DynaSAND

Syntactic Atlas of Dutch Dialects – Commentary – Volume I

Table of contents Volume I

 

4          Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns    

4.1       Introduction

4.1.1     Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns

4.1.2     Reflexive pronouns in Standard Dutch

4.1.3     The position of reflexive pronouns

4.1.4     Exceptional constructions with weak reflexive pronouns

4.1.5     Reciprocal pronouns

4.1.6     Eén ('one')–pronominalisation

4.1.7     Historical development

4.2       Discussion of the literature

4.3       Discussion of the maps

4.3.1     Weak reflexive pronouns as objects

4.3.2     Strong reflexive pronouns as objects

4.3.3     Reflexive pronouns as the object of a preposition

4.3.4     Reflexive pronouns as part of the subject

4.3.5     Reflexive pronouns in AcI–constructions

4.3.6     Reflexive pronouns; synthesis

            4.3.7     Exceptional constructions with weak reflexive pronouns

4.3.8     Reciprocal pronouns

4.3.9     Eén ('one')–pronominalisation

4.4        Literature on reflexive and reciprocal pronouns

 

4  REFLEXIVE AND RECIPROCAL PRONOUNS          

4.1  Introduction

4.1.1  Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns

The distinguishing property of reflexive pronouns such as zich 'himself' and zichzelf 'himself' and reciprocal pronouns such as elkaar 'each other' is that they refer to an antecedent in the same clause. In a sentence such as John looked at himself in the mirror, the phrase himself has to refer to John. A similar coreference requirement is found in a sentence like Mary saw herself in the mirror. If we replace the reflexive him-/herself by a pronoun such as him/her the opposite is true: him may refer to every potential male individual except John. In general, we thus find a complimentary distribution between personal pronouns and reflexive/reciprocal pronouns: reflexive and reciprocal pronouns must have an antecedent within their clause, whereas personal pronouns find their antecedent outside their clause.

            In the linguistic literature, reflexive and reciprocal pronouns are often referred to as bound anaphors. The expression 'bound' indicates that these pronouns must have an antecedent in their own clause. The notion of bound anaphors contrasts with unbound anaphors, such as personal pronouns. A slightly different terminological distinction is found in the opposition between pronouns (unbound anaphors) and anaphors (bound anaphors). In this chapter we will make use of the more traditional terminology: reflexive and reciprocal pronouns.

            Coreference between reflexive/reciprocal pronouns and their antecedent is visible in agreement between the two noun phrases with respect to the features number, person and gender. In English and Dutch, the majority of reflexive pronouns are formed by a personal pronoun that corresponds in features with the antecedent, followed by self/zelf, as in je(zelf) 'yourself', haar(zelf) 'herself' or ons(zelf) 'ourselves'. For the third person, there exists a separate form in Dutch: zich(zelf). This form is not specified for the features number and gender, as is clear from the following sentence: Jan/Marie/De jongens kijken naar zichzelf in de spiegel ('John/Mary/The boys look(s) at zichself in the mirror').

            To provide a more exact description of the occurrence of reflexive pronouns we have to refine the condition 'must have an antecedent within their clause'. A sentence such as John thinks that I looked at himself is ungrammatical. The reason for the ungrammaticality of this sentence is that the reflexive pronoun himself may not occur in this sentence notwithstanding the fact that a potential antecedent, John, is present in the same sentence. The pronoun, I, is not available as an antecedent since it does not agree in person with the reflexive. Apparently, we have to assume that the reflexive pronoun must find an antecedent in the subordinate clause, since the sentence I think that John looked at himself is fine.

            A further restriction on the occurrence of reflexive pronouns concerns the fact that in general the antecedent precedes the reflexive. A sentence such as I think that him(he)self looked at John is ungrammatical in spite of the fact that John and him(he)self are in the same clause and share the features for number, person and gender. The same holds for a sentence such as I introduce himself to John (cf. I introduce John to himself, which is acceptable, but semantically strange). Apparently, the order between antecedent and reflexive pronoun is a relevant factor as well. We should note however, that the restriction on order does not hold in cases in which a reflexive pronoun is moved to the first position, as in At himself John never looks.

            Another restrictions concerns the depth of embedding of the antecedent. A sentence such as I think that the sister of JOHN doesn't like HIMSELF is not well-formed due to the fact that the antecedent John is embedded within the subject the sister of John. In generative literature, the last two restrictions – precedence and depth of embedding – are taken together in the requirement that the antecedent must c-command the reflexive pronoun.  

            We have thus observed that the appearance of a reflexive pronoun is subject to a number of constraints:

a) the reflexive pronoun must have an antecedent (binding);

b) the reflexive pronoun and the antecedent should agree with respect to the features person, number and gender (agreement);

c) the reflexive pronoun must have an antecedent within the clause it belongs to (binding domain);

d) the antecedent should precede the reflexive (precedence);

e) the antecedent cannot be embedded (depth of embedding).

            In generative theory, these conditions are important ingredients of the Binding Theory (cf. the discussion of the literature in (4.2)). This theory is more explicit and complex than we have been able to present here. For a more detailed picture of the contents of the binding theory, we refer to the relevant literature.

 

4.1.2  Reflexive pronouns in Standard Dutch

A distinction should be made between weak and strong reflexive pronouns. In Standard Dutch, strong reflexive pronouns are built out of a personal pronoun, followed by -zelf. This results in the following members of the paradigm: mezelf 'myself', jezelf 'yourself', hemzelf 'himself', haarzelf 'herself', onszelf 'ourselves', julliezelf 'yourselves', uzelf 'yourself' [polite] and hunzelf 'themselves'. In contrast to English, Dutch reflexives do not have possessive forms in first and second person, and the reflexive element -zelf is not specified for number. For third person reflexives, Standard Dutch generally uses zichzelf instead of hemzelf, haarzelf and hunzelf. In the sentence Jan zag een foto van REFL ('John saw a picture of REFL'), both hemzelf and zichzelf are possible, whereas the sentence Jan bekeek REFL ('John watched REFL') strongly prefers zichzelf. The exact conditions which determine the choice between zichzelf and hemzelf in Standard Dutch are not known.

            In addition to the strong zelf reflexives discussed above, another set of reflexives is found without -zelf. It concerns bare forms of the personal pronoun for first and second person (me, je, ons, jullie, u) and zich for third-person weak reflexives. The weak reflexives show up with the so-called inherent reflexive verbs. These verbs require a weak-reflexive object; examples are zich vergissen 'to mistake', zich iets herinneren 'to remember something' and zich schamen 'to be ashamed'. In Standard Dutch, it is not possible to replace zich by third-person personal pronouns: Jan vergist zich/*hem ('John is mistaken'), Zij herinneren zich/*hun die man niet ('They don't remember that man'). For the dialects of Dutch, see (4.3.1.1).

            The weak reflexive is found in other contexts as well. Several verbs that are not specified as inherent reflexives may appear with the weak reflexive: zich wassen 'to wash himself', zich voorstellen 'to introduce himself' and zich verbergen 'to hide himself'. These verbs can be used reflexively (zich wassen 'to wash himself') and non-reflexively (iemand wassen 'to wash somebody'). With these verbs, the strong reflexive zichzelf may occur as well, as in Jan wast zichzelf ('John washes himself'). For the dialects of Dutch, see (4.3.1.2).

            The differences in distribution between weak and strong reflexives have been studied quite extensively in the literature (cf. (4.2)). It has become clear that we do not only find weak reflexives in the case of inherent reflexive verbs. Zich is also found as the object of a preposition in different constructions: inherent reflexive expressions, as in Jan had geen boeken bij zich ('John had no books with REFL'), locative prepositional phrases, as in Jan zag een slang naast zich ('John saw a snake next to REFL') and in prepositional phrases within the infinitival complement of laten 'let', as in Jan liet mij voor zich zorgen ('John let me care for REFL'). For the Dutch dialects, see (4.3.3).

            Finally, we find weak reflexives in constructions such as Jan liet zich vallen ('John let REFL fall') and Jan werkt zich dood ('John works REFL dead'). A discussion of these data can be found in (4.3.5). A detailed discussion on the complex issue of the differences between strong and weak reflexives falls outside the scope of this atlas. However, we have included several of the constructions mentioned previously in order to study the variation that is found in Dutch dialects in this respect.

            In the atlas, we make no distinction between full and reduced forms. Strong reflexive pronouns may occur as full forms (zijn eigen, hemzelf, jouzelf etc.) and as reduced forms (z'n eigen, 'mzelf, jezelf etc.); the same is true for weak reflexive pronouns.

 

4.1.3  The position of reflexive pronouns

In (4.1.1), we have observed that reflexive pronouns should be bound by a preceding antecedent. From this observation, it follows that the subject is generally excluded as a position in which reflexive pronouns can be found, since the subject is normally the first nominal phrase in a clause. Other structural positions are easily available: Johan kent zichzelf goed ('Johan knows himself well') [direct object], Hans schonk zichzelf een nieuwe stropdas ('Hans gave himself a new tie') [indirect object], Harry houdt van zichzelf ('Harry loves himself') [prepositional object], Gerard zet het kind naast zichzelf neer ('Gerard puts the child next to himself') [adverbial phrase]and Henk kijkt nooit naar foto's van zichzelf ('Henk never watches pictures of himself') [attributive phrase]. In all these cases, the subject is the antecedent. This is not necessary, as is clear from the sentence Ik gaf Peter een foto van zichzelf ('I gave Peter a picture of himself'), in which case the indirect object is the antecedent of the reflexive pronoun. Another relevant case is found in Ik verscheurde Eduards foto van zichzelf ('I tore Edwards photo of himself to pieces').

            An interesting case concerns reflexive pronouns that are part of the subject. Although the sentence Dik hoopt dat zichzelf goed op de foto staat ('Dik hopes that himself shows well on the picture') is clearly ungrammatical, a sentence such as Dik hoopt dat er een foto van zichzelf in de etalage staat ('Dik hopes that a picture of himself is on display') is well-formed. In this sentence, the antecedent is outside the clause which the reflexive belongs to (the embedded clause). It is remarkable that, in these cases, the reflexive zichzelf can easily be substituted by hemzelf, and even by the non-reflexive hem, without changing coreference. A discussion on reflexives within subject phrases can be found in the literature. Such a sentence has also been part of the SAND interviews: the results are shown on map 73a and 73b. A discussion of these data is found in (4.3.4).

Another interesting phenomenon is found in complex constructions with the verba sentienda (e.g., horen 'to hear' and zien 'to see') and the causative verb laten 'to let'. It concerns the so-called Accusativus-cum-Infinitivo (AcI) construction (also referred to as constructions with exceptional subjects) as in Marco hoort zichzelf een aria zingen ('Marco hears himself sing an aria') or Evert laat zich niet gemakkelijk overtuigen ('Evert is not easy to convince'). In these sentences, the position of zich(zelf) is generally considered to be the subject position of the infinitival complement: Evert laat [zich ...]. If that is correct, we find reflexive pronouns in subject position.

            These AcI-constructions are interesting for another reason as well. It seems as if the infinitival clause is not a relevant binding domain in these cases, since the antecedent can be in the main clause while the reflexive is embedded in the infinitival clause. The contrast between the following two sentences is remarkable in that respect: Willem liet mij voor zich werken ('Willem let me work for himself') is well-formed, whereas Willem dwingt mij voor zich te werken ('Willem forces me to work for himself') is not. We will not dwell upon this issue here, but we included similar cases in the questionnaire in order to study the behaviour of this construction in varieties of Dutch. The results are shown on the maps 74a/b, 75a and 71b. A discussion of these data can be found in (4.3.5) and (4.3.3.4).

 

4.1.4  Exceptional constructions with weak reflexive pronouns

There exists a variety of middle constructions in Dutch. These constructions appear to be somewhere in between active and passive sentences. A sentence such as Deze atlas verkoopt goed ('This atlas sells well') is interpretatively close to the passive sentence Deze atlas wordt goed verkocht ('This atlas is sold well'), although the verb in the first sentence is not passive. In addition to middles with transitive verbs – transitive middles – Dutch also allows middles with intransitive verbs, the so-called adjunct middles as in Die schoenen lopen lekker ('These shoes walk nicely'), which means 'It is nice to walk in these shoes'. From the literature, it is known that varieties of Dutch construct middles by using a weak reflexive pronoun, as in Die aardappelen schillen zich niet gemakkelijk ('Those potatoes do not peel themselves easily') (transitive middle) and Deze schoenen lopen zich lekker ('These shoes walk themselves nicely') (adjunct middle). The distribution of these reflexive middles is discussed in (4.3.7.1) and (4.3.7.2) (maps 77a and 77b).

Another exceptional zich-construction is found in possessive constructions. Often a distinction is made between alienable and inalienable possession. In a sentence such as Hij wast zijn hemden ('He washes his shirts'), the possessive pronoun zijn introduces the nominal phrase zijn hemden 'his shirts' and those shirts are alienable. However in Hij wast zijn handen the nominal phrase zijn handen is considered to be inalienable. In some varieties of Dutch, possessive constructions of this type are expressed with the use of a weak reflexive pronoun instead of a possessive pronoun. This is illustrated in Hij heeft zich het hemd gewassen ('Hij has washed himself the shirt') and Hij heeft zich de handen gewassen ('He has washed himself the hands'). The distribution of these reflexive possessives is discussed in (4.3.7.3) and (4.3.7.4) (maps 78a and 78b).

