Search Results

This chapter extends the analysis. The first extension is to reflexives contained in PPs, which pose a problem for the syntactic analysis developed in Chapters 3 and 4. It is argued that PPs come in two kinds: functional ones and spatial/temporal ones. These occupy different configurational positions in the tree. Both types of PPs show different behaviour with regard to binding of anaphors and pronouns contained in them, due to their different configurational position in the tree. The second issue is that of nonlocal reflexives. These constitute a more recalcitrant problem, left as a matter for further research. Finally, the consequences of the analysis for simplex and complex reflexives in other languages are evaluated. It is argued that French, Italian, German, and Swedish se reflexives are morphologically complex, and can figure in both the configurations of simplex zich and complex zichzelf in Dutch.

This introductory chapter presents the main thesis adopted in this book: there are no grammatical rules that are specifically designed to account for the distribution of anaphors and pronouns in the grammar. Instead, the syntax of simplex and complex reflexives are related to that of constructions that share morphological and distributional properties with them. Anaphoricity is derived by the syntactic mechanism of Agree. This chapter also contains an outline of the rest of the chapters, which serves as a roadmap for the book.

This chapter discusses the syntax of simplex reflexives. It argues that simplex reflexives should be analysed on a par with possessive pronouns occurring in contexts of inalienable possession. Concretely, simplex reflexives are merged as the Possessum in a possessive constituent that also hosts its antecedent, the Possessor. Following Den Dikken (2006), the Possessum is merged in a position that is hierarchically higher than the Possessor. In this configuration, the reflexive Possessum is a probe c-commanding its goal, the Possessor-antecedent. The reflexive Possessum values its φ-features in an Agree relation with the Possessor, thus deriving Binding. Finally, it is shown that the constituent containing the Possessor and the Possessum is the internal argument of an unaccusative verb.

This chapter is concerned with the semantics of simplex and complex reflexives. It argues that simple reflexive zich represents a spatiotemporal stage of its antecedent. The notion of temporal stage is couched in terms of the I-Subject/Concept terminology introduced by Coppieters (1982) and Bouchard (1995). The theoretical relevance of spatiotemporal stages is illustrated by a fine-grained analysis of reflexive-inchoative verbs that feature zich with inanimate subjects. The peculiar Binding properties of psych verbs can be explained in terms of this semantic notion. As for the semantics of complex reflexives, they are able to occur in dissociation contexts, unlike simplex reflexives. These semantic properties are related to the specific syntax of both kinds of elements.

This chapter gives an innovative account of a distinctive property of the reflexive paradigm in English within Germanic: the absence of morphologically simplex reflexives like German sich, Dutch zich. It argues that the complex pronoun+self pattern in English originates from the combination of a null pronoun plus the intensifier pro+self: [Ø [pro+self ]]. The spread of this intensified pattern was propagated through ‘anti-reflexive’ predicates, which pragmatically disfavour reflexive complements, such as threaten, afflict. Anti-reflexive predicates required intensified reflexives, while corpus searches in Old and Middle English show that inherently reflexive predicates did not, supporting the claim that the pro+self pattern spread from the former source.