Transcript POLYFUNCTIONALITY AND SYNTACTIC DISTRIBUTION OF …

POLYFUNCTIONALITY AND
DISTRIBUTION OF REFLEXIVE VERBS
IN LATVIAN
Andra Kalnača, Ilze Lokmane
Department of Latvian and General
Linguistics
University of Latvia
The presentation is supported by ERAF
project
2010/0202/2DP/2.1.1.2.0/10/APIA/VI
AA/013
The aim of the current presentation is to analyze
Latvian reflexive verbs from the point of view
of their polyfunctionality, namely, different
meanings and distribution of the same
reflexive verb.
KRĀSOTIE-S ‘to make up’, ‘to paint
[oneself]’
Es
krāsojo-s
I.NOM make_up.PRS.1SG-REFL
katru
dienu
every.ACC day.ACC
‘I do my make up every day’
Debesis
krāsoja-s
sarkanas
sky.NOM.PL turn.PRS.3-REFL red.NOM.PL
‘The sky turns red’
Outline of description:
1) a brief insight into the research methods;
2) overview of the semantic groups of reflexive
verbs;
3) analysis of the Latvian data samples;
4) main conclusions about the semantics of
reflexive verbs and their distribution.
The classification of Latvian reflexive verbs is based
on the relationship between semantic roles and
syntactic structure, as described in Kalnača,
Lokmane 2012.
The approach of describing the voice system and
reflexive verbs in the context of semantic roles
has been widely used in modern linguistics (see,
e.g., Shibatani 1988, Klaiman 1991, Kemmer
1993, Plungjan 2000 and 2011, Haspelmath 2002,
Knjazev 2007 etc.).
The theoretical framework and classification of
reflexive verbs is mainly based on Geniušienė
1983 and 1987, developed further by Kemmer
1993, Wierzbicka 1996, Enger & Nesset 1999,
Plungian 2000 and 2011, Holvoet 2001,
Haspelmath 2002, Knjazev 2007.
For the present study the following semantic
roles are relevant – agent, patient and
experiencer. (Palmer 1994, Saeed 1997, see
also Plungian 2000 and 2011, Knjazev 2007).
Geniušienė has discussed polysemy and
overlapping of semantic classes of reflexives,
these specific features are discussed also in
Kemmer 1993 in connection with emotion and
some other reflexive verbs (see Geniušienė
1987, 137-141; Kemmer 1993).
However, polyfunctionality of Latvian reflexive
verbs is described chiefly in dictionaries of
Latvian, but never in connection with
distribution. Traditionally not all meanings of
reflexive verbs used in Colloquial Latvian are
reflected in dictionaries in spite of the fact that
they are widespread (e. g., object and impersonal
reflexives). Also Latvian grammars do not present
analysis of either polyfunctionality or colloquial
usage of reflexive verbs.
The data are taken from the Corpus of Latvian
(Latviešu valodas tekstu korpuss,
www.korpuss.lv).
Materials from explanatory dictionary of Latvian
are used as well (Latviešu valodas vārdnīca.
30 000 pamatvārdu un to skaidrojumu. Rīga:
Avots, 2006).
It should be mentioned that the description of
Latvian reflexive verbs has always raised
problems for grammarians. Traditionally,
reflexive verbs in Latvian have been described in
the context of the meanings of the category of
voice, especially – the middle voice.
We assume that Latvian reflexive verbs
constitute a distinct semantic group that should
be described independently, i. e. without
referring to the category of voice. In Kalnača,
Lokmane 2012 we have proposed that reflexive
verbs should be viewed as lexemes that through
lexical derivation have been derived from nonreflexive verbs.
As Haspelmath argues, in the case of reflexive
verbs “the agent and the patient are coreferential and can hence be thought of as
occupying a single syntactic function”
(Haspelmath 2002, 213).
The relations between semantic roles and syntactic
arguments can be represented as follows:
A=P
S
According to Wierzbicka, this model can be
related to the prototypical or primary
meaning of reflexiveness (Wierzbicka 1999,
60-64, see also Schladt 2000, König &
Siemund & Töpper 2008) which is the socalled middle, or neuter meaning in its
traditional sense.
Examples of Latvian reflexive verbs with
the prototypical meaning:
ietīties ‘to wrap oneself up (in), to tuck oneself
up’
atjaunoties ‘to be renewed’
mainīties ‘to change oneself’
The groups of reflexive verbs in
Latvian:
1) SUBJECT REFLEXIVE VERBS – the agent and patient are
fully or partly co-referential; the agent is the syntactic
subject of the sentence – mazgāties ‘to wash
[oneself]’; celties ‘to get [oneself] up’; ķemmēties ‘to
comb [one’s] hair’; slaucīties ‘to wipe [oneself] dry’;
ģērbties ‘to dress [oneself]’
Es
mazgājos
dušā
katru
rītu
I.NOM wash.PRS.1SG.REFL shower.LOC every.ACC morning.ACC
‘I take a shower every morning’
The previously mentioned schema, where the
agent is co-referential with the patient and in
the surface syntax appears as the subject,
should be modified accordingly to include the
changes in the meanings of reflexive verbs. The
agent loses its outstanding position of the
syntactic subject where, as the result, the
position of subject gets occupied by the patient.
2) OBJECT REFLEXIVE VERBS – the agent and
patient are not co-referential; the patient is
the syntactic subject of the sentence –
glabāties ‘to be kept’, krāties ‘to accrue’,
šūties ‘to be sewn’
Nauda
glabājas
money.NOM
keep.PRS.3.REFL
‘Money is kept in the bank’
bankā
bank.LOC
3) IMPERSONAL REFLEXIVE VERBS – instead of
an agent there is an experiencer (typically in
the Dative case) – iesāpēties ‘to feel a sudden
pain’, iesmelgties ‘to begin aching’
Man
iesāpējās
vēderā
I.DAT
ache.PST.3.REFL stomach.LOC
‘I felt a sudden pain in my stomach’
Latvian allows for certain constructions where
one and the same reflexive verb depending on
the context represents different semantic
roles (agent, patient, experiencer) and
consequently appears in different distribution.
Depending on their distribution, many Latvian
reflexive verbs can be both subject and object
(or impersonal) verbs. Object and impersonal
verbs usually have specific semantics (e. g.,
assessive,
iterative,
semantics
of
unintentionality).
1. REFLEXIVE VERB – SUBJECT VERB /
OBJECT VERB
MAZGĀTIES ‘to wash’
a. subject reflexive verb
Es
mazgājos
dušā
I.NOM
wash. PRS.1SG.REFL shower.LOC
‘I take a shower’
The relations between semantic roles
and syntactic arguments
A=P
S
b. object reflexive verb + assessive meaning
Audums
labi mazgājas
material.NOM well wash.PRS.3.REFL
‘Laundry washes well’
The relations between semantic roles
and syntactic arguments
P
S
Plungian (2011) points out that assessive
(modal) meanings arise from the context
where the identity of the agent is not
important and the emphasis is laid on the
event itself or the result involving the object.
As the consequence of this the modal
meaning of possibility or impossibility arises,
that is the object’s ability to participate or not
participate in the event is assessed (Plungian
2011, 269-270).
This meaning peculiarity can be attested in the
analysis of Latvian reflexive verbs – the
example above shows reading of the verb
mazgāties ‘to wash oneself’ as the subject
verb without assessive meaning while in the
object function the event is assessed as a
positive event.
The same can be observed in the distribution of
the reflexive verb staipīties ‘to stretch out’
although this verb allows for polyfunctionality
in its function as the subject verb – in specific
contexts it can encode iterative, that is –
aspectual meaning.
STAIPĪTIES ‘to stretch out’
a. subject reflexive verb
Kaķēns
pēc miega
staipās
kitten.NOM after sleep.GEN stretch_out.PRS.3.REFL
‘After waking up the kitten stretches out’
STAIPĪTIES ‘to stretch out’
a1. subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative)
meaning
Es
staipos
ar
I.NOM carry.PRS.1.REFL with
‘I am carrying sacks’
maisiem
sack.INSTR.PL
The relations between semantic roles
and syntactic arguments
A
S
STAIPĪTIES ‘to stretch out’
b. object reflexive verb + assessive meaning
Veca gumija
slikti staipās
old
elastic.NOM
badly stretch.PRS.3.REFL
un
and
plīst
break.PRS.3
‘An old elastic does stretch badly and breaks
easily’
The relations between semantic roles
and syntactic arguments
P
S
It is not always possible to interpret the meaning of
reflexive verbs based on their distribution and
mark clearly the borderline between the subject
and object meanings. Interpretation of meaning
largely depends on the lexical meaning of the
agent – whether the agent is animate or via
personification we can also include agents that
typically are not characterized as possessing
volition and which either perform an action or
the action occurs by itself.
SMĒRĒTIES ‘to get dirty’
a. subject reflexive verb
Man
negribējās
smērēties
I.DAT
NOT.want.PST.3.REFL get_dirty.INF.REFL
ar
dubļiem
with
mud.INSTR.PL
‘I did not want to get dirty with mud’
SMĒRĒTIES ‘to get dirty’
b. object reflexive verb + assessive meaning
Smērējas
visu
get_dirty.PRS.3.REFL all.GEN.PL
plastmasas
plastic.GEN
veidu
type.GEN.PL
logi
window.NOM.PL
‘All types of plastic windows tend to get dirty’
In this group of reflexive verbs, the semantic
structure can be interpreted variously (also on
this, see Plungian 2000, 215).
Consider the example about windows:
1) some animate agent is making the windows
dirty;
2) windows get dirty by way of dust, rain etc.
without participation of an animate agent; in this
case the reflexive verb in Smērējas visu veidu
plastmasas logi ‘All types of plastic windows tend
to get dirty’ can be analyzed as the subject verb.
Also, in the example Skrpostu tuša nav noturīga
un smērējas ‘Mascara is not long-lasting; it
smears’ there are two possible interpretations
– mascara can either be smeared with the
help of fingers or mascara itself under certain
conditions (water, rain, heat etc.) smears
around the eyes.
RAUTIES ‘to pull’
a. subject reflexive verb
Bērns
child.NOM
raujas
no mātes
pull.PRS.3.REFL from mother.GEN
rokām
arm.DAT.PL
‘The child is pulling away from his mother’s
arms’
RAUTIES ‘to pull’
a1. subject reflexive verb (reciprocal)
Rausimies,
kurš
stiprāks!
wrestle.IMP.1PL.REFL
who.NOM stronger.NOM
‘Let’s wrestle and see who is stronger!’
RAUTIES ‘to pull’
a2. subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative)
meaning
Mēs
we
rāvāmies
dārzā
visu
work.PST.1PL.REFL garden.LOC all.ACC
dienu
day.ACC
‘We were working hard in the garden all day’
RAUTIES ‘to pull’
b. object reflexive verb
Lina
audums
mazgājot raujas
linen.GEN
fabric.NOM
wash.PTCP
shrink.PRS.3.REFL
‘Linen fabrics tend to shrink after washing’
The verb rauties ‘pull away’ in the object
function is semantically similar to the above
discussed verb smērēties ‘to get dirty’ in the
object function. The reflexive verb in the
example Dienas raujas īsākas ‘Days are getting
shorter’ most probably is interpreted as the
subject verb where dienas ‘days’ is a
personified agent.
ZVANĪTIES ‘to call’
a. subject reflexive verb
Māte
katru
dienu
mother.NOM every.ACC day.ACC
zvanās
call.PRS.3.REFL
man
I.DAT
un uztraucas
and worry. PRS.3.REFL
‘My mother is calling every day and gets
anxious’
ZVANĪTIES ‘to call’
a1. subject reflexive verb (reciprocal)
Mūsu klienti
our client.NOM.PL
savstarpēji
mutually
zvanās
call.PRS.3.REFL
izdevīgi
gainfully
ļoti
very
‘Our clients call one another at very reasonable
rates’
ZVANĪTIES ‘to call’
b. object reflexive verb
Telefons
phone.NOM
zvanās
call.PRS.3.REFL
laikam
perhaps
man
I.DAT
visu
laiku
all.ACC time.ACC
kabatā,
pocket.LOC
nejauši saspiedies
accidentally
press.PRS.3.REFL
‘The phone keeps ringing in the pocket – perhaps the
buttons have been pressed accidentally’
2. REFLEXIVE VERB – SUBJECT VERB /
IMPERSONAL VERB
ŠŪPOTIES ‘to sway’
a. subject reflexive verb
Es
šūpojos
šūpolēs.
I.NOM
swing.PRS.1SG.REFL swing.LOC.PL
‘I am swinging’
ŠŪPOTIES ‘to sway’
b. impersonal reflexive verb
Lai
PART
jums
you [PL].DAT
labi
well
šūpojas
Lieldienās!
swing.PRS.3.REFLEaster.LOC.PL
‘May you swing well!’ (a traditional Latvian
Easter greeting)
The relations between semantic roles
and syntactic arguments
E
S
DZĪVOTIES ‘to live’
a. subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative)
meaning
Mazās
zivtiņas
dzīvojas
pa ūdens
small.NOM.PL fish.NOM.PL live.PRS.3.REFL to water.GEN
virsu
surface.ACC
‘The small fish swim closer to the surface’
The relations between semantic roles
and syntactic arguments
A
S
DZĪVOTIES ‘to live’
b. impersonal reflexive verb + assessive
meaning
Cik man labi dzīvojas!
how I.DAT well live.PRS.3.REFL
‘I am having a great life!’
The relations between semantic roles
and syntactic arguments
E
S
SVIESTIES ‘to throw (oneself)’
a. subject reflexive verb
Zaķis
sviedās
atpakaļ
rabbit.NOM throw.PST.3.REFL back
krūmos
bush.LOC.PL
‘The rabbit threw himself back in the bushes’
The relations between semantic roles
and syntactic arguments
A=P
S
SVIESTIES ‘to throw (oneself)’
a1. subject reflexive verb (reciprocal)
Puikas
sviedās
ar sniega
Boy.NOM.PL throw.PST.3.REFL with snow.GEN
‘Boys were playing with snow-balls’
pikām
ball.INSTR.PL
SVIESTIES ‘to throw (oneself)’
b. impersonal reflexive verb + assessive
meaning
Kā tev
labi sviežas?
how you.DAT well throw.PRS.3.REFL
‘How are things?’
3. REFLEXIVE VERB – SUBJECT VERB /
OBJECT VERB / IMPERSONAL VERB
PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’
a. subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative)
meaning
Bērns
child.NOM
prasās
ask.PRS.3.REFL
uz
to
tualeti
bathroom.ACC
‘The child needs to go to bathroom’
PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’
Vairākkārt
recurrently
sodītais
recidivist.NOM
atpakaļ
back
cietumā
prison.LOC
prasās
ask.PRS.3.REFL
‘The recidivist is asking to get back in prison’
PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’
b. object reflexive verb
Pēc
after
ābolu
ēšanas
apple.GEN.PL eating.GEN
prasās
need.PRS.3.REFL
piens
milk.NOM
zobiem
tooth.DAT.PL
vai
or
siers
cheese.NOM
‘After eating apples teeth need some milk or
cheese’
PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’
c. impersonal reflexive verb
Man prasās
I.DAT need.PRS.3.REFL
‘I want to go to sea’
uz
to
jūru
sea.ACC
PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’
Prasās
pēc ballītes
need.PRS.3.REFL
for party.GEN
‘The feeling is – we need to throw a party’
It follows from our analysis that the propensity
of reflexive verbs to function with different
meanings and assume different distribution
arises from the functional system of reflexive
verbs, that is – it is a universal propensity as
previously claimed by Kemmer (1993, 202).
Thus, these universal tendencies also concern
specific reflexive verbs that assuming different
meanings occur in different distribution. The
analysis
of
Latvian
reflexive
verbs
demonstrates that most frequently reflexive
verbs have combined the subject and object
verb or subject and impersonal meanings.
So far we have not come across usage where
one and the same verb assumes the object
and impersonal verb distribution. This points
to the fact that in Latvian the core of the
functional system of verbs is formed by the
subject verbs. The subject verbs respectively
show most extensive polyfuncionality (see
Kalnača, Lokmane 2012).
Conclusions
1) One and the same reflexive verb may have
different lexical meanings with a different
distribution for each of the meanings. One
and the same verb can belong to different
subclasses of the subject and object (or
impersonal) verbs.
Conclusions
2) Reflexive verbs can express positive or
negative assessment of the event and the
consequences while the aspectual meaning is
manifested by intensity of the action, that is –
iterativity.
Conclusions
3) The semantic classes of reflexive verbs
overlap. Some reflexive verbs can have
different semantic readings and analyzed as
object (decausative) or subject (autocausative)
respectively.
Conclusions
4) The study confirms the assumption that
reflexive verbs are independent lexemes as
opposed to non-reflexive verbs. Each reflexive
verb has its distinct semantic system and
distribution which is different from polysemy
of non-reflexive verbs and their distribution.
Conclusions
5) The system of reflexive verbs in Latvian is
open where new meanings and even new
verbs arise particularly in colloquial use, such
as the verb tievēties ‘to slim down’ (Nolēmu
šonedēļ cītīgi tievēties ‘I decided to slim down
this week’ and Sievietes tievējas savstarpēju
sacensību dēļ ‘Women slim down to compete
with one another’).
References
Enger, Hans-Olav. & Nesset, Tore. 1999. The value of cognitive grammar in typological studies: the case of Norwegian
and Russian Passive, Middle and Reflexive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 22., 27-60.
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Geniušienė, Emma. 1983. Refleksivnye glagoly v baltijskich jazykah i tipologija refleksivov. Vilnius: Viljnjusskij
gosudarstvennij universitet.
—. 1987. The typology of reflexives. Mouton de Gruyter.
Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1990. Russian reflexive verbs: in search of unity and diversity. Amsterdam – Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language. Vol. 59.,781-819.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London: Hodder Education, part of Hachette Livre, UK.
Holvoet, Axel. 2001. Studies in the Latvian Verb. Kraków: Wydawnictwo universitetu Jagiellońskiego.
Kalnača, Andra, Ilze Lokmane. 2012. Semantics and Distribution of Latvian Reflexive Verbs. Multiple Perspectives in
Linguistic Research on Baltic Languages. Ed. by Usonienė, A., Nau, N., Dabašinskienė, I. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 231-259.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Klaiman, Miriam, H. 1991. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knjazev, Jurij. P. 2007. Grammatičeskaja semantika. Russkij jazyk v tipologičeskoj perspektive. Moskva: Jazyki
slavjanskich kultur.
König, Ekkehard. & Siemund, Peter. (with Töpper, Stephan.). 2008. Intensifiers and reflexive Pronouns. In: Haspelmath,
M. & Dryer, M. S. & Gil, D. & Comrie, B. (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck
Digital Library, chapter 47. http://wals.info/feature/47 [Accessed on 2011-02-13]
Latviešu valodas tekstu korpuss. www.korpuss.lv
Matthews, Peter H. 2007. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. I daļa. Rīga: LPSR ZA izdevniecība, 1959.
Nītiņa, Daina. 2001. Latviešu valodas morfoloģija. Mācību līdzeklis. Rīga: Rīgas Tehniskā universitāte.
Paducheva, Elena V. 2003. Is There an “Anticausative” Component in the Semantics of Decausatives?
Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 11(1): 173-198.
Paegle, Dzintra. 2003. Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas morfoloģija.1. daļa. Rīga: Zinātne.
Palmer, Frank. R. 1994. Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Plungian, Vladimir. A. 2000. Obščaja morfologija. Moscow: Editorial URSS.
Plungian, Vladimir. A. 2011. Vvedenije b grammatičeskuju semantiku: grammatičeskije značenija i
grammatičeskije sistemi jazykov mira. Moscow: RGGU.
Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics. Blackwell Publishers.
Schladt, Martin. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. Reflexives. Forms and
Functions. Frajzyngier, Z. & Curl, T. S. (eds.) Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 103-124.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. (ed.) 1988. Passive and Voice. Amsterdam / Philadelphia : John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Siewierska, Anna. 1988. The passive in Slavic. Passive and Voice. Shibatani, Masayoshi. (ed.). Amsterdam
/ Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, 243-289.
Soida, Emīlija. 2009. Vārddarināšana. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics. Primes and Universals. Oxford UP.