intro: approaches to classifying russian reflexive verbs

1

Subclasses of Russian reflexive verbs: syntax, semantics, frequencySergey Say(St.Petersburg State University / Institute for linguistic studies, RAS)[email protected], April 23, 2015UiT The Arctic University of Norway

Outline of the talk

Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbsDerivational classes of Russian reflexive verbsFrequencyDetour: depatientive sja-verb in (colloquial) RussianBack to the roots: product-oriented approachSummary

Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs33Disclaimer: this talk is a synopsis of several previously published papers [Say 2005a, 2005b, 2007 , , 2009, 2010]

3

Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs44Definition (for today):Russian reflexive verbs ( ) are Russian verbs that contain affix /- regardless of their function, cf. similar definitions elsewhere [ 1983; 2007; 2003:43, - 1962:4]Thus, the term can be misleading: not many Russian reflexive verbs are semantically reflexive

4

Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs55Under this definition Russian reflexive verbs are formally (morphologically) quite homogeneous, e.g. very simple allomorphic rules:if participle => - ()after consonants => - ()elsewhere => - ()Semantically / derivationally / syntactically reflexive verbs are notoriously heterogeneousHuge amount of literature, including several monographs [ 2003/1960: 374-406; - 1962; Gerritsen 1990; , 1991; 2005: 173-243]

5

Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs66

Semantic / syntactic analysis of reflexive verbs Many available classifications [- 1962; 1968; Gerritsen 1990; , 1991; Enger, Nesset, 2001; 2007: 173-243].

6


Two kinds of approach:Semantic ( logical, cognitive, product-oriented): reflexive verbs are divided into classes based on their own meaning (and syntax).

VS.

Derivational (relational, source-oriented, paradigmatic): reflexive verbs are classified based on the function of sja, that is, based on the semantic and syntactic difference from the corresponding non-reflexive verb.

7


Semantic / logical approach:dominates in the earliest writings (starting with Lomonosovs system of six voices)is sporadically attested in traditional [-80; 1991] , [-80:618] [ 1956 / 2001: 116] (on the class that encompasses verbs like be angry, go mad, be furious, rejoice, be happy about sth.). and cognitively-oriented studies [Enger, Nesset, 2001].

8


Possible problems:Classes are inevitably vague, cf. -- what does this exactly mean?Syntactic properties are often disregardedDefining properties are not specific to reflexive verbs: grow (intr.) rot, go bad squabble, quarrel

9


A gradual drift towards derivational approaches:

(...) , "" , .. , ( ) [ 2004: 400].

10


Derivational approach is ardently asserted in many studies: - , [- 1962: 41].Similar declarations elsewhere [ 2003/1960: 386; 2005: 175; 2004: 400; Geniuien 1987].Cf. approaches to inflectional categories like number and derivational processes [Rainer 2005: 421], e.g. causative (but not categories like aspect or noun classes)

11


In many cases the two approaches converge. E.g. is both semantically and derivationally reciprocal: - signals the reciprocal meaning.

12


Not necessarily so, cf. semantically (in terms of situation types) reciprocalderivationally non-reciprocal (anticausative): . * Cf. .Symmetrical / reciprocal meaning is already present in the non-reflexive verb.If compared to the transitive counterpart, signals lack of external causation / deletion of the causer.

13


The two types of classifications actually classify different objects:semantic / logical approach: verbs (that is, results, products);derivational approach: processes, relations between sources and products.

14


Semantic approach:

V1V1-V2V2-V3V3-etc.

Products are similar!

15


Derivational approaches!

V1V1-V2V2-V3V3-etc.

Processes are similar!

16


In many studies the two perspectives are mixed, e.g. [ 1980: 1468]:reflexives proper are described in terms of their derivational properties; reciprocal and reflexive verbs (, etc.) are defined in terms of their own lexical meanings; impersonal reflexives are defined in terms of their syntactic property (lack of subject, cf. , etc.).This inconsistency is unfortunate.

17


Summary so far:Derivational and semantic approaches yield discrepant results and should not be mixed up. Derivational approach is often claimed superior, but is rarely fully implemented See the next part of the talkSemantic approach is often claimed archaic / outdatedBut see the last part of the talk.

18

Outline of the talk


Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs2020

Primary aim: an attempt to build a consistently derivational classification of reflexive verbsThat is, to classify verb based on their regular relationships with corresponding non-reflexives. Important for frequencies, productivity, and ultimately storage, processing etc.

