Against the Unaccusative Analysis of Reflexives

Tanya Reinhart and Tal Siloni
1999 
(to appear in Studies on Unaccusativity: the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, CUP.)

1. Introduction
 
Over the last two decades the unaccusative approach to reflexives has become rather popular, particularly in works dealing with Romance reflexives. Under the unaccusative approach, the subject of reflexives is an underlying object just like the subject of unaccusative verbs. Although the starting point of most of these studies is Romance reflexives, one would a priori not expect reflexive entries to have a fundamentally different argument structure cross-linguistically.
	We argue that the arguments that led linguists to the unaccusative approach can all be handled by a version of the more traditional view that takes reflexives to be unergative entries. Moreover, we show that when reflexives are submitted to syntactic tests of unaccusativity, they systematically fail  the tests in a variety of languages. We believe that the morphological similarity often attested between reflexives and unaccusatives is not due to a common argument structure, but due to the basic operation at the heart of their derivation.  
	Reflexive verbs take different morphological instantiations across  languages. While in French (and Romance in general) reflexive verbs are formed by reflexive clitics (1a), in English they are morphologically identical to their transitive alternate (1b). And while in Hebrew reflexives by and large appear in the so-called hitpa'el verbal from (1c), in Dutch, they are formed by the simplex anaphor zich (1d):

 (1) a	Max se lave.
		Max se(reflcl) washes

	b	Max washes.

	c	Max mitraxec.
		Max washes 

	d	Max wast zich.
		Max washes zich

Furthermore, while in English, Hebrew and Dutch reflexives are lexically limited, in Romance the phenomenon is productive. Nonetheless, we argue that reflexivization is essentially the same phenomenon across languages.
	We adopt the null hypothesis commonly assumed in works on argument structure that the different thematic instantiations of a verbal concept are derived from the same underlying thematic structure. Further, we argue that reflexives are derived from their transitive alternate by an operation reducing the internal argument. Finally, we attribute the somewhat different nature of reflexives in Romance vs. Hebrew (Dutch or English) to the distinct component of grammar in which the operation applies.

2. Against an Object Clitic Analysis

In Romance, reflexive verbs are formed by means of clitics similar to pronominal object clitics (compare (2a) with (2b)). A natural assumption is, therefore, that reflexive clitics, on a par with object clitics, are associated with the object position (2c):

 (2)a 	Jean se lave.
		Jean se(reflcl) washes

 	b 	Jean lei lave ti.
		Jean himcl washes

An object clitic analysis of reflexives:

 	c	Jean sei lave ti.

	However, by now, there is considerable evidence against an object clitic analysis of Romance reflexives (2c). As already shown by Kayne (1975), reflexives do not pattern with transitive verbs. The reflexive clitic, then, cannot simply be the object clitic of a transitive entry. Various arguments lead to that conclusion. Consider first the context of expletive insertion in French illustrated in (3a). While transitive verbs are disallowed in this environment (3b), reflexive verbs do occur there (3c). If reflexives were transitive entries, we would expect them to be completely impossible in the postverbal position of expletive constructions, just like transitive verbs:

 (3)a	Il est arrivé trois filles.
		there is arrived three girls

  	b    *	Il lesi a dénoncés ti trois mille hommes ce mois-ci.
		there themcl has denounced three thousand men this month-here

 	c	Il s'est dénoncé trois mille hommes ce mois-ci.
		there se is denounced three thousand men this month-here

	Additionally, Kayne (1975) has observed that French causative constructions, too, treat transitives and intransitives differently and that reflexives pattern with intransitives. When the verb embedded under the causative verb faire ('make') is a transitive verb, its subject must be introduced by the preposition à ('to') (4a). When the lower verb is intransitive, its subject cannot be introduced by à (4b). As is clear from (4c), when the direct object of the embedded verb is a pronominal clitic, the verb patterns with transitive entries. But when the lower verb is reflexive, its subject surfaces without the preposition (4d), just like the subject of intransitive verbs. Notice that the different positioning of pronominal clitics and reflexive clitics in the causatives of (4) suggests in itself that they deserve a different  syntactic treatment. 

 (4)a	Je ferai laver Max à Paul.
		I  will+make wash Max to Paul

 	b	Je ferai courir Paul.
		I will+make run Paul 

 	c	Je le ferai laver à Paul.
		I himcl will+make wash to Paul.

 	d	Je ferai se laver Paul.
		I will+make se wash Paul

	Further, as is well known, transitive verbs use the auxiliary avoir ('have') to form complex tenses. Reflexives, in contrast, employ être ('be'). As is the case when the auxiliary être is used, agreement is always obligatory on the past participle of the reflexive verb (5b). Past participle agreement with direct object clitics is, in contrast, optional at least in certain French dialects (5a). As noted by Sportiche (1998),  if reflexive clitics were simply object clitics, this difference would, a priori, be unexpected.  

