Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs

Tromsø, April 23, 2015
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Subclasses of Russian reflexive verbs:
syntax, semantics, frequency
Sergey Say
(St.Petersburg State University / Institute for linguistic studies, RAS)
[email protected]
Outline of the talk
o Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
o Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
o Frequency
o Detour: depatientive sja-verb in (colloquial) Russian
o Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
o Summary
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
 Disclaimer: this talk is a synopsis of several previously
published papers [Say 2005a, 2005b, Сай 2007 , Гото, Сай
2009, Сай 2010]
3
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
 Definition (for today):
Russian reflexive verbs (возвратные глаголы) are
Russian verbs that contain affix –ся/-сь regardless of their
function, cf. similar definitions elsewhere [Генюшене 1983;
Князев 2007; Перцов 2003: 43, Янко-Триницкая 1962: 4]
 Thus, the term can be misleading: not many “Russian
reflexive verbs” are semantically reflexive
4
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
 Under this definition Russian reflexive verbs are
formally (morphologically) quite homogeneous, e.g.
very simple allomorphic rules:
 if participle => -ся (открывшаяся)
 after consonants => -ся (открылся)
 elsewhere => -сь (открылась)
 Semantically / derivationally / syntactically reflexive
verbs are notoriously heterogeneous
 Huge amount of literature, including several
monographs [Исаченко 2003/1960: 374-406; Янко-Триницкая
1962; Gerritsen 1990; Шелякин, 1991; Князев 2005: 173-243]
5
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
 Semantic / syntactic analysis of reflexive verbs ≈
consistent classification of reflexive verbs
 Many available classifications [Янко-Триницкая 1962;
Королев 1968; Gerritsen 1990; Шелякин, 1991; Enger, Nesset, 2001;
Князев 2007: 173-243].
6
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
Two kinds of approach:
 «Semantic» ( «logical», «cognitive», «productoriented»): 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 nonreflexive verb.
7
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
Semantic / logical approach:
 dominates in the earliest writings (starting with
Lomonosov’s system of six voices)
 is sporadically attested in traditional [АГ-80; Шелякин
1991]
«Глаголы общевозвратного значения называют действие,
замкнутое в сфере субъекта как его состояние» [АГ-80:618]
«Изменение душевного состояния происходит как бы само
собой» [Пешковский 1956 / 2001: 116] (on the class that
encompasses verbs like сердиться ‘be angry’, беситься ‘go mad, be
furious’, радоваться ‘rejoice, be happy about sth.’).
 … and cognitively-oriented studies [Enger, Nesset, 2001].
8
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
Possible problems:
 Classes are inevitably vague, cf. «Действие замыкается в
субъекте» -- what does this exactly mean?
 Syntactic properties are often disregarded
 Defining properties are not specific to reflexive verbs:
увеличиваться 
портиться

поссориться

9
расти
 ‘grow’ (intr.)
гнить
 ‘rot, go bad’
повздорить  ‘squabble, quarrel’
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
A gradual drift towards derivational approaches:
«Господствовавшее некогда деление русских возвратных
глаголов по чисто семантическому признаку (...) в
последