With regard to ditransitive constructions, the phenomenon of
reflexivity is particularly complex and fascinating. The following
discussion is for the most part limited to English phrases, but Hegel
scholars and other theorists of recognition should be aware of the
peculiar nature of German in this respect. In German, reflexive verbs
are very common and can also be employed as nouns. Reflexive
giving (sich geben) is often used; reflexive receiving (sich empfangen)
is less common but possible. The reflexive phrase that expresses
preservation (sich erhalten) has affinities with reflexive giving and
receiving. Obviously, the high frequency of reflexives may also indi-
cate that they cannot all be reified but may serve other grammatical
purposes. Hegel’s language is challenging in this respect.
In ditransitive giving, two different objects are concerned, and the
subject can build a reflexive construction with either one of them. In
addition, the two objects can be identified with one another through
the reflexive construction. In other words, the three arguments of
‘give’can constitute three different identification pairs, in each of
which the antecedent can be either (i) the giver, (ii) the thing, or (iii)
the recipient. This means that six different reflexive constructions can
theoretically emerge. Some of these identification pairs come strik-
ingly close to the phenomenon of recognition. While the following
argument takes some ideas from Newman and other linguistic
scholars, it is for the most part my own creation.^43 Linguistic studies
should not be blamed for its possibleflaws.
Let usfirst rule out two identification pairs that are not the most
relevant with regard to the‘language of giving’conception discussed
here. I will skip cases in which persons give something to themselves,
that is, an identification of the giver with the recipient (the antecedent
being the giver). Similarly, I rule out cases in which persons receive
something from themselves (the antecedent being the recipient). As
the issues of gift and recognition move around‘the thing’transferred,
the identifications between giver and recipient need not concern
us here.
This leaves us with four cases of identification. They are:
- identification of the giver and the thing, the giver being the
antecedent (1 in Table 4.1)
(^43) Saarinen 2016 presents a similar argument based on German evidence.
226 Recognition and Religion