Advertisement

Russian Linguistics

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 287–313 | Cite as

Slavic Reflexive Decausative

  • Dorothee Fehrmann
  • Uwe JunghannsEmail author
  • Denisa Lenertová
Article

Abstract

One of the uses of the reflexive marker in Slavic is to signal Decausatives—unagentively interpreted predicates formed from transitive verbs allowing non-volitional Causers as external arguments. The paper proposes an account treating Decausatives in a unified manner with other uses of the reflexive marker in Slavic. Building on the minimal system of reflexive markers presented in previous work, Decausatives are analysed by analogy with genuine Reflexives. The reflexive marker blocks the internal argument, the unbound semantic variable is identified with the external argument at the level of Conceptual Structure. The characteristic Decausative interpretation arises due to the internal argument being a non-volitional Causer rather than an Agent. The present analysis exploits an independently motivated representation of the marker, no additional means or operations are necessary.

Keywords

Semantic Representation Internal Argument Prepositional Phrase External Argument Thematic Role 
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.

Славянский возвратный декаузатив

Аннотация

Возвратная клитика (refl) в славянских языках употребляется, в числе прочего, для сигнализации декаузативов—неагентивно интерпретируемых предикатов, образованных от переходных глаголов, которые могут употребляться с именной группой, выполняющей синтаксическую функцию подлежащего (внешнего аргумента) и семантическую роль непроизвольного производителя действия (causer). В настоящей статье декаузативы анализируются согласно единому подходу к refl в ее различных употреблениях. Исходя из минимальной системы маркеров возвратности, представленной в предыдущей публикации, анализ декаузативов производится по аналогии с конструкциями с настоящей возвратной интерпретацией. В случае декаузатива refl блокирует внутренний аргумент. На уровне концептуальной структуры соответствующая семантическая переменная, которая до этого уровня оставалась свободной, отождествляется с внешним аргументом. Характерная для декаузативов интерпретация достигается на основе того, что внешний аргумент является не агенсом (agent), а непроизвольным производителем действия (causer), т.е. интерпретация достигается именно ввиду этой специфической семантической роли. В анализе используется репрезентация refl, которой естественные языки располагают и вне функции декаузативов и которая, таким образом, является независимо мотивированной. В анализ не вовлекаются дополнительные средства и операции.