Finally, certain varieties of Dutch allow the appearance of weak reflexives in accomplishment constructions, as in Leonie drinkt zich een biertje ('Leonie drinks herself a glass of beer'). In these dialects, this sentence is not identical to Leonie drinkt een biertje ('Leonie drinks a glass of beer'). The reflexive construction contains the implication that the glass of beer is emptied in the process of drinking beer, whereas the non-reflexive has no such implication. In those dialects the sentence Leonie drinkt bier ('Leonie drinks beer') cannot be replaced by Leonie drinkt zich bier ('Leonie drinks herself beer') due to the fact that beer is a mass noun. The distribution of the perfective reflexive construction, i.e., a reflexive pronoun in an accomplishment construction, is shown on map 79a (discussion in 4.3.7.5).

 

4.1.5  Reciprocal pronouns

Reciprocal pronouns behave similarly to reflexive pronouns to a large extent: they require a preceding antecedent within the clause they belong to. With respect to their features, reciprocals diverge. In Standard Dutch, the reciprocal pronoun elkaar, which is a derived form of elk 'each' and ander 'other', is unmarked for person and gender features, and marked for plural features. The sentences Wij/Jullie/De mannen/De vrouwen hebben elkaar lief ('We/You/The men/The women love each other') are well-formed, whereas Ik/Jij/Hij/Zij/De man heeft elkaar lief ('I/You[sing.]/He/She/The man love(s) each other') are not. The plurality that is involved in these cases is not related to the formal plural status of the antecedent, but rather to interpretative plurality, as can be seen from the fact that a grammatical singular pronoun may appear as the antecedent of elkaar, as is demonstrated in U/Men/Je moet elkaar liefhebben ('You[polite]/One/You[generic] should love each other'). The antecedent agrees formally with the singular finite verb, but interpretatively with the plural reciprocal pronoun. The pronoun elkaar shows up in all positions in which strong reflexive pronouns appear. The variation in form that we encounter in the Dutch language area is illustrated on map 80a and discussed in (4.3.8).

 

4.1.6  Eén ('one')–pronominalisation

A remarkable phenomenon that we find in some dialects of Dutch concerns the appearance of the numeral één 'one' at the end of a nominal phrase. Although it does not really concern an instance of binding in the strict sense, we included this phenomenon in this chapter due to the fact that there is some connection to the appearance of zelf in strong reflexive pronouns. Moreover, we find één 'one' as a reciprocal pronoun in dialects (cf. (4.3.8)) and in Standard Dutch expressions such as Haar ogen stonden ver uiteen ('Her eyes were far apart') and Hij hield de boel bijeen ('He kept everything together').

            There are basically two varieties of this use of één. It shows up in cases in which the nominal phrase does not contain a nominal head and the empty nominal head is preceded by an adjective, as in Jij bent ook een rare één ('You are also a strange one'). This use of één is quite similar to the English one-construction, which is lacking in Standard Dutch. A comparable construction if found in West-Vlaanderen. It concerns the occurrence of één after a comparative adjective in noun phrases such as een groter één 'a bigger one' or een ander één 'another one'. This construction was not part of the interviews. A second use of één is found in indefinite nominal phrases that are introduced by the specifier zo'n 'such a', as in Zo’n ding één heb ik nog nooit gezien ('Such a thing one I have never seen before').

            The distribution of this phenomenon is given on map 80b and discussed in (4.3.9).

           

4.1.7  Historical development

Not much attention has been paid in the literature to the development of reflexive pronouns in the history of the Dutch language. From the literature (e.g., Duinhoven 1988, Postma 2004, Schönfeld 1954, Van der Sijs 2004), it can be deduced that Middle Dutch did not yet show a systematic use of zich and zichzelf. In texts from the eastern part of the country or texts translated from Old High German (e.g., Wachtendonkse Psalmen from the 10th century) we find zich and zichzelf, often in the form sick(self). In the rest of the country, one generally made use of personal pronouns, sometimes followed by self. There was no distinct paradigm for reflexive pronouns. From the earliest sources on, one also finds possessive reflexive phrases, such as zijn zelve 'his self', zijn eigen zelve 'his own self' and, somewhat later, zijn eigen 'his own'. These possessive reflexive expressions are quite common and unmarked.

In Postma (2004), the rise of the reflexive pronoun zich in the province of Drenthe is discussed. Van der Sijs (2004: 481) pays attention to the rise of zich as well. It appears to be reasonable to assume that zich(zelf) is a loanword of High German that started its history in Dutch in the eastern part of the country, in the provinces on the German border. In the period of the Renaissance, zich(zelf) succeeded in penetrating the standard language. Such a line of development is corroborated by the fact that – in contrast to Standard Dutch – most western dialects still predominantly use the original Dutch forms, such as hem(zelf) and zijn eigen. This is demonstrated on the maps 68a-69b. The fact that an eastern form penetrated the standard language appears to be unusual at first sight since the western part of the country was politically and ecomically dominant in the Renaissance-period. However, it can be explained sociolinguistically by the increase of contacts between the eastern provinces and Holland, by the massive migration from east to west due to economic circumstances, and by the eastern influence on the bible translations in that period. From a linguistic point of view, such a change in the pronominal systen is rather unusual as well. From within the language system of this period the rise of zich(zelf) can be understood as well. Postma (2004) argues in detail that the rise of zich in Drenthe in the 15th century is due mainly to language-internal factors. Another factor that might have been involved, is the ambiguity that is present in the original system, especially in the case of third-person pronouns. In older varieties of Dutch and in many of the non-eastern Dutch dialects, a sentence such as Hij wast hem ('He washes him') is ambiguous since hem can be understood as reflexive or as non-reflexive. Dialects that make use of the possessive forms zijn zelve 'his self' and zijn eigen 'his own' face another problem since these dialects have no straightforward way to realise the distinction between weak and strong reflexive pronouns. These possessive forms are strong forms from which zelve or eigen cannot be left out. Support for this latter view comes from the fact that in contemporary dialects, the pronominal expressions zijn eigen and zijn zelve appear much more frequently in constructions that require a strong reflexive than in inherent reflexive constructions.

