Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:07:35.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Norwegian Anaphors without Visible Binders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2007

Helge Lødrup
Helge Lødrup
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A standard assumption in work on binding in Norwegian is that a reflexive must have an antecedent that is “visible,” that is, either phonologically realized or PRO. The purpose of this article is to show that this restriction is not observed by many speakers. There are two cases of reflexives with invisible binders. First, an implicit argument can be a binder in a nominalization (Første fase bestod av analyse av seg selv. ‘The first phase consisted of analysis of oneself’). Second, a “semantic subject” can be a binder in an indefinite noun phrase with a propositional interpretation (Et helt hus for seg selv er et slit. ‘A whole house for oneself is hard work’). Some younger speakers also allow a reflexive form with a generic interpretation to occur with no binder (En motorsag kan skade seg selv og andre. ‘A chain saw can hurt oneself and others’).I would like to thank colleagues and students for discussion and intuitions, especially Kjell Johan Sæbø, Eirik Welo, Atle Grønn, Dag Haug, Anneliese Pitz, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Mads Haga, and Trine Egebakken. Thanks also to Thorstein Fretheim, Marit Julien, Stephen Wechsler, Annie Zaenen, and to the three anonymous reviewers. Special thanks to my daughters Julie and Therese for their intuitions.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
© 2007 Society for Germanic Linguistics

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

Barbiers Sjef. 2000. On the interpretation of movement and agreement: PPs and binding. Interface strategies: Proceedings of the colloquium, Amsterdam, 24–26 September 1999, ed. by Hans Bennis, Martin Everaert, and Eric Reuland, 21–36. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.
Bhatt Rajesh, and Roumyana Izvorski. 2002. Genericity, implicit arguments, and control. Available electronically at ftp://babel.ling.upenn.edu/papers/students/izvorski/PROarb.ps.
Enger Hans-Olav. 2004. Scandinavian pancake sentences as semantic agreement. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27. 5–34.Google Scholar
Faarlund Jan Terje. 1977. Embedded clause reduction and Scandinavian gender agreement. Journal of Linguistics 13. 239–257.Google Scholar
Faarlund Jan Terje, Svein Lie, and Kjell Ivar Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Frey Werner. 1993. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation: Über Bindung, implizite Argumente und Skopus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Hellan Lars. 1986. The headedness of NPs in Norwegian. Features and projections, ed. by Pieter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk, 89–123. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hellan Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hestvik Arild. 1990. LF movement of pronouns and the computation of binding domains. Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University.
Hestvik Arild. 1991. Subjectless binding domains. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 455–496.Google Scholar
Hestvik Arild. 1992. LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 557–594.Google Scholar
Hestvik Arild, and William Philip. 2001. Syntactic vs. logophoric binding: Evidence from Norwegian child language. Long distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics 33), ed. by Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and James Huang, 119–139. New York: Academic Press.
Jackendoff Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lødrup Helge. 2006. Animacy and long distance binding: The case of Norwegian. Available electronically at http://folk.uio.no/helgelo/index.html.
Manning Christopher, and Ivan A. Sag. 1998. Argument structure, valence, and binding. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 21. 107–144.Google Scholar
Pollard Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Teleman Ulf, Staffan Hellberg, and Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska akademiens grammatik, vol. 2. Stockholm: Svenska akademien.
Vinje Finn-Erik. 1987. Moderne norsk: Råd og regler for praktisk språkbruk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Williams Edwin. 1985. PRO and subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 297–315.Google Scholar
Williams Edwin. 1987. I-arguments, the binding theory, and control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 151–180.Google Scholar
Williams Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.