Nouns and Noun Phrases - University of Macau Library

Determiners: articles and pronouns 817
A potential problem is, however, that there two cases in which dative reflexives can
be bound by the subject of their clause. Example (398a) illustrates the case in which
the simplex reflexive functions as a possessive dative. Examples like these will be
compatible with the no co-argument restriction on the binding of simplex reflexives
when we adopt the not unlikely assumption that the dative possessor is not licensed
by the verb, but by the possessee; cf. Broekhuis & Cornips (1997). One argument in
favor of this position is that (398a) is synonymous with (398b), in which the
possessive relation is expressed by a prenominal possessor. We refer to Section
V3.3.1.4 for more discussion.
(398) a. Hij zette Peter/zich een hoed op het hoofd. [possessive dative]
he put Peter/REFL a hat on the head
‘He put a head on Peter’s/his head.’
b. Hij zette een hoed op Peters/zijn hoofd. [prenominal possessor]
he put a hat on Peter’s/his head
‘He put a head on Peter’s/his head.’
The second case is illustrated by the examples in (399), in which the dative has the
semantic function of a benefactive. Although benefactives are often considered
arguments of the verb, the simplex reflexive can again be bound by the subject of
the clause. The claim that benifactives are arguments of the verb is, however, not
uncontroversial as will be clear from the fact that it is only in the second edition of
the Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst that they are unambiguously treated as
indirect objects (Haeseryn et al. 1997: 1160ff.); the first edition (Geerts et al. 1984:
882ff.) treated them primarily as adverbial phrases; see Section V3.3.1.5 for more
discussion. The adjunct analysis may, in fact, be supported by data like (399).
(399) a. Hij schonk Peter/zich een borrel in.
he poured Peter/REFL a drink prt.
‘He poured Peter/himself a drink out.’
b. Jan verschafte Peter/zich een alibi.
Jan provides Peter/REFL an alibi
‘Jan provided Peter/himself with an alibi.’
E. Personal pronouns that function as part of an argument
The examples in (400) show that the pronouns also exhibit different behavior when
they are embedded in an argument noun phrase. Example (400a) shows that
complex reflexives and reciprocals can be bound by the subject of the clause when
the noun phrase is indefinite, which suggests that the complete sentence functions
as domain I. The examples in (400b&c) show that when the noun phrase contains a
possessive pronoun, complex reflexives and reciprocals must be bound by the
possessor, which suggests that it is now the noun phrase that serves as domain I.
The fact that the simplex reflexive cannot be bound by the subject of the clause
suggests that the noun phrase also functions as domain II. Consequently, only the
referential pronoun can enter in a binding relation with the subject of the clause; see
Section 2.2.5.5.2 for a more detailed discussion of examples like these.