You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘reflexives’ tag.

I’ve mentioned my fondness for compiling historical grammatical errors as a reminder that we are not, point of fact, destroying what used to be a perfect language. Previously, I’d found unnecessary quotation marks in a 1960 World Series celebration, it’s for its in a 1984 John Mellencamp video, and an apostrophe incorrectly marking a plural in a famous 1856 editorial cartoon. But these were all punctuation-based errors. Today’s is a proper grammatical error, and one that people full-throatedly bemoan nowadays.

I found this error by admitting to myself that I am secretly an old man, and coming to terms with it by spending much of the summer sitting in parks, reading books on naval history and international relations. One of them, Nathaniel Philbrick’s Sea of Glory, tells the story of the U.S. Exploring Expedition, who discovered Antarctica and created the country’s first accurate naval charts for the Pacific islands. It’s a good book, but then it turned great by having two interesting old quotes four pages apart.

In the first, the Expedition is approaching Fiji and takes on another pilot due to the many coral reefs in the area:

“Wilkes felt it necessary to secure yet another experienced pilot at Tonga named Tom Granby. ‘You will find when we get to the Islands,’ Wilkes assured Granby, ‘that I know as much about them as you do.’ Granby smiled. ‘You may know all about them on paper,’ he replied, ‘but when you come to the goings in and goings out, you will see who knows best, you or myself.'”

Myself here is clearly non-standard, as no first-person pronoun has appeared anywhere in the sentence. The standard rule for reflexives, known as Principle A in Government and Binding theory, and discussed in pretty much every introductory syntax class, is that a reflexive must be bound in its governing category. Or, to say it in a more theory-agnostic and somewhat looser way, the coreferent of the reflexive (I/me for myself) has to appear within the smallest clause that contains the reflexive, and structurally “above” the reflexive. The syntactic specifics they depend on which syntactic theory you’re adhering to, but luckily they don’t really matter here; there’s no possible coreferent anywhere within the sentence, so any standard definition of Principle A will label the sentence ungrammatical.

Turning from this syntactic jungle to the Fijian jungle, a few pages later the Expedition lands on an island and hikes to its peak:

“Almost two years at sea had left them ill-prepared for such a demanding hike. ‘I have seldom witnessed a party so helpless as ourselves appeared,’ Wilkes wrote, ‘in comparison with the natives and white residents, who ran over the rocks like goats.'”

Again, it’s obvious that this is a non-standard usage, since no first-person plural noun phrase appears in the sentence to justify the reflexive.

Now, I’ve been marking these as non-standard rather than incorrect, and there’s a reason for this that is more than a desire to be non-judgmental. These supposedly erroneous uses of reflexives are widespread — so much so that I’d argue they’re at least borderline acceptable in many people’s forms of Informal Spoken English. That means that they ought to be explainable, that there ought to be some option in the rules of English that allow you to consider these uses acceptable without having to change much else in the language. I’m going to speculate for the rest of this post, so feel free to bail out here.

But before you bail, let me just brag about where I get to read.

Here’s my idea, which I don’t think is novel.* Reflexives are allowed only when, in some sense, there’s a sufficiently salient coreferent for the reflexive. Salience is standardly assessed syntactically, meaning that a coreferent appears structurally above the reflexive, and close enough to remain salient when the reflexive appears. But there is pragmatic salience as well, for people and things who haven’t been explicitly mentioned but remain prominent in the discourse all the same. And what is more pragmatically salient than the speaker? In both of these cases, it seems that the speaker is thinking of themselves as sufficiently salient to trigger the reflexive.

My intuition is that there are more instances of inappropriate reflexives for first person (myself, ourselves) than second person (yourself), and more of either than for third person (himself, herself, itself, themselves). I did a quick corpus search on COCA for sentence-initial As for *self, and the intuition wasn’t fully borne out; as for myself was the most common, but combined as for him/herself showed up almost as often (64 to 60), and as for yourself only registered one instance. So maybe I’m totally off-base on the specifics.** But something is going on that allows so many people to view reflexives as standard in positions that we don’t expect to see them, and like this or not, that needs explained.

*: If you know of any references to discussions about this issue, please share. I’m not primarily a syntactician, and didn’t see anything in a cursory search of the literature, but I really doubt this discussion hasn’t been had before.

**: I think the as for *self construction may be a special case. Most of the third-person uses look to be about how some third party views themself, and while one can state one’s own introspections and speculate about a third party’s, it’s a little bit weird to tell someone their own introspections. That could artificially deflate the second-person counts.

I think the best explanation of this construction may be as an indicator that we are switching mental spaces, if you’re familiar with that theory. Saying as for Xself establishes a new mental space focused on X and their inner workings or opinions, rather than the more generic mental space of the rest of the conversation. Sorry, I’m really going down a rabbit hole here.

Yesterday I re-stumbled upon an old grammar worksheet from David Foster Wallace in which he had his students try to correct sentences that largely didn’t need correcting. I’d first been introduced to it way back in 2009, at which point I complained about its infelicitous “correction” of a split infinitive. That bit of baloney was so egregious that it made me overlook another silly claim, one nearly as common as the split infinitive rule, and nearly as mistaken as well.

Jack Dempsey fighting some dude

Are these two boxers trying to hit one another?

The claim: that each other is to be used exclusively with two objects, and one another exclusively with three or more. This is a pretty widespread claim. Perhaps it speaks to some unconscious desire by English speakers to exhibit a form of the dual/plural distinction, since some people also insist that between and among are to be used for two and more things, respectively. But just as the between and among distinction is a bunch of made-up hooey, so too is the each other and one another distinction.

The claim has a pretty long history; the MWDEU (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage) tracks it back to George N. Ussher in 1785. He stuck with that idea, including it in a grammar booklet in 1803 as well. Some subsequent commentators accepted this rule, others rejected it. Still others proposed alternate criteria for differentiating the phrases, such as Thomas Marsh’s 1862 idea of “the former [each other] applying to a limited, the latter [one another], to an unlimited number”. Only Ussher’s proclamation has stuck around.

Of course, none of these proposed separations are valid, neither in current English nor in that of any other time. Examples of famous and well-regarded writers using one phrase where supposedly only the other could go, even in formal writing, are plentiful. The MWDEU lists Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster, and Bishop Lowth among others; the OED offers Shakespeare and Caxton as well. To hammer home the point, I’ve found some examples of both phrases being used in the same sentence to refer to the same set of things:

“The Genoese and Piedmontese, therefore, although both Italians, and living within a few miles of one another, detest each other as cordially as the Spaniards and the French.” [1821]

“[…] the two aged actors upon this great theatre of philosophy and frivolity embraced each other by hugging one another in their arms, and kissing each other’s cheeks; and then the tumult subsided.” [1865]

“[…] the parts of the coils nearest each other tend to neutralize one another […]” [1887]

These aren’t rare instances, either; more examples from any time period you’re interested in can be found by searching for “each other * one another” in Google Books. We can even do one better by finding a sentence in which the two phrases can directly alternate. Thanks to the many competing English translations of the Bible, we can find different ways of saying the same thing. Here’s Ephesians 4:32 in two translations:

(1a) Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. [NIV]
(1b) Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you. [NLT]

I’ll confess I got a bit giddy when I found that. They’re both equally well-formed usages to me, they show that the two phrases are interchangeable, and it’s another chance to say “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” in the linguistic arena.*

There are likely some minor differences in usage between each other and one another, of course. The only one I can say confidently is that each other is more common; Google N-grams has it appearing around twice as often, and COHA has it almost four times as often. Perhaps influenced by its relative rarity, I find one another to be stiffer than each other, but I don’t know if this is a generally-held position.

There’s one thing I’d like to know, but not enough to actually perform the analysis, and that is whether each other is indeed preferentially deployed in situations with only two objects (and vice versa with one another). I’ve no data pointing either way, nor an impression from other people’s usage if this is actually the case. But at this point, it’s nothing to worry about; at strongest, we’re talking about a preference, not a rule. If you want to maintain this distinction in your own English, I’m not going to say you can’t. But don’t get confused and think others ought to obey your whims.

Summary: Despite claims to the contrary, each other and one another are both acceptable whether you’re talking about two or more than two objects. English usage never observed the supposed rule, and great writers broke it often. In fact, the two forms can alternate with one another.

*: Just to be clear, I do not actually believe that examples pulled from religious texts should hold any special place in informing our linguistic judgments.

Post Categories

The Monthly Archives

About The Blog

A lot of people make claims about what "good English" is. Much of what they say is flim-flam, and this blog aims to set the record straight. Its goal is to explain the motivations behind the real grammar of English and to debunk ill-founded claims about what is grammatical and what isn't. Somehow, this was enough to garner a favorable mention in the Wall Street Journal.

About Me

I'm Gabe Doyle, currently a postdoctoral scholar in the Language and Cognition Lab at Stanford University. Before that, I got a doctorate in linguistics from UC San Diego and a bachelor's in math from Princeton.

In my research, I look at how humans manage one of their greatest learning achievements: the acquisition of language. I build computational models of how people can learn language with cognitively-general processes and as few presuppositions as possible. Currently, I'm working on models for acquiring phonology and other constraint-based aspects of cognition.

I also examine how we can use large electronic resources, such as Twitter, to learn about how we speak to each other. Some of my recent work uses Twitter to map dialect regions in the United States.

@MGrammar on twitter

Recent Tweets

If you like email and you like grammar, feel free to subscribe to Motivated Grammar by email. Enter your address below.

Join 980 other followers

Top Rated

%d bloggers like this: