Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T17:24:17.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Reflexivity and reflexive marking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

Peter Siemund
Affiliation:
Universität Hamburg
Get access

Summary

Reflexive markers are expressions such as English myself, yourself, himself, and herself. As English reflexive markers are highly polysemous and compete with other expressions in the reflexive domain, we will distinguish very carefully between reflexive markers as form types and reflexive relations as a semantic concept. We will provide an overview of reflexive markers and reflexive relations in Section 2.1. This overview is based on well-known facts taken from the standard varieties. These will be contrasted with observations from non-standard varieties in Section 2.2, where we find astonishing differences both in terms of form and function. Our cross-linguistic comparison in Section 2.3 will provide a frame of reference for the interpretation of the observed phenomena.

Overview

We may define reflexive relations as the co-indexation of two constituents in a simple clause. In the typical case these constituents are the two arguments of a transitive predicate, i.e. subject and object. Co-indexation means that the two constituents are interpreted as referentially identical – they point to the same referent. In English we can use expressions such as himself to achieve this kind of co-indexation. Let us call the constituent that is co-indexed with the reflexive marker its ‘antecedent’. A typical example is shown in (1). We may indicate co-indexation by a subscript letter, or by listing the antecedent in brackets behind the reflexive expression.

(1) a. Johni sees himselfi in the mirror.

b. John sees himself (= John) in the mirror.

Type
Chapter
Information
Varieties of English
A Typological Approach
, pp. 23 - 44
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beal, Joan. 1993. The grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English. In Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (eds.), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, 187–213. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Edwards, Viv, and Whittle, Pamela. 1993. Non-standard English and dialect levelling. In Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (eds.), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, 53–96. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Christian, Donna. 1991. The personal dative in Appalachian speech. In Trudgill, Peter and Chambers, Jack K. (eds.), Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation, 11–17. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2004. Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, Viv. 1993. The grammar of southern British English. In Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (eds.), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, 214–42. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Faraclas, Nicholas G. 1996. Nigerian Pidgin. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula, Markku. 1999. A Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian Style. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grant, William and Murison, David D.. 1931–76. The Scottish National Dictionary, 10 volumes. Edinburgh: Neill & Co.Google Scholar
Hernández, Nuria. 2002. A context hierarchy of untriggered self-forms in English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 50(3). 269–84.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James and Jane Tang, C.-C.. 1991. The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In Koster, Jan and Reuland, Eric (eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora, 263–82. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter. 2000a. Locally free ‘self’-forms, logophoricity and intensification in English. English Language and Linguistics 4(2). 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter. 2000b. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Curl, Traci S. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter. 2011. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 47. Available online at . Accessed 22 December 2011 (with Stephan Töpper).Google Scholar
Koster, Jan and Reuland, Eric (eds.). 1991. Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter and Smith, Norval. 1995a. Reflexives. In Arends, Jacques, Muysken, Pieter, and Smith, Norval (eds.), Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction, 271–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter and Smith, Norval. 1995b. Reflexives in the creole languages: An interim report. In Adone, Dany and Plag, Ingo (eds.), Creolization and Language Change, 45–64. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter, Thomas, E. Dutton, and Suzanne Romaine. 2003. Tok Pisin Texts: From the Beginning to the Present. (Varieties of English Around the World Text Series 9.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schladt, Matthias. 1999. The typology and grammaticalisation of reflexives. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Curl, Traci S. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shnukal, Anna. 1988. Broken: An Introduction to the Creole Language of Torres. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Shorrocks, Graham. 1999. A Grammar of the Dialect of the Bolton Area: Part II Morphology and Syntax. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2010. Grammaticalization, lexicalization and intensification. English itself as a marker of middle situation types. Linguistics 48(4). 797–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter, Maier, Georg, and Schweinberger, Martin. 2012. Reflexive and intensive self-forms. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taniguchi, Jiro. 1972. A Grammatical Analysis of Artistic Representation of Irish English. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin.Google Scholar
Thráinson, Höskuldur. 1991. Long-distance anaphora and the typology of NPs. In Koster, Jan and Reuland, Eric (eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van den Berg, Margot C. 2009. Intensified! On reflexive expressions in Early Sranan. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique (Romanian Review of Linguistics), 54(3–4), 331–47. (Special volume on Pidgins and Creoles edited by Andrei A. Avram.)
Wright, Joseph. 1898–1905. The English Dialect Dictionary, 6 volumes. Oxford: Henry Frowde.Google Scholar
Zupitza, Julius (ed.). 1966. Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker and Siemund, Peter. 2006. Rethinking the relationship between self-intensifiers and reflexives. Linguistics 44(2). 343–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter. 2000c. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17. 39–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers: A Comparison of English and German. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2002. Reflexive and intensive self-forms across varieties of English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 50(3). 250–68.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2003. Varieties of English from a cross-linguistic perspective: Intensifiers and reflexives. In Mondorf, Britta and Rohdenburg, Günter (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation, 479–506. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert and Dannenberg, Clare J.. 2006. Southern American English personal datives: The theoretical significance of dialectal variation. American Speech 81(1). 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×