 (5)a	Marie les a décrit(es).
		Marie themcl has described

	b	Marie s'est décrit*(e).
		Marie se is described

	Finally, additional evidence against the object clitic analysis of reflexive verbs is suggested by Marantz (1984) on the basis of the Icelandic data below (due to Andrews 1982). (6a) is an Exceptional Case Marking construction. The accusative subject of the subordinate clause is the simplex anaphor sig. As expected, the predicative adjective sterkan ('strong') must bear accusative Case in agreement with its subject sig. (6b) is a paraphrase of (6a), containing a reflexive verb, which is formed by the reflexive suffix -st. If -st were a reflexive object clitic, one would expect its predicative adjective to also appear in accusative Case. However, as shown in (6b), the adjective must surface in nominative in agreement with Hann, the subject of the reflexive verb. The reflexive suffix, then, is not the clitic version of the anaphor sig, and cannot be associated with the object position.

 (6)a	Hann telur sig vera sterkan.						(Icelandic)
		he(nom) believes himself(acc) to+be strong(acc)

	b	Hann tel-st vera sterkur.						(Icelandic)
		he(nom) believes-refl to+be strong(nom)

	Indeed, the object clitic analysis of reflexive clitics is not promising, and two alternative trends of research have consequently been developed. On the one hand, it has been argued that reflexive verbs are the output of a lexical operation of absorption or reduction, which applies to a transitive entry, targeting its internal argument and producing an intransitive verb. Among proponents of this lexical approach are Grimshaw (1982), Wehrli (1986), Chierchia (1989) and Reinhart (1996). Under this view, the reflexive clitic is associated with the internal -role, but in the lexicon, not in syntax. On the other hand, it has been proposed that the reflexive clitic is, in fact, associated with the external -role, and the reflexive verb is therefore an unaccusative verb, as its internal argument is the derived subject. Among the defenders of the unaccusative approach, some argue in favor of lexical absorption of the external argument (Bouchard 1984, Grimshaw 1990 and Marantz 1984), while others believe that the external argument is present in syntax via se (Kayne 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Sportiche 1998). In section 4 and 5 we argue against the unaccusative analysis of reflexives in its lexical or syntactic version. Prior to that, in the subsequent section we adopt the proposal that reflexives are products of reduction of the internal argument. In the last section, we further refine the proposal, suggesting that reduction may have a syntactic as well as a lexical mode of application.

3. Reduction

If the reflexive clitic is not the internal argument in syntax, it is only natural to explore the possibility that it is nonetheless associated with the internal -role, but in the lexicon, not in syntax. Indeed, Grimshaw (1982) suggests that the reflexive clitic is a marker of lexical reflexivization, which is a lexical operation binding the internal argument by its external coargument, rendering the former syntactically inaccessible. Similarly, according to Wehrli (1986), reflexive se absorbs the internal argument, which is consequently unavailable to syntactic processes.
	The lexical option was elaborated in Chierchia (1989) and Reinhart (1996). Following them, we assume that an operation labeled Reduction can operate in the lexicon on transitive entries to produce reflexive verbs. Reduction applies to a two place relation (predicate), identifies the two arguments, and reduces the relation to a property. Reflexive reduction turns a transitive entry such as wash (7a) into an intransitive entry whose single -role is the external -role (1), as schematized in (7b). Reduction requires identification of two arguments, thereby capturing the interpretation of reflexive sentences. Thus the output is always interpreted as schematized in (7c). For a more precise analysis of the semantics see Chierchia (1989): 

 (7)a 	wash <1,2>
 	b	Reduction: R(wash)< 1>
	c	(R(wash)(x))  (x wash x)

3.1 A constraint on reduction

As reduction applies under identification of two -roles, a two place relation is required. In Romance, the argument to be reduced in reflexivization can be an accusative or dative argument, as illustrated in (8a) and (8b) respectively:

 (8)a	Jean s'est introduit à Paul.
		Jean se is introduced to Paul
	       'Jean introduced himself to Paul'

 	b	Jean s'est acheté une voiture.
		Jean se is bought a car
	       'Jean bought a car to himself'

However, whether the reduced argument is accusative or dative, identification must take place with the external argument, even if the verb is a three place predicate. Thus, while it is possible for an anaphor in situ to be bound by an internal coargument, as illustrated in French (9a) or Hebrew (9b), reflexive reduction involving two internal coarguments is entirely inconceivable (9c):

 (9)a     ?Sur cette photo Jean n'a montré les enfants qu'à eux-mêmes.
		 On this picture Jean not has shown the boys but to themselves

	b	dan her'a le-dina 'et 'acma ba-tmuna.
		Dan showed to-Dina herself  in+the-picture

	c    *	Jean si'est montré l'enfanti.
		Jean se is shown  the boy

And for the same reason predicates that lack an external -role are incompatible with reflexive clitics, as already observed by Burzio (1981,1986) among others. (10a) contains a raising predicate with an embedded small clause complement and a dative argument. The predicate cannot occur in a reflexive form (10b), although the reflexive interpretation is possible when a nonclitic anaphor is used (10c):

(10)a	Jean leur semble intelligent.
		Jean to+themcl seems intelligent

 	b   *Jean se semble intelligent.
		Jean se seems intelligent

	c	Jean ne semble intelligent qu'à lui-même.       
		Jean not seems intelligent but to himself 

