Chapter 87: Reflexive constructions
1. Reflexive constructions ⇫ ¶
A reflexive construction is a construction in which a participant is coreferential with another participant of the same sentence, and where this is expressed in a special way, i.e. other than through an ordinary anaphoric pronoun. Most of the time, this concerns situations in which a nonsubject participant is coreferential with the subject participant, as in (1). The subscript numbers indicate coreference.
The special expression of coreference within the clause in (1) is a reflexive pronoun (herself).
2. The values ⇫ ¶
In this chapter we distinguish six different types of reflexive constructions (see Muysken & Smith (1994) and Heine (2005) for similar, but more detailed classification of reflexives in creoles).
| excl | shrd | all | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Ordinary anaphoric pronoun | 4 | 14 | 18 |
 | Implicit expression | 0 | 4 | 4 |
 | Reflexive marking on the verb | 5 | 0 | 5 |
 | Reflexive pronoun with ‘body’ or body-part | 8 | 27 | 35 |
 | Compound reflexive pronoun with emphasizer | 17 | 26 | 43 |
 | Dedicated reflexive pronoun | 4 | 2 | 6 |
| Representation: | 71 | |||
First, a coreferential situation as in (1) may be expressed by an ordinary anaphoric pronoun, as in example (2) from Sranan.
Sentences like (2) are vague between two interpretations: A subject-coreferential interpretation (‘himself’), and an interpretation in which the anaphoric pronoun en refers to another person (‘him’). Thus, such constructions are not reflexive constructions at all according to our definition. (Note that for first and second person pronouns, ordinary anaphoric pronouns are also used in the Romance languages and in Dutch.)
Second, the coreferential interpretation may be left implicit, inferrable from the fact that a transitive verb is used without an object, as in example (3). Such constructions may well be specifically reflexive, if they allow no other interpretation (e.g. no non-reflexive interpretation with unspecified object ‘I am going to warm something/someone’).
Implicit reflexive constructions like (3) seem to be mostly restricted to "naturally reflexive" verbs, i.e. verbs whose meaning is such that they are expected to occur in a coreferential situation (e.g. grooming verbs such as ‘shave’, ‘wash’, ‘dress’).
Third, coreference between the subject and object may be expressed by a special marker on the verb. The only European-based language that has this is Sri Lanka Portuguese, which seems to follow a Tamil model (cf. the Tamil suffix -koɭ).
Otherwise this occurs in two mixed languages as well as in Lingala and Ambon Malay, where the reflexive marking was retained from the lexifier.
The most common expression type in the world’s languages, and in particular in creole and pidgin languages, is by means of a reflexive pronoun, i.e. a referential expression that is specialized for the expression of coreference in reflexive constructions (values 4-6). Here we distinguish three subtypes of reflexive pronouns: body-part expressions, compound reflexive pronouns consisting of an anaphoric pronoun and an emphasizing particle, and dedicated reflexive pronouns.
Body-part reflexive pronouns (value 4) consist of a body-part noun (possibly plus pronominal possessor), such as ‘head’ in Haitian Creole (example 5) and ‘body’ in Fa d’Ambô (example 6). They are commonly accompanied by a possessive pronoun, as in Haitian.
Such body-part reflexives are often ambiguous, i.e. they can still be used in their original body-part sense. Thus, Haitian Creole Li wè tèt li [3sg see head 3sg.poss] can mean either ‘She saw herself’ or ‘She saw her head’ (Déchaine & Manfredi 1994: 205).
Compound reflexive pronouns (personal pronoun plus emphasizer, value 5) are very common in the APiCS languages. The emphasizer is usually an element going back to an intensifier in the lexifier (see Chapter 88), e.g. self in English-based creoles, and mesmo in Portuguese-based creoles.
Dedicated reflexive pronouns (value 6) are simple pronouns that do not have any other use apart from the reflexive use. Well-known examples are Spanish se, French se, and German sich. In the APiCS languages, this type is rare, but an example is provided by Gurindji Kriol (reflexive pronoun mijelp):
Note that mijelp derives from Kriol (and ultimately from English myself), but it is synchronically not analyzable.
3. Some issues of classification ⇫ ¶
One important issue in assigning the APiCS languages to the six types is that the expression of coreference may be different for different verbs.
Thus, in some languages the body-part reflexives are used primarily with concrete verbs where it is indeed the body or a body part that is affected. For example, in Papiamentu verbs of physical action may use the body-part reflexive kurpa (cf. Spanish cuerpo ‘body’), as in (10).
Here the alternative compound reflexive (su mes [his self]) is also possible. But with mental verbs, kurpa is impossible, and only su mes is allowed (M’a ekiboká mi mes ‘I confused myself, I made a mistake’). In a number of English-based creoles, a ‘head’ reflexive is used, but only with a restricted number of verbs, in a fairly idiomatic interpretation (e.g. Vincentian Creole mi naa bada mi brein ‘I am not worrying, lit. I am not bothering my brain’, Prescod 2013).
As was already noted above, the implicit construction is used primarily with grooming verbs. These often behave differently from other verbs with respect to the expression of coreference (Haiman 1983, Kemmer 1993), and the APiCS editors therefore tried to exclude them from consideration. This was not always successful, also because in spontaneous language use, such verbs probably account for the majority of coreferential examples (Haspelmath 2008a). The ordinary anaphoric pronoun strategy (value 1), too, is also restricted to particular verbs in a number of languages (cf. Corne 1988, Corne 1989, Kriegel 1996, Krigel 2000 for Mauritian Creole, Muysken 1993 for Papiamentu).
As a result of influence from a European prestige language, a reflexive construction may also be used with verbs that do not have a reflexive meaning at all but correspond to idiomatic reflexive verbs in European languages (e.g. Papiamentu okupá e ‘occupy oneself’, komportá e ‘behave oneself’, Muysken & Smith 1994: 283; see also Kriegel 1996, Kriegel 2000 for Mauritian and Seychelles Creole).
4. Distribution of the types ⇫ ¶
The body-part reflexives and the compound reflexives are clearly the major types, and both of them are about equally common in our languages. There are also quite a few languages that use both of these types. Body-part reflexives are particularly common in Atlantic creoles, and there seems to be no question that their use is due to the influence from African substrate languages (e.g. Carden 1993, Muysken & Smith 1994: 279-282, Lefebvre 1998:169-171, Parkvall 2000:§4.1; cf. Schladt 2000).
Compound reflexive pronouns of the type himself, lui-même, ele mesmo could be retentions from the lexifier languages. However, in the Romance languages, these forms are not the ordinary reflexive pronouns, but are rather intensifier forms which have become reflexive pronouns in the creoles (cf. Chapter 88). In English-based creoles, the compound reflexives cannot be simple retentions when the forms of the pronouns do not match (as in Sranan wi-srefi ‘ourselves’, unu-srefi ‘yourselves’). Such cases must be novel creations or analogical remodellings.
The use of ordinary anaphoric pronouns has sometimes been thought to be an extremely idiosyncratic feature of some pidgin and creole languages (Carden & Stewart 1988). It is not found in European and African languages, but it is quite widespread in the Austronesian languages, and it apparently occurs in many other languages throughout the world.