The Middle Voice in Baltic

| Vilnius University
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027205643 | EUR 110.00 | USD 165.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027261083 | EUR 110.00 | USD 165.00
 
The fifth volume in the VARGReB series is a monograph presenting a collection of studies on middle-voice grams in Baltic, that is, on a widely ramified family of constructions with different syntactic and semantic properties but sharing a morphological marker of reflexive origin. Though the emphasis is on Baltic, ample attention is given to other languages as well, especially to Slavonic. The book offers many new insights into questions of syntactic and semantic interpretation, correct demarcation and diachronic explanation of middle-voice grams. The relationship between reflexive and middle, the workings of metonymy, changes in syntactic structure and lexical input as factors determining diachronic shifts within the middle-voice domain and transitions from one middle-voice gram to another – these are among the topics discussed in the book, which, beyond its relevance to Baltic and Slavonic scholarship, is also a contribution to the typology of the middle voice.
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 5]  2020.  xvii, 250 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.5
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement
List of grammatical abbreviations
Preface
Chapter 1. Reflexives and middles
Chapter 2. Metonymy and antimetonymy
Chapter 3. Antipassive middles
Chapter 4. The permissive middle
Chapter 5. The anticausative
Chapter 6. Facilitatives
Chapter 7. Further extensions from the facilitative middle
Chapter 8. The coargumental middle
Chapter 9. In conclusion
Bibliography
“This book is the first in-depth study of the middle-voice phenomena in Baltic languages since Geniušienė’s seminal “The typology of reflexives” (1987) and builds upon the whole body of theoretical and typological work on voice and related categories that appeared since then. Based on rich empirical data from both contemporary usage as reflected in corpora and historical sources, the book offers a synchronic account of different constructions as well as a number of insights into their diachronic origins, against a broader typological and theoretical background. This is a book to be read by all specialists on reflexives, middles and valency-affecting processes in general, as well as by those interested in grammaticalization paths and historical development of morphosyntactic constructions.”
References

Bibliography

Online sources

CCLL – Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language
, http://​tekstynas​.vdu​.lt​/tekstynas
LVK2018
 – Līdzsvarotais mūsdienu latviešu valodas tekstu korpuss [Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Latvian], http://​www​.korpuss​.lv​/id​/LVK2018
LKŽ
 – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas [Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language], http://​www​.lkz​.lt
LLVV
 – Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca [Dictionary of the Latvian Literary Language], https://​tezaurs​.lv​/llvv
NKJP
 – National Corpus of Polish, http://​www​.nkjp​.pl
RNC
 – Russian National Corpus, http://​www​.ruscorpora​.ru
SłStp
 – Słownik staropolski [Old Polish Dictionary], Vols. 1–11, Polska Akademia Nauk 1953–2002, https://​pjs​.ijp​.pan​.pl​/sstp​.html

Text editions, oral folklore collections

Barons & Wissendorffs = Kr. Barons & H. Wissendorffs
, Latwju dainas, Vols. 1–6, Jelgava-St Petersburg 1894–1915.Google Scholar
Bretke, Johannes, Lithuanian Bible, Pentateuch
ed. Friedemann Kluge, Jochen Dieter Range, Friedrich Scholze, Paderborn etc.: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1996; Prophetic Books and Apocryphs, ed. Stephan Kessler, 2013; New Testament ed. Jochen Dieter Range & Friedrich Scholz 1991.Google Scholar
Chyliński’s Old Testament
= Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Senasis Testamentas, Gina Kavaliūnaitė (ed) Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas 2008.Google Scholar
Chyliński’s New Testament
= Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Naujasis Testamentas Viešpaties mūsų Jėzaus Kristaus, Gina Kavaliūnaitė (ed) Vilnius: Vilnius University 2019.Google Scholar
Daukša’s Catechism
= Mikalojaus Daukšos 1595 metų Katekizmas, Vida Jakštienė & Jonas Palionis (eds) Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla 1995.Google Scholar
Glück’s New testament
= Tas Jauns Testaments, http://​senie​.korpuss​.lv​/source​.jsp​?codificator​=JT1685
Latviešu pasakas
= Latviešu pasakas un teikas [Latvian Fairy Tales and Legends, compiled by Pēteris Šmits], http://​valoda​.ailab​.lv​/folklora​/pasakas
Trautmann, Reinhold
1910 Die altpreußischen Sprachdenkmale. Einleitung, Texte, Grammatik, Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Vaišnoras’ Margarita Theologica
= Simono Vaišnoro 1600 metų Żemczuga Theologischka ir jos šaltiniai , Guido Michelini (ed) Vilnius: Baltos lankos 1997.Google Scholar

References

Ackema, Peter & Maaike Schoorlemmer
1994 The middle construction and the syntax-semantics interface. Lingua 93.1, 59–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Middles. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax Vol. 3, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 131–203. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Edit Doron
2012 The syntactic construction of two non-active voices: passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics 48.1, 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer
2005 The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed), 187–211. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas
1979 Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė [Historical Syntax of Lithuanian Participles]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
ed. 2006 Lithuanian Grammar. 2nd edn. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Anderson, Cori
2011 Case theory and case alternations: Evidence from Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 2, 9–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter
2011 Aspect and actionality in Lithuanian on a typological background. In Langues baltiques, langues slaves, Daniel Petit, Claire le Feuvre & Henri Menantaud (eds), 61–92. Paris: Editions CNRS.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter & Jurgis Pakerys
2015 Lithuanian morphological causatives. A corpus-based study. In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic, Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 39–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter
2015 Areal’naja tipologija prefiksal’nogo perfektiva (na materiale jazykov Evropy i Kavkaza) [An Areal Typology of the Prefixal Perfective (On the Basis of the Languages of Europe and the Caucasus)]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard
1975 A transformational analysis of transitive -sja verbs in Russian. Lingua 35.3–4, 297–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergmane, Anna et al.
(eds) 1959 Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. I. Fonētika un morfoloģija [Grammar of Contemporary Literary Latvian. I. Phonetics and Morphology]. Riga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Bezzenberger, Adalbert
1877 Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache auf Grund litauischer Texte des xvi. und des xvii. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boranić, Dragutin
1899 O refleksivnim glagolima u hrvatskom jeziku [On reflexive verbs in Croatian]. Rad Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 140, 131–244. Online version http://​dizbi​.hazu​.hr​/object​/view​/11196 (22 January 2020).
Brajerski, Tadeusz
1979 O bezpodmiotowych zdaniach z orzeczeniami typu mieszkało się i mieszkało mi się [On impersonal clauses with predicates of the type mieszkało się and mieszkało mi się ]. In Opuscula polono-slavica. Munera linguistica Stanislao Urbańczyk dedicata, Jan Safarewicz et al. (eds), 69–78. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory
1977 Reference to Kinds in English. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Massachussets at Amherst. Published 1980 by Garland Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred P. Lehmann (ed), 329–394. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Sandra A. Thompson
2007 Lexical nominalization. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description Vol. 3, Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed), 334–381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, Ann
1994 A functional typology of antipassives. In Voice. Form and Function, Barbara A. Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 49–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2012 Verbs. Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danielewiczowa, Magdalena
2017  Umarło mu się. O pewnym typie polskiej operacji z udziałem się [ Umarło mu się. About a certain type of operation with się in Polish]. Slavia. Časopis pro slovanskou filologii 86.2–3, 208–218.Google Scholar
De Knop, Sabine & Fabio Mollica
2017 The family of German dative constructions. In Constructing Families of Constructions, Paula Pérez-Sobrino et al. (eds), 205–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis
2004 Discontinuous reciprocals. Manuscript: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS. http://​staticweb​.hum​.uu​.nl​/medewerkers​/alexis​.dimitriadis​/papers​/discon​-long​-ms04​.pdf (22 Januari 2020).
Dixon, R. M. W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55, 59–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989 On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role’. In Properties, Type and Meaning, vol. 2, Semantic Issues, Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee & Raymond Turner (eds), 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M.
1977 Reflexivization. A Study in Universal Syntax. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fici [Fiči], Francesca
2011 Ob odnoj modal’noj funkcii refleksivnyx konstrukcij [On a certain modal function of reflexive constructions]. In: Slovo i jazyk. Sbornik statej k vos’midesjatiletiju akademika Ju. D. Apresjana [Word and Language. For Academician Ju. D. Apresjan on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday], 645–652. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1970 The grammar of hitting and breaking . In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 120–133. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
1999 Domains of point of view and coreferentiality. System interaction approach to the study of reflexives. In Reflexives. Forms and Functions, Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds), 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garde, Paul
1985 O tak nazyvaemyx “simpatičeskix” padežax v sovremennom russkom jazyke [On the so-called ‘sympathetic’ cases in Modern Russian]. Russian Linguistics 9.2–3, 181–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gāters, Alfrēds
1993 Lettische Syntax. Die Dainas. Hrsg. von Hildegard Radtke. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit
2011 Stative passives and event kinds. In Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeuting 15, Ingo Reich, Eva Horch & Dennis Pauly (eds), 241–257. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma
1977 Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos konversiniai sangrąžiniai veiksmažodžiai [Converse reflexive verbs in modern Lithuanian]. Baltistica II priedas, 63–68.Google Scholar
1987 The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in Lithuanian (with references to Latvian). In Reciprocal Constructions, Vladimir P. Nedjalkov et al. (eds), 633–672. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Passive Constructions in Lithuanian. Selected Works of Emma Geniušienė edited by Anna Kibort & Nijolė Maskaliūnienė. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gesenius, Wilhelm & Emil Kautzsch
1909 Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräische Grammatik, völlig umgearbeitet von E. Kautzsch. 28th edn. Leipzig: Verlag von F. C. W. Vogel.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, Basil L.
1900 Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes. New York, NY: American Book Company.Google Scholar
Gołąb, Zbigniew
1968 The grammar of Slavic causatives. In American Contributions to the 6th International Congress of Slavists, Henry Kučera (ed), 71–94. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Goto, Ksenija V. & Sergej S. Saj
2009 Častotnye xarakteristiki klassov russkix refleksivnyx glagolov [Frequency characteristics of Russian reflexive verb classes]. In Korpusnye issledovanija po russkoj grammatike, Ksenija L. Kiseleva et al. (eds), 184–223. Moskva: Probel-2000.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1982 On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan Bresnan (ed), 87–148. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude
1974 Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 69, 287–310.Google Scholar
Halevy, Rivka
2013 Reflexive. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics vol. 3, Geoffrey Khan (ed), 340–345. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1990 The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14.1, 25–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity, Bernhard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6.1, 40–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Thomas Müller-Bardey
2004 Valency change. In Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. Vol. 2. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds), 1130–1145. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Susanne Michaelis
2008  Leipzig fourmille de typologues – Genitive objects in comparison. In Case and Grammatical Relations. Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie, Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds), 149–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, Raina
2017 A Typology of Antipassives, with Special Reference to Mayan. PhD Thesis, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
2000 Reflexiva typu słowiańskiego w pewnej gwarze górnołotewskiej [Slavonic-type reflexives in a High Latvian dialect]. In Kontakty językowe polszczyzny na pograniczu wschodnim. Prace ofiarowane Profesorowi Januszowi Riegerowi [The Contacts of Polish in the Eastern Borderlands. Festschrift for Janusz Rieger], Ewa Wolnicz-Pawłowska & Wanda Szulowska (eds), 97–102. Warsaw: Semper.Google Scholar
2014 Phasal and proximative complementation: Lithuanian baigti . Baltic Linguistics 5, 81–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Extended uses of causatives in Latvian. In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic, Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 147–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Reflexive permissives and the middle voice. Baltic Linguistics 7, 9–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Antipassive reflexives in Latvian. Baltic Linguistics 8, 57–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 On the heterogeneity of deaccusative reflexives. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 72.3, 401–419.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel, Anna Daugavet, Birutė Spraunienė & Asta Laugalienė
2019 The agentive construction in Baltic and Fennic. In Minor Grams in Baltic, Slavonic and Fennic = Baltic Linguistics 10, 195–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2, 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum
eds. 2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1935/1971 Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. In Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings II. Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakulienė, Audronė
1968 Lietuvių kalbos pasyvo formavimasis ir sangrąžiniai veiksmažodžiai [Reflexives and the formation of the Lithuanian passive]. Baltistica 4.2, 211–220.Google Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna
2010 On the reflexive-antipassive polysemy: Typological convergence from unrelated languages. Berkeley Linguistics Society 36, 158–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives. Thèse de doctorat en Sciences du Langage, Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Janko-Trinickaja, Nadija A.
1962 Vozvratnye glagoly v sovremennom russkom jazyke [Reflexive Verbs in Contemporary Russian]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Kavaliūnaitė, Gina
2008 Introduction. In Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Senasis Testamentas, Gina Kavaliūnaitė (ed), lxxv–cxxvij. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Matthew S. Dryer
2007 Passive in the world’s languages. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 1: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed), 325–361. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzan
1993 The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H.
1991 Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew
2009 Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 77–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
2005 Analyzing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid
2011 Voice typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed), 368–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 Middle and reflexive. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Silvia Luraghi & Claudio Parodi (eds), 261–280. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1996 Sorry, I’m not myself today. The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self. In Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, Guy Fauconnier & Eve Sweetser (eds), 91–123. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1990 Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1.1, 5–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lekakou, Marika
2006 A comparative view of the requirement for a adverbial modification in middles. In Demoting the Agent. Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 167–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Letučij, Aleksandr B.
2016 Vozvratnost’ [Reflexivity]. In Materialy k korpusnoj grammatike russkogo jazyka. Glagol. Čast’ I [Materials for a Corpus Grammar of Russian. The Verb. Part I], Vladimir Plungian et al. (eds), 268–340. St Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport-Hovav
2005 Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, František
1991 Reciprocals and depatientives in To’aba’ita. In Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Papers on Austronesian Languages and Ethnolinguistics in honour of George W. Grace. (Pacific Linguistics, C-117), Robert Blust (ed), 171–183. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Margulies, Alfons
1924 Die Verba reflexiva in den slavischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc & Rok Žaucer
2014 The Involuntary State/feel-like Construction: What aspect cannot do. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 22.2, 185–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maskuliūnienė, Nijolė
1915 Morphological, syntactic, and semantic types of converse verbs in Lithuanian. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics, Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds), 349–382. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Melčuk, Igor’
1993 The inflectional category of voice: Towards a more rigorous definition. In Causatives and Transitivity, Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miura, Hidematsu
2008 Grammatical Relations, Reflexives and Pseudo-Raising in Japanese. PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Nau, Nicole
2006 Out of Africa: Logophoric pronouns and reported discourse in Finnish and High Latvian dialects. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 55, 55–87.Google Scholar
2011 A Short Grammar of Latgalian. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
2015 Morphological causatives in contemporary Latvian. In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic, Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 99–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Argument realization in Latvian action nominal constructions. A corpus and text based investigation. In Argument Realization in Baltic, Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 461–521. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael
2007 Complementation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description Vol. 2: Complex Structures, Timothy Shopen (ed), 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pakerys, Jurgis
2016 On periphrastic causative constructions in Lithuanian and Latvian. In Argument Realization in Baltic, Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 336–367. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Periphrastic causative constructions in Baltic: An overview. Baltic Linguistics 9, 9–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paulauskienė, Aldona
2001 Lietuvių kalbos kultūra [Correct Lithuanian Usage]. Kaunas: Technologija.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. & Immanuel Barshi
(eds) 1999 External Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
2005 Antipassive constructions. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 438–441. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Jan Koster
1991 Long-distance anaphora: An overview. In Long-Distance Anaphora, Jan Koster & Eric Reuland (eds), 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2004 Structuring Events. A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Andrew Spencer
1998 Morphology and argument structure. In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer & Arnold Zwicky (eds), 206–236. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea
2017 Where do antipassive constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica 34.2, 175–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Say, Sergej
2005 Antipassive -sja verbs in Russian. In Morphology and Its Demarcations, Wolfgang U. Dressler et al. (eds), 253–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1988 Introduction. In Passive and Voice, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed), 2–8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
2013 Lexical Relatedness. A Paradigm-Based Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Marina Zaretskaya
1998 Verb prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination. Linguistics 36.1, 1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, Markus
2002 Middle Voice. A Comparative Study in the Syntax-Semantics Interface of German [Linguistics Today, 50]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stroik, Thomas
2006 Arguments in middles. In Demoting the Agent. Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 301–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toops, Gary H.
1987 Russian contextual causatives. Slavic and East European Journal 31.4, 595–611. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1988 Antipassives in Warrungu and other Australian languages. In Passive and Voice, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed), 595–649. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Wolde, Ellen
2019 The Niphal as middle voice and its consequence for meaning. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.3, 453–478. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1957 Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66.2, 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob
1920 Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Erste Reihe. Basel: Emil Birkhauser.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard
2015 Logophoricity in Eastern Vidzeme: The literary Latvian idiolect of Andrievs Niedra and Leivu Estonian. Baltic Linguistics 6, 141–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waldenfels, Ruprecht von
2012 The Grammaticalization of ‘give’ + Infinitive. A Comparative Study of Russian, Polish and Czech. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Marta Grzybowska
2015 Converse relations with the reflexive marker in Lithuanian and Polish. In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic, Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 211–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1980 The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Wilczewska, Krystyna
1966 Czasowniki zwrotne we współczesnej polszczyźnie [Reflexive Verbs in Contemporary Polish]. Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu.Google Scholar
Zuñiga, Fernando & Seppo Kittilä
2019 Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects

Linguistics

Balto-Slavic linguistics
Syntax
Theoretical linguistics
Semantics
BIC Subject: CF/2AJB – Linguistics/Baltic languages
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2020011991 | Marc record