (iii), with an antecedent that is not relationally superior to the reflexive, can be found. However, they seem to be very infrequent, and they give the impression of being deviant.

  1. (iii)

9. It should be mentioned that locally bound personal pronouns can sometimes be found with animate subjects as well, especially in adjuncts, with varying acceptability.

  1. (i)

10. With possessives, this tendency is to some extent counterbalanced by the preference for avoiding the pronominal possessives dens (third person non-human non-neuter) and dets (third person non-human neuter), which do not sound natural in speech; see section 2.3 above.

11. A possible problem with this position is that it seems to be difficult to use the complex reflexive in (59)–(60) and other sentences of the type discussed in this section. This might be taken as an argument that they are instances of ‘real’ long distance binding.

12. Another shared property is that the choice of reflexives in some cases could be (partly) motivated by their underspecification, as discussed in section 2.3 above. For example, using reflexives makes it possible to avoid the cumbersome ‘him or her’ or vedkommende ‘the person in question’ in (i), and the stylistically marked dets ‘its’ in (ii).

  1. (i)

  2. (ii)

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