The Typology of Reflexives 9783110859119, 9783110106770

Citation preview

The Typology of Reflexives

Empirical Approaches to Language Typology

Editors

Georg Bossong Bernard Comrie

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York · Amsterdam

The Typology of Reflexives

by Emma Geniusiene

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York · Amsterdam

1987

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication

Data

Gen i usiene, E. Sh. (Emma Shiri'i'azdanovna) The typology of reflexives. (Empirical approaches to language typology ; 2) Bibliography: ρ Includes indexes. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general-Reflexives. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general-Verb. 3. Typology (Linguistics) I. Title. II. Series. P299.R44G46 1987 415 87-20347 ISBN 0-89925084-X (alk. paper)

CIP-Kur^titelaufnahme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

GeniuSienfe, Emma: The typology of reflexives / by Emma Geniusiene. — Berlin ; New York ; Amsterdam : Mouton de Gruyter, 1987. (Empirical approaches to language typology ; 2) ISBN 3-11-010677-9 NE: GT

Printed on acid free paper.

© Copyright 1987 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form — by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means — nor transmitted, nor translated into a machine language without written permission from Mouton de Gruyter, a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. Typesetting and Printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin. — Binding: Dieter Mikolai, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

To V. P. Ν.

Preface

This book is a revised and enlarged version of my book Reflexive Verbs in the Baltic Languages and a Typology of Reflexives (1983) which in its turn is an abridged version of the unpublished D. Sc. dissertation under the same title. The ultimate concern of this volume is with the typology of reflexives in over 50 Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages. It aims at establishing the range of meanings of reflexives across languages and the limits placed on their variation. The theoretical framework for a cross-linguistic analysis of reflexives is developed on the basis of and first applied to the Baltic languages (modern standard Lithuanian and Latvian, and extinct Old Prussian), exhibiting extremely numerous and semantically varied reflexive verbs. The framework proposed is also applied to obtain a description of English reflexives chosen because they are the very opposite of the Baltic reflexives with respect to number and diversity, as English seems to possess the least varied class of reflexives among the modern Indo-European languages. The description of Baltic and English reflexives provides a background for the subsequent typological investigation of reflexives cross-linguistically. Although carried out at Vilnius University, this work is essentially a product of my collaboration with the Group for the Typological Study of Languages (Leningrad Branch, Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). As I see it, methodologically this book is a continuation of a series of monographs published by the Group of Typological Study of Languages: Typology of Causative Constructions (Xolodovic (ed.) 1969), Typology of Passive Constructions (Xolodovic (ed.) 1974), Voice Constructions in Structurally Diverse Languages, (Xrakovskij (ed.) 1981), Typology of Resultative Constructions (Nedjalkov (ed.) 1983), and others. I have had the good fortune to participate in all of these monographs except the first one. The present study has grown out of my contribution on Lithuanian reflexives to the volume Voice Constructions in Structurally Diverse Languages which is concerned with reflexives in a variety of languages. My linguistic thinking and interest in typology have been shaped by A. A. Xolodovic, founder of the Group of Typological Study of Languages, and V. S. Xrakovskij, and in particular by V. P. Nedjalkov, during my many years of collaboration with the Group. To all of them, I owe a very special debt of gratitude.

VIII

Preface

I wish to acknowledge the many linguists and native speakers of a variety of languages who have provided me with extensive data on their languages. Here again I am particularly indebted to V. P. Nedjalkov, who has generously shared his materials and also helped me to obtain data on a number of languages from native speakers on the basis of my questionnaires and tests. Moreover, he has read the manuscript and made a number of useful suggestions. For her enthusiastic assistance with the Latvian data, I am grateful to Ä. Ozola (Institute of Language and Literature, Academy of Sciences of the Latvian SSR). For informant responses on English I wish to thank Jan Woodward and David Allott, visiting teachers at the English Language Department of Vilnius University. I acknowledge my indebtedness to S. Je. Jaxontov (Leningrad University), V. Ambrazas (Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR), and also V. Maziulis, A. Girdenis, and A. Paulauskiene (Vilnius University) for their help and encouragement during my research into Lithuanian reflexives. I am also grateful to all my colleagues and friends who have helped me with constructive criticism, discussion, and informant responces. Special thanks are due to Sally Bird, a visiting teacher at Vilnius University, for checking through the manuscript. Finally, I would like to thank L. Butkünaite for her faultless typing and friendly support, and also N. Maskaliüniene for her help with the bibliography. Professor G. Bossong and Professor B. Comrie, editors of this series, have helped considerably to improve the book by pointing out quite a number of mistakes and making valuable suggestions — for this, my gratitude. Needless to say, all errors and misinterpretations in this book are entirely my own contribution. The reader should be warned about the following. The mode of presentation in this volume is likely to be puzzling to the reader reared in the Western linguistic tradition, for a number of reasons. One of them is the difference in what J. Nichols (in her article 'The meeting of East and West: confrontation and convergence in contemporary linguistics' (1979)) calls the structure of scientific discourse between the generative tradition favouring argument and the Eastern, prototypically Soviet, linguistic tradition favouring definition and illustration. The latter, I dare say, is implicitly based on the assumption that verbum sapienti sat and does not bother with recapitulating the discovery process. J. Nichols stresses that the differences between the two schools concerning the form, organization and goals of linguistic analysis may render publica-

Preface

IX

tions mutually unintelligible. However, I share J. Nichols' conclusion about the ongoing convergence of the two schools and hope that this volume proves it at least with regard to some of the problems discussed if not to the mode of presentation. Ultimately, I rely on the goodwill of those who decide to read this book. Vilnius, July 1986

Emma Geniusiene

Contents

Preface List of Tables Abbreviations and Symbols

VII XVII XIX

Introduction

1

1. Theoretical prerequisites

7

1.1. Basic issues of the theory of reflexives 1.1.0. General aims 1.1.1. Reflexives and voice 1.1.2. The main approaches to the investigation of reflexives . . 1.2. On the investigation of Baltic reflexives 1.2.1. Lithuanian reflexives 1.2.2. Latvian reflexives 1.2.3. Old Prussian reflexives 1.2.4. 1.1.1.Conclusions 1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives 1.3.1. Basic concepts and terminology 1.3.1.1. Reflexive marker 1.3.1.2. Reflexive verb 1.3.1.3. The term reflexive 1.3.1.4. Reflexive and non-reflexive constructions: the object of analysis 1.3.1.5. Derivation and levels of derivation 1.3.1.6. Functions of the reflexive marker at the semantic and syntactic levels 1.3.1.7. 'Internal' semantic derivation 1.3.2. Levels of analysis of reflexives 1.3.2.0. Introductory 1.3.2.1. The semantic level of representation 1.3.2.1.1. Semantic component structure 1.3.2.1.2. Semantic role structure 1.3.2.1.3. Referent structure 1.3.2.2. The syntactic level of representation 1.3.3. The concept of diathesis

7 7 8 12 18 18 21 22 24 25 25 25 26 27 27 28 30 31 32 32 33 33 37 44 47 52

XII

Contents

1.3.3.1. Three-level diathesis 1.3.3.2. Types of diathesis changes 1.3.3.3. The status of reflexive marker and recessive diathesis . . 1.3.4. Principles of classification of reflexives Notes to Chapter One

53 55 57 59 60

2. Reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages

65

2.1. Reflexive verbs in Lithuanian and Latvian 2.1.1. Material 2.1.2. The morphology of reflexive verbs 2.1.3. Reversible reflexives of formal class I 2.1.3.1. Syntactic classification 2.1.3.2. Semantic classification 2.1.3.2.1. Subjective reflexives with deleted direct object 2.1.3.2.1.1. Semantic reflexives 2.1.3.2.1.2. 'Partitive object' reflexives 2.1.3.2.1.3. 'Absolute' reflexives 2.1.3.2.1.4. Autocausative reflexives 2.1.3.2.1.5. Reciprocal reflexives 2.1.3.2.2. Deaccusative subjective reflexives 2.1.3.2.3. Objective reflexives with deleted subject 2.1.3.2.3.1. Decausative reflexives 2.1.3.2.3.2. Autocausative reflexives 2.1.3.2.3.3. Quasi-passive reflexives 2.1.3.2.4. Objective reflexives with demoted subject 2.1.3.2.4.1. Converse reflexives 2.1.3.2.4.2. Reflexive-causative reflexives 2.1.3.2.4.3. Reflexives with no object promotion 2.1.3.2.5. Dative transitive reflexives 2.1.3.2.6. Reflexives with zero valence change 2.1.3.2.6.1. Non-dative transitive reflexives 2.1.3.2.6.2. Intransitive reflexives 2.1.3.3. Polysemy and overlapping of semantic classes of reflexives 2.1.3.4. Reflexives and the passive voice 2.1.4. Non-reversible reflexives of formal class I 2.1.4.1. Types of non-reversibility 2.1.4.2. Classification of non-reversible reflexives 2.1.5. Reflexives of formal class II

65 65 67 69 69 74 74 76 79 83 86 89 94 97 98 104 109 118 118 124 125 126 134 134 137 137 141 145 145 150 152

Contents

XIII

2.1.6. Denominal reflexives 2.1.6.1. Desubstantival reflexives 2.1.6.2. Deadjectival reflexives 2.2. Reflexives in Old Prussian 2.2.1. Material and purpose 2.2.2. Types of correspondences between verbs in the German original and Prussian translation 2.2.3. Derivational characteristics of Prussian reflexives 2.2.4. Syntactic and semantic properties of reflexives 2.2.4.1. Semantic reflexives 2.2.4.2. Autocausative reflexives 2.2.4.3. Transitive reflexives 2.2.5. Conclusions 2.3. Summary Notes to Chapter Two

155 156 158 159 159 160 162 165 165 168 172 175 176 177

3. Reflexive verbs in English

179

3.0. Introduction 3.1. Material 3.2. The status of English reflexives 3.2.1. Reflexives with zero degree of semantic fusion 3.2.2. Reflexives with intermediate degree of semantic fusion . . 3.2.3. Reflexives with maximum degree of semantic fusion . . . 3.2.4. Reflexives and voice 3.2.5. Conclusion 3.3. Formal classification 3.4. Reversible reflexives of formal class I 3.4.1. Syntactic classification 3.4.2. Semantic classification 3.4.2.1. Subjective reflexives 3.4.2.1.1. Semantic reflexives 3.4.2.1.2. 'Partitive object' reflexives 3.4.2.1.3. Autocausative reflexives 3.4.2.2. Objective reflexives 3.4.2.3. Transitive reflexives 3.4.2.4. Semantic types of reflexives lacking in English 3.5. Non-reversible reflexives 3.5.1. Types of non-reversibility 3.5.2. Classification of non-reversible reflexives

179 179 180 182 183 184 185 185 186 188 188 189 189 190 195 196 200 207 208 210 210 212

XIV

Contents

3.6. Reflexives of formal class II 3.6.1. Reflexives with the postpositive particle out 3.6.2. Reflexives with a resultative clause 3.7. Conclusions Notes to Chapter Three

213 213 214 215 216

4. A typology of reflexives

217

4.0. Introduction 4.1. The principles of typological comparison of reflexives . . . 4.1.1. Principles of calculating recessive diatheses 4.1.2. Calculus of recessive diatheses 4.1.2.1. Structure of the calculus 4.1.2.2. Calculus for transitive base verbs 4.1.2.3. Inventory of recessive diatheses for intransitive base verbs 4.1.2.4. Recessive diatheses for ditransitive verbs 4.1.3. Application of the calculus 4.2. Reflexives in the Indo-European languages 4.2.1. Sample of languages 4.2.2. Typology of reflexive markers 4.2.2.1. Introduction 4.2.2.2. Types of reflexive markers 4.2.2.3. Distribution of the types of reflexive markers 4.2.3. Range of variation in reflexives 4.2.3.1. Reversible reflexives of formal class I 4.2.3.1.1. Subjective reflexives 4.2.3.1.1.1. Semantic reflexives 4.2.3.1.1.2. 'Partitive object'reflexives 4.2.3.1.1.3. 'Absolute' reflexives 4.2.3.1.1.4. Autocausative reflexives 4.2.3.1.1.5. Reciprocal reflexives 4.2.3.1.1.6. Deaccusative reflexives 4.2.3.1.2. Objective reflexives 4.2.3.1.2.1. Decausative reflexives 4.2.3.1.2.2. Quasi-passive reflexives 4.2.3.1.2.3. The reflexive passive 4.2.3.1.2.4. Reflexives with Δ10 4.2.3.1.2.5. Converse reflexives 4.2.3.1.2.6. Modal-deagentive reflexives

217 220 220 223 223 224 231 234 234 236 236 237 237 238 240 243 243 243 245 246 249 251 253 256 257 257 261 266 271 271 273

Contents

4.2.3.1.2.7. The reflexive impersonal 4.2.3.1.2.8. Reflexive-causative reflexives 4.2.3.1.3. Transitive reflexives with retained syntactic structure 4.2.3.1.4. Reflexives derived from intransitive verbs 4.2.3.1.4.1. The reflexive impersonal 4.2.3.1.4.2. Modal-deagentive reflexives 4.2.3.1.4.3. Intransitive reflexives with retained syntactic structure 4.2.3.1.5. Dative transitive reflexives 4.2.3.2. Reflexives of secondary types 4.2.3.2.1. Reflexives with complex formatives 4.2.3.2.2. Denominal reflexives 4.2.3.2.3. Formally non-reversible reflexives 4.2.3.2.4. Semantically non-reversible reflexives 4.2.4. General remarks 4.3. Reflexives in non-Indo-European languages 4.3.0. Introductory 4.3.1. Sample of languages 4.3.2. Typology of reflexive markers 4.3.2.1. Types of reflexive markers 4.3.2.2. Distribution of the types of reflexive markers 4.3.3. Range of variation in reflexives 4.3.3.1. Reversible reflexives of formal class I 4.3.3.1.1. Subjective reflexives 4.3.3.1.1.1. Semantic reflexives 4.3.3.1.1.2. 'Partitive object' reflexives 4.3.3.1.1.3. 'Absolute' reflexives 4.3.3.1.1.4. Autocausative reflexives 4.3.3.1.1.5. Reciprocal reflexives 4.3.3.1.1.6. Deaccusative reflexives 4.3.3.1.2. Objective reflexives 4.3.3.1.2.1. Decausative reflexives 4.3.3.1.2.2. Quasi-passive reflexives 4.3.3.1.2.3. The reflexive passive 4.3.3.1.2.4. The reflexive impersonal 4.3.3.1.2.5. Converse reflexives 4.3.3.1.2.6. Reflexive-causative reflexives 4.3.3.1.3. Transitive reflexives 4.3.3.1.4. Reflexives with retained syntactic structure 4.3.3.2. Non-reversible reflexives

XV

275 280 282 282 283 288 289 290 296 298 298 299 300 300 301 301 302 302 302 304 307 309 309 309 312 314 315 317 318 319 319 324 325 329 332 334 335 338 339

XVI

Contents

4.3.3.3. Denominal reflexives 4.3.4. General remarks 4.4. Typological classification of systems of reflexives 4.4.1. Typology of syntactic classes of reflexives 4.4.2. Typology of semantic classes of reflexives 4.4.2.1. Semantic classes of subjective reflexives 4.4.2.2. Semantic classes of objective reflexives 4.4.2.3. Typology of word-building and grammatical functions of reflexive markers 4.5. General conclusion on the typology of reflexives Notes to Chapter Four

340 340 341 341 344 348 352

Summary

355

Questionnaire on reflexives

361

Sources of material

375

Bibliography

377

Appendix

417

Index of languages

421

Index of names

425

Index of terms

431

353 353 353

List of tables

1. Quantitative characteristics of formal RV classes in the Lithuanian and Latvian verb-lists 2. Quantitative characteristics of syntactic sets of reflexives in the Lithuanian and Latvian verb-lists 3. Quantitative characteristics of semantic sets of subjective reflexives 4. Quantitative characteristics of semantic sets of objective reflexives 5. Quantitative characteristics of syntactic classes of reflexives in the English verb-lists 6. Quantitative characteristics of semantic sets of subjective reflexives 7. Calculus of recessive syntactic structures 8. Inventory of recessive diatheses for transitive base verbs . . 9. Semantic types of subjective reflexives in the IE languages 10. Semantic types of objective reflexives in the IE languages . 11. Types of reflexive verbs and reflexive forms of base intransitives in the IE languages 12. Semantic subtypes of transitive reflexives in the IE languages 13. Secondary types of reflexives in the IE languages 14. Semantic types of subjective reflexives in the non-IE languages 15. Semantic types of objective reflexives in the non-IE languages 16. Secondary types of reflexives in the non-IE languages . . . . 17. Types of possible arrays of syntactic classes of reflexives . . 18. Types of arrays of semantic classes of subjective reflexives . 19. Types of RV and RF systems on the parameter of subsets in the syntactic objective class

68 73 75 97 189 190 224 230 244 258 284 291 297 308 320 336 342 345 349

Abbreviations and symbols

ABL ABS ACC (acc) ACC. POSS. conjugation Act ACT AD Adj Ag Anim AO AOR ART AUX Ben BEN Caus CAUS COM Cont Dat DAT (dat) DO ERG Exp F FSP FUT GEN (gen) GER IL IMP IMPF IMPF. PART. ciple in IN INDEF INF Init

ablative case absolutive case accusative case accusative of the possessive Actor active voice aditive case adjective Agent animate referent agentive object aorist article auxiliary Beneficiary benefactive suffix Causer causative suffix comitative case Content Dative hyper-role dative case direct object ergative case Experiencer feminine gender functional sentence perspective future tense genitive case gerund illative case impersonal marker imperfect tense imperfective partiintransitive verb inessive case indefinite particle infinitive Initiator

Ins INS (ins) IO Loc LOC (loc) LSG Μ Med Ν NC NEG NOM NonP NP NV Ο Ob OblO Ρ Part PART PASS PAST PAST. PAST. ciple PERF Pers

Instrument instrumental case indirect object Locative role locative case lexico-semantic group masculine gender Means neuter gender non-reflexive construction negative marker nominative case Non-Potent noun phrase non-reflexive verb (surface) object Semantic Object oblique object person Partitive referent partitive case passive past tense ACT. PART. past active participle PASS. PART. past passive parti-

perfect Person (human referent) PL plural POSS possessive marker Pot Potent PREF perfectivizing prefix prep preposition PRES present tense PRES. PASS. PART. present passive participle PROGR progressive Pt Patient, Quasipatient RC reflexive construction

XX REC Ref refl RefS REL RES RF RM RolS RV S Sb SG SUBJ SynS THEM tr TR TRV 1 2 3

Abbreviations

and symbols reciprocal suffix referent reflexive referent structure relative case resultative marker reflexive form reflexive marker role structure reflexive verb (surface) subject Semantic Subject singular subjunctive syntactic structure thematic suffix transitive verb transitive marker transitive reflexive verb first person second person third person

Δ Δο

A „ Δ2 —

) RVj raukyti-s 'frown' —> RV 2 raukyti-s 'be angry, displeased'. Such changes of meaning may be concomitant with 'external' derivation, cf. Russian nosit" 'carry, bear (sth)' —* nosit'sja 'rush (about)'. Therefore two types of meaning change in RV derivation have to be distinguished: (a) regular, standard changes which are determined by the lexical meaning of NVs (and their referents) and therefore are predictable, and (b) irregular, individual meaning changes simultaneous with formal derivation. RVs with a standard change of meaning may be termed literal, or reversible; here belong true reflexives, reciprocal, and other types of RVs usually described in studies on RVs. RVs with an individual transference of meaning may be called non-reversible (Nedjalkov's terms,

32

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

1971: 10—15). They are usually considered as unrelated semantically to corresponding NVs and therefore are excluded from analysis (cf. Korolev 1969 a: 3 — 4). As a matter of fact, non-reversible RVs are not described in any language, not even in Russian. A framework for their analysis is proposed in this study and it is applied to Baltic and English nonreversible RVs (see 2.1.4 and 3.5).

1.3.2. Levels of the analysis of reflexives

1.3.2.0. Introductory As may be clear from the discussion of derivation at three levels in 1.3.1.5, RVs are analyzed in this study at three main levels of representation: (a) the semantic level at which the meaning of verbs, both NVs and RVs, is represented and analyzed as a multi-layered semantic structure; (b) the syntactic level, at which valence properties of verbs and grammatical relations within NCs and related RCs are considered; (c) the formal (morphological) level at which the derivative structure of RVs relative to the corresponding base verb is discussed. Thus we adhere to a multiple level theory of clause structure. The semantic and syntactic levels of representation concern both verbs (NVs and RVs) and constructions representing them. The order in which the levels of representation are enumerated is meant to emphasize the primacy of verbal semantics with respect to syntactic and formal properties of verbs. Thus we adhere to the view that the meaning of RVs determines their syntactic properties and is marked with the RM (or a complex derivative formative containing RM): both syntax and morphology of verbs are subordinated to their meaning as they serve to encode it, therefore meaning can be decoded from them. A discussion of some RV types requires taking into account the sentence structure at the communicative, or pragmatic level in which we distinguish two sublevels, namely the sublevel of the functional sentence perspective (FSP) described in terms of theme and rheme, and the sublevel of pragmatic prominence described in terms of the distribution of prominence between the focus (the most prominent component of sentence structure) and non-focus. As it is of secondary importance and as our purpose is only to introduce the main concepts that will be of relevance for the subsequent discussion, we will include it in section 1.3.2.2.

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

1.3.2.1. The semantic level of

33

representation

Linguists are unanimous in viewing the meaning of verbs as an extremely complicated phenomenon, but they are far from being unanimous about its interpretation (cf., for instance, Apresjan 1967, 1974; Vendler 1967; Lakoff 1970; Chafe 1975 (1970); Fillmore 1968, 1971, 1977; Bogdanov 1977; Dik 1978; Stepanov 1980, 1981; Gaisina 1982; Seliverstova (ed.) 1982). However, in the analyses of verbal meaning one may distinguish the core of widely accepted concepts which are applicable to RVs and are sufficient for our purposes. The semantics of RVs turns out to be even more complex than that of base verbs. For a satisfactory account of RV meanings it is not sufficient to view the meaning of base verbs as given and unworthy of decomposing (as is assumed in Korolev 1969 a: 4). Their meaning should also be described in terms of constituent parts at least for two reasons: (a) because RV derivation may involve not only addition of a component of meaning, but also subtraction, or both operations at once: as in all word-formation processes, the semantic relationships between RVs and corresponding NVs can be straightforward, complex, and idiosyncratic (see (2) in 1.3.1.5, and 1.3.1.7); (b) because the lexical meaning of base NVs is the major factor determining the meaning of derived RVs. The object of semantic analysis is the lexical meaning of a verb explicated 'in its definition, which is a translation of a word into a special semantic language' (Apresjan 1974: 69). Definitions may vary in their degree of explicitness. Our purpose is to describe derivative meanings of RVs rather than to investigate their lexical semantics. Therefore for our purposes it is sufficient to use reduced definition formulae which are comprised of only those constituents that are relevant to the description of RV meaning via its relationship with the meaning of the base word. The meaning of verbs is frequently seen as comprised of two main constituent parts, or layers of meaning: (a) the semantic component structure and (b) the semantic role structure also referred to as deep case structure, semantic structure, deep-syntactic structure, etc. (for a survey of terms see Bogdanov 1977: 40 — 48). We propose to distinguish a third constituent part of verbal meaning, the referent structure, which is relevant for the analysis of semantic changes involved in RV derivation, as will be shown below. 1.3.2.1.1. Semantic component structure This section presents a brief outline of our approach to a semantic classification of verbs in terms of their semantic component structure

34

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

which is basically similar to the classifications proposed by Chafe (1975), Cook (1979), Bogdanov (1977) and other linguists. At the level of semantic component structure the verbal meaning is seen here as comprised of semantic components, or senses, or relational features. For the componential analysis of RVs in opposition to corresponding NVs it is relevant to distinguish between two types of semantic components: (a) basic semantic components, which are abstract and common to large groups of verbs, namely, state, process, action, and causation; 19 it is these senses that comprise the component structure of NVs and may determine and/or be involved in RV derivation (cf. decausation in (1)); (b) 'derivative' components of meaning, viz. the senses which may be added to the meaning of NV in RV derivation; these are the reflexive sense 'oneself, reciprocal 'one another', and also the modal senses of possibility, necessity, involuntary consequence, predisposition and the like (see 2.1.3.2.3.3). We regard the reflexive, reciprocal and modal senses as part of the semantic component structure of respective RVs because the definition formulae of the latter contain them. For instance, the meaning of the Russian RV odevat'sja is usually defined as 'odevat' sebja' = 'dress oneself. All these senses are added to the meaning of the base NV and thus make the semantic component structure of derived RVs more complex. In these cases the basic semantic component structure of the NV meaning is not involved. The derivative senses characterize the meaning of separate semantic RV types. The reflexive and reciprocal senses, like the basic semantic components, are associated with the semantic roles, but they also reflect the interrelationships between the roles and their referents, i. e. interrelationships between the semantic role structure and referent structure. In the literature on verbal semantics, the four basic semantic components figure most prominently. They may be specified as follows: (a) the Stative sense 'be' is a generalization over verbs meaning 'be in state X', as in Lithuanian baltuoti 'be white', kaboti 'be hanging', skendeti 'be submerged', pykti 'be angry', 20 where the second element in the meaning definition specifies the character of the state. (b) The actional sense 'act' generalizes the meaning of verbs denoting activities and motion, e. g. English work, laugh, run, swim (cf. Aid 1973: 11-12). (c) The inchoative sense of process (change of state) 'become' is a complex feature analysable into 'begin to be (in state X)', e. g. grow 'become bigger (older, etc.)', redden 'become red(der)'.

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

35

(d) The causative sense 'cause' is also a complex feature decomposable into the actional sense and cause-effect relation with the subsequent action, or process, or state (cf. the definition of causation in Nedjalkov, Sil'nickij 1969 a: 6 — 7; see also Bendix 1966: 63), cf. Lithuanian baltinti 'cause to become white', auginti 'cause to grow', piktinti 'cause to be angry'. Of these four semantic components, the stative and actional are primitive and truly basic in the sense that each can comprise the meaning of a verbal lexeme independently of the other senses, as is shown by the examples in (a) and (b) above. The inchoative and causative senses are secondary with respect to the first two as they are complex, as is shown in (c) and (d) above, and cannot comprise the meaning of a verbal lexeme by themselves, except the semi-auxiliary causatives like make (sb do sth), force, let, cause, and inceptives like begin, start which are syntactically bound as they can occur only with subordinated predicates. However different semantically states and actions may seem, they form a semantic continuum ranging from the most obvious 'static' states ('be white', 'be hanging', 'be angry') to 'static' actions ('lie', 'sleep', 'listen'), to 'dynamic' actions ('shout', 'work', 'run'), stative and actional verbs being distributed along the continuum between typical stative and typical action verbs as its end-points. The stative and actional senses do not combine with one another in the semantic component structure of any verb, but they can combine with the inchoative and causative senses. On the other hand, there are verbs that can express either a state or an action depending on the semantic type of subject referent, cf. Russian: (19 a)

b)

Mal'ak-Φ stoit ν ugl -u boy -NOM stands in corner-LOC 'The boy is standing in the corner' Televisor stoit ν uglu television-set stands in corner 'The television set is in the corner'

The verb stojat' 'stand' receives an actional interpretation in (19 a) with the human subject and it expresses the state (position in space) of an inanimate subject referent in (19 b). This relationship between states and actions may be the reason why some verbs in a language are treated as statives by some grammarians and as action verbs by others. Moreover, verbs with the same lexical

36

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

meaning may have the formal features of statives in one language and the properties of dynamic verbs in another. The inchoative sense is a characteristic of state or action and is combined with them in verbal lexemes, cf. redden 'begin to be red(der)'. The causative sense may combine with the other three senses as it includes one (micro-)situation, which is either a state or a process or an action, into another (macro-)situation. Thus, the causative situation (1 a) Kto-to otkryl dver' 'Somebody opened the door' contains the microsituation of process (1 b) Dver' otkrjlas' 'The door opened'. According to the semantic component structure, verbs of a language, e. g. Lithuanian, Latvian, Russian, and English, may be classified into a number of semantic types of which the following are relevant for the description of RVs: (1) stative verbs denoting states, including relations and psychological states, cf. verbs meaning 'be white', 'be sad', 'resemble', 'contain', 'see', etc.; (2) actional verbs denoting actions and motion, e. g. intransitive verbs meaning 'act', 'laugh', 'work', 'run', 'walk' etc. and also transitive verbs like read (a book), watch (a film) which denote non-causative activities affecting the agent rather than the patient; (3) inchoative verbs of process denoting a change of state, e. g. intransitive verbs meaning 'become red(der)', 'grow', 'develop', 'die' etc.; (4) causative verbs denoting causation of a state or process, cf. transitive verbs meaning 'cause to grow', 'kill ( = cause to die)', 'cause to exist' (cf. create), 'cause to become red' (cf. Lithuanian raudoninti) etc., which denote 'contact' or distant causation by action (Nedjalkov, Sil'nickij 1969 b: 2 8 - 2 9 ) ; (5) causative verbs denoting causation of an action, e. g. transitive verbs meaning 'march (soldiers)', 'line up (troops)' and the like; they usually denote distant causation by command or request (cf. Nedjalkov, Sil'nickij 1969 b: 2 8 - 2 9 ; Cruse 1972: 520-522). There is a significant class of transitive verbs denoting motion with body parts, e. g. Russian Kurit' (gla%a) 'squint (one's eyes)', gorbit' (spinu) 'hunch (one's back)', Lithuanian ^ioti (burner) 'open (one's mouth)', lenkti (galvaj 'bend (one's head)', fyrgti (kojas) 'spread (one's legs) apart', etc. On the one hand, they are similar to actional intransitive verbs of motion which are sometimes viewed as self-causative (autocausative) verbs because the agent causes his own body to move (cf. Zolotova 1973: 2 8 7 - 2 9 6 ; Aid 1973: 1 1 - 1 2 ) , the difference being in that a body part is made to move instead of the whole body. On the other hand, their

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

37

syntactic transitivity makes them much closer to transitive causative verbs. With respect to RV derivation body-part motion verbs exhibit some peculiarities, distinguishing them both from intransitive actional verbs and from transitive causatives, which will be discussed in Chapter Two. The classes of Stative, inchoative, actional and causative verbs figure prominently in many classifications as the most important semantic verb classes (cf. Chafe 1975 (1970): 113-123; Cook 1974; Starosta 1978: 527-529; Bogdanov 1977; Dik 1978; and many others). They also happen to be important for the description of RVs, and this indirectly proves their linguistic relevance. The semantic component structure of NVs largely determines the possibility of RV derivation in general and derivation of some RV types in particular. For instance, RVs rarely (and in some languages almost never) derive from statives and actional intransitives, and if they do it is usually RVs of type (18) above. RVs are derived mostly from causative NVs. On the other hand, derived RVs can be both Stative, and actional, and inchoative, as will be shown in Chapters Two and Three. In the Baltic languages, the RM is particularly active in deriving inchoatives and actional verbs and, to a lesser degree, statives as an anticausative marker; cf. also (1) where the RV is a decausative inchoative verb. Within each major semantic class, verbs can be further classified into smaller lexico-semantic groups (LSG) on the basis of similarity of their individual lexical meanings on condition that they share a number of semantic properties including not only their semantic component structure and semantic role structure, but also some semantic features of a narrower scope, e. g. the semantic types of referents. The concept of LSG is essential for RV analysis as the derivation of each semantic RV class is restricted to one or several LSGs (see Chapter Two). 1.3.2.1.2. Semantic role structure The semantic role structure (RolS) is viewed here as an inherent part of the verbal meaning rigidly interrelated with the semantic component structure, and also as a permanent characteristic of a verbal meaning (cf. Paduceva 1974: 221; Xrakovskij 1978: 50). RV derivation is to a large extent determined by the RolS of base NVs as part of the meaning of the latter and fequently involves changes in it. Despite some scepticism concerning the concept of semantic roles (deep cases) and their usefulness (cf. Cruse 1978: 131 — 132; for a survey of criticism see Abraham 1978: 695 — 697) it has been successfully em-

38

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

ployed in the investigation of verbal systems and grammatical processes, and it has proved a useful tool in RV analysis (cf. Aid 1973; Donaldson 1973). We quite agree with Abraham's statement that this concept has gained an important empirically substantiated status in typological research and is playing an ever increasing role in descriptive linguistics (Abraham 1978: 695-696, 720-721; cf. also Cook 1978: 307; Viljuman, Soboleva 1979: 4 - 5 ; Comrie 1981: 51-52). For a number of reasons (see Dahl 1979: 6 — 19) varying sets of semantic roles have been proposed in theoretical works on deep cases.21 Moreover, when applying this concept to some particular empirical data linguists usually come up with their own inventories of deep cases suited to their material and objectives (cf. Apresjan 1974: 125 — 126; Grimes 1975: 116-138; Bogdanov 1977: 5 2 - 5 8 ; Dik 1978: 3 6 - 4 3 ; Starosta 1978: 471-503). The inventories of semantic roles proposed in the literature are of two types (with a number of intermediate systems): (a) sets consisting of a few generalized roles, such as the semantic subject, semantic object, addressee, etc. which are close to the syntactic subject, object, etc. (cf. Xolodovic 1970: 5 - 6 ; Xrakovskij 1970: 27, 1981: 1 0 - 1 3 ; Jaxontov 1978: 102-103) and are in fact semi-syntactic rather than semantic concepts (Apresjan 1974: 127); (b) systems comprising a much greater number of roles which have semantic rather than semi-syntactic content and are immediately dependent on the lexical meaning of verbs (cf. Fillmore 1968, 1971, 1977; Apresjan 1974; Bogdanov 1977, and other authors mentioned above). The role systems of the former type have been used mainly in studies concerned with voice and causatives, for which purposes they are quite adequate (cf. Xrakovskij 1981: 12), and systems of the latter type have been developed for the purposes of semantic analysis of large classes of verbs and their lexical meanings. Attempts have been made to reconcile the two types of role inventories and relate them to one another. It has been suggested that the semi-syntactic roles should be treated as generalizations over semantic roles at an intermediate level between the surface syntactic level and the deep semantic role level. They may be termed hyper-roles (Kibrik 1979: 313 — 317; cf. the terms hyper-case (Fillmore 1971: 52) and allo-case (Cook 1971: 13)). For instance, the semantic subject is a hyper-role subsuming the semantic roles of agent, experiencer, etc. (see Bogdanov 1978: 37 — 38; Kovaleva 1978 a: 108 — 113). Drawing a distinction between hyper-roles and semantic roles proper and thus distinguishing two sublevels in the RolS is relevant for the purposes of RV analysis, as will be shown below.

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

39

The list of semantic roles presented below takes into account the inventories of roles proposed in the studies mentioned in this section, but it differs from them in a number of details largely determined by the object of study and our purposes of descriptive and typological analysis of RVs. First, we are concerned only with derivationally relevant roles, i. e. those involved in RV derivation. Secondly, a two-level representation of RolS is employed. As derivation of a number of semantic RV types is restricted to particular LSGs of base verbs, their description calls for presenting their RolS in terms of semantic roles specific to these LSGs. For a description of some large classes of RVs (e. g. decausative RVs) deriving from a wide range of LSGs hyper-roles are sufficient. It is also convenient to present RolS in terms of hyper-roles in order to show the shifts in diatheses and construct a calculus of recessive diatheses (see section 4.1). Here is the list of hyper-roles and semantic roles relevant for RV analysis: (1) Semantic Subject (Sb) is the hyper-role assigned to the most prominent participant in a situation denoted by a base verb and prototypically expressed by the surface subject in a NC. It subsumes the following lexically determined semantic roles: (a) Agent (Ag), the willing causer of a process or state in causative situations involving a patient (cf. Wierzbicka 1978: 125); (b) Actor (Act), the role of the only participant in situations denoted by intransitive actional verbs of activity (John worked) and motion (John ran), and also the role of the main participant in situations denoted by transitive verbs of body-part motion (John (Act) raised his hand)·,22 (c) Causer (Caus), the main role in causative situations (involving a patient) that may alternate with the Agent, as in: (20)

John (Ag) I The wind (Caus) opened the door,

the Causer is sometimes referred to as (natural) force, but we prefer a more neutral term as the Causer may be anything at all, not necessarily a natural phenomenon (cf. The pig ( f e l l from the balcony and) killed his father)·, (d) Initiator (Init), the role of the participant initiating somebody's action in causative situations by request or command,23 cf.: (21)

The captain (Init) marched the soldiers (Pt/Act);

(e) Experiencer (Exp), the role of the participant experiencing a mental or psychological process or state in situations denoted by verbs with

40

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

these meanings (John (Exp) hates Mary); it should be pointed out that in the Baltic languages and sometimes in English this role is peculiar in that it is expressed by the syntactic subject in some verbs and by a direct object of 'psychological' verbs, in which case it enters the hyper-role of the Semantic Object (cf. This worries Mary (Exp), Lithuanian Tai dfiugina mane (Exp) 'That gladdens me (Exp)' (cf. Comrie 1981: 55). (2) Semantic Object (Ob) is the hyper-role assigned to the secondimportant participant in a situation denoted by a non-derived NV and typically expressed by the surface direct object in a transitive NC. It subsumes the following lexically determined semantic roles: (a) Patient (Pt), the causee in causative situations affected by the action (e. g. John moved the stone (Pt)) and also the entity undergoing a change of state or location (The stone (Pt) moved; The door (Pt) opened) or existing in a state (cf. Lithuanian Medis (Pt) %aliuoja 'The tree (Pt) is green') (cf. Starosta 1978: 472); therefore this role relates causative macro-situations and non-causative micro-situations of process and state (cf. Sil'nickij 1974a: 10; Chafe 1975 (1970): 118-119; Halliday 1968: 195); (b) Quasi-patient (also abbreviated as Pt), the role of a body-part the Actor moves (John raised his hand (Pt)); this role is distinguished in transitive actional verbs; (c) Content (Cont), the second role in verbs of perception and mental activity (John hates Mary (Cont); He realised his error (Cont)) (cf. Apresjan 1974: 125). (3) Semantic Dative (Dat) is the hyper-role assigned to the referent of an indirect dative object which receives or acquires something. Depending on the LSG of verbs the Dative may be one of the following semantic roles: (a) Addressee, the role of the referent receiving information (tell the news to John) or a thing (give a book to John) in three-valent verbs of respective LSGs; (b) Recipient, the role of the second human referent surfacing as an object in the dative case in Lithuanian and Latvian verbs of 'dressing'24 and 'undressing', such as Lithuanian: (23)

On -a ufynove vaik -ui kein -es Ann-NOM put-on child-DAT pant-ACC. PL. 'Ann dressed the child in pants';

a more meaningful label for this role might be 'dressee', as it appears with verbs of dressing;

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

41

(c) Beneficiary (Ben), the role of the participant for whom the affected or effected Patient is intended in situations like (24)

I made a dress (Pt) for Mary (Ben),

where the NV is semantically two-valent and does not contain the Beneficiary in its semantic RolS; NCs with the Beneficiary (encoded by an optional indirect object in the dative case in Lithuanian, Latvian, and in Russian, and with the preposition for in English) denote complex situations comprised of an Agent-Patient causative situation (e.g., making a dress, as in (22)) and the situation of 'intended possession' ('The dress is for Mary'); (d) Possessor, or Total Patient, the role assigned to the referent of the dative object indirectly involved through his body-part in a situation denoted by a construction like Lithuanian (25)

On -a Sukuoja vaik -ui plauk-us Ann-NOM combs child-DAT hair -ACC. PL. 'Ann is combing the child's hair',

where the Semantic Object (cf. Ona iukuoja vaikn_ 'Ann is combing the child') is split into the Patient immediately undergoing the action ('hair') and the Possessor ('child') (about valency split see Apresjan 1974: 153 — 154). NCs of this kind are very common in Lithuanian, Latvian, and in Russian, as the dative of Possessor is obligatory if a direct object refers to a body-part other than the Agent's. It should be stressed that the Addressee and Recipient are included in the RolS of verbs with three obligatory valences. The Possessor is also included in the RolS of a verb denoting an action performed upon a body-part if the latter is not part of the Agent and surfaces as a direct object. The Beneficiary alone is not part of the RolS of a verb and is syntactically optional, the verb being two-valent. The LSGs of verbs with different particular semantic roles subsumed under Dative are very rigidly differentiated. For the analysis of some particular RV types we will also need the semantic roles of Instrument (Ins) and Means (Med) which are assigned to the third participant in situations with the Agent and Patient like cut bread with a knife (Ins) and cover the child with a blanket (Med), and also the Locative (Loc), as in put the money in the pocket (Loc). In our discussion of the semantic roles distinguished we have carefully avoided defining them in terms of such semantic categorial features as animate, human, inanimate, etc. of the nouns naming them because we

42

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

view the roles as relational concepts determined by the verbal lexical meaning25 which also determines the semantic features of noun phrases the verb takes. Therefore, the roles are not immediately dependent on the latter features, though they are highly correlated with them, which is why the roles have been first defined in their terms (cf. Fillmore 1968).26 Being determined by the lexical meaning of verbs, the semantic roles distinguish between various lexico-semantic verb types. The roles subsumed under one hyper-role are paradigmatically related, as they occur in the same position with verbs of different LSGs and some roles, e. g. Agent and Causer, may occur interchangeably in the same verb, as in (20). On the other hand, they do not normally co-occur in the same RolS (cf. Starosta's One Per Sent principle), an exception being the cooccurrence of the Initiator and Actor in NCs denoting causation of action, such as in (21) The captain marched the soldiers where the noun soldiers is assigned the double role of Patient-causee and Actor of marching (cf. Halliday 1967: 41—44). Roles from different hyper-roles are related syntagmatically as they may co-occur in the same RolS. As has been mentioned, the Experiencer is peculiar in that it enters the hyper-roles of both the Semantic Subject and Object. Therefore, it may co-occur alternately with the roles from both hyper-roles, namely, with the Causer (as in His health (Caus) worries Mary (Exp)) and with Content (as in John (Exp) likes music (Cont)). In the RolS of base NVs semantic roles are hierarchically ordered. The following hierarchy of hyper-roles may be established: SB > Ob > Dat > Ins/Loc (cf., for instance, Starosta 1978: 544 ff.). This hierarchy is relevant for the selection of surface syntactic positions in simple non-derived NCs, the highest role in the hierarchy being placed in the highest syntactic position, etc. As reflexivization usually involves departures from the basic hierarchy it is also relevant for the selection of syntactic positions in derived RCs. As is well established, the RolS and semantic component structure are closely interrelated and interdependent, which is why semantic classifications of verbs are usually based on these two parameters (cf. Chafe 1975 (1970): 113-123; Aid 1973: 5 - 2 4 ; Cook 1974; Grimes 1975: 123-138; Starosta 1978: 527-529; Dik 1978: 3 6 - 4 3 ; etc.). Below, the semantic verb types distinguished in section 1.3.2.1.1 are characterized in terms of their RolS; it is also indicated whether NVs of

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

43

each class can undergo formal reflexivization and whether RVs can have the same semantic component structure. (1) Intransitive process and state verbs are typically characterized by the RolS (Pt); NVs of this type seldom reflexivize, and if they do, it is according to the pattern illustrated by (18) above; on the other hand, numerous RVs derived from causatives enter into this semantic class, cf. the examples ( l b ) , (13). (2) Verbs of psychological and mental states and processes are typically characterized by the RolS (Exp-Cont); they are usually transitive NVs from some of which RVs can be derived in the Baltic and Slavic languages according to the pattern: Russian (26 a)

b)

On sly fit mu%yk-u he-NOM hears music-ACC 'He hears music' J emu slysit -sja mu^yk-a he-DAT hears-RM music-NOM 'He can hear music';

these meanings can also be expressed by RVs taking an oblique object, like the Russian RVs radovat'-sja 'rejoice, be glad' ( IO > OblO > AO (cf. for instance, the hierarchy in Comrie (1976: 263), (1981: 169-170)). The hierarchy is a means of defining valence changes in RV derivation at the syntactic level as demotion or promotion of a syntactic function along it. As regards valence changes, it has been claimed above that reflexivization generally involves valence recession. The recession operations comprise the following: (a) decrease of the number of valences, viz. deletion of a syntactic function; cf. DO deletion (DO -»· 0) in (5), (6) and (30) above; (b) lowering of the syntactic status of a noun phrase down the hierarchy, which may take the form of subject demotion to an agentive object (S —• AO) in passive constructions, as in (17), or to an oblique object (S -* OblO), as in (26) and (27), or direct object demotion to an oblique object (DO -* OblO), as in (31) and (32) above; (c) change of an obligatory syntactic function into an optional one, which sometimes characterizes demotion, as is the case in Russian passive constructions where the demoted agentive object is optional. Sometimes, in cases of subject demotion or deletion, valence recession in RCs entails an attendant process of promotion, cf. direct object promotion to subject in (1), (26) and (28). Demotion and promotion may be referred to as rank shifts. In the context of distinguishing the semantic component structure, the semantic RolS and RefS as the constituent parts of the verbal meaning the SynS is viewed here as a means of encoding two of the constituents, viz. the RolS and RefS. In other words, these two are decoded from the surface structure. As has been mentioned, the RefS is decoded from the number and inherent semantic features of noun phrases in a construction,

50

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

the number of referents in base NCs matching up the number of noun phrases. Semantic roles, in their turn, are mostly decoded from the morphology of the noun phrases.28 But the semantic roles are not marked with cases (in the Baltic languages and in Russian at least) as directly as the syntactic functions, which are a generalization over case forms. Similarly, Dik (1978: 20, 157—161) asserts that there are two types of case marking in a variety of languages: (a) case marking encoding the semantic functions of constituents, and (b) case marking encoding their syntactic functions. In the Baltic languages and in Russian, the nominative, accusative and dative cases have the syntactic function of encoding the subject, direct object and indirect object respectively. For encoding the semantic roles the cases are used in a less straightforward way: in base non-derived constructions the nominative canonically encodes the Semantic Subject but it may also encode the Semantic Object both in non-derived NCs like the Lithuanian Giles auga 'Flowers grow' and in derived constructions, e.g. in the passive voice (cf. (17)) and in RCs (cf. (lb), (7), (10b), (22b) etc.). The accusative is the regular case marker of the Semantic Object in transitive NCs but it can also encode the Experiencer, as in the Russian example (33) and Actor in (28 a): (33)

Petr -a radujet nagrad -a Peter-ACC gladdens reward-NOM 'Peter is glad of the reward'.

In non-derived NCs the dative case canonically encodes the Semantic Dative, but in derived RCs it may encode the Experiencer, cf. (26 b), (27 b). Therefore we propose to distinguish between the 'primary' semantic functions of cases when they encode their canonical roles in nonderived NCs, and their 'secondary' semantic functions when they encode other roles in derived constructions (which may be either marked or unmarked in the verb). Besides the syntactic and semantic functions, the surface cases in the Baltic languages and in Russian also serve a communicative function at the sublevel of pragmatic prominence: the cases (and, more generally, syntactic functions) of noun phrases differ according to the degree of prominence (communicative importance) in an utterance. The nominative case (and thus the subject) has the highest focus-status, i. e. it is pragmatically the most prominent constituent in an utterance, therefore it is used as a focusing device to emphasize the most important constituent by placing it in the subject position (cf. Sevbo 1969: 94; Aid 1973: 58 — 59; Lejkina 1978: 134).29 The focusing function of the subject position is

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

51

formally borne out by a number of properties: it controls the lexical and morphological voice form of the verbal predicate, etc. (cf. Lejkina 1978: 134—136). Its focusing function is also confirmed by psychological experiments on the material of active and passive constructions (cf. Clark 1976: 118). The accusative case (more broadly, the direct object function) is second-highest in prominence, whereas the oblique cases and prepositional noun phrases (i. e. oblique objects) are the least prominent (see Geniusiene 1973 a: 29). Thus the cases and, therefore, syntactic functions constitute a kind of hierarchy with respect to the degree of communicative prominence. In languages with free word order (which is a means of encoding the communicative theme-rheme structure), such as Lithuanian, Latvian and Russian, the passive voice and lexical conversion (see section 2.1.3.2.4.1) are a means of changing the distribution of prominence by focusing the Semantic Object as subject in the nominative case instead of the Semantic Subject and by defocusing the Semantic Subject achieved by demoting it to agentive object (see Geniusiene 1973 a: 112—113). The constructions in (31) and (32) differ according to the degree of prominence of the Semantic Object which is made less prominent in the derived RCs. We claim that the foremost function of reflexivization in these two instances is decreasing the degree of prominence of the Object, the semantic component structure, RolS and RefS remaining unchanged. The verb is also involved in the redistribution of prominence in RV derivation: its prominence increases when the DO is demoted, as in (31 b) and (32 b), and particularly when it is deleted, as in (6 b) and (30 b). Moreover, adding the RM to a verb is a device for giving it prominence in itself (cf. Lynch 1961: 479; Aid 1973: 58, 59). It remains to be added that we distinguish the theme-rheme communicative structure from the focus — non-focus structure as in the languages in question it is encoded by word order, the sentence-initial position being a means of encoding the theme. The two structures may not coincide, and this is the main reason why they are distinguished here. To illustrate the possible divergence between them, let us consider the following Lithuanian constructions: (34 a)

b)

Mane %avi mu^ik-a I-ACC delights music-NOM 'Music delights me' As fyviuo -si mu^ik-a I-NOM delight-RM music-INS Ί delight in music'

52

1. Theoretical

c)

prerequisites

Musjk-a favi mane music -NOM delights I-ACC 'Music delights me'.

The NC (34 a) and RC (34 b), both with the neutral word order, have an identical theme-rheme structure, the sentence-initial word being the theme, but they differ with respect to the focus — non-focus structure: in (34 a) the focus-subject is music and in (34 b) the human referent-Experiencer is made focus by promoting it to subject position, the other constituent being defocused by demoting it to oblique object. But (34 a) and (34 c) with inverted word order differ with respect to the theme-rheme structure, though they are identical according to the distribution of prominence. We see this analysis of the syntactic roles as possessing the pragmatic function of prominence distribution in a sentence as one more argument supporting B. Comrie's claim that 'much of syntax can be understood only in relation to semantics and pragmatics, or more specifically that grammatical ( = syntactic — E.G.) relations cannot be understood in their entirety unless they are related to semantic and pragmatic roles. ... many aspects of the nature of grammatical relations can be understood in terms of the interaction of semantic and pragmatic roles' (Comrie 1981: 60). 1.3.3. The concept of diathesis In traditional grammar, as is known, the term diathesis is generally used interchangeably with voice (cf. Uspenskij 1977: 65 —66).30 In the theory of voices developed by A. A. Xolodovic (1970) these two terms are used to refer to two different, though overlapping phenomena. Diathesis is defined as 'a pattern of correspondences between units at the syntactic level and units at the semantic level' ('sxema sootvetstvija mezdu jedinicami sintaksiceskogo urovnja i jedinicami semanticeskogo urovnja'; Xolodovic (1970: 13); cf. the term mapping (pattern) used by Grimes (1975: 332)). Here, the syntactic level units are the surface subject and object and the semantic level units are case-like notions of semantic subject and object. For instance, the sentence John killed Peter has the diathesis (S = Ag, DO = Pt). In diathesis, the semantic role level of representation is mapped onto the syntactic level of representation. Voice is defined by Xolodovic as 'a regular marking in the verb of the correspondences between units at the syntactic level and units at the semantic level. In

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

53

short, voice is a diathesis grammatically marked in the verb' (ibid.). Thus voice is a narrower concept than diathesis. The definition of diathesis leads to an assumption that diathesis is a characteristic of any verb, as any verb can be assigned a particular set of correspondences between its RolS and SynS, and verbs of different semantic classes differ with respect to their diathesis. The two-level diathesis suggested by Xolodovic proved to be an adequate tool for the description of the active: passive voice opposition as it reveals changes in the mapping of the semantic (hyperboles onto the syntactic roles involved in the passive transformation, the lexical meaning of the verb being preserved. 1.3.3.1. Three-level

diathesis

The two-level diathesis is all too inadequate for a description of many semantic RV types as it does not capture all the possible changes, which may involve the RefS: in RV derivation the number of referents may diminish and correspondences between referents and semantic roles and/ or syntactic functions may change, as is the case in semantic roles and/ where the second referent is deleted and the remaining referent assumes both roles of the RolS and is matched up with the syntactic subject. Therefore we propose to include the RefS in the diathesis and employ a three-level diathesis. Diathesis is defined here as a pattern of correspondences between the constituents of the RefS and the constituents of the RolS and SynS. The diathesis shows interaction of the three levels of representation. Thus diathesis is a means of presenting the three structures of a verb (and construction) jointly in their interaction. Diathesis is a cluster of the basic semantic and syntactic properties of a verb reflecting its semantic component structure. In other words, it is a super-parameter that subsumes three distinct parameters. In simple non-derived NCs the referent hierarchy matches up with the role hierarchy and with the syntactic functions hierarchy, there being a one-to-one correspondence between the referents, roles and syntactic positions. Therefore the number of correspondences between levels in a diathesis equals the number of constituents at each level. A three-level diathesis can be constructed for each NC and related RC. Intransitive NCs have a diathesis consisting of one three-level correspondence, transitive NCs have a diathesis consisting of two correspondences, the subject correspondence and the object correspondence. Thus, the Russian NC (5 a) Mala odevajet devolku 'Masa dresses the girl' is assigned the following diathesis:

54

1. Theoretical prerequisites

Δ0 Referent level Semantic role level Syntactic function level

Pers 1

Pers 2

Ag

Pt

S

DO

The diathesis can also be written down as a formula: Δ 0 (Pers 1 = Ag = S; Pers 2 = Pt = DO). As we see, the diathesis of NC (5 a) is comprised of two three-constituent correspondences. Since the three structures in question are permanent properties of a verbal lexeme it may be stipulated that the diathesis of each verb is its permanent complex characteristic. Valence changes in the SynS encode changes in one or both of the other two structures and/or in the pattern of correspondences within the diathesis. This concerns not only the passive, which is a grammatical recessive category, but also RVs which are viewed here as a lexical recessive category. The three-level diathesis is a convenient model which allows us to show the range of possible changes in the structure of the verbal meaning involved in RV derivation and the interaction of changes at different levels of representation. As has been mentioned, base NVs are characterized by diatheses with a direct set of correspondences; the Semantic Subject, being highest in the role hierarchy is typically human and corresponds to the syntactic subject which is highest in the syntactic hierarchy, etc. Violation of hierarchy correspondences between the levels and a shift in the pattern of canonical correspondences signals a derived diathesis (cf. Xrakovskij 1974: 12—13). RV diathesis is related to the diathesis of the corresponding NV as a derived diathesis to the base diathesis. As an example, let us consider the following Russian NC —• RC opposition: (35 a)

On

ponuril

golov-u

h e - N O M hung head-ACC 'He hung his head' b)

On

ponuril-sja

h e - N O M hung -RM 'He hung his head'. The diatheses of (35 a) and (35 b) are related as Δ 0 and Αχ:

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives AQ

55

Δ,

Pers

Part

Pers

Part

Act

Pt

Act

Pt

S

DO

S

0

The N V (35 a) expresses a body-part motion and it is capable o f taking only one particular (quasi-)Patient 'head' ('exclusive' Patient). The R M marks omission o f the noun phrase referring to the Patient in the SynS (symbolized by 0), as its mention is redundant. But the R V preserves the RefS and RolS of the base verb and therefore the lexical meaning remains unchanged. Δ} is a derivative from Δο as the correspondence (Part = Pt) does not surface (cf. the analysis o f RVs with the 'exclusive' Patient in Brecht, Levine 1985: 122—123). This is a case o f D O deletion which has no semantic function but it has the pragmatic function o f focusing the predicate. In Δ 0 all the cells o f the matrix are filled and there is a direct one-to-one correspondence between the levels. An empty cell in the At matrix signals a derived diathesis. To summarize, the concept of three-level diathesis helps to capture all possible changes within and between the RefS, RolS and SynS in their inter-relationship and interdependence. It may and will be used (in Chapter Four) to set up a calculus of possible recessive diatheses determining the range o f meanings characterized by valence recession.

1.3.3.2.

Types of diathesis changes

RV derivation may involve changes either at one, or two, or three levels simultaneously entailing shifts in the correspondences. The two basic types of changes are deletion and mutation. (1) In the RefS, deletion of a referent alone is possible, cf. elimination of the second referent in semantic reflexives, e. g. in (5 b), and elimination of the first Potent referent in decausative RVs, e. g. in (1 b); otherwise the RefS is retained, as in (35 b). Elimination of a referent is concomitant with a change of the lexical meaning; no change in the RefS does not necessarily imply no change in the lexical meaning. (2) In the RolS, both types of changes or no change, are possible: (i) a role may be deleted, cf. deletion of the Semantic Subject in decausative RVs, exemplified by ( l b ) ; (ii) the role of some referent may change (mutate); thus we assume that the role of (effected) Patient changes into

56

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

that of Locative in the following Russian example, which is marked by a change of surface case: (36 a)

b)

On rojet %eml -iu he-NOM digs ground-ACC 'He is digging the ground' On rojet-sja ν -e he-NOM digs-RM in ground-LOC 'He is digging in the ground';

both deletion and mutation of a role are concomitant with a change of the lexical meaning of a verb; (iii) the RolS may remain unchanged, as in (35 b), but it does not necessarily mean that the lexical meaning is preserved, cf. semantic reflexives in which the RolS but not the lexical meaning is the same as in the base NV. As a third kind of change in RolS, doubling of the semantic roles can be posited. It occurs in reciprocal RVs where the situation denoted doubles as each referent is both Agent and Patient relative to the other referent (see section 2.1.3.2.1.5). The possibility of role mutation is a controversial question. In deep case grammar it is generally assumed that deep cases remain unchanged in paraphrases since deep structures are regarded as given and permanent, with surface structures being derived from them. In our framework, on the contrary, the surface structures are viewed as given and alone accessible to observation, and deep structures (RolS) are decoded from them. In other words, the purpose of investigation is perceived as analysis of surface structures and their explanation by way of decoding. Such an approach, when roles are decoded from case markings and other surface manifestations, allows for the possibility of role mutation in paraphrases and in verb derivation. This approach is partly supported by the assertion that two paraphrases denoting presumably the same external situation may have different role structures, as in the following: (37 a) b)

He hit the fence (Pt) with a stick (Ins) He hit the stick (Pt) against the fence (goal, in Fillmore's terms)

(cf. Dahl 1979: 1 5 - 1 6 ; see also Starosta 1978: 5 0 8 - 5 1 0 ) . (3) The recessive changes that may occur in the SynS have been briefly discussed in section 1.3.2.2. It should be added that rank shift of a syntactic role may be of two types: (a) mutation proper when a noun phrase changes its function of subject or DO into a syntactic function absent in the base NC, cf. mutations S -> OblO in (26) and (27) and DO OblO in (31) and (32);

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

57

(b) permutation when a referent assumes the syntactic position of a deleted referent, viz. DO —• S, as in (1 b), (26) and (28). Permutation accompanies either deletion or mutation proper. Deletion of a syntactic position encodes either elimination of the corresponding referent or a ban on its expression when it is retained in the RefS, as is the case in (6), (9) and (35), in which case the RM has no semantic function. Mutation and permutation in the SynS encode either a mutation of the corresponding role or defocusing of a referent at the pragmatic level of prominence distribution, or both, cf. (34) and (36). Changes at any of the levels in the diathesis entail a change in the pattern of correspondences between the levels. The changes at the three levels of representation are interdependent: (a) deletion of a syntactic function is secondary to changes (elimination) in the RefS, while mutation is secondary to changes in the RolS but it may also be independent if the RolS is preserved, in which case it serves to change the degree of prominence of the role involved; (b) changes in the RefS and RolS are less interrelated: if the RefS undergoes no change, the RolS either changes, as in (36), or it also remains unchanged, as in (31); in case of referent elimination its role may be eliminated as well, as in (1), or it may be retained, as in semantic reflexives. By way of summing up, we will stress that the diathesis of NVs may undergo the following changes: (a) deletion of a constituent or a ban on expression, (b) mutation (of a role or syntactic function), (c) shift of inter-level correspondences, (d) change of correspondences and deletion concomitantly, (e) doubling of roles in a syntactic function. Diathesis changes generally reflect changes in the semantic component structure of a verb. Derived RV diatheses will be further referred to as recessive diatheses as they are typically characterized by valence recession. 1.3.3.3. The status of reflexive marker and recessive

diathesis

So far, we have been discussing RVs in which the RM is affixed to the verb and therefore is not represented in the SynS and in the diathesis. In Russian and in the Baltic languages a number of semantic reflexives have parallel synonymous constructions in which semantic reflexivity is expressed by the reflexive pronoun which is assigned the syntactic function of DO. The Lithuanian RC (38 a) and synonymous construction (38 b) with a reflexive direct object:

58

1. Theoretical prerequisites

(38 a)

b)

On -a gra^ina-si Ann-NOM adorns-RM 'Ann adorns herself On -a gra^tna save Ann-NOM adorns herself 'Ann adorns herself

are assigned the following Δι and Δ 2 respectively: Δ,

Δ2

Pers

Pers

Ag

Pt

Ag

Pt

S

DO

This brings us to the question of diatheses for RVs in those languages where the RM is a free word (e. g. a pronoun, like in English). On the one hand, constructions like (39): (39)

He dressed himself

expressing semantic reflexivity can also be assigned Δ 2 , like (38 b), as the reflexive pronoun is usually considered as a syntactic object. On the other hand, the same reflexive pronoun in English sometimes represents neither a referent nor a semantic role, as in the following: (40)

An idea suggested itself to me 'An idea occurred to me (came into my mind)',

therefore it can hardly be regarded as a syntactic direct object. Between type (39) RVs and type (40) RVs there is no distinct borderline and all English RVs may be viewed as constituting a kind of continuum. The English reflexive pronouns, though they are free words, are functionally equivalent to the affixal RMs of the Baltic languages and Russian. Therefore we propose to treat provisionally such units as suggest itself as analytical reflexive verbs and regard the reflexive pronouns as a formal part of the latter without assigning them any syntactic function, in order to avoid the necessity of doubling up diatheses for semantically equivalent RVs of different languages and thus achieve a unification of description. O f course, in the case of semantic reflexives this decision seems hardly acceptable, but the difference between the above Δι and Δ 2 can be brought up when necessary.

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

59

1.3.4. Principles of classification of reflexives The description of RVs of the Baltic languages and of English is presented in the subsequent chapters in the form of a hierarchical classification. Classification is viewed here as a mode of logical analysis of a complex system (and we regard RVs of any given language as a system rather than a random list of verbs) that seeks to arrange the phenomena comprising it according to a particular scheme explaining its interior organization. As is known, a correct classification must meet the following requirements: (a) the classes distinguished must cover all the units under classification without residue; (b) the classes must not overlap; (c) formal and semantic properties of units must be rigidly differentiated and kept apart (cf. Cupaxin, Brodskij 1977: 143 — 147). It should be noted, however, that conditions (a) and (b) can be satisfied only in the case of simple enough discrete phenomena, which semantic RV types are decidedly not, as each RV is a cluster of properties, some of which it may share with RVs of adjacent types. The probabilistic approach to language (cf. Nalimov 1979) adopted in this study regards language as a continuum of diffuse phenomena (units and categories) merging into one another. On the other hand, the methodology of the taxonomic approach requires that units be treated as discrete phenomena and therefore classifiable into discrete classes. Formally, RVs are discrete units comprising a well defined set that falls into a number of discrete syntactic subsets with distinct syntactic features relative to NVs. But semantically many individual RVs are diffuse as they combine features that belong to different semantic types, though they can be treated as discrete units at least with respect to some relevant semantic properties. In fact, RVs of a given language constitute a semantic continuum and discrete RV types distinguished are only points along this continuum, with a number of intermediate cases. The taxonomic approach disregards it and imposes upon the continuum sharp distinctions that are much less clearcut in reality, thus simplifying the general picture. As has been pointed out, RVs are treated here as derivatives from corresponding NVs by reason of their obvious formal relatedness to the latter. Correspondingly, the meaning of RVs is viewed as the result of interaction of the meaning of the base word and word-building formative. Description of RVs as a derivative class of verbs must include its derivational history, i. e. operation of derivation from the base word, and its static characteristic. An important issue is the selection of the relevant features that may serve as a basis of RV classification in the

60

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

derivational aspect. The features selected must be language-independent and they must reflect the changes that occur in the process of RV derivation. The crucial changes are the following: (a) the formal structure of a verb changes due to the RM incorporation; (b) the syntactic properties undergo recession; (c) the meaning changes, which manifests itself in the change of semantic component structure as well as the RefS and/or RolS. A taxonomic description should also take into consideration the factors that determine the changes involved in RV derivation. In accordance with the number of levels of analysis established above (see section 1.3.2) classification will be carried out in three stages according to the hierarchy of the properties employed as basis: Stage I: a formal (morphological) classification of RVs on the basis of such language-independent features as the existence (non-existence) of a base word, the categorial status of the base word, and the structure of the derivative formative which may consist of the RM alone or RM and other word-building units (prefixes, suffixes, etc.); this yields a division of RVs into formal (morphological) classes. Stage II: a syntactic classification of RVs on the basis of changes in the SynS of base verbs; this yields a subcategorization of RVs into syntactic classes. Stage III: a semantic classification of RVs on the basis of changes in the semantic component structure and concomitant changes in the RefS and/ or RolS, which yields a subcategorization of RVs into terminal semantic classes. The properties serving as a basis for classification at each of the stages are assumed to be universal. Deverbal RVs derived by means of the formative comprised of the RM alone occupy the central place in the subsequent description, for that simple reason that they are the most numerous in the Baltic and other languages and they are the most varied with respect to their syntactic and semantic properties.

Notes to Chapter One 1. The following surveys should at least be mentioned: Mucnik 1938: 107—136; Isacenko 1960: 3 4 5 f f . ; Zarickij 1961: 3 - l l f f . ; Janko-Trinickaja 1962: 5 - 2 7 ; Gonda 1960a: 3 0 - 6 7 ; Szliferszteinowa 1968: 5 - 2 7 , 1969; Zinnatullina 1969: 1 2 - 4 2 f f . ; Korolev 1969 b; Norman 1972: 2 1 - 5 6 ; Leddusire 1972: 1 8 - 4 1 , 1 6 1 - 2 1 8 ; Cranmer 1976: 1 3 - 3 8 ; Napoli 1976: 1 - 2 3 .

