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. 211–286

Converse relations with the reflexive marker in Lithuanian and Polish

Between grammar and lexicon

ORCID logo | Vilnius University
| University of Warsaw

This paper discusses the various methodological and theoretical prerequisites necessary to cope with a seemingly quite simple task. This task consists in establishing the number and types of verb pairs in Lithuanian and Polish which are morphologically related by the presence vs. absence of the reflexive marker and which, from a semantic point of view, relate to each other like converses (= RM-converses). We are faced with the question of whether RM-converses can really be considered a class in a taxonomy of RM-derivatives, sufficiently distinct, primarily, from anticausatives. After delimiting (RM-)converses from symmetrical and reciprocal predicates as well as from the grammatical passive, it turns out that any sensible proposal for a differentiation between RM-converses and anticausatives hinges on the status of the obliquely marked constituent: if it is treated as an argument of the RM-derivative, it has to be counted as a converse to the non-RM-verb since numerical valence is retained; if the oblique constituent counts as an adjunct, the RM-derivatives should be considered an anticausative. The question thus boils down to “taking cuts” on an argument – adjunct cline. Since no existing theoretical account of the morphology-semantics interface provides clear-cut criteria for making decisions that can be generalized, criteria are detailed on a language-specific basis and applied to Lithuanian and Polish two-place RM-converses, for which lexical groups are established. Contrasts between both languages are highlighted on the basis of an in-depth analysis. With all methodological caveats in mind, one of the results of an investigation thus conducted consists in a commented list of RM-converses which, for Lithuanian, comprises three times as many items as were established in earlier investigations of RM-verbs. Apart from this, and the methodological pitfalls brought to light, the article discusses various specific effects relevant for a lexical typology of minor classes of RM-verbs.

Published online: 5 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.2.05wie
References
KLC: Kaunas Lithuanian Corpus
[URL]
LKVJŽ: Nijolė Sližienė 2004 Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas, vol. 1–3. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar

2. Polish

Multimedialny słownik szkolny języka polskiego (MSSJP)
Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego (NKJP)
Słownik języka polskiego
(edited by W. Doroszewski, SJPDor)
Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego (USJP)
Apresjan, Jurij D
1995 [1974] Leksičeskaja semantika. Sinonimičeskie sredstva jazyka [Lexical Semantics. Synonymic Means of Language]. Moskva: Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury” / Izdatel’skaja firma “Vostočnaja literatura” RAN. [= Ju. D. Apresjan. 1974. Izbrannye trudy, t. I. Revised version of first edition. Moscow]Google Scholar
. 22000 Semantyka leksykalna (synonimiczne środki języka). Wrocław etc.: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. [Polish translation of Apresjan (1995 [1974], translated by Z. Kozłowska and A. Markowski.]Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer
2015. Introduction. Baltic Linguistics: State of the Art. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics, Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds) 1 109 Berlin, New York De Gruyter Mouton
Bresnan, Joan
2001 Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie
2011 Sense relations. In Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), vol. 1, 456–479. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1991 Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W
1998 Event Structure in Argument Linking. In The Projection of Arguments. Lexical and Compositional Factors, Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 21–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2012 Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan
1986 Lexical semantics. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 22004 Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C
. 21997 The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67 (3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J
1977 The case for case reopened. In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 8: Grammatical Relations, Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds), 59–91. New York etc.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, Ernst
1929 Syntax der litauischen Postpositionen und Präpositionen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2010 Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma
1987 The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in Lithuanian (with references to Latvian). In Typology of Reciprocal Constructions, Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed), vol. 2, 633–672. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goto, Ksenija V. & Sergej S. Saj
2009 Častotnye xarakteristiki klassov russkix refleksivnyx glagolov [Frequency properties of reflexice verb classes in Russian]. In Korpusnye issledovanija po russkoj grammatike, K. L.Kiseleva, V.A. Plungjan, E.V. Raxilina & S.G. Tatevosov (eds), 184–223. Moskva: Probel-2000.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane B
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grochowski, Maciej
1982 Zarys leksykologii i leksykografii. Zagadnienia synchroniczne [Outline of Lexicology and Lexicography. Synchronic Issues]. Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2003 The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, Michael Tomasello (ed), vol. 2, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
1986 Struktury inaktywne w języku polskim [Inactive structures in Polish]. Polonica 12: 117–125.Google Scholar
1991 Transitivity and Clause Structure in Polish. A Study in Case Marking. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993 The Middle Voice. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knjazev, Jurij P
2007 Grammatičeskaja semantika. Russkij jazyk v tipologičeskoj perspektive [Grammatical Semantics. Russian in a Typological Perspective]. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian
2002 Understanding Semantics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Lutzeier, Peter R
1985 Die semantische Struktur des Lexikons. In Handbuch der Lexikologie, Christoph Schwarze & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 103–133. Königstein/Taunus: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Heiko Narrog
2011 Case polysemy. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 518–534. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maskaliūnienė, Nijolė
1989 Leksičeskie konversivy v litovskom jazyke [Lexical Converses in Lithuanian]. Unpublished PhD thesis. Vilnius.Google Scholar
2015. Morphological, syntactic and semantic types of converse verbs in Lithuanian. In Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds) Contemporary Approaches in Baltic Linguistics 349 381 Berlin, Boston De Gruyter Mouton
Musteikis, Kazys [Kazis Mustejkis]
1972 Sopostavitel’naja morfologija russkogo i litovskogo jazykov [Contrastive Morphology of Russian and Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mintis.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2007 Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagórko, Alicja
2007 Lexikologie des Polnischen. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Olms.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P
2007 Overview of the research (Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues). In Reciprocal constructions, Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), vol. 1, 3–114. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V
2001 Kauzativnyj glagol i dekauzativ v russkom jazyke [Causatives and decausatives in Russian]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii 1 (1): 52–79.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. & Raisa I. Rozina
1993 Semantičeskij klass glagolov polnogo oxvata: tolkovanie i leksiko-sintaksičeskie svojstva [The semantic class of holistic verbs: explication and lexico-semantic properties]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1993 (6): 5–16.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
2009 Case, grammatical relations, and semantic roles. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 261–275. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roelcke, Thorsten
2002 Paradigmatische Relationen der Exklusion und Opposition III: Konversivität. In Lexikologie / Lexicology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen / An International Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and Vocabularies, D. Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job & Rolf Peter Lutzeier (eds), vol. 1, 511–517. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon (ed), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Solstad, Torgrim & Benjamin Lyngfelt
2006 Perspectives on demotion (Introduction to the volume). In Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 1–20. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šukys, Jonas
1998 Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos [Cases and Prepositions in Lithuanian: usage and norms]. Kaunas: Šviesa.Google Scholar
Testelec, Jakov G
2001 Vvedenie v obščij sintaksis [Introduction to General Syntax]. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo RGGU.Google Scholar
Usonienė, Aurelija [Aurelia Usoniene]
2001 On direct/indirect perception with verbs of seeing and seeming in English and Lithuanian. Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics: Working Papers 48: 163–182.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr
2005 Exploring the Syntax-Semantic Interface. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn
1999 The light and the heavy form of the Polish reflexive pronoun and their role in diathesis. In Beiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik (POLYSLAV) 2 (Die Welt der Slaven, Sammelbände 4), Katharina Böttger, Markus Giger & Björn Wiemer (eds), 300–313. München: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
2004 The evolution of passives as grammatical constructions in Northern Slavic and Baltic languages. In What makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 271–331. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Relations between Actor-demoting devices in Lithuanian. In Passivization and Typology. Form and Function, Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds), 274–309. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in Polish. In Typology of Reciprocal Constructions, Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed), vol. 2, 514–559. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Widać und słychać: zum Schicksal zweier erstarrter Infinitive. In Von grammatischen Kategorien und sprachlichen Weltbildern – Die Slavia von der Sprachgeschichte bis zur Politsprache. Festschrift für Daniel Weiss zum 60. Geburtstag (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 73), Tilman Berger, Markus Giger, Sibylle Kurt & Imke Mendoza (eds), 615–632. München, Wien, Berlin: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. On the rise, establishment and continued development of subject impersonals in Polish, East Slavic and Baltic. In Diachronic Typology of Voice and Valency-Changing Categories, Seppo Kittilä & Leonid Kulikov (eds) Amsterdam, Philadelphia John Benjamins
Wilczewska, Krystyna
1966 Czasowniki zwrotne we współczesnej polszczyźnie [Reflexive Verbs in Contemporary Polish]. Toruń: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Holvoet, Axel
2018. On so-called converse reflexives in Slavic and Baltic. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 63:3 ► pp. 373 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
[no author supplied]
2020. The Middle Voice in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 5], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 2023. 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.