20


The first question to answer:is there any regularly related non-reflexive counterpart at all?Four criteria of reversibility (= non-idiomatic correspondence), cf. [Geniuien 1987: 145]:formal reversibility (non-reflexive verb must exist)syntactic reversibility (regular syntactic model)lexical reversibility (same lexical environment possible)semantic reversibility (regular semantic contribution in -derivation)

21


Reflexive verbs can be further classified into derivational classes only if all the four criteria are met!Otherwise, there is some idiosyncrasy (that is, the verb must be stored individually)NB: it does not follow that reflexive verbs belonging to regular classes are not stored.

22


Examples of irreversibilityFormally irreversible reflexive verbs (reflexiva tantum): fear, remain, laugh;Semantically / syntactically irreversible verbs: try torture bid farewell forgive complain grantVerbs derived through circumfixation disperse etc., * run eat ones fill (not related) eat Prefixed verbs derived from reflexive verbs: , (?).

23


Classes of reversible verbsThree levels of description:referentialsemantic (roles)syntacticCf. Leningrad / St. Petersburg typological school and the notion of diathesisAn attempt is made to abstract oneself from inherent lexical-semantic components of individual verbs

24


1. Reflexives proper [NKRJa, www.ruscorpora.ru].

Role specifications of the two arguments of converge on the sole argument of : animacy, volition, control, manner (buttoning, etc.), result (not dressed => dressed)Level:semanticAgentThemeAgent = Themereferential121syntacticSubjDir ObjSubj

25


Reflexives proper are very few!Many verbs that are often mentioned in this class do not meet all the relevant criteria:

partially reversible (see below)

= / .reflexive-possessive

26


2. Reciprocal

.

: ,

Level:semanticAgentThemeAgent = Themereferential121, 2syntacticSubjDir ObjSubj

27


3. Oblique-reflexive I did not ask myself this question. Cf. .Level:semanticAgentThemeAgent = AddresseeThemereferential1231, 32syntacticSubjDir ObjObj (DAT)SubjObl (INST)

28


4. Autocausative . NB! Problematic classExtensionally stable across descriptions, but typically the definitions of this particular class encompass a non-derivational (semantic) property: motion.

29


An alternative: decomposition of roles. Agent of transitive verb is characterized in terms of both causation and manner: .Level:semantic+causation, +mannerTheme+causation, -manner, +Themereferential121, 2syntacticSubjDir ObjSubj

30


There are verbs that are not related to motion that meet this definition of autocausatives, e.g., : . , .

31


5. Anticausative () . Level:semanticAgentPatientPatient(Cause)referential122syntacticSubjDir ObjSubj

32


6. Emotive anticausative ,

Between anticausatives and passivesDespite its name, this class is defined without reference to thematic properties of verbsLevel:semanticCause + ContentExperiencerExperiencerContentreferential1221syntacticSubjDir ObjSubjObl

33


7. Passives . Level:semanticAgentPatientPatientAgentreferential1221syntacticSubjDir ObjSubj(Obl)

34


Further classes:8. Involuntary reflexive: , , .

9. Conversive:

10. Object-demoting verbs: ,

35


Further classes:11. Reflexive-possessive verbs, , - - , . = , , = 12. Absolutive verbs 13. Modal-quasipassive verbs

36


Further classes:

14. Modal-deagentive .

15. Synonymous , .

37


Partially reversible verbsReflexive verbs that fit one of the regular patterns just described, but apart from that idiosyncratically acquire additional properties that can not be strictly predicted from the non-reflexive verb and the model applied.

38


Pro: very close to reflexives proper

Contra: idiosyncratic shift in lexical meaning: to acquit vs. make excuses to sb, most likely in vain. Speech component is introduced, which is not obligatorily present in the transitive verb: , , ?

39


rush (lit. throw oneself)Very close to autocausative verbs, cf. set off (for sth).However, the metaphor is only found in the reflexive verb, not in the transitive caused motion verb .

#

40


see each otherVery close to reciprocal verbs.However, the verb describes a social, rather than a perceptual event. Cf.:

??? .

41

Outline of the talk


Frequency4343

Type frequency (number of different verbs belonging to individual classes). Occasional qualitative observations in available studies (e.g. a small class of verbs etc.)Until recently, the most comprehensive study was [ 1968] an unpublished manuscript!

Token frequency (frequency of uses in texts):Almost no information in the pre-corpus era, despite explicit statement that such information was urgently needed long ago [ 1983:11].

43

Frequency4444

Frequency data should help understand better the relationships between individual classesand eventually to localize synchronic distribution of uses in dynamic (diachronic) perspective (cf. grammaticalization).

44

Frequency4545

Data on token frequency:National Russian Corpus (www.ruscorpora.ru).Disambiguated texts only.Fiction, from 1985 onwards No participles Continuous annotation of 10000 randomized hits.NB: quite different from most approaches to reflexive verbs classifications, which are often based on pre-selected good examplars

45

Frequency4646

Data on type frequency:Zaliznjaks dictionary [ 1977]. All reflexive verbs were annotated for potential irreversibility.Finer analysis requires inspection of individual uses Hence, same sample of examples from NRC.

46

Frequency4747Semantically irregular items are much more common in texts than they are in the lexicon.This observation in the domain of semantics echoes the usual formal pattern (strong vs. weak etc.) [Bybee 1985: 57].Irreversible verbs are disregarded in subsequent counts.token frequencytype frequencyN (NRC)%N []%Irreversible521952%225429%Partially reversible3694%Reversible441244%541171%Total100007665

47

Frequency4848

Token & type frequency of sublclasses among the 4412 reversible verbs from the 10000-verbs sample

tokens%types%Autocausative136231%32020.9%Decausative133030%52934.6%Emotive decausative3819%795.2%Passive3327.5%16710.9%Reflexive possessive2876.5%1338.7%Conversive1994.5%493.2%Reflexive proper1523.4%684.4%Other classes (each)< 87 valency decrease ( middle, , situation-changing [Haspelmath 2002:218]) >perspective-changing (syntactic, function-changing etc.)

Most frequent are those classes that correspond to intermediate stages in grammaticalization

49

Frequency5050

tokens%type of operationReflexive proper1523.4%coreferenceAutocausative136231%event-changingDecausative133030%event-changingEmotive decausative3819%event-changingReflexive possessive2876.5%event-changingPassive3327.5%perspective-changingConversive1994.5%perspective-changing

50

Frequency5151

2) Various stages along the usual pathways can be synchronically covered by the same verbs2a. Reflexive > autocausative anticausative > passiveReflexive: (*).autocausative: [] anticausative: , ... []Passive: . http://vladirom.narod.ru/

51

Frequency5252

Token frequency

Reflexive proper:152Autocausative:1362Anticausative :1330Passive:332

52

Frequency5353

2b. Reflexive proper > possessive-reflexive > depatientive

Reflexive proper: 152Reflexive-possessive:287Depatientive (see below): 2

53

Frequency5454

3)High token frequency salient, prototypical, etc.

54

Frequency5555

For example: reflexives proper, despite their low token frequency, are

diachronically primarysemantically basic (they occupy a central position on the semantic map for reflexives, serve as a bridge between various other types [Croft et al. 1987; Enger, Nesset 2001])are probably viewed as central in terms of speakers metalinguistic awareness:

55

Frequency5656

, , . ? , . "". ? [forum.podlodka.com // Ivetta].

, , "" ""? ! . [www.livejournal.ru // Red Angel].

56

Frequency5757

3)High token frequency high type frequency (productivity)In terms of productivity, the most productive class is the class of passive reflexives: almost unlimitedly productive for imperfective transitive verbs, cf. 5279 , .., 4717 [ 1991: 149]. Comparable data in [Ko 1968: 17].9 out of 10 properties characteristic of inflection (as opposed to word-formation) according to the list of properties in [Haspelmath 2002: 71]; other classes of reflexive verbs are much closer to the word-formation pole of the continuum

57

Frequency5858

4) Productivity: measuring lexical diversity of classesMethod 1: what is ratio of the cumulative token frequency of three most frequent verbs in the class to the total token frequency of the class?E.g. among the autocausative verbs three most frequent verbs are , and with raw frequencies 108, 61 and 52, which makes 221 in total. This covers 16.2% of the total token frequency (1362) of autocausatives. The higher this figure, the less diverse is this class. Method 2. How many top frequent verbs in the class cumulatively cover more than 50% of the total token frequency of that class? The higher this figure, the more diverse is the class.

58

Frequency5959

Method 2 (50% tokens)Method 1 (3 verbs)N verbsRank%Rankanticausative77110,8%1reflexive-possessive272-311,8%2autocausative272-316,2%3object-demoting105-623,8%4passive21424,1%5emotive anticausative9724,4%6involuntary8825,7%7reflexives proper105-626,3%8modal quasipassive6941,4%9reciprocal41046,3%10modal-deagentive31160,7%11conversive11272,9%12

59

Frequency6060

4) Productivity: measuring lexical diversity of classesMethod 3. Plotting cumulative type and token frequencies in randomized sequences of verbs from individual classes.

60

Frequency6161

61

Frequency6262

4) Productivity: measuring lexical diversity of classesSimplifying somewhat, classes with high token frequencies fall into two groups:a) those classes where high cumulative frequency is primarily accounted for by several very frequent verbs: autocausative and emotove anticausative.b) those classes where high cumulative frequency is primarily accounted for by lexical diversity (potentially not entirely visible in the sample of 10000 examples): anticausative, passive and possessive-reflexives.

The latter group is particularly curious: a detour.

62

Outline of the talk


Detour: depatientive reflexive verbs in (colloquial) Russian6464

Standard Russian: possessive-reflexive verbs (aslo referred to as reflexive verbs of (semantically) incorporated (inanimate) object [Kretov 1978] or [partitive object reflexives] (Geniuien 1987). )Every reflexive verb is roughly synonymous to the combination of the transitive verb and a particular lexically specified direct object: I screwed up my eyes

64


Typical objects are (cf. also [Kretov 1978]):body-parts: to blow ones nosespiritual parts (thoughts, attention etc.): to concentrate ones attention products of ones creativity: to have ones works published (in ...)Clothes: to button ones clothes upMoney: to spend ones money Vehicles: to refuel ones vehicle Living places: clean up ones flat.

65


One may stroit (build S.S.) houses, bridges, clubs, roads etc., stroitsja means to build a living place, a house, an edifice for living; (...) one may tratit (spend S.S.) ones money, salary, stipend, paper as well as (metaphorically) ones time, forces etc., but tratitsja means to spend ones money, (financial) means; (...) one may propit (drink away S.S.) anything (without any lexical restriction), but propitsja means to drink away everything one possesses [Janko-Trinickaja 1962:175].

66


However, in colloquial / spontaneous / substandard (?) Russian: a similar pattern can be productively used with no lexically defined restrictions on the type of object that can undergo syntactic elimination: , .When I launched/started-sja just before that, it was working properly. (Computer programme; a novice user tells a serviceman about a trouble she had encountered). ? Will you wrap-sja without my help? (Purchase, buying; a saleswoman asks a customer if he could wrap up something that he had bought. The saleswoman points at the package when uttering the sentence).

67


, ! Ah, lets stabilise-sja! (Winnings; the transitive verb stabiliznut, literally to stabilise, is a novel verb introduced in a TV show in which players gain money).

, .Dont squeeze-sja, open a new one. (Parcel; the addressee is trying to squeeze the dregs of sour cream off an almost empty pack).

68


This pattern is a compromise strategy, which is resorted to in case of a conflict between transitive lexical choice, on the one hand, and undesirability of transitive syntactic construal of the event, on the other hand.It allows speakers to tone down pragmatic relevance / saliency of the participant that could be otherwise coded as the direct object in the transitive clause.The are further pragmatic / semantic restrictions on the use of this pattern, but they are not lexical, that is, this construction is lexically productive.

69

End of detour: frequency (recap)7070

Stage:earlymiddlelatePath1reflexiveautocausative,anticausativepassivePath2reflexivereflexive-possessivedepatientive (antipassive)SalienceSalientless salientstill less salientToken frequencymoderatehighmoderateProductivitylimitedhighvery high

70

Back to the roots: product-oriented approach7171

The derivational approach to classification of verbs (see e.g. above) is well established in current studies and neednt be advocated as such.What about the semantic (logical, cognitive, non-derivational) approach to reflexive verbs? Is it simply outdated and useless?

71

Outline of the talk



No. Remainder of the talk: several pieces of evidence showing that speakers of Russian actually can rely upon relationships between individual reflexive verbs (classes) without taking derivational properties into account.

73


1) The very ratio of irreversible verbs is very high:token frequencytype frequencyN (NRC)%N []%Irreversible521952%225429%Partially reversible3694%Reversible441244%541171%Total100007665

Although irreversible verbs play relatively minor role in most descriptions, it is hard to believe that half of uses are just a heap of unstructured lexical garbage.

74


2) Partially irreversible verbsE.g. many verbs that are very similar to regular autocausatives, but have various idiosyncratic semantic nuances, that is, are not entirely compositional:

More compositional go up, ascend, bend, stoop leave, depart, rush ( ) striveLess compositional

75


3) Speech errors: .Correct: .The likeliest explanation: non-proportional analogy. Other verbs with similar meanings typically are reflexive verbs, cf. , .The speakers must have established a direct link between the meaning of the verb and the meaning of .

76


(go out; cigarette). (become rotten; sausage). . (cool (down))(and other similar errors in child language [ 1978: 178]). change-of-state verbs that happened to be non-reflexives in Standard language. .Correct: (correlate). A semantically and syntactically reciprocal (symmetrical) verb that happened to be non-reflexive, unlike , .

77


4) Historical changesVerbs from several semantic groups tend to become reflexive (data from [ 1954]):

XIX century modern language be visible ( -) ( -) affiance listen carefully to sth (consult)

78


5) Potentially productive productive irreversible micro-classesE.g.: evaluative verbs that denote types of behaviour associated with (too) high self-esteem: swagger, be presumptuous, put on airs, boast, , These are all irreversible verbs!Is this just a coincidence that they are all reflexive? Unlikely.

79


6) Metalinguistic evidenceMany linguists who claim adherence to the strictly derivational classification very often make mistakes when derivational properties of a verb are at odds with its semantic syntactic properties. struggle (*) and (get acquainted, cf. introduce) are often listed among reciprocal verbs.

I believe that in such cases speakers intuition overrides linguistic precision.

80


Conclusion: both derivational and semantic dimensions are necessary in the analysis of reflexive verbs as long as we are striving for a linguistic description that can capture patterns of use of these verbs.

Cf. source-oriented & target-oriented schemas in morphology [Bybee 1995; 2001: 126129]: To the extent that words have internal structure recognizable by the speaker / hearer, this structure can be represented using lexical connections which makes segmentation unnecessary [Bybee 1985:128].

81

Outline of the talk


Summary8383

There are two perspectives from which reflexive verbs can be analyzed: derivational and semanticThe two are logically independent: ideally, every reflexive verb can be situated in both dimensions.Both types of classifications correspond to certain reality.Derivationally irreversible (non-compositional; idiosyncratic) reflexive verbs have a high type frequency and a very high token frequency.

83

Summary8484

Russian reflexive marker develops from a marker of co-reference through the valency-changing marker to perspective-changing marker.Classes with highest token frequency are in the middle of this cline (anticausative, autocausative), whereas classes with the highest type frequencies are newest.

84

Thank you!

8585

85

References8686

-80 . . ... .: . 1980. .. 1983. . : . .., .. 2009. // .., .., .., .. (.). . .: -2000, 2009. 184223. .. . . .: , 1977. .. . . ( : , 1960). : , 2003. .. 2007. . . .: . .. 1968. . [ ]. .. - // 40 - . . .. , .. , .. . .: , 2004. . 394-406. .. 2003. // , 2003, 4. . 43-71. .. 1956/2001. ( 7- , ., 1956). .: ., . C. 2007. // , 2. 7591. . . 2010. // .., .., .., .., .., .. (.). . . .. (1928 2009). .: . 303318. .. 1991. // . . . . .. . . . .141-180.

86

References8787

.. // . . . . .. .: , 1991. . 312-326.- .. 1962. . .: , 1962.Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon // Language and cognitive process, 10. 425-455. Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use [= Cambridge studies in linguistics 94]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Croft W., Shyldkrot H.B.-Z., Kemmer S. 1987. Diachronic semantic processes in the middle voice // Papers from the 7th international conference on historical linguistics [= Current issues in linguistic theory, 48]. Eds. A.G. Ramat, O. Carruba, G. Bernini. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1987. P. 179-192.Enger, Hans-Olav & Tore Nesset. 2001. The Norwegian and Russian reflexive-middle-passive-systems and Cognitive Grammar. In: H.G.Simonsen & R.TEndresen (eds.). A Cognitive approach to the verb. Morphological and constructional perspectives. De Gruyter Mouton. 223-242.Geniuien E. 1987. The typology of reflexives. Berlin, etc.: Mouton de Gruyter.Gerritsen N. 1990. Russian reflexive verbs: in search of unity in diversity. Amsterdam; Atlanta: Rodopi.Rainer, Franz. 2005. Semantic change in word formation // Linguistics, 43-2. 415-441.Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold.Say, Sergey. 2005a. Antipassive sja-verbs in Russian: between inflection and derivation. In: WolfgangU. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, OskarE. Pfeiffer & Franz Rainer (eds). Morphology and its demarcations. [=Current issues in linguistic theory, 264]. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2005. 253275.Say, Sergey. 2005b. The pragmatic motivation of antipassive in Russian. In: Piotr Cap (ed.). Pragmatics today. [=d Studies in Language, 12]. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 2005. 421440.

87

intro: approaches to classifying russian reflexive verbs

Documents