Advertisement

Russian Linguistics

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 203–238 | Cite as

Two reflexive markers in Slavic

  • Dorothee FehrmannEmail author
  • Uwe Junghanns
  • Denisa Lenertová
Open Access
Article

Abstract

The paper deals with lexical types of the reflexive marker in Slavic. On the one hand, this exponent shows up in a range of expressions associated with diverse interpretations. On the other hand, the properties within the various types are not homogeneous across the Slavic languages. The challenge consists in finding a unified analysis for the constructions and their varying properties, accounting for the marker with as few construction-specific assumptions as possible. In this paper, we will argue that two lexical types of the reflexive marker—argument blocking and argument binding—are sufficient to cover all constructions and their cross-Slavic variation.

Keywords

Internal Argument External Argument Slavic Language Transitive Verb Accusative Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Два маркера возвратности в славянских языках

Аннотация

Данная статья посвящена лексическим типам маркера возвратности в славянских языках. Этот маркер употребляется в предложениях разного типа, связанных с рядом интерпретаций. Однако, выясняется, что свойства отдельных типов в славянских языках не гомогенные. Задача состоит в том, чтобы разработать максимально обобщенный анализ конструкций и их варьирующих характеристик, ограничиваясь минимальным числом специфических для отдельных конструкций предположений. В статье выдвигается предположение, что для описания исследуемых конструкций и для объяснения варьирования свойств конструкций в славянских языках достаточно двух маркеров возвратности—маркера возвратности, блокирующего аргумент глагола, и маркера возвратности, связывающего аргумент глагола и придающего предложению интерпретацию неопределенного человеческого носителя действия.

References

  1. Ackema, P., & Schoorlemmer, M. (2006). Middles. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Volume 3 (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics) (pp. 131–203). Oxford. Google Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2006a). The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (Studies in Generative Grammar, 91) (pp. 187–211). Berlin. Google Scholar
  3. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2006b). The fine structure of (anti-)causatives. In C. Davis, A.-R. Deal & Y. Zabbal (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS-36) (pp. 115–128). Amherst. Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, S. R., & Zwicky, A. M. (2003). Clitics. In W. J. Frawley (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics. Volume 1 (pp. 325–328). New York. Google Scholar
  5. Avgustinova, T., Skut, W., & Uszkoreit, H. (1999). Typological similarities in HPSG: a case study on Slavic verb diathesis. In R. D. Borsley & A. Przepiórkowski (Eds.), Slavic in head-driven phrase structure grammar (Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism) (pp. 1–28). Stanford. Google Scholar
  6. Babby, L. H. (1998). Voice and diathesis in Slavic. Position paper presented at the Workshop on Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax, 5–7 June 1998. Bloomington. http://www.indiana.edu/~slavconf/linguistics/babby.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2010.
  7. Belletti, A. (1982). Morphological passive and pro-drop: the impersonal construction in Italian. Journal of Linguistic Research, 2(4), 1–34. Google Scholar
  8. Bierwisch, M. (1986). On the nature of semantic form in natural language. In F. Klix & H. Hagendorf (Eds.), Human memory and cognitive capabilities. Mechanisms and performances. Part B (pp. 765–784). Amsterdam, New York. Google Scholar
  9. Bierwisch, M. (1990). Verb cluster formation as a morphological process. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology. Volume 3 (pp. 173–199). Dordrecht. Google Scholar
  10. Bierwisch, M. (2007). Semantic form as interface. In A. Späth (Ed.), Interfaces and interface conditions (Language, Context, and Cognition, 6) (pp. 1–32). Berlin, New York. Google Scholar
  11. Bierwisch, M. (2009). Nominalization—lexical and syntactic aspects. In A. Giannakidou & M. Rathert (Eds.), Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 24) (pp. 281–320). Oxford. Google Scholar
  12. Bošković, Ž. (2002). Clitics as nonbranching elements and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(2), 329–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bulaxovskij, L. A. (1954). Russkij literaturnyj jazyk pervoj poloviny XIX veka. Fonetika, morfologija, udarenie, sintaksis. Moskva. Google Scholar
  14. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. A government-binding approach. Dordrecht. Google Scholar
  15. Caink, A. (1998). The lexical interface: closed class items in South Slavic and English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Durham. Google Scholar
  16. Caink, A. (2004). Semi-lexical heads and clitic climbing. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 12(1–2), 95–138. Google Scholar
  17. Chierchia, G. (2004). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations at the syntax-lexicon interface (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 5) (pp. 22–59). Oxford. Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, N. (1995). Bare phrase structure. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory (pp. 383–439). Oxford. Google Scholar
  19. Cinque, G. (1988). On si constructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(4), 521–581. Google Scholar
  20. Condoravdi, C. (1989). The middle: where semantics and morphology meet. In P. Branigan et al. (Eds.), Student conference in linguistics (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 11) (pp. 16–30). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  21. Di Sciullo, A.-M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 14). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  22. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1998). Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(3), 399–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (2006). The SE-anaphor and its role in argument realization. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Volume 4 (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics, 19) (pp. 118–179). Oxford. Google Scholar
  24. Doron, E., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2007). Towards a uniform theory of valence-changing operations. In Y. N. Falk (Ed.), Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, 23. Tel Aviv. http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/23/Doron-Rappaport.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2010.
  25. Emonds, J. E. (1987). The invisible category principle. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(4), 613–632. Google Scholar
  26. Emonds, J. E. (2000). Lexicon and grammar: the English syntacticon (Studies in Generative Grammar, 50). Berlin. Google Scholar
  27. Fagan, S. M. B. (1992). The syntax and semantics of middle constructions. A study with special reference to German (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 60). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  28. Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York, Oxford. Google Scholar
  29. Franks, S. (1998). Clitics in Slavic. Position paper presented at the Workshop on Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax, 5–7 June 1998. Bloomington. http://www.indiana.edu~slavconf/linguistics/frnks.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2010.
  30. Franks, S., & King, T. H. (2000). A handbook of Slavic clitics. New York, Oxford. Google Scholar
  31. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 18). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  32. Harves, S. (2006). Non-agreement, unaccusativity, and the external argument constraint. In J. D. Lavine et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-14). The Princeton meeting 2005 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 51) (pp. 172–188). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  33. Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning. Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language. Volume 2: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 211–242). Mahwah. Google Scholar
  34. Havránek, B. (1928). Genera verbi v slovanských jazycích. Volume 1. Praha. Google Scholar
  35. Hoekstra, T., & Roberts, I. (1993). Middle constructions in Dutch and English. In E. Reuland & W. Abraham (Eds.), Knowledge and language. Volume II: Lexical and conceptual structure (pp. 183–220). Dordrecht. Google Scholar
  36. Hudousková, A. (2010). Reflexive clitics in Czech. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Olomouc. Google Scholar
  37. Isačenko, A. V. (1962). Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Formenlehre. Halle. Google Scholar
  38. Jabłońska, P. (2007). Radical decomposition and argument structure. Ph.D. dissertation. Tromsø. http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/10037/991/1/thesis.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2010.
  39. Junghanns, U. (1996). SJA-verbs in Russian: phonology, morphology, or syntax? In A. Alexiadou et al. (Eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics. Volume 6 (pp. 66–80). Berlin. Google Scholar
  40. Junghanns, U. (2008). Argument structure and syntax. In S. Kempgen et al. (Eds.), Deutsche Beiträge zum 14. Internationalen Slavistenkongress Ohrid 2008 (Die Welt der Slaven. Sammelbände, 32) (pp. 171–181). München. Google Scholar
  41. Junghanns, U., & Law, P. (Eds.) (2004). Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 12(1–2) (Special issue dedicated to the topic of Slavic clitics). Google Scholar
  42. Kaufmann, I. (2004). Medium und Reflexiv. Eine Studie zur Verbsemantik (Linguistische Arbeiten, 489). Tübingen. Google Scholar
  43. Kayne, R. S. (1975). French syntax. The transformational cycle (Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 6). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  44. Kibort, A. (2002). On passives and impersonals in Polish. In D. Stanulewicz (Ed.), PASE papers in language studies. Proceedings of the ninth annual conference of the Polish Association for the Study of English, 26–28 April 2000 (pp. 153–162). Gdańsk. Google Scholar
  45. Kibort, A. (2006). On three different types of subjectlessness and how to model them in LFG. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 06 conference, 2006. Konstanz (CSLI Publications) (pp. 289–309). http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/11/lfg06kibort.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2010.
  46. Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 27(1), 77–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lavine, J. (1997). A lexicalist perspective of valency changing operations in Russian and Czech. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 68, 5–34. Google Scholar
  48. Lavine, J. E. (2005). The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian -no/-to. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 13(1), 75–117. Google Scholar
  49. Lavine, J. E. (2010). Case and events in transitive impersonals. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 18(1), 101–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lavine, J., & Franks, S. (2008). On accusative first. In A. Antonenko et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-16). The Stony Brook meeting 2007 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 53) (pp. 231–247). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  51. Lavine, J. E., & Freidin, R. (2002). The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10(1–2), 251–287. Google Scholar
  52. Marelj, M. (2004). Middles and argument structure across languages (LOT Dissertation Series, 88). Utrecht. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2004-0408-100925/inhoud.htm. Accessed 8 July 2010.
  53. Marušič, F., & Žaucer, R. (2004). A reanalysis of the FEEL-LIKE dative-reflexive construction in Slovenian. In O. Arnaudova et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-12). The Ottawa meeting 2003 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 49) (pp. 293–311). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  54. Marušič, F., & Žaucer, R. (2006). On the intensional FEEL-LIKE construction in Slovenian: a case of a phonologically null verb. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24(4), 1093–1159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Medová, L. (2009). Reflexive clitics in Slavic and Romance languages: a comparative view from an antipassive perspective. Ph.D. dissertation. Princeton. Google Scholar
  56. Meyer, R. (this volume). Reflexive passives and impersonals in North Slavonic languages: a diachronic view. Russian Linguistics, 34(3), Google Scholar
  57. Padučeva, E. V. (2001). Russkij dekauzativ i ego formal’nye modeli. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija. Serija 2. Informacionnye processy i sistemy, 1, 23–34. Google Scholar
  58. Padučeva, E. V. (2003). Is there an “ANTICAUSATIVE” component in the semantics of decausatives? Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 11(1), 173–198. Google Scholar
  59. Papangeli, D. (2004). The morphosyntax of argument realization. Greek argument structure and the lexicon-syntax interface (LOT Dissertation Series, 86). Utrecht. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2004-0223-092855/inhoud.htm. Accessed 8 July 2010.
  60. Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Experiencers and cascades (Current Studies in Linguistics, 27). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  61. Progovac, L. (2005). A syntax of Serbian. Clausal architecture. Bloomington. Google Scholar
  62. Reinhart, T., & Siloni, T. (2005). The lexicon–syntax parameter: reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 389–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rivero, M. L. (2001). On impersonal reflexives in Romance and Slavic and semantic variation. In J. Camps & C. R. Wiltshire (Eds.), Romance syntax, semantics and L2 acquisition (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 216) (pp. 169–195). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  64. Rivero, M. L. (2003). Reflexive clitic constructions with datives: syntax and semantics. In W. Browne et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-11). The Amherst meeting 2002 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 48) (pp. 469–494). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  65. Rivero, M. L., & Milojević Sheppard, M. (2003). Indefinite reflexive clitics in Slavic: Polish and Slovenian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(1), 89–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rivero, M. L., & Milojević Sheppard, M. (2008). Revisiting involuntary state constructions in Slovenian. In F. Marušič & R. Žaucer (Eds.), Studies in formal Slavic linguistics. Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5. Held at the University of Nova Gorica, 1–3 December 2006 (Linguistik International, 19) (pp. 273–289). Frankfurt. Google Scholar
  67. Rozwadowska, B. (1992). Thematic constraints on selected constructions in English and Polish. Wrocław. Google Scholar
  68. Rudin, C. (1997). AgrO and Bulgarian pronominal clitics. In M. Lindseth & S. Franks (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-5). The Indiana meeting 1996 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 42) (pp. 224–252). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  69. Rudnyćkyj, J. B. (1964). Lehrbuch der ukrainischen Sprache. Wiesbaden. Google Scholar
  70. Růžička, R. (1986). Typologie der Diathese slavischer Sprachen in parametrischen Variationen. Die Welt der Slaven, 31(2), 225–274. Google Scholar
  71. Růžička, R. (1988). On the array of arguments in Slavic languages. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 41(2), 155–178. Google Scholar
  72. Růžička, R. (1992). Slavic and Italian impersonal constructions with reflexive clitics. In I. Zimmermann & A. Strigin (Eds.), Fügungspotenzen. Zum 60. Geburtstag von Manfred Bierwisch (Studia grammatica, 34) (pp. 133–161). Berlin. Google Scholar
  73. Schoorlemmer, M. (1997). Russian -sja and the affix–clitic distinction. In M. Lindseth & S. Franks (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-5). The Indiana meeting 1996 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 42) (pp. 253–274). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  74. Siewierska, A. (1988). The passive in Slavic. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Passive and voice (Typological Studies in Language, 16) (pp. 243–289). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  75. Sonnenhauser, B. (this volume). The event structure of verbs of emotion in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 34(3). Google Scholar
  76. Stroik, T. (1992). Middles and movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(1), 127–137. Google Scholar
  77. Szucsich, L. (2004). Argumentstrukturen und deren syntaktische Abbildung: Psych-Verben im Russischen. In B. Hansen (Ed.), Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik. XI. JungslavistInnen-Treffen in Cambridge 19.–22. September 2002 (Specimina philologiae slavicae, 140) (pp. 143–159). München. Google Scholar
  78. Szucsich, L. (2007). Nothing wrong with finite T: non-agreeing accusative impersonal sentences. In R. Compton et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-15). The Toronto meeting 2006 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 52) (pp. 417–435). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  79. Szucsich, L. (2008). Evidenz für syntaktische Nullen aus dem Burgenlandkroatischen, Polnischen, Russischen und Slovenischen: Merkmalsausstattung, Merkmalshierarchien und morphologische Defaults. Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 53(2), 160–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Szucsich, L. (2009). Animacy and multiple feature sharing. Restrictions with accusative reflexive impersonals in Burgenland–Croatian and varieties of BCS. In S. Franks, V. Chidambaram & B. Josephs (Eds.), A linguist’s linguist. Studies in South Slavic linguistics in honor of E. Wayles Browne (pp. 423–444). Bloomington. Google Scholar
  81. Szymańska, I. (1998). Polish reflexiva tantum: a construction-based interpretation. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Projections and mapping. Studies in syntax (PASE Studies and Monographs, 5) (pp. 99–118). Lublin. Google Scholar
  82. Szymańska, I., & Śpiewak, G. (1998). Some remarks on the role of się in organising the argument structure of Polish verbal predicates. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Projections and mapping. Studies in syntax (PASE Studies and Monographs, 5) (pp. 119–136). Lublin. Google Scholar
  83. Trávníček, F. (1939). Pasivum ve spisovné češtině. Slovo a slovesnost, 5, 13–24. Google Scholar
  84. Tsedryk, E. (2004). Case and agreement in Russian adversity impersonal constructions. In O. Arnaudova et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-12). The Ottawa meeting 2003 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 49) (pp. 419–438). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  85. Večerka, R. (1993). Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax. Band 2: Die innere Satzstruktur (Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes, XXXIV). Freiburg. Google Scholar
  86. Vondrák, V. (1928). Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. Band 2: Formenlehre und Syntax. Göttingen. Google Scholar
  87. Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(1), 27–68. Google Scholar
  88. Zaliznjak, A. A. (2008). Drevnerusskie ėnklitiki. Moskva. Google Scholar
  89. Zec, D. (1985). Objects in Serbo-Croatian. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 11, 358–371. Google Scholar
  90. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1987). Levels of representation in the lexicon and in syntax (Studies in Generative Grammar, 31). Dordrecht. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorothee Fehrmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Uwe Junghanns
    • 2
  • Denisa Lenertová
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für SlavistikUniversität LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Seminar für Slavische PhilologieGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations