Reflexive Verbs and Pronominal Verbs
For many months (maybe a couple of years) I have seen what I thought of as conflicting statements made regarding Reflexive Verbs.
I believe that once we have encountered them and understood them we come to think this of Reflexive Verbs:
A verb is said to be reflexive when the person performing the action (action means - to wash, to shave, to shower) and the person upon whom the action is performed is the same person.
Here are some examples:
If a barber shaves a customer, the verb used is "afeitar" (to shave). However, if I shave myself, the verb to use is "afeitarse" (to shave oneself).
If a mother washes her child, the verb to use is "lavar" (to wash) or perhaps "bañar" (to bathe). However, if she cleans herself the verb to use would be "lavarse" (to wash oneself), or "bañarse" (to bathe oneself).
The verbs "afeitarse", "lavarse" and "bañarse" are reflexive verbs. This is because the person performing the action is also the recipient (some say the object or subject) of the action.
Span¡shD!ct has a Video Lesson (# 2.5) found here ---> Lesson 2.5, and titled “Reflexive Verbs and the Morning Routine”
Span¡shD!ct also has a reference page found here ---> Ref Page, called “Reflexive Verbs”.
I have seen it said that whether in Spanish or French, as another language example, the term reflexive verb is in common usage among instructional schools, web sites teachers and professors. It is a sort of language teaching standard.
On many occasions here at Span¡shD!ct, I have seen replies to questions raised about reflexive verbs where the reply states that there is no such thing as a reflexive verb.
Here is one example ---> link text and here is a quote from that entry “It is a term used for English grammar, and unfortunately is also used to talk about Spanish grammar by English speakers. Believe me: it makes no sense. There is no such thing as a reflexive verb.”
Here is another such reference ---> link text, and in this entry we read “Technically there are no reflexive verbs.”
I’ll choose just one more such example here ---> link text, where we find this quote ”There actually are no reflexive verbs,”
Following a reference page and video lesson built around reflexive verbs and then three (and there are more) repudiating statements by members with lots of reputation points, what is a learner supposed to think. By now they are thoroughly conflicted as between spending a lot of time and energy to learn about reflexive verbs only to be told there is no such thing.
This must stop.
It is not that I am unaware of impersonal ‘se’ or pronominal verbs. Here is a reply I have previously used about the pronominal vs. reflexive question ---> Pronominal/Reflexive But, it is misleading to state in a reply to question concerning reflexive verbs that there is no such thing as a reflexive verb. How wrong is that? If we can agree that a reflexive verb is a subset of pronominal verbs in the same way that an air force is a subset of a nation’s defence force or that factory buildings and office towers are subsets of commercial buildings, then there is no problem created by discussing reflexive verbs on their own
My purpose in raising this issue at this time with this audience is to urge you when replying to questions about reflexive verbs to avoid, assiduously, any suggestion that there is no such thing as a reflexive verb.
If a specific verb that is not reflexive is the focus of the question, state “The verb you have asked about is not a reflexive verb”. Then continue to offer your reply directed at what the verb actually is. Reply to reflexives as reflexives and do not introduce conflicting extraneous information to the subject of reflexives.
I invite others to comment on this subject to help us all to try to come to a consensus about the best way to encourage Span¡shD!ct learners.
10 Answers
Given the fact that plenty of author's are wont to throw the term "reflexive verb" around, I can see how it might seem like splitting hairs to say that such a term is a misnomer or even to object to such terminology. On the other hand, I also happen to be one (as I am sure you are aware) who often finds such terminology to be less than satisfactory, especially when it is used as a sort of "umbrella term." Worse, I think that explaining the overall concept of reflexivity by relying heavily on the term "reflexive verb" to be an overly simplified answer which often misleads and confounds the learner.
That's not to say that I might go so far as to say that there is no such thing as a reflexive verb, rather I think that such terminology is better left unsaid until the concept of reflexivity (a not too difficult concept when discussed in terms of pronouns) is introduced first. I will try to enumerate the reasons why I think this.
I. Reflexivity is a Syntactic Property of Pronouns.
When speaking of reflexivity we are generally describing a characteristic of pronouns and not of verbs. That is reflexivity refers to the property of a pronoun which requires its antecedent to appear within the same sentence. As such, the only morphological difference that one will find within a given sentence which carries a reflexive meaning will be in the pronoun and not the verb. That is, the verb itself is not marked (morphologically) for reflexivity, only the pronoun is. This leads me to my next point.
II. Reflexivity and the Lexical Meaning of the Verb
Often, when presented with discussions on "reflexive verbs" typical examples that are given are verbs such as "bañarse," "mirarse," "afeitarse," etc. However, when you consider that the lexical meaning of these verbs never changes whether they are accompanied by a reflexive pronoun or not, it is difficult to argue that it is the verbs themselves which impart the general characteristic of reflexiveness. In fact, each of these verbs is used transitively and it is solely the choice of pronoun which decides whether there is a reflexive meaning:
| Mirar | |
| La miró | She looked at her. |
| Se miró | She looked at herself. |
| Bañar | |
| La bañó | She bathed her. |
| Se bañó | She bathed herself. |
| Afeitar | |
| Lo afeitó | He shaved him. |
| Se afeitó | He shaved himself. |
When you make such comparisons (as shown above) it is difficult to find an argument that might reasonably assert that the defining characteristic which distinguishes one sentence from the other is inherently characteristic of the verb. Even worse, doing so over-complicates things and hinders the learner in understanding the true and simple nature of reflexivity.
III. Terminology Typical of the Association of Spanish Language Academies
When you consider that throughout the entire text (over 1,000 pages cover to cover) of the Nueva gramática de la lengua española Manual published by the Asociación de academias de la lengua española there is not one single section dedicated to the concept of "reflexive verbs (verbos reflexivos)" nor even an entry in the index of the book, it is difficult to argue that such terminology should be considered more authoritative. This is not to mention that there are several sections dedicated to the subject of reflexivity in terms of reflexive pronouns. Moreover, when searching through the DRAE and DPD, verbs are not described as reflexive but instead as being "Also Used Pronominally" or as being "frequently used with a reflexive compliment. Based on this evidence, it would seem to me that this is the more common as well as appropriate terminology.
IV. Pronominal versus Reflexive
Every verb that is listed in the dictionary accompanied by the pronoun "se" does not always carry a strictly reflexive meaning (that's not to say that in some cases, some of the following expressions might not be reasonably derived from a reflexive expression). For example some pronominal expressions are used to perform a semi-copulative function, i.e. to describe (1) a change in state (often, what something becomes), for example, volverse loco, hacerse rico, ponerse enfermo, quedarse vacío, etc; or (2) to describe existence or manifestation (of some state), for example encontrarse bien, hallarse indispuesta; presentarse bien puesta, mostrarse ineficaces, verse horrible, etc.
V. Confusion Arising from the Various Uses of "Se"
This is the biggest problem I see with the way that the subject of reflexiveness is taught. The idea of reflexiveness is actually fairly straightforward, the problem arises when we teach our students that any verb accompanied by the pronoun "Se" carries a reflexive meaning. For example, take the following assertion that is made in our own reference section on "reflexive verbs."
You can always tell which verbs are reflexive when you look them up in the infinitive form because they will have se attached to the end of the verb.
To follow up this statement, several examples are then given of so called reflexive verbs. I will examine two of these:
ponerse (to put on)
irse (to leave)
I am assuming that the idea behind this in regard to reflexivity is meant to be "to put something on oneself," and this probably works fine when we are speaking of clothing; however, a problem arises when we look at such expressions as:
?Me poní enfermo ? I put sick on myself/I put myself sick???
?Me voy ? I go myself???
From these examples (and this does not even begin to scratch the surface), it should be clear that not all verbs that are used pronominally necessarily function reflexively. So my obvious question is: Why lump them all together as such?
To me, the word "reflexive" has a very intuitive definition. However, describing all verbs listed as reflexive if they are used pronominally seems to unnecessarily confound a very simple idea. It is akin to describing a mammal as a type of whale rather than a whale as a type of mammal. That is it leaves the learner with false expectations.
I think that it would be more reasonable to instead teach students such ideas as transitive vs intransitive constructions in relation to pronominal compliments. Then introducing the concept of reflexiveness would be a very simple matter, indeed.
Before I post this, I think that I should reiterate that I do not necessarily object to the term "reflexive verb." In fact, I think that it can be useful as a descriptive term to categorize certain verbs which are often used reflexively; that is to say, those which are often seen accompanied by a reflexive pronoun. Even so, I think that there are probably better ways to go about describing such concepts. What I do object to, however, is the misuse of the term to (1) describe reflexiveness in terms that lead the learner to believe that it is an inherent characteristic of the verb, and (2) I object to categorizing all pronominal constructions (especially as they relate to the pronoun "se") as reflexive in nature.
Also, in regards to what has been suggested in the past by Lazarus on the subject, I found the following thread reasonably straightforward and easy to understand: Transitive? Reflexive? Verbs and Pronouns
If you read carefully what Lazarus and others have written, their objection is to the phrase "reflexive verb". The point that they make is that a verb may be used reflexively (or used in a "reflexive construction") but that the verb is not inherently reflexive (thus they object to the term "reflexive verb"). As your examples illustrate, each of the verbs may be used reflexively or as a simple transitive verb.
If one says (as many teachers do), the verb is reflexive then one is in the awkward position of explaining how a "reflexive" verb can be used in a construction that is not reflexive. For many, the automatic reaction to seeing a "se" (or similar object pronoun) floating around in a sentence whose justification is less than obvious, is to say "Oh, that's because it's a reflexive verb." (completely ignoring the traditional meaning of reflexive).
The advantages of this approach are that the teacher can pose such test questions as "Name three reflexive verbs." and can use the term "reflexive verb" without fear of "awkward" questions from the students because, by the time they find out that the description/definition is inadequate, they will be is someone else's class. Probably not all teachers are guilty of this sort of intentional oversimplification (there are undoubtedly those who don't understand the difference themselves).
Being the fellow whom you're quoting, I've got to say, you make a good point in so much that a verb can be used reflexively (whenever the verb's subject and object are the same), and, in English, a verb being used in a reflexive capacity could definitely be called a reflexive verb, I guess.
To me, it still seems wrong somehow, but, nonetheless, I cannot raise a good argument against the term under that light.
However, the problem is that the term "reflexive verb" can be easily misused to refer to any infinitive that has SE stuck on the end. But almost any verb can have SE stuck on the end for passive or impersonal usages, which have nothing to do with reflexivity.
Without further context, I can't tell if "se comió toda la comida" means "he ate up all the food" or "all the food was eaten." Nor can I tell whether "necesita comerse esta comida" means "He needs to eat up this food" or "This food needs to be eaten." And, if on a piece of paper I just saw "comerse" by itself, I can't know if it is reflexive or passive (I don't think impersonal is an option, though).
So, would it be better to call comerse a reflexive verb or a pronominal verb? In my mind, pronominal verb is the better choice. So, I like to warn people inquiring about "reflexive verbs" about this issue as it can be quite confounding. However, maybe I will tone down the absoluteness of my statements in the future due to your post here. For instance, instead of saying there is no such thing, maybe I will instead discuss the limited use of the term, and, then warn them about the potential misuse of the term. I will probably still be peddling the term "pronominal verb" though because it does actually encompass comerse, no matter how SE is being used.
Cheers. 
To try to write a rules book for a language is a bit like writing one for painting pictures.
The pictures will always vary no matter how many people are painting the same thing.
After reading all this for the second and third time I can't help feeling that this
thread makes a great case for learning to speak simple language before
attempting to understand the complex grammar structures floated here.
Or am I putting the cart before the horse , which is good Spanish anyway.
I would love to hear some members ideas along these lines.
Well worthy
Almost all college textbooks, such as Panorama, introducción a la lengua española,and ¿Cómo se dice? use only the term "reflexive" verbs because of the use of reflexive pronouns when applied. Whether it is "Me lavo la cara" or "Se puso roja" there is no longer taught, at least in the first two years any such concept as "pronomial" verbs. We don't worry about the "becoming" aspect as in "volverse loco" and other such like. These are treated as idiomatic usage.
We also recognize the "reciprocal reflexive" (the "each other" ones) "Se ven" "Se besan" "Se ayudan" or "Nos ayudamos" "Nos besamos", etc.
We try to teach people to speak the language, without bothering them with side issues that only lead to much confusion as is reflected in this thread. At the end of two years my students do a creditable job of speaking and writing the language without ever hearing all this about "pronomial verbs.
Now for those who have attained a degree of mastery, and search for further knowledge, then more complicated discussion of these matters are handled in the third and fourth year and in graduate studies. That's where I first heard of this. And do you know what? It didn't make a bit of difference in my Spanish. I just knew a little bit more about how to describe the various aspects of the language, but it was just a big "So what?"
I found this article under the heading "Reflexive verbs"
I think it is best to understand why some people think they exist and some people don't. It is a question of usage, not the verb itself. This is confusing for all native English speakers learning Spanish, but learning a gentle but incorrect way to look at things isn't always a kindness. Personally, I lack the understanding of Spanish grammar that lazarus has and would alwys tread a softer path. However, I wish I could be hit over the head with a baseball bat of lazarus knowledge''or even better, have a "pocket lazarus" to correct all of my mistakes.
In many ways this is similar to the preterite vs. imperfect issue, where many people are taught lists of reasons to use one or the other based on the event itself when in fact it is what you are saying about the event that determines which is correct. . .or even if either one could be used.
Thanks Izan for adding Lazarus's answer, I will include that in a reference article.
This article was also written by lazarus.
Transitive and Intransitive constructions, use of "se"
As a matter of fact, this is a very complicated topic, if Lazarus were here he would confirm, as I know, that not even the best grammarians agree on passive or pronominal usage, so it is wrong to say, you are wrong and I am right.
In my experience, most natives haven't got a clue, so don't ask us, jeje.
Moe gets my undying gratitude for his calm and reasonable post. Despite reading on this site many times that the term reflexive verb was nonsensical, I never understood why. Many of the posts with that claim did not go into the question with the painstaking care and detail that Izanoni has done in this present thread. It is easy to understand that an impatient tone results from the same question being answered repeatedly. Ser vs. estar, preterit vs. imperfect, etc. Although the link to the important thread with the explanation is two years old, Izanoni uses a calm and reasonable persuasive technique that will lead many students to important information. How different from the bombastic approach we have seen so often. Moe is right to defend us students of Spanish against blanket statements without further explanations against using the phrase reflexive verbs. Its use is so widespread.
