Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 357–372

Syntactic vs pragmatic passive

Evidence from Romanian

| University of Bucharest | ‘Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti’ Institute of Linguistics
This chapter discusses the relationship between the two passive constructions in Romanian (se-passive and be-passive) in a twofold comparison: old Romanian vs present-day Romanian, and standard vs substandard present-day Romanian. Stipulating the distinction ‘syntactic passive’ vs ‘pragmatic passive’, I argue that the evolution of the two competing structures illustrates a typical case of convergence and I invoke the situation in present-day subdialectal Romanian as an additional proof. In old Romanian, se-structures functioned as syntactic passives under the Slav(on)ic influence, while be-structures had a temporal or copular meaning, pragmatically implying the passive meaning. In present-day standard Romanian, be-structures are grammaticalized for the passive meaning following the influence of Western Romance languages, while se-structures have acquired an impersonal-presentative meaning, continuing to pragmatically imply the passive meaning. The situation in present-day dialectal spoken varieties, more conservative compared to standard Romanian, reflects the grammaticalization/degrammaticalization processes that affected the evolution of the two structures: while se-structures followed the long-term evolution in standard Romanian and lost their grammaticalized passive function acquiring an impersonal-presentative meaning, the more recent grammaticalization process of be-structures as passives has not fully extended to subdialectal varieties. Hence, active constructions are the preferred option across subdialects, which currently lack a grammaticalized passive construction, as the passive meaning is pragmatically implied both by se-structures and be-structures.
Keywords: Romanian, se-passive/be-passive, syntactic passive/pragmatic passive
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The evolution of se-structures
  • 3.The evolution of be-structures
  • 4.Evidence from dialectal oral varieties of Romanian
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpus
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.18vas
References

Corpus

BIU.1763 – Vlad Boţulescu de Mălăiești, Scrieri III
. Istoria universală. Asia ed. Emanuela Timotin, Andrei Timotin, Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic Gold 2003, 101–195.Google Scholar
CC2.1581 – Coresi
, Evanghelie cu învăţătură Ed.: Diaconul Coresi, Carte cu învăţătură (1581), Volume 1, Textul ed. Sextil Pușcariu, Al. Procopovici, Bucharest: Socec 1914.Google Scholar
CIst.1700–1750 – Constantin Cantacuzino
, Istoria Ţării Românești Ed.: Istoria Ţărâi Rumânești atribuită stolnicului Constantin Cantacuzino ed. Otilia Dragomir, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române 2006, 145–202.Google Scholar
CLM.1700–1750 – Miron Costin
, Letopiseţul Ţărâi Moldovei Ed.: M. Costin, Opere ed. P. P. Panaitescu, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă 1958, 41–201.Google Scholar
CSxiv.1609–1618
Codex Sturdzanus. Tâlcul evangheliei de la judecată (Zise Domnul) Ed. Gh. Chivu Bucharest Editura Academiei Române
CT.1560–1561 – Coresi
, Tetraevanghel. Ed.: Tetraevanghelul tipărit de Coresi. Brașov 1560–1561, comparat cu Evangheliarul lui Radu de la Mănicești 1574, ed. Florica Dimitrescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei 1963.Google Scholar
DΠ– Documente și însemnări românești din secolul al XVI-lea
, text stabilit și indice de Gh. Chivu, Magdalena Georgescu, Magdalena Ioniţă, Alexandru Mareș, Alexandra Roman-Moraru, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române 1979.Google Scholar
Ev.1642 – Evanghelie învăţătoare
Ed. Alin-Mihai Gherman, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române 2011, 153–480.Google Scholar
FN.1693–1704 – Foletul Novel. Calendarul lui Constantin Vodă Brâncoveanu
(1693–1704), ed. Emil Vârtosu, Bucharest: Monitorul Oficial și Imprimeriile Statului 1942, 4–194.Google Scholar
GIst.~1750 – Radu Greceanu
, Începătura istoriii vieții luminatului și preacreștinului Domnului Țării Rumânești. Ed. Cronicari munteni, Volume 2 ed. Mihail Gregorian, Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură 1961, 5–272.Google Scholar
NL.~1750–1766 – Ion Neculce
, Letopiseţul Ed.: Ion Neculce, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei și O samă de cuvinte ed. Iorgu Iordan, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă, ed. a II-a 1959, 31–388.Google Scholar
NT.1648 – Noul Testament
Ed. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea 1998.Google Scholar
Prav.1581 – Pravila ritorului Lucaci
Ed. I. Rizescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei 1971, 161–183.Google Scholar
TD – Texte dialectale. Muntenia. III
de Costin Bratu, Galina Ghiculete, Maria Marin, Bogdan Marinescu, Victorela Neagoe, Ruxandra Pană, Marilena Tiugan, Magdalena Vulpe, 1987 [1976]. Bucharest: [Editura Academiei].
ULM.~1725 – Grigore Ureche
, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei Ed. P. P. Panaitescu, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă 1955, 57–210.Google Scholar
Berea Găgeanu, Elena
1966 Observaţii asupra diatezei pasive în limba română. Studii și cercetări lingvistice 17(4). 567–578.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P.
2003 Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 39. 473–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michaela
1993 The reanalysis of reflexives: A diachronic perspective. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar
Chivu, Gheorghe
2000 Limba română de la primele texte până la sfârșitul secolului al XVIII-lea. Variantele stilistice. Bucharest: Editura Univers Enciclopedic.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra & Alexandru Nicolae
2014 The grammaticalization of a constraint on passive reflexive constructions in Romanian. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, Alexandru Nicolae & Louise Esher (eds.), Diachronic variation in Romanian, 309–362. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Dragomirescu, Adina
2016 The past participle and the participial clause. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan & Martin Maiden (eds.), The syntax of old Romanian, 259–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dragomirescu, Adina & Alexandru Nicolae
2012 Pasivul cu a veni – traducere din italiană sau inovaţie românească?. Limba română 61(1). 73–81.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara & Paul J. Hopper
(eds.) 1995 Voice: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frâncu, Constantin
2009 Gramatica limbii române vechi (1521–1780). Iași: Casa Editorială ‘Demiurg’.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1982 Transitivity, topicality, and the Ute impersonal passive. In Paul J. Hopper & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, 143–160. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 3–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1990 The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Study of Language 14(1). 25–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond
2010 Language contact: Reconsideration and reassessment. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 1–28. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallmeyer, Werner
2002 Verbal practices of perspective grounding. In Carl Friedrich Graumann & Werner Kallmeyer (eds.), Perspective and perspectivation in discourse, 113–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H.
1991 Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9. 153–185.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska
(eds.) 2011 Impersonal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela
2008 Construcţii pasive şi construcţii impersonale. In Valeria Guţu Romalo (ed.), Gramatica limbii române, Volume 2, 133–147. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela & Martin Maiden
(eds.) 2013 The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Rebecca
1996 The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
2002 The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 229–290.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Tal Siloni
2005 The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3). 389–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25. 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1988 Passive and voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Joong-Sun
2000 Passivity and impersonality of the Romance reflexive clause. Linguistics 8(1). 333–352.Google Scholar
Stan, Camelia
2013 O sintaxă diacronică a limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Timotin, Emanuela
2000a Pasivul românesc în epoca veche. Aplicaţie asupra textelor originale din secolul al XVI-lea. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 51. 225–231.Google Scholar
2000b Modalităţi de exprimare a pasivului în dialectele româneşti sud-dunărene. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 51. 481–490.Google Scholar
2002 Originea pasivului românesc. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 53. 95–109.Google Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko
1981 Introduction au Latin vulgaire. Troisième Edition Revue et augmentée. Paris: Editions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Vasilescu, Andra
2016 Passive Constructions. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The syntax of old Romanian, 188–202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2017a Diateză şi perspectivă. In Adina Dragomirescu, Alexandru Nicolae, Camelia Stan & Rodica Zafiu (eds.), Sintaxa ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Gabrielei Pană Dindelegan, la aniversare, 461–479. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
2017b Pasivul canonic vs pasivul reflexiv în româna nonstandard. Studii și cercetări lingvistice 68(2). 187–217.Google Scholar
Zafiu, Rodica
2012/2015 Sintaxa. In Gheorghe Chivu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Isabela Nedelcu & Irina Nicula (eds.), Studii de istorie a limbii române. Morfosintaxa limbii literare în secolul al XIX-lea şi al XX-lea, 322–323. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar