This subsection shows that reflexive middles can easily be confused with other types of reflexive laten-constructions. Therefore, we must find some means of determining whether we are really dealing with reflexive middles. We start with some general information about Dutch AcI-constructions. The primed examples in (293) show that the agent of the infinitival clause need not be realized as an accusative noun phrase, but can also be left implicit or expressed by an agentive door-PP.

A problem for our discussion of reflexive middles arises when we want to express that the object of the embedded verb is coreferential with the subject of the AcI-construction; in this case the object is realized as the simplex reflexive zich and the agent of the embedded verb cannot be realized as an accusative noun phrase. We illustrate this first in the examples in (294) with the perception verb horento hear. The indices in (294a) show that, if the object is a weak referential pronoun, it cannot be coreferential with the subject of the higher clause; this example also shows that the subject of the infinitival verb can optionally be realized as an accusative noun phrase. To express that the object of the infinitival verb is coreferential with the subject of the higher clause requires the object to be realized as a weak reflexive; the two (b)-examples in (294) show that in this case the subject of the infinitival clause can be expressed by an agentive door-PP, but not by an accusative noun phrase.

The problem that arises in our discussion of the reflexive middle is that we see the same set of facts for AcI-constructions with permissive latenlet: the referential pronoun in (295a) can only be used if the cat did not prevent Peter from caressing another individual (e.g. by allowing Peter to caress one of its kittens); to express that the cat allowed Peter to pet it itself requires the use of the simplex reflexive zich, which in turn makes it impossible to express the agent of the infinitival clause by an accusative noun phrase.

By adding an adverbial phrase to the (b)-examples in (295), as in (296a), we derive a structure that closely resembles the reflexive middle construction in (296b). In fact, we cannot even be sure that (296b) is a reflexive middle, given that adverbs such as gemakkelijk can also be used in a wide range of non-middle constructions.

To be sure that we are dealing with reflexive middle constructions, we can appeal to the fact that the nominative subject of an AcI-construction with permissive laten must be agentive and volitional: its referent must be able and willing to allow (or to prevent) the activity denoted by the infinitival verb. This means that conclusions based on examples with animate subjects should be looked at with suspicion. By only using examples with inanimate subjects in the following can we ensure that we are dealing with reflexive middle constructions and not regular AcI-constructions.

Reflexive middle constructions occasionally have regular middle counterparts with more or less the same meanings. However, the examples in (297) show that the two constructions impose slightly different selection restrictions on their subjects: subjects of reflexive middles can easily be definite and thus refer to entities in the domain of discourse. Subjects of regular middles, on the other hand, usually refer to a kind or some physically present entity, as is clear from the fact that they are preferably generic or demonstrative; definite subjects like de truithe sweater or het houtthe wood are usually restricted to contrastive contexts.

The default interpretation of the reflexive middles in (297) seems to be a generic one; like regular middles, they seem to refer to some individual-level property of the subject of the construction. Since the use of punctual time adverbs such as gisterenyesterday is incompatible with such a generic interpretation of the clause, it usually yields a somewhat marginal result (although we may find the same kinds of exceptions as discussed for regular middles in Section 3.2.2.2, sub IF).

We add the examples in (299) to illustrate again the problem discussed in Subsection I. Although the two examples in (299) seem structurally identical to (297a) and (298a), they may in fact be cases of regular AcI-constructions. Support for this claim is that the infinitival clause in (299a) does not necessarily refer to an individual-level property of the subject die baby, as is also clear from the fact that the use of punctual time adverbs such as gisterenyesterday is perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, the addition of an agentive door-PP such as door mijby me is possible. Such possibly ambiguous cases are excluded from our discussion by the decision not to consider examples with animate subjects.

Although reflexive middles and regular middles are similar in that they both usually refer to an individual-level property of their subject, they also differ in a subtle way. In the regular middle construction, the individual-level property must be a property that is prototypically assigned to the subject, whereas this is not required in the case of reflexive middles. As a result, reflexive middles can be based on a wider range of verbs than regular middles: the contrast between the two (b)-examples in (300) is due to the fact that “being predictable” is not a prototypical property of the final scores of soccer matches.

This difference in meaning may also account for the fact, mentioned at the beginning of this subsection, that regular middles typically take kind-denoting noun phrases as their subject. They are less felicitous with definite subjects, since these are used to refer to specific entities mentioned earlier in the discourse, which are less likely to be described in terms of prototypical properties. Reflexive middles, on the other hand, do not refer to prototypical properties and should therefore easily have definite subjects.

The experiencer introduced by the evaluative modifier gemakkelijkeasily and the subject of the infinitival clause are usually interpreted as coreferential, but both must be left implicit in the reflexive middle. The (a)-examples in (301) show this for the experiencer voor-PP usually selected by gemakkelijk, and the (b)-examples for the agent of the infinitival clause. Of course, the fact that both the experiencer and the agent are left implicit, strongly favors the generic interpretation of the reflexive middle construction.

However, the examples in (302) show that it may be possible to realize the agent of the embedded verb by an agentive door-PP, although the nominal part is then usually not referential but generic in nature (or quantificational like iedereeneveryone or niemandnobody).

The example in (303) again illustrates the problem discussed in Subsection I: the superficially similar construction with an animate subject in (303) easily allows the nominal part of the agentive door-PP to be referential in nature.

This subsection discusses the verbs that can enter the reflexive middle construction. We will begin by showing that in the prototypical case the verb embedded under latento let is transitive; intransitive and unaccusative verbs cannot enter the construction. The fact that unaccusative verbs cannot be used strongly suggests that the nominative subject of the reflexive middle does not correspond to the internal argument of the embedded verb, but to the argument usually assigned accusative case by it; this is confirmed by the fact that verbs taking a complementive can also occur in the construction. We conclude with a discussion of ditransitive verbs.

The evaluative modifier in the reflexive middle is of the type gemakkelijk. As in the regular middle, the modifier is usually obligatory, although the examples in (314) show that it can be omitted under similar conditions as the evaluative modifier in regular middles (although some of our informants report having difficulties with (314c)); cf. the examples in (190) and (191) in Section 3.2.2.2, sub I C.

So far we have not discussed the simplex reflexive, which is the most prominent element in the reflexive middle construction. We will keep the discussion of this element brief here, since it is discussed in detail in Section 2.5.2, sub II, on inherently reflexive constructions, and in N22.4, on the binding properties of weak reflexives. In particular, these sections discuss the hypothesis, proposed in Burzio (1986: §1.5) and Everaert (1986), that the simplex reflexive can be used as a non-argument, which must nevertheless be assigned case and so “absorbs” the accusative case of the verb.

Roughly speaking, the hypothesis states that inherently reflexive constructions arise in the following way: since verbs assign accusative case to only one argument, the use of the simplex reflexive blocks the assignment of accusative case to the direct object of the verb by absorbing this case; the original object must now be assigned nominative case, which in turn suppresses the subject of the transitive verb, as in passive and regular middle constructions. This explains why we find the inherently reflexive construction De kat wast zichThe cat is washing itself next to the transitive construction Jan wast de katJohn is washing the cat (ignoring the fact that there are also inherently reflexive verbs without a transitive counterpart). Reflexive middles are derived in essentially the same way: the simplex reflexive is assigned accusative case by the verb embedded under laten; consequently the original object of the embedded verb can no longer be assigned this case and must therefore be promoted to subject of the whole construction in order to get nominative case.

The proposal briefly summarized above can account for several properties of the reflexive middle construction, such as the fact discussed in Subsection IV that its nominative subject must correspond to the original accusative object of the embedded verb; this rules out the use of intransitive and unaccusative (PO-)verbs. It also provides a partial answer to the question why regular middles and reflexive middles occur side by side, as shown again by the (a)-examples in (315), whereas there are no reflexive middle constructions corresponding to adjunct or impersonal middles, as shown by the (b) and (c)-examples.

The answer is that the simplex reflexive can only perform its function as a case absorber in (315a'), in which the transitive verb wassen would otherwise assign case to its internal argument die truithat sweater. In (315b'&c'), the use of the reflexive is superfluous, since the verb cannot assign accusative case to the noun phrase die muziek anyway; cf. Jan danst *(op) die muziekJan dances to that music. Readers interested in further details and consequences of the case-absorption hypothesis proposed by Burzio and Everaert are referred to Sections 2.5.2, sub IID, and N22.4.2.