Search Results

This chapter examines a prototypical case of grammatical borrowing from a neighbouring language: the introduction of the reflexive pronoun in the Lower Countries from the late Middle Ages onwards. While Middle Dutch did not make a distinction between local and non-local binding using pronominal (e.g., English ‘him’) and reflexive pronouns (e.g., English ‘himself’), Dutch dialects began using sich ‘himself’ as a reflexive, borrowed from neighbouring German dialects. From a language where binding features did not seem to play a role, Dutch developed into a language where binding features are fully active. The chapter demonstrates that the change has not been triggered by an imposition of the binding features (anaphoric/pronominal) from outside, through prestige of the Eastern grammatical system, but that it was internally triggered. It was triggered by the decline of a marked parameter setting that neutralized the Binding Theory. The chapter shows that rules of Universal Grammar are active in a change that was fuelled by simplification through internal areal convergence in this globalizing and state-building period of the Low Countries. Internal factors created a gap in the system, which attracted the Eastern reflexive forms.

Scandinavian has a reflexive pronoun and a reflexive possessive for the 3rd person, and a reciprocal pronoun for all persons. Regular binding domains are finite and non-finite clauses, small clauses, and noun phrases with a verbal content and a genitive ‘agent’. There are also less expected binding relations within NPs, possibly involving an invisible binder. Within VP an indirect object may bind a direct object. Even non-c-commanding binders within VP do exist. Non-local binding into small clauses and infinitival clauses is frequent. Some varieties, especially Norwegian, also allow long distance binding, i.e. binding into finite subordinate clauses. At this point, there is a great deal of variation in acceptability, and definite rules are hard to identify.

Besides an outline of how interrogative pronouns (those for people, things, location, reason, purpose, quality, quantity, etc.), personal, and demonstrative pronouns are inflected and used, a thorough discussion is devoted to their plural, possessive, and case-marked forms. Also the use of personal pronouns in invective expressions is elucidated, as well as the use of the possessive marker first-person singular to express affection or respect in addressing a person. Indefinite pronouns are not really a different kettle of fish, since most of them can be inflected throughout, and this holds for reflexive and reciprocal pronouns as well. The properties of the invariant suffix –ki(n) placed after a genitive case marker form the topic of the final section, in which special attention is given to possessive pronouns.

This chapter discusses passive and impersonal reflexives in contemporary and early Italo-Romance varieties. Synchronic and diachronic data (drawn from northern, central, and southern dialects, and from Sardinian) are used to throw light on the controversial theoretical status of the first person plural clitic ci and the reflexive morpheme si in impersonal patterns. The evidence points to ci as an indefinite pronoun with an existential (inclusive/non-inclusive) interpretation, and reveals the existence of two types of si, belonging to different grammatical domains, respectively reflexive-passive and impersonal, which result from two different diachronic paths. The former is related to voice, the latter to changes in the encoding of the anaphoric system in the transition from Latin to Romance.