3.1 Reflexive-verb constructions are ergative

This section discusses reflexive-verb constructions and provides a more extensive motivation for the ergativity hypothesis in (8b–c). Se-reflexives are frequently used as reflexive markers in inherently reflexive-verb constructions such as (4), repeated here as (9). The fact that a referential NP cannot be used in the position of zich suggests that this position is not semantically selected (i.e. not assigned a θ-role) by the verb; this is also reflected by the fact that the English renderings of inherently reflexive-verb constructions normally contain just a single nominal argument.

Everaert (1986) nevertheless assumes that the se-reflexives in (9) are not parts of lexically listed verbal expressions but regular NPs. Since NPs must normally be assigned case, there are two structurally case-marked NPs in inherently reflexive-verb constructions. At first glance, this seems to contradict the earlier conclusion that inherently reflexive verbs select only a single nominal argument, but it is consistent with the assumption that subjects of inherently reflexive-verb constructions are actually internal arguments of the verb: they cannot be assigned accusative case, as this case is assigned to the reflexive marker zich, and must therefore be assigned nominative case and be realized as the subject of the clause. This also accounts for the fact that inherently reflexive verbs are like ergative verbs in that their subjects are not typical agents (which are always external arguments).

Since se-reflexives are prototypically used in inherently reflexive-verb constructions, Everaert suggests that such constructions should be taken as our point of departure for the description of se-reflexives in all syntactic environments. This leads to the hypothesis in (8b) that se-reflexives are essentially case.absorbers; they are assumed to perform a similar function as the passive morphology on participles in the theory of passivization proposed in Baker, Johnson, and Roberts (1989). This entails that, if the verb in question is transitive, its external argument must be suppressed in order to allow object-to-subject raising; cf. (8c). This is of course not immediately visible in the case of inherently reflexive-verb constructions with zich vergissen/schamen ‘to be mistaken/ashamed’ in (9), as they do not occur as run-of-the-mill transitive verbs. Nor is it obvious in the case of (non-inherently) reflexive verbs of personal hygiene like wassen ‘to wash’ and scheren ‘to shave’, which can also be used as transitive verbs; cf. (10a). The addition of zich in (10b) should result in suppression of the original agent and promotion of the theme argument to subject but it is not immediately clear that the subject in (10b) is not an agent, as it is interpreted simultaneously as actor and theme.

That the subject in (10b) has both an actor and a theme-like interpretation cannot be used as a valid argument for claiming that we are dealing with a regular transitive construction, as it is not unusual to find theme subjects with actor-like properties. This is clear from the unequivocal ergative construction Jan is vrijwillig vertrokken ‘Jan has left voluntarily’, in which Jan also has actor and theme-like features; see Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd (2011:§3.4) for a more detailed discussion. What is crucial, however, is that the actor-like feature is less prominent or even absent in other reflexive-verb constructions. This holds, for instance, for verbs expressing bodily harm such as verwonden ‘to hurt’ in (11). The subject in (11b) is less actor-like than the subject in the transitive construction in (11a), as is clear from the fact that the object causing the injury is normally not expressed by an instrumental met-PP but by a non-instrumental aan-PP; see Postma (1997) and Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd (2011) for detailed discussion.

I take this as support for claim (8c) that also the subjects of non-inherently reflexive verbs are internal (theme) arguments of the verb. More support for this can be found in the selectional restrictions imposed by verbs: the transitive verb verspreiden ‘to disperse’ requires a plural object (or an object headed by a collection noun like menigte ‘crowd’) in contexts such as (12a); the (b)-examples show that the same holds for the subject in its reflexive counterpart (Everaert 1986: 83).