 

4.2  Discussion of the literature

There exists an extensive literature on reflexive and reciprocal pronouns in Dutch. In addition to grammars such as Den Hertog (1973) and ANS (1997), we find a discussion of the occurrence and the distribution of these pronouns in Dutch in, among others, Vat (1980), Everaert (1986, 1991), Koster (1987), Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd (1997) from a generative perspective. Other literature on this issue can be found in Blom & Daalder (1976), Van Es (1970) and Van der Leek (1987/1988). The theory about reflexive and reciprocal pronouns has played an important role in generative linguistic theory. Important books in this respect are Chomsky (1981), Helke (1971) among others. Within the typological literature, reflexivity has been an important issue as well. References are Faltz (1985), Geniusiené (1987), Kemmer (1981) and Frayzyngier & Curl (2000a,b). The relation between reflexive and emphasis particles such as zelf has been investigated by König (2003). Reflexives and reciprocals have also been included in the World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath et al. 2005). International, generative literature in which Dutch reflexives figure prominently can be found in Reinhart & Reuland (1993), Reuland & Reinhart (1995), Reuland (2001) and Safir (2004). Not much attention has been paid to the historical development of Dutch reflexives and reciprocals. A discussion of some constructions is found in Duinhoven (1988). As discussed in (4.1.7) the rise of zich has been the subject of some discussion in the literature, recently in Postma (2004) and Van der Sijs (2004). Cornips (1992, 1994, 1996) and Cornips & Hulk (1995, 1996) discuss the exceptional zich-constructions in the province of Limburg extensively. The topic of one-pronominalization has been discussed recently in Barbiers (2003, 2005), partly on the basis of data that have been collected in the SAND project. The variation in Dutch reflexive pronouns has not been studied extensively (cf. De Schutter (2004)). Recent discussion can be found in Barbiers & Bennis (2003, 2004), also on the basis of SAND data.

 

4.3  Discussion of the maps

4.3.1  Weak reflexive pronouns as objects

4.3.1.1  Weak reflexive pronouns as the object of an inherent reflexive verb  (map 68a) (map in dynaSAND)

Inherent reflexivity has been discussed in section (4.1.2). In the interviews, the sentence “Jan herinnert ZICH dat verhaal wel” ('John remembers that story') was included. This sentence was asked by requesting the informants to translate the Standard Dutch sentence into their dialect. Sometimes the resulting sentence did not contain a pronoun due to the fact that herinneren 'remember' is not an inherent reflexive verb in these dialects. In those cases the verb zich herinneren was substituted by another inherent reflexive verb, such as zich schamen 'to be ashamed', zich vergissen 'to be mistaken' or zich bukken 'to bend down'.

            On map 68a, we can see quite clearly that the reflexive forms zich, hem ('m) and, to a lesser degree, zijn eigen (z'n eigen) appear frequently and are systematically distributed. We find zich in the eastern part of the Netherlands, Belgian Limburg, and Noord-Holland. Hem ('m) has a strong position in Oost and West-Vlaanderen, Vlaams- Brabant, and Friesland. In the provinces of Antwerp, Zeeland, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht and the western part of Noord-Brabant we find zijn eigen. We don't find the strong reflexives zichzelf and hemzelf ('mzelf).

 

4.3.1.2  Weak reflexive pronouns as the object of a transitive verb  (map 68b) (map in dynaSAND)

The verb wassen 'to wash' has a reflexive form zich wassen and a non-reflexive form iemand/iets wassen 'to wash somebody/something'. In the interviews, the sentence “Toon wast ZICH” ('Tony washes') was included. This sentence was asked by requesting the informants to complete the sentence Toon wast ... which was presented in dialect.

            On map 68b, we observe that the forms hem ('m), zich and zijn eigen occur most frequently as well (compare 68b with 68a). In addition to these forms, we also find the strong forms hemzelf and zichzelf. The distribution of the weak reflexive forms is by-and- large identical to the distribution on map 68a: the eastern part chooses zich, Friesland and the southwest opt for hem and the centre prefers zijn eigen. Hemzelf is especially prevalent on the border between Friesland and the neighbouring zich-dialects. In this area we also find zichzelf, that shows up on the border between the hem-area and the zijn eigen-area in Vlaanderen too.

            Map 68b also shows the quite remarkable increase of the use of zijn eigen (42 measure points on map 68a vs 91 points on map 68b). The appearance of zijn eigen on map 68b in the eastern part of Noord-Brabant contrasts with map 68a on which this area opts for zich. Also interesting is the occurrence of the very strong form zijn eigen zelvere 'his own self' nearby Brussels.

 

4.3.1.3 Correlation weak reflexive pronouns  (map 69a)

On map 69a, we have tried to systematise the distribution of reflexive forms in weak reflexive constrictions (map 68a and 68b). The focus is on the 'pure areas': only zich, only him and only zijn eigen. We left out the strong forms hemzelf and zichzelf and other nonfrequent forms (<10 measure points). This provides us with a clear picture of the four pure areas: the east with zich, Friesland with him, Oost- and West-Vlaanderen with him and the centre of the language area with zijn eigen. Other areas give the impression of transition areas: the east of Noord-Brabant, Noord-Holland and the area around Friesland.

            The observed distribution is also attested on the following maps: the eastern part of the language area is rather similar to German; Friesland and Vlaanderen show similarities with English reflexivisation; and the middle part of the language area demonstrates a language specific system.

 

4.3.2  Strong reflexive pronouns in object position

4.3.2.1 Strong reflexive pronouns as the object of a transitive verb  (map 69b) (map in dynaSAND)

The verb kennen 'to know' is a verb that is obligatorily transitive. It occurs with a strong reflexive in Standard Dutch (cf. (4.1.2)). In the interviews, the sentence “Eduard kent ZICHZELF goed” ('Edward knows himself well') was included. This sentence was asked by requesting the informants to translate the Standard Dutch sentence into their dialect.

            On map 69b, we observe that, in this context, only strong reflexive forms are found, as expected. We don't find hem or zich. In addition to hemzelf and zichzelf, the zelf-reflexive expressions zijn zelve, ze zelve and zijn eigen zelve are found. The reflexive form zijn eigen, which is also attested in weak reflexive constructions, was found as well. It is even the most frequent form in the case of transitive verbs. More than half of the measure points opt for zijn eigen.

            The map shows that the east chooses zichzelf, Friesland and neighbouring areas prefer hemzelf and the central area (Brabant, Utrecht, Zeeland) takes zijn eigen. It concerns areas that belong to the pure areas on map 69a. West-Vlaanderen chooses zijn zelve. In Vlaams-Brabant and Vlaanderen the forms ze zelve and zijn eigen zelve are also attested. In comparison with the inherent reflexives discussed above it is striking that Vlaanderen opts for zijn zelve (West-Vlaanderen) or zijn eigen (Oost-Vlaanderen), whereas these provinces are pure hem-areas with respect to inherent reflexivity. In Friesland the strong form is selected by adding zelf to the bare pronoun. In Vlaanderen, another strategy, using a possessive pronoun, is exploited. Vlaams-Brabant and Belgian Limburg choose zijn eigen as the strong reflexive, whereas these areas make use of hem (Vlaams-Brabant) or zich (Belgian Limburg) with regard to weak reflexives.

 

4.3.3    Reflexive pronouns as the object of a preposition

4.3.3.1 Reflexive pronouns as the object of a preposition in inherent reflexive constructions  (map 70a) (map in dynaSAND)

Map 70a shows the distribution of reflexives following the preposition bij 'with'. The questionnaire included the sentence “De timmerman heeft geen spijker bij ZICH” ('The carpenter has no nails with him'). This sentence was asked by requesting the informants to translate the Standard Dutch sentence. In the Brabant area, the question was raised whether or not it is possible to leave out the object of the preposition.

            On map 70a, we observe that the forms hem and zich occur most frequently. In Brabant, and in particular in Belgian Brabant, the sentence can be translated into dialect without a reflexive pronoun. It might be the case that the combination bij-hebben 'with-have' is analysed as a particle-verb combination (a separable compound verb) in these dialects. This analysis is corroborated by the results of the telephonic interview in which the sentence "Hij riep alle familieleden bij zich" ('He called all family members with REFL') was presented in Brabant. In all instances, a reflexive pronoun was used. In Zeeland the form zen 'his' shows up. The occurrence of a bare possessive pronoun is not as strange as it seems, given that, in these dialects, the personal pronoun hem can generally be substituted by zijn in a prepositional context.

            The language area can be more-or-less divided in two: the eastern part makes use of zich and the western part prefers hem. There are clear transition zones: areas where two forms occur at the same location, whereas to the left and the right of these areas only one form is found. Such transition zones are found, for example, in the area between Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe, and in the eastern part of Noord-Holland. No strong reflexive pronouns (zichzelf, hemzelf) are found; zijn eigen doesn't show up either.

 

4.3.3.2  Reflexive pronouns as the object in a locative prepositional phrase  (map 70b) (map in dynaSAND)

Map 70b shows the distribution of reflexive pronouns within a locative prepositional phrase. The sentence “Fons zag een slang naast ZICH” ('Fons saw a snake next to him')

was included in the questionnaire. This sentence was elicited by presenting the sentence in dialect (“Fons zag een slang naast ...”) in combination with a picture representing the situation. The informant was asked to complete the sentence.

            In this case, the preposition naast 'next to' is not necessarily followed by a reflexive pronoun, in contrast to the sentence discussed above (4.3.3.1). The sentence De timmerman heeft geen spijkers bij mij ('The carpenter has no nails with me') is ungrammatical, whereas the sentence Fons zag een slang naast mij ('Fons saw a snake next to me') is fine.

            Map 70b shows that hem is predominantly used in the north and the south. In the eastern part zich is used and in Zeeland the form zen shows up again. The form zijn eigen is hardly found (11 occurrences), mostly in the area nearby Zeeland. Strong forms are attested only three times (three occurrences of hemzelf).

 

4.3.3.3 Correlation reflexive pronouns as the object of a preposition I  (map 71a)

On map 71a, we see a representation of the correlation of the maps 70a and 70b. Both maps show the distribution of reflexive pronouns after a preposition. In (4.3.3.2), we have discussed the difference between 70a and 70b, i.e., the inherent reflexivity of 70a. The difference between these two constructions is also visible on the correlation map 71a. Most striking is, perhaps, that in Brabant the reflexive pronoun can be absent in 70a, but not in 70b. This is in line with the analysis in which these dialects have reanalysed the reflexive expression bij zich hebben into a particle verb bij hebben. This is a lexical process that is not expected to occur in a locative context.

In general, we find a similar pattern for both sentences (hem–hem vs zich–zich). A deviation of this general pattern can be found in Noord-Holland, where the inherent reflexive sentence allows both hem and zich, whereas only one form (zich) is allowed in the locative prepositional phrase.

 

4.3.3.4 Reflexive pronouns as the object of a preposition within an infinitival clause          (map 71b) (map in dynaSAND)

In the introduction (4.1.3), it was argued that in a subset of infinitival clauses (AcI-clauses), a sentence boundary appears to be less relevant for the determination of the binding domain. The consequence is that reflexive pronouns embedded in such subordinate clauses may find their antecedent outside this clause. Such a case is represented by the sentence “Erik liet mij voor ZICH werken” ('Eric let me work for him'). This sentence was included in the questionnaire. The sentence was presented in Standard Dutch and the informant was requested to translate the sentence into his/her dialect.

            Again, a clear picture emerges. In the eastern part of the language area the pronoun zich is used, just as in Noord- and Zuid-Holland. In Zeeland, we find zen, which is equivalent to hem in prepositional contexts. The rest of the language area makes use of hem. No strong reflexives are found with the exception of one occurrence of zijn zelven 'his self' in West-Vlaanderen.

 

4.3.3.5 Correlation reflexive pronouns as the object of a preposition II  (map 72a)

Map 72a shows the correlation between the three different constructions in which the reflexive pronoun is the object of a preposition (maps 70a/b and 71b). In spite of the differences between the constructions, the reflexive pronouns are similar to a large extent. In the north (including the northern part of Noord-Holland) and in the southwest, the pronoun him is used in all three contexts. The pronoun zich is strongly preferred in the east, the south of Noord-Holland and the north of Zuid-Holland. The latter two areas constitute the Randstad-area, the area in which the standard language is dominant. In Zeeland, we find in these constructions zen, which is the variant of hem in prepositional contexts. In the provinces of Antwerpen and Vlaams-Brabant, and in the neighbouring areas, the inherent reflexive is reanalysed as a particle verb. In these areas we mostly find hem in the other two contexts. We conclude that the three constructions with reflexive pronouns as the object of a preposition do not show substantial differences.

 

4.3.4  Reflexive pronouns as part of the subject

4.3.4.1  Reflexive pronouns as part of an embedded subject I  (map 73a) (map in dynaSAND)

In the introduction (4.1.3), we discussed the exceptional property of reflexive pronouns embedded in a subject phrase: the antecedent of the reflexive is outside the clause that the reflexive belongs to. We included the sentence “Ward heeft gehoord dat er foto’s van ZICHZELF in de etalage staan” ('Ward has heard that pictures of himself are on display'). The sentence was presented in Standard Dutch. The informant was asked to translate this sentence into his/her dialect.

At first sight, map 73a shows a rather chaotic picture with a lot of diversity in forms. In many measuring points, more than one form appears to be available. The reflexive forms hem,hemzelf, zich and zichzelf do not show a clear distribution and co–occur in several locations. A substantial subset of the dialects in which zichzelf is used, also allows hem (17 out of 41). In three of the seven measuring points in which zich can be used, we find hemzelf as well. There does not seem to be a strong preference for a weak or a strong reflexive pronoun. Zijn eigen mainly occurs in the Randstad and Zeeland. It is also particularly striking that the forms hem and hemzelf show up in the eastern part of the language area, whereas the dialects in this area opt for zich(zelf) in all the other constructions. In West-Vlaanderen and Antwerpen we find zijn zelve and ze zelve next to hem.

 

4.3.4.2  Reflexive pronouns as part of an embedded subject II  (map 73b) (map in dynaSAND)

In order to reduce the chaotic picture on map 73a, we present a simplified map of the same sentence in 73b. The simplification concerns the reduction of forms by taking hemzelf and hem as one form, just as zichzelf and zich. Such a simplification appears to be justified in this case since we found no strong preference for weak or strong forms on map 73a.

            From map 73b, it can be deduced that there are dialects that use hem(zelf) only, whereas there are no dialects that make use of zich(zelf) exclusively. This might be due to the fact that this construction allows both a pronominal strategy (leading to hem(zelf) in the zich-area) and a reflexive strategy. This also accounts for the large amount of dialects that allow more than one pronoun in this construction.

The well-known hem-dialects are clearly visible on (73b). The zich-area is also present, although hem/hemzelf and zijn eigen are more frequent.

 

4.3.5  Reflexive pronouns in Accusativus cum Infinitivo (AcI)–constructions

4.3.5.1  Reflexive pronouns as the subject in the complement of laten 'to let' I (masc.) (map 74a) (map in dynaSAND)

Infinitival clauses that are in the complement of verba sentiendi or the causative verb laten 'to let' are generally referred to as AcI-constructions (cf. (4.1.3)). This label refers to the fact that the infinitival clause has an interpretative subject which shows up with accusative case, as a formal object of the main clause. In the questionnaire we have included the sentence “Jan liet ZICH meedrijven op de golven” ('John let himself drift with the waves'). This sentence was asked in the telephonic interview, in contrast to the clause Johanna liet zich meedrijven op de golven ('Joanna let herself drift with the waves') which was asked in face-to-face interviews. The sentence was presented in Standard Dutch and the informant was asked to translate this sentence into his/her dialect. The forms of the reflexives were noted down by the interviewer.

            The map shows that the forms that occur in weak reflexive constructions – hem, zijn eigen and zich – are dominant. It is interesting to note that the zich-area is relatively big. In comparison, the hem-areas in Friesland and in Vlaanderen are rather small. Zijn eigen shows up again in the centre of the language area, although zich is available in this area as well. In spite of the occurrence of four attestations of strong reflexives, it seems justified to claim that the dialects make use of weak reflexives in this construction.

 

4.3.5.2  Reflexive pronouns as the subject in the complement of laten 'to let' II (fem.) (map 74b) (map in dynaSAND)

The questionnaire for the oral interviews included the sentence “Johanna liet ZICH meedrijven op de golven” ('Joanna let herself drift with the waves'). This sentence differs only with respect to the gender of the embedded subject from the sentence discussed in the preceding paragraph (4.3.5.1), which was included in the telephonic interview. The informants were requested to translate the sentence after it presented to them in Standard Dutch.

Map 74b shows once more the dominant occurrence of the weak reflexives zich, haar and d'r eigen (the feminine counterpart of zijn eigen). The haar-area is found in the north and in Vlaanderen; zich has a strong position in the east, but shows up in the west (Randstad-area) as well. Of particular interest are the relatively few occurrences of d'r eigen, which is the form used in the centre of the Netherlands and in the province of Antwerpen. In one-third of the dialects another form is used. Transition zones are found on the border between Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe, in the southern part of the province of Antwerpen and in the eastern part of Belgian Limburg.

 

4.3.5.3  Correlation reflexive pronouns as the subject in the complement of laten 'to let' (map 75a)

After the presentation of the masculine and feminine variants of the embedded subject of these infinitival complements, map 75a presents the correlation of the two. Although the data are obtained through different methods (telephonic interview vs fieldwork), the map shows a consistent picture: the north and the south use hem/her, the east chooses zich and the centre prefers d'r eigen/zijn eigen.

            There are differences though. In the feminine example, the pronominal reflexive haar is more often attested than hem is found in the masculine example. In Noord-Holland, zich is used more in the feminine example than in the masculine one, whereas zijn eigen is more often attested in the masculine example than d'r eigen in the feminine one. In the part of Noord-Holland that is called West-Friesland, haar is used in the feminine example and zijn eigen in the masculine one.

 

4.3.6  Reflexive pronouns; synthesis  (map 76a)

We have seen above that the choice for a particular reflexive form depends, to a large extent, on the context in which a reflexive is used. One construction shows more occurrences of zijn eigen than another; some constructions prefer strong reflexives, wheras other require weak reflexive pronouns.

There are several similarities between the constructions too. Map 76a shows the similarities of the preceding nine constructions (cf. 68a/b, 69b, 70a/b, 71b, 73a, 74a/b). The map was created by the following procedure If zich(zelf) is attested in six or more of these constructions, the dialect is considered to be a zich(zelf)-dialect. The same rule was applied to hem(zelf) and zijn eigen. If a dialect shows zich(zelf) in more than three constructions and chooses zijn eigen more than three times as well, the dialect is considered to be a zich(zelf)/zijn eigen-dialect. The same holds for the hem(zelf)/zijn eigen-dialects and the hem(zelf)/zich(zelf)-dialects.

On map 76a, we observe that dialects from the north of the Netherlands and the southwest of Belgium, in most instances, opt for (hem)zelf. The zich(zelf)-area is clearly visible along the eastern border. Zijn eigen is strongest in the provinces of Utrecht and Zeeland. The area between Friesland and the provinces of Groningen and Drenthe is a transition area of the type (hem)zelf/zich(zelf). The hem(zelf)/zijn eigen-area is found in the provinces of Antwerpen and Vlaams-Brabant.

This distribution corroborates the general picture in that the eastern part of the language area makes use of the German type of reflexivisation (sich), Friesland and the southwest incline towards an English type of reflexivisation (himself), while the middle part has developed a distinct, language specific form (zijn eigen). It is remarkable that the form of the standard language (zich) has not been distributed over the entire language area.

 

4.3.7  Exceptional constructions with weak reflexive pronouns

4.3.7.1  Reflexive pronouns in adverbial middle constructions  (map 77a) (map in dynaSAND)

Map 77a provides the locations at which we find occurrences of the adjunct middle construction. It concerns constructions with an intransitive verb. These constructions appear to be somewhere in between active and passive (cf. (4.1.4)). The logical subject is lacking and the grammatical subject has an adverbial function with respect to the verb. Without reflexive pronouns, these sentences are generally acceptable in Dutch. The sentence “Deze schoenen lopen ZICH gemakkelijk” ('It is easy to walk on these shoes')

was used to determine the distribution of the reflexive adjunct middle. It was included in the questionnaire in the southeast part of the language area: parts of Overijssel, Gelderland and Limburg. If the informant translated the Standard Dutch sentence without a reflexive, we asked for the status of the variant with a reflexive pronoun.

            The reflexive adjunct middle is only found in Limburg. In Belgian Limburg the reflexive pronoun used is mich and in Dutch Limburg, it is zich.

 

4.3.7.2  Reflexive pronouns in transitive middle constructions  (map 77b) (map in dynaSAND)

The reflexive pronoun zich can also be used in middles that are formed on the basis of a transitive verb. Again the logical subject is missing, but now the grammatical subject appears to correspond to the logical object (cf. (4.1.4)). In the questionnaire, we included the sentence “Die aardappelen schillen ZICH niet gemakkelijk” ('These potatoes are not easy to peel'). The sentence was presented in Standard Dutch in the southeast part of the language area: parts of Overijssel, Gelderland and Limburg. If the informant translated the sentence without a reflexive, we asked for the status of the variant with a reflexive pronoun.

