POLYFUNCTIONALITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF REFLEXIVE VERBS IN LATVIA N

POLYFUNCTIONALITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF REFLEXIVE VERBS IN LATVIAN

Andra Kalnača, Ilze LokmaneDepartment of Latvian and General Linguistics

University of Latvia

The presentation is supported by ERAF project

2010/0202/2DP/2.1.1.2.0/10/APIA/VIAA/013

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.

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’

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.

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.).

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.

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).

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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

A=PS

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.

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’

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 rītuI.NOM wash.PRS.1SG.REFL shower.LOC every.ACC morning.ACC ‘I take a shower every morning’

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

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’

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’

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.

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).

1. REFLEXIVE VERB – SUBJECT VERB / OBJECT VERB

MAZGĀTIES ‘to wash’ a. subject reflexive verb

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

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

A=PS

b. object reflexive verb + assessive meaning

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

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

PS

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).

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.

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.

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’

STAIPĪTIES ‘to stretch out’

a1. subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative) meaning

Es staipos ar maisiemI.NOM carry.PRS.1.REFL with

sack.INSTR.PL‘I am carrying sacks’

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

AS

STAIPĪTIES ‘to stretch out’

b. object reflexive verb + assessive meaning

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

un plīstand break.PRS.3

‘An old elastic does stretch badly and breaks easily’

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

PS

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.

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’

SMĒRĒTIES ‘to get dirty’b. object reflexive verb + assessive meaning

Smērējas visu veidu get_dirty.PRS.3.REFL all.GEN.PL type.GEN.PL

plastmasas logiplastic.GEN window.NOM.PL

‘All types of plastic windows tend to get dirty’

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.

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.

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’

RAUTIES ‘to pull’

a1. subject reflexive verb (reciprocal)

Rausimies, kurš stiprāks!wrestle.IMP.1PL.REFL who.NOM stronger.NOM‘Let’s wrestle and see who is stronger!’

RAUTIES ‘to pull’

a2. subject reflexive verb + aspectual (iterative) meaning

Mēs rāvāmies dārzā visu dienuwe work.PST.1PL.REFL garden.LOC all.ACC day.ACC

‘We were working hard in the garden all day’

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’

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.

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’

ZVANĪTIES ‘to call’

a1. subject reflexive verb (reciprocal)

Mūsu klienti savstarpējiour client.NOM.PL mutually

zvanās ļoti izdevīgicall.PRS.3.REFL very gainfully

‘Our clients call one another at very reasonable rates’

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 saspiediesperhaps accidentally press.PRS.3.REFL

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

2. REFLEXIVE VERB – SUBJECT VERB / IMPERSONAL VERB

ŠŪPOTIES ‘to sway’a. subject reflexive verb

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

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)

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

ES

DZĪVOTIES ‘to live’

a. 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’

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

AS

DZĪVOTIES ‘to live’

b. impersonal reflexive verb + assessive meaning

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

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

ES

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’

The relations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments

A=PS

SVIESTIES ‘to throw (oneself)’

a1. 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’

SVIESTIES ‘to throw (oneself)’

b. impersonal reflexive verb + assessive meaning

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

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

PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’a. 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’

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’

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’

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’

PRASĪTIES ‘to ask’

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

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).

Thus, these universal tendencies also concern specific reflexive verbs that assuming different meanings occur in different distribution. The analysis of Latvian reflexive verbs demonstrates that most frequently reflexive verbs have combined the subject and object verb or subject and impersonal meanings.

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).

Conclusions

1) 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.

Conclusions

2) Reflexive 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.

Conclusions

3) The semantic classes of reflexive verbs overlap. Some reflexive verbs can have different semantic readings and analyzed as object (decausative) or subject (autocausative) respectively.

Conclusions

4) The study confirms the assumption that reflexive verbs are independent lexemes as opposed to non-reflexive verbs. Each reflexive verb has its distinct semantic system and distribution which is different from polysemy of non-reflexive verbs and their distribution.

Conclusions

5) The system of reflexive verbs in Latvian is open where new meanings and even new verbs 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’).

ReferencesEnger, 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.lv

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.