The ergative syntax of reflexive-verb constructions also becomes clear when we compare them to the cases in (13), which illustrate the so-called causative-inchoative alternation. The verb breken in (13a), which selects the auxiliary hebben ‘to have’ in the perfect tense, is a transitive verb able to assign accusative case to its internal (theme) argument. The verb breken in (13b) is an ergative verb: it selects the auxiliary zijn ‘to be’ so that accusative case is no longer available and the internal argument of (13a) must surface as the subject of the construction (and the subject of the corresponding transitive construction cannot be expressed).

Reflexive-verb constructions differ from ergative constructions such as (13b) by normally selecting hebben in the perfect tense, as illustrated in (14); see Everaert (1986:§4.6.3) for some exceptions. This is in keeping with (8b); the reflexive verb cannot be truly “unaccusative” (cf. note 3), as it must assign accusative case to the se-reflexive.

Example (15) bears out that it is indeed the se-reflexive that forces the use of hebben as the auxiliary: example (13b) has already shown that standard Dutch does not employ a se-reflexive in inchoative constructions and that zijn is used in the perfect tense form of such constructions; (15) shows that Dutch varieties using a se-reflexive in such constructions do select hebben (Cornips 1994).

The examples in (13) and (15) show that there are two strategies for detransitivization verbs. It seems that standard Dutch in fact employs both strategies: while standard Dutch does not employ the se-reflexive in the causative-inchoative alternation with breken ‘to break’ in (13), the examples in (16) show again that there is a comparable alternation with verspreiden ‘to spread’ in which the se-reflexive must be used (Everaert 1986: 52–3, 85). As a se-reflexive has to be assigned case, the reflexive inchoative construction is correctly predicted to behave like the Heerlen Dutch example in (15b) by selecting the auxiliary hebben in the perfect tense.

Causative-inchoative alternations with and without a se-reflexive cannot be considered purely idiosyncratically constrained alternatives, as the absence or presence of a se-reflexive may affect the semantic interpretation of inchoative constructions. This is clear from the (b)-examples in (17): the two detransitivization strategies are sometimes simultaneously available with a distinct meaning difference (Broekhuis et al. 2015:§2.5.2).

In the story alluded to, the witch Eucalypta by mistake drinks her own draught, which was originally intended for the gnome Paulus. The presence of the se-reflexive depends on the instigator of the action: if the derived (theme) subject is the instigator, as in (17b), the reflexive is preferably present: if it is not the instigator, as in (17b′), the reflexive cannot be present.

This section has shown that we are justified in assuming for at least certain types of reflexive-verb constructions that the se-reflexive can be considered a case absorber that detransitivizes the verb and triggers ergative syntax. However, the claim that the se-reflexive is not assigned a θ-role by the verb raises the question as to how it is semantically licensed. This is the topic of Section 3.2.

3.2 The pronoun zich as a possessum

Section 3.1 has shown that se-reflexives in reflexive-verb constructions are regular NPs functioning as case absorbers: they are formally licensed by being assigned accusative case by the verb, as a result of which the internal argument of the verb must be assigned nominative case (i.e. realized as the subject of the clause); cf. (8bc). As NPs are ordinarily semantically licensed by being selected as an internal or external argument of some lexical head (V, N, A or P), it is surprising that Everaert assumes that this does not hold for se-reflexives; cf. (8a). He evades the problem by introducing a rule linking the se-reflexive to the θ-role of its antecedent. This sections develops an alternative solution, based on the observation that se-reflexives can occur in certain inalienable-possession constructions (Postma 1997; Lødrup 1999).

3.3 Formalization

The previous subsections argued that the semantic function of the se-reflexive in a reflexive-verb construction is similar to that of a possessum in an inalienable-possession construction. This means that the syntactic properties attributed to se-reflexives, repeated here as (27), should also hold for the possessum in an inalienable-possession construction.⁷

The ergative syntax of inalienable-possession constructions in general is supported by the fact that such constructions cannot be passivized, as was already illustrated in (18b) and (23b). That the possessum is assigned (“absorbs”) accusative case is clear from the German inalienable-possession construction in (28) (Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd 2011: 73).

