An important task for interpretive semantic theory is to determine whether a given NP can be interpreted as being coreferential to another. There are three types of NP: anaphors, prono- minals and lexical NPs. This study reviews how the reflexive pronoun, one kind of anaphors, appears properly in a sentence. In part II. reflexive pronoun is dealt with concerning the derivation of reflexive pronoun and its coreferential relation. In part III and IV, conditions related to the construal and the Binding Theory, respectively are discussed. The competing theories proposed so ``far do not seem to be adequate for the coreferential relations of the reflexive pronoun in a sentence. The more general interpretive approach in the surface structure has to be taken for sentences such as I kept it near me so that the pronoun me refers to the antecedent I. Also, in the picture reflexive pronoun shown in (1), we find that the Binding Theory does not explain its coreferential relations. (1) a. John collects pictures of himself. b. Photos of himself never flatter Fred. It is suggested that himself is well bound by the antecedent John, when the governing category ``of himself in (la) is not NP, but S containing SUBJECT assuming AGR as SUBJECT. When the governing category of himself in (1b) is not NP`` but S containing SUBJECT, himself is bound by antecedent Fred and Fred can serve as A-binder. Although the binding relation of the reflexive pronoun in English can be explained in many ``cases by the Binding Theory, the problem still remains as to how we adjust the proper governing category, containing reflexive pronouns. This problem, I believe, will make the research on the coreferential relationship of anaphors more stimulating.