Simplex reflexives in Dutch

Abstract

The distribution of Dutch simplex reflexives like zich has long been considered a problem for canonical binding theory and has motivated various extensions and revisions of it. This article argues that the standard binding theory is essentially correct, because the distribution of simplex reflexives has nothing to do with binding at all but involves inalienable possession, as proposed in Postma (1997) and Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd (2011): Dutch simplex reflexives are not bound but inalienably possessed by their antecedent. So far, this proposal has been elaborated mainly for inherently reflexive constructions, but we will show that it can also explain the distribution of the Dutch simplex reflexives in non-inherently reflexive constructions if we adopt the analysis of inalienable possession constructions in Broekhuis & Cornips (1997).