The Dog Bites: On the “Aggressive” Antipassive in Slavic and Baltic

Alice Bondarenko

doi:10.2478/lccc-2022-0003

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

The Dog Bites: On the “Aggressive” Antipassive in Slavic and Baltic

LANGUAGE: Codification, Competence, Communication

Volume 1-2 (2022): Issue 6-7 (January 2022)

By: Alice Bondarenko

Open Access

|Jan 2023

Abstract

Several Slavic and Baltic languages have an “aggressive” antipassive construction, where in a reflexive marker is used to mark object omission. The construction often carries habitual or potential aspectual meanings and is restricted to a small group of verbs. This study examines the lexical restrictions of the constructions across a sample of 11 Slavic and Baltic languages, with a special focus on Russian. The results show that across the languages, the construction is used to express a set of concepts, of which ‘hit’ and ‘push’ are the most prototypical. Verbs used in the antipassive express unwanted action on an animate patient, and they also share features of inherent atelicity and potential reciprocality. All languages in the survey display syncretism of reciprocal and antipassive markers, resulting in ambiguous plural subject constructions. Based on this, it is suggested that the “aggressive” antipassive with animate subjects has grammaticalized from the reciprocal function of the reflexive marker. Lexical semantics hence play an important role in the extension of functions of reflexive markers in these languages.

References

Beekes, R. S. P. & de Vaan, M. A. C. (2011). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/z.172
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Borik, O. (2006). Aspect and Reference Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199291298.001.0001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cooreman, A. (1994). A functional typology of antipassives. In B. Fox & P. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and Function (pp. 49–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Creissels, D. & Voisin, S. (2008). Valency-changing operations in Wolof and the notion of co-participation. In E. König & V. Gast (Eds.), Reciprocal and Reflexives, Theoretical and typological explanations (pp. 289–305). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Epps, P. (2005). A grammar of Hup. PhD thesis, University of Virginia
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fasmer, M. (2004). Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Retrieved from https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/ (in May 2022).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Geniušienė, E. (1987). The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110859119
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gradinarova, A. A. (2019). Antipassiv v russkom i bolgarskom jazykax. Acta linguistica. 10. 3–52.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is cheap: sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heaton, R. (2020). Antipassives in crosslinguistic perspective. Annual Review of Linguistics. 6(1). 131–153.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030412
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614132
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holvoet, A. (2017). Antipassive reflexives in Latvian. Baltic Linguistics. 8. 57–96.10.32798/bl.377
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holvoet, A. & Daugavet, A. (2020). Antipassive reflexive constructions in Latvian: A corpus-based analysis. Baltic linguistics: vol. 11: Studies in the voice domain in Baltic and its neighbours. 11. 241–290.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language. 56. 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Isačenko, A. V. (2003). Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim: morfologija. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 2^nd edition.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Israeli, A. (1997). Semantics and pragmatics of the “reflexive verbs” in Russian. Munich: Sagner.10.3726/b14621
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Janic, K. (2010). On the reflexive-antipassive polysemy: Typological convergence from unrelated languages. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 36(1). 158–173.10.3765/bls.v36i1.3909
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Janic, K. (2016). L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives. Brussels: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0352-6598-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Janic, K. (2021). Variation in the verbal marking of antipassive constructions. In K. Janic & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.), Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions (pp. 249–291). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kageyama, T. (2006). Property description as a voice phenomenon. In T. Tsunoda & T. Kageyama (Eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: In honor of Masayoshi Shibatani (pp. 85–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kemmer, S. (1993). The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tsl.23
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Knjazev, J. P. (2007). Reciprocal constructions in Russian. In V. P. Nedjalkov, E. Geniušienė, & Z. Guentchéva (Eds.), Reciprocal Constructions, volume 2 of Typological studies in language (pp. 673–708). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Knjazev, J. P. (2013). Towards a typology of grammatical polysemy: Reflexive markers as markers of reciprocity. In L. Kulikov & H. Vater (Eds.), Typology of Verbal Categories: Papers Presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (pp. 185–93).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kobiljans’ka, V. O. (2015). Osobovo-chyslova paradyhma zvorotnyx diiesliv suchasnoi ukrains’koi movy. Aktual’ni problemy filolohii ta perekladoznavstva.. 9. 84–90.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kubinski, W. (2010). Reflexivization in English and Polish: An Arc Pair Grammar Analysis. Linguistische Arbeiten. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kulikov, L. (2012). Voice typology. In J. J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology (pp. 368–398). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lakhno, N. (2016). Osoblyvosti aktantnoho rozpodilu semantyky absoljutiviv. Studia philologica. 6. 91–96.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Letuchiy, A. (2016). Vozvratnost’. In V. Plungian, E. Dobrushina, E. Rakhilina, & N. Stoynova (Eds.), Materialy k korpusnoj grammatike russkogo jazyka. Glagol (pp. 268–340). Saint Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lyngfelt, B. (2016). Mellan polerna. Reflexiv- och deponenskonstruktioner i svenskan. Språk och stil. 17. 86–134.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marelj, M. (2004). Middles and argument structure across languages. PhD thesis, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Maslova, E. & Nedjalkov, V. P. (2013). Reciprocal constructions. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Medová, L. (2009). Reflexive Clitics in the Slavic and Romance Languages: A Comparative View from an Antipassive Perspective. PhD thesis, Princeton University.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nedjalkov, V. (2007a). Overview of the research. In V. P. Nedjalkov, E. Geniušienė, & Z. Guentchéva (Eds.), Reciprocal Constructions, volume 1 of Typological studies in language (pp. 231–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nedjalkov, V. (2007b). Polysemy of reciprocal markers. In V. P. Nedjalkov, E. Geniušienė, & Z. Guentchéva (Eds.), Reciprocal Constructions, volume 1 of Typological studies in language (pp. 231–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tsl.71.10ned
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Polinsky, M. (2017). Antipassive. In J. Coon, D. Massam, & L. D. Travis (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity (pp. 308–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rivero, M. L. & Milojević-Sheppard, M. (2003). Indefinite reflexive clitics in Slavic: Polish and Slovenian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 21(1). 89.10.1023/A:1021841517604
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sansò, A. (2017). Where do antipassive constructions come from? Diachronica. 2. 175–218.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Say, S. (2005). Antipassive sja-verbs in Russian: Between inflection and derivation. In Morphology and its demarcations: Selected Papers from the 11th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004 (pp. 253–275). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Say, S. (2021). Antipassive and the lexical meaning of verbs. In K. Janic & A. Witzlack- Makarevich (Eds.), Antipassive: Typology, diachrony, and related constructions (pp. 177–212). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article