Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

A Unified Approach to Reflexivization in Semitic and Romance

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

The paper proposes a unified analysis of reflexivization, applicable equally to Semitic languages and to Romance languages. We contrast our account with previous ones that have distinguished between reflexivization of the sort found in Semitic, which is clause-bound, can be the input to nominalization, and is sensitive to the semantics of the verb, and reflexivization of the sort found in Romance which applies across clauses, is not the input to nominalization and is insensitive to the semantics of the verb. These analyses take reflexivization of the Semitic type to be a "lexical" operation, and Romance reflexivization to be a "syntactic" operation, though in both cases, reflexivization is characterized as an operation applying to the thematic roles of the verb. Consonant with the view that all valence changing operations apply to a uniform domain, we argue that reflexivization in Semitic and in Romance can be given a uniform analysis as an operation of exactly the same type in exactly the same local domain. The "syntactic" residue found in Romance can be shown not to be reflexivization at all, but to be better analyzed as anaphoric binding. The confusion is due to the syncretism between reflexive morphology and reflexive anaphors, in turn the result of a language change whereby pronouns morphologize. We address the issues which have precluded Romance reflexive clitics from being analyzed as anaphors.


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Brill's Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation