I have read we have reflexive and non-reflexive verbs in German.

If we use a transitive verb that is NOT reflexive with meaning of working of myself, is it not reflexive now? For example:

Ich habe mich getötet.

If the definition of a reflexive verb is "a verb that works on myself", then any transitive verb that is about "affecting myself" would be reflexive, but it is not so in reality.

What do I not understand?


I feel your confusion is somewhat justified by the lax way many textbooks talk about the subject.

Firstly, there is the reflexive pronoun sich in the third person. In a prototypical pairing like the following, the reflexive pronoun must be used to indicate that, as you would put it, someone is doing something to themselves and not to somebody or something else.

a) Eri liebt seinen BMWj und wäscht ihnj jede Woche.
b) Eri liebt seinen BMWj und wäscht sichi jede Woche.

The indices i, j indicate coreference; the reflexive pronoun must be used to indicate that the object is coreferent with the subject (b), a non-reflexive pronoun indicates that the object cannot be coreferent with the subject (a).

The verb waschen, however, is a perfectly ordinary transitive verb. What does ordinary mean? In linguistics, one would use a lexical entry like the following:

Semantic arguments: agent (who is washing?), patient (who or what is being washed?)
Syntactic arguments: subject, accusative object
Linking: agent – subject, patient – accusative object

Transitive verbs select for two arguments, a subject and an accusative object, with the subject interpreted as the agent (the person doing something) and the object interpreted as the patient (the person or thing something is being done to). For further reading, see the Wikipedia entry for argument.

Secondly, there are verbs that are truly reflexive (echt or obligatorisch reflexiv in German). They are distinguished by the fact that they have a semantically empty syntactic argument, i.e. one which is not linked to a semantic argument.

Semantic arguments: agent (who is hurrying?)
Syntactic arguments: subject, accusative object: reflexive
Linking: agent – subject

What this means is that in a sentence like the following, there is only one person doing something (as indicated by the English translation), despite the fact that there is an object present. The object has to be coreferent with the subject – reflexive – i.e. in the third person, it must be sich.

Er beeilt sich.
He hurries.

Finally, note that there are some verbs that are truly reflexive only in some meanings.

Der Geist beherrscht den Körper. (transitive: Geist = agent, Körper = patient)
The mind controls the body.
Er beherrschte sich. (truly reflexive: er = agent)
He held his temper.

Sie übergab den Schlüssel. (transitive: sie = agent, Schlüssel = patient)
She handed over the key.
Sie übergab sich. (truly reflexive: sie = agent)
She puked.

The confusion arises because textbooks usually introduce reflexive pronouns with ordinary transitive verbs like waschen, but do not make the effort to explain what a truly reflexive verb is. In the mind of the student, reflexivity becomes equated with sich and the two cases er wäscht sich and er beeilt sich are not clearly distinguished.

  • Thank you very much, so as I understand , we have following conditions: 1- simple transient verbs used with reflexive pronouns (they need subject and object, these two can be different or the same, when they are the same we we use reflexive pronoun) 2- verbs that are truly reflexive and always subject and object should be the same 3- some verbs that have above conditions at the same time, but with different meanings, they are transitive and can also be pure reflexive for another meaning am I correct?
    – orodeous
    Nov 12 '19 at 22:07
  • @orodeous Yes, that's about it.
    – David Vogt
    Nov 12 '19 at 23:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.