The French reflexive and reciprocal se

Original Paper

Abstract

It is argued that the reflexive clitic se does not operate in the lexicon in French reflexive and reciprocal constructions (excluding middles and anticausatives). The widely held approaches to reflexives, in which the reflexive clitic creates a one-place reflexive verb and/or absorbs a case feature on the verb, is both semantically inadequate and syntactically too local. The reflexive clitic appears with verbs and predicates that are independently semantically reflexive; French reflexive/reciprocal constructions are semantically transitive; and case absorption does not account for causative and applicative constructions. To account for the facts, it is proposed that se is a Voice head introducing in syntax the external argument of the verb, and stating that the referent of the object is determined on the basis of that of the subject.

Keywords

French Reflexive Reciprocal Clitic Near-reflexive Se Voice 

References

  1. Alboiu, Gabriela, Michael Barrie, and Chiara Frigeni. 2004. SE and the unaccusative-unergative paradox. In Vol. 107 of Antwerp papers in linguistics, ed. Martine Coene, Gretel de Cuyper, and Yves D’Hulst, 109–139. Google Scholar
  2. Alsina, Alex. 1996. The role of argument structure in grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  3. Baauw, Sergio, and Denis Delfitto. 2005. New views on reflexivity: Delay effects in Romance. Probus 17: 145–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  5. Bruening, Benjamin. 2006. The morphosyntax and semantics of verbal reciprocals. Manuscript, University of Delaware. Google Scholar
  6. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  7. Cannings, Peter, and Marvin Moody. 1978. A semantic approach to causation in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes II: 331–362. Google Scholar
  8. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004[1989]. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In The unaccusativity puzzle, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 22–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. On phases. Manuscript, MIT. Google Scholar
  10. Chung, Sandra, and William M. Ladusaw. 2003. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  11. Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  12. Dalrymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam Mchombo, and Stanley Peters. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delfitto, Denis. 2002. On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 41–69. Google Scholar
  14. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2004. Deconstructing reciprocals. Paper presented at the western conference on linguistics. University of Southern California. Google Scholar
  15. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1998. Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29(3): 399–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doron, Edit. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11: 1–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doron, Edit, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2007. On the uniform application of valence changing operations. In Vol. 23 of Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, ed. Yehuda N. Falk. [http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/23/Doron-Rappaport.pdf. Accessed August 3 2008.]
  18. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Embick, David. 1997. Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. In Vol. 32 of MIT working papers in linguistics: Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, ed. Heidi Harley, 41–72. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  20. Embick, David. 2004. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In The unaccusativity puzzle, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Espinal, Maria Teresa. to appear. Clitic incorporation and abstract semantic objects in idiomatic constructions. Linguistics. Google Scholar
  22. Fiengo, Robert, and Howard Lasnik. 1973. The logical structure of reciprocal sentences in English. Foundations of Language 9: 447–468. Google Scholar
  23. Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2004. On obligatory obligation: The composition of Italian causatives. In Vol. 47 of MIT working papers in linguistics: Romance, Op. 47: Collected papers on romance syntax, ed. Ana Castro, Marcelo Ferreira, Valentine Hacquard, and Andrés Pablo Salanova, 87–113. Google Scholar
  24. Gast, Volker, and Pieter Siemund. 2006. Rethinking the relationship between SELF-intensifiers and reflexives. Linguistics 44(2): 343–381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geurts, Bart, and Rob van der Sandt. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goose. 2007. Le bon usage. Bruxelles: De Boeck. Google Scholar
  27. Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 87–148. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  28. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  29. Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1996. Semantic restrictions in Romance causatives and the incorporation approach. Linguistic Inquiry 27(2): 294–313. Google Scholar
  30. van Heusinger, Klaus. 2004. Focus particles, sentence meaning, and discourse structure. In The composition of meaning: From lexeme to discourse, ed. Werner Abraham, and Alice ter Meulen, 167–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  31. Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–593. Google Scholar
  32. Hyman, Larry M., and Karl Zimmer. 1975. Embedded topic in French. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 191–211. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  33. Jackendoff, Ray. 1992. Mme Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 1–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  35. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Dialect variation on the theory of grammar, ed. Paola Benincá, 85–104. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  36. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck, and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  37. Labelle, Marie. 1992. Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics 28: 375–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lidz, Jeffrey. 1997. When is a reflexive not a reflexive? Near-reflexivity and Condition R. In NELS 27: Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. Kiyomi Kusumoto, 251–261. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  39. Lidz, Jeffrey. 2001. Condition R. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 123–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maling, Joan. 2001. Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles. Lingua 111: 419–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marantz, Alec P. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  42. Mchombo, Sam A. 1993. On the binding of the reflexive and the reciprocal in Chichewa. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. Sam A. Mchombo. Stanford: CLSI Publications. Google Scholar
