Cover not available

In: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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Converse relations with the reflexive marker in Lithuanian and Polish

Between grammar and lexicon

ORCiD logo with link | Vilnius University
 | University of Warsaw
Published online: 5 August 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.2.05wie
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.
References (58)
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 logo with link to 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)
References
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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 22004. Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 21997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67 (3): 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1929. Syntax der litauischen Postpositionen und Präpositionen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane B. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grochowski, Maciej. 1982. Zarys leksykologii i leksykografii. Zagadnienia synchroniczne [Outline of Lexicology and Lexicography. Synchronic Issues]. Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 1986. Struktury inaktywne w języku polskim [Inactive structures in Polish]. Polonica 12: 117–125.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Transitivity and Clause Structure in Polish. A Study in Case Marking. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 2002. Understanding Semantics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Maskaliūnienė, Nijolė. 1989. Leksičeskie konversivy v litovskom jazyke [Lexical Converses in Lithuanian]. Unpublished PhD thesis. Vilnius.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nagórko, Alicja. 2007. Lexikologie des Polnischen. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Olms.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Šukys, Jonas. 1998. Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos [Cases and Prepositions in Lithuanian: usage and norms]. Kaunas: Šviesa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Testelec, Jakov G. 2001. Vvedenie v obščij sintaksis [Introduction to General Syntax]. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo RGGU.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantic Interface. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Lindström, Liina, Miina Norvik, Helen Plado & Petar Kehayov
2025. 2474 Estonian. In Convergence and Divergence in the Eastern Circum-Baltic Area, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Veselý, Vojtěch
2025. On the functional relationship between the Czech reciprocity markers navzájem/vzájemně and spolu . Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 61:3 ► pp. 379 ff. DOI logo
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 21 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue