Cover not available
Part of
Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology
Edited by Luca Alfieri, Giorgio Francesco Arcodia and Paolo Ramat
[Typological Studies in Language 132] 2021
► pp. 367–388

Chapter 10
Verbal vs. nominal reflexive constructions

A categorial opposition?

| University of Cagliari
Reflexives have been extensively studied from different approaches and perspectives, but no clear consensus has been established on the criteria for their definition. From a morphological point of view, a distinction between nominal reflexives and verbal reflexives has been generally accepted in both functional and generative approaches. However, it is ultimately hard to make a precise distinction between verbal and nominal reflexives which should possibly be viewed as a continuum rather than as a discrete partition. In this paper, I will discuss the opportunity of a categorial distinction between verbal and nominal reflexive constructions, identifying some general principles which allow us to classify a form as “verbal” or “nominal”.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The debate on “reflexives”
    • 2.1The vagueness of “reflexives”
    • 2.2Reflexive constructions in a typological perspective
      • 2.2.1Faltz’s definition
      • 2.2.2“Reflexives” as markers of coreference
      • 2.2.3“Canonical” or “prototypical” reflexives
  • 3.The morphology of reflexives
  • 4.Verbal vs. nominal reflexives
    • 4.1Definitions of “verbal” and “nominal” reflexives
    • 4.2Criteria for distinguishing nominal from verbal reflexives
    • 4.3Problematic cases for the distinction between verbal and nominal reflexives
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Abbreviations
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.132.10pud
References (51)
References
Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2005. The third dimension of person features. In Syntax and Variation. Reconciling the Biological and the Social [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 265], Leonie Cornips & Karen P. Corrigan (eds), 265–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1999. Reference-tracking: Description and explanation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 52: 335–346.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville C. 2013. Canonical morphosyntactic features. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), 48–65. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2002. Valence verbale et voix en tswana. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 97(1): 371–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Réflexivisation, transitivité et agent affecté. In L’énoncé réfléchi, André Rousseau, Didier Bottineau & Daniel Roulland (eds), 83–106. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2009. Grammatical categories and relations: Universality vs. language-specificity and construction-specificity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 441–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In Approaches to the Typology of Word classes, Petra M. Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds), 65–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice, Linguistic Typology 20(2): 377–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Benito Moreno, Carlota. 2015. Pero se escondiamos como las ratas: Syncretism in the reflexive paradigm in Spanish and Catalan. Isogloss 1(1): 95–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1983. On the status of verbal reflexives. In Problems in Syntax. Studies in Language, Tasmowski Liliane & Willems Dominique (eds), 231–255. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis & Everaert, Martin. 2004. Typological perspectives on anaphora. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia, Bernard Comrie, Pirkko M. Suihkonen & Valentin Kelmakov (eds), 51–67. Iževsk: The Udmurt State University.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2012. Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 3: Further Grammatical Topics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin. 2013. The criteria for reflexivization. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds), 190–206. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2000a. Introduction. In Reflexives: Forms and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 40–41], Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci Curl (eds), vii–xv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. Domains of point of view and coreferentiality: System interaction approach to the study of reflexives. In Reflexives: Forms and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 40], Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci Curl (eds), 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Shay, Erin. 2003. Explaining Language Structure through Systems Interaction [Typological Studies in Language 55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The Role of Functions in Syntax: A Unified Approach to Language Theory, Description, and Typology [Typological Studies in Language 111]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galant, Michael. 2015. Changes in valence in San Andrés Yaá Zapotec. In Valence Changes in Zapotec. Synchrony, Diachrony, Typology [Typological Studies in Language 110], Natalie Operstein & Aaron Huey Sonnenschein (eds), 213–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2006. The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Reflexives in Germanic Languages. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy & Bommelyn, Loren. 2000. The evolution of de-transitive voice in Tolowa Athabaskan. Studies in Language 24(1): 41–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruzdeva, Ekaterina. 1998. Nivkh. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1): 40–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. How to compare major word-classes across the world’s languages. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Theories of Everything 17: 109–130.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Comparing reflexive constructions in the world’s languages.
Heine, Bernd & Miyashita, Hiroyuki. 2008. The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: A grammaticalization perspective. In Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations, Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds), 169–224. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna & Puddu, Nicoletta. In preparation. Introductory paper for the workshop A comprehensive perspective on reflexive constructions, SLE, Leipzig, 21–24 August 2019.
Kazenin, Konstantin. 2001. Verbal reflexives and the middle voice. In Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 916–927. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Susanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. A Typological and Diachronic Study [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 2007. Vers une nouvelle typologie des marques réfléchies. In L’énoncé réfléchi, André Rousseau, Didier Bottineau & Daniel Roulland (eds), 107–130. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker. 2008. Reciprocity and reflexivity – Description, typology and theory. In Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations, Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds), 1–32, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Reflexives: Forms and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 40], Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Traci S. Curl (eds.), 41–74. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter (with Stephan Töpper). 2013. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthews S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (20 February 2020).Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2013. Middle and reflexive. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds), 261–280. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2007. Le réfléchi est-il une voix? In L’énoncé réfléchi, André Rousseau, Didier Bottineau & Daniel Roulland (eds), 35–46. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2001. The argument structure of verbal reflexives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(2): 311–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marlo, Michael R. 2015. Exceptional properties of the reflexive in the Bantu languages. Nordic Journal of African Studies 24(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Moyse Faurie, Claire. 2008. Constructions expressing middle, reflexive and reciprocal situations in some Oceanic languages. In Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations, Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds), 169–224. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2017. Reflexive markers in Oceanic languages. Studia linguistica 71(1–2): 107–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nduku Kioko, Angelina. 1999. The syntactic status of the reciprocal and the reflexive affixes in Bantu. South African journal of African languages 19: 110–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Otaina, Galina A. 2013. A Syntax of the Nivkh Language. The Amur Dialect [Studies in Language Companion Series 139] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puddu, Nicoletta. 2010. Considerazioni di tipologia morfologica sul pronome riflessivo in greco. In La morfologia del greco tra tipologia e diacronia, Ignazio Putzu, Paulis Giulio, Nieddu Gian Franco & Cuzzolin Pierluigi (eds), 385–405. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1991. Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In Long Distance Anaphora, Jan Koster & Eric Reuland (eds), 283–321. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 657–720.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 389–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2018. Reflexives and reflexivity. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 81–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schladt, Mathias. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Reflexives: Forms and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 40], Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds), 103–124, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando & Kittilä, Seppo. 2019. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lieb, Hans-Heinrich
2021. Theories of language, language comparison, and grammatical description. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.