English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Norwegian has a distinction between simple and complex reflexives. The traditional view is that complex reflexives are used in local binding, while simple reflexives are used in nonlocal binding (for example Hellan 1988). A well-known problem is that there are many cases of simple reflexives that seem to be locally bound. The traditional view is that these cases involve reanalysis. This view will be criticized, and it will be shown that inalienables with external possessors have a distribution that is strikingly similar to the distribution of the simple reflexive. It will be proposed that the distribution of inalienables and simple reflexives should be described directly by the same theory, and that this theory should be the theory of inalienables. This gives a view of the simple reflexive that is very different from the traditional view.

Inalienables in Norwegian and binding theory