Likewise, reduction cannot apply when the external -role is not free, not available because it is subject to another operation. This explains Kayne's (1975) original observation that reflexive clitics are incompatible with passivization, as illustrated below by Italian examples (from Rizzi 1986). Again, while pronominal objects of passives may either surface in situ (11a) or cliticize (11b), reflexive sentences can be expressed by means of a nonclitic anaphor (11c), but  not by means of a reflexive clitic (11d), as the subject in question is a derived subject, not the external argument:   

 (11)a	Gianni è stato affidato a lui.
		Gianni was entrusted to him

	b	Gianni gli è stato affidato.
		Gianni to+himcl was entrusted

	c	Gianni è stato affidato a se stesso.
		Gianni was entrusted to himself

 	d   *Gianni si è stato affidato.
		Gianni si was entrusted

Reduction thus is a constrained operation. We propose it must obey the following constraint, (to which we return in section 4 and 6):

(12)		Reduction can only apply to a pair of free -roles one of which is external.

3.2	Reduction of the external argument

It is known that in certain languages reflexive morphology can also appear on unaccusative verbs. In Romance, an unaccusative can occur with the same clitic that appears on reflexive verbs, as illustrated below by French examples:

(13)a	La branche s'est cassée.
		the branch se is broken 

	b	Jean s'est évanoui.
		Jean se is fainted

And in Hebrew, where there are several verbal forms an unaccusative verb can take, many occur in the same form as reflexive verbs, in the so-called hitpa'el verbal form.
	Chierchia (1989) argues that the fact that reflexives and unaccusatives can share the same morphological form can be explained if unaccusatives are also derived from a two place verb, by some sort of reduction. That is, reflexive morphology is found when reduction takes place. The actual reduction operation Chierchia proposes is rather different from reflexive reduction. Retaining his insight, Reinhart (1996) nonetheless assumes that there is just one reduction operation, which derives a one place predicate (a property) from a two place predicate. It operates on a pair of -roles and reduces either one (14). Reflexive entries are the output of reduction of the internal role, and unaccusatives are the output of reduction of the external role:

(14)a	V (1, 2)
	b	Reduction: R(V) (n)

Technical details aside (see cited references for extensive discussion), the basic idea is that se casser in (13b) is derived from its transitive alternate casser by reduction that targets the external argument. When there is no transitive alternate, as in the case of s' évanouir (13b), reduction applies to an abstract transitive alternate. Thus, when reduction applies to the internal role, the external role is syntactically realized, and a reflexive verb is obtained. When the external role is reduced, the internal argument is syntactically realized, resulting in an unaccusative entry.  
	Under this view, then, reflexives and unaccusatives can, in principle, bear the same morphology because they are subject to the same kind of operation. They do not, however, share the same argument structure. Reflexives, unlike unaccusatives, are unergative entries; their subject is the external argument. This view is in contradiction with the unaccusative approach to reflexives, which takes reflexives to be unaccusative entries, whose subject is the internal argument. The unaccusative analysis of reflexives has become very popular in the last two decades starting with Marantz (1984) (see Bouchard 1984, Grimshaw 1990, Kayne 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Sportiche 1998). Under the unaccusative approach, the fact that reflexives and unaccusatives can share the same verbal form would simply follow from the fact that reflexives are unaccusatives. Interestingly, however, what initiated this line of research was not so much the form shared by reflexives and unaccusatives, but other arguments, which are examined below.

4. On the Unaccusative Analysis

According to the unaccusative approach, the subject of reflexives is an underlying object which has to raise to subject position for Case reasons, because the reflexive morphology absorbs its Case. The approach has two major variants: lexical and syntactic. While under the former, the external argument is absorbed in the lexicon (Bouchard 1984, Grimshaw 1990 and Marantz 1984), according to the latter, the external argument is present in syntax via the reflexive clitic se (Kayne 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Sportiche 1998). As the arguments that led linguists to the unaccusative approach are basically the same whether the approach is lexical or syntactic, we abstract away form this difference in our discussion below.
	Recall first that the starting point of most studies defending the unaccusative path is Romance reflexive clitics. However, the analysis should a priori hold across languages, or else the hypothesis is weakened as we end up claiming that reflexive verbs are not one single phenomenon cross-linguistically. It is worth noting immediately that among our sample languages here, Dutch reflexives are hardly analyzable as unaccusatives. Dutch zich is not a clitic, and surfaces in the object position. It would be extremely hard to explain how it gets there if it is to be associated with the external -role. According to Reinhart (1996), it is a residue of the internal argument affected under reflexive reduction. 

4.1 Morphological evidence

Although proponents of the unaccusative analysis do not really discuss the fact that unaccusatives and reflexives can share the same verbal from, the morphological angle does play a role in their argumentation. Marantz (1984) mentions that in Albanian for example, reflexives and passives share the same form (15), arguing that the morphology in question appears when the subject is an underlying object. The same argument can be made in French, where in addition to unaccusatives (see (13) above), also middles (16a) and a limited set of passives (16b) can be formed by means of 'reflexive' clitics:

(15)		Agimi lahet.									(Albanian)
		Agim wash(3Sg)
	i.	'Agim washes himself'
	ii.	'Agim is washed'

(16)a	Ces tomates se vendent bien.
		these tomatoes se sell well
		'These tomatoes sell well'

	b	Le crime s'est commis ce matin.
		the crime se is committed this morning
		'The crime was committed this morning'				(Zribi-Hertz 1982)

	Moreover, in French (and Italian) reflexives and unaccusatives select être ('be') and not avoir ('have') as their auxiliary (17), just like passives or middles. The choice of être, according to the unaccusativity defenders (e.g. Grimshaw 1990, Pesetsky 1995), signals that the subject position hosts a derived subject. Sportiche (1998) makes the same point on the basis of the behavior of participle agreement. Assuming that in sentences with the auxiliary être, participle agreement is always with the underlying object, he concludes that the subject of reflexives must be a derived subject as it triggers agreement on the participle (again just like unaccusatives, passives or middles): 

(17)	a	La voiture est passé-e.
		The car is passed-agr

   	b	Marie s'est lavé-e.
		Jean se is washed-agr

	The morphological arguments, however, are not very strong. The fact that different diatheses of a verb may appear in the same morphological guise does not mean that their derivations are of the same nature, nor that they share the same type of grammatical subject. The behavior of participle agreement is a consequence of the choice of auxiliary. And auxiliary selection, in turn, is an intricate matter, which is not yet well-understood, although it has received much attention in the literature (e.g. Ackema 1995, Everaert 1996, Friedemann and Siloni 1997, Hoekstra 1984, Reinhart 1996). Note incidentally that neither reflexives nor unaccusatives consistently choose be cross-linguistically. At any rate, clearly, the simplest procedure to determine whether reflexives in French and Italian use be due to their unaccusative character or due to different factors is first to submit their subject to syntactic tests that discriminate between external and internal arguments. Section 5 is devoted entirely to that purpose. As will become clear in the course of the section, there is robust evidence that the subject of reflexive verbs systematically patterns with the subject of unergatives; it is the external argument unlike the subject of unaccusatives. Yet, defenders of the unaccusative analysis did not base their argumentation solely on morphological grounds.

 4.2 Syntactic evidence

A popular syntactic argument in favor of the unaccusative analysis is the incompatibility of  reflexive clitics with verbs lacking an external argument (Bouchard 1984, Grimshaw 1990, Kayne 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Sportiche 1998). Neither raising predicates nor verbs in passive can take a reflexive clitic, as shown in (10-11) above. This follows particularly well from the view that the reflexive clitic absorbs or bears the external -role. If the latter is not available, due to the nature of the predicate or due to passivization, the reflexive clitic cannot appear.
	However, the same generalization easily follows also from the constraint (12) imposed on reduction: reduction can only apply to a pair of free -roles one of which is external. As discussed in section 3.1, with both raising predicates and passives, there is no free external -role for reduction to be possible.
	Furthermore, the empirical coverage of the constraint in (12) is larger than that of the account offered by the unaccusative approach. Dutch impersonal passives present a case where the latter fails, while the former works. Impersonal passives in Dutch are possible with transitive (18a) as well as unergative entries (18b), but, they do not allow reflexives (18c) nor unaccusatives (18d):

(18)	a	Er werd een kind gewassen.
		there was a child washed

	b	Er werd gedansd.
		there was danced

	c   *Er werd zich gewassen.
		there was zich washed
  
	d   *Er werd gegroied.
		there was grown

Reflexives and unaccusatives, then, seem to cluster together. However, as mentioned in the beginning of the section, Dutch zich cannot be argued to be associated with the external argument and zich gewassen to be an unaccusative entry. Thus, while under either approach, (18d) is impossible, because passivization is incompatible with unaccusative entries as there is no external argument available, (18c) remains unexplained under the unaccusativity view, as the impersonal passive rules out the reflexive entry, although zich cannot be associated with the external argument, and zich gewassen cannot be an unaccusative. Under the reduction view, in contrast, the impossibility of (18c) as well as (18d) and (9-11) above is due to one and the same reason: their derivation involves reduction, which is impossible due to the constraint in (12), which limits reduction to predicates with external and internal free -roles.
	Finally, the strongest argument against deriving reflexives through a lexical operation targeting the internal argument is offered by Marantz (1984). His argument is based on the Icelandic example in (6b) above, but the same can be illustrated in French. Consider the Exceptional Case Marking construction in (19a) and its reflexive equivalent in (19b). The matrix predicate considère does not take a DP as its internal argument. Max in (19a), to which considère assigns accusative Case, is the subject of the small clause, receiving its -role from the adjective intelligent. As it is not an argument of considère, a lexical operation on the argument structure of the verb cannot affect it. Marantz concludes that reflexivization absorbs the external argument, and that the subject of reflexives is therefore the underlying object, Jean in (19b). This is schematized in (20):

(19)	a	Jean considère Max intelligent.
		Jean considers Max intelligent

	b	Jean se considère intelligent.
		Jean se considers intelligent

Marantz' analysis of (19b):

(20)	a	DS: e se considère [Jean intelligent]
	b	SS: Jeani se considère [ti intelligent]

	But, in fact, reflexivization into ECM complements poses a problem to any lexical analysis, whether it reduces the external or internal argument. Reflexivization entails linking two arguments, identifying them in our terms. If it takes place in the lexicon, only two coarguments (arguments of the same predicate) can be involved. In ECM constructions, the two relevant arguments are not coarguments; in (19b) the two arguments the operation applies to are not coarguments. Hence, they cannot be linked in the lexicon. To link the two arguments, lexical analyses à la Marantz, which absorb the external argument, have to impose a syntactic condition on an element (the external argument) which is no more available in syntax as it was absorbed in the lexicon; such a condition is ad hoc and implausible. This may be what led other linguists to prefer the syntactic version of the unaccusative analysis, under which the two arguments in question are present in syntax, and can therefore be in syntactic binding relations. In the subsequent section, however, we provide decisive evidence that the subject of reflexive verbs is an external argument, unlike the subject of unaccusatives. This evidence, we believe, refutes any unaccusative approach to reflexives.
	Note, in addition, that reflexivization into ECM complements is not a phenomenon that holds across languages. We do not find anything of the sort in Hebrew (21a) or English (22a). A self-anaphor must be used in these languages to obtain the relevant interpretation (21b, 22b):

(21) a   *dan mitxašev 'intiligenti. 
		Dan self-considers intelligent

	b	dan maxšiv  'et 'acmo 'intiligenti.
		Dan considers himself intelligent

(22)	a   *	Dan considers intelligent.

	b	Dan considers himself intelligent.

	After presenting cross-linguistic evidence against the unaccusative analysis, we propose our solution to the ECM puzzle, arguing that the different behavior of  French-type reflexives and Hebrew-type reflexives follows from the distinct component of grammar in which the reduction operation applies.

5. against the unaccusative analysis

So far, then, there does not seem to be evidence in favor of the unaccusative analysis of reflexives. Moreover, as mentioned above, the unaccusative hypothesis is hardly extendable to Dutch reflexives. This already weakens the hypothesis considerably, as it implies abandoning the natural assumption that reflexives are one single phenomenon cross-linguistically. The next obvious move is to check whether reflexives in languages other than Dutch have the characteristics of unaccusatives (which was, surprisingly, not really done in the literature cited above). As will become clear below, reflexives systematically fail tests of unaccusativity. This is true for a variety of languages, such as Hebrew, Russian, English and even the Romance family itself, which was the starting point for most studies defending the unaccusative approach.
	It is well known that the French quantitative clitic en can cliticize only out of the object position. It can thus serve as diagnostics for unaccusativity, as it discriminates between the internal and external argument in postverbal position. (23a) contains an unaccusative entry;  en cliticization is possible (24a). (23b-c) constitute a minimal pair: (23b) is a reflexive verb, and (23c) is an unaccusative with 'reflexive' morphology. While the latter allows en cliticization (24c), the former disallows it (24b).  This is straightforward if the subject of reflexives is an external argument, unlike the subject of unaccusatives. 

(23) a	Il est arrivé trois filles hier soir.
		there is arrived three girls yesterday evening

	b (?)Il s'est lavé beaucoup de touristes dans ces douches publiques, récemment.
		there se is washed many tourists in these public showers recently

	c	Il s'est cassé beaucoup de verres dans ce lave-vaisselle.
		there se is broken many glasses in this dish-washer

(24)	a	Il en est arrivé trois hier soir.
		there of+themcl is arrived three yesterday evening

	b   *Il s'en est lavé beaucoup dans ces douches publiques, récemment.
		there se of+themcl is washed many in these public showers recently

 	c	Il s'en est cassé beaucoup dans ce lave-vaisselle.
		there se of+themcl is broken many in this dish-washer
 
According to Guglielmo Cinque (personal communication, cited by Grimshaw (1990:184n3)), the same pattern holds in Italian, as illustrated below:

(25) a	Ne sono arrivati tre.
		of+themcl are arrived three
	
	b   *Se ne sono vestiti tre.
		si of+themcl are dressed three	
 
	Reduced relatives supply another syntactic context to distinguish between external and internal arguments. Reduced relatives with the so-called past participle do not allow predicates with an external argument; hence, the contrast Italian shows between ((26a-b) and (26c) (see Siloni 1995,1997). Consider now the examples in (27). The reduced relative in (27b), which contains a reflexive predicate, is impossible. But, when the same morphology is used to form an unaccusative entry, the reduced relative is acceptable (27a). Once again, reflexives do not pattern with unaccusatives: 

(26) a	L'uomo arrivato a Ginevra è una spia.
		the man arrived in Geneva is a spy

	b	L'uomo arrestato dalla polizia è una spia.
		the man arrested by the police is a spy

	c   *	L'uomo telefonato a suo nonno è una spia.
		the man telephoned to his grandfather is a spy

(27) a	Il bicchiere rottosi ieri apparteneva a mio nonno.  
		the glass broken-si yesterday belonged to my grandfather

	b   *L'uomo lavatosi ieri è mio nonno.
		the man washed-si yesterday is my grandfather

	Within the Semitic family, reflexives do not pattern with unaccusatives either. In Hebrew, reflexives decisively behave on a par with unergatives, while unaccusatives with identical morphology show all the syntactic traits of unaccusativity. 
	As observed by Shlonsky (1987) among others, there are two types of postverbal subjects in Hebrew. One type appears in triggered inversion, or stylistic inversion, which is licensed by an XP immediately preceding the verb [XP V S]. These postverbal subjects will not concern us here. Another type of postverbal subjects, which do not require a preverbal trigger, is found with unaccusatives (28a) and passives (28b); these postverbal subjects are internal arguments. External arguments do not allow simple inversion [V S] (28c). As shown below, reflexives cannot appear in simple inversion (28d) just like unergatives, while unaccusatives with identical morphology (in the hitpa'el verbal form) do allow it (28e), on a par with other predicates whose subject is an internal argument:

(28) a	nišbar mašehu.
		broke something
	
	b	ne'ecru šloša xayalim ba-hafgana.
		were+arrested three soldiers in+the-demonstration

	c   *	rakdu šloša yeladim ba-mesiba.
		danced three boys in+the-party

	d   *hitlabšu  šaloš dugmaniyot ba-knisa.
		dressed three models in+the-entrance

	e	hit'alfu šloša xayalim ba-hafgana.
		fainted three soldiers in+the-demonstration

	The same holds in embedded contexts. Raising predicates disallow [S V] order in the embedded infinitival clause (for reason which need not interest us here). Unaccusative verbs allow [V S] order and can therefore realize their subject in the subordinate clause (29a-b). Reflexives (29d), in contrast, just like unergatives (29c), disallow simple inversion [V S] and hence cannot realize their subject in the embedded clause (note that the unaccusative in (29b) and the reflexive (29d) share the same morphology) :

(29)	a	crixim le-hagi'a 'asara talmidim.
		need to-arrive  ten pupils

 	b	crixim le-hit'asef 'asara talmidim.
		need to-gather  ten pupils

	c   *crixim li-rkod  'asara talmidim.
		need to-dance ten pupils

	d   *crixim le-hitlabeš 'asara talmidim.
		need to-dress ten pupils

	Modification by possessive datives can also be used to detect internal arguments in Hebrew. As noted by Borer and Grodzinsky (1986), possessive datives can only modify internal arguments. Hence, they can serve as possessors to subjects of unaccusatives (30a-b), but not to subjects of unergatives (30c). As expected, reflexives (30d) behave just like unergatives (again, note that the predicates in (30b) and (30d) share the same morphology):, 

(30)	a	šney sfarim naflu le-dan.
		two books fell to Dan
	
	b	ha-simla hitkamta le-dina.
		the-dress wrinkled to-Dina 

	c   *ha-yeled rakad le-dina
		the-boy danced to-Dina

	d   *ha-yeled hitraxec le-dina.
		the-boy washed to-Dina

	In Russian, genitive of negation provides a test of unaccusativity: internal arguments can bear genitive Case, when their predicate in negated. In Russian, too, unaccusatives can appear in the same form as reflexives. Importantly, however, while the former pass the test of negation (when they are negated their subject can appear in genitive as illustrated in (31a)), the latter fail it (31b) just like unergatives (31c):

(31) a	Ne pojavilos' studentov
		neg showed up students(gen)

	b   *Ne pomylos' studentov
		neg washed students(gen)

	c   *	Ne tancevalo studentov
		neg danced students(gen)

	Finally, even in English it seems that there is evidence that the subject of reflexives is an external argument. Agent nominals, also known as -er nominals, can be derived only from predicates with an external argument (as their name suggests); hence, the contrast between (32a) and (32b). As expected, reflexives pattern with unergatives: they can give rise to agent nominals (32c):

(32)	a	She runs so fast because she is an experienced runner.
	b   *She moves so gracefully because she is an experienced mover.
	c	She dresses slowly because she is an elegant dresser.

	We believe it is now evident that unaccusatives and reflexives do not belong to the same syntactic class; the difference between them is as substantial as that between unaccusatives and unergatives. This leaves us back with the ECM puzzle. That is, if reflexivization involves a lexical operation of reduction as discussed in section 3, how come in Romance it can apply to two arguments which are not -coarguments? And if reflexivization is essentially the same phenomenon across languages, why do languages differ with regard to the possibility to reflexivize into ECM complements? 

6. Reflexive reduction: lexical and syntactic application

In French (or Italian), reflexivization is possible into ECM complements, as illustrated in (19b) repeated in (33a). The same is impossible in Hebrew (or English), as shown in (21a) repeated in (33b):

(33) a	Jean se considère intelligent.
		Jean se considers intelligent 

	b   *dan mitxašev 'intiligenti. 
		Dan self-considers intelligent

Moreover, while in French, reflexivization is a productive operation, in Hebrew it is limited to a closed class of elements. Likewise while in French the argument reflexivization targets can be a dative element (in addition to accusative), as illustrated in (10b) or in (34a) below, in Hebrew, reflexivization of datives is inconceivable (34b):

(34) a	Jean s'est envoyé une lettre.
		Jean se is sent a letter
		'Jean sent a letter to himself'

	b   *dan hištale'ax mixtav.
		Dan self-sent letter

	In Reinhart and Siloni (forthcoming), we argue that the occurrence of reflexive verbs in ECM constructions in French-type languages but not in Hebrew-type languages correlates with their productivity in the former and non-productivity in the latter. Despite the distinctions, we argue, reflexive verbs are one single phenomenon across languages. Reflexive entries are always derived from their transitive alternate by the operation of reduction targeting the internal argument, along lines proposed by Chierchia (1989) and Reinhart (1996). However, according to our proposal, reduction has two modes of application: a lexical mode and a syntactic mode. In Hebrew-type languages, reflexives are products of lexical application, while in French-type languages they are the output of syntactic application. We summarize the proposal below.
	The distinctions between Hebrew-type and French-type reflexives are derived from the distinct component of grammar in which reduction applies. While in Hebrew reflexives are derived by reduction in the lexicon, in French their derivation involves syntactic reduction. Crucially, in the two types of languages, the reflexive morphology (se or the verbal form hitpa'el) has the effect of eliminating a Case feature of the verb prior to syntactic insertion. However, in Hebrew the choice of reflexive morphology requires lexical reduction, while in French se is a Case absorber allowing reduction to take place in the syntax of LF. 
	In Hebrew, reflexive reduction implies both thematic and Case reduction in the lexicon. A transitive entry (35a) which undergoes reflexive reduction forms an unergative entry (35b), which does not bear an accusative Case assigning feature (35c). The relevant numeration therefore contains in addition to a verb reduced to assign a single -role (1), one realizable DP that will check the EPP (Extended Projection Principle) feature of I, as schematized in (35d): 

(35) Hebrew:
	a	V <1,2>
	b	Reduction: R(V)< 1> 
		(R(V)(x))  (x V x)
	c	Case absorption
	d	Numeration: {...IEPP...R(V (1)), {DPi}}

	In French, the reflexive morphology also absorbs a Case feature of the verb, but does not require thematic reduction to apply in the lexicon. Se is a Case absorber which is not contingent upon lexical thematic reduction, as schematized in (36b). This results in a discrepancy between the number of -roles and the number of Case features available to assign. The relevant numeration thus includes a verb bearing two -roles, but only one realizable DP, because a Case assigning feature of the verb was eliminated (36c). If two DPs are selected, the derivation will crash due to lack of Case. Reduction applies at LF (36d). Under LF-reduction, the two -roles of the predicate are identified to the extent that both are assigned to DPi, as it is the only realizable DP. This thematic discharging obtains at LF an interpretation equivalent to that of lexical reduction (35b). The two -roles are available in syntax but checked against one single DP:

(36) French:
	a	V <1,2>
	b	Se: Case absorption
	c	Numeration: {...IEPP...V (1,2), {DPi}}
	d	LF-reduction: [DPi(1, 2) se V+I... ]

	The mechanism of LF-reduction is incongruous with the traditional formulation of the -criterion, as two -roles are assigned to one argument. However, we assume with Chomsky (1995), Reinhart and Reuland (1993), among others that the criterion is not indispensable, as its consequences, it seems, can be derived by independent modules of the theory (see cited references). Note that the mechanism requires the insertion of se. It cannot apply to transitive entries as the derivation will crash due to unchecked Case assigning features of the verb.
	Lexical operations are typically frozen. Hence, as Hebrew does not have a se-type Case absorber which allows the predicate to postpone thematic reduction until LF, it manifests a closed set of reflexives. Among the members of the set, no instance of dative-reflexivization is found, as mentioned above. This may be a basic trait of lexical reflexivization (note that the group of lexical reflexives is rather fixed across languages). Further, as in Hebrew the operation is obligatorily lexical, it can operate only on -coarguments. Hence, reflexives do not appear in ECM constructions (33b), in which reduction has to apply to two arguments of two distinct predicates.
	In French, reduction is a syntactic operation, and therefore productive just like other syntactic procedures. Accordingly, the group of reflexives is not a closed class, and the operation can target accusative as well as dative arguments (34a). Further, reduction in French applies in the syntax of LF. At that level, we assume, the predicates that compose the ECM structure can form a complex predicate (along lines proposed by Reinhart and Reuland (1993) and references cited there). In (33a), for example, the verb considère and the adjective intelligent allow the formation of the complex predicate intelligent-considère, as schematized in (37). Consequently the -role of intelligent and the -role of considère become -roles of the same predicate, the complex predicate formed at LF, and can therefore be subject to LF-reduction. That is, they can be assigned to the same DP, DPi in (36d), Jean in (37):

(37)		LF: [Jean se [intelligenti-considère]j ti]
		       Jean  se  intelligent-considers

Reflexivization of ECM predicates is thus limited to languages with LF-reduction. Only in these languages can reduction in ECM environments respect the constraint in (12) repeated in (38) with the emphasis that the pair of  -roles in question must indeed be a pair of co--roles:

(38)		Reduction can only apply to a pair of free co--roles one of which is external.
 
	Dutch seems to pose a problem to our proposal, as it exhibits a closed class of reflexives on the one hand (39a-c), and reflexives in ECM constructions on the other hand (40). The former is a characteristic of lexical reduction, while the latter is typical of syntactic reduction. This is unexpected under our account:

(39)a	Max wast zich.
		Max washes zich

	b   *Max haat zich.
		Max hates zich

	c   *	Max hoorde zich.
		Max heard zich

(40)		Max hoorde [ zich zingen ].
		Max heard zich sing 

	However, as shown by Reinhart and Reuland (1993), zich is licensed in two distinct syntactic environments: with reflexive predicates and with nonreflexive predicates. When the predicate is reflexive, zich can be coreferential with a local subject. When the predicate is not reflexive, zich cannot be bound by a coargument; it is, then, what is often called a long-distance anaphor.
	Reinhart and Reuland (1993) argue following Everaert (1986) that predicates such as wast in (39a) are lexically reflexive. These predicates belong to a closed class of elements, as shown by the impossibility of (39b-c). In our terms, they are the products of lexical reduction. The predicate hoorde does not belong to the class of predicates that allow lexical reduction. Hence, zich is ruled out in (39c). Still, it can appear in (40), although the predicate is not reflexive, because it is the subject of the ECM complement, not a -argument of the matrix verb. Hence, it is not syntactically bound by a coargument, but by an argument of a distinct predicate, the embedding predicate hoorde. (40), which superficially seems to be a structure analogous to the French example (33a) is, in fact, an instance of syntactic binding, not the output of LF-reduction as is its French counterpart. Simply, Dutch uses the same element (zich) in both contexts: when lexical reduction takes place and in the context of non-local syntactic binding.

7. Summary

In this paper we argue that the unaccusative analysis of reflexive verbs must be discarded, as reflexives systematically fail syntactic tests of unaccusativity. They are unergative entries, whose subject is an external argument, unlike the subject of unaccusatives. We adopt the view that reflexives are derived from their transitive alternate by a reduction operation that reduces the internal argument provided that it is identified with its external coargument. Further, we argue that reduction has two modes of application: a lexical mode and a syntactic one. This is what makes reflexives show somewhat different characteristics in Hebrew-type languages vs. French type-languages. In our view, then, reflexivization is essentially the same phenomenon cross-linguistically. The distinctions between  the two types of reflexives, e.g. in Hebrew and French, follow from the different component of grammar in which reduction applies.

REFERENCES

Ackema, P. (1995) "Syntax below Zero" OTS Publications, University of Utrecht.
Andrews, A. (1982) "The representation of Case in Modern Icelandic", in J. Bresnan (ed.)  The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 427-503.
Borer, H. and Grodzinsky, Y. (1986) "Syntactic vs. Lexical Cliticization: The Case of Hebrew Dative Clitics", in H. Borer (ed.) The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics , 175-217, New York: Academic Press.
Bouchard D. (1984) On the Content of Empty Categories. Foris, Dordrecht.
Burzio, L. (1981) Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Chierchia, G. (1989) "A Semantic for Unaccusatives and its Syntactic Consequences", ms., Cornell University.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Doron, E. and A. Mittwoch (1987) "Negative Polarity in Hebrew", talk given at the second IATL conference, Bar-Ilan University.
Everaert, M. (1986) The Syntax of Reflexivization, Dordrecht, Foris.
Everaert, M. (1996) "The Encoding of the Lexical Semantic Structure of Verbs: The Case of Auxiliary Selection in Idioms" in E. Weignad & F. Hundsnurscher (eds), Lexical Structures and Languages Use, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tubingen.
Friedemann, M.A. & T. Siloni (1997) " Agr  object is not Agr participle", The Linguistic Review 14, 69-96.
Grimshaw, J. (1982) "On the Lexical Representation of Romance Reflexive Clitics" in J. Bresnan (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations , MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Grimshaw, J. (1990)  Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hoekstra, T. (1984) Transitivity: Grammatical Relations in Government-Binding Theory, Foris, Dordrecht.
Kayne, R. (1975) French syntax. The transformational cycle , MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 
Kayne, R. (1988), "Romance  se/si", GLOW newsletter 20. 
Marantz, A. (1984)  On the Nature of Grammatical Relations , MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Pesetsky, D.M. (1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencer and Cascades , MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Reinhart, T. (1996) "Syntactic Effects of Lexical Operations: Reflexives and Unaccusatives", OTS Working Papers in Linguistics.
Reinhart, T. & E. Reuland (1993) "Reflexivity",   Linguistic Inquiry 24.4, 657-720.
Rizzi, L. (1986) "On Chain Formation", in H. Borer (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 19: The Grammar of Pronominal Clitics, New York: Academic Press.
Shlonsky, U. (1987) Null and Displaced Subjects", Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Shlonsky, U. & E. Doron (1992)"Verb Second in Hebrew" in D. Bates (ed.) Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 431-435.
Siloni, T. (1995) "On Participial Relatives and Complementizer D0: a Case Study in Hebrew and French", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13.3, 445-487.
Siloni, T. (1997) Noun Phrases and Nominalizations: The Syntax of DPs, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Sportiche (1998) Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure: Subjects, agreement, case and  clitics,   Routledge.
Wehrli, E. (1986) "On some Properties of French Clitic Se", in H. Borer (ed.) The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, 263-283, San Francisco: Academic Press.
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1982) "La Construction "se-moyen" du français et son status dans le triangle moyen-passif-réfléchi", Linguisticae Investigationes 6, 345-401.