  43. McGinnis, Martha. 1997. Reflexive external arguments and lethal ambiguity. In WCCFL 16: Proceedings of the 16th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Emily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, 303–317. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  44. McGinnis, Martha. 1999. Reflexive clitics and the specifiers of vP. In Vol. 35 of MIT working papers in linguistics, Papers from the Penn/MIT roundtable on the lexicon, ed. Liina Pylkkänen, Angeliek van Hout, and Heidi Harley, 137–161. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  45. Miller, Philip H. 1992. Clitics and constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  46. Milner, Jean-Claude. 1984. Syntaxe et sémantique du constituant réciproque l’un…l’autre. In Recherches sur l’anaphore (ERA 642), ed. Jean-Claude Milner, 35–57. Paris: Université Paris VII, Groupe Grammaire Scientifique du Français. Google Scholar
  47. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  48. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  49. Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1961. Variables explained away. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104(3), 343–347. [Reprinted 1966 in Selected logic papers, ed. Willard Van Orman Quine. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.] Google Scholar
  50. Reinhart, Tanya. 1996. Syntactic effects of lexical operations: Reflexives and unaccusatives. In Utrecht Institute of Linguistics-OTS working papers in linguistics 97-002/TL. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  51. Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720. Google Scholar
  52. Reinhart, Tanya, and Tal Siloni. 2004. Against an unaccusative analysis of reflexives. In The unaccusativity puzzle, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 59–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  53. Reinhart, Tanya, and Tal Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 389–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 439–492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reuland, Eric. 2005. Binding Conditions: How are they derived?. In HPSG05: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar, ed. Stefan Müller, 578–593. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  56. Rooryck, Johan, and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 1999a. Simplex and complex reflexives in French and Dutch. In Traiani augusti vestigia pressa sequamur. Studia lingvistica In honorem Lilianae Tasmowski, ed. Martine Coene, Walter De Mulder, Patrick Dendale, and Yves D’Hulst, 617–639. Padova: Unipress. Google Scholar
  57. Rooryck, Johan, and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 1999b. Puzzles of identity: Binding at the interface. In NELS 29: Proceedings of 29th annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. Masako Hirotani, Pius Tamanji and Nancy Hall, 333–374. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  58. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1972/1976. Les constructions pronominales neutres et moyennes du français. In Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français, 87–125. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. [English translation: trans. by Sheila M. Robins. 1976. Neutral and middle pronominal constructions. In Problems in French syntax: Transformational-generative studies. London: Longman.] Google Scholar
  60. Sells, Peter, Annie Zaenen, and Draga Zec. 1987. Reflexivization variation: Relations between syntax, semantics and lexical structure. In Working papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure, ed. Masayo Iida, Stephen Wechsler, and Draga Zec, 169–238. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  61. Siloni, Tal. 2008. The syntax of reciprocal verbs: An overview. In Reciprocals and reflexives: Cross-linguistic and theoretical explorations, ed. Ekkehard König, and Volker Gast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  62. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449. Google Scholar
  63. Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck, and Laurie Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  64. Sportiche, Dominique. 1998. Partitions and atoms of clause structure. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  65. Steinbach, Markus. 1998. Middles in German: The syntax and semantics of transitive reflexive sentences. Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt University at Berlin. Google Scholar
  66. Steinbach, Markus. 2004. Unaccusatives and anticausatives in German. In The unaccusativity puzzle, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 181–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  67. Tasmowski-De Ryck, Liliane, and Hildegard van Oevelen. 1987. Le causatif pronominal, Revue romane 22(1): 40–58. Google Scholar
  68. Wehrli, Eric. 1986. On some properties of French clitic se. In The syntax of pronominal clitics, ed. Hagit Borer, 263–283. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  69. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1978. Économisons-nous: À propos d’une classe de formes réflexives métonymiques en français. Langue Française 39: 104–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1990. Lui-même argument et le concept de “pronom A”. Langages 97: 100–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1995. Emphatic or reflexive? On the endophoric character of French lui-même and similar complex pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 31: 333–374. Google Scholar
  72. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2003. Réflexivité et disjonction référentielle en français et en anglais. In Essais sur la grammaire comparée du français et de l’anglais, ed. Philip Miller, and Anne Zribi-Hertz, 189–227. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Google Scholar
  73. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 1987. Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de linguistiqueUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations