Reflexives

If an NP following the predicate (either an object or an NP introduced by a preposition) has the same reference as the subject NP within the same clause, then the post-predicate NP must be replaced by the appropriate reflexive pronoun, e.g. Pablo cut himself, Agnes looked at herself in the mirror, Gonzales told a story about himself. However, if two NPs are coreferential between different clauses in a single sentence then a reflexive pronoun is not applicable, e.g. After John swore, Mary hit him, not *After John swore, Mary hit himself.

The occurrence of reflexive pronouns provides confirmation for our analysis of complement clauses In

(90) John imagined [that Mary was hitting him]

(91) John imagined [that he was hitting Mary]

The he/him are in a different clause from John, and are thus not in reflexive form. But in

(92) John imagined himself to be hitting Mary

(93) John imagined Mary to be hitting herself

We can see that the NP that follows imagined is both object of imagine and in the same clause as John (hence himself in (92)), and also subject of hit and in the same clause as Mary (hence herself in (93)). That it is both simultaneously is shown by:

(94) John imagined himself to be hitting himself

The fact that Mary in (93) is simultaneously (a) object of imagine, and (b) subject of hit, leads to conflict of criteria over the form of a pronoun substituting for it. It should be series II (she) by (b) but series I (her) by (a). We can explain the occurrence of her (as in John imagined her to be hitting Fred) in terms of series I being the ‘unmarked’ form of the pronoun.

The occurrence of reflexive pronouns also confirms our analysis of relative clauses. Consider [the man [who cut himself]] bled to death; the object of cut is in reflexive form since it is coreferential with who, the relative pronoun filling subject slot, and this is itself coreferential with determiner-plus-head of the superordinate NP, the man. We do not, however, get a reflexive pronoun for the object of hit in Mary sacked [the man [who hit her]] since this is in a different clause from Mary.

Whether or not a given verb may occur in a reflexive construction depends to a great extent on whether it is semantically plausible for the same referent to relate to both subject and some post-predicate slot. It seems a little more felicitous to say John stopped himself from jumping in at the deep end than? John prevented himself from jumping in at the deep end. With some verbs reflexive reference is scarcely plausible, e.g. fetch. With others the opposite applies, e.g. for think the NP introduced by to must be coreferential with the subject, I thought to myself. The verb pride must be used with a reflexive object, as in Mary prided herself on keeping the house tidy.

Self pronouns can also be used with an ‘intensive’ or ‘emphatic’ or ‘contrastive’ function, in apposition to—and following—an NP (which is usually in subject function), e.g. The President himself said so, or I myself told a story to Agnes. An intensive pronoun from a subject NP can be moved to a later position in the clause—The President (himself) said so (himself), and I (myself) told the story (myself) to Agnes (myself).

The contrast between reflexive and intensive pronouns is well illustrated with sit down, an intransitive verb that can also be used causatively, e.g. She sat the child down. It can be seen that John sat himself down is a reflexivized causative, whereas John himself sat down and John sat down himself are intransitive, with an intensive pronoun that relates to the subject NP.

Intensive pronouns are generally not placed in structural positions that could be filled by a reflexive pronoun. Watch is a transitive verb which can omit its object—John watched Mary, John watched himself (on the video), John watched. In this case an intensive pronoun from the subject NP (John himself watched) would not be likely to be moved to a position after the verb, since it could then be mistaken for a reflexive substitute for the object NP. However, an intensive pronoun could be moved after an explicit object NP (especially if there was a gender difference), e.g. John watched Mary himself.

There is a very small set of transitive verbs which may omit specification of an object with it being understood to be a reflexive pronoun (i.e. coreferential with the subject), e.g. Mary hid (sc. herself), My daughter is dressing (sc. herself), John is shaving (sc. himself ), The Queen is washing (sc. herself ). It appears that hide and dress may only omit an NP when it is reflexive. Shave and wash have wider possibilities of object omission; Mary is washing is thus ambiguous between a reflexive interpretation (she is washing herself ) or simple transitive use with the object left unstated (she may be doing the weekly clothes wash for her family).

A number of verbs with a fairly concrete central meaning can take on a special metaphorical sense when used with a reflexive object NP, e.g. put yourself in his place ‘imagine yourself to be him’, pull yourself together ‘stop behaving irrationally’, try and bring yourself to do it ‘force yourself to do it’.