Property (27a), which states that se-reflexives are not assigned a θ-role by the verb, follows from their use as a possessum. This can be backed up by the fact that possessums and their inalienable possessors constitute semantic units in general (Lee-Schoenfeld 2006:§1.1). This becomes especially clear by comparing the non-standard construction in (29a), in which the possessor appears as a dative phrase, with its standard Dutch counterpart in (29b), but we can assume that the same holds for nominative possessors.

The standard Dutch example in (29b) shows that the verb wassen ‘to wash’ selects a single internal (theme) argument, and it would therefore be undesirable to assume that the corresponding nonstandard form selects two internal arguments: a theme and a possessor. This is in line with the proposal in Broekhuis & Cornips (1997) that the dative possessor and the possessum are inserted in the structure as a single small-clause constituent (henceforth: SC). Following Den Dikken (2006), the SC is represented as RP in (30a), where R stands for relator (a cognate of the functional head Pred in Bowers 1993). This results in a structure similar to the structure in (30b) for prepositional indirect-object constructions proposed in Den Dikken (1995). The “P_Ø” in (30a) stands for a phonetically empty preposition, and the number sign “#” indicates that the structure is not acceptable as a surface form for reasons to be discussed shortly.

Structure (30a) solves the problem with respect to the selectional properties of the verb wassen ‘to wash’, as we can now assume that this verb always selects a single internal argument: the NP zijn handen in (29b) and the SC [de handen R [P_Ø hem]] in (29a). The semantic licensing of the NPs in the SC is independent of the verb: the pronoun hem is licensed as the internal argument of the empty preposition and the resulting PP [P_{Ø hem}] functions as a predicate taking the NP de handen as its external argument. The external argument of the SC is of course formally licensed by being assigned case by the transitive verb wassen.

The surface order in (29a) results from the fact that the empty preposition P_Ø in (30a) must be phonologically supported, which is obtained by incorporating it into the verb. Broekhuis & Cornips (1997) argue for the derivation in the (a)-examples in (31) on the basis of various empirical facts; the derivation closely follows Den Dikken’s (1995) analysis of the double-object construction in the (b)-examples, which likewise involves a phonetically empty P_Ø (instead of aan in (30b)).

The movement of the PPs in the primeless examples can be identified as predicate inversion, taken to be dependent on R-to-F movement, which extends the phase RP to FP; see Den Dikken (2006: 115) and note 8 below for more discussion. Predicate inversion places the SC-predicate into a position close enough to the main verb to license the subsequent movement of P_Ø into V; see the primed examples, in which t_P is the trace of the incorporated P_Ø. The resulting complex verb V+P_Ø is able to assign dative case to the indirect object.

A roughly similar derivation of the inalienable-possession and reflexive-verb constructions in this article is given in (32); it mainly differs in that the complex verb V+P_Ø is incapable of assigning dative case to the possessor, which must therefore be moved into the subject position of the clause in order to be assigned nominative case. This is illustrated in (32) by means of Jan bezeert zich/zijn voet ‘Jan hurts himself/his foot’. The m-dash is used to indicate that the verb does not take an external argument; the subject position of the clause is therefore available for the possessor Jan.⁸

The assignment of accusative case in the derivations in (31) and (32) needs special attention in light of the fact that the possessum is not “close” to the verb. This seems a more general property of predicate-inversion constructions, already familiar from its specific instantiation known as locative inversion: cf. Into the room entered the man. Locative inversion is typically analyzed as involving A-movement of the predicative PP into the regular subject position, i.e. SpecIP (Hoekstra & Mulder 1990; Den Dikken & Næss 1993, Moro 1997). If so, this shows that nominative case can be assigned to the subject the man in the specifier of the SC: [_PP Into the room] entered [_SC the man t_PP]]. The references just cited appeal to intricate coindexation mechanisms, but currently we can simply assume that I can assign nominative case under Agree to the nominal phrase a man in its c-command domain (Broekhuis 2008: ch.5). If so, we can assume that the verb bezeren is also able to assign accusative case to the possessum/se-reflexive under Agree in the derivations in (31)/(32), as the possessum/reflexive is the closest NP in the c-command domain of the verb (or, more precisely, the verbal root v). This accounts for the claim in (27b) that se-reflexives absorb accusative case.