1.3. Principles of the analysis of reflexives

61

2. For a discussion of the status of RVs with respect to voice see, for instance, Vinogradov 1947: 606-629; Janko-Trinickaja 1962: 5 6 - 5 9 ; Norman 1972: 2 1 - 3 6 ; cf. also Referovskaja 1956: 32 - 33; Zarickij 1961: 3 - 5 ; Staxova 1963: 3 - 7 ; Stefanini 1971: 110-125; Baldi 1976: 231-242; Skoumalovä 1979: 267-295; Georgiev 1979: 363-377. This traditional approach to RVs as part of the category of voice is also accepted in some transformational works, cf. Babby 1975; Babby, Brecht 1975; Valfells 1970; see also Leddusire 1972. 3. Cf. most of the studies mentioned in footnote (2), and also Boguslawski 1962: 51. 4. Reflexive verb forriis {-sja forms in Russian) with the 'passive meaning' remain included in the passive voice; compare, however, Janko-Trinickaja's extreme position (1962: 23 — 24, 81 — 148); she includes even -jja forms with the 'passive meaning', as in kniga litajet-sja '(the-)book is(-being)read', among RVs. 5. The problem of differentiating between grammatical categories represented by verb forms and word-derivation categories is considered an important theoretical issue in European, and especially Russian, linguistics. Quite a number of criteria to formalize the intuition about the differences between the two types of categories have been proposed, e. g. the criterion of obligatoriness for grammatical categories (Jakobson 1971 (1959): 494—495), degree of grammaticalization (Kurylowicz 1965: 428), regularity of expression (Bondarko 1971: 22—23, 1976: 76), etc. But all of these and similar criteria fail when applied to empirical data. For a criticism of these features as redundant see Klobukov (1979: 29-93). 6. In a number of languages, e.g. Spanish, Italian, Polish, etc. (see Tables 10 and 11 in Chapter Four), the impersonal passive with the RM also exhibits the properties of a grammatical category, as all verbs can be used in reflexive impersonal constructions provided the agent of the verb is human, see 4.2.3.1.2. 7. As a matter of fact, the two approaches distinguished here essentially coincide with those pointed out by Nichols (1979). Moreover, she cites the differences in the treatment of Russian RVs as one of the minimal oppositions between the generative (prototypically American) and structuralist (prototypically Russian) traditions. She describes these differences in the following way: 'The Russian grammarians take the distinctive morphological class of reflexives as given, and generalize over its content. Most view reflexives as a set of subtypes ... Occasionally a single invariant characterization is applied to all reflexive verbs ... American linguists see reflexivization as a process: the verb becomes reflexive when its object is made subject (Channon 1968) or is otherwise moved or deleted (Babby 1975); or when its agent is not made surface subject or is not selected in deep structure (Babby & Brecht 1975) ... Each of the American studies mentioned handles only a subset of the classes of reflexives considered in the Russian grammar' (Nichols 1979: 264). 8. It is fair to mention that objections to the taxonomic approach have been voiced on the grounds that it is counter-productive since it leads to an open-ended classification of RVs (Cranmer (1976: 17) with reference to Babby (1975); Isaienko (1968)). This view is at least partly brought about by two facts: (a) the existing classifications of RVs vary in the number of types distinguished and they are lists of RV types rather than classifications proper and therefore look arbitrary; (b) a variety of terms are used to refer to the same RV meaning-type and the same term may be applied to different RV types, which creates confusion, and this is further complicated by a random and contradictory distribution of individual RVs among classes. No final conclusions about the possibility or impossibility of a finite classification of RVs can be drawn until an

62

1. Theoretical

prerequisites

exhaustive qualitative and quantitative analysis of fairly representative lists of RVs in at least several languages based on explicit and non-intersecting relevant properties has been accomplished and until attempts have been made to establish possible variation and its limits within RVs as a formal class. 9. For a survey and criticism of the earlier works on reflexivization see Dik (1968: 73 — 80); Napoli (1976: 24— 25); for the criticism of the transformational theory of reflexives as 'empirically and descriptively inadequate' see Heike (1973: 5—23), cf. also Bily (1981: 126-131). 10. In fact, the summary statement ' - S ] A is therefore a marker of derived intransitivity, and does not contribute to the semantic interpretation of the sentence' (Babby 1975: 331) unambiguously indicates the author's view with respect to this question. 11. I will quote § 8.31 from Babby (1975) to show that the representatives of the approach under discussion do not disagree with the taxonomic descriptions of Russian RVs in that the latter vary in meaning: They argue, rather, that it is not the RM -sja that expresses all the specific meanings: 'In all the derivations that we have looked at in this paper, -SJA is the syntactic marker of a vacated direct object NP and has not contributed to the semantic interpretation of the sentence. For example, a sentence containing povesit'sja ('hang oneself — E. G.) receives a reflexive interpretation because in the underlying structure the subject/agent and the direct object are coreferential, not because -SJA is present in the surface structure. PaHkat'sja means 'make dirty' or 'become/get dirty' depending on the type and number of NP's in the underlying structure; since -SJA is present under both interpretations, it cannot itself contribute to this distinction. In other words, the meaning of a sentence containing -SJA is a function of the lexical items and their grammatical relations; we should therefore not attempt to localize the meaning of a sentence in the morpheme -SJA nor should we associate -SJA with a particular type of sentence' (Babby 1975: 324—325). I quite agree that the RM does not express all the meanings in question, it serves, rather, as a marker of a change of meaning determined, ultimately, by the semantic type of the moved NP and its grammatical relations, which I propose to show in the analysis of the Baltic RVs (see Chapter Two). 12. For a detailed survey see Geniuäiene (1983a: 35—55); for a survey of the history of investigation of Lithuanian RVs, see BernadiJiene (1961: 4—10). 13. In fact, this set is comprised of a number of RVs derived by adding both the RM and a prefix, and therefore it is a morphological rather than semantic set of RVs; see section 2.1.2 below. 14. For information on Old Prussian see Endzelin (1944), Schmalstieg (1974, 1976), Toporov (1975, 1979, 1980, 1984). 15. The Prussian material is quoted from Maziulis (ed.) (1966). 16. This condition does not apply to sentences in which negation is obligatory, as in the Russian (7). 17. As a matter of fact, the term derivation is used here in two senses, as a translation of the Russian terms derivacija (word-formation) and proizvodnost'. In phrases levels of derivation, semantic derivation etc. it is used to translate the latter term. In sections 1.3.1.7 and 2.3.1 in the term semantic derivation it is used in the former sense. 18. For a discussion of the terms meaning and semantic function see Gak (1975: 145-146).

1.3. Principles

of the analysis of reflexives

63

19. The basic semantic components state, process and action are usually regarded as the most fundamental relational features of verbs as they are crucial to the semantic organization of a construction in terms of its role structure; cf., for instance, Aid (1973: 11). 20. We will note in passing that Lithuanian possesses a numerous class of stative verbs with a very broad range of lexical meanings, see Servaite (1985: 49 — 100). 21. For surveys of semantic role inventories see, for instance, Aid (1973: 5 — 23); Cook (1972: 3 8 - 4 9 ) ; Nilsen (1973: 9 - 1 3 ) ; Anderson (1977: 9 - 8 0 ) ; Bogdanov (1977: 4 0 - 5 5 ) ; Raspopov (1981: 8 8 - 9 0 ) . 22. The necessity of distinguishing this role from the Agent has been emphasized and explained by Apresjan (1974: 23), Diffloth (1974: 128 ff.), Bogdanov (1977: 75), Comrie (1981: 52). As B. Comrie points out, in sentences like fohn rolled down the hill it is 'misleading to classify John simply as an agent since he is also undergoing the rolling action' (ibid.). 23. Cruse (1972: 5 2 1 - 5 2 2 ) and Kovaleva (1978 b: 8 - 1 0 ) have argued in favour of the necessity to distinguish this role. This role is relevant for RV analysis as it serves to distinguish decausative autocausative RVs (see sections 2.1.3.2.3.1 and 3.4.2.2). 24. Verbs of dressing taking a dative object of the Recipient are very numerous in Lithuanian, but there is also a numerous set of verbs of dressing with the second human referent assigned the Patient role, and encoded as an accusative direct object, as in: (22)

25. 26.

27. 28.

29.

30.

On -a aprenge vaik -n kailin -iais Ann-NOM dressed child-ACC fur-coat-INS. PL. 'Ann dressed the child in a fur-coat'.

NVs of dressing of the two sets differ with respect to the assignment of roles to the second human referent and the inanimate referent (piece of clothing) and their distribution among the syntactic positions. Compare the following assertion: 'The roles are understood as dependency relations springing from the meaning of the verb' (Cook 1979: 137). Compare Starosta's objection to the Fillmorean principle of defining case relations in terms of such semantic features as [ + animate] and also in terms of a speaker's perception of the roles of participants in external situations and his proposal of 'linguistically defined case relations' (Starosta 1978: 460—503). However, we consider the 'speaker's perception of the roles of participants in external situations' as reflected in the lexical meaning of verbs and therefore indirectly relevant to the definition of roles. On verbal valence in Lithuanian and their syntactic classification see Geniuäiene (1971), Sliiiene (1978, 1980). Cf. the following assertion: 'The notions of 'agent', 'patient', 'experiencer' etc. are interpreted from the case specification, in conjunction with other information supplied by the subcategorization' (Babby, Brecht 1975: 348 — 349). Compare also the following: 'The subject, the only independent term in the clause, singles out what the message is about. Whatever the actual rank of the agent, he is necessarily promoted to hero of the message as soon as he assume the role of its subject' (Jakobson 1971: 351). On the history of the term diathesis and its usages see, for instance, Stepanov (1976, 1977: 137-138).

Chapter Two Reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages The purpose of this chapter is to describe Baltic RVs with the help of the notions introduced in section 1.3. The analysis of the language data is combined with a further elaboration of the taxonomic scheme outlined in 1.3.4. Lithuanian and Latvian RVs are very much alike, therefore they are treated together in section 2.1. The Prussian RVs will be presented separately in section 2.2 since the scantiness of data requires special treatment.

2.1. Reflexive verbs in Lithuanian and Latvian 2.1.1. Material The material for this chapter has been gathered from a variety of sources, our purpose being to compile exhaustive verb-lists of Lithuanian and Latvian RVs. The core of the Lithuanian data is a verb-list of 5,680 units comprising all the RVs entered in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (DLKZ 1972; about 60,000 entries). Additional data were drawn from the 12 volumes of the Academy Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKZ 1 — 12) published by 1983 (when this investigation was completed), and from the Lithuanian-Russian Dictionary (LRKZ 1971). To examine the functioning of RVs and productivity of derivational patterns, about 10,000 instances of occurrence of RCs and their synonyms were collected from present-day written sources (fiction, scientific prose and newspapers). Interestingly enough, a perusal of written sources has yielded practically no novel RVs. Some data were obtained from informants. Hopefully, we have compiled a comprehensive corpus which includes nearly all RVs registered in the Lithuanian dictionaries and occurring in texts. The core of the Latvian material is a complete verb-list of 3,560 RVs entered in the Latvian-Lithuanian Dictionary (LLKZ 1977; about 42,000

66

2. Reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages

entries). It is supplemented by a list of all the 3,920 RVs registered in the four volumes of the Academy Dictionary of Standard Latvian (LLVV 1 —4) published by 1983. This verb-list partly overlaps with the first one. Additional material was obtained from the Archives of the unpublished volumes of this dictionary by courtesy of the Institute of Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, Latvian SSR, and also from the Latvian-Russian Dictionary (LKV 1979-1981). The verb-lists thus compiled have been doublechecked in the Miilenbachs-End^elin Dictionary of Latvian (Mülenbachs 1923 — 1932). Some data on productive derivative patterns of RVs were contributed by informants. I have discussed many of the Lithuanian and Latvian RVs with my informants to ascertain their meanings, derivative oppositions with NVs and to characterize the contexts in which they can occur. In the description below, I make use of all the data irrespective of the source, but statistical data are given only for the Lithuanian verb-list of 5,680 RVs and Latvian verb-list of 3,560 RVs. To give an idea of the ratio of RVs and NVs in a dictionary, here are the statistical counts for DLKZ (1972). In DLKZ, there are 17,875 entries of NVs. Because of polysemy the total number of non-reflexive verbal lexemes increases to 24,480 units. 3,140 out of 17,875 entries contain RVs; 14,735 entries do not contain RVs. Owing to polysemy the number of meanings of RVs increases to 3,750 lexemes. 1,452 verbs with the RM are separate entries, with 1,930 lexemes distinguished within. Thus, DLKZ registers 4,592 verbs with the RM, the overall number of RV meanings distinguished being 5,680, which is the finite number of RVs subjected to classification and statistical analysis. As we see, 66 per cent of RVs are included in the entries of corresponding NVs from which they derive. The following RV types are separate entries: (a) reflexiva tantum; (b) semantic reflexiva tantum, i. e. RVs derived formally from NVs but seemingly unrelated semantically, e. g. balotiruoti 'vote' —• balotiruoti-s 'be a candidate (for)'; (c) RVs derived from nouns and adjectives, cf. siel-a 'soul' -* siel-oti-s 'grieve'; (d) RVs derived from RVs by prefixation or suffixation, cf. brauti-s 'force one's way (through)' —> pra-si-brauti (perfective of brautis)·, (e) RVs derived from NVs by means of a complex formative (prefix + RM), cf. verkti 'cry' —• is-si-verkti 'have a good cry'. Out of the total number of 24,480 NVs about 14,000 verbs are transitive and about 10,500 are intransitive or take an oblique object. RVs derive

2.1. Reflexive verbs in Lithuanian and Latvian

67

from about 32 per cent of transitive NVs and less than 4 per cent of intransitive NVs. In case of polysemy each lexeme (verb in one meaning) with the RM enters into a particular syntactic and semantic opposition with the base NV (cf. (16) in section 1.3.1.2). 2.1.2. The morphology of reflexive verbs Formally RVs may differ with respect to the following features: (a) relatedness to a base verb, (b) the categorial status of the base word (if there is one), and (c) the structure of the derivative formative. The latter two properties concern derived RVs. All RVs may be subjected to a hierarchical classification according to these features. The property of relatedness to a base word yields a division of all RVs into two unequal classes: (1) derived RVs, which are formally related to base words, cf. Latvian milet 'love' —• mllet-ie-s 'love each other', Lithuanian myleti 'love' —* myleti-s 'love one another'; they comprise nearly 99 per cent in both the Lithuanian verb-list of 5,680 RVs and Latvian list of 3,560 RVs; (2) non-derived RVs, which do not enter into a derivative opposition with any word in modern Lithuanian and Latvian; they are traditionally known as reflexiva tantum; cf. Lithuanian teirauti-s 'inquire' steb-eti-s 'wonder',juok-in-ti 'make (sb) laugh' nu-si-^udyti 'kill oneself commit suicide)' and ufynulti 'kill' -* u^-si-muiti 'get killed (unintentionally)'. It may be noted in passing that in Lithuanian there are a few instances of semantic reflexivization across clause boundaries, as in the following case: (19 a)

Petr -as sake, kad serga Peter-NOM said that is-ill 'Peter said that he was ill'

2.1. Reflexive verbs in Lithuanian and Latvian

b)

79

Petr -as sake-si serg -a>s Peter-NOM said-RM be-ill-PRES. ACT. PART. 'Peter said he was ill'

The RM in (19 b) denotes coreference of the Semantic Subject of the main verb and of the embedded participial predicate. In (19 a) they are also coreferent, but they may be not, as in (19 c): (19 c)

Petr -as sake, kad Jon -as serga Peter-NOM said that John-NOM is-ill 'Peter said that John was ill'.

The base NC embeds a subordinate subject-predicate clause, whereas in the RC (19 b) the embedded clause is transformed into a participial predicate, or with some verbs it may transform into an infinitive. The RVs leisti-s 'let oneself, duoti-s 'let oneself and prasyti-s 'ask' frequently occur with the present passive participle in which case they express coreference of the semantic subject of the RV and of the semantic object of the embedded participle. RCs with these RVs are related to the base NC in the following way: (20 a)

b)

Petr -as leido, kad ji multn Peter-NOM let that he-ACC would-beat 'Peter let himself be beaten' ('Peter allowed that they beat him') Petr -as leido-si muia-m -as Peter-NOM let -RM beat-PRES. PASS. PART.-M. SG. 'Peter let himself be beaten';

cf. also: (21 a)

b)

J is prate, kad ji Meistμ. he-NOM asked that he-ACC would-let-out 'He asked (them) to let him out' Jis praie -si illeid^ia-m -as he-NOM asked-RM let-out -PRES. PASS. PART.-M. SG. 'He asked to be let out'.

(for more detail see Ambrazas 1978). Type (20 b) RCs are widely used in speech whereas corresponding type (20 a) NC are less common. 2.1.3.2.1.2. ' Partitive object' reflexives3 This term is coined here to refer to RVs entering into the following opposition with the corresponding NV:

80

2. Reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages

Lithuanian (22 a) Petr -as ufynerke ak -is Peter-NOM shut eye-ACC. PL. 'Peter shut his eyes' b)

Petr -as -si -merke Peter-NOM PREF-RM-shut 'Peter shut his eyes';

Latvian (23 a) Vin-f sabrien käj -as he -NOM got-wet foot-ACC. PL. 'He got his feet wet' b)

Virt-S sabriena -s he -NOM got-wet-RM 'He got his feet wet';

(cf. also (2) in section 2.1.3.1). The diathesis changes in the following way: Δ0

-*

Δ2

Pers

Part

Pers

Part

Ag (Act)

Pt

Ag (Act)

Pt

S

DO

S

0

Here the RM marks the obligatory blocking of Patient expression in the surface structure though it is retained in the RolS. Thus the RM marks syntactic intransitivization that does not reflect any changes in the RolS and RefS. In the NC the Patient is expressed overtly (cf. (22 c) *Petras u^merke 'Peter shut'), but in the RC it remains covert. The lexical meaning of the verb does not change as the Patient is recoverable, and (22 a) —(22 b) and (23 a) —(23 b) are denotationally synonymous. RVs of this type are termed 'partitive object' RVs because their derivation is limited to verbs with a Partitive Patient referent inalienably possessed by the Agent (Actor) referent. Overt expression of the DO referent is redundant as these RVs derive from NVs with an 'exclusive Patient', i. e. taking one particular Patient (cf. (22 a) and (23 a) where each of the NVs cannot take any other Patient except the one expressed), or from NVs taking a Patient from a limited semantic domain. Therefore expression of the Patient is optional, but its omission is obligatorily marked with

2.1. Reflexive verbs in Lithuanian and Latvian

81

the RM. A related NC and RC differ at the communicative level as the NC is neutral with respect to the distribution of prominence, the DO being the principal rhematic constituent, and in RC the action is given greater prominence by the RM and DO omission, the RV becoming also the principal rhematic constituent. It may be assumed that the RM in RVs under discussions is metonymous in the sense that it may be taken to express coreference of the whole (Agent or Actor) and part (Partitive Patient). 'Partitive' RVs derive from two main semantic NV types: (a) from semantically transitive NVs denoting actions performed by the Agent upon a Patient, the RolS being (Ag-Pt); the Agent is typically human and the Patient is either a body-part or some piece of clothing the Agent is wearing (quasi-inalienable possession) or, sometimes, some alienable possession (cf. Lithuanian tvarkjti-s 'tidy up (one's room, house)'; see below); (b) from semantically quasi-transitive NVs expressing body-part motion or psychological activities, which may be assigned the RolS (Act-Pt); the Actor is also typically human (sometimes animal) and the quasi-Patient is either a body-part (cf. raise one's brows) or some inalienable feature of the Actor (cf. control one's thoughts). The following RVs in Lithuanian and in Latvian conform to the description of 'partitive' RVs: (1) Lithuanian lukuoti-s 'comb oneself ( god-e-tis-s 'be greedy', cf. also kuklintis above; Latvian skop-s 'niggardly' —> skop-o-tie-s 'be niggardly', sird-Tg-s 'angry' —• sird-I-tie-s 'be angry', cf. also erroties above. (3) RVs meaning 'regard (sth, sb) as 'Adj", '(dis)like sth by considering it as 'Adj", e. g. Lithuanian HykU-us 'disgusting' —• Hykh-e-ti-s 'regard as disgusting (loathe, be disgusted)', cf. also gard^iuotis and bjauretis above.

2.2. Reflexives in Old Prussian 2.2.1. Material and purpose The source of our material for this section are the three Old Prussian texts (I, II, III) of the Catechism (see Maziulis (ed.) 1966), of which the third text (III), also known as the Enchiridion, is the most representative. In the latest edition (Maziulis 1981: 65—240) the texts are supplied with literal translations into Lithuanian. According to tradition, we shall supply the Prussian quotations with parallel clauses from the German original. For a number of reasons, we cannot supply the Prussian sentences with morphemic glosses. Instead, we shall give literal English translations in which the word-order corresponds to the original in most cases. In this section, the term reflexives (RVs) is used broadly to refer both to verbs with the affixed RM -si(tt), with reflexive pronouns, and with personal pronouns used reflexively (see section 1.2.3). All in all, we have found 43 occurrences of 27 RVs in the texts, whereas in previous works (Jakuliene 1969) 39 occurrences of 26 RVs are quoted. For the purposes of analysis, over 50 sentences containing NVs have been collected from the Prussian texts. For comparison, we have also picked out all the RVs from Vilentas' Enchiridion (VE 1579), a Lithuanian translation of Martin Luther's Catechismus. In the corpus, the RV audät sien 'happen' (also audäsin, sien audät) occurs nine times, and once it occurs without a reflexive marker:

160

(149)

2. Reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages

Käigi tou druwese / tit audasei tebbei III 7117 Wie du gleubest / so geschehe dir III 7014 'As you believe so it will happen to you';

the RVs sien signät (III 7723)15 'cross oneself and wans enimmans (III 1252_4) 'have taken to yourselves' occur three times each; mile sien (III 10315) 'love himself, embaddusisi (III 113ί5) '(they have) stuck-themselves', polaipinna mien (III 8117) 'entrust me (myself)', sien podast (III 123i5_16) 'surrenders himself occur twice each; other RVs (see the examples below) occur once each. The purpose of this section is to continue the investigation of Old Prussian RVs (see 1.2.3) by considering the following questions: (a) types of correspondences between the German verbs in the original (M. Luther's Catechismus) and their translations in the Prussian texts; (b) relationship of Prussian RVs to corresponding NVs, i. e. the characteristics of RVs with regard to their derivative status, for which purpose all the formally related NVs have been extracted from the texts; (c) syntactic and semantic properties of the RVs. It was noted above (see 1.2.3) that the Prussian data are extremely unreliable and should be treated with utmost caution, and any conclusions should be tentative at best. As Sobolevskij (1903: 163) pointed out, the Prussian translations, which he considered to be literal to the point of absurdity, do not allow judgement of Prussian reflexives, as the RVs encountered in the texts presumably have nothing to do with 'live' Prussian RVs. This opinion, however, is too pessimistic. We consider it quite possible to investigate Prussian RVs on the basis of the data obtained from the texts since a comparison with the Lithuanian and Latvian data, in particular RVs from Vilentas' Enchiridion may at least help to estimate the probability of existence of some RVs in Prussian and the degree of the reliability of the data. Without forgetting the necessity of caution, we will try to make some tentative suggestions concerning the Prussian RVs. 2.2.2. Types of correspondences between verbs in the German original and Prussian translation If we compare the ways of rendering German verbs in the Prussian translation, both reflexive and non-reflexive, with the purpose of determining the place of RVs in the class of verbs in Prussian, we will find the following four cases, which realize all the logical possibilities:

2.2. Reflexives in Old Prussian

161

(1) a German RV is rendered by a RV; this is the case in all the instances except one; in other words, all the RVs of the German original except one are translated by means of RVs, which fact (along with the literal rendering of the German reflexive pronoun sich and its functional equivalents in the l.p. and 2.p., i.e., the pronouns mich, dich, etc., further referred to collectively as the reflexive pronoun), may have given rise to the assertion that the Prussian RVs are literal translations. (2) A German RV is rendered by a NV; there is only one instance of such correspondence, a construction with the reciprocal pronoun being used to render the meaning rather than the form of the German RV: (150)

Irret euch nicht Gort (= Gott) lesst sich nicht spotten III 862o_2i ni kurteiti ains äntran / Deiws ni dast sien bebbint III 8723_24 'Do not delude one another, God does not allow him(self) to mock'.

(3) A NV is rendered by means of a NV; this is the case in all the instances of NV translations except the three mentioned in case (4) below. (4) A NV is rendered by a RV in the Prussian translation; this happens in the case of three verbs: geschehen (III 56ig) — sien audät (III 5722_23) 'happen'; lern III 9616 — mukinsusin III 972o 'let-him-learn'; ^uuerhindern III 98i 2 — kitawidintunsin III 9913 'change'; 16 of particular interest is the fact that in all the three cases Prussian RVs with the enclitic -si(n) rather than with reflexive pronouns are used, which is likely to indicate that these Prussian correspondences are inherently Baltic reflexives, so much so that the Lithuanian and Latvian counterparts are also RVs; compare the parallels: sien audät 'happen' — Lithuanian at-si-tikti — Latvian (at)gaditie-s·, mukinsusin 'let-him-learn' — Lithuanian mokjti-s 'learn' — Latvian mäcitie-s 'learn'. These instances prove that at least some RVs in the translation may be 'live' Prussian RVs. It is reasonable to assume that the prominence of the type (1) and (3) correspondences is significant and that this skewing is not accidental. It is interesting to compare the translations of verbs into Prussian with those in the Lithuanian translation which is much less literal. In Vilentas' Enchiridion, German RVs are also rendered by means of RVs with only four exceptions, all found in the instances where the translator departs from the original; compare:

162

2. Reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages

(151 a)

cf. b)

Turei sien essestan Ebangelion maitätunsin III 872ο_2ΐ sollen sich vom Euangelio neeren III 86^ '(they) must themselves from that Gospel feed-RM'; isch Euangelias ischlaikima turetu V E 37ig 'from the-Gospel maintenance would-have'.

On the other hand, RVs in the Lithuanian translation are several times more numerous than in the German original (and in the Prussian translation), due to the fact that German NVs are rather frequently translated by RVs. For instance, the NV geschehen 'happen' is commonly translated by the RVs stoti-s 'rise' and nu-si-duost 'happen' of which the latter is etymologically related to the Prussian audäst sien (for details see Maziulis 1966: 103-104); cf.: geschieht III 4818 (— audäst sien III 4919) — stoiesi VE 1919; geschehe III 509 (— sien audäst III 51JQ—II) — nussidutu V E 209. The following frequent translation equivalents should also be mentioned: bedeutet III 62I3 'shows'; ausserstanden III Geheyliget werde 1816 'be sacred'; bekenne III 6823 acknowledge'; bleibet III 969 ( -

'means' (— powaidinne III 63M) — ßenklina-se VE 26i 423 (— etskiuns III 433) — kele-si VE 16 5 _ 6 'rose'; III 46i3 (— Swintints wirst III 47^) — Schwenski-si VE ( - posinna III 6925) — pa-ssi-ßistu V E 29 9 _ 10 '(I) polinka III 9712) - pa-ssi-liekt VE 429 'remains'.

2.2.3. Derivational characteristics of Prussian reflexives As was stated above, RVs of a language may be classified into formally underived (morphological reflexiva tantum) and derived (RVs formally related to NVs or nouns); in addition, RVs with an optional RM may be distinguished (in case the RM does not change the meaning and syntactic properties of a verb), which can be viewed as doublets of the related NV, as in Lithuanian sesti 'sit down' = sesti-s, Latvian gult 'lie down' = gultie-s (see section 2.1.3.2.6.2). In the Prussian verb-list, all the three formal RV types are represented: (1) verbs with an optional RM, i. e. verbs occurring both with and without a RM; these are the verbs biätwei 'be afraid' (see Toporov 1975: 219-221) and grtkimai 'sin' (see Toporov 1979: 308).

2.2. Reflexives in Old Prussian

163

The verb biätwei occurs without a RM a number of times, when in the original, the verb fdrchten occurs without a reflexive pronoun either, and once it occurs with a personal pronoun functioning as a RM, when the verb in the original is also used with a similar RM: (152)

Mes turrimai Deiwan ... biätwei bbe milijt III 31 1 0 _n Wir sollen GOTT ...fdrchten vnnd lieben III 30 9 _ 10 'We must God ... fear and love';

(153)

turrimai mes noümas biätwi III 393 sollen wir vns fdrchten III 382 'must we us fear (we must fear ourselves)'.

The dative pronoun in the Prussian translation (153) formally corresponds to the German accusative-dative (functionally reflexive) pronoun. Thus in all the occurrences of this verb the Prussian translation faithfully renders the German morphological form. But, by analogy with the Lithuanian bijoti(-s) 'be afraid' with the optional RM and Latvian bttie-s 'be afraid' with the obligatory RM we may tentatively allow for the possibility that in Old Prussian the vera biätwei might at least optionally occur with the RM. It is also significant that in Vilentas' Enchiridion the equivalent verb always occurs reflexively as biotie-si. The verb grtkimai also occurs without a RM in cases when the German original verb is non-reflexive, and it is reflexive (to be precise, it occurs with two RMs) when the verb in the original occurs with the RM: (154)

beggi mes deininisku tülan grtkimai III 558_g Denn wir teglich viel sündigen III 54 7 _ 8 'as we daily much sin (as we sin a lot every day)';

(155)

quai sien en mansgrtkisi III 55n_i2 (vnnd ...) die sich ahn vnns versündigen III 54i 0 _n 'who themselves to us sin (who sin against us)'.

In the Lithuanian translation, the NV grieschijem (VE 224) '(we-)sin' alone is used in both cases. It should be pointed out that the counterparts of the Prussian grtkimai 'sin' in Modern Lithuanian (griekjti, or grieljti) and in Latvian (grekot) meaning 'to sin' are formally non-reflexive. True, in Lithuanian there is a RV griekauti-s 'confess (one's sins)' (LKZ 3:593), but it differs from the Prussian verb in question in the lexical meaning and therefore it is not relatable to grtkimai directly. (2) Reflexiva tantum: the RV audät sien 'happen' (cf. Lithuanian at-si-tikti with the same meaning) alone can be regarded as a reflexivum tantum

164

2. Reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages

with certainty, since it is the only form used in all the cases except one (see example (149) above) to translate the German NV geschehen. (3)A11 the remaining RVs in the Prussian corpus, excepting the three verbs discussed, can be regarded as formally derived from NVs. For most of these RVs, including the following: sien ni aupallai III 6919 'not find himself; wartinna sien III IOI25 'turns himself; mile sien III 10316 'love himself; polaipinna mien III 8117 'entrust myself; tien Siggnat III 812 'cross yourself; sien ... waidinnasin III 113t0—12 'shows himself; sien pogattawint III 77 t l _ 1 2 'prepare oneself; tülninaiti wans III 10526 'multiply yourselves', and a number of others, we have found corresponding NVs which may be regarded as their base verbs both formally and semantically. For instance, the RV posinna mien III (>1\% 'admit myself is derivable from the NV occurring in (156) below: (156)

turrimai mes ter ains stans grijkans posinnat III 652J sollen wir allein die Sünde bekennen III 64 2 O_ 2 I 'we must only those sins admit'.

Similarly, the RV mukinsusin III 972o can be viewed with a fair degree of certainty as a derivative from the NV mukint 'teach' used in (157): (157)

ains Buttas Taws Swaian Seimtnan turri mukint III 83i_ 2 ein Hausuater sein Gesinde sol lehren III 82j_ 2 'a head of the family must teach his family'.

The counterpart RVs in Lithuanian and Latvian constitute the same kind of formal and semantic opposition with the base NVs (see (114) in section 2.1.3.2.5 above). For the following six RVs, no relatable NVs occur in the texts, but as far as can be judged by the semantic analogies in Lithuanian and in Latvian, such NVs must have existed in Old Prussian: mien walnennint III 697 (— mich bessern III 68 6 _ 7 ) 'myself better (improve myself)'; laustineiti wans III 976 (— demütiget euch III 965) 'humiliate yourselves'; kitawidintunsin III 9913 (— tytuerhindern III 9812) 'change'; endäst sien III 12316_17 (— begibt sich III 12216) 'gives (devotes) himself (cf. the Lithuanian formal counterpart iduoti 'give in' —• i-si-duoti 'giveoneself-in' (LKZ 2:884—885) and semantic equivalent atiduoti 'give

2.2. Reflexives in Old Prussian

165

away' —• at-si-duoti 'give oneself away, devote oneself, Latvian iedot 'give in'); embaddusisi III 11315 (— sich stecken III 11213_14) 'stick oneself, remain' (see Toporov (1979: 25); Maziulis (1981: 216); cf. Lithuanian {badyti 'stick in' -»• si-badyti 'stick in' (LKZ 1: 548) and Latvian iebadit 'stick in' (LLVV 3: 219)); etlaikusin III 9913 (— enthalt sich III 98n_ 12 ) 'abstains (from)' (cf. Lithuanian atlaikyti 'restrain, keep from' —• at-si-laikyti 'hold out, restrain oneself, and sulaikyti 'keep (sb) from, restrain' -* su-silaikyti 'abstain (from), keep oneself (from)'; Latvian atlikt 'remain' —• atliktie-s 'remain' (LLVV 1: 387-388); see Toporov 1979: 106). 2.2.4. Syntactic and semantic properties of reflexives Of principal interest are the syntactic and semantic properties of those RVs which can be regarded as derivatives since they are in principle relatable to Ν Vs. They number 24 in the verb-list of 27. The following tentative claims can be made about the meanings of presumably derived RVs and their semantic oppositions with corresponding Ν Vs. Three main subsets can be recognized here. 2.2.4.1. Semantic

reflexives

The most clear-cut semantic subset is represented by semantically reflexive verbs with the RM. These are the RVs in the following sentences: (158)

Mijlis twaian Tawisen kai tien subban III 9716 Liebe deinen Nehesten / als dich selbst III 96i3 'Love your kin (neighbours) as you love yourself (your own self)';

(159)

kas swaian Gannan mile / stas mile sien subban III 10316_I7 Wer sein Weib liebet / der liebet sich selbst III 10214_15 'who loves his wife he loves himself (his own self)';

(160)

Beggi as polaipinna mien / maian kermenen bhe Doüsin / bhe wissan en twaian ränkans III 7917_19 Denn ich befehle Mich / mein Leib vnnd Seele / vnnd alles inn deine hende III 78i6_ig 'As I entrust myself, my body and soul and everything into your hands';

166

2. Reflexive verbs in the Baltic

languages

(161)

Beggi as polaipinna mien / maian Kermnen bhe Daüsin / bhe wissan en twaians ränkans III 8 1 i g Denn ich befehle mich / mein Leib vnd Seele / vnd alles in deine Hende III 80 15 _,6 (same translation as in (160));

(162)

swaian Seimtnan turri mukint Angsteina bhe Bttai sien Signät III 7723 sein Gesinde sol lehren / Morgens vnd Abends sich Segnen III 762o_22 'must teach his family cross themselves in the morning and evening';

(163)

turri tou tien Siggnat III 792_3 soltu dich segnen III 782 'you must cross yourself;

(164)

turei toü tien Siggnat III 812 soltu dich segnen III 802 (same translation);

(165)

Deiws ni dast sien bebbint III 8724 Gott lesst sich nicht spotten III 86 2 j 'God does not allow to mock him(self)';

(166 a)

bhe ast sien sups perstan däuns III 103 7 _ 8 vnnd hat sich selbst für sie gegeben III 102 6 _ 7 'and has given himself (his own self) for it';

cf. b) sawe... esti dau>es VE 4 9 1 2 _ i 3 'has given himself; (167)

Pirsdau Deiwan turridi wissans Grikans sien skellänts dätunsi III 65I7_18

Für Gott sol man aller Sünden sich schuldig geben III 64 17 _i 8 'Before God one must give himself in as guilty of all sins'. In the first four sentences, semantic reflexive interpretation alone is possible because of a conjoined direct object or a parallel related NV with a non-reflexive object. As a matter of fact, in Vilentas' translation of the first two German sentences the reflexive pronoun is also used to render semantic reflexivity: (168)

Milek ... sawe VE 4213 'Love yourself;

2.2. Reflexives in Old Prussian

(169)

167

same pats mjl V E 492o_2i himself himself loves 'he loves his own self,

where pats is an emphatic pronoun (cf. Modern Lithuanian: (170)

J is pats tai padare 'He himself did it')-

The German befehle mich from (160) is translated literally as follows: (171)

mane ... paleciawoju VE 1 _ 3 , 3 5 1 - 2 'me ( = myself) entrust'.

In the following contexts, the semantic reflexive interpretation of the RVs is supported by the use of a predicative complement: (172)

ains sien ni aupallai tit pohrendints sen stamdsmu adder muisieson grikans III 69 i9 jemandt sich nicht befindet beschweret mit solcher oder grössern s&nden III 6818 'someone would not have found himself burdened with such or greater sins';

(173)

posinna mien pirsdau Deiwan / wissans grikans skellänts III 67jg bekenne mich für Gott aller sünden schuldig III 6616 Ί admit me (— myself) against God of all sind guilty'.

It is significant that in all the above instances semantic reflexivity is rendered by reflexive pronouns which may take the attributive emphatic pronoun corresponding to the German selbst: tien subban III 9716 'you yourself (your own self)', sien subban III 103 16 _ 17 'him himself (his own self)'. In the Lithuanian translation, both the reflexive pronoun and affixed RM occur in these cases, cf. (168), (171) and the following: sich segnen III 7622 — ßegnotisi V E 336 'cross oneself, sich ... befindet III 68 lg — rastusi V E 29 4 _ 5 'would find himself. Prussian verbs with reflexive pronouns are viewed as syntactically intransitive RVs in Jakuliene (1969: 42). Their intransitivity is a moot point, however. The decision depends on whether we choose to regard a reflexive pronoun as part of an analytic reflexive verb or as a syntactically independent pronoun filling in the object valency position. In the former case, the verbs will be viewed as syntactically intransitive RVs and in the latter, as transitive verbs with a direct reflexive object. The second

168

2. Reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages

solution is supported by the possibility of the reflexive pronoun's cooccurrence with a conjoined non-reflexive direct object, as in (160)—(161), and with the attributive emphatic pronoun, as in (158) —(159). But it should be borne in mind that their transitivity is different from the transitivity of type (189) —(191) reflexives discussed in 2.2.4.3 below. The verbs in question might be termed reflexively transitive verbs, or verbs with a direct reflexive object, to distinguish them from type (189)—(191) RVs. It should also be borne in mind that in other instances, such as autocausative RVs (see 2.2.4.2), a reflexive pronoun can be used to mark the autocausative meaning, in which case a preferable decision is to view the reflexive pronoun as part of an analytic verb. Thus, semantic reflexivity in the Old Prussian texts is expressed by reflexive pronouns exclusively, but this fact does not prove that the affixed RM -si(η) was not used in this function. As it happens, all the verbs in the examples (158)—(167) above for obvious reasons belong to the high literary layer of the vocabulary and denote concepts of 'ideal' activity. In those languages which possess both a reflexive affix and a reflexive pronoun (e. g. Lithuanian -si and save, Latvian -s and sevi, Russian -sja and sebja) semantic reflexivity in similar verbs is also rendered by a reflexive pronoun, cf. Lithuanian myleti save, Latvian mllet sevi and Russian ljubit' sebja all meaning 'love oneself. Lithuanian myleti-s and Latvian miletie-s both have the reciprocal meaning 'love each other' and therefore they are not semantically equivalent to the RVs mentioned. As a rule, in such languages the affixed RM is typically employed to mark semantic reflexivity with verbs denoting everyday physical activities like dressing, undressing, taking care of one's body, and the like (compare the lists of semantic reflexives in section 2.1.3.2.1.1.) A similar state of things may have been characteristic of Old Prussian. The only German influence in (158) —(167) is the use of personal pronouns instead of the reflexive pronoun sien. 2.2.4.2. Autocausative

reflexives

A number of RVs in the Prussian verb-list may be interpreted as autocausative, as they express semantically intransitive actions of the Semantic Subject causing a change in his own state or position in space (cf. 2.1.3.2.1.4). The most typical example in the corpus is the verb wartinna sin 'turns himself, or 'addresses himself, the latter meaning being a nonreversible RV semantically motivated by the former meaning;17 cf.:

2.2. Reflexives in Old Prussian

(174)

169

Pansdau wartinna sin tans prei abbans / bhe enwaitia tennans / Titet I I I 101 2 5_26

Darnach wende er sich jnen beiden vnd rede sie an / Also: III 10023_25 'After that he turns to (addresses) both of them and says to them this:'. The following verbs also allow autocausative interpretation: (175)

Käigi ginnewmgiskan j sien stas Sows Deiwas ... prtki stans malnijkikans waidinnasin III 113jo-i2 wie freundtlich sich der Son Gottes gegen den Kindlein stellet III 112 8 _ n 'how friendly himself that son of God ... against ( ~ to) those children shows-himself,

where there are two reflexive markers, a pronoun and the enclitic -sin, the position of the pronoun in the linear sentence structure reflecting that of the reflexive pronoun in the German original; (176)

Kas sien teinu prtki stan Auktimiskan sedinna III 892i_22 Wer sich nun wider die Obrigkeit setzet III 8819 'Who himself now against that authority seats (seats himself)',

where sedinna is a transitive verb when used non-reflexively; the position of sien in the linear structure reflects that of the reflexive pronoun in the original; (177)

bhe etläikusin / deickton prei kitawidintunsin / III 99 13 vnd enthalt sich /etwas sytuerhindern/ III 98^_ι 2 'and (let him) keep himself ( = refrain) from changing anything';

(178)

seiti weijsewingi bhe tulninaiti wans III 10526 Seid fruchtbar / vn mehret euch III 10424 'be fertile and multiply you ( = yourselves)';

the unit tülninaiti wans may also be interpreted as a decausative reflexive denoting a change of state, but the context and the imperative mood argue in favour of the autocausative interpretation; lack of data prevents us from choosing either interpretation as final; (179)

Kawids sienpreistanperönin Crixtiäniskan ktrkinpodästj III 123ι 5 _ 16 welcher sich t(u der gemeinen Christlichen Kirchen thut\ III i22u_l5 'who himself to that common Christian church gives ( = gives himself);

170

2. Reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages

(180)

St as endäst sienj en ainan Noseilewingiskan kariausnanj III 12316_18 der begibt sich in einen Geistlichen Streitj III \22\$_\(> 'that-one lets himself (gets himself) into a spiritual struggle';

(181)

Stanktsman kai ious wans abbai enstan / Salaübai boüsennien podäuns astai III 103^2 Weiljr euch beide in den Ehestand begeben habt III 102] _2 'At the time when you you ( = yourselves) both into the state of marriage have given ( = have given yourselves)';

here again the position of the reflexive pronoun repeats that of the original; (182)

en kawijdsei / debijkun nautin bhe wargan stai gurijnai malnijkiku embaddusisi III 113i3_is in was grosser Not vnd Gefahr die armen Kindlein stecken III 112^2—14 'in what great misfortune and danger those poor children stay ( = find-themselves)';

(183)

en kawtdsu debijkan powargsennien jbhe nautien schis malnijkiks / swaias preigimnis / bhe pergimnis paggan embaddusisi III 1152o_22 in was grossem Jammer vnnd Noth diß Kindlein / seiner Art und Natur halben / stecket III 11418_20 'in what great misery and misfortune this child because of his born-status and nature stays sticks-himself, finds himself)'.

As we see, the autocausative meaning can be marked both with the affix -si(n), as in (177), (182) and (183), and with reflexive pronouns as in the majority of instances, and even with both markers, as in (175). In the Lithuanian translation, RVs with the RM -si alone are to be found, e. g.: wende ... sich III 10023 — atsighreschti VE 494 'turn-oneself, euch ... begeben habt III 1021_2 — nüsidawetese VE 49 6 _ 7 'have-givenyourselves'; mehret euch III 10424 — dauksinketesi VE 5113 'multiply yourselves'. The remaining sentences with autocausatives are omitted in the Lithuanian translation. In the Prussian reflexives with the autocausative meaning, the emphatic pronoun does not and cannot occur, which points to the fact that the reflexive pronoun like the affixed RM, is not an independent unit, neither formally nor semantically. In this respect they differ from semantic reflexives. The range of lexical meanings of the autocausative RVs covers change of position or state caused by the agent's effort. It should be

2.2. Reflexives in Old Prussian

171

stressed that the autocausative meaning in other languages possessing two RMs, like Lithuanian, Latvian and Russian, is usually rendered either by RVs with a reflexive affix or by intransitive NVs, never by verbs with a reflexive pronoun, cf. Lithuanian apvirsti 'overturn' ~ ap-si-versti 'turn over, overturn' # *apversti save 'overturn oneself. As we can see, the Prussian autocausatives are similar to Lithuanian and Latvian in their lexical meanings and their derivative relation to transitive NVs: wartinna sin 'turns himself *— wartinna 'turns tr ' sie η sedinna 'seats himself restrain oneself). In a language, 'partitive object' RVs can be derived either from all these NV types (this is the case in Russian; see Korolev 1969a: 5—6; Kretov 1978), or from some of them, or from a single set. Hence the variation in the number and lexical range of 'partitive object' RVs across the languages. 'Partitive object' RVs with an implied body part as Semantic Object are characteristic of languages possessing 'specific' NVs that occur exclusively with body-part objects, such as Russian ilurit' (gla^a) 'squint (one's eyes)' which occurs exclusively with the object gla%a eyes', cf. Muri?-sja 'squint one's eyes'. They are seldom, if ever, derived from 'non-specific' NVs which may occur with a wider range of semantic types of direct object, cf. Russian %akryt' gla^a, dver', okno, vxod, etc. 'close (shut) one's eyes, the door, window, entrance' from which a 'partitive object' RV meaning 'shut one's eyes' cannot be derived. The following tendency might be formulated: the more 'specific' NVs taking a body-part object are in a given language, the likelier the possibility of 'partitive object' RV derivation, and on the contrary, the less 'specific' such NVs are, the less likely is this possibility. Thus, Lithuanian and Russian, which possess a significant number of 'specific' NVs of the set in question, exhibit a

4.2. Reflexives in the Indo-European languages

249

greater number of 'partitive object' RVs than English, which has fewer 'specific' NVs taking body-part objects. 4.2.3.1.1.3. 'Absolute' reflexives 'Absolute' reflexives are characterized by the same underlying Δ2 as 'partitive object' RVs, but they imply an animate (usually human) Patient which does not have any posssessive relationship with the Agent. The function of 'absolute' RVs is to emphasize the action by banning the expression of the Patient in the surface structure. As Table 9 shows, 'absolute' RVs are particularly characteristic of the Slavic (and Baltic) languages. Compare the following examples: Belorussian (35 a) Kot dyare kago-nebud cat scratches somebody-ACC 'The cat scratches everybody' b)

Kot d^jare -cca cat scratches-RM 'The cat scratches' (Kovaleva 1967: 10);

Slovak (36 a)

b)

Vletk-ych bije all -ACC beats 'He beats everybody' On sa bije he RM beats 'He fights (is pugnacious)';

Bulgarian (37 a) Toj buta vsitki he pushes everybody 'He pushes everybody' b) Toj se buta he RM pushes 'He pushes everybody'. Compare also Swedish examples: (38 a) Pojk-en sldr barn boy-ART beats children 'The boy beats children'

250

4. Λ typology of reflexives

b)

(39 a)

b)

Pojk-en s/a -ss boy-ART beats-RM 'The boy fights'; Kon stangar alia cow butts all 'The cow butts everybody' Kon stänga-s cow butts -RM 'The cow butts (is given to butting)'.

Two main lexical subsets of 'absolute' RVs can be generally distinguished: (a) with a human subject, and (b) with an animal subject. Languages vary on these subsets. Thus the Baltic and East Slavic languages display 'absolute' RVs of both subsets; in the South Slavic languages there are no 'absolute' RVs with animal subject, though in some Macedonian dialects 'absolute' RVs like (40b) sometimes occur, the standard Macedonian displaying only absolutely used NVs of the (40c) type: (40 a)

Konj -ot site gi kloca horse-ART everybody them kicks 'The horse kicks everybody'

b)

Konj -ot se kloca horse-ART RM kicks 'The horse kicks'

c)

Konj -ot kloca horse-ART kicks 'The horse kicks'.

In Czech and in Slovak, only a few RVs with the human subject and non of the second type are registered, the absolute Δ2 being expressed syntactically by direct object deletion, cf. Czech: (41)

KM kope horse kicks 'The horse kicks'.

It is significant that the Slavic languages lacking 'absolute' RVs with an animal subject invariably exhibit reciprocal RVs derived from NVs with an animal subject, cf. Macedonian:

4.2. Reflexives in the Indo-European languages

(42)

251

Dve ovce se bucaat two sheep RM butt 'Two sheep are butting one another'.

Therefore, the absolute and reciprocal functions of the RM can be assumed to develop independently of one another. The reason why so many languages of the sample fail to use their RM for marking the absolute Δ2 may be the rivalry on the part of syntactic absolutivization by simply deleting a direct object, with zero marking on the verb. There seems to be a kind of correlation here: 'absolute' RVs are non-existent or limited to a few instances in languages which display a large number of NVs used both transitively and intransitively, such as English breaktT — breaks German brechentr — brechenia, and French levertI — leverm, i. e. in languages with productive grammatical conversion. 4.2.3.1.1.4. Autocausative reflexives Autocausative RVs (Δ3) are found in all the languages of the sample, which is a significant fact. Moreover, if a language employs two polyfunctional RMs both usually possess the autocausative function. Here are a few examples: German (43) Der Mann bewegte sich the man moved RM 'The man moved'; Bulgarian (44 a) Toj premesti veiii -te he moved things-ART 'He moved the things' b)

Toj se premesti he RM moved 'He moved (changed place)';

Armenian (45 a) Alot-a ίφαΓ -a den netec ASot-ART stone-ART off threw 'A§ot threw off the stone' b)

Aht-a aracQ; net -v -ec ASot-ART forward throw-RM-PAST 'Asot threw himself forward' (Kozinceva 1981: 86);

252

4. A typology of reflexives

Serbo-Croatian (46 a) La^ar di^e knjigu Lazar picks-up book 'Lazar picks up the book' b)

La^ar se di^e Lazar RM picks-up 'Lazar rises' (cf. Mork 1970b: 66-67);

French (47 a) Jean a cache le livre Jean has hidden the book 'Jean has hidden the book' b)

Jean s' -est cache Jean RM-is hidden 'Jean has hidden himself.

Compare also Swedish vända ngt 'turn (over) sth' — vända sig 'turn (over)'. In Latin, parallel autocausatives with both RMs coexisted for a while, cf. moveor = me moveo Ί move', levor = me levo Ί rise (raise myself)', pandor = mepando Ί bend' (see Hatcher 1942: 62—67; Reichenkron 1932: 2 0 - 2 1 ; Baldi 1976: 237). But in the course of time the RM se gradually ousted the RM -r in this function (cf. Referovskaja 1956: 14—15, 19—20, 1957b: 202). In Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish the distribution of both RMs in autocausative RVs varies considerably. For instance, Icelandic uses parallel RVs with both RMs interchangeably in the following case: (48)

Hann setti-st / setti sig ά stolinn he sat -RM / sat RM on chair 'He seated himself on a chair' (Valfells 1970: 558).

Swedish and Norwegian use only the RM stg/seg here, cf. sätta sig 'seat oneself and sette seg respectively (see Xalipov 1972a: 5, 7; Berkov 1955a: 12). The latter two languages employ the pronominal RM as the main means of marking the autocausative meaning, Icelandic being more archaic in this respect. As far as can be judged by the available data, the languages of the sample vary considerably in the lexical range and number of autocausative RVs. They are usually less numerous in the languages with such NVs,

4.2. Reflexives in the Indo-European languages

253

as English movem— movett, which occur intransitively in the autocausative (and decausative) meaning. Thus zero marking on the verb (grammatical conversion) is a rivalling means of rendering the autocausative meaning. English, and to a lesser degree German and French display numerous unmarked autocausative NVs. Among the Slavic languages, autocausative NVs are rather characteristic of Macedonian, as in: (49 a)

b)

Toj gi mrda raboti -te he them moves things-ART 'He moves the things' Toj mrda he moves 'He moves'.

The differences in the lexical range and number of autocausative RVs across languages are further augmented, though to a lesser degree, by the use of simple underived intransitive NVs, such as English run, jump, climb in the autocausative meaning. Thus, autocausative verbs in a language may be either of the run type, or the movein (— movetI) type, or RVs. Languages vary on the preferred formal type of autocausatives. 4.2.3.1.1.5. Reciprocal reflexives The reciprocal function (Δ) is also characteristic of the majority of RMs in the languages under consideration. Reciprocity is distinguished as one of the principal meanings of middle voice forms in Sanskrit and Ancient Greek, and also in Latin -r forms. It is assumed to have been inherited from the proto-language (cf. Hirt 1934: 203-204; Georgiev 1935: 42). However, in Sanskrit and Greek the reciprocal meaning seems to be represented only by a few isolated instances (cf. Savcenko 1960 a: 25 — 26, 40, 1974: 307-308; Gonda 1960b: 176). The Latin RM se seems to have acquired the reciprocal function only in the latest period (Referovskaja 1956: 17). In the Greek Koine of the 4 c. B.C. — 4 c. A.D. this meaning was rendered both my middle forms and the reciprocal pronoun (Leddusire 1972: 57-58). In Gothic, this meaning was rendered by the pronominal phrase iqwis misso, with the reflexive pronoun in the dative case (which is probably accounted for by the fact that the verbs in the examples quoted govern the dative case), cf.:

254

4. A typology of reflexives

(50)

ni liugip iswis misso 'Do not lie to one another' (Guchman 1948: 109; cf. also Wellander 1913: 139).

Reciprocal RVs, such as spyrja-sk 'ask one another' ( vur-s-yny 'be busy sewing'; Bashkir tökor 'spit,,' —• tökör-ön-öu 'be in the habit of spitting' (Juldaäev 1958: 97). It has been claimed that 'absolute' RVs are particularly common in Georgian, Komi, and in Udmurt. In Udmurt, where they are quite numerous, 'absolute' RVs fall into two semantic subsets: (a) RVs meaning 'be engaged in the activity 'NV", e. g. ur-yny 'weed' — ur-isk-yny 'be busy weeding', kertt-yny 'knit' — kertt-isk-yny 'be busy knitting', and (b) RVs with the modal meaning of potential inclination, e. g. leka-ny 'sting' — leka-sk-yny 'be in the habit of stinging', cf. also (210) (see Pozdejeva 1975: 128).

4.3.3.1.1.4. Autocausative reflexives The autocausative function is highly characteristic of the RMs crosslinguistically (see Table 14). Autocausative RVs can be illustrated from the following languages: Azerbaijani (211 a) Ana -0 äli -ni tärpät-di mother-NOM hand-ACC stir -PAST. 3. SG. 'Mother stirred her hand' b) Ana -0 tärpä-n -di mother-NOM stir -RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'Mother stirred';

316

4. A typology of reflexives

Tatar ( 2 1 2 a)

Ul

äjberlär-ne

jäier-de

he-ABS thing -ACC. PL. hide-PAST. 3. SG. 'He hid the things' b)

Ul

jäier-en

-de

he-ABS hide-RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'He hid himself; Fula ( 2 1 3 a)

Ο

hommb-ii

terde

makko

he bend -ACT. PERF. body his 'He has bent his body' b)

Ο

hommb-ike

he bend -RM. PERF. 'He has bent' (Njalibuli 1983a: 141). Compare also Nivkh lyvd' 'hide' —• p'-lyvd' 'hide oneself (Nedjalkov, Otaina 1981: 205), Komi leptyny 'raise' —• lepty-s-ny 'raise oneself, rise' (Bubrix 1949: 149); Udmurt palentyny 'move (sth) aside' —• palent-isk-yny 'move (oneself) aside' (Pozdejeva 1975: 129); Finnish kätkeä 'hide' -* kätke-yty-ä 'hide oneself; Hungarian levag 'throw (down)' —* leväg-öd 'throw oneself (down)', rejt 'hide' -> rejt-δ.ίζ 'hide oneself (Dezso et al. 1969: 119 — 120); Estonian laskma 'put down' —• lask-u-ma 'go down', eemaldama 'move (sth) away' —• eemald-u-ma 'move, go away' (Kask 1966: 50); Hebrew hit-habbe '(he) hid himself, Arabic ta-barraka 'move in ' (Grande 1972: 220); Mordvin Moksha jordams prä 'throw oneself, anoklams prä 'prepare oneself, Erzja kajams prä 'throw oneself, anokstams prä 'prepare oneself (Smirennikova 1985: 72). The autocausative sense can be rendered in a variety of ways. For instance, in the Turkic languages autocausatives are frequently simple intransitive verbs, corresponding transitives being formed from autocausatives with a causative suffix, cf. Tatar: (214 a)

Ul

tubä-gä

men

-de

he-ABS roof-AD climb-PAST. 3. SG. 'He climbed on the roof b)

Ul

takta-lar-ny

tubä-gä

men-der

-de

he-ABS plank-PL-ACC roof-AD raise-CAUS-PAST. 3. SG. 'He raised the planks on to the roof.

4.3. Reflexives in non-Indo-European languages

317

In languages with two RMs (Khmer, Mordvin, Turkic) both usually mark the autocausative function, very much like in Latin and the Scandinavian languages. 4.3.3.1.1.5. Reciprocal

reflexives

Reciprocal RVs can be illustrated from the following languages: Udmurt (215 a) Anaj -0 nil (up-a mother-NOM daughter-ACC. POSS. kiss-PRES. 3. SG. 'Mother kisses her daughter' b) Soos lupa-sk -o they-NOM kiss-RM-PRES. 3. PL. 'They kiss each other'; Eskimo (216 a) Petrj-m Anna-0 naja-qa -0 Peter-REL Ann -ABS kiss -TR-3. SG. 3. SG. 'Peter is kissing Ann' b) Lnit ηαζα-qu -t they kiss-RM-3. PL. 'They are kissing (each other)'; Hopi (217)

pima naa -pa^arfa-ja they RM-helped -PL 'They helped each other' (Langacker 1975: 18).

Compare also Vepsian tervehtele-soi '(they) kiss' (Zajceva 1981: 278); Aymara apara-pxta '(they) beat' —• apara-si-pxta '(they) beat each other' (Martin 1978: 132—133); Hungarian verni 'beat' —> vere-ked-ni 'fight, beat each other', Mansi titt(u) 'feed' —• titt-xat(u) 'feed each other' (Rombandejeva 1973: 149, 151); Amharic ddbaddsdd 'beat (sb)' -> td-ddbaddadd 'fight, beat each other' (Titov 1971: 89-90); Khmer ban 'shoot' -* rd-ban 'shoot at each other'. Khmer, however, has a special reciprocal marker, as in kap 'slash' —> pra-kap 'slash each other', but the principal means of expressing reciprocity is the reciprocal pronoun knea 'each other' (Gorgoniev 1966: 176—177). The reflexive prefixes serve for reciprocals in the majority of the Uto-Aztecan languages (Langacker 1975: 50). Reciprocal pronouns, employed in many languages, are used either alongside or instead of the RM in the reciprocal function.

318

4. A typology of reflexives

In Estonian, the reciprocal sense is expressed either by the suffix -ele-j-le-, as in tap-le-ma 'abuse each other', or by the reciprocal pronouns iiksteise and teineteise 'each other'. In Fula, the suffix -onndir serves as a reciprocal marker, cf.: (218 a) Inna annii maaS -ii ßidcfo mother here kiss -PERF daughter 'Mother kisses her daughter' b) Inna e Bidifo annii maafi-onndir-a mother and daughter here kiss -REC 'Mother and daughter are kissing'. The Turkic languages differ from many other languages in that the RMs (the -n- and -/- suffixes) are never used to mark reciprocity, since there is a specialized reciprocal suffix, containing -/- or -j·-, usually referred to as the suffix of the reciprocal voice (for a discussion of the reciprocal voice see Sevortjan 1962: 528 — 540; Blagova 1976: 59). Special reciprocal markers are also used in Yatzachi Zapotec (Butler 1976: 334), Blackfoot (Frantz 1968: 185; 188), Quechua (the suffix -na (-naku) vs. the RM -kaal-kU; cf. Parker 1976: 116-118), Guarani (the prefix jo- (no-) vs. the RM je- (ne-)\ cf. Guasch 1976: 161 — 163), Selkup (Kuznecova et al. 1980: 292), and in Nivkh (Panfilov 1960: 120-121). It should be noted that the Turkic reciprocal suffix can be used to signal the absolute use, decausative (usually with a collective subject referent) use, and autocausative meaning characterized by valence recession; cf. Yakut silimne- 'glue (sth) together' —• silimne-s- 'be glued, stick together' (decausative meaning), tut- 'hold' tutus- (a) 'hold each other' (reciprocal meaning), (b) 'hold on (to sth)' (autocausative meaning) (Xaritonov 1963: 39, 50). Thus, a reciprocal marker may also develop into a polyfunctional recession marker. 4.3.3.1.1.6. Deaccusative reflexives Deaccusative RVs are not included in Table 14 because of scanty information. However, this RV type is attested in a number of languages; compare the following instances: Komi (219 a)

Sije re% -e va -0 he-NOM splash-PRES. 3. SG. water-ACC 'He is splashing water'

4.3. Reflexives in non-Indo-European languages

319

b) Sije re% -s -e va -en he-NOM splash-RM-PRES. 3. SG. water-INS 'He is splashing water'; Udmurt (220 a) M7-0 gu -0 kop-a girl-NOM pit-ABS dig-PRES. 3. SG. 'The girl is digging a hole' b) Njl-0 gu -in kopa-sk -e girl-NOM pit-LOC dig -RM-PRES. 3. SG. 'The girl is digging in the hole'; Chuvash (221 a) Väl Iätäk-Φ lakal-af he-NOM pit -ABS dig -PRES. 3. SG. 'He is digging a hole' b)

Väl iätäk-ra ίakal-an -at' he-NOM pit -LOC dig -RM-PRES. 3. SG. 'He is digging in the hole.'

As the RM encodes direct object demotion to a minor syntactic position in deaccusative RVs, they can be expected in languages distinguishing between a direct object and oblique objects. 4.3.3.1.2. Objective reflexives The range of semantic functions of the RM within the syntactic class of objective RVs, including the grammatical passive and impersonal functions realized across the non-IE languages, is shown in Table 15, in which we have departed from the established pattern by including the reflexive impersonal of intransitive verbs together with transitives. Thus, Tatar and Turkish form reflexive impersonals from intransitive and not from transitive verbs (on Turkish see Babby 1981: 4—5). As is shown in Table 15, the syntactic class of objective RVs is represented in all the language, with the exception of Nivkh in which objective RVs are represented by a very few decausative and reflexivecausative RVs. 4.3.3.1.2.1. Decausative reflexives The decausative function is attested in the overwhelming majority of the RMs. Compare the following examples:

320

4. A typology of reflexives

Table 15. Semantic types of objective reflexives in the non-IE languages languages

1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Old Turkic Azerbaijani Tatar Turkish Uzbek Yakut Chuvash

semantic types of objective RVs

Δ,

converse RVs Δ„

reflexive reflexiveimpersonal causative RVs Δΐ3, Δ]'3 Δ,4

3

4

5

6

ρ

+ + + + + + +

decausative RVs Δ7

quasipassive RVs Δβ

reflexive passive

2

+ + + + + + +

Finnish + Estonian + Hungarian + Mansi + Komi + Udmurt + Mordvin -v+ (es'J prä + 15. Vepsian +

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

+ + + + +

(+) (+)

?

?

5

+ +

(+)

(+)

(+) +

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ + +

+ + +

-

-

-

+

+

p

+

-

—

(+) —

? — — —

+

(+) (+) + + + + ?

—

(+)

—

? ρ

-

(+)

-

-

—

16. Selkup

+

17. Arabic 18. Amharic

—

—

—

—

+

?

+

?

}

19. Hebrew

+

?

(+)

+

-

20. Shoshoni

+

+

+

?

-

ρ

21. Georgian

+

+

+

+

-

+

-

-

(-)

-

(+)

?

-

?

?

ρ

22. Nivkh

+

-/ + —

(+) •

7

(+) ρ

+

23. Khmer ra-

+

24. Eskimo

+

-

-

-

-

-

25. Fula

+

+

-

ρ

-

+

4.3. Reflexives in non-Indo-European languages

321

Selkup (222 a) tarn muiyry-mpaty wdcy -p he-ABS boil -PAST. 3. SG. meat-ACC 'He (has) boiled the meat' b) wdcy -0 muiy-cy -mpa meat-ABS boil -RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'The meat (has) boiled'; Finnish (223 a) Hän avaa -0 ove -a he-NOM open-PRES door-PART 'He opens the door' b)

Ovi ava -utu -0 door-NOM open-RM-PRES 'The door opens';

Turkish (224 a) Hikmet kapi'-y'i af -ti Hikmet door-ACC open-PAST. 3. SG. 'Hikmet opened the door' b) Kapi'-Q (kendiligindert) ας -ϊΐ -d'i door-ABS (by itself) open-RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'The door opened (by itself)' (Babby 1981; 3); Chuvash (225 a) Väl patak-a xus' -nä he-ABS stick -DAT/ACC break-PAST. 3. SG. 'He broke the stick' b) Patak-§ xus' -äl -nä stick -ABS break-RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'The stick broke'; Yakut (226 a)

Kini4 mah -y tobutta he -ABS stick-ACC break-PAST. 3. SG. 'He broke the stick'

b) Mas -0 tohu -n -na stick-ABS break-RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'The stick broke';

322

4. Λ typology of reflexives

Eskimo (227 a) Anuky-m tuma-0 iqaqi^a-qa -0 wind -REL road-ABS clear -TR-3. SG. 3. SG. 'The wind clears the road' b)

Tuma-φ iqayi^a-qu -q road -ABS clear -RM-3. SG. PRES. 'The road clears'.

