240 A Reference Grammar of Russian

4.7 Reflexive pronouns

4.7.1 Basics

Russian has two reflexive pronouns: ct,z´, an argument pronoun, and cdj´q, a possessive adjective.67 Ct,z´ occurs in positions in which argument phrases usually occur, except subject position. Ct,z´ expresses case, but does not distinguish gender or number. As an adjective, cdj´q agrees in gender, case, and number with the noun it modifies. Cdj´q and ct,z´ can refer to first or second persons as well as to third persons.

Pronouns instruct the addressee to posit an individual at the site of the pronoun and go to a source for information about the identity of the individual. On the syntactic domain of a finite predicate in which a pronoun is an argument of the predicate (or modifies an argument of the predicate), the meaning of reflexive and third-person pronouns is complementary. When a reflexive pronoun is used, the source, or antecedent, for the reflexive must be the subject of the finite predicate (indexed <i> in [267] and [268]); reflexives cannot refer to an object (t= in [267] or tvé in [268], indexed <j>) or to some other third person who is not mentioned in this sentence (indexed <k>):

[267]Vjz vfnm<i> dpzkf tt<j> r ct,t<i | j | k> , r cdjtq<i | j | k> ctvmt.

My mother<i> took her<j> to herself<i | j | k> , into her<i | j | k> family.

[268]Jy<i> rhfnrj crfpfk tve<j> ghj ct,z<i | j | k> , ghj cdj/<i | j | k> ;bpym. He<i> told him<j> briefly about himself<i | j | k> , about his<i | j | k> life.

By complementarity, non-reflexive third-person pronouns cannot refer to the subject of a finite predicate, but must refer to some other entity, which can be another argument of the same predicate or an individual that is not mentioned as an argument of the predicate at all. In [269--70] the third-person feminine pronouns (y†q, t=) cannot refer to the subject (indexed <i>) but could refer to the direct object (indexed <j>) or to some other person not mentioned in the predication (indexed <k>).

[269]Jyf<i> hfccghfibdfkf tt<j> j ytq< i | j | k> , j tt< i | j | k> ;bpyb. She<i> questioned her<j> about her< i | j | k> , about her< i | j | k> life.

[270]F xthtp ldf lyz Vfit<j> dthyekb tt< i | j | k> pfzdktybt c htpjk/wbtq: Jnrfpfnm. Two days later they returned to Masha<j> her< i | j | k> application with the decision: Denied.

On the domain of a finite predicate, almost any argument phrase can be the site for a reflexive. If English normally uses a non-reflexive pronoun in sentences

67See Peshkovskij 1956, Klenin 1974, Paducheva 1974[b], 1985, Yokoyama 1975, Yokoyama and Klenin 1976, Timberlake 1980[a], 1980[b], 1986, Rappaport 1986.

Arguments 241

such as next to him (?himself) John found a snake, similar constructions in Russian would use ct,z´. Compare:

[271]Cjklfn<i> lfk tve vtcnj hzljv c cj,jq<i> yf crfvtqrt. The soldier made room for him next to him on the bench.

[272]Yf njq ;t cnfywbb d nht[ ifuf[ jn ct,z<i> Vfif<i> edbltkf cfvjuj Cnfkbyf. At that station, just three steps from her, Masha saw Stalin himself.

As in [272], it does not matter if the site for the pronoun precedes the subject antecedent; word order is largely irrelevant to the use of reflexive and nonreflexive pronouns.

Thus on the most transparent and frequent domain -- that of a finite predicate -- there is complementarity between the two types of pronouns in all argument positions: a reflexive means the current referent is the same as that of the subject, while an ordinary third-person pronoun cannot refer to the subject of the finite predicate.

Semantically, a reflexive pronoun means that the individual posited at the site of the pronoun is understood to be the same individual, with the same properties, as the antecedent. In context, subtle variations on the notion of identity of reference arise, especially with the possessive adjective cdj´q.68 Example [267] above, in which cdj´q establishes that there was a family associated with the mother, might be considered neutral identity in between two extremes. At one extreme, the referent of the pronoun could be defined independently, such as Vladimir’s friend in [273]; this is i n d e p e n d e n t or i n d i v i d u a t e d reference.

[273]Dkflbvbh gjdtk yfc r ,jkmijve cdjtve lheue [elj;ybre Rjhbye. Vladimir took us to his good friend the artist Korin.

At the opposite extreme, the individual may be defined by its relation of identity to the subject. Thus, cdj´q often suggests that the possessed entity fits exactly because it is associated with the subject, whereas other entities would not fit. In [274], young people want to hear from representatives of that generation associated with them, not from some other generation.

[274]Yfif vjkjlt;m [jxtn ecksifnm ;bdjq ujkjc ghtlcnfdbntktq cdjtuj gjrjktybz.

Our young people want to hear the living voice of members of their generation.

This kind of reference is essential, in that the referent of the pronoun is defined by its relation of identity to the antecedent. In context, with cdj´q, essential reference takes on several guises: a distributive relation of possessed entities with possessors, a contrast of exactly this possessor as opposed to other possible

68 Timberlake 1980[b].

242A Reference Grammar of Russian

Table 4.12 Domains and semantics of ref lexives

		domain	domain
	domain	moderately	severely
	unrestricted	restricted	restricted
individuated reference (individual defined	ct,z, cdjq	tuj, tt, b[	tuj, tt, b[
independently of relation of identity to
antecedent)
neutral reference	ct,z, cdjq	ct,z, cdjq	tuj, tt, b[
essential reference (individual defined by	ct,z, cdjq	ct,z, cdjq	ct,z, cdjq
relation of identity to antecedent,
specifically by a distributive, contrastive,
or characteristic relation)

possessors, or the sense that this possessed item, defined by identity to the subject, is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the entity ([274]).

On the domain of finite predicates, these nuances in reference are merely contextual overtones. But there are also restricted domains on which complementarity is vitiated, and then either a reflexive or a non-reflexive pronoun can be used to refer to the antecedent. In such contexts, the choice of pronoun is correlated with the sense of reference (Table 4.12).

In the vast majority of cases, the domain is the domain of finite predicates, and then pronouns follow the principle of complementarity in an automatic fashion, and these cases require no further comment. The discussion below is devoted to the less automatic, albeit less frequent, contexts.

4.7.2 Autonomous arguments

Adverbial phrases such as ytcvjnhz´ yf ‘notwithstanding’, ghb ‘for all his/her’, gj ‘according to’ are commentary by the speaker about the validity of the predication. They are independent of the syntactic domain. In reference to the subject, a possessive pronoun is often cdj´q, especially if the subject might be aware of the relationship (as she is in [275]) but a non-reflexive can be used, if the sentence reflects the speaker’s judgment (as in [276]):

[275]Jyf, ytcvjnhz yf cdj/ ,thtvtyyjcnm, wtksvb lyzvb cetnbkfcm. Despite her pregnancy, she bustled around for days on end.

[276]Yj jabwths, ytcvjnhz yf b[ ytljdjkmcndj, dct ;t yt xedcndjdfkb ct,z hf,fvb. The officers, their dissatisfaction notwithstanding, still did not feel like slaves.

Non-reflexive pronouns are used with parenthetical gj: gj tuj {hfcxtnfv ghbpyfyb/ ckjdfv} ‘by his {calculations admission words}’. Cdj´q is avoided in comitative phrases expressing characteristic qualities whose existence is presupposed:

Arguments 243

[277]Dcnfdfkb ktcf c b[ ghj[kfljq b cevthtxyjcnm/.

There rose up forests with their dankness and gloominess.

4.7.3 Non-immediate sites

Pronominal sites which are not direct arguments of a finite predicate, but which are buried inside argument phrases, allow both types of pronouns in reference to the subject:

[278]Jy ghbyzk htitybt gj cfvjve df;yjve lkz {ct,z ±ytuj} djghjce. He made a decision on the most important for him question.

[279]Nfr jy ghjbpyjcbk dct ytghbdsxyst tot lkz {±ct,z ytuj} heccrbt ckjdf. That is how he pronounced all still unusual for him Russian words.

The choice of pronoun depends in part on the adjective’s meaning. Affective adjectives, such as dƒ;ysq ‘important’ in [278], report states that impinge on the well-being of the subject, who is also responsible for evaluating the effect. Similar are: ,kfujghbz´nysq ‘favorable’, ukƒdysq ‘central’, ljhjuj´q ‘dear’, ytj;∫lfyysq ‘unexpected’, j,zpƒntkmysq ‘obligatory’, jgƒcysq ‘dangerous’, jnxƒzyysq ‘hopeless’, gjk†pysq ‘useful’, cxfcnk∫dsq ‘happy, fortunate’, nhélysq (nz´ujcnysq, nz;=ksq, nz´;rbq) ‘difficult’, e,∫qcndtyysq ‘devastating’. These affective, subjective adjectives readily allow the reflexive to be used (half of the examples in a small corpus of this infrequent construction, 19xx/38xx).

In contrast, non-affective adjectives, such as ytghbdßxysq ‘unfamiliar’ in [279], describe a quality of the situation that does not affect the well-being of the subject. The quality is evaluated by the speaker. Similar are: dscj´rbq ‘high’, ljcnégysq ‘accessible’, pfuƒljxysq ‘puzzling’, bynth†cysq ‘interesting’, ytgjyz´nysq ‘incomprehensible’, yj´dsq ‘new’, jxtd∫lysq ‘obvious’, cnhƒyysq ‘strange’, xe;j´q ‘alien’. As in [279], such non-affective, objective adjectives use the reflexive sparingly (in 8 of 35 tokens, or 23%).

The reflexive is rare for dative targets of adjectives, even affective adjectives: jy yt chfpe yf[jlbn ye;ysq tve wdtn ‘he cannot right away find the color he needs’.

4.7.4 Special predicate--argument relations: existential, quantifying, modal, experiential predicates

Existential, modal (yé;yj, ytj,[jl∫vj ‘necessary’), and quantifying predicates ([dfn∫nm/[dfnƒnm, ljcnƒnjxyj ‘be sufficient’) have potentially two arguments (§5.3.3).69 One argument, expressed in an oblique case or with a preposition, is known independently and states the domain on which existence or modality or quantification holds. The other argument, expressed in the nominative

69 Timberlake 1980[a].

244A Reference Grammar of Russian

or genitive, names the entity whose existence is at issue. Its reference is often defined by a relationship of possession to the domain:70

[280]Lf b yf djqyt kjiflm nj;t yf[jlbncz ghb ltkt, tq nj;t tcnm nen cdjz j,zpfyyjcnm.

The horse also has a function in war; it also has its own duty.

[281]Cdjb[ pfgfcjd ujh/xtuj tve yt [dfnbn.

His reserves of fuel were not going to be sufficient for him.

[282]Tq cdjq ljv ye;ty.

To her is necessary her own house.

[283]Tq ye;yf [jnz ,s dblbvjcnm cdjtq pyfxbvjcnb.

To her was necessary at least the appearance of her (own) significance.

Cdj´q in these constructions defines the essence of the possessed entity: it is a token of the kind of thing that is appropriate for, or characteristic of, this domain or possessor ([280--83]). Cdj´q also fits in such contexts if there is a distributive relationship between entities and possessors, where each entity is associated with a distinct possessor.

[284]Rf;lsq irfa bvtk ytcrjkmrj ctrwbq, r rf;ljq bp yb[ ,sk cdjq rk/x. Each cabinet had several divisions, to each was its own key.

Cdj´q is occasionally used in other arguments if one of the special senses of cdj´q comes in, such as a contrast of self opposed to other:

[285]E rjk[jpybrjd yf cdjb[ exfcnrf[ xeltcf fuhjnt[ybrb.

On their own plots the kolkhoz farmers achieve veritable wonders of agrotechnology.

[286]Z yt [jntk e[jlbnm bp wt[f. Vyt [jhjij ,skj d cdjtv hf,jxtv rjkktrnbdt. I didn’t want to leave the shop. It was good for me being in my own worker collective.

But cdj´q is not needed if the entity is independently known (the folder in [287]):

[287]B dlheu z bycnbyrnbdyj gjxedcndjdfk, xnj e vtyz d herf[ ytn {vjtq cdjtq} gfgrb.

And suddenly I felt instinctively that I did not have my folder in my hands.

Ct,z´ has fewer opportunities than cdj´q to occur with existential (modal, quantifying) predicates, but can appear in a comitative expression ([288]) or within a noun phrase ([289]):

[288]E vtyz jrfpfkbcm c cj,jq cgbxrb.

I had some matches turn up on myself.

70In Tuj yt ,skj d cdjtq rjynjht (Stadniuk), the reflexive possessive in the domain phrase refers to a genitive.