POLYFUNCTIONALITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF REFLEXIVE VERBS IN LA - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

POLYFUNCTIONALITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF REFLEXIVE VERBS IN LATVIAN

Andra

Kalnača

, Ilze

Lokmane

D

epartment

of Latvian and General Linguistics

University of LatviaSlide2

The

presentation

is supported by ERAF project 2010/0202/2DP/2.1.1.2.0/10/APIA/VIAA/013Slide3

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. Slide4

KRĀSOTIE-S ‘to make up’, ‘to paint [oneself]’

Es

krāsojo-s

katru dienuI.NOM make_up.PRS.1SG-REFL 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’Slide5

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.  Slide6

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.). Slide7

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. Slide8

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).Slide9

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).  Slide10

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.Slide11

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). Slide12

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.Slide13

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 non-reflexive verbs.Slide14

As Haspelmath

argues, in the case of reflexive verbs “the agent and the patient are co-referential and can hence be thought of as occupying a single syntactic function” (

Haspelmath

2002, 213). Slide15

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments can be represented as follows:

A=P

SSlide16

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 so-called middle, or neuter meaning in its traditional sense. Slide17

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’Slide18

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’Slide19

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.

T

he agent loses its outstanding position of the syntactic subject where, as the result, the position of subject gets occupied by the patient. Slide20

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 bankāmoney.NOM

keep.PRS.3.REFL

bank.LOC

‘Money is kept in the bank’Slide21

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’ Slide22

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. Slide23

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). Slide24

1. REFLEXIVE VERB – SUBJECT VERB / OBJECT VERB

MAZGĀTIES ‘to wash’

subject reflexive verb

Es mazgājos dušāI.NOM wash. PRS.1SG.REFL shower.LOC‘I take a shower’Slide25

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

A=P

SSlide26

b. object reflexive verb +

assessive

meaningAudums labi mazgājas material.NOM well wash.PRS.3.REFL ‘Laundry washes well’Slide27

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

P

SSlide28

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). Slide29

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. Slide30

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. Slide31

STAIPĪTIES ‘to stretch out’

a.

subject reflexive verb

Kaķēns pēc miega staipāskitten.NOM after sleep.GEN stretch_out.PRS.3.REFL‘

After waking up the kitten stretches out’Slide32

STAIPĪTIES ‘to stretch out’a

1

.

subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative) meaningEs staipos ar maisiemI.NOM carry.PRS.1.REFL

with sack.INSTR.PL‘I am carrying sacks’Slide33

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

A

SSlide34

STAIPĪTIES ‘to stretch out’

b.

object reflexive verb +

assessive meaningVeca gumija slikti staipās old elastic.NOM badly stretch.PRS.3.REFL

un plīst

and

break.PRS.3

‘An old elastic does stretch badly and breaks easily’Slide35

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

P

SSlide36

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. Slide37

SMĒRĒTIES ‘to get dirty’a.

subject reflexive verb

Man

negribējās smērēties ar dubļiemI.DAT NOT.want.PST.3.REFL get_dirty.INF.REFL with mud.INSTR.PL

‘I did not want to get dirty with mud’ Slide38

SMĒRĒTIES ‘to get dirty’

b.

object reflexive verb +

assessive meaningSmērējas visu veidu get_dirty.PRS.3.REFL all.GEN.PL type.GEN.PL

plastmasas logi

plastic.GEN window.NOM.PL

‘All types of plastic windows tend to get dirty’

 Slide39

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.Slide40

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. Slide41

RAUTIES ‘to pull’

a.

subject reflexive verb

Bērns raujas no mātes rokāmchild.NOM pull.PRS.3.REFL from mother.GEN arm.DAT.PL‘The child is pulling away from his mother’s arms’ Slide42

RAUTIES ‘to pull’

a

1

. subject reflexive verb (reciprocal)Rausimies, kurš stiprāks!wrestle.IMP.1PL.REFL who.NOM stronger.NOM‘Let’s wrestle and see who is stronger!’Slide43

RAUTIES ‘to pull’

a

2

. subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative) meaningMēs rāvāmies dārzā visu dienuwe

work.PST.1PL.REFL garden.LOC all.ACC day.ACC‘We were working hard in the garden all day’Slide44

RAUTIES ‘to pull’

b.

object reflexive verb

Lina audums mazgājot raujaslinen.GEN fabric.NOM wash.PTCP shrink.PRS.3.REFL‘Linen fabrics tend to shrink after washing’

 Slide45

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. Slide46

ZVANĪTIES ‘to call’

a.

subject reflexive verb

Māte katru dienu man mother.NOM every.ACC day.ACC I.DAT zvanās un uztraucascall.PRS.3.REFL and worry. PRS.3.REFL‘My mother is calling every day and gets anxious’ Slide47

ZVANĪTIES ‘to call’

a

1

. subject reflexive verb (reciprocal)Mūsu klienti savstarpēji our client.NOM.PL mutually

zvanās ļoti izdevīgi

call.PRS.3.REFL

very

gainfully

‘Our clients call one another at very reasonable rates’

 Slide48

ZVANĪTIES ‘to call’

b.

object reflexive verb

Telefons man visu laiku phone.NOM I.DAT all.ACC time.ACC zvanās kabatā,call.PRS.3.REFL pocket.LOC

 laikam nejauši

saspiedies

perhaps

accidentally press.PRS.3.REFL

‘The phone keeps ringing in the pocket – perhaps the buttons have been pressed accidentally’ Slide49

2. REFLEXIVE VERB – SUBJECT VERB / IMPERSONAL VERB

ŠŪPOTIES ‘to sway’

subject reflexive verb

Es šūpojos šūpolēs.I.NOM swing.PRS.1SG.REFL swing.LOC.PL‘I am swinging’Slide50

ŠŪPOTIES ‘to sway’

b.

impersonal reflexive verb

Lai jums labi šūpojas Lieldienās!part you [pl].DAT well swing.PRS.3.REFL

Easter.LOC.PL‘May you swing well!’ (a traditional Latvian Easter greeting) Slide51

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

E

S

Slide52

DZĪVOTIES ‘to live’

subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative) meaning

Mazās

zivtiņas dzīvojas pa ūdens virsusmall.NOM.PL fish.NOM.PL live.PRS.3.REFL

to water.GEN surface.ACC

‘The small fish swim closer to the surface’Slide53

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

A

SSlide54

DZĪVOTIES ‘to live’b.

impersonal reflexive verb +

assessive

meaningCik man labi dzīvojas!how I.DAT well live.PRS.3.REFL ‘I am having a great life!’Slide55

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

E

SSlide56

SVIESTIES ‘to throw (oneself)’

a.

subject reflexive verb

Zaķis sviedās atpakaļ krūmosrabbit.NOM throw.PST.3.REFL back bush.LOC.PL‘The rabbit threw himself back in the bushes’Slide57

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

A=P

SSlide58

SVIESTIES ‘to throw (oneself)’a

1.

subject reflexive verb (reciprocal)Puikas sviedās ar sniega pikāmBoy.NOM.PL throw.PST.3.REFL with

snow.GEN ball.INSTR.PL‘Boys were playing with snow-balls’Slide59

SVIESTIES ‘to throw (oneself)’b.

impersonal reflexive verb +

assessive

meaningKā tev labi sviežas?how you.DAT well throw.PRS.3.REFL‘How are things?’Slide60

3. REFLEXIVE VERB – SUBJECT VERB / OBJECT VERB / IMPERSONAL VERB

PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’

subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative) meaning

Bērns prasās uz tualeti child.NOM

ask.PRS.3.REFL to bathroom.ACC‘The child needs to go to bathroom’Slide61

PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’

Vairākkārt

sodītais prasās recurrently recidivist.NOM ask.PRS.3.REFL atpakaļ cietumāback prison.LOC‘The recidivist is asking to get back in prison’Slide62

PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’

b.

object reflexive verb

Pēc ābolu ēšanas zobiem after apple.GEN.PL eating.GEN tooth.DAT.PL prasās piens vai siersneed.PRS.3.REFL milk.NOM or cheese.NOM‘After eating apples teeth need some milk or cheese’Slide63

PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’

c.

impersonal reflexive verb

Man prasās uz jūruI.DAT need.PRS.3.REFL to sea.ACC‘I want to go to sea’Slide64

PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’Prasās

pēc ballītesneed.PRS.3.REFL for party.GEN‘The feeling is – we need to throw a party’Slide65

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). Slide66

Thus, these universal tendencies also concern specific reflexive verbs that assuming different meanings occur in different distribution

.

T

he analysis of Latvian reflexive verbs demonstrates that most frequently reflexive verbs have combined the subject and object verb or subject and impersonal meanings. Slide67

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). Slide68

Conclusions1) 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. Slide69

Conclusions2)

R

eflexive

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. Slide70

Conclusions3) The semantic classes of reflexive verbs overlap. Some reflexive verbs can have different semantic readings and analyzed as

object (

decausative

) or subject (autocausative) respectively. Slide71

Conclusions4) The study confirms the assumption that reflexive verbs are independent lexemes as opposed to non-reflexive verb

s

. Each reflexive verb has its distinct semantic system and distribution which is different from

polysemy of non-reflexive verbs and their distribution. Slide72

Conclusions5) The system of reflexive verbs in Latvian is open where new meanings and

even

new verb

s 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’).Slide73

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.lvSlide74

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.