Reflexives are often used to achieve a casual, informal style, e.g. the reflexive causative Just sit yourself down here is more chatty and friendly than the plain intransitive Just sit down here.

Instead of saying John punched Mary and Mary punched John we would normally use a reciprocal construction, John and Mary punched each other. Here the two participants (each of whom is both Agent and Target in different instances of punching) are coordinated as subject, and the predicate is followed by each other. The subject of a reciprocal can refer to more than two participants, as in Tom, Dick and Harry like one another. We need not even know exactly how many it does refer to, e.g. The boys hit one another. This last sentence does not necessarily mean that each boy hit every other boy, just that each boy hit someone, and was hit by someone. (Each other tends to be preferred for two participants and one another for more than two, although there is a degree of substitutability.)

We mentioned that just a few verbs may omit a reflexive object, e.g. John hid (sc. himself). There is a slightly larger set of verbs which may omit the reciprocal marker each other or one another, e.g. John and Mary hugged (sc. each other), All my aunts quarreled (sc. with one another). We will refer to verbs such as hug and quarrel (with), which can omit the reciprocal marker, as ‘inherently reciprocal’. Note, though, that there are many verbs describing actions that are often reciprocal, which commonly occur with each other or one another, which cannot omit this reciprocal marker. If each other were dropped from John and Mary watched each other, giving John and Mary watched, there is an implication that they watched something (e.g. a game, or programme on TV) together, not that they watched each other.

The ‘inherently reciprocal’ verbs can be grouped into sets:

(I) Verbs that only omit a post-predicate NP if it is each other or one another:

(a) simple transitive verbs—adjoin, touch; hug, cuddle, kiss, (and synonyms); match;

(b) verbs that include a preposition plus NP, both of which can be omitted if the NP is each other or one another—collide (with), quarrel (with), converse (with), differ (from), correspond (with);

(c) copula be plus an adjective from the SIMILARITY type followed by a preposition plus NP, both being omitted under a reciprocal interpretation—(be) similar (to), (be) different (from), (be) identical (with).

Note that when a verb from set (I) is used with no object (or no prepositional object) then it must have a subject with plural reference, e.g. The cars collided, not *The car collided.

(II) Verbs which may omit a non-reciprocal object NP (or preposition plus NP) but may also omit a reciprocal marker. If they occur with a plural subject and no stated object (or preposition plus NP) then the most natural interpretation is a reciprocal one:

(a) simple transitive verbs—pass, meet, fight (here with may optionally be inserted before the object), marry

(b) verbs that take preposition plus NP—play, compete, struggle, speak, talk, chat, joke, argue, gossip, agree, disagree (all taking with).

(III) Discuss takes a direct object (the Message) and, optionally, with plus Addressee NP, which should be omitted if the NP is a reciprocal marker: John discussed the accident (with Mary), John and Mary discussed the accident (sc. with each other).

(IV) Exchange and trade each take a direct object (the Gift), e.g. John exchanged his knife for Mary’s dagger. If two tokens of the same gift are involved we can say John exchanged knives with Mary or John and Mary exchanged knives (sc. with each other).

The adverb together is often included when the reciprocal pronoun is omitted—with play, struggle, speak, talk, chat, joke, argue from (IIb), fight from (IIa) and discuss from (III), but not with the other verbs.

Some of these verbs must have a reciprocal meaning. If it is true that This house differs from that one then it must be true that That house differs from this one and also that This house and that one differ (sc. from each other). Similar verbs are match, converse, marry, agree, disagree, discuss, exchange, trade. Others of the verbs in (I)–(IV) refer to an activity that is normally entered into by both (or all, if more than two) participants, but need not necessarily be, e.g. meet, chat, hug, (there is a verb to describe this normally reciprocal activity being entered into freely by only one of the parties—rape).

There are odd anomalies. For instance, resemble has a symmetrical meaning just like differ (from) and yet it cannot omit each other or one another, e.g. John’s ideas and Mary’s ideas resemble each other but not *John’s ideas and Mary’s ideas resemble. (Be similar (to) is very close in meaning to resemble, and here each other/one another can be omitted.)