Compare also the following causative oppositions: Mordvin Erzja -oms 'split, crack (tr)' —» la^-ov-oms 'split, crack (in)' (Serebrennikov 1967: 231); kepsems 'raise' —* kepsems prä 'rise, be high' (TurgajevaSmirennikova 1972: 184); Erzja nevtemsprä 'show itself, Moksha näftems prä 'show itself (Smirennikova 1985: 72); Khmer bayk 'opentr' —> rdbayk 'open,,,'; Azerbaijani gapa-mag 'closetr' —• gapa-n-mag 'closein' (Sevortjan 1962: 484); Udmurt kesa-ny 'tear tr ' -» kesa-sk-yny 'be torn' (Serebrennikov 1963: 333); Selkup panal-qo 'break tr ' —• panal-y-qo 'breakin' (Kuznecova et al. 1980: 215); Vepsian avaita 'opentr' —* avaita-kse 'open (itself)' (Käxrik 1978: 268); Estonian kordama 'repeat' —• kord-u-ma 'repeat itself, katma 'covertr' katt-u-ma 'get covered', murdma 'breaktr' —»· murd-u-ma 'breakin'. In the Turkic languages, both the -n- and -I- suffixes are employed as decausative markers. Generally, the -I- suffixes seem to be more frequently used in this function, but the distribution of both decausative markers varies from language to language (see Sevortjan (1962: 479—486, 495-500) on Azerbaijani, Xaritonov (1963: 76-82, 106-111) on Yakut). Thus, in Turkish, Chuvash, Uzbek, and Azerbaijani the verb meaning 'open (itself)' is marked with the -I- suffix, cf. (224b) and (225b) above and the following: Azerbaijani (228) Gapy-0 of -yl -dy door-ABS open-RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'The door opened'; Uzbek (229)

Efik-0 ot -il -di door-ABS open-RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'The door opened'.

In Yakut, the -»- RM is used, as in (226b).

4.3. Reflexives in non-Indo-European languages

323

Moreover, in the Turkic languages a causative verb is frequently derived from an intransitive inchoative NV by means of a causative suffix, e.g.: Uzbek: (230 a) Calka4 sin -di cup -ABS break-PAST. 3. SG. 'The cup broke' b) U faika-ni sin -dir -di he-ABS cup -ACC break-CAUS-PAST. 3. SG. 'He broke the cup'. Compare also Turkish dii§-mek 'fall' — diif-iir-mek 'drop (sth)' (Lees 1973: 505). The decausative function, along with the autocausative and passive, is the principal function of the Mordvin RM -v-. This fact, as well as the rare use of -v- in the reflexive meaning, is indicative of its advanced 'age'. The RM (es') prä also has the decausative function and it is extensively used to express semantic reflexivity, but it has not developed the passive function as yet. All this witnesses that (es') prä is a later development than -ν-, which is correlated with the transparency of the initial meaning of es' prä 'one's head'. The decausative function, along with the autocausative, seems to be most prominent in the Khmer RM rs- (Gorgoniev 1966: 176), Vepsian (Käxrik 1978: 271), and probably im Amharic. Characteristically, both the IE and non-IE languages in our samples seem to possess no specialized recession markers with the original decausative function. It is interesting to note that in the typology of anticausative markers RMs alone are mentioned as decausative markers in Nedjalkov, Sil'nickij (1969b: 4 0 - 4 3 ) (see also Gecadze, Nedjalkov (1969: 66-67); Dezsö et al. (1969: 119-122); Gecadze et al. (1969: 137-143); Nedjalkov et al. (1969: 190-191, 197-198); Volodin et al. (1969: 225-227); Kornilov et al. (1969: 243-244)). The only counter-example we can quote is the Swahili Stative morpheme -k-, which is used to derive decausatives from causative verbs, e. g. ku-fungua 'open«' — ku-fungu-k-a 'to be open(ed)' (Swiggers 1984: 89). Kalmyk exhibits suffixes -r and -gd which are regarded as decausative markers, whose primary meaning is unknown, but in a few instances they have a reflexive function, cf. evd 'spoil tr ' —• evd-r 'go bad' and ef 'sluice' —• es-r 'sluice oneself, sek 'open„' —y sek-gd 'open (itself)' and xetx 'prick' —» xetx-ogd 'prick oneself

324

4. Λ typology of reflexives

(I. Nedjalkov 1976: 45—46). To sum up, it is characteristic for RMs to develop into decausative markers cross-linguistically, and there is no evidence of the reverse process. In all the languages of our two samples, whenever the origin of a decausative marker can be verified, it is invariably reflexive, though there seems to be no linguistic reason forbidding a language to possess a recession marker whose original function is decausative. 4.3.3.1.2.2. Quasi-passive reflexives Quasi-passive RVs, as well as converse and reflexive-causative RVs, are seldom, if ever, distinguished in the languages of the non-IE sample, partly because they are marginal sets, and partly because descriptions of RV systems are frequently incomplete. But it is important that all of these RV types are attested outside the IE languages. Quasi-passive RVs of the potential-passive and perfective-passive varieties can be illustrated from the following languages: Uzbek (231 a)

Men küp pul sarfla -dim I-ABS much money spend-PAST. 1. SG. Ί spent a lot of money'

b) Küp pul sarfla -η -dt much money spend-RM-PAST. 3. SG. Ά lot of money got spent'; compare an example with the -I- RM: (232)

Kitob4 tez üqi -I -di book-ABS fast read-RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'The book got read fast';

Chuvash (233 a) Väl praluk-a av -at' he-ABS wire -ACC bend-PRES. 3. SG. 'He bends the wire' b) Praluk-φ av -an -mas -t' wire -ABS bend-RM-NEG-PRES. 3. SG. 'The wire does not bend';

4.3. Reflexives in non-Indo-European languages

Mansi (234 a)

325

Taw wöj -0 rawt -3s he-NOM butter-ABS churn-PAST. 3. SG. 'He churned the butter'

b) Wöj -0 mol'ax rawt -xat -as butter-ABS fast churn-RM-PAST. 3. SG. 'The butter got churned fast'; Estonian (235 a) Se -da murd -u lihtsusta-me this-PART fraction-PART simplify-PRES. 1. PL. 'We simplify this fraction' b) See murd -0 libtsust -u -b this-NOM fraction-NOM simplify-RM-PRES. 3. SG. 'This fraction can be simplified'; Fula (236 a)

Kaaki tfii karng-ike faa gast things these pack-RM. PERF. well 'The things got packed well';

b) Ndiyam ala-si-na 'buy for oneself (Martin 1978: 131); in Arabic, cf. qatafa 'pick-fruit' 'iq-ta-tafa 'pick-fruit-for-oneself (Grande 1972: 220). Langacker (1976: 116) quotes an example from Classical Nahuatl which may be interpreted as a transitive RV: (275)

no -no ^ma ni-k-no -maka my-RM I -it-myself-give Ί give it to myself.

In Georgian, the so-called subject version ('version for oneself), marked with the RM ι-, renders three of the meanings of dative TRVs: (a) the reflexive-benefactive meaning: (276)

me rje -s ν -i -duy -eb I milk-DAT 1. SG.-RM-boil-THEM Ί am boiling milk for myself (Gecadze et al. 1969: 147);

(b) the reflexive-possessive meaning: (277 a)

me ν -i -emend kbil -eb -s I l.SG.-RM-brush tooth-PL-DAT Ί brush my teeth' (Hemmann 1978: 55);

b)

Petre pir -s i -ban -s Peter face-DAT RM-wash-3. SG. 'Peter washes his face' (Gecadze et al. 1969: 147);

(c) the reflexive-recipient meaning: (278)

mama-m perang-i ca -i -cva father-ERG shirt - N O M PERF-RM-put-on 'Father put on a shirt' (Hemmann 1978: 55).

338

4. A typology of reflexives

In Eskimo, the reflexive-benefactive meaning is tendered by the subject agreement in verbs with the benefactive suffix -uta-, the case marking in the nouns changing as follows: (279 a)

b)

Lnan av -uta -qa iyamyi) ila -ni he-ERG choose-BEN-TR book-INS friend-his-ABS 'He chooses a book for a friend' Lna av -uta -qu -q iyamyi] he-ABS choose-BEN-RM-3. SG. PRES. book-INS 'He chooses himself a book'.

The middle forms in Fula can also be used transitively, with a direct object referring to a body part: (280 a)

Ο hett-ii fedenndu he cut-ACT. PERF. finger 'He has cut his finger'

b)

Ο hett-ike fedenndu he cut-RM. PERF. finger 'He has cut his finger';

makko his

in (280b) the possessive pronoun is deleted, the middle ending -ike expressing the possessive relationship between the subject and object referents (Njalibuli 1983a: 143). Transitive RVs are conspicuously absent in the Finno-Ugric languages of the sample. It would be interesting to try and find the reasons why none of these languages has developed transitive RVs. 4.3.3.1.4. Reflexives with retained syntactic structure RVs with zero change in the SynS are attested in a significant number of the sample languages (see Table 16). They derive exclusively from intransitive verbs in the languages lacking dative TRVs, and in the languages displaying dative TRVs they derive from intransitives in the first place. As well as in the IE languages, these RVs either retain the meaning of the base NV along with the SynS, thus being their doublets (cf. Tatar järsu = järs-yn-y 'become furious'; Zinnatullina 1969: 179), or they acquire additional components of meaning, such as iterativity, intensity, duration, or the meaning of frequent, or diminutive, or sudden action. Compare the following examples: Georgian cers '(he) writes' —* i-cer-eb-a '(he) frequently-writes' (Gecadze et al. 1969: 141); Azerbaijani kä^mäk 'walk'

4.3. Reflexives in non-Indo-European languages

339

—• kä^-in-mäk 'walk to and fro, stroll' (Sevortjan 1962: 487); Tatar jörii 'walk' —* jör-en-ii 'walk about', kurku 'get frightened' —*• kurk-jn-tt 'suddenly get frightened'; a narrowing of meaning is also observed in Tatar, as in ky^aru 'redden' —• kys^ar-yn-u 'turn red in the face, flush (from anger or insult)', $ebü 'get wet' —• 5eb-en-ii 'get soaked (of man)' (Zinnatullina 1969: 179-180). In Old Turkic and in Azerbaijani there are instances of RVs acquiring the meaning 'to oneself, as in Old Turkic kul- 'laugh' —»• kul-un- 'laugh to oneself (Amanzolov 1969: 76), Azerbaijani myryId-an-mag 'mutter to oneself (into one's beard)'. In Azerbaijani, the RM occasionally marks the inceptive meaning, as in $almag 'hoot' —• ξαΐ-yn-mag 'start hooting' (Sevortjan 1962: 489). In the Mordvin languages, RVs of the type in question sometimes acquire the modal meaning 'be able to' or 'involuntarily', cf. Erzja molems 'go, walk' -mole-v-oms 'be able to go, to walk', stäms 'rise' — stä-v-oms 'rise involuntarily' (Serebrennikov 1967: 232). In Udmurt, the RM is used to mark the 'inferential' meaning in the past tense (Pozdejeva 1975: 128).

RVs with zero change in the SynS often change their lexical meaning in an individual way, thus becoming semantically non-reversible reflexives.

4.3.3.2.

Non-reversible

reflexives

Non-reversible RVs, both formal reflexiva tantum and semantically nonreversible units, are attested in many languages of the sample (see Table 16). Compare the following examples: Tatar *NV —> ask-yn-u 'strive (for)', ütü 'pass' -> üt-en-ü 'ask, beg' (Zinnatullina 1969: 170, 180); Yakut sir- 'reject as defective' —• sirg-en- 'be squeamish (about)', ktr- 'enter' —> kir-in- 'agree' (Xaritonov 1963: 89); Chuvash üs 'grow i n ' — iis-en 'turn out well', fit 'achieve' — fit-en 'ripen' (Kornilov 1975: 47). In Nivkh, semantically non-reversible RVs comprise a large number of all RVs, and in this respect they are similar to English RVs of the dictionary verb-list (see section 3.5). As both languages display a somewhat similar stage in the evolution of RVs, a large number of non-reversible RVs probably indicates that semantic development of meaning by transfer accompanies the evolution of RVs from the very start. In Eskimo, a large number of verbal stems (about 200 units) have only subject agreement, e. g. ayita^-qu-q 'he yawns', ayula-qu-q 'he rocks, reels', kakava-qu-q 'he is afraid' (Vaxtin 1981: 267).

340

4. Λ typology of reflexives

4.3.3.3. Denominal

reflexives

Derivation of RVs from nouns and adjectives, being a marginal wordformation process, is nevertheless well represented across the languages of the sample (see Table 16). The lexical base of denominal RVs and their number varies considerably from language to language. Denominal RVs are particularly numerous in Udmurt, where they derive from pronouns, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and even some participles (Pozdejeva 1975: 133 — 140), and they seem to be numerous in the Turkic languages. Here are a few examples from various languages: Estonian orb 'orphan' —• orbu-ma 'become an orphan', jää 'ice' —• jäät-u-ma 'get covered with ice', kiilm 'cold' —• külm-u-ma 'become cold, freeze' (Pali 1966: 205); Udmurt ei 'friend' —* eija-sk-yny 'be friends', mon Ί' —* monja-sk-yny 'be conceited, think well of oneself, atas 'rooster' —• atasja-sk-yny 'behave like a rooster', pydes 'knee' —• pydesja-sk-yny 'kneel down' (Pozdejeva, ibid.); Komi mu 'ground' —• mua-s-ny 'dig the ground', pin 'tooth' —* pma-s-ny 'swear' (Serebrennikov 1963: 336; cf. Bubrix 1949: 152); Tatar aru 'clean' -» ar-yn-ti 'become clean', köl 'strength' —» köt-en-ü 'strain oneself (Zinnatullina 1969: 170); Chuvash ürek 'languid' —• ürk-en 'be languid, lazy', tasa 'clean' -> tasa-1 'become clean' (Kornilov 1975: 48, 51); Turkish ög 'mind, brains' -* ögr-en-mek 'learn, study' (Mixailov 1961: 222); Eskimo ilja 'friend' —• iljakuta-qu-q 'he is friends (with sb)', aqilqaq 'guest' —> aqilqamaqu-q 'he is (staying as) a guest'. It is typologically important that denominal, as well as non-reversible RVs, being peripheral RV types, occur nevertheless in genetically and areally distant languages.

4.3.4. General remarks It should be emphasized that the non-IE languages of our sample employ not only RMs but also a variety of other markers for recessive categories, in particular for semantic reflexivity and the passive voice (cf. also the reciprocal markers in the Turkic languages), e. g. specialized markers, zero marking on the verb, suppletive forms, etc. In these languages, two or more strategies are sometimes used to mark a particular recessive category alongside the RM, the latter being only a secondary, and frequently highly irregular, means of marking it. We have been able only to outline the possibility of RM use for marking the entire range of recessive categories in the sample languages. The investigation of the

4.4. Typological classification of systems of reflexives

341

regularity with which a RM is used to mark each recessive category, as well as of the distribution of the RM and rivalling formal means relative to each recessive function is viewed here as an important task both for the description of particular languages and for typology. So far, we have found no semantic RV types in the non-IE languages of the sample which exceed the limits placed by the calculus of recessive diatheses upon their variation. It is, however, a task for future closer examination of RVs in a wider range of languages to finally confirm or disconfirm this claim.

4.4. Typological classification of systems of reflexives This section is concerned with the following questions concerning the universals and typology of reversible RVs of the basic formal class: (1) a calculus of possible arrays of syntactic and semantic RV types; (2) a classification of the RV systems of the sample languages along the possible types of RV systems; (3) a typological characterization of the Baltic and English RV systems, i. e. defining their place in the classification of RV systems. This section builds on the findings of Chapters Two and Three and of the previous sections of this chapter. 4.4.1. Typology of syntactic classes of reflexives If we take into account subjective, objective, and transitive RVs, as the principal syntactic classes, we may assert that a language may in principle possess either all the three RV classes, or two, or one of them, or none. Accordingly, eight types of RV systems are logically possible, as is shown in Table 17. We shall make the following reservations below: (1) if a given syntactic class is represented in a language by a few isolated RVs — which may be of very recent origin (cf. the objective RVs in Nivkh) or, on the contrary, relics of an earlier period (cf. dative TRVs in Latvian) — we shall regard it as non-existent in the given language; (2) if a language employs two or more RMs, the one with a broader range of functions will be taken into account, unless otherwise indicated; (3) if the data concerning RVs of a particular language is insufficient or unreliable, this language will not be considered in the classification.

342

4. Λ typology of reflexives

Table 17. Types of possible arrays of syntactic classes of reflexives type

syntactic classes subjective RVs

objective RVs

transitive RVs

I

+

+

+

II

+ +

III IV

V

VI VII VIII

+

+ + +

+ +

+

Given these reservations, the RV systems of the IE and non-IE languages in our samples distribute among the eight types established in Table 17 in the following way: Type I includes at least Lithuanian, German, French, Spanish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, Old Turkic, Yakut, Eskimo, Georgian, Aymara RVs, the middle voice in Old Greek and in Sanskrit; English RVs, with a small set of transitive dative RVs, also marginally belong to this type. Type II includes at least the East Slavic, Polish, Latvian, SerboCroatian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Tatar, and Finno-Ugric RVs. Type V is represented by Nivkh RVs. Types III, IV, VI, and VIII are not represented in the sample at all. Thus, out of eight logically possible arrays of syntactic RV classes only three are represented in the sample. Type VIII is excluded from our sample a priori, as we have been generally concerned with the languages that have polyfunctional RMs. But languages with no RVs which may possess a monofunctional marker (e. g. a reflexive pronoun) for semantic reflexivity are known to exist, e. g. Japanese, which uses the reflexive pronoun %ibun. Type III, IV, and VI RV systems seem to be at least logically possible, and therefore likely to be found in a greater sample of languages, since (a) the existence of TRVs does not seem to depend on and to be determined by the existence of objective RVs, which allows for Type III; (b) it is logically possible that the RM in a hypothetic language may have lost the subjective syntactic function while retaining

4.4. Typological classification of systems of reflexives

343

the objective and transitive functions, which allows for Type IV; and (c) a language may retain the objective function of the RM after having lost the subjective and transitive functions, which allows for Type VI. However, if a marker retains only the objective functions and has lost the subjective functions, including that of marking semantic reflexivity, it may not be recognized as a reflexive marker. It is significant that the overwhelming majority of RV systems in our samples are distributed between two types of arrays, either with all the three syntactic classes of RVs, or with subjective and objective RVs, this fact indicating the typological relevance of the parameter in question. Thus we see that the distribution of the languages among the types distinguished is far from random, being strongly skewed in favour of Types I and II. If a language may possess either (a) subjective RVs, or (b) subjective and objective RVs, or (c) the three syntactic RV classes, and if other arrays of syntactic functions in a RM are only logical possibilities, we may tentatively assume, at least for the languages of our samples, that the syntactic functions of RMs fall into an implicational hierarchy: subjective > objective > transitive function. To put it otherwise, if a language exhibits transitive RVs it is likely to have both subjective and objective RVs, and if a language exhibits objective RVs it is very likely to have subjective RVs, but not necessarily transitive RVs. This hierarchy, in its own turn, suggests a path along which the syntactic functions of RMs develop diachronically: given the primary reflexive meaning of a polyfunctional RM, RV systems comprised only of subjective RVs may be regarded as the earliest stage in the evolution of the syntactic functions of RMs. Type I and Type II RV systems represent a later stage of the evolution. The objective function is secondary to the subjective and it evolves later. The transitive dative function, as it is attested only in languages with both subjective and objective functions of the RM, seems to be secondary to both, but on the other hand, its absence in such languages as Russian, Latvian, and Armenian, with highly developed subjective and objective semantic functions of the RM, seems to indicate that it is not an obligatory stage in the evolution of the syntactic functions of RMs. The existence or absence of dative TRVs does not seem to correlate with the degree of evolution once the subjective and objective functions are highly developed. This is supported by the fact that Latvian, the closest relative of Lithuanian exhibiting a very numerous and productive set of transitive dative RVs, shows only

344

4. A typology of reflexives

a few relics of this set. Thus the development of the dative function is optional and may undergo set-backs and decay. Of course, much more data from a more representative sample of the world languages will have to be collected to verify the skewing of RV systems on the parameter of syntactic classes, and to validate (or invalidate) our tentative generalizations. Finally, it should be pointed out that (a) relative to the subjective and objective functions of the RM, Lithuanian and Latvian are similar to the majority of the sample languages; (b) on the parameter of the dative transitive class of RVs the two languages belong to different typological classes; (c) English is similar to Lithuanian and other Type I languages relative to the array of syntactic RV classes, but relative to the quantitative characteristics of the objective and transitive RV classes it is on the periphery of Type I. Being based on the syntactic functions of RMs, the classification of RV systems we have discussed in this section captures only the most general functional differences between RV systems across the sample languages. Therefore it should be further supplemented by a typological classification on the parameter of semantic functions of RMs.

4.4.2. Typology of semantic classes of reflexives In this section, we shall discuss the typology of semantic RV classes within the syntactic classes of subjective and objective reflexives separately. 4.4.2.1. Semantic classes of subjective

reflexives

Five principal semantic classes of subjective RVs (semantic reflexives, 'partitive object', 'absolute', autocausative, and reciprocal RVs) allow 32 combinations, according to the number of classes that can be manifested in an individual language. Most of the 32 logically possible arrays are not attested in our sample. Therefore, we shall list only those main arrays that are attested in the sample (see Table 18). The number of arrays realized across natural languages may be greater than is shown in Table 18, but this requires further investigation. First, the skewing in the distribution of the RV systems among the types of arrays of subjective semantic functions is significant enough to conclude that the parameter in question is typologically relevant. Secondly, each of Types I, II, III, and IV comprises languages from

4.4. Typological classification

of systems of reflexives

345

Table 18. Types of arrays of semantic classes of subjective reflexives type

semantic classes of subjective RVs

languages

semantic reflexives

'partitive object' RVs

'absolute' RVs

autocausative RVs

reciprocal RVs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I.

Baltic, Slavic, Hungarian, Komi, Udmurt, Vepsian, Mansi, Eskimo

+

+

+

+

+

Tatar, Uzbek, Chuvash, Georgian, Fula

+

+

+

+

German, French, Spanish, Italian, Ancient Greek, Armenian, Romanian, Hebrew

+

+

-

+

English, Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic stg, Finnish, Azerbaijani, Turkish, Yakut, Nivkh, Mordvin

+

+

V.

Estonian enesejenda

+

+

-

-

-

VI.

Estonian -uSelkup

+

-

-

+

-

VII.

Swedish RM -s

+

+

+

VIII.

Norwegian -s

-

+

+

II.

III.

IV.

(-i-),

-

-

-

+

+

various genetic families and, on the contrary, closely related languages may be scattered among different types. In other words, the typological distance (degree of similarity) between languages does not necessarily coincide with the genetic distance (degree of genetic relatedness) between them relative to the parameter of semantic functions within subjective RVs.

346

4. A typology of

reflexives

The following should be noted. (1) Type I, i. e. a complete set of the main semantic classes of subjective RVs, may be considered as the mature stage of the evolution of semantic functions of RMs within the subjective syntactic class which has not started to 'decay', i. e. to lose some functions. Both Lithuanian and Latvian belong to Type I, thus being typologically similar to the Slavic and some Finno-Ugric languages. It is noteworthy that all the languages of the two genetically close groups, viz. Baltic and Slavic, display a complete range of semantic subjective functions of the RMs within valence recession. (2) Type II languages lack the reciprocal function of the RMs. Since the Turkic languages belonging in this type have a special reciprocal marker, their RMs may also be said to have acquired a maximum number of semantic subjective functions. This also pertains to Fula middle endings. The Type II languages are very close to those of Type I, being separated from them by a minimal typological distance. (3) Type III languages, lacking 'absolute' RVs, are also very close to Type I languages typologically, and they are quite numerous, though nearly all of them are from the IE family. It is very likely, however, that this type is realized in some non-IE languages besides Hebrew. In Type III languages, failure to signal the absolute use of verbs with a RM may be due to an extensive use of zero marking on verbs. The existence of Type II and Type III RV systems indicates that the development of the reciprocal and 'absolute' functions in a RM is not necessarily correlated. The absence of either function in a RM is most likely to be determined by systemic factors, such as the use of a rivalling formal strategy. (4) Type IV languages exhibit only three semantic classes of subjective RVs, viz. semantic reflexives, 'partitive object' and autocausative RVs. These three RV classes are very closely related semantically and they partly overlap or at least adjoin one another relative to their lexical range. In fact, they are so closely related that in the IE linguistic tradition they are all too frequently considered together under the name of true reflexives or under some synonymous term (cf. Baldi (1974: 19 — 20, 1976: 236—250) and his references to previous authors). In Type IV languages the evolution of the RM functions within the syntactic class of subjective RVs may be said not to have reached the possible limits. (5) Type V exhibiting only the semantic reflexive function and closest to it 'partitive object' function of the RM is represented by the Estonian reflexive pronoun enesejenda 'oneself. Thus this RM may be said to be in the initial stage of evolution both formally and semantically. It is

4.4. Typological classification of systems of reflexives

347

only one step removed from monofunctional RMs (typically, reflexive pronouns) expressing semantic reflexivity exclusively, which are observed in a great many languages, e. g. the Slavic, Baltic, Turkic, and other languages, excluding the Romance languages, German, and English. (6) Type VI exhibiting only the semantic reflexive and autocausative functions of the RM, as is the case in Selkup and Estonian, may also be regarded as an initial stage of semantic evolution of the semantic functions within subjective RVs. However, we have strong doubts about Type VI: if a RM has developed the autocausative function it is strange that it should lack the 'partitive object' function since the latter is closer to semantic reflexivity than the former. But, of course, some unknown factor(s) may be at work here. Our data on Selkup and the Estonian -u(-/-) RMs are limited and therefore inconclusive, and more detailed verblists might reveal the existence of 'partitive-object' RVs in these languages, in which case they would belong to Type IV. (7) Type VII and Type VIII languages are characterized by the absence of the semantic reflexive and 'partitive object' functions of the RM. As they are represented by the flectional RMs of the Scandinavian languages which are known to have lost these two functions we may regard these types of RV systems as 'decaying', and tentatively conclude that these two functions are the first to disappear among the semantic subjective functions once a RM starts to decay. Our data also show that the last subjective function to be retained by a RM is the autocausative function, probably due to its affinity to and overlapping with the objective decausative function. To sum up, the types of possible arrays of semantic subjective RM functions are not random. It may be claimed that they constitute an implicational hierarchy that suggests a specific path of evolution: semantic reflexivity > 'partitive object' and/or autocausative > absolute and/or reciprocal, the latter two functions being optional. The arrays of the semantic subjective functions in the types attested cross-linguistically represent consecutive stages in the development of RVs: (a) RMs with the primary semantic reflexive function are the starting point of evolution, (b) RMs with the semantic reflexive and 'partitive object' and/or autocausative functions are in the advanced stage of evolution; (c) RMs with a complete range of semantic subjective functions may be regarded as 'mature', and (d) RMs lacking the semantic reflexive (and next to it 'partitive object') function(s) are in the final, decaying stage of development. Thus the

348

4. A typology of reflexives

degree of 'maturity' of a RM is not measured by the actual time span of its existence but by the number of functions it has developed or retains. The limited number of languages in the sample and absence of information on quantitative characteristics of the semantic sets within subjective RVs restricts the validity of the implicational hierarchy, but we feel secure in claiming that data to the contrary are hardly to be expected from a wider range of languages. The qualitative differences between languages concerning the range of semantic subjective functions of the RMs are invariably concomitant with quantitative differences concerning the number of RVs in the semantic sets realized, and differences in the lexical range of each set. These properties should also be taken into account in a typology of reflexives, but lack of relevant data makes this impossible so far. 4.4.2.2. Semantic classes of objective

reflexives

The term semantic classes is used here (as well as elsewhere) broadly to cover the grammatical functions of reflexive forms. We shall take into consideration only the decausative function and the passive and impersonal functions of the RMs. We shall digress from the classification suggested in sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.3 by grouping the reflexive impersonal of intransitive NVs together with that of transitive verbs. The three objective functions of RMs allow eight logically possible combinations of which only four are attested in the sample languages and, therefore, entered in Table 19. Lack of exhaustive and reliable data prevents distributing all the sample languages between the types of arrays. The arrays of semantic objective functions marked by RMs are, again, not random. Type I languages display a maximum range of the principal semantic objective functions. Type II languages display the first two of these functions, and Type III languages display only the decausative function and no grammatical functions. Type IV languages display no objective RVs at all, thus demonstrating the lowest degree of RM evolution. Characteristically, languages with a maximum range of subjective functions (see Table 18) may exhibit a varying degree of the development of objective functions. Thus, the Baltic languages belonging to Type I on the parameter of the semantic subjective functions of the RM, are classed in Type III on the parameter of the semantic objective functions of the RM.

4.4. Typological classification of systems of reflexives

349

Table 19. Types of RV and RF systems on the parameter of subsets in the syntactic objective class type

I.

II.

languages

subtypes of objective reflexives decausative RVs

reflexive passive

reflexive impersonal

Bulgarian, SerboCroatian, Polish, Czech, Spanish, Italian, Latin (-r), Turkish, Uzbek, Tatar

+

+

+

East Slavic, Greek, Armenian, Georgian, Hungarian, Komi, Udmurt, Mordvin (-V-), Shoshoni, Yakut, Chuvash

+

+

-

-

III.

Baltic, German, English, Mansi, Khmer (rs-), Selkup, Eskimo, Estonian (-u- (->•

IV.

Nivkh

-

At first glance, it may seem that an array comprising the passive and impersonal functions and no decausative RVs is logically possible, though it is not represented in the sample. However, the decausative function of RMs is closest to the semantic subjective functions (viz. to the semantic reflexive and autocausative functions) and it is retained as long as autocausative RVs are retained in a language. If a RM loses the decausative and autocausative functions, which may happen only after the semantic reflexive function is lost, and retains the passive function, it cannot be regarded as a RM by definition. We claim that a RM cannot retain both its primary reflexive function and the passive function if it has lost its decausative function. As Table 19 shows, most of the languages entered display either a complete set of the principal semantic functions in the class of objective RVs (Type I), or the decausative and passive functions (Type II). Thus, in our sample the number of languages employing the RM to signal the passive voice is far larger than that of languages lacking the reflexive passive, the latter including Lithuanian and Latvian. As we see, the Baltic

350

4. A typology of reflexives

languages are separated from their closest relatives, i. e. the Slavic languages, by a greater typological distance than from German, English, and some non-IE languages of the sample. For the typology of semantic and grammatical functions of RMs in the syntactic objective class, it is significant that there is a large number of languages with the reflexive personal passive and no reflexive impersonal, but there are no languages displaying the reflexive impersonal and no personal passive. This may be taken to indicate that the impersonal function in the R M is secondary to the personal passive and develops later than the latter. This is at least the sequence of evolution attested in Portuguese: the RM se developed the impersonal passive function in the 16th c. when the personal passive function was fully developed (Naro 1976: 78). Our data presented in Tables 10 and 15 seem to indicate, rather, that the personal passive function is more closely related to the decausative function and evolves on its basis, than the impersonal function. It may be claimed that the principal functions within the objective recessive diatheses develop in the following succession: decausative > passive > impersonal. Languages with the reflexive impersonal invariably display the other two objective functions of RMs, and languages with the reflexive (personal) passive display decausative RVs, but not necessarily the reflexive impersonal. However, an earlier development of the impersonal function than of the passive in a R M seems, in principle, possible as it is characterized by a simpler change in the SynS and in the diathesis where the only change is the deletion of the Agent expression without Agent elimination in the RolS (the direct object correspondence being preserved intact in transitive verbs), whereas in the personal passive this operation is concomitant with the Patient promotion to subject position. But the more complicated nature of diathesis change seems to be of lesser importance in language than the preference for subjectful sentences, subjectless sentences being a less canonical sentence type in some languages, and forbidden in other languages. Interestingly enough, both points of view have been voiced in the dispute concerning the diachronic relationship between the passive and impersonal functions of the -r marker in the Italic and Celtic dialects, as well as in Latin. The development of the impersonal function from passive has been claimed to be corroborated by the fact that in Tocharian and Hittite -r forms could be passive but not impersonal (cf. Claflin 1927: 1 6 5 - 1 7 5 , 1929: 249). StathaHalikas (1977: 578 — 585), on the contrary, insists on the genesis of

4.4. Typological classification of systems of reflexives

351

passive from impersonal constructions in the dialects mentioned by claiming that the -r marker was originally impersonal. This claim is based on her assertion that in Early Latin the predominant use of -r forms attested was impersonal, while Classical Latin continued the impersonal use of intransitive verbs only, the impersonal use of transitives being replaced by the personal passive with an accusative direct object promoted to subject (ibid., p. 580 — 581). If Early Latin used the personal -r passive of transitive verbs only marginally and it became a predominant pattern at a later date in Classical Latin, this may be a fact undermining our claim made above, but the data quoted by other authors (e. g. Claflin 1929; Baldi 1976) seem to show that -r forms were used passively as well as decausatively throughout the history of Latin. However, a more thorough investigation of the diachronic relationship of the passive and impersonal functions in a greater number of languages representing Type I is necessary in order to arrive at final conclusions. If we turn to the secondary semantic functions within the syntactic objective class of RVs, i. e. quasi-passive, converse and reflexive-causative, we may assert that the quasi-passive function of RMs is likely to evolve from decausative, as there are languages with only decausative and no quasi-passive RVs (e. g. Mordvin (es') prä, Eskimo, English, Scandinavian stgjseg), or with both (see Tables 10 and 15), but there are no languages displaying quasi-passive and no decausative RVs. If we compare the quasi-passive and passive functions of RMs we shall see that there are languages with quasi-passive RVs and no reflexive passive (cf. Lithuanian and Latvian, German, Selkup, Mansi, and Fula), but there are practically no languages exhibiting passive RFs and no quasi-passive RVs. As the data of the two Baltic languages show (see section 2.1.3.2.3.3) the quasi-passive function may be intermediate in the evolution of the passive function from decausative. Converse RVs may occur in languages without the reflexive passive (cf. Lithuanian, Latvian, German, and Scandinavian sig/seg), therefore they may be assumed to evolve by affinity to decausative RVs with the optional demotion of the initial subject to a minor syntactic position. On the other hand, a specialized (e. g. periphrastic) passive form may also be used to signal lexical converseness, as is the case in English (see (107) in section 3.4.2.4). The reflexive-causative function of RMs, however, seems to be more closely related to the semantic reflexive function rather than to any semantic function within the class of objective RVs, as this meaning includes the reflexive component (see section 2.1.3.2.4.2) and the lexical

352

4. Λ typology of reflexives

base of reflexive-causative RVs partly overlaps with that of semantic reflexives. As regards the set of the principal and secondary semantic functions of the RM within the class of objective RVs, both Lithuanian and Latvian are separated by the least typological distance from German, which displays the same array of semantic objective RV classes excepting the reflexive-causative RVs (see Table 10), and from Mansi (see Table 15). The greatest typological distance separates both Lithuanian and Latvian from Type I languages possessing a complete set of the principal semantic objective functions of the RM (see Table 19), on the one hand, and from Nivkh, representing Type IV with practically non-existent objective RVs, on the other. English RVs belong to the same Type III as the Baltic RVs relative to the principal objective functions, but they are far removed typologically from the latter relative to the secondary functions as they exhibit only the decausative function of the RM and no other semantic classes of objective RVs and RFs. 4.4.2.3.

Typology of word-building and grammatical functions of reflexive markers

An important fact about RMs cross-linguistically is that they can be employed both as word-forming markers to derive lexical units and as grammatical markers to signal grammatical categories. As we see it, the passive and impersonal are the only grammatical functions of RMs, the remaining semantic functions within the objective syntactic class and all the semantic subjective RM-verbs belonging to the domain of wordformation. On the parameter of these two types of functions of RMs languages may be typologized as follows: Type I languages which employ the RM both as a word-forming and as a grammatical marker; here belong all the Type I and Type II languages distinguished in Table 19. Type II languages which employ the RM as a word-building formative exclusively; this type subsumes Type III and Type IV languages of Table 19. As we see, there is an important skewing in our sample on the parameter in question, most languages employing the RM both as a word-forming and grammatical marker. The Baltic languages and English belong to the minority as Type II languages.

4.5. General conclusion on the typology of reflexives

353

4.5. General conclusion on the typology of reflexives To summarize, RMs ate used to mark a wide range of distinct, though related functions which constitute a continuum within valence recession. The implicational hierarchies suggest that, once a RM appears in a language, its functions develop along a specific path, given that the initial function is that of marking semantic reflexivity. Next, the use of a RM may be extended to combine with a broader lexical range of verbs to acquire partitive reflexivity, the autocausative, decausative and other functions. Needless to say, the generalizations made in the previous sections are highly tentative and have to be verified on a wider range of genetically and areally unrelated languages. For this purpose, we conclude this book with a questionnaire which may facilitate further cross-linguistic investigation of RVs within the theoretical framework proposed in this work.

Notes to Chapter Four 1. For illustration in this section, we shall be using not only RCs, but also recessive constructions marked otherwise, e. g. with a passive marker. 2. Derivatives with Δ 12 from transitive NVs are mostly converse RVs, but respective derivatives with A'l2 from intransitive NVs cannot be termed converses since they have only one correspondence in the diathesis. Therefore we use the term deagentive RVs to cover both cases. 3. Moreover, the information in the literature is sometimes contradictory and inconclusive, which makes it hard to establish whether a language obligatorily deletes the Agent or whether it demotes the Agent and then optionally expresses it. 4. Compare Jarceva's (1976: 11) assertion that in typology it is necessary to distinguish between meanings found in some languages and lacking in others, and meanings expressed in all languages but marked in different ways. 5. We use here the genealogical classification of languages suggested in Reformatskij (1967: 407-436). 6. For instance, the Bulgarian RM se is viewed in the literature as either a pronoun, or a reflexive particle, or a morpheme; for a survey of the points of view see Norman (1972: 126). 7. In the tables, ' + ' and ' —' denote presence and absence of a class respectively, ' ( + ) ' — a highly restricted class, '(—)' — possible absence, and '?' — no information or inconclusive information. Tables 9 — 13, and also 14—16 are based on the data obtained from the studies listed in the Appendix, and from informants. 8. The source is not indicated if an example is obtained from an informant or from a dictionary.

354

4. A typology of

reflexives

9. There are statements to the effect that in Old English there was a small number of reciprocal RVs, such as we us gethiedath 'we draw together', gebinde we us 'we unite ourselves' (Smuäkevic 1964: 192), but these are in fact autocausative RVs with a mutiple subject. 10. The reader should be warned that ' ( + ) ' in the column headed reflexive passive (Δ 9 ) is not reliable: the agentive passive with the same low frequency is regarded by authors as marginally possible in some languages, e.g. French (marked with ' ( + ) ' ) and as regular in others (marked with ' + '), though in fact they may be equally rare. 11. For the analysis of potential-modal RVs cross-linguistically see Nedjalkov (1978: 3 1 - 3 2 ) ; cf. also Jännti (1978: 221-222). 12. We distinguish between agentive passive, i. e. admitting agent-extension, and nonagentive passive; agentive passive constructions may be agentful (with the agent expressed) and agentless; see Svartvik (1966: 40). 13. However, our informants on Romanian and on Moldavian reject the possibility of agent extension in reflexive passives, though it is quite acceptable in the periphrastic passive. 14. By the reflexive passive in German Siewierska means RCs such as Das Buch liest sich leicht 'This book reads easily' (Siewierska 1984: 170) which we distinguish as quasipassive RCs; but Siewierska's two statements concerning Romance are contradictory (more likely, the double mention of the Romance languages may be a slip). 15. For a detailed discussion of overlapping and borderline cases in Russian see Rode (1941). Disambiguation of reflexive passive and decausative RCs by means of word order in Italian is discussed in Costa (1975: 113); for a survey of the problem see Siewierska (1984: 169-173). 16. It has been claimed that reflexive impersonals are rare and even ungrammatical in Serbo-Croatian, but Mork (1969: 261) argues that their existence cannot be doubted, especially in newspaper style. 17. This is the view adopted for impersonals formed from intransitive verbs in our study on the passive voice in Lithuanian (GeniuSiene 1972, 1973a) where the decision is based on the verbal morphology, both personal and impersonal passives being expressed by the periphrastic passive form, the second factor determining the decision being the possibility of optional Agent expression. 18. On the origin of the dative si in the Slavic languages see Havranek (1963: 31—35). 19. According to Cernyleva (1976: 24), recipient-reflexive TRVs occur only in 36 per cent of the instances in German texts, NVs being more frequent. 20. There is an opinion that both -n- and -I- suffixes are allomorphs, but there is disagreement on this point; for a discussion see Zinnatullina (1969: 125 —126 ff.). 21. In fact, the i- forms are seldom used passively, the principal passive form being a periphrastic ('analytic') participial form (Harris 1981: 104—105, 191 — 199). 22. RVs of formal class II are not included in Table 16 as there is no information concerning their existence in the languages of the sample. The languages on which there is no relevant information are also not included.

Summary

This work is concerned with three issues, viz. explication of the principles of analysis of reflexives, or reflexive verbs, description of reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages and in English, and, finally, a typology of reflexives, the empirical evidence being drawn from over 50 IE and nonIE languages. By way of summing up, we will reiterate the main points. The term reflexives is applied to verbs with a reflexive marker, the latter being defined as an element in the verb which may serve to render semantic reflexivity (i. e. the coreference of two semantic roles, e. g. of the deep subject and the deep object), or which may have had this function in an earlier period. This definition covers not only reflexives proper, but also their functional equivalents, like Ancient Greek middle forms, Latin -r forms, Scandinavian verbs with the ending -s/st, etc. Reflexive markers may be either monosemantic, with the single function of marking the reflexive sense (cf. Lithuanian save 'oneself), or polysemantic, i. e. they may have developed a broad range of functions, like the Russian -sja or Lithuanian -si. The Baltic reflexives, as well as those in many other languages, are semantically heterogeneous, and the primary concern of this study is with the variety of meanings of reflexives in natural languages. The purpose is to analyze the variety of syntactic and semantic types of reflexives in the Baltic and other languages and try to establish the range of possible variation and the principles that underlie the variation and similarity of reflexives across languages. Therefore, a theoretical framework is needed that might be used to find linguistically important, language-independent general properties of reflexives and to give a unified account of the reflexives of any given language as well as of the reflexives of any given set of languages, and that might allow a typological comparison. The analysis of the Baltic and English reflexives is corpus-based. For Lithuanian and Latvian, verb-lists of all reflexives entered in authoritative dictionaries have been compiled (5,680 reflexives for Lithuanian; 3,560 and 3,920 reflexives for Latvian). For Prussian, a complete list of the 27 reflexives (43 occurrences) to be found in the texts has been made. For English, a verb-list of 380 reflexives entered in dictionaries is compared with a verb-list of 1,300 reflexives registered in a corpus of about 30,000 usages of reflexives in modern texts. The whole material is subjected to a hierarchical classification supplemented by an overall statistical analysis.

356

Summary

The description of reflexives is dynamic, i. e. reflexives are viewed as formal derivatives from base words and they are analyzed in opposition to the latter, with the purpose of finding the properties that distinguish them from non-reflexives. Reflexives and their base verbs are analyzed at three levels of representation: morphological (formal), syntactic, and semantic. Accordingly, the reflexives of each language are first classified into morphological classes, of which the most prominent and numerous is that of deverbal reflexives derived by means of the reflexive marker alone; the other classes are deverbal reflexives with a complex marker (cf. Lithuanian kalbeti 'talk' —• if-si-kalbeti 'talk oneself out'), denominal reflexives, and reflexiva tantum. The principal morphological class is further subdivided into syntactic classes according to the valence changes: the common syntactic feature of reflexives is valence decrease (recession) rather than derived intransitivity; valence decrease can manifest itself in the removal (deletion or demotion) of (a) the surface direct object, producing the syntactic class of subjective reflexives, (b) the surface subject, producing objective reflexives, or (c) in the deletion of the indirect (dative) object, producing transitive (dative) reflexives; or it may have zero value (cf. Latvian rimt 'abate' => rimtie-s). Syntactic valence recession is a manifestation of semantic changes: the primary function of a reflexive marker is semantic, i. e. that of marking a change in the meaning of the verb. The meaning of a verb is viewed here as a complex system comprised of a number of semantic structures of which the most relevant for the analysis of reflexives are the following: (a) the semantic component structure which may be presented in terms of two types of components (senses), the basic components (stative, inchoative, actional, and causative senses) and 'derivative' components (reflexive, reciprocal, modal and other similar senses found in derived verbs); (b) the semantic role (deep case) structure presented in terms of concrete roles determined by the lexical meaning of the base verb or in terms of hyper-roles; (c) the referent structure described in terms of the semantic types of participants (human, animate, inanimate referents) encoded by the semantic categorial features of the nouns that name them, the roles being encoded by the syntactic functions of these same nouns. The referent structure is here distinguished from the role structure because it has an independent status in valence changes. The mapping pattern (set of correlations) that relates the referents and roles to the surface subject and objects may be termed diathesis, in Xolodovic's (1970) sense of the term. The diathesis is correlated with the semantic component structure

Summary

357

of each verb, in other words, each component structure is characterized by a particular diathesis as there is a strict correlation between them. Thus diathesis is a super-parameter subsuming the syntactic structure and semantic role and referent structures, which is viewed as a complex characteristic of any verb. Syntactic valence decrease encodes recessive changes in the base diathesis. The changes in the component structure of a verb may be described through diathesis changes. The latter may involve the basic components of meaning (elimination of the causative component in the derivation of decausative verbs, or a change of a causative verb into an actional verb, cf. throw sth 'cause sth to go through the air, usually with force' throw oneself 'rush violently'), or the 'derivative' components which are added to the component structure of the base verb. According to the changes in the component structure and concomitant changes in the diathesis (since valence recession encodes changes in the role and/or referent structure), the syntactic classes of subjective and objective reflexives are further classified into semantic types. The change of meaning in reflexives is determined by (a) the semantic type of the referent deleted or demoted and the lexical meaning of the base verb, and (b) the shift in the diathesis. Lithuanian and Latvian display a wide range of semantic types of reflexives, including true (semantic) reflexives, 'partitive object', 'absolute', autocausative, reciprocal, decausative, quasi-passive, dative transitive reflexives, etc. In both languages, the reflexive markers are used exclusively as word-forming elements. They are not used to mark the passive or impersonal passive, which are grammatical categories characterized by valence recession. The semantic classes of reflexives established empirically in Lithuanian and Latvian are each characterized by a certain component structure and a correlated recessive diathesis. An identical set of semantic classes of reflexives is to be found in both languages; this may be accounted for by the genetic relatedness of the languages; the basic difference between the two languages concerns dative transitive reflexives, which are extremely numerous and productive in Lithuanian but represented by very few instances in Latvian. The Prussian reflexives fall into true reflexives (semantically reflexive verbs), autocausative, and transitive reflexives, all of which (besides many others) are represented in the other two languages. The English data serve the purpose of verifying the applicability of the framework proposed to a language with a presumably different

358

Summary

organization of reflexives which are neither numerous nor, it would seem, too varied semantically. It turns out that the English reflexives may be subjected to a classification based on the very same principles, provided we disregard the language-specific status of the English reflexive marker oneselfjitself as a syntactically free unit. This is a surface feature, while functionally this marker is similar to the reflexive affixes of Lithuanian and Latvian. English differs from the latter two languages in that it displays a narrower range of functions of the reflexive marker, lacking the reciprocal, reflexive-causative and some other functions. It should be noted that between the two English verb-lists there is a remarkable difference in the number of objective decausative reflexives: there are less than 20 of them in the dictionary verb-list and about 200 in the text-based list of 1,300 reflexives. The recurrence of a number of the same syntactic and semantic classes in the Baltic languages and in English suggests a hypothesis that the classes of reflexives distinguished in the Baltic languages may be universal rather than language specific. It is claimed in this work that the classes of reflexives found in the Baltic languages and in English are typologically relevant, i. e. they have arisen as a result of typological rather than genetic factors: due to the limited number of elements in a base diathesis (e. g., the diathesis of a transitive base verb consists of two correspondences: referent1 = Agent = surface subject, referent2 = Patient = direct object), and to the limited number of recessive operations (deletion or demotion) the number of logically possible recessive diatheses for transitive, intransitive and ditransitive base verbs is limited and a calculus may be suggested. Such a calculus is explicated in the study. It is claimed that the calculus of recessive diatheses places limits on the variation of semantic functions (component structures) which may be marked by a reflexive marker. All the recessive diatheses of the calculus are attested in the reflexives of the 50 languages examined in Chaper Four, though not in each language. Across languages, reflexive markers are employed to mark a varying number of the recessive diatheses. In this chapter, the reflexives of each of the languages in the sample are classified and the classifications are compared. A calculus of types of arrays of syntactic classes and of the most important, diagnostic semantic types of reflexives is suggested: (a) according to the parameter 'the array of syntactic classes of reflexives' 8 types are logically possible, the sample languages being distributed among three of the types (Type I — languages with subjective, objective and transitive reflexives, Type II — languages with subjective and objective and no transitive reflexives, Type III — lan-

Summary

359

guages with subjective reflexives only); (b) according to the parameter 'the array of semantic classes of subjective reflexives' all the languages in the sample are distributed among 8 types of the many logically possible, Type I comprising the languages with a complete set of these classes, etc.; (c) according to the parameter 'the array of principal semantic classes of objective reflexives', the sample languages are distributed among 4 types out of 8 logically possible types, Type I including languages that display a complete array of the principal semantic types of objective reflexives. On each of the parameters, there is a significant skewing in the distribution of systems of reflexives, which manifests the typological relevance of these parameters. Reflexive markers are used as passive and impersonal passive markers in a significant number of the sample languages, though not in Lithuanian, Latvian, and English. The range of variation of the syntactic and semantic types of reflexives, as limited by the calculus of recessive diatheses, simultaneously limits diachronic variation and predicts the succession in which the functions of reflexive markers tend to develop in natural languages. The types of arrays of syntactic classes of reflexives constitute an implicational hierarchy that suggests a specific path of evolution: subjective > objective > dative transitive reflexives, the latter class being optional. Similarly, the types of arrays of semantic classes within subjective reflexives, as well as within objective reflexives, realized in the sample languages, also constitute an implicational hierarchy indicating the stages of evolution of the semantic functions of reflexive markers. Typological factors accounting for the similarities in the organization of reflexive systems across languages seem to prevail over genetic and areal factors. It is significant that all the semantic types of reflexives predicted by the calculus of recessive diatheses are attested cross-linguistically and that no other semantic types have been found so far. This is hardly due to the limited number of languages examined. It seems safe enough to claim that semantic types of reflexives other than those predicted by the calculus within valence recession stand little chance of being found in a larger sample of languages. The generalizations concerning the hierarchy of types of reflexive systems are, of course, highly tentative since they are drawn on the basis of a very limited sample of languages. They have to be verified by investigating a far wider range of the world languages.

Questionnaire on reflexives Introduction Reflexive verbs (RVs), very much like causatives and passives, are a fascinating object for typological research for a number of reasons. First, they can be found in a great many languages of the world. Secondly, they constitute a complex phenomenon analysable at the formal (morphological), syntactic, and semantic levels of representation. Thirdly, they may be extremely diverse in a given language from the viewpoint of their range of meanings. They also vary from language to language, though, it seems, within predictable limits of valence recession. There are very few overall descriptions of RVs in particular languages, and even these are not always comparable and sometimes confusing, as they are presented within different frameworks. Therefore, there is a need for obtaining a wider range of comparable data on RVs from a greater variety of languages. This questionnaire aims at extending the framework proposed in this book to RVs of other languages and thus promoting the investigation of RVs in particular languages in order to help collect the data for further typological and universals research into RVs. This questionnaire is meant to supplement Comrie and Smith's (1977: 21—24) questionnaire concerned with semantic reflexivity and reciprocity, two of the meanings frequently rendered by RVs across languages. Our concern is with reflexive markers (RMs), their range of functions, existence and non-existence of particular RV types, the universal and language-specific properties of RV systems and existing RV types, and also with rivalling strategies used to express the meanings that can be rendered by RVs. When answering the questions concerning particular RV types it is important to be as explicit about their non-existence, as about their existence in a language. The list of questions is tentative, and the data of a particular language may require discussing relevant points or aspects overlooked in the questionnaire, which is meant as a guide and need not be followed to the letter.

Material If RVs are registered in the dictionaries of the language chosen, a complete list of RVs entered in a reliable dictionary should be

362

Questionnaire on reflexives

compiled. It may be useful to supplement it with a representative list of RVs from texts and/or speech. If the RM has grammatical functions, such as marking the passive and/or impersonal passive, they should be described on the basis of a text-based corpus. In other words, a description should be based on exhaustive language material.

Questionnaire This questionnaire is in a way an autonomous part of the book which can be used without a preliminary study of the previous chapters. To facilitate its independent use, some repetitions are made and examples supplied, the references to the body of the book being given to assist the reader in finding the details. 1. The morphology of reflexive markers. For definition see sections 1.3.1.1 and 4.2.2. 1.1. Is a RM (RMs) recognized in the language? What is the term used to refer to it (them)? Are there one or more RMs? 1.2. What is the origin of the RM(s)? 1.3. What is the status of the RM (RMs)? 1.3.1. Is the RM a pronoun? 1.3.1.1. a special reflexive pronoun invariable for person and number like the Russian sebja? 1.3.1.2. a variable reflexive pronoun, like the English oneself, myself, yourself, itself ... themselves? Does it vary in person, number, or other categories (cf. Comrie, Smith 1977: 41—42)? 1.3.1.3. a variable pronoun comprising common personal pronouns, like the German mich, dich, uns, euch, sich or the Latin me, te, nos, vos, se? 1.3.1.4. What is its position in a sentence relative to the verb? 1.3.2. Is the RM an affix? 1.3.2.1. a reflexive postfix, like the Russian -sja in myf 'wash' —• myt'-sja 'wash oneself — mojet-sja '(he) washes himself? 1.3.2.2. a reflexive suffix, like the Turkic suffixes in -«-/-/-. (cf. Tatar jäkr-ii 'hide' —• jakr-en-ii 'hide oneself)? 1.3.2.3. a verbal prefix, like the Nivkh p'- in lyvd' 'hide' -> p'-lyvd' 'hide oneself? 1.3.2.4. any other type of affix? 1.3.3. Is the RM a change in conjugation, e. g.

Questionnaire on reflexives

363

1.3.3.3. a series of endings, like the middle voice endings in Greek, or -r endings in Latin? 1.3.3.4. a change in agreement, like the substitution of the subject agreement for subject-object agreement in Eskimo (see 4.2.2.3)? 1.3.4. Is any other technique used as a RM? If so, specify in detail. 1.3.5. If two or more RMs are used, are both (all of them) polyfunctional or is only one of them polyfunctional? If both are polyfunctional, which is the more common one? If there are two or more RMs in the language the functions of each should be described separately and their distribution should be compared. 1.3.6. Are units with a RM interpreted as lexical units (RVs) or grammatical reflexive forms (RFs) in the literature? 2. Morphological classification of reflexives (see 2.1.2). 2.1. Does the RM combine with verbs exclusively or does it also form verbs from nominal, adjectival, and other bases? 2.2. Are there any formal reflexiva tantum, like the English absent oneself («— * absent), Russian bojat'-sja 'be afraid' (• na-pit'-sja 'drink one's fill') or like the English units rave —* rave oneself out and cry —> cry oneself hoarse, cry oneself to sleep (see 2.1.5 and 3.6)? 2.4. Are there any semantic reflexiva tantum, i. e. RVs that are related to the base verb in an irregular, individual way semantically, like the English address 'make a speech to' —• address oneself to 'work at, apply oneself to' (see 2.1.4 and 3.5)? 3. Syntactic classification of reflexives (see 2.1.3.1). 3.1. Does the RM operate on transitive and intransitive verbs, or on transitive verbs exclusively? 3.2. Does RV derivation involve any changes in the valence properties of base verbs? If it does, which is to be expected, which of the following syntactic changes are observed? 3.2.1. Are there any subjective RVs (see section 2.1.3.1), i.e. RVs with the initial subject of the base verb preserved and direct object involved in syntactic change, including: 3.2.1.1. subjective RVs with direct object deletion, as in the Russian: (la)

Ona umyvajet syn -a she-NOM washes son-ACC 'She is washing her son'

364

b)

Questionnaire on reflexives

Ona umyvajet-sja she-NOM washes -RM 'She is washing herself?

3.2.1.2. subjective RVs with direct object demotion to a minor syntactic position (deaccusative RVs), as in the Russian: (2 a)

b)

My %apasajem drov -a we-NOM lay-in (fire-)wood-ACC. PL. 'We lay in fire wood' My t(apasajem-sja drov -ami we-NOM lay-in -RM (fire-)wood-INS. PL. 'We lay in fire wood'?

3.2.2. Are there any objective RVs, i. e. RVs with direct object promotion to subject and subject demotion or deletion, including: 3.2.2.1. RVs with obligatory subject deletion, as in the English: (3 a) b)

He manifested his impatience His impatience manifested itselfl

3.2.2.2. RVs with subject demotion to a minor syntactic position, as in the Russian: (4 a)

b)

O^er-o otra^ajet neb -o lake-NOM reflects sky-ACC 'The lake reflects the sky' Neb-o otra^ajet-sja ν o^er-e sky -NOM reflects -RM in lake-LOC 'The sky is reflected in the lake'?

3.2.3. Are there any RVs or RFs with subject deletion or demotion in which a direct object is retained, in the case of transitive base verbs, as in the Serbo-Croatian: (5 a)

b)

On prodaje konj -a he-NOM sells horse-ACC 'He is selling a horse' Prodaje se konj -a sells RM horse-ACC 'They (one) are selling a horse'?

3.2.4. Are there dative transitive RVs, i. e. RVs derived from base verbs with an indirect (dative) object, in which the initial subject and

Questionnaire on reflexives

365

direct object are retained and the indirect object is deleted, as in the Lithuanian: (6 a)

b)

Jis nupirko man knyg -q. he-NOM bought I-DAT book-ACC 'He (has) bought me a book' Jis nu -si -pirko (*man) knyg -4 he-NOM PREF-RM-bought (*I-DAT) book-ACC 'He bought himself (*me) a book'?

3.2.5. Are there RVs with zero change in syntactic properties: 3.2.5.1. intransitive RVs, like the Lithuanian: (7 a)

b)

Jis kvatoja he-NOM laughs 'He is laughing' Jis kvatoja-si he-NOM laughs-RM 'He is laughing';

3.2.5.2. transitive RVs, like the Lithuanian: (8 a)

b)

Vaik-as apkabino motin -4 child-NOM hugged mother-ACC 'The child hugged his mother' Vaik-as ap -si -kabino motin child-NOM PREF-RM-hugged mother-ACC 'The child hugged his mother'?

3.2.6. Do any other types of syntactic changes occur regularly in RVs? 3.2.7. Which of the syntactic RV types is the most prominent? 3.2.8. What is the share of each syntactic RV type in the verb-list? 4. Semantic classification of reflexives (see 2.1.3.2). 4.1. Subjective reflexives with direct object deletion (see 2.1.3.2.1). 4.1.1. Semantic reflexives. 4.1.1.1. Is the RM used to mark total Agent-Patient coreference, i.e. semantic reflexivity (see 2.1.3.2.1.1), as in the Russian (lb) and in the English: (9 a) b)

He killed a man He killed bimselß

4.1.1.2. Is the RM used to express semantic reflexivity within a clause exclusively, or between clauses as well?

366

Questionnaire on reflexives

4.1.1.3. Is the RM the only (or preferable) means of expressing semantic reflexivity? If rival markers are used, what are they? What is their distribution? 4.1.1.4. What is the lexical range of semantic reflexives? Are there any special restrictions on semantic reflexives? 4.1.1.5. What is the share of semantic reflexives in the RV list? 4.1.1.6. Are semantic reflexives characterized by any peculiarities not covered by the above questions? 4.1.2. 'Partitive object' reflexives. 4.1.2.1. Is the RM used to mark partial Agent (human) — Patient (body part, or other inalienable or alienable possession) coreference (see 2.1.3.2.1.2), as in the Russian (10b) and English ( l i b ) : (10 a)

b)

(11a) b)

On prUluril gla^-a he-NOM squinted eye-ACC.PL. 'He squinted his eyes' On prUluril -sja (*gla^a) he-NOM squinted-RM (*eyes) 'He squinted [his eyes]'; He restrained his anger He restrained himselß

4.1.2.2. Repeat the same questions as under semantic reflexives (4.1.1.3-4.1.1.6). 4.1.3. 'Absolute' reflexives. 4.1.3.1. Is the RM used to mark direct object deletion (see 2.1.3.2.1.3), as in the Russian: (12 a)

b)

Sobak-a kusajet det -ej dog -NOM bites child-ACC. PL. 'The dog bites children' Sobak-a kusajet-sja dog -NOM bites -RM 'The dog bites'?

4.1.3.2. Do 'absolute' RVs ever acquire the meaning of the potential ability or inclination of the Agent to perform the action expressed? 4.1.3.3. Repeat the same questions as under semantic reflexives (4.1.1.3-4.1.1.6). 4.1.4. Autocausative reflexives.

Questionnaire on reflexives

367

4.1.4.1. Is the RM used to derive autocausative (self-move) RVs from transitive verbs of motion (see 2.1.3.2.1.4), as in the Russian: (13 a)

b)

On brosil (to-to he-NOM threw something-ACC 'He threw something' On brosil -sja vpered he-NOM threw-RM forward 'He threw himself forward'?

4.1.4.2. Repeat the same questions as under semantic reflexives (4.1.1.3-4.1.1.6). 4.1.5. Reciprocal reflexives. 4.1.5.1. Is the RM used to express reciprocity (see 2.1.3.2.1.5), as in the Russian: (14 a)

b)

Ivan-Φ obnjal Ann -u Ivan-NOM embraced Anna-ACC 'Ivan embraced Anna' ίναη-Φ i Ann -a obnjali -s' Ivan-NOM and Anna-NOM embraced-RM 'Ivan and Anna embraced each other'?

4.1.5.2. Repeat the same questions as under semantic reflexives (4.1.1.3-4.1.1.6). 4.2. Subjective reflexives with direct object demotion. 4.2.1. Is the RM used to derive deaccusative RVs, like the Russian (2b) (for details see 2.1.3.2.2)? 4.3. Objective reflexives with subject deletion (see 2.1.3.2.3). 4.3.1. Decausative reflexives. 4.3.1.1. Is the RM used as an anticausative marker (see 2.1.3.2.3.1), as in the Russian: (15 a)

b)

On otkryl dver' -0 he-NOM opened door-ACC 'He opened the door' Dver'-Φ otkryla -s' door -NOM opened-RM 'The door opened',

where otkryt' = 'cause to otkryt'-sja 'open (itself)'? 4.3.1.2. Repeat the same questions as under semantic reflexives (4.1.1.3-4.1.1.6).

368

Questionnaire on reflexives

4.3.2. Autocausative reflexives. 4.3.2.1. Is the RM used to derive objective autocausative (self-move) RVs (see 2.1.3.2.3.2), like the Russian: (16 a )

Ja

otvja^al

sobak-u

I-NOM untied dog -ACC Ί untied the dog' b)

Sobak-a

otvja^ala-s'

dog -NOM untied -RM 'The dog got untied'? 4.3.2.2. Repeat the same questions as under semantic reflexives (4.1.1.3-4.1.1.6). 4.3.3. Quasi-passive reflexives. 4.3.3.1. Is the RM used to express the potential-passive meaning, as in the Russian (17b), and/or the perfective-passive meaning, as in the Lithuanian (18b) (for details see 2.1.3.2.3.3): (17 a )

Ja

stiraju

rubalk-u

I-NOM wash shirt -ACC Ί wash the shirt' b)

Rubalk-a

xoroio

stirajet

-sja

shirt -NOM well washes-RM 'The shirt washes well'; (18 a )

Zmon

-es

iiminde

-g

people-NOM trampled-down grass-ACC 'People trampled down the grass' b)

Zol

-e

il

-si

-minde

grass-NOM PREF-RM-trampled-down 'The grass got trampled down'? 4.3.3.2. Repeat the same questions as in 4.1.1.3 — 4.1.1.6. 4.4. Objective reflexives with subject demotion (see 2.1.3.2.4). 4.4.1. Converse reflexives. 4.4.1.1. Is the RM ever used to mark lexical converseness (see 2.1.3.2.4.1), as in the Russian (4)? 4.4.1.2. Repeat the same questions as in 4.1.1.3—4.1.1.6. 4.4.2. (Modal-)deagentive reflexives. 4.4.2.1. Is the RM used to derive RVs with subject demotion to dative object (see 4.2.3.1.2.6), as in the Russian:

Questionnaire on reflexives

(19 a)

b)

369

Ja sly$u musjk-u I-NOM hear music-ACC Ί hear music' Mne slyiit -sja mu^yk-a I-DAT hears-RM music-NOM Ί can hear music'?

4.4.2.2. Have the deagentive RVs, if they are observed in the language, modal or neutral relative to modality? 4.4.2.3. Is the dative of the Experiencer syntactically obligatory or optional? 4.4.2.4. Do similar RVs derive from intransitive verbs, as in the Russian: (20 a)

b)

Ja ne splju I-NOM not sleep Ί do not sleep' Mne ne spit -sja I-DAT not sleeps-RM Ί cannot sleep'?

4.4.2.5. Repeat the same questions as in 4.1.1.3 — 4.1.1.6. 4.4.3. Reflexive-causative reflexives. 4.4.3.1. Is the RM used to mark the reflexive-causative sense (see 2.1.3.2.4.2), as in the Russian: (21 a)

b)

Fotograf -0 sfotografiroval menja photographer-NOM photographed I-ACC 'The photographer took a photo of me' Ja sfotografiroval -sja [u fotograf -a] I-NOM photographed-RM [at photographer-GEN] Ί had my photo taken [by a photographer]'?

4.4.3.2. Repeat the same questions as in 4.1.1.3—4.1.1.6.1. 4.4.4. The reflexive passive. 4.4.4.1. Is the RM used as a passive marker (see 4.2.3.1.2.3), as in the Russian: (22 a)

Oni strojat dorn -0 they-NOM build house-ACC 'They are building a house'

370

Questionnaire on reflexives b)

Dom

-0

Stroit

-sja

[ imi]

house-NOM builds-RM [they-INS] 'The house is being built [by them]'? 4.4.4.2. If it is, is agent extension allowed in the reflexive passive? In what way is it expressed? Is the agentful reflexive passive frequent? 4.4.4.3. Is there a specialized passive marker, like the English periphrastic passive form, or any other kind of marker? 4.4.4.4. If both the RM and a special form are used as passive markers, what is their distribution and restrictions on both? 4.4.4.5. Is there a reflexive passive with indirect object (or any other nominal) promotion to subject? 4.4.4.6. What other properties does the reflexive passive display, if it is found in the language? 4.4.4.7. If RVs and the passive voice are formally distinct, is the passive formed from RVs, as in Lithuanian (see 2.1.3.4)? 4.5. The reflexive impersonal (impersonal passive). 4.5.1. Is the RM used to mark impersonal constructions with deleted subject and retained direct object (see 4.2.3.1.2.7), as in the Early Latin: (23)

vit -am viv -itur life-ACC live-RM 'Life is (being) lived'?

(cf. also (5b)). 4.5.2. Is the reflexive impersonal formed from intransitive verbs, as in the Italian: (24)

Si va a teatro RM go to theatre 'One (they) goes to the theatre'?

4.5.3. If there is a specialized passive form, is it used in impersonal constructions, like the Finnish (25) or Lithuanian (26): (25)

Hänet jätettiin kotiin he-ACC was-left at-home 'He was left at home';

(26)

Ten dainuojama there being-sung 'There is singing there'?

Questionnaire on reflexives

371

4.5.4. What other types of constructions {man-Sätze) are used to express a generalized or indefinite Agent, or to avoid mentioning a particularized Agent? 4.5.5. Is the reflexive impersonal of transitive and/or intransitive verbs widely used? What are the restrictions on its formation and use? 4.6. Dative transitive reflexives (see 3.2.4 of the questionnaire; see 2.1.3.2.5). 4.6.1. If there are dative transitive RVs, what semantic subsets are attested? 4.6.1.1. reflexive-benefactive RVs, with the Beneficiary-Agent conference, meaning that the action is performed by the Agent for his own benefit, as in the Lithuanian (6b)? 4.6.1.2. reflexive-possessive RVs, in which the RM marks a possessive relationship between the human Agent and Patient (typically a body part, or some other inalienable or quasi-inalienable possession), like in the German: (27 a)

b)

Peter verband mir die Hand Peter bandaged I-DAT the hand 'Peter bandaged my hand' Peter verband sich die Hand Peter bandaged himself-DAT the hand 'Peter bandaged his hand'?

4.6.1.3. reflexive-recipient RVs meaning 'put on' or 'take off (clothes)' derived according to the following pattern illustrated from Lithuanian: (28 a)

Ji u^move vaik -ui kein -es she-NOM put-on child-DAT trouser-ACC. PL. 'She got the child in trousers'

b)

Ji κζ -si -move kein -es she-NOM PREF-RM-put-on trouser-ACC. PL. 'She put on slacks'?

4.6.1.4. Are there any other subsets of dative transitive RVs differing from the above in the semantic role of the indirect object? 4.6.1.5. Repeat the same questions as in 4.1.1.3 — 4.1.1.6 for each subset of dative transitive RVs. 4.7. Reflexives with zero change in syntactic properties. 4.7.1. Does the RM mark any change of meaning in RVs with retained syntactic structure (see 2.1.3.2.6)?

372

Questionnaire on reflexives

4.7.2. Repeat the same questions as in 4.1.1.3—4.1.1.6. 5. Semantic reflexiva tantum. 5.1. What regularities are observed in semantic reflexiva tantum (see 2.1.4 and 3.5)? 5.2. What is their share in the RV list? 6. Denominal reflexives (see 2.1.6 and 4.3.3.3). 6.1. From what parts of speech, besides verbs, does the RM form RVs? 6.2. What are the semantic relationships between nominal, adjectival, etc. bases and respective RVs? 6.3. Repeat the same questions as in 4.1.1.4—4.1.1.6. 7. Is the RM used in any other functions besides those covered by the questions above? For instance, 7.1. is the RM also used as an emphatic element, like the English oneself in: (29) He did it himselß Or is there a formally distinct emphatic pronoun, like the Russian sam in (30a) and Lithuanian pats in (30b): (30 a)

b)

On sam eto sdelal he himself this did 'He did it himself Jis pats tai padare he himself that did 'He did it himself?

7.2. if the RM is a pronoun, can it be used attributively as a possessive pronoun, as in the Nivkh: (31)

Ola p' -rjmk-xu gynuct child RM-hand-PL got-frostbitten 'The child got his hands frostbitten'?

7.3. can the RM be used anaphorically as a subject coreferential with the subject of a preceding clause, like in the Nivkh: (32)

If jax kyrgucT, p'i eri ro%uyk 18 (20): 211-216. Zandvoort, R. W. 1960 A Handbook of English Grammar. London: Longmans. Zarickij, N. S. 1961 Formy i funkcii vo^vratnyx glagolov (na materiale drevnerusskogo ja^yka) (Forms and functions of reflexive verbs (on the material of Old Russian)). Kiev: KGU.

416

Bibliography

Zauber, R. Α. 1974 "Diatezy i zalogi ν sovremennom ispanskom jazyke" ("Diatheses and voices in Modern Spanish"), in: Xolodovil, A. A. (ed.). 1974: 168-194. Zelenov, A. N. 1975 "O semantiieskoj strukture vozvratnyx glagolov" ("On the semantic structure of reflexive verbs"), in: Iljenko, S. G. (ed.). Semantika ja^ykovyx jedinic. Leningrad: LGPI: 3 9 - 4 2 . Zimmerman, I. 1978 "Sintaksiieskie funkcii aktantov, zalog i perexodnost'" ("Syntactic functions of actants, voice and transitivity"), in: Xrakovskij, V. S. (ed.). 1978: 71—79. Zinkevitius, Z. 1980 Kalbotyrts pradmenys. Kaunas: Sviesa. 1981 Lietuviu, kalbos istorine gramatika. T. 2. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinnatullina, Κ. Z. 1969 Zalogi glagola ν sovremennom tatarskom literaturnom jazyke ( Verbal voices in modern standard Tatar). Kazan': Tatarskoe kniznoe izdatel'stvo. Znamenskaja, Α. V. 1954 SlovoobraqovateFnoe %nalenie suffiksa -sja ν sovremennom russkom jazyke (avtoreferat dissertacii) (The word-building meaning of the s u f f i x -sja in Modern Russian). Leningrad. 1957 "Obrazovanie glagolov posredstvom suffiksa -sja ot imennyx osnov" ("Formation of verbs by means of the suffix -sja from nominal stems"), Ulenye ZapisJki Borisoglebskogo ped. instituta 3. Borisoglebsk: 115 — 135. 1958a "Prefiksal'no-suffiksarnoe obrazovanie vozvratnyx glagolov" ("Formation of reflexive verbs with prefixes and suffixes"), Ulenye %apiski Borisoglebskogo ped. instituta 5. Borisoglebsk: 3—42. 1958b "Obrazovanie glagolov dvizenija posredstvom suffiksa -sja" ("Formation of verbs of motion with the suffix -sja"), Ulenye qaptski Kabardino-Balkarskogo ped. instituta 2. Nal'tik: 2 0 7 - 2 2 2 . Zolotova, G. A. 1973 Olerk funkcionaFnogo sintaksisa russkogo ja^yka (An outline of the functional syntax of Russian). Moskva: Nauka. Zribi-Hertz, A. 1978 "Economisons-nous: A propos d'une classe de formes reflexives metonymiques en fran^ais", Langue franfais 39: 104—122. Zubaty, J. 1904 "Review: Porzezinskij, V. Κ. K. istorii form sprjazenija ν baltijskix jazykax (On the history of conjugation in the Baltic languages). Moskva, 1901; Vozvratnaja forma glagola ν litovskom i latyäskom jazykax (The reflexive verb form in Lithuanian and Latvian). Moskva, 1903", Indogermanische Forschungen. Anzeiger für Indogermanische Sprach- und Altertumskunde 16: 50-64. Zigadlo, V. N., Ivanova, I. P., Jofik, L. L. 1956 Sovremennyj anglijskij ja^yk (Modern English). Moskva, Izdatel'stvo literatury na inostrannyx jazykax. Zivov, V. M., Uspenskij, Β. A. 1981 "Opisanie jazyka i jazykovye universalii" ("Language description and language universals"), in: Andriutfenko, V. M. (ed.). Teoretileskie i prikladnye aspekty vylislitefnoj lingvistiki. Moskva: MGU, 3—28.

Appendix 1. The sources of data for Tables 9 — 13 (1) Armenian Abraamjan 1963; Kozinceva 1974, 1976, 1981; informant N. A. Kozinceva. (2) Bulgarian Andrejiin 1956; Barakova 1979, 1980; Cankov 1979, 1982; tolakova, Ivanova 1973; Fiedler 1972; Georgiev 1979; Georgiev 1972; Lötzsch et al. 1976; Norman 1967, 1968, 1971, 1972; Peniev 1965, 1972; Tagamlicka 1970; Walter 1963; Walther 1964; K. Ivanova. (3) Belorussian Attaxovii (ed.). 1962; Kavaleva 1968; Kovaleva 1967; Mräzek 1971, 1976; Norman 1972; Sigalov 1977a. (4) Czech Acarkina 1963; DuSkovi 1972, 1973, 1976; Grepl 1973; Havränek 1928; Kopeiny 1954; Lapirovä 1956; Leonoviteva 1962; Novikova 1977; Parolkovä 1956; Povejäil 1976; Sjatkovskij 1963; R. Mräzek. (5) French Abrosimova 1985; Burston 1979; Donaldson 1973; Hatcher 1972; Henschel 1980; Kordi 1974, 1977, 1978, 1981; Referovskaja 1956, 1957a, 1957b, 1980; Ruwet 1972; Stefanini 1971; Zribi-Hertz 1978. (6) German Bernackaja 1971a, 1971b, 1972a, 1972b; Buc 1981; Buscha 1972, 1982; Cranmer 1975, 1976; CernySeva 1972, 1975, 1976; Dittmer 1975; Gorlatov 1975, 1976; Jäntti 1978; Krohn 1980; Kwapisz 1978; Lötzsch et al. 1976; Mater 1969; Rüiitka et al. 1976; Rybalko 1972, 1978; Steube 1975; Stötzel 1970; Wagner 1977; Wellander 1913. (7) Gothic Guchman 1948, 1964; Klimov 1982, 1985. (8) Ancient Greek Anciferova 1976; Baldi 1976; Gonda 1960a, 1960b; Hirt 1934; Perelmuter 1977, 1981; Savtenko 1960a, 1960b, 1974. (9) Icelandic Berkov 1955a, 1955b, 1985; Glendening 1961; Juntune 1978; Steblin-Kamenskij 1953, 1955; V. P. Berkov. (10) Italian Alisova 1971; Cinque 1976; Costa 1975; Dzusti 1971; Horn 1977; Lo Cascio 1976; Lujan 1976; Napoli 1974, 1976; Preusler 1937; Reichenkron 1972; Stefanini 1982; L. Mammino.

418

Appendix

(11) Latin Baldi 1976; Claflin 1927, 1929; Gonda 1960b; Hatcher 1942; Hirt 1934; Orban 1974; Referovskaja 1957b; Reichenkron 1932; SiSmarev 1952. (12) Macedonian Korubin 1984; Kovalev 1977; Mrizek 1971; Sidorovska 1969; Usikova 1979; B. Korubin. (13) Norwegian Berkov 1955a, 1955b; Dyvik 1980; Steblin-Kamenskij 1957; V. P. Berkov. (14) Polish Boguslawski 1977; Doros 1981; Horn 1977; Kwapisz 1974, 1978; Mrazek 1971, 1976; Niedzielski 1976; Norman 1972; Saloni 1975; Topolinska 1967; Wiese 1969; Wilczewska 1966. (15) Romanian Lucht 1962; Repina 1978; Stummhöfer, Viorel 1972; Sveänikova 1983; Vasiliu 1969; Vincenz 1971; Vrabie 1981; N. F. Doncu, E. §alaru-Paplaitiene. (16) Russian Dmitrijeva 1958; Gavrilova 1978; Ivanova-Jankovskaja 1952; Janko-Trinickaja 1962; Korolev 1968, 1969a; Kretov 1978; Lobanova 1966a, 1966b; Pete 1968; Razumnikova 1966; Rutkowska 1981; Sadovskaja 1973; Sigalov 1977a, 1977b; Staxova 1961; Veyrenc 1980; Walther 1976; Znamenskaja 1954, 1957, 1958b. (17) Sanskrit Burrow 1976; Georgiev 1935; Gonda 1960a, 1960b; Hirt 1934; Jamison 1979; Savtenko 1960a, 1974. (18) Serbo-Croatian Ivih 1961/1962, 1962/1963; Mrazek 1968; 1971; Mark 1969, 1970a, 1970b; Plotnikova 1968; Sigalov 1977a; Sjatkovskij 1963; Svane 1981; L. Lilifc. (19) Slovak Isatenko 1956; Laparovi 1956; Mrizek 1971; Oravec 1975, 1977, 1982; Paulini 1982; Ruiifcka 1960, 1976; Sigalov 1977a; Smirnov 1956; J. Svetlik. (20) Spanish Aid 1973; Arutjunova 1961; Babcock 1970; Garcia 1975; Green 1975; Lantolf 1976; Lujan 1976; Mel'cev 1981; Preusler 1937; Reynolds, Meza-Dombkowski 1978; Rivero 1977; Roldin 1971; Schroten 1972; Sufier 1974, 1975; Westfal 1979a, 1979b; Zauber 1974. (21) Swedish Anward 1974; Björkhagen 1962; Cekalina 1972; Maslova-Laäanskaja 1953; Oksaar 1970; Rolf 1974; Ureland 1974, 1977, 1978; Wellander 1913; Xalipov 1970, 1972a, 1972b; V. P. Berkov. (22) Ukrainian Bilodid 1969; Merk 1969; Norman 1972; Sigalov 1977a, 1977b.

Appendix 2. The sources of data for Tables 14—16 (1) Azerbaijani Sevortjan 1962; T. Rustamova. (2) Amharic Grande 1972; Starinin 1967; Titov 1971. (3) Arabic Grande 1972; Sarbatov 1961; V. S. Xrakovskij. (4) Aymara Martin 1978. (5) Chuvash Andrejev 1966; Kornilov 1975; Kornilov et al. 1969; G. Je. Kornilov. (6) Eskimo Anward 1974; Jemeljanova 1982; Menoväcikov 1960; Vaxtin 1981; Ν. B. Vaxtin. (7) Estonian Kask 1966; Pali 1966; V. Wagner-Strikaitiene. (8) Finnish Comrie 1977; Ollykainen 1955; Ureland 1977; Volodin et al. 1969; A. I. Kukkonen. (9) Fula (Fulfulde) Njalibuli 1983a, 1983b; B. A. Njalibuli. (10) Georgian Gecadze et al. 1969; Harris 1981; Hemmann 1978; M. Macavariani. (11) Hebrew Berman 1979; Grande 1972; N. Feigelmanas; Ch. Lemchenas. (12) Hungarian Dezsö et al. 1969; Majtinskaja 1959; 5. Mokan'. (13) Khmer Gorgoniev 1963, 1966; J u . A. Gorgoniev. (14) Komi(-Zyrian) Bubrix 1949; Lytkin 1966; R. M. Batalova. (15) Mansi Rombandejeva 1973; Je. I. Rombandejeva.

419

420

Appendix

(16) Mordvin Serebrennikov 1967; Smirennikova 1985; Turgajeva-Smirennikova 1972; A. P. Feoktistov; G. I. JermuSkin. (17) Nivkh

Nedjalkov, Otaina 1981; Panfilov 1960; G. A. Otaina. (18) Old Turkic Amanzolov 1969. (19) Selkup Kuznecova et al. 1980; Je. A. Xelimskij. (20) Shoshoni Langacker 1976; Sapir 1930. (21) Tatar Isxakova 1974; Zinnatullina 1969; X . F. Isxakova. (22) Turkish Babby 1981; Ivanov 1977; Kahr 1978; Lees 1973; Mixajlov 1961; V. G. Guzev. (23) Udmurt Perevoäiikov (ed.). 1962; Pozdejeva 1975; TepljaSina 1966; Uäakov 1982; L. Je. Zvereva. (24) Uzbek Blagova 1965; Muzdabajev 1962, 1963; ReSetov 1966; Sultansaidova 1978; N. S. Raximova. (25) Vepsian Hämälainen 1966; Käxrik 1978; Zajceva 1981; Μ. I. Zajceva. (26) Yakut Ubrjatova 1966; Xaritonov 1963; N. N. Jefremov. (27) Yiitzachi Zapotec Butler 1976.

Index of languages

Albanian 237, 242, 247, 251, 254, 259, 268, 283, 286 - 287, 300 Altaic 303 Amharic 302, 306, 308, 317, 320, 323, 328, 336, 419 Andean 302 Anglo-Saxon 207 Armenian 237, 239, 244, 258-259, 267, 284, 287, 290-291, 297, 342-343, 345, 349, 417 Aymara 302, 306, 308, 317, 336-337, 342, 419 Azerbaijani 302, 308, 310, 315, 320, 322, 326, 329, 336-337, 339, 342, 345, 419 Baltic 1 - 2 , 7, 18, 2 4 - 2 7 , 32, 40, 4 3 - 4 4 , 4 6 - 4 8 , 50, 57-60,62,65,106,117,126, 152,155-156,175-177,179,183-188, 190-192, 195-197, 201, 206, 208, 210, 214, 216, 218, 230, 234-235, 237-238, 240-241, 243, 246, 249 - 2 5 0 , 269, 272, 274, 287, 298, 328, 341, 345 - 347, 348-349, 351-352, 355, 358 Bashkir 315, 327 Basque 303 Blackfoot 318 Bulgarian 237, 244, 247, 249, 251, 2 5 4 - 255, 258, 263, 265, 272 - 273, 280, 284,287,289-293,296-297, 299-300, 342, 349, 353, 417 Belorussian 237, 244, 249, 258, 284, 291, 293, 297, 417 Caucasian, 302 Celtic 350 Chuvash 302, 308-309, 314, 319-322, 324, 326, 332, 336, 339 - 340, 345, 349, 419 Cornish Old Cornish 276 Czech 237, 244, 250, 255, 258, 262, 265, 269, 273, 275, 280, 282, 284, 291-293, 296-300, 342, 349, 417 Danish 237, 262, 267, 286

Dutch 232, 240 English 2, 5, 16, 26, 32, 34, 36, 41, 44, 48, 58 - 59, 118, 130, 133, 142, 159, 179, 194-201, 208-212, 214, 216, 218, 234, 237-240, 244, 246, 249, 251, 253, 255, 258, 260-261, 263, 265, 269-270, 279, 284, 287, 291, 297, 300, 305, 334, 339, 341-342, 344, 345, 347, 349-350, 351-352, 355,357-359, 362-366, 370, 372 Middle English 207, 237, 254 Modern English 198, 200, 207, 215-216, 246 Old English 216, 254, 354 Erzja 302, 316, 322, 328, 339 see also Mordvin Eskimo 3 0 8 - 309, 314, 317, 320, 322, 336, 338 - 340, 342, 345, 348, 351, 363, 419 see also Siberian Yupik Eskimo Eskimo-Aleut 302 Estonian 302-303, 305, 308, 310-311, 313, 316, 318, 320, 322, 325, 331, 333, 336, 340, 345-347, 349, 419 Finnish 302, 305, 308, 311, 313, 316, 320 - 321, 326, 331, 333 - 334, 336, 345, 370, 419 Finno-Ugric 302, 305, 338, 342, 345 French 2, 8, 14, 26, 199, 237, 244, 251-253, 256, 258, 263, 268, 284, 290-292, 295, 297, 300, 342, 345, 354, 417 Old French 239, 279 Frisian 240 Fula 302-303, 306, 308, 311-312, 316, 318, 320, 325, 328, 336, 338, 345-346, 351, 419 Georgian 302-303, 306, 308, 311, 3 1 4 - 315, 320, 326 - 327, 334, 336, 338, 342, 345 - 3 4 6 , 348, 3 4 8 - 349, 419 German 2, 14, 16, 2 2 - 2 4 , 46, 159-169, 173-175, 178, 232, 237, 239-241, 244,

422

Index of languages

251, 253, 256, 258, 261, 263 - 265, 269 - 270, 272, 279, 281, 284, 287 - 289, 291, 294 - 295, 297 - 299, 328, 342, 345, 348-349, 351, 354, 362, 371, 417 Old High German 237, 257 Germanic 219, 237, 298 Gothic 237, 241, 244, 246, 253, 257-258, 284, 297, 299, 417 Greek 8, 237-238, 253, 290, 349, 363 Ancient Greek 8, 237, 239-240, 242, 244-245, 253, 257-258, 266, 282, 284, 290-291, 297, 299, 342, 345, 355, 417 Classical Greek 266, 272, 290 Koine Greek 245, 253, 266, 282 Modern Greek 239, 241, 300 Guarani 318 Hebrew 302, 306, 308, 312, 316, 320, 336, 345-346, 419 Hittite 237, 241, 257, 266, 291, 350 Hopi 317 Hungarian 302-303, 305, 308, 311-312, 315 - 317, 320, 325, 336, 345, 349, 419 Icelandic 237-238, 241, 243-245, 252, 254, 258, 262, 269 - 270, 284, 291, 297-300, 345, 417 Old Icelandic 245, 254, 257, 259, 269, 282, 288, 290, 299-300 Indian 237, 302 Indo-European (IE) 3, 5, 8 - 9 , 179, 218-219,236, 238-240,242,246-247, 257-259, 277, 300-302, 305, 307, 323, 331, 338, 346, 355 Old Indo-European 257 Indo-Iranian 245, 290 Indonesian 303 Italian 26, 61, 237, 244, 258-259, 262-263, 268, 270, 275, 277-278, 280, 284, 291, 297, 299, 345, 349, 370, 417 Italic 350 Italo-Celtic 276 Irish Old Irish 276 Japanese 303, 342 Kalmyk 323

Kartvelian 302 Kazakh 327, 335 Khakass 335 Khmer 302-303, 307, 308, 311, 317, 320, 322-323, 349, 419 Kirghiz 327, 329 Komi (-Zyrian) 302, 305, 308, 312, 315 - 316, 318, 320, 334, 336, 340, 345, 349, 419 Kumyk 327 Lakhota 303 Lardil 269 Latin 8, 232, 237, 239 - 242,244- 245,247, 252 - 253, 257 - 258,260,266,283 - 284, 291, 297-299, 317, 349, 350-351, 362-363, 418 Classical Latin 243, 276, 283, 350-351 Early Latin 276, 350, 370 Vulgar Latin 241, 243, 266 Latvian 1, 5 - 6 , 14, 21-22, 2 4 - 2 7 , 36, 40 - 41, 51, 65 - 66, 159-178, 183, 186, 192, 207, 218, 230, 237, 239, 244, 258, 275, 284, 291, 297, 341-343, 345, 349, 351-352, 355-359 Lingala 303 Lithuanian 1 - 2 , 5 - 6 , 8, 14, 18-22, 2 4 - 2 6 , 2 8 - 2 9 , 31, 34-36, 4 0 - 4 1 , 47 - 48, 5 0 - 51, 57, 6 2 - 63, 65 - 66, 159-178,183,186,189-190,192-193, 2 0 7 - 208, 218, 224, 226, 230, 2 3 2 - 233, 236-237, 239, 244, 248, 258, 261, 263 - 264,270 - 271,278 - 280, 284,287, 291, 293-294,296-297,331, 342-344, 349, 351-352, 354-359, 365, 368, 370-372 Old Lithuanian 24 Macedonian 232, 237, 244, 250, 253, 258, 282 - 284, 289, 291, 296 - 297, 299, 320, 418 Mansi 302, 305, 308, 311-312, 317, 325, 328, 332, 336, 345, 349, 351, 419 Moksha 302, 311, 316, 321, 333 see also Mordvin Moldavian 248, 254, 287, 354 Mon-Khmer 302

Index of languages Mordvin 3 0 2 - 3 0 3 , 305, 308, 311, 316, 320, 323, 328, 333, 336, 339, 345, 349, 351, 420 Nahuatl 337 Nivkh (Gilyak) 3 0 2 - 3 0 3 , 307, 308, 316, 3 1 8 - 3 2 0 , 3 3 5 - 3 3 6 , 339, 3 4 1 - 3 4 2 , 3 4 5 , 349, 352, 362, 372, 420 Norwegian 237, 241, 244, 252, 258, 262, 267, 269, 278, 284, 286, 289, 291, 2 9 7 - 3 0 0 , 345, 418 Modern Norwegian 259 Paleo-Asiatic 302 Permic 305 Polish 61, 226, 237, 239, 241, 244, 2 5 4 - 2 5 5 , 2 5 8 - 2 5 9 , 262, 2 7 5 - 2 7 6 , 278 - 280,284,291-293, 297 - 298, 342, 349, 418 Portuguese 237, 267, 277 Prussian 2 2 - 2 4 , 62, 65, 1 5 9 - 1 7 8 , 355, 357 Old Prussian 5, 22, 62, 1 5 9 - 1 7 8 , 237 Quechua 318 Romance 8, 199, 219, 237, 239, 241, 243, 269, 271, 277, 347, 354 Romanian 237, 241, 244, 258, 260, 262, 267, 278, 2 8 4 - 2 8 5 , 288, 290, 2 9 1 - 2 9 2 , 295 - 297, 299, 342, 345, 354, 418 Russian 1 - 2 , 6 - 8 , 1 1 - 1 3 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 18, 2 5 - 2 7 , 29, 3 1 - 3 2 , 3 4 - 3 6 , 41, 43, 45-51, 53-54, 56-58, 61-62, 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 , 120, 128, 133, 143, 146, 152, 168,171,177-178,225-229, 231-232, 234, 237, 2 3 9 - 2 4 0 , 2 4 3 - 2 4 4 , 246, 248, 258, 261, 264 - 265, 270 - 271, 273, 276, 279, 284, 287, 289, 291, 293 - 294, 297, 300, 331, 335, 343, 3 5 4 - 3 5 5 , 3 6 2 - 3 6 9 , 372, 418 Modern Russian 285 Old Russian 237, 259 Samoyedic 302 Sanskrit 237, 240, 242, 2 4 4 - 245, 253, 2 5 7 - 2 5 8 , 266, 2 9 0 - 2 9 1 , 297, 342, 418 Scandinavian 238, 241, 245, 247, 260, 269, 298, 311, 317, 347, 351, 355

423

Modern Scandinavian 299 Old Scandinavian 237, 241, 243, 245, 269, 299 Selkup 3 0 2 - 3 0 3 , 306, 308, 311, 318, 3 2 0 - 3 2 2 , 328, 336, 345, 3 4 7 - 3 4 9 , 351, 420 Semitic 302 Serbo-Croatian 237, 244, 252, 256, 258, 260, 267, 269, 277, 281, 284, 288, 2 9 1 - 2 9 3 , 297, 299 - 300, 342, 349, 354, 364, 418 Shoshoni 302, 306, 308, 320, 327, 349, 420 Siberian Yupik Eskimo 3 0 2 - 3 0 3 , 306 see also Eskimo Slavic 1, 7 - 8 , 1 2 - 1 3 , 4 3 - 4 4 , 126, 237, 249 - 250, 253, 269 - 270, 274, 298, 345, 347, 350 East Slavic 237, 241, 243, 250, 274, 293, 342, 349 South Slavic 237, 241, 250, 255, 274 West Slavic 237, 241, 255, 274, 292 Slovak 237, 241, 244, 2 4 9 - 2 5 0 , 258, 268, 270, 2 8 1 - 2 8 5 , 291, 294, 2 9 6 - 2 9 7 , 342, 418 Slovenian 296 Spanish 2, 8, 16, 26, 31, 61, 231, 237, 244, 254, 256, 258, 265, 2 6 7 - 2 6 8 , 270, 272, 274, 277 - 278, 280, 283 - 284, 286, 2 9 0 - 2 9 2 , 2 9 4 - 2 9 5 , 297, 299, 342, 345, 349, 418 Surselvan 241 Swahili 323 Swedish 237, 241, 2 4 4 - 2 4 5 , 2 4 8 - 2 4 9 , 252, 258, 264, 269, 273, 278, 281, 284, 286, 2 8 9 - 2 9 1 , 297, 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 , 345, 418 Tarahumara 332 Tatar 302, 305, 308, 310, 313, 319-320, 325-326, 329-331, 3 3 8 - 3 4 0 , 342, 345, 349, 362, 420 Tocharian 350 Turkic 3 0 2 - 3 0 4 , 3 1 0 - 3 1 1 , 316, 318, 3 2 6 - 3 2 7 , 329, 3 3 5 - 3 3 6 , 340, 346, Modern Turkic 335 Old Turkic 302, 308, 320, 336, 339, 420 Turkish 302, 308, 318, 3 2 0 - 3 2 2 , 327, 335 - 336, 340, 345, 349, 420

316, 336,

322, 362 342, 330,

424

Index of languages

Turkmen 335 Tuvan 335 Udmurt 302, 305, 3 0 8 - 3 0 9 , 315 - 317, 319, 320, 322, 326 - 327, 334, 336, 339, 345, 349, 420 Uigur 335 Ukranian 237, 244, 258, 276, 284, 291, 418 Uto-Aztecan 302, 306, 317, 332 Uzbek 302, 304, 308, 310, 320, 322, 329, 333, 335 - 336, 345, 349, 420 Modern Uzbek 329 Old Uzbek 304, 329

312, 330,

Vepsian 3 0 2 - 3 0 3 , 305, 308, 310, 317, 320, 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 , 336, 345, 420 Vietnamese 303

Welsh 225, 237, 239 West Atlantic 302 297,

324,

Yakut 302, 308 - 309, 318, 320 - 322, 3 3 5 - 3 3 6 , 339, 342, 345, 349, 420 Yatzachi Zapotec 302, 306, 308, 318, 420

Zapotecan 302

Index of names

Abraamjan, A. A. 267, 417 Abraham, W. 27, 3 7 - 3 8 , 48 Abramov. Β. Α., 27, 45 Abrosimova, T. A. 199, 266, 299, 417 Acarkina, T. A. 255, 417 Aid, Fr. M. 34, 36, 38, 42, 50 - 51, 63, 418 Aleksandrov, A. M. 269 Alisova, Τ. B. 280, 417 Amanzolov, A. S. 339, 420 Ambrazas, V. 18-19, 79 Anciferova, G. M. 290, 299, 417 Anderson, J. M. 63, 87 Andreitin, L. 417 Andrejev, I. A. 419 Anward, J. 418-419 Apresjan, Ju. D. 2 7 - 2 8 , 30, 33, 38, 4 0 - 4 1 , 63, 100, 119, 149, 177, 220 Arutjunova, N. D. 418 Atraxovit, Κ. K. 417 Babby, L. H. 2, 11, 15-16, 30, 6 1 - 6 2 , 319, 321, 420 Babby, L. & Brecht, R. D. 1 5 - 1 6 , 61, 63 Babcock, S. S. 2, 265, 418 Baldi, Ph. 61, 241, 245, 252, 266, 298, 346, 351, 417-418 Barakova, P. 417 Bell, A. 219 Bendix, Ε. H. 28, 35 Berkov, V. P. 245, 252, 254, 259, 262, 270, 278, 286, 290, 300, 417-418 Berman, R. A. 306, 312, 419 Bernackaja, A. A. 417 BernadiSiene, P. 18-21, 2 4 - 2 5 , 62, 146, 176 Bezzenberger, A. 19, 24 Bielenstein, A. 2 1 - 2 2 Bilodid, I. K. 418 Bily, M. 62 Birjulin, L. A. et al. 10 Birkenmaier, W. 9 Björkhagen, I. M. 418 Blagova, G. F. 318, 329, 420 Bogdanov, V. V. 3 3 - 3 4 , 3 7 - 3 8 , 44, 63

Boguslawski, A. 61, 418 Bondarko, A. B. 9, 61 Brecht, R. D. (Babby, L.) 1 5 - 1 6 , 61, 63 Brecvht, R. D. & Levine, J. S. 16, 46, 55, 77 Brodskij, I. N. (tupaxin, I. J.) 59 Bubrix, D. V. 316, 340, 419 Buc, I. A. 417 Buch, Τ. I. 241, 269 Buchholz, Ο. & Fiedler, W. 286, 300 Burrow, T. 239, 241, 245, 257, 266, 270, 418 Burston, J. L. 417 Buscha, J. 417 Butler, I. 306, 318, 420 Bystrov, I. S. & Stankevit, Ν. V. 303 Cankov, Κ. 417 Cantrall, W. R. 2, 15, 179, 193, 216 Chafe, W. L. 27, 33 - 34, 37, 40, 42, 45, 206 Channon, R. 15, 61, 178 Chappel, H. 210 Cinque, G. 278, 417 Claflin, E. F. 266, 350-351, 418 Clark, Η. H. 51 Comrie, B. 38, 40, 44, 4 8 - 4 9 , 52, 63, 217, 221, 225, 232-233, 236, 331, 419 Comrie, B. & Smith, N. 5, 219, 283, 361-362 Cook, W. A. 4, 34, 3 7 - 3 8 , 42, 44, 63, 87 Costa, R. 277, 354, 417 Cranmer, D. J. 2, 16, 3 0 - 3 1 , 6 0 - 6 1 , 189, 217, 256, 417 Cruse, D. A. 17, 3 6 - 3 7 , 63 Curme, G. O. 180 Cekalina, Ε. M. 2, 418 Cernyäeva, V. F. 46, 354, 417 Colakova, Κ. & Ivanova, Κ., 417 tupaxin, L. J. & Brodskij, I. N. 59 Dahl, Ö. 38, 56, 221 Delbrück, Β. 266 Desnickaja, Α. V. 286

426

Index of names

Dezsö, L. et al. 305, 316, 323, 419 Diffloth, G. 63, 197 Dik, S. C , 33, 3 7 - 3 8 , 42, 50, 62 Dirven, R. 199, 216 Dittmer, A. 417 Dmitrijeva, A. M. 9, 418 Dolinina, I. B. 10, 181 Donaldson, W. D. 2, 17, 38, 295, 417 Doros, A. 418 Duäkovä, L. 2, 179, 187, 192, 217, 280, 417 Dyvik, H. J. J. 267, 418 Düusti, F. 417 Edmondson, J. A. 238, 303 Edmondson, J. A. & Plank, F. 216 Einarsson, S. 254 Eintrej, G. I. 242, 300 Endzelin (Endzelynas), J. 19, 22 - 24, 62, 176 Faltz, L. M. 2, 238, 240, 263, 303 Farr, J. M. 207 Ferguson, Ch. A. 219 Fiedler, W. 255, 263, 273, 417 (Buchholz, Ο.) 286, 300 Fillmore, Ch. J. 27, 33, 38, 42, 44, 48, 56 Fortunatov, F. F. 8, 14 Frantz, D. G. 318 Friedrich, I. 241, 291 Frumkina, R. M. 28 Futerman, Ζ. I. 180 Gabelentz, H. C. 326 Gaisina, R. M. 33 Gak, V. G. 62, 149, 218 Garcia, E. C. 2, 256, 273, 277, 281, 296, 418 GaSeva, L. P. 300 Gavrilova, V. I. 418 Gecadze, I. O. & Nedjalkov, V. P. 323 Gecadze, I. O. et al. 306, 323, 334, 3 3 7 - 3 3 8 , 419 GeniuSiene, E. 4, 13, 19, 51, 6 2 - 6 3 , 77, 128, 1 3 0 - 1 3 2 , 141, 145, 178, 278, 280, 354 Geniuäiene, Ε. S. & Nedjalkov, V. P. 5 Georgiev, V. J. 61, 253, 255, 4 1 7 - 4 1 8

Georgiev, I. S. 417 Ginzburg, E. L. 28, 31 Girdenis, A. & 2ulys, V. 19, 24 Glendening, P. J. T. 417 Gonda, J. 60, 253, 257, 272, 299, 4 1 7 - 4 1 8 Gorgoniev, Ju. A. 303, 311, 317, 323, 419 Gorlatov, A. M. 417 Gorodeckij, B. Ju. 217, 222 Grady, M. 209 Grande, Β. M. 316, 337, 419 Green, J. N. 17, 418 Greenberg, J. H. 217 Greimas, A. J. 26 Grepl, M. 217, 417 Grimes, J. E. 38, 42, 52 Guasch, A. 318 Guchman, Μ. M. 241 - 2 4 2 , 246, 254, 257, 282, 288, 299, 417 Halliday, Μ. A. K. 40, 42 Hämälainen, Μ. Μ. 420 Harris, A. C. 303, 306, 326, 354, 419 Hatcher, A. G. 245, 247, 252, 257, 298, 417-418 Havränek, B. 8, 354, 417 Heike, Μ. 62, 179 Hemmann, Ε. 327, 337, 419 Hendriksen, Η. 267 Henschel, Β. 417 Herbert, R. Κ. 179, 214 Hermann, Ε. 19 Hirt, Η. 245, 253, 266, 4 1 7 - 4 1 8 Horn, G. Μ. 17, 268, 4 1 7 - 4 1 8 Hornby, A. S. 179, 184, 186, 188, 201, 2 1 1 - 2 1 3 , 216 Inoue, K. 15 Isaienko, Α. V. 8, 14, 6 0 - 6 1 , 418 Isxakova, X. F. 326, 329, 331, 420 Ivanov, S. N. 335, 420 Ivanova, K. (tolakova, K.) 417 Ivanova, Jankovskaja, Ε. A. 418 Ivitn, M. 418 Jablonskaja, Ο. A. 8, 257 Jablonskis, J. 19 Jakobson, R. 8, 14, 61, 63 Jakuliene, A. 18, 20, 2 2 - 2 5 , 159, 167, 172

Index of names Jamison, S. W. 266, 418 Janko-Trinickaja, N. A. 1 3 - 1 4 , 6 0 - 6 1 , 177, 418 Jännti, A. 2, 263, 354, 417 Jarceva, V. N. 353 Jaxontov, S. Je. 2, 10, 15, 38 Jemeljanova, Ν. M. 419 Jespersen, O. 180, 191 Jones, M. & Thomas, A. R. 239 Juldaäev, A. A. 315 Juntune, T. W. 417 Kahr, J. C. 221, 327, 420 Kaliuätenko, V. D . 156 Kardelyte, J. 20 Kask, Α. X. 303, 305, 316, 319 Katkuviene, L. J. 178 Kavaleva, Μ. T. 417 Käxrik, A. 303, 306, 310, 322 - 323, 420 Kazlauskas, J. 19, 22 Keenan, E. 48 Kibrik, A. Je. 38, 48 Klein, D. 1 8 - 1 9 Klima, Ε. S. (Lees, R. B.) 15, 184 Klimenko, L. P. 259 Klimov, V. V. 217, 245, 257, 259, 417 Klobukov, Ε. V. 61 Klokeid, T. J. 269 Kopeiny, Fr. 8, 270, 298, 300, 417 Kordi, Je. Je. 10, 256, 269, 417 Kornilov, G. Je. 326, 3 3 9 - 3 4 0 , 419 Kornilov, G. Je. et al. 323, 419 Korolev, E. J. 2, 8 - 9 , 1 2 - 1 3 , 3 2 - 3 3 , 60, 152, 177, 248, 418 Korubin, B. 418 Kovalev, A. A. & Sarbatov, G. δ. 306 Kovalev, N. S. 418 Kovaleva, L. M. 38, 63 Kovaleva, Μ. T. 249, 417 Kozinceva, N. A. 251, 254, 259, 267, 290, 417 Kretov, A. A. 248, 418 Krohn, D. 2, 417 Kruisinga, E. 180 Kruopas, J. 18 Kubrjakova, Je. S. 29 Kurschat, F. 19 Kurylowicz, J. 61, 236

427

Kuz'mina, I. V. & Nemtenko, Ε. V. 276 Kuznecova, Μ. V. 146 Kuznecova, A. J. et al. 303, 306, 311, 318, 322, 420 Kwapisz, Z. 2, 217, 255, 275, 4 1 7 - 4 1 8 Lafitte, P. 303 Lakoff, G. 33, 179, 194, 209 Langacker, R. W. 2, 17, 295, 301, 306, 317, 327, 332, 337, 420 Langacker, R. W. & Munro, P. 221 Lantolf, J. P. 17, 274, 418 Lapärova, V. 4 1 7 - 4 1 8 Leddusire, F. Ε. B. 2, 6 0 - 6 1 , 217, 245, 253, 266, 282 Lees, R. B. 323, 420 Lees, R. B. & Klima, Ε. S. 15, 184 Lehmann, W. P. 303 Lejkina, Β. M. 5 0 - 5 1 , 90 Leonoviieva, Z. 255, 275, 282, 292, 417 LeuSeva, V. V. 278 Levine, J. S. (Brecht, R. D.), 16, 46, 55, 77 Lobanova, N . A. 418 Lo Cascio, V. 259, 263, 277, 417 Lötzsch, R. et al. 44, 217, 417 Lucht, L. I. 267, 278, 418 Lujan, M. 17, 299, 4 1 7 - 4 1 8 Lynch, I. 14, 51 Lyons, J. 3, 75, 191 Lytkin, V. I. 419 Majtinskaja, K. Je. 237, 303, 3 1 1 - 3 1 2 , 325, 419 Margulies, A. 14, 1 9 - 2 3 Martin, Ε. H. 306, 317, 337, 419 Maslova-Laäanskaja, S. S. 278, 418 Mater, E. 417 Maziulis, V. 22, 62, 1 5 9 - 1 6 2 , 165, 173, 178 McCawley, N. A. 15 Mel'cev, I. F. 290, 418 Menov5£ikov, G. A. 303, 419 Meza-Dombkowski, E. (Reynolds, L.) 418 Mirambel, A. 300 Mixajlov, M. S. 340, 420 Moisejev, A. I. 9 M 0 r k , H. 17, 252, 256, 260, 267, 299, 354, 418

428

Index of names

Mräzek, R. 13, 15, 217, 274, 289, 4 1 7 - 4 1 8 Muinik, I. P. 14, 60 Munro, P. (Langacker, R. W.) 221 Murzin, L. N. 30 Muidabajev, Μ. M. 329, 420 Mühlenbachs, Κ. 66 Nalimov, V. V. 59 Napoli, D. J. 2, 17, 60, 62, 209, 262, 275, 417 Nato, A. J. 277, 350 Nedjalkov, I. V. 323 Nedjalkov, V. P. 2, 13, 15, 25, 31, 145, 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 , 217, 239, 2 7 3 - 2 7 4 , 282, 301, 354 (Gecadze, I. O.) 323 (Geniuäiene, E. 5) 5 Nedjalkov, V. P. & Otaina, G. A. 13, 15, 303, 313, 316, 420 Nedjalkov, V. P. et al. 323, 335 Nedjalkov, V. P. & Sil'nickij, G. G. 1 4 - 1 5 , 3 5 - 3 6 , 301, 323 Nekrasov, Ν. P. 1, 8, 14 Nemfcenko, Ε. V. (Kuz'mina, I. V.) 276 Nichols, J. 12, 61 Niedzielski, H. 217, 418 Nilsen, Don L. Ε 63 Njalibuli, B. 303, 306, 312, 316, 325, 328, 338, 419 Norman, B. J. 2, 9, 14, 6 0 - 6 1 , 217, 255, 274, 289, 353, 417 - 418 Novikova, L. I. 417 Oglobin, A. K. 303 Oksaar, E. 286, 418 Ollykainen, V. M. 419 Oosten, J. 209 Oravec, J. 294, 418 Orban, O. P. 217, 418 Otaina, G. A. (Nedjalkov, V. P.) 13, 15, 303, 313, 316, 420 Ovtinnikova, O. G. 1 7 9 - 1 8 0 , 185, 216 Paduieva, Je. V. 11, 37, 120 Päll, E. 331, 340, 419 Panfilov, V. Z. 303, 318, 420 Parker, G. 318 Parolkova, O. 417

Paulauskas, J. 178 Paulauskiene, A.-S. P. 2, 24 Paulini, Ε. 418 Peniev, I. 17, 272, 280, 417 Penning, G. E. 207, 216 Perelmuter, I. A. 241, 245, 257, 266, 282, 290, 299 - 300, 417 Perevoätikov, P. N. 420 Perlmutter, D. M. (Soames, S.) 15 Pete, I. 418 Peterson, Μ. N. 8 Plank, Ε (Edmondson, J. A.) 216 Plotnikova, O. S. 418 Poldauf, J. 209 Popova, O. D. 180, 207, 216, 254 Poriezinskij, V. K. 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 4 - 2 5 , 176 Postovalova, V. I. 7 Poutsma, H. 180 PovejSil, J. 417 Pozdejeva, A. A. 3 1 5 - 3 1 6 , 3 3 9 - 3 4 0 , 420 Preusler, W. 4 1 7 - 4 1 8 Quirk, R. et al. 1 8 0 - 1 8 2 Ramat, P. 217 Raspopov, I. P. 63 Razumnikova, G. A. 178, 418 Referovskaja, E. A. 61,199,245,252-253, 257, 266, 269, 4 1 7 - 4 1 8 Reformatskij, A. A. 353 Reichenkron, G. 243, 245, 252, 257, 417-418 Repina, T. A. 290, 418 ReSetov, V. V. 420 Reynolds, L. & Meza-Dombkowski, E. 418 Rheinfelder, Η. 239 Rivero, Μ. L. 17, 418 Rode, Ν . N. 8, 354 Rogovskaja, Β. I. (Xajmovifc, B. S.) 180 Roldän, M. 17, 418 Rolf, B. 418 Rombandejeva, Ε. I. 317, 419 Rozdestvenskij, J. V. 237 Rudolfova, L. 265 Rutkowska, M. 152, 418 Ruwet, N. 15, 417

Index of names Ruiitka, J. 9, 268, 418 Rüzitka, R. et al. 10, 417 Rybalko, G. A. 417 Sadovskaja, G. N. 152, 418 Saloni, Z. 418 Sapit, E. 306, 420 Savfcenko, A. N. 245, 253, 257, 266, 272, 290-291, 299, 417-418 Schaarschmidt, G. H. 15 Schäfer, F. 2 Schibsbye, Κ. 192 Schleicher, A. 1 8 - 1 9 Schmalstieg, W. R. 22, 62 Schroten, J. 17, 418 Seliverstova, Ο. N. 33 Serebrennikov, B. A. 303, 305, 311, 313, 322, 328, 334, 339-340, 420 Servaite, L. A. 63 Sevbo, I. P. 50 Sevortjan, Ε. V. 305, 318, 322, 327, 329, 335, 339, 419 Sidorovska, M. 282, 418 Siewierska, A. 233-234, 267, 269, 277 - 279, 283, 286, 326, 331, 354 Sigalov, P. S. 152, 217, 417-418 Sil'nickij, G. G. 10, 14-15, 40, 48, 198-199 (Nedjalkov, V. P.) 14-15, 35-36, 301, 323 Sjatkovskij, S. I. 217, 226, 276, 280, 417-418 Skaliika, V. 302 Skoumalova, Z. 61 Sliziene, N. 63 Smirennikova, A. J. 303, 311, 316, 322, 420 Smirnickij, A. I. 180 Smirnov, L. N. 418 Smith, N. (Comrie, B.) 5, 219, 283, 361-362 Smuäkevii, Ε. S. 180, 184, 354 Soames, S. & Perlmutter, D. Μ. 15 Soboleva, P. A. (Viljuman, V. G.) 38, 221 Sobolevskij, A. 24, 160 Sokols, E. 22, 117, 176, 178 Stang, Chr. S. 19, 22 Stankevit, Ν. V. (Bystrov, I. S.) 303

429

Starinin, V. P. 419 Starosta, S. 37 - 3 8 , 40, 42, 44, 56, 63 Statha-Halikas, H. 221, 276, 279, 285, 350 Staxova, G. A. 61, 418 Steblin-Kamenskij, Μ. I. 245, 269, 299-300, 417 - 4 1 8 Stefanini, J. 61, 417 Stepanov, Ju. S. 33, 63 Steube, A. 417 Stimm, Η. 241 Stötzel, G. 2, 261, 298, 417 Stummhöfer, H.-J. & Viorel, Ε. 217, 418 Sudnik, Τ. Μ. 293 Sultansaidova, S. 420 Suiier, Μ. 17, 286, 418 Sunik, Ο. P. 303 Svane, G. 418 Svartvik, J. 354 SveSnikova, Τ. N. 295-296, 418 Sweet, H. 180 Swiggers, P. 323 Szlifersztejnowa, S. 60 Sarbatov, G. S. 306, 419 (Kovalev, A. A.) 306 Saxmatov, A. A. 10 Sierbak, A. M. 304-305, 326, 329-330, 335 SiSmarev, V. F. 285, 418 Tagamlicka, G. 417 TepljaSina, Τ. I. 420 Tesniere, L. 10, 27 Thomas, A. R. (Jones, M.) 239 Thräinsson, H. 15 Timberlake, A. 15 Titov, E. G. 303 Tomäii, F. 296 Topolmska, Ζ. 418 Toporov, V. Ν. 62, 162, 165, 173 Toporova, Ι. Ν. 303 Turgajeva-Smirennikova, A. E. 303, 322, 420 Ubrjatova, Je. I. 420 Ulimann, S. 31, 148-149 Urbutis, V. 31 Ureland, Sture P. 2, 217, 239, 241, 418-419

430

Index of names

Usikova, R. P. 418 Uspenskij, B. A. 217 (Zivov, V. M.) 307 Uspenskij, V. A. 52, 223 USakov, G. A. 420 Valfells, S. 17, 61, 245, 252, 300 Vardul', I. F. 26 Vasiliu, L. 418 Vaxtin, Ν. B. 303, 307, 310, 315, 339, 419 Vendler, Z. 33 Veyrenc, J. 418 Vilentas, B. 159-161, 163, 166, 178 Viljuman, V. G. & Soboleva, P. A. 38, 221 Vincenz, I. 299, 418 Vinogradov, V. V. 14, 61 Viorel, E. (Stummhöfer, H.-J.) 217, 418 Vitkauskas, V. 20, 24 Voges, F. 207 Volodin, A. P. et al. 305, 323, 419 Vrabie, E. 418 Wagnet, F. 417 Walter, H. 417 Walther, G. 88, 418 Walther, X. 417 Wandruszka, Μ. 1 Warschawsky Harris, F. 15 Wellander, Ε. 254, 272, 417-418 Westfal, G. 2, 17, 267, 277, 418 Wierzbicka, A. 39, 8 7 - 8 8

Wiese, Ε. 418 Wilczewska, Κ. 418 Xajmovit, Β. S. & Rogovskaja, Β. I. 180 Xalipov, S. G. 14, 240 - 241, 245, 252, 281, 418 Xaritonov, L. N. 305, 318, 322, 335, 339, 420 Xasenova, A. K. 335 Xolodovii, A. A. 2 - 3 , 9 - 1 1 , 26, 38, 5 2 - 5 3 , 221, 356 Xrakovskij, V. S. 2 , 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 7 , 30,37 - 38, 44, 54, 217, 221, 223, 301 Zajceva, Μ. I. 303, 306, 317, 420 Zajitkovi, J. 300 Zandvoort, R. W. 180 Zarickij, N. S. 6 0 - 6 1 , 259 Zauber, R. A. 418 Zelenov, A. N. 9 Zimmerman, I. 120 Zinkevitius, Z. 19, 177 Zinnatullina, Κ. Z. 60, 304, 313, 315, 325 - 326, 330, 3 3 8 - 340, 354, 420 Znamenskaja, Α. V. 8, 152, 418 Zolotova, G. A. 36, 87 Zribi-Hertz, Α., 417 Zubaty, J. 24 Zigadlo, V. N. et al. 180 Zivov, V. M. & Uspenskij, B. A. 307 £ulys, V. (Girdenis, A.) 19, 24

Index of terms

Actor (Act) 39ff., 50, 80ff., 104f., 183, 196 f., 206 active construction 51, 142 Addressee 38, 40 f., 129, 134, 207 Agent (Ag), 4, 9, 11, 14, 39, passim - extension 233, 266 ff., 370 allo-case 38 see also hyper-role anti-taxonomic (non-taxonomic) approach 12, 15, 16, 238 array - of semantic RV types, 3, 5, 217, 341, 347 ff., 359 - of syntactic RV types 5, 341 f., 358 f. autonomous (process, situation, state) 99 f., 107, 151, 201 ff., 261 Beneficiary (Ben) 41, 47, 129, 207, 290 back-derivation 157 calculus 5, 39, 55, 218, 220 ff., 229 ff., 300, 307, 341, 358 causation 34ff., 41 ff., 102 - contact 36 - distant 36, 98, 103 f. - external 99 f. Causee 40, 42 Causer (Caus) 39, 42 ff., 99 f. class (set) - formal (morphological), 25 f., 60, 68 f., 142, 177, 213, passim - semantic 14, 37, passim - syntactic 13, 21, 60, passim - typological 344 classification - formal (morphological) 60, 152, 363 - hierarchical 5, 13, 59, 67, 355 - semantic 33, 42, 60, 74, 179, 189, 365 - syntactic 60, 69, 188, 363 componential analysis 3, 34 Content (Cont) 40ff., 122f. converse(s) 228 - lexical 74, 101, 118 ff., 210 - reflexive 120, 122

- suppletive 120 converseness 118 f., 210, 251 ff., 271 f., 334, 351, 368 coreference 1, 8, 15, 27, 79, 181 ff., 355, 366 - Agent-Beneficiary 129, 131 ff., 208, 371 - Agent-Dative 143, 207, 296 - Agent-Patient 75 ff., 194, 296, 309, 312, 365 f. - Agent-Recipient 128 - Subject-Dative 127, 234, 290, 335 - Subject-Object 184 f., 190, 245 correspondence 95, 142, 220 - object 53, 94 ff., 126, 222, 350 - pattern of 52 ff., 57, 76, 91 - subject 53, 94, 99, 104f., 222, 231 cross-reference 75 decausativity 260 decausativization (decausation) 30, 34, 106, 246, 257, 260 f. deep case 3, 37 f., 48, 56 see also semantic role definition formula 34 f., 77, 91 deletion 49, 55 ff., 220, 222f., 356, 358 - direct object 17, 54, 69, 74, 85 ff., 222, 250, 365 f. - indirect object 71, 126, 234 - object 126, 363 - subject 17, 49, 70, 99, 364, 367 demotion 90, 220, 222, 356, 358 - direct object 49, 70, 74, 94, 188, 209, 256, 319, 364, 367 - subject 49, 71, 74, 119, 125, 188, 221, 225, 351, 364, 368 derivation 28 f., 32ff., 37, 39, 44 ff., 53 ff., 73 f., 92, 106, 145 - external 31 . - formal (morphological) 28 ff., 106, 147, 158 - internal 31 - intra-class 67 - semantic 28 ff., 147 ff. - syntactic 17, 29 f.

432

Index of terms

diathesis 3 ff., 52, passim - base 54, 220 ff., 231, 301, 357 - derived (derivative) 54f., 177, 220, 223 f. - passive 110 - recessive 4, 39, 55 ff., 177, 218, passim - shift 39, 74, 142, 210, 220, 223 diathesis grammar model. 4 f., 218 doubling (of roles) 57, 220, 222 elimination 55, 57, 87, 99, 105, 127, 222 f., 228, 234, 350, 357 Experiencer (Exp) 38 f., 42 f., 46, 50, 52, 102,117,122f., 126, 226, 231, 274, 288, 369 focus (cf. non-focus) 32, 48, 50 ff., 279 focusing (device, function) 50 f. formative 60, 352 - complex 32,66, 68,133,152,155 f., 187, 296 ff., 363 - derivative (word-building) 32, 59 f., 67, 186 functional sentence perspective (FSP) 32, 236 fusion (semantic) 182 ff., 215 genetic distance 345 hierarchy 42, 46, 49, 51, 53, 69, 343, 348, 359 - of roles 53 f. - syntactic 54, 122 hyper-case 38 hyper-role 38 ff., 53, 74, 87, 120, 127, 221, 223, 226, 234, 356 see also allo-case, hyper-case impersonal construction 234, 276 ff., 283, 331 f., 350, 362, 370 indefinite-personal construction (arae-Satz) 230, 275, 278 ff., 286 f., 331 Initiator (Init) 39, 42 ff., 104, 124 Instrument (Ins) 41, 46, 77, 87, 96, 157 intransitivity 14 - derived 3, 15 f., 30, 356 intransitivization 10, 16, 47, 80, 171, 184, 194, 197 level

— — — —

communicative (pragmatic) 32, 81, 144 denotational 30, 77 formal (morphological) 356 of representation 3, 32f., 47 f., 53 ff., 123, 222 — referent(ial) 44, 54, 197, 199 — semantic 17, 29 ff., 38 ff., 52, 54, 150, 221, 356 — surface 38, 48 — syntactic 17, 29 ff., 38, 47 ff., 90, 150, 221, 356 lexeme 26, 28, 35 f., 54, 66, 83, 156, 180 lexico-semantic group (LSG) 37, 39 ff., 74, 77 f., 97, 106 Locative (Loc) 41, 56, 120 macro-situation 36, 40, 99 f., 144, 203 mapping pattern 52, 356 Means (Med) 41, 77, 96, 120, 157 media tantum 299 f. micro-situation 36, 40, 144, 201 mutation (of roles) 55ff., 97, 120, 220 ff. mode of action (Aktionsart) 152, 214, 298 non-autonomous (process, situation, state) 99 f., 107, 201 f., 205 f. non-focus (cf. focus) 32, 48, 51 f. Non-Potent (NonP) (cf. Potent) 45 f., 97 ff., 123 non-reflexive construction (NC) 27 ff., 39, passim non-reflexive verb (NV) 1, 4, 11, 16, 26, passim non-reversible (cf. reversible) 31 f., 69, 136 f., 145 ff., 168, 185 ff., 210 ff, 222, 296 f., 299 f., 336, 339 f., non-reversibility (cf. reversibility) 145 f., 150, 152, 210, 246 — formal (morphological) 146 — lexical 147, 149, 151, 211, 213 — semantic 145 ff., 211 ff., 300 — syntactic 145 f., 211 ff. object 13, 52, 94, 97 — agentive 49, 51, 110, 210, 224 f., 228, 231, 266 f., 269, 283 - d a t i v e 40f., 116f., 122, 125f., 129f., 134 ff., 173, 231, 274, 288, 294, 355

Index of terms - deep (cf. Semantic Object), 157, 174, 183 - direct (DO) 4, 14, 40, passim - conjoined 166, 184 - non-reflexive 77, 168, 172, 181 ff., 194, 198, 215, 294 - reflexive 57, 168, 182 - indirect (IO) 40f., 47ff., 71,127ff., 183, 188, 207 - instrumental 88, 191 - oblique (OblO) 43, 47 ff., 56, 66, 70, 72, 90 ff, 118, 120, 124, 126, 134, 225, 232, 255, 319 - syntactic 38, 52, 58, 180 opposition 3, 10, 54, 68, 79, 83, 104 ff, 200, 221 - active-passive 9, 19, 53 - causative 198, 201, 221 - derivative 16, 28, 66 f. - formal 68, 164 - semantic 1, 67, 164f., 221 - syntactic 67, 200 participant 11, 39 ff, 129, 356 see also referent Partitive (Part) 45 f., 74, 84 passive (construction) 1, 49 ff, 110, 119, 141 ff, 230 ff, 234, 264 ff, 276, 279 f., 288, 326, 349, 350f., 362 - agentful 266, 270 f. - agentive 225, 227, 230, 266, 269 f., 281 - agentless 110, 266, 270, 280 - actional 270, 326 -impersonal 12, 16ff, 226, 230, 233, 275 f., 283f., 350, 362 - non-agentive 266, 269 - reflexive 12, 49, 227, 233, 242, 267, 271, 325, 328 ff., 349 ff, 369 ff. - statal 270 passivization 15 path of evolution 269, 347 Patient (Pt) 4, 11, 36, passim - affected and effected 41, 55, 95, 131 f. - 'exclusive' 46, 54, 80 - 'prioritized' 46 - total 41, 129 f. permutation 57 Person (Pers) 45

433

possession 46 - alienable 81, 248, 295, 366 - inalienable 129, 195, 246, 294, 366, 371 - quasi-inalienable 46, 81, 129, 246, 248, 294, 371 Possessor 41, 129 ff, 290 Potent (Pot) (cf. Non-Potent) 45 f., 50, 97, 99 f., 139 prominence 32, 51 f., 57, 81, 85, 94, 119, 122 - communicative (pragmatic) 50 f., 77 promotion 49, 69, 119, 220, 222, 231, 279, 350 - direct object 49, 71, 125, 220, 364 - indirect object 74, 370 quasi-Patient 40, 46, 55, 81 rank shift 49, 56, 69 Recipient 40 f., 47, 133, 290 reciprocity 1, 8, 92, 253, 317 f., 367 referent (Ref) 4, 11, 3 4 f f , 40 f., 44, passim reflexive tantum 8, 21 f., 28, 66 ff, 146, 148, 162ff, 175, 184, 187, 211, 297, 299, 300, 339, 356, 363, 372 reflexive form (RF) 8 f., 12, 16, 22, 85, 351 f., 363 reflexive construction (RC) 27, passim reflexive impersonal(s) 233, 258, 275 ff., 319f., 329 ff, 348ff., 371 f. reflexive marker (RM) 1, 25, passim - affixal 58, 167, 170, 186, 245 - monofunctional 25 f., 238, 342, 347 - polyfunctional 25 f., 238, 251, 257, 304, 306, 311, 342f., 363 reflexive verb (RV) (reflexives) 1, passim - 'absolute' 75, 77, 83ff, 92, 97, 138,151, 177, 184, 208, 228 ff, 244, 249 ff, 308, 314f., 344ff, 357, 366 - autocausative (self-move) 74f., 86ff., 97, 104 ff, 139, 148, 150 f., 168, 170 ff, 175 f., 184, 190, 196 ff, 200, passim - converse 118, 120 ff, 142, 208, 230 f., 258, 271, 320, 324, 332f., 351, 368 - deaccusative 91, 94, 96, 208f., 230f., 244, 256, 318 f., 364, 367 - deadjectival 69, 155, 157 - deaccusative 17, 39, 55, 70, 74, 89, 97 f., lOOf., 123, 139, 142f., 151, 169ff, 201,

434

Index of terms

206, 215, 228 ff., 236, 257 ff., 269, 311, 319 f., 348 ff., 357, 367 — denominal 4, 68 f., 155, 296 ff., 336, 340, 356, 372 — desubstantival 69, 155 ff. — deverbal 4, 60, 68 f., 356 — impersonal 13, 20 ff. — middle 8, 10 f., 15 — modal-deagentive 233, 273 f., 283 f., 288 f., 331, 368 — objective 13 f., 17, IQ, passim - ' p a r t i t i v e (object)' 75ff., 139ff., 148, 151, 177, 190, 195 f., 212, 215, 227 ff., 236, 244 ff., 296, 308, 312 f., 344 ff., 357, 366 — passive-qualitative 13, 112 - q u a s i - p a s s i v e 97f., 109f., 114ff., 139, 144 f., 230, 258, 261, 264, 320 ff., 328, 351, 357, 368 — perfective-passive (resultative-passive) 98, 110, 114 ff., 263, 274, 324 - potential-passive 98,110 ff., 126, 210, 261 ff., 324 — reciprocal 8, 13, 20 f., 29 ff., 56, 75, 77, 89 ff., 138, 151, 176, 208, 222, 230, 244, 250, 253 ff., 308, 317, 344 f., 357, 367 — reflexive-causative (autocurative) 118, 124 f., 142, 208, 210, 222, 230, 258, 280 ff., 319 ff., 333, 351, 369 — semantic (true) 5, 10, 17, passim — subjective 13 f., 17, 69, 71 ff., passim — transitive RV (TRV) 20, 24, 132, 136, 172,174ff., 207, 215, 243, 282, 291, 336, 343 f., 358 - dative 71, 73, 82, 126 ff., 140, 143, 176, 183, 188 f., 290, 292, 335, 338, 341 ff., 356 f., 364 f., 371 - non-dative 134f., 143, 176 — reflexive-addressee 129 — reflexive-benefactive 129, 131 f., 291 f., 335, 371 — reflexive-possessive 129 ff., 140, 291, 294 ff., 371 - reflexive-recipient 128, 291 ff., 371 reflexivity (semantic) 1,10,15,25,27, 57 f., 75, 77, 166 ff., 175, 183, 185, 212, 215, 238, 240 ff., 245 ff., 304 ff., 310 f., 323, 335, 340 ff., 355, 365 f.

reflexivization 15 f., 28 ff., 42 ff., 49, 51, 78, 100, 189, 193, 238 reversibility (cf. non-reversibility) 145, 149 reversible (cf. non-reversible) 31, 69, 97, 137,145,147 ff., 186 ff., 211 f., 222, 243, 300, 309 rheme (cf. theme) 32, 236 role structure (RolS) 11, 33 f., 37 ff., 41 ff., passim

Semantic Dative (Dat) 40, 46, 50, 127, 223, 290 semantic component structure I f f . , 33 ff., 42 ff., passim semantic Object (Ob) 38, 40 ff., 50ff., 75, 79, 95 ff., 120, 222 f., 230, 232, 248, 277 semantic role 4, 11, 27, 34, 37 ff., 46 ff., 56 ff., 74, 76, 90, 94, 119 f., 123, 171, 355 Semantic Subject (Sb) 38 f., 42, 46, 50 ff., 75, 79, 87, 97, 100, 116ff., 127, 168, 223, 228 ff., 288, 290 see also deep subject situation 11, 39, 41, 44, 46, 77, 93, 124 - causative 36, 39 ff. - communicative 117 - denotational (external) 30, 56, 87, 94f.,

101 - 'doubled' 90 f. subject 4, 47ff., passim - deep 157, 355 see also Semantic Subject (Sb) - syntactic (surface) 38 f., 48, 52f., 69 f., 90, 123, 188, 224, 236 subject version 337 surface structure 4, 49, 56, 80, 84,120, 221, 235, 238, 249 syntactic structure (SynS) 29, 48 f., 53 ff., passim

taxonomic approach 12, 14 ff., 20, 59, 179, 238 theme (cf. rheme) 32, 51 f., 122, 236 theory of diatheses and voices 2f., 9, 52 transformation 28 f., 53 transitivity 134, 154, 168, 174 typological distance 345 f., 352

Index of terms valence (valency) 1, 10, 31, 44, 47 ff., 54, 85, 101, 134ff., 142, 146f., 167, 230, 356, 363 - decrease 10, 49, 221, 301, 356 f. — increase 10 - recession 3 ff., 10, 30 f., 49, 55, 57, 60, 71,141 f., 217, 220f., 226, 235, 241, 318, 346, 353, 356 ff., 361 voice 1, 7 ff., 25, 38, 51 ff., 185 — active 8

435

— medio-passive 8 - middle 8, 18 ff., 98, 185, 238, 242, 253, 257, 342 - passive 8 f f , 19, 22, 50f., 117ff., 141 ff., 185, 257, 266, 270, 304, 307, 327 f., 340, 349, 370 — reciprocal 318 - reflexive 8, 10 ff., 19, 180, 185 — reflexive-passive 12, 242