Cover not available
Part of
Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 2] 2015
► pp. 181–210

Middle voice reflexives and argument structure in Baltic

| Vilnius University
| Vilnius University
| Vilnius University
The article deals with Baltic reflexives covering the semantic domain of the middle voice in a narrower sense, that is, the non-anticausative middles as illustrated in constructions like The bread cuts easily. The emphasis is on the Baltic languages, but the data of Slavonic and, to a lesser extent, Germanic are also taken into account. A detailed semantic map is offered showing the relationships between the individual types of middle-voice reflexives, and also paths of diachronic development. One of the main problems singled out for discussion is the argument structure of middle voice reflexives. While anticausatives reflect a valency-reducing operation, the middle-voice constructions discussed in this article do not. In fact, a good case can be made for an inflectional view of these reflexives, and voice would be the most natural notional domain to accommodate them.
Published online: 5 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.2.04hol
References (26)
Ackema, Peter & Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 2006. Middles. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax vol. 3, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 131–203. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergmane, Anna, et al. (eds). 1959. Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika vol. 1. Fonētika un morfoloģija. [Grammar of Contemporary Literary Latvian, vol. 1. Phonetics and Morphology]. Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, John Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds), 31–67. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published 1980 by Garland Press, New York.Google Scholar
Chrakovskij, Viktor S. 1978. Zalog i refleksiv [Voice and the reflexive]. In Problemy teorii grammatičeskogo zaloga [Problems of the Theory of Grammatical Voice], Viktor S. Chrakovskij (ed), 50–61. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Endzelin, J[an]. 1923. Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis. 1932/1980. Dažādas valodas kļūdas [Some language mistakes]. Rīga: A. Gulbis. Reprinted in: id., Darbu izlase 3.2. Rīga: Zinātne, 9–45.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis & Mülenbachs, Kārlis. 1927. Latviešu valodas mācība[Manual of Latvian Grammar]. 7th edn. Rīga: Valters & Rapa.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1977. Reflexivization. A Study in Universal Syntax. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, Renata, Laskowski, Roman & Wróbel, Henryk (eds). 1999. Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia [A Grammar of Contemporary Polish: Morphology]. 2nd edn. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of meaning. Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed), 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jablonskis. 1901/1957. Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika [A Grammar of the Lithuanian Language]. Reprinted in id., Rinktiniai raštai I. Sudarė Jonas Palionis. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1932. Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. In: Id., Selected Writings II, 3–15. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, Mirjam Fried and Heinrich Boas (eds), 71–98. Amsterdam–Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Dryer, Matthew. 2007. Passive in the world’s languages. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure. 2nd edn., Timothy Shopen (ed), 325–361. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzan. 1993. The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language, 23]. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lekakou, Marika. 2006. Adverbial modification in middles. In: Demoting the Agent. Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena [Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, 96], Benjamin Lyngfelt & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 167–196. Amsterdam–Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1993. The inflectional category of voice: towards a more rigorous definition. In Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series, 23], Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 1–46. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisarkowa, Krystyna. 1984. Historia składni języka polskiego [A History of Polish Syntax]. Wrocław etc.: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric, Bhattacharya, Tanmoy & Spathas, Giorgos (eds). 2007. Argument Structure [Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, 108]. Amsterdam–Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Round, Erich Ross. 2011. Morphomes as a level of representation capture unity of exponence across the inflection-derivation divide. Linguistica 51, 217–230.Google Scholar
Say, Sergey. Antipassive -sja verbs in Russian. In Morphology and Its Demarcations, Wolfgang U. Dressler et al. (eds), 253–275. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Stroik, Thomas. 2006. Arguments in middles. In Demoting the Agent. Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena [Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, 96], Benjamin Lyngfelt & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 301–326. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulvydas, Kazys (ed). 1971. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika II. Morfologija [Lithuanian Grammar, vol. 2. Morphology]. Vilnius: Mintis.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Mitkovska, Liljana & Eleni Bužarovska
2021. Quasi-passive reflexive constructions: Bridging autonomous and passive situations. Linguistic Typology 25:2 ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo
Yamazaki, Yoko
2021. Diathetic problem of the Baltic ā-preterits to the simple thematic presents. Historical Linguistics 134:1 ► pp. 290 ff. DOI logo
Urbonaitė, Justina, Inesa Šeškauskienė & Jurga Cibulskienė
2019. Chapter 8. Linguistic metaphor identification in Lithuanian. In Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 22], ► pp. 160 ff. DOI logo
Dom, Sebastian, Leonid Kulikov & Koen Bostoen
2018. Valency-decreasing derivations and quasi-middles in Bantu: A typological perspective. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36:3 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Holvoet, Axel
2018. On so-called converse reflexives in Slavic and Baltic. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 63:3 ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo
Nau, Nicole
2016. Argument realization in Latvian action nominal constructions. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 461 ff. DOI logo
Wiemer, Björn & Vaiva Žeimantienė
2016. Contexts for the choice of genitive vs. instrumental in contemporary Lithuanian. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.