The distribution of se-reflexives in Dutch

TY - JOUR

T1 - The distribution of se-reflexives in Dutch

AU - Broekhuis, Hans

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Handling clause-bound se-reflexives such as Dutch zich transcends the scope of Chomsky’s (1981) binding theory and has motivated various revisions of it. This article argues that canonical binding theory is essentially correct because se-reflexives are not bound but inalienably possessed by their antecedent. Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd (2011) provides a syntactic implementation of this idea, which has mainly been elaborated for se-reflexives in reflexive-verb constructions. This article shows that it can also account for the distribution of Dutch se-reflexives in a wider range of constructions by considering it in conjunction with the analysis of inalienable possession in Broekhuis & Cornips (1997).

AB - Handling clause-bound se-reflexives such as Dutch zich transcends the scope of Chomsky’s (1981) binding theory and has motivated various revisions of it. This article argues that canonical binding theory is essentially correct because se-reflexives are not bound but inalienably possessed by their antecedent. Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd (2011) provides a syntactic implementation of this idea, which has mainly been elaborated for se-reflexives in reflexive-verb constructions. This article shows that it can also account for the distribution of Dutch se-reflexives in a wider range of constructions by considering it in conjunction with the analysis of inalienable possession in Broekhuis & Cornips (1997).

KW - binding theory

KW - simplex reflexive

KW - inalienable possession

KW - inherent reflexivity

KW - small clause

KW - AcI construction

U2 - 10.5334/gjgl.663

DO - 10.5334/gjgl.663

M3 - Article

SN - 2397-1835

VL - 7

SP - 1

EP - 39

JO - Glossa

JF - Glossa

IS - 1

ER -