On map 77b, we observe that reflexive transitive middles occur more frequently than reflexive adjunct middles (4.3.7.1). The sentence was presented in 82 measure points. The construction was attested at 25 locations, all along the southeastern border of the language area, specifically in Belgian Limburg and Dutch Limburg.

 

4.3.7.3  Reflexive pronouns in possessive constructions, inalienable possession  (map 78a)(map in dynaSAND)

We have made a distinction between alienable and inalienable reflexive possessive constructions (see 4.1.4). Inalienable possession is mostly used in the case of body parts and family members, i.e., objects that cannot be separated from the subject. The questionnaire included the sentence  “Hij heeft ZICH de handen gewassen” ('He washed his hands'), a construction with an inalienable possessive reflexive. The sentence was presented in Standard Dutch in the southeastern part of the language area: parts of Drenthe, Overijssel, Gelderland and Limburg. If the informant translated the sentence without a reflexive, we asked for the status of the variant with a reflexive pronoun.

            The presence of reflexives in inalienable possessive constructions occurs relatively frequently in the relevant area. A variant of this construction is the construction in which zich appears in combination with a possessive pronoun within the object phrase: Hij heeft ZICH ZIJN handen gewassen ('He has washed himself his hands' instead of 'He washed himself the hands'). This construction shows up mostly in the very south of Limburg and is a variant of the reflexive possessive construction without possessive pronoun in all cases. In three cases the pronoun hem shows up as possessive reflexive, instead of zich.

           

4.3.7.4  Reflexive pronouns in possessive constructions, alienable possession  (map 78b)(map in dynaSAND)

The nature of the alienable possessive construction is slighly different from the inalienable possessive, in that the object is not obligatorily related to the possessor (cf. (4.1.4)). The questionnaire included the sentence “Hij heeft ZICH het hemd gewassen” ('He washed his shirt'), a construction with an alienable possessive reflexive. The sentence was presented in Standard Dutch in the southeastern part of the language area: parts of Drenthe, Overijssel, Gelderland and Limburg. If the informant translated the sentence without a reflexive, we asked for the status of the variant with a reflexive pronoun.

            Map 78b shows that there are two areas in which an alienable possessive reflexive is clearly attested: the provinces of Drenthe and Limburg. At various other points along the eastern border, this construction appears as well. Just as in the case of inalienable possession, the variant with a reflexive and a possessive pronoun is attested as well: Hij heeft ZICH ZIJN hemd gewassen ('He has washed himself his shirt'). In general it turns out that the variant with zijn occurs at locations that also allow the variant without a possessive pronoun.

 

4.3.7.5  Reflexive pronouns in accomplishments  (map 79a) (map in dynaSAND)

Map 79a shows the occurrence of zich in accomplishment constructions (cf. 4.1.4). The test sentence was “Jan heeft ZICH in twee minuten een biertje gedronken” ('John has himself in two minutes a beer drunk'). The sentence was included in the questionnaire in the southeastern part of the language area: parts of Drenthe, Overijssel, Gelderland, and Limburg. If the informant translated the sentence without a reflexive, we asked for the status of the variant with a reflexive pronoun. Reflexive accomplishments show up mainly in the southern part of Belgian and Dutch Limburg.

 

4.3.7.6  Correlation exceptional constructions with weak reflexive pronouns  (map 79b)

In the previous sections, we have discussed the occurrence of zich in a number of exceptional constructions in varieties of Dutch. On map 79b, we have correlated these constructions. For this map we have not made a distinction between the various reflexive forms.

            We observe an increase of exceptional zich constructions in the east, going from north to south. In the very south of Limburg, all five constructions are attested, whereas the province of Drenthe only shows the appearance of the possessive reflexives.

 

4.3.8  Reciprocal pronouns  (map 80a) (map in dynaSAND)

As was the case with reflexive pronouns, reciprocal pronouns refer to an antecedent in the clause they belong to. The binding properties of reciprocals are by-and-large identical to those of reflexives (cf. (4.1.1) and (4.1.5)). The questionnaire included the sentence “Marie en Piet wijzen naar ...” ('Mary and Peter point at each other'). The sentence was presented in dialect and the informant was given a picture with two pointing people. The informant was asked to complete the sentence in dialect.

Map 80a looks a bit disorderly at first sight. There are clear patterns though: the form mekaar is attested everywhere, with the exception of the south of Noord-Holland and the southeastern area. In Friesland the forms elkaar and elkander are used together and in the northeast several areas use mekare and mekander. The form mekare is also attested in Zeeland. The diverging form één is attested in Limburg and in the southeastern part of the Belgian area. In addition to één we also find the forms mekander, mekanders and mekandere(n) in these areas.

 

4.3.9  Eén ('one')–pronominalisation  (map 80b) (map in dynaSAND)

The English sentence This is a strange one is grammatical whereas the word-for-word translation in Standard Dutch is ungrammatical: *Dit is een rare één (cf. (4.1.6)). From the literature, it is known that instances of één-pronominalisation are attested in Friesland and Brabant. In order to test the distribution of this phenomenon, we have included the following sentences “Jij bent ook een rare één” ('You are a strange one'); “Zo’n ding één heb ik nog nooit gezien” ('Such a thing one I have never seen before') en “Zo’n vrouw één kun je maar beter niet tegenspreken” ('Such a woman one you better not refute'). These sentences were presented in dialect with the question whether or not these sentences occurred in the dialect of the informant.

The question about the occurrence of Jij bent ook een rare één was asked in the north, the centre and the southeast of the Netherlands and in the western part of Belgium. The second sentence (zo'n ding één) was presented in Noord-Brabant, Dutch Limburg, Vlaams-Brabant and Belgian Limburg. If the question was answered positively, the question as to the occurrence of the third sentence (zo'n vrouw één) was asked.

Map 80b shows that the English-type construction (een rare één) shows up in Friesland and in a few locations in Groningen and Brabant. In Limburg, the zo'n ding één construction was attested in four measure points. Two of these also allowed the zo'n vrouw één variant.

 

4.4       Literature on reflexive and reciprocal pronouns

ANS (1997). W. Haeseryn et al. (eds.) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen:

Wolters-Noordhoff. 2e herziene druk.

Barbiers, S. (2003). 'Variatie in de morfosyntaxis van één.' Taal en Tongval 15/16.

            Themanummer. 44–62.

—       (2005). 'Variation in the morphosyntax of ONE.' Journal of Comparative

 Germanic Linguistics 8.

Barbiers, S. & H. Bennis (2003).'Reflexives in dialects of Dutch.' In J. Koster & H. van

Riemsdijk (eds.) Germania et alia: a linguistic webschrift for Hans den Besten. http://www.let.rug.nl/~koster/DenBesten/.

—        (2004) 'Reflexieven in dialecten van het Nederlands: chaos of structuur?.' In J. de Caluwe et al. (eds..) Taeldeman, man van taal, schatbewaarder van de taal. Gent: Academia Press. 43–58.

Bennis, H., P. Pica & J. Rooryck (1997)(eds.). Atomism and binding. Dordrecht: Foris

Publications.

Blom, A. & S. Daalder (1976). 'De structurele positie van reflexieven en reciproken.'

Spektator 5. 397–414.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris

Publications.

Cornips, L. (1992). 'Syntactic interference in a bilingual community: The use of

reflexive in intransitive variants of causative verbs.' Intercultural

Communication Studies 2. 23–41.

­—        (1994). Syntactische variatie in het Algemeen Nederlands van Heerlen.

Diss. UvA. Amsterdam: IFOTT.

—        (1996). 'The spread of the reflexive adjunct middle in the Limburg dialects: 1885–1994.' In C. Cremers & M. den Dikken (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 49–60.

Cornips, L. & A. Hulk (1995). 'Toch nog zicht op zich.' Tabu 3. 121–124.

—        (1996). 'Ergative reflexives in Heerlen Dutch and French.' Studia Linguistica 50.

1–21.

Corver, N., C. Driessen, J. Koster & H. van Mierlo (1987). 'Domeinextensies voor

reflexieven.' In N. Corver & J. Koster (eds.) Grammaticaliteiten. Tilburg Studies in Language and Literature 7. Tilburg: KUB. 27–94.

Den Hertog, C.H. (1903). Nederlandsche Spraakkunst. Amsterdam.

De Schutter, G. (2004). 'De studie van de Nederlandse en Friese dialectsyntaxis sedert

1990.' Taal en Tongval 15/16. 10–43.

Duinhoven, A.M. (1988). Middelnederlandse syntaxis. Synchroon en diachroon 1.

Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Entjes, H. (1976). 'De schipper likte zijn lippen af.' Driemaandelijkse Bladen 28. 55–69.

Everaert, M. (1980). 'Inherent reflexive verbs and the zich – zichzelf distribution in

Dutch.' Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics. 1–48.          

—        (1981). 'Zich.' In S. Daalder & M. Gerritsen (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 73–83.

—        (1986). The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

—        (1991). 'Contextual determination of the anaphor/pronominal distinction.' In J.

Koster & E. Reuland (eds.) Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. 77–118.

Faltz, L. (1985). Reflexivization: a study in universal syntax. New York: Garland

University Press.

Frayzyngier, Z. & T.S. Curl (eds.)(2000a). Reflexives. Forms and functions.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Frayzyngier, Z. & T.S. Curl (eds.)(2000b). Reciprocals. Forms and functions.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Geniusiené, E. 1987. The typology of reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Harbert, W. (1983). 'Germanic reflexives and the implementation of binding

Conditions.' In I. Rauch & G. Carr (eds.) Language change. Indiana:

University Press. 89–127.

Haspelmath, M. et al. (2005). World atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Heeroma, K. (1942). 'Elkaar.' Nieuwe Taalgids 36. 218–222.

Helke, M. (1971). The grammar of English reflexives. PhD MIT. Cambridge.

Hermodsson, L. (1952). Reflexive und intransitive Verba im alteren

Westgermanischen. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells Boktyckeri.

Kemmer, S. (1993) The middle voice: A typological and diachronic study.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Klein, M. (1988). 'Pronominale adverbia en principe B en C van de bindingstheorie.'

Nieuwe Taalgids 80. 69–71.

Kollewijn, R. (1891). 'Zich.' Taal & Letteren 1. 189–192.

König, E. (2003). 'Intensification and reflexivity in the languages of Europe: Parameters

of variation and areal features.' In I. Loi Corvetto (ed.) Atti di Congresso della  Società Italiano di Glottologia. Rome: Il Calamo. 229–252.

Koster, J. (1987). Domains and dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

—        (1997). 'Anaphora and the uniformity of grammar.' In H. Bennis, P. Pica &

J. Rooryck (eds.) Atomism and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 235–250.

Nieuwborg, E. (1973). 'De plaatsing van het substantivisch onderwerp in reflexieve

constructies.' Leuvense bijdragen 62. 273–283.

Postma, G. (2004). 'Structurele tendensen in de opkomst van het reflexief pronomen

zich in het 15de-eeuwse Drenthe en de theorie van reflexiviteit.' Nederlandse Taalkunde 9:2. 144–169.

Reinhart, T. & E. Reuland (1993). 'Reflexivity.' Linguistic Inquiry 24. 656–720.

Reuland, E. (2001). 'Primitives of binding.' Linguistic Inquiry 32:3. 439–492.

Reuland, E. & T. Reinhart (1995). 'Pronouns, anaphors and case.' In H. Haider, S. Olsen

& S. Vikner (eds.) Studies in comparative germanic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 241–268.

Rooryck, J. & G. Vanden Wyngaerd (1997). 'The Self as Other, A minimalist

approach to zich and zichzelf in Dutch.' NELS 28.    

—        (1999). 'Puzzles of identity: Binding at the Interface.' NELS 29.

Safir, K. (2004). The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schladt, M. (2000). 'The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives.' In Z.

Frayzyngier & T.S. Curl (eds.) Reflexives. Forms and functions.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 103–124.

Schönfeld, M. (1954; 5e druk). Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Zutphen:

W.J. Thieme & Cie.

Ureland, P.S. (1978). 'Reflexive structures in North Sea Germanic – an areal linguistic

approach.' Handelingen van het Nederlandse Filologencongres. 91–98.      

—        (1979). 'The development of Dutch and Frisian reflexives between 1879 - 1979.'

In M. Gerritsen (eds.) Taalveranderingen in de Nederlandse dialecten, Honderd jaar dialectvragenlijsten: 1879 – 1979. Muiderberg: Dick Couthino. 250–263.        

—        (1980). 'Hoe men zich haast in de Nederlandse en Westfriese dialecten.' Taal en

 Tongval 32. 53–65.

Van der Leek, F. (1987/1988). 'Zich en zichzelf; Syntaxis en semantiek.' Spektator

17:2/3. 129–165 & 211–241.

Van der Sijs, N. (2004). Taal als mensenwerk; Het ontstaan van het ABN. Den Haag:

SDU.

Van Es, G.A. (1970). 'Functies en structuren van reflexieve verbindingen in het

Nederlands.' Nieuwe Taalgids 63. 362–376 & 417–432.

Van Loey, A. (1953). 'Kanttekeningen bij het reflexivum zich.' Mededelingen van

de Koninklijke Vlaamse Akademie voor Taal- en Letterkunde Antwerpen.

361–372.

Vat, J. (1980). 'Zich en zichzelf.' In S. Daalder & M. Gerritsen (eds.) Linguistics in the

Netherlands. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 127–138.