Nouns and Noun Phrases - University of Macau Library

810 Syntax of Dutch: nouns and noun phrases
Now consider again the three binding conditions in (381), which are normally
referred to as binding conditions A, B and C. The fact that example (380b′) is
ungrammatical on the intended reading shows that c-command does not suffice to
license binding: binding condition C expresses this by saying that a referential
expression cannot be bound at all, which, of course, correctly excludes (380b′).
Binding conditions A and B further express that noun phrases that can in principle
be bound may differ with respect to the syntactic domain in which this is possible.
If we assume for the moment that the relevant domain is the minimal clause in
which we find the bound element, the data in (380a&b) will follow: in (380a) the
antecedent Jan is within the local domain of the pronoun, and binding conditions A
and B predict that a reflexive pronoun can, but a referential pronoun cannot be
bound by Jan; in (380b) the antecedent Jan is not within the local domain of the
pronoun, and binding conditions A and B therefore predict that a referential
pronoun can, but a reflexive pronoun cannot be bound by Jan. This derives the
complementary distribution of the referential and reflexive personal pronouns
illustrated in (380a&b).
The c-command hierarchy in (382) in tandem with binding condition A predicts
that a subject can be the antecedent of any reflexive/reciprocal pronoun functioning
as an (in)direct object, a PP-complement or an °adjunct in the same clause. The
examples in (383) show that this is indeed the case. The hierarchy (382) in tandem
with binding condition B also predicts that the referential pronoun ze ‘them’ cannot
substitute for the reflexive/reciprocal under the intended reading; this is also true
but will go unillustrated here.
(383) • Subject antecedents
a. Jan en Marie bekeken zichzelf/elkaar.
Jan and Marie looked.at themselves/each.other
b. Jan en Marie gaven zichzelf/elkaar graag cadeautjes.
Jan and Marie gave themselves/each.other gladly presents
b′. Jan en Marie gaven een cadeautje aan zichzelf/elkaar.
Jan and Marie gave a present to themselves/each.other
c. Jan en Marie zorgen voor zichzelf/elkaar.
Jan and Marie take.care for themselves/each.other
‘Jan and Marie look after themselves/each other.’
d. Jan en Marie spraken namens zichzelf/elkaar.
Jan and Marie spoke on.behalf.of themselves/each.other
The c-command hierarchy in (382) in tandem with binding condition A predicts that
a direct object can be the antecedent of any reflexive/reciprocal pronoun functioning
as an indirect object, a PP-complement or an adjunct in the same clause, but
crucially not of the subject. The examples in (384) show that this is indeed the case.
The hierarchy in (382) in tandem with binding condition B also correctly predicts
that the referential pronoun ze ‘them’ cannot substitute for the reflexive/reciprocal
under the intended reading, but this will again go unillustrated here. The diacritic
“$” indicates that the example is odd for reasons not related to syntax.