4.1 Logical subject of small clauses

The easiest case to account for is (34a), in which the se-reflexive functions as the logical subject of a SC. Consider the examples in (35).

The derivation of the examples in (35) with the se-reflexive zich goes along the line indicated in (36); the structures focus on what happens to the possessive SC in the specifier of the prepositional SC, the predicative part of which (i.e. [… R [_XP X (PP)]]) is represented as PRED. The underlying structure in (36a) is not a well-formed output structure, as the empty preposition P_Ø must be phonologically supported: the PP [P_Ø zij_possessor] therefore undergoes predicate inversion into the specifier of the functional projection FP close to the verb, as in (36b), in order to license incorporation of P_Ø into the verb, as in (36c). Finally, the possessor zij ‘they’ is moved into the subject position of the clause, where it receives nominative case. The se-reflexive is assigned accusative case by the main verb under Agree. The derivation is again simplified; see note 8.

The fact that the se-reflexive regularly alternates with the complex reflexive zichzelf and/or the reciprocal elkaar follows from the fact that regular NPs can also function as the logical subjects of the SCs: Zij wierpen Jan voor de trein ‘They threw Jan in front of the train’. This seems consistent with the fact that the restrictions on the use of simplex and complex reflexives as the logical subject of a SC are normally of a non-syntactic nature (De Vries 1999).

4.2 Complement of the locational P in prepositional small clauses

The analysis of se-reflexives as possessums in inalienable-possession constructions along the lines sketched in (33) is clearly applicable outside reflexive-verb constructions, as shown by the alternation in (37). This was first noted in Postma (1997), who shows that the subject Marie can be interpreted both as the inalienable possessor of haar voeten ‘her feet’ and as the antecedent of the se-reflexive zich.¹⁰

Examples like (37a&b) are regularly analyzed as prepositional SC-constructions. Such constructions differ from their adjectival and nominal counterparts in that only they allow the use of a se-reflexive as the complement of the predicative part of the construction. On the traditional assumption that se-reflexives are anaphors, this SC-analysis leads to the unlikely claim that the adjectival and nominal SCs in (38bc) differ from prepositional SCs, to the extent that the former but not the latter constitute an anaphoric domain in which the se-reflexive in complement position must be bound; see Vat (1980), Everaert (1981/1986), Koster (1987) and Broekhuis (1992) for attempts to account for the special status of prepositional SCs.

The pattern in (38) can be more easily understood on the hypothesis that se-reflexives are possessums in inalienable-possession constructions because complements of adjectival and nominal SCs differ from those of prepositional SCs in that they do not participate in inalienable-possession relations. We can therefore assume that the se-reflexive and its antecedent are introduced as parts of a possessive SC in the complement position of the prepositional SC in (38a). This results in structure (39a), where R₂ and R₁ refer to the relational head of the locational and the possessive SC, respectively. What we want to obtain is that the PP [P_Ø Jan] is ultimately moved into the specifier of FP, as in (39b), followed by incorporation of the empty preposition into the verb, as in (39c). The antecedent of zich is then moved into the subject position of the clause in order to be assigned nominative case, which results in the surface structure in (39d).

A problem for the derivation in (39) is that movement of [P_Ø Jan] cannot be analyzed as predicate inversion, as it violates the locality restriction on this A-movement operation: it crosses the phase boundary R₁P. This suggests that predicate inversion does not apply in a single step, which can indeed be motivated by the alternation in (40a–b), taken from Broekhuis & Cornips (1997).

Broekhuis & Cornips assume that the two examples have the same underlying structure, more specifically, the preposition op selects the possessive SC: op [zijn knie R₁ [P_Ø/bij Jan]]. The main difference between the two examples is that P is phonetically empty in (40a) but overtly realized as bij in (40b). The word order difference follows from the fact that the PP [P_Ø Jan] must move into SpecFP to allow P-incorporation, while [bij Jan] does not. This also accounts for Corver’s (1992) observation that the string bij Jan op zijn knie forms a constituent; the examples in (41) show that topicalization of the PP op zijn knie in (40b) obligatorily pied pipes the possessive bij-PP and the verb-second restriction on Dutch main clauses therefore leaves no doubt that we are dealing with a single phrase, which is derived by predicate inversion accompanied by incorporation of the relator R of the possessive SC into the preposition op; cf. [[bij Jan]_i op+R [_RP zijn knie t_R t_i]].

We have seen that the derivation in (39) cannot be fully correct because of the locality restriction on predicate inversion. The remedy is to assume that that the PP-movement in (39b) does not apply in one go but is preceded by the more local movement step also involved in the derivation of (40b): [[P_Ø Jan]_i voor+R [_R1P zich t_R t_i]].

4.3 Nominal/prepositional object of an infinitival clause in AcI-constructions

This section discusses the distribution of se-reflexives embedded in bare infinitival complements of AcI-constructions (indicated by VP). A long-standing problem for approaches that take se-reflexives to be “long-distance” anaphors is illustrated in (42): because se-reflexives have approximately the same distribution as clause-bound referential pronouns, the acceptability contrast between the pronoun ’r ‘her’ and the se-reflexive zich is unexpected. The hypothesis that zich is a possessum in an inalienable-possession construction can easily account for this contrast by assuming that the subject of the infinitival clause Jan blocks A-movement of the possessor Marie into the subject position of the matrix clause.

A potential problem for this proposal is, however, that zich can take Marie as an antecedent in (43). This problem will be solved by adopting Petter’s (1998: ch.4) hypothesis that these constructions with causative/permissive laten ‘to make/let’ are not AcI-constructions but double-object constructions with a nominal indirect object and a verbal direct object; Jan is thus not the subject of the VP, as in (43a), but an indirect object of the matrix verb laten, as in (43b); compare Kayne’s (1975:§3.1) analysis of On fera boire du vin à Jean/On lui_dative fera boir du vin ‘One made Jean/him drink wine’.

Space limitations make it impossible to review Petter’s arguments in favor of the analysis in (43b) but I will add one additional argument (i.e. not given by Petter) directly related to our topic, based on an observation in Everaert (1986:§5.4.2).¹¹ Should the reflexives in (44) be analyzed as subjects of an infinitival clause, we would expect them to surface as a complex or a simplex form; cf. Section 4.1. This prediction is correct for constructions with perception verbs but not for those with the causative verb laten.

The contrast between the primeless and primed examples follows if the latter are double-object constructions, as example (2b) has shown that indirect objects normally do not surface as se-reflexives. Example (45) shows that zich becomes possible when we replace the unergative verb zwemmen in (44a′) by ergative verb vallen ‘to fall’; this follows from the fact that zich can only be analyzed as the internal (hence, obligatory) argument of vallen and not as the indirect object of laten. Note in passing that this shows that the indirect object of laten is not always obligatorily expressed.

Section 4.3.1 investigates the consequences of Petter’s hypothesis for cases in which zich is (part of) a nominal/prepositional argument of the infinitival verb, and section 4.3.2 for cases in which zich is embedded in a prepositional SC. Unfortunately, the discussion is complicated by the fact that reliable judgments on the relevant data are sometimes difficult to obtain. Reuland (2011: 292), for instance, considers examples similar to (42) with a referential pronoun bound by the matrix subject marked or even unacceptable, while Everaert (1986: 278) considers them fully acceptable. Everaert’s position seems supported by the completely natural quote from De zesde mei (2003: ch.2) by the Dutch writer Tomas Ross: Ze zegt: ‘Dag Bob’, en ze hoort hem haar teruggroeten […] ‘She says, “Hello Bob,” and she hears him greet her back […]. Internet data will be used to shed new light on conflicting judgments we will encounter later.

4.4 The Scandinavian languages

So far, I have covered the distribution of se-reflexives in Dutch but similar data can be found in the other Germanic (and Romance) languages. My focus will be on (mostly Bokmål) Norwegian. The instances in (56), taken from Hellan (1988: ch.3) first show that the se-reflexive seg can be used with reflexive but not with non-reflexive verbs.¹³

Lødrup (1999) further claims that “inalienables with external possessors have a distribution that is strikingly similar to the distribution of the simplex reflexive”. What is important for us is that the data he presents (in §3) include constructions similar to the ones discussed in Section 4.1 and 4.2.

Example (58) from Hellan (1988: 131) shows that seg can also occur as the prepositional object of the infinitival clause in an AcI-construction; see also Lødrup (p. 366). This example is potentially problematic for our analysis, however, because Section 4.3 has argued that se-reflexives are ungrammatical in this context if the external argument of the infinitive is realized.

This example should not be seen as a true counterexample, though, for Hellan shows that Norwegian seg in such cases resembles Icelandic logophoric sig, in that it is used ‘to express a construal of the situation/act described as corresponding to the binder’s own experience or intention’ (p. 133). This is illustrated by various examples, including (58), which would be completely ungrammatical in Dutch. More examples are given in (59); the acceptability contrasts with their Dutch counterparts in the primed examples illustrate the logophoric property of Norwegian seg.

If we take the logophoric property of seg into account, we may conclude that our analysis also accounts for the core properties of se-reflexives in Norwegian.

5.1 On presumed adverbial locational PPs

Ordinarily, adverbial prepositional phrases cannot take a se-reflexive as their complement. Adverbial PPs clearly differ in this respect from predicative PPs in SC-constructions discussed in Section 4.2. Examples of adverbial PPs of various kinds are given in (60).

Now consider example (61a), in which the locational PP is normally not analyzed as a SC-predicate but as an adverbial phrase because there is no (understood) theme argument located in the place referred to by the PP. This suggests that locational adverbial PPs are special in that they do allow a se-reflexive as their complement. Other potential examples of this kind are given in (61b–c).

Constructions with an adverbial PP of the form P + zich are restricted in that they are usually locational in nature and only co-occur with a small number of verbs: the perception verbs zien ‘to see’, horen ‘to hear’, and kijken ‘to look’ (the more agentive counterpart of zien) in (61) in fact seem to exhaust the possibilities. It is tempting to list such cases as idioms, alongside other cases such as dat spreekt voor zich ‘that goes without saying’ (Everaert 1986; 47/68). However, this option is less attractive because the translations of (61) in other Germanic languages also exhibit special behavior: see the Norwegian and English counterparts of (61b) in (62) from Lødrup (2007: 185) and Chomsky (1981: 290), with seg/him instead of a complex reflexive.

That the cases in (61) involve locational PPs is not surprising since we have seen in Section 4.2 that these typically host inalienable possessed phrases (including se-reflexives). One option therefore is to analyze the PPs in (61b–c) as SC-predicates. This may seem unusual because the PPs in these examples are optional but we should realize that unambiguous SC-predicates can sometimes also be omitted if the resulting sentence is interpretable (Hoekstra et al. 1987); cf. Jan veegde de stoep (schoon) ‘Jan swept the floor (clean)’ versus Jan veegde de bezem *(aan flarden) ‘lit.: Jan swept the broom *(to shreds)’. A semantic argument in favor of a SC-analysis of (61b–c) might be built on the meaning of these examples. Examples such as Jan zag een slang in de tuin ‘John saw a snake in the garden’ are ambiguous. First, the full event of Jan seeing a snake may be located in the garden; this should be expressed by an ordinary adverbial analysis of the PP. Second, the location of the full event may be undetermined in that Jan need not be in the garden but simply observes (e.g., from the kitchen) that there is a snake in the garden. The second reading with the PP having a more limited scope is the one also found in (61b–c) and can be ascribed a standard (but non-resultative) SC-structure: cf. Jan zag [_SC een slang in de tuin]. If so, the examples in (61b–c) can be given a similar analysis as the cases discussed in Section 4.2.

This leaves us with (61a), for which a SC-analysis seems less plausible because no syntactic object is present. Many dictionaries (e.g. Webster and Van Dale) paraphrase the meaning of to look (at) and kijken (naar) as “to direct one’s eyes/attention + PP”, i.e. as a transitive construction with a predicative locational PP. It is therefore not surprising for kijken naar to be listed as a verb with a PP-complement in all major Dutch grammars; see also Lødrup (2007) on Norwegian. As Dutch naar is typically used in predicative (directional) PPs, it seem but a small step to assume that we are dealing with a SC-construction with an idiomatically determined empty logical subject.

Although it seems too early to draw definitive conclusions about the syntactic structure of the examples in (61), it is clear that there are grounds for not analyzing the locational PPs as adverbial phrases, which opens the way for analyzing these cases along the lines indicated in this article.

5.2 On possessive small clauses

The analysis of the distribution of se-reflexives in this article adopts the assumption in Broekhuis & Cornips (1997), Den Dikken (2006), and Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd (2011) that inalienable-possession constructions are derived from an underlying possessive SC-construction such as (63a). This article claims that the surface realization of the inalienable construction is derived via predicate inversion, as in (63b), P-incorporation, as in (63c), and, finally, A-movement of the possessor into a structural case position.

That we are dealing with predicate inversion of a PP with an empty preposition P_Ø was motivated in Section 4.2 by pointing out that the possessor-PP [_PP P_Ø NP_possessor] has a counterpart with the morphologically realized preposition bij, which forms a constituent with the locational PP containing the possessum (in the order derived by predicate inversion); cf. the discussion of [Bij Jan op zijn knie] zette Marie het kind in (41b). This provides a first piece of evidence in favor of the SC-structure in (63a) with a PP-predicate. More evidence can be found in the Scandinavian languages, which are more restricted in their expression of external possession (i.e. inalienable possession with a subject/object possessor) but can express inalienable possession by means of a specialized preposition comparable to Dutch bij such as på`in the Norwegian example in (64a).¹⁴ Lødrup (2009) provides ample evidence for claiming that we are dealing with inalienable possession, such as the obligatory presence of a definite determiner on the possessum hodet (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992). The brackets in (64a) are used to indicate that the PP på ham is embedded within the larger PP, which is illustrated by topicalization in (64b); see Lødrup (2009:§3) for more arguments.

There are at least two reasons for assuming that we are dealing with the possessive SC-structure [_SC hodet R [på ham]] and not with the modification structure [_NP hodet [på ham]]. First, the bracketed phrase in (65a) can be split by topicalization, which Lødrup (p. 226) shows to be possible with body-part NPs only. Lødrup concludes from this that despite the fact that the bracketed sequence normally constitutes a constituent, it can be split into two (independent) constituents when they follow the verb as a result of some form of (unspecified) diachronic reanalysis. That splitting is possible of course follows without further ado from the SC-analysis, as extraction of the logical subject from a SC-complement of a verb is always possible.¹⁵

Second, Lødrup (§4.3) shows that the (unsplit) bracketed sequence in (66a) cannot be used as a subject of a finite clause while the split pattern in the ergative construction in (66b) is fully acceptable. This is unexpected in the modification analysis but again expected in the SC-analysis, as SCs are never used as subjects of finite clauses while this is common for their logical subject in ergative constructions.