Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflexive choice in Dutch and German

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Standard Dutch and German have two reflexive forms: a weak form (zich in Dutch and sich in German) and a strong form (zichzelf in Dutch and sich selbst in German). The choice between the two reflexive forms in Dutch has been explained by the selectional restrictions of the verb, distinguishing between three verb classes: inherently reflexive verbs, accidentally reflexive verbs and transitive verbs. The same three verb classes can be distinguished in German, suggesting that the factors governing reflexive choice in Dutch and German are similar. However, several studies have pointed out that Dutch zich is more restricted in its use than German sich. We used a forced-choice task to test adult Dutch and German participants on their preference for the weak versus strong reflexive form with various verb classes and sentence types. Comparing similar sentences across the two languages, we observe an overall preference for the strong reflexive in Dutch but an overall preference for the weak reflexive in German. Looking at the participants’ reflexive choices within each language, we found effects of verb class, syntactic structure (transitive versus ECM constructions) and semantic features. Whereas the semantic feature habituality did not affect reflexive choice in either language, intentionality did so in Dutch only, and tense and possibly focus affected reflexive choice in both languages. These observations seem problematic for the syntactically motivated dual-entry account of reflexive choice, but are consistent with the likelihood account.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barbiers, Sjef, and Hans Bennis. 2004. Reflexieven in dialecten van het Nederlands: Chaos of structuur? In Taeldeman, man van de taal, schatbewaarder van de taal, ed. Johan de Caluwe, Georges De Schutter, Magda Devos, and Jacques Van Keymeulen, 43–58. Gent: Academia Press and Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde Universiteit Gent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouma, Gosse and Jennifer Spenader. 2009. The distribution of weak and strong object reflexives in Dutch. In Proceedings of the seventh workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theory (TLT 7), eds. Frank van Eynde, Anette Frank, Koenraad de Smedt, and Gertjan van Noord, Groningen.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, Bruce. 1997. Dutch: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everaert, Martin. 1986. The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Féry, Caroline, and Laura Herbst. 2004. German sentence accent revisited. In Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (ISIS) 1, ed. Shinichiro Ishihara, Michaela Schmitz, and Anne Schwarz, 43–75. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, Bart. 2004. Weak and strong reflexives in Dutch. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on semantic approaches to binding theory, eds. Philippe Schlenker and Ed Keenan.

  • Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19: 377–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff and Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1): 40–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ordelman, Roeland, Franciska de Jong, Arjan van Hessen, and Henri Hondorp. 2007. TWNC: a multifaceted Dutch news corpus. ELRA Newsletter 12(3/4): 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oya, Toshiaki. 2010. Three types of reflexive verbs in German. Linguistics 48(1): 227–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip, William, and Peter Coopmans. 1996. The double Dutch delay of principle B effect. In Proceedings of the 20th Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Andy Stringfellow, Dalia Cahana-Amitay, Elizabeth Hughes, and Andrea Zukowski, 576–587. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya, and Tal Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruigendijk, Esther. 2008. Pronoun interpretation in German kindergarten children. In Proceedings of GALA 2007, ed. Anna Gavarró Algueró and M. João Freitas. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, Florian. 2013. On passives of reflexive verbs and the nature of (natural) reflexivity. In Proceedings of NELS 41 (the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society), eds. Yelena Fainleib, Nicholas LaCara, and Yangsook Park, 205–218. University of Pennsylvania, Oct. 22–24, 2010. GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association).

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith, 550–569. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of “discourse-new”. In The Notions of Information Structure, ed. Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow, and Manfred Krifka, 125–145. Potsdam: Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits, Erik-Jan, Petra Hendriks, and Jennifer Spenader. 2007. Using very large parsed corpora and judgment data to classify verb reflexivity. In 6th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC 2007, LNAI (Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence) #4410, ed. António Branco, 77–93. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spenader, Jennifer, Erik-Jan Smits, and Petra Hendriks. 2009. Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem. Journal of Child Language 6(1): 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbach, Markus. 2002. Middle voice: A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, James P. 1992. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ter Meulen, Alice. 2000. On the economy of interpretation: Semantic constraints on SE-reflexives in Dutch. In Interface strategies, ed. Hans J. Bennis, Martin Everaert, and Eric Reuland, 239–255. Amsterdam: KNAW.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rij, Jacolien, Hedderik van Rijn, and Petra Hendriks. 2010. Cognitive architectures and language acquisition: a case study in pronoun comprehension. Journal of Child Language 37(3): 731–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasić, Nada. 2006. Pronoun comprehension in agrammatic aphasia: The structure and use of linguistic knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht: LOT.

  • Vat, Jan. 1980. Zich en zichzelf. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980, eds. Saskia Daalder and Marinel Gerritsen, 127–139.

  • Veraart, Fleur. 1996. On the distribution of Dutch reflexives. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

  • Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Language and Cognition Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 716, 9700 AS, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Petra Hendriks & John C. J. Hoeks

  2. BCN Neuroimaging Center, University of Groningen / University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 2, 9713 AW, Groningen, The Netherlands

    John C. J. Hoeks

  3. Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Engineering, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 407, 9700 AK, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jennifer Spenader

Authors
  1. Petra Hendriks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John C. J. Hoeks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Spenader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra Hendriks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hendriks, P., Hoeks, J.C.J. & Spenader, J. Reflexive choice in Dutch and German. J Comp German Linguistics 17, 229–252 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-014-9070-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-014-9070-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation