{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014204545454545454, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005681818181818182, 'mean_word_length': 5.1798245614035086, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ON REFLEXIVES IN ENGLISH

THEORY OF REFLEXIVES and the PHRASE STRUCTURE THEORY OF REFLEXIVES. According to the transformational theory of reflexives, reflexives as such are not present in deep structure phrase markers. Rather, surface structure reflexives derive transformationally from suitable underlying noun phrases under certain conditions. In particular, the noun phrase underlying a given reflexive must satisfy a certain condition of identity with respect to the noun phrase underlying the antecedent of the reflexive. In other words, the transformational theory of reflexives would derive a sentence like Mary hurt herself from an underlying structure that can be represented informally as Mary hurt Mary. The principal examples of the transformational theory of reflexives are to be found in Lees and Klima (1963) and Postal (1966). The phrase structure theory of reflexives, on the other hand, analyzes reflexives as possessives of a certain restricted kind and in the deep structure they are represented as such. As a result reflexives and their antecedents do not necessarily satisfy a condition of identity. On the assumptions of this theory the syntax of a sentence like Mary hurt herself would be closely related to that of the sentence Mary lost her mind. Other than the difference in the verb, the principal difference between the deep structure phrase markers of the two sentences would be