References

  1. Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2006). The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (Studies in Generative Grammar, 91, pp. 187–211). Berlin. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apresjan, Ju. D. (2002). Vzaimodejstvie leksiki i grammatiki: leksikografičeskij aspekt. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, 1(3), 10–29. Google Scholar
  4. Apresjan, Ju. D. (2004). Principy organizacii centra i periferii v leksike i grammatike. In A. P. Volodin (Ed.), Tipologičeskie obosnovanija v grammatike (pp. 20–36). Moskva. Google Scholar
  5. Babby, L. H. (2001). The genitive of negation: a unified analysis. In S. Franks, T. H. King, & M. Yadroff (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-9). The Bloomington Meeting 2000 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 46, pp. 39–55). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  6. Babyonyshev, M. A. (1996). Structural connections in syntax and processing: studies in Russian and Japanese (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  7. Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. In D. Dowty (Ed.), Tense and Aspect in discourse [Special issue]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(1), 5–16. Google Scholar
  8. Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  9. Biały, A. (1998). Unaccusativity in Polish. In G.-J. M. Kruijff & I. Kruijff-Korbayová (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third ESSLLI Student Session (Tenth European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information; Third Student Session (pp. 63–76). Saarbrücken. Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Bierwisch, M. (1987). Semantik der Graduierung. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven (Studia grammatica, 26–27, pp. 91–286). Berlin. Google Scholar
  12. Bierwisch, M. (1988). On the grammar of local prepositions. In M. Bierwisch, W. Motsch, & I. Zimmermann (Eds.), Syntax, Semantik und Lexikon. Rudolf Růžička zum 65. Geburtstag (Studia grammatica, 29, pp. 1–65). Berlin. Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Bierwisch, M. (2002). A case for CAUSE. In I. Kaufmann & B. Stiebels (Eds.), More than words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich (Studia grammatica, 53, pp. 327–353). Berlin. Google Scholar
  15. Bierwisch, M. (2005). The event structure of cause and become. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Event arguments: foundations and applications (Linguistische Arbeiten, 501, pp. 11–44). Tübingen. Google Scholar
  16. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Błaszczak, J. (2001). Investigation into the interaction between indefinites and negation (Studia grammatica, 51). Berlin. Google Scholar
  18. Błaszczak, J. (2003). Getting rid of covert movement or getting into trouble? In P. Kosta et al. (Eds.), Investigations into formal Slavic linguistics Contributions of the fourth European conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages—FDSL IV, held at Potsdam University, November 28–30, 2001, Part II (Linguistik International, 10, pp. 517–542). Frankfurt. Google Scholar
  19. Bošković, Ž. (2009). More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica, 63(2), 187–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. A government-binding approach. Dordrecht. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cetnarowska, B. (2000). The unergative / unaccusative split and the derivation of resultative adjectives in Polish. In T. H. King & I. A. Sekerina (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-8). The Philadelphia Meeting 1999 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 45, pp. 78–96). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  22. Chierchia, G. (2004[1989]). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 5, pp. 22–59). first circulated as manuscript from Cornell University in 1989. Oxford. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davidson, D. (1967a). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–95). Pittsburgh. (Reprinted in Davidson 1980, pp. 105–122). Google Scholar
  24. Davidson, D. (1967b). Causal relations. The Journal of Philosophy, 64(21), 691–703. (Reprinted in Davidson 1980, pp. 149–162.) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Oxford. Google Scholar
  26. Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ (Synthese Language Library, 7). Dordrecht. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dudchuk, P., Minor, S., & Pshehotskaya, E. (2010). Aspects of deficient v. In W. Browne et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-18). The Second Cornell Meeting 2009 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 56, pp. 140–160). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  28. Dušková, L. (1976). Reflexivity in Czech and in English. In L. Dušková (Ed.), Studies in modern philology (Vol. 2, pp. 93–118). Praha. Google Scholar
  29. Fehrmann, D., Junghanns, U., & Lenertová, D. (2010). Two reflexive markers in Slavic. Russian Linguistics, 34(3), 203–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frąckowiak, E., & Rivero, M. L. (2008). Distinguishing between unintentional agents and unintentional causers. In S. Jones (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Retrieved from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2008/CLA2008_Frackowiak_Rivero.pdf (17 July 2014). Google Scholar
  31. Frąckowiak, E., & Rivero, M. L. (2011). Unintentional agents vs. unintentional causers in Polish. In P. Bański, B. Łukaszewicz, M. Opalińska, & J. Zaleska (Eds.), Generative investigations: Syntax, morphology, and phonology (pp. 198–231). Newcastle upon Tyne. Google Scholar
  32. Franks, S., & King, T. H. (2000). A handbook of Slavic clitics. New York, Oxford. Google Scholar
  33. Gavrilova, V. I. (2008). Terminy ‘dekauzativ’ i ‘kvazipassiv’ kak konkurirujuščie terminy. In A. V. Bondarko, G. I. Kustova, & R. I. Rozina (Eds.), Dinamičeskie modeli. Slovo. Predloženie. Tekst. Sbornik statej v čest’ E. V. Padučevoj (pp. 190–212). Moskva Google Scholar
  34. Gradinarova, A. A. (2008). Russkij vozvratnyj perfektivnyj passiv: k probleme suščestvovanija. Acta Linguistica, 2(1), 71–78. Google Scholar
  35. Grimshaw, J. (1982). On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 87–148). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  36. Härtl, H. (2003). Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations: the case of decausative verbs. Linguistics, 41(5), 883–916. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harves, S. (2003). Unaccusative syntax in Russian (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 21). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  38. Harves, S. (2006). Non-agreement, unaccusativity, and the external argument constraint. In J. D. Lavine, S. Franks, M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva, & H. Filip (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-14). The Princeton Meeting 2005 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 51, pp. 172–188). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  39. Harves, S. (2009). Unaccusativity. In S. Kempgen, P. Kosta, T. Berger, & K. Gutschmidt (Eds.), The Slavic languages. An international handbook of their structure, their history and their investigation (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, 32.1, pp. 415–430). Berlin, New York. Google Scholar
  40. Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of the inchoative / causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series. SLCS-23, pp. 87–120). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Havránek, B. (1928). Genera verbi v slovanských jazycích. Volume 1. Praha. Google Scholar
  42. Heidolph, K. E. (1992). Adjektivische Modifizierung. In I. Zimmermann & A. Strigin (Eds.), Fügungspotenzen: zum 60. Geburtstag von Manfred Bierwisch (Studia grammatica, 34, pp. 63–87). Berlin. Google Scholar
  43. Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16(4), 547–593. Google Scholar
  44. Horvath, J., & Siloni, T. (2011). Anticausatives: against reflexivization. Lingua, 121, 2176–2186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Isačenko, A. V. (1962). Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Teil I. Formenlehre. Halle. Google Scholar
  46. Jabłońska, P. (2007). Radical decomposition and argument structure (Doctoral dissertation). University of Tromsø. Retrieved from http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/10037/991/1/thesis.pdf (17 July 2014).
  47. Janko-Trinickaja, N. A. (1962). Vozvratnye glagoly v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moskva. Google Scholar
  48. Jones, C., & Levine, J. S. (2010). Conditions on the formation of middles in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 18(2), 291–335. doi: 10.1353/jsl.2010.0003. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Kaufmann, I. (2004). Medium und Reflexiv. Eine Studie zur Verbsemantik (Linguistische Arbeiten, 489). Tübingen. Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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 LFG06 Conference, 2006. Konstanz. Retrieved from http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/11/lfg06kibort.pdf (16 July 2014). Google Scholar
  53. Kolomackij, D. I. (2007). K voprosu o raspredelenii russkix passivnyx form po vidu. Acta Linguistica, 1(1), 14–32. Google Scholar
  54. Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27(1), 77–138. doi: 10.1007/s11049-008-9058-9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kosta, P. (2011). Causatives and anti-causatives, unaccusatives and unergatives: Or how big is the contribution of the lexicon to syntax? In P. Kosta & L. Schürcks (Eds.), Formalization of grammar in Slavic languages (Potsdam Linguistic Investigations, 6, pp. 235–295). Frankfurt. Google Scholar
  56. Kosta, P., & Frasek, J. (2004). Neakuzativita (ergativita) vs. neergativita v češtině, polštině a jiných slovanských jazycích na rozhraní morfologie a syntaxe. In Z. Hladká & P. Karlík (Eds.), Čeština—univerzália a specifika (Vol. 5, pp. 172–194). Praha. Google Scholar
  57. Kratzer, A. (2005). Building resultatives. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Event arguments: foundations and applications (Linguistische Arbeiten, 501, pp. 177–212). Tübingen. Google Scholar
  58. Kuznetsova, Ju. (2005). Against the Russian distributive po-construction as a diagnostic for unaccusativity. In S. Franks, F. Gladney, & M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-13). The South Carolina Meeting 2004 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 50, pp. 170–180). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  59. Lakoff, G. (1968). Some verbs of change and causation. In S. Kuno (Ed.), Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation. Report NSF-20. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  60. Lang, E., & Maienborn, C. (2011). Two-level semantics: semantic form and conceptual structure. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning. Volume 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, 33.1, pp. 709–740). Berlin, New York. Google Scholar
  61. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: at the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  62. Medová, L. (2012). Anticausatives are derived unergatives. In M. Ziková & M. Dočekal (Eds.), Slavic Languages in Formal Grammar. Proceedings of FDSL 8.5, Brno 2010 (Linguistik International, 26, pp. 291–306). Frankfurt. Google Scholar
  63. Miloslavskij, I. G. (1978). Kakomu zalogu prinadležit glagol ‘nravit’sja’? In V. S. Xrakovskij (Ed.), Problemy teorii grammatičeskogo zaloga (pp. 208–213). Leningrad. Google Scholar
  64. Nikitina, E. N. (2006). Norma i vozvratnye glagoly v forme soveršennogo vida. In L. P. Krysin (Ed.), Russkij jazyk segodnja, 4. Problemy jazykovoj normy (pp. 412–422). Moskva. Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Padučeva, E. V. (2003). Is there an ‘ANTICAUSATIVE’ component in the semantics of decausatives? Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 11(1), 173–198. Google Scholar
  67. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. A study in subatomic semantics (Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 19). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  68. Partee, B., & Borschev, V. (2002). Genitive of negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sentences. In J. Toman (Ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-10). The Second Ann Arbor Meeting 2001 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 47, pp. 181–200). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  69. Partee, B., & Borschev, V. (2007). Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence. Semantics and syntax (pp. 147–190). Dordrecht. Google Scholar
  70. Percov, N. V. (2003). Vozvratnye stradatel’nye formy russkogo glagola v svjazi s problemoj suščestvovanija v morfologii. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 4, 43–71. Google Scholar
  71. Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and categories (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  72. Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Experiencers and cascades (Current Studies in Linguistics, 27). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  73. Piñón, C. (2001a). A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11. Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from http://pinon.sdf-eu.org/ (16 July 2014). Google Scholar
  74. Piñón, C. (2001b). Modelling the causative-inchoative alternation. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 76, 273–293. Google Scholar
  75. Ramchand, G. C. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon. A first-phase syntax (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 116). New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reinhart, T., & Siloni, T. (2005). The lexicon–syntax parameter: reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 389–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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
  78. Rivero, M. L., & Savchenko, U. (2005). Russian anticausatives with oblique subjects. In S. Franks, F. Y. Gladney, & M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-13). The South Carolina Meeting 2004 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 50, pp. 276–288). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  79. Rozwadowska, B. (1992). Thematic constraints on selected constructions in English and Polish. Wrocław. Google Scholar
  80. Růžička, R. (1983). Remarks on control. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(2), 309–324. Google Scholar
  81. Růžička, R. (1986). Typologie der Diathese slavischer Sprachen in parametrischen Variationen. Die Welt der Slaven, 31(2), 225–274. Google Scholar
  82. Růžička, R. (1999). Control in grammar and pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, 27). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Google Scholar
  83. Schäfer, F. (2008). The syntax of (anti-)causatives (Linguistik Aktuell / Lingustics Today, 126). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schoorlemmer, M. (1995). Participial passive and aspect in Russian. Utrecht. Google Scholar
  85. Siewierska, A. (1988). The passive in Slavic. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Passive and voice (Typological Studies in Language, 16, pp. 243–289). Amsterdam. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sokolov, O. M. (1991). Implicitnaja morfologija russkogo glagola. Morfemika. Učebnoe posobie. Moskva. Google Scholar
  87. Szucsich, L. (2003). 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
  88. 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
  89. Tesnière, L. (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris. Google Scholar
  90. Testelec, Ja. G. (2001). Vvedenie v obščij sintaksis. Moskva. Google Scholar
  91. Van Valin, R. D., & Wilkins, D. P. (1996). The case for ‘effector’: case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions. Their form and meaning (pp. 289–322). Oxford. Google Scholar
  92. Večerka, R. (1993). Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax. Band 2: Die innere Satzstruktur (Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes, XXXIV). Freiburg. Google Scholar
  93. Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(1), 27–68. Google Scholar
  94. Xrakovskij, V. S. (1991). Passivnye konstrukcii. In A. V. Bondarko (Ed.), Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki. Personal’nost’. Zalogovost’ (pp. 141–180). Sankt-Peterburg. Google Scholar
  95. Zaliznjak, A. A. (1977). Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moskva. Google Scholar
  96. Zaliznjak, A. A. (2008). Drevnerusskie ėnklitiki. Moskva. Google Scholar
  97. Zec, D. (1985). Objects in Serbo-Croatian. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 11 (pp. 358–371). Google Scholar
  98. Zumstein, M. (2010). Abgrenzung von Passiv und Rezessiv (Antikausativ) im Russischen. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie, 67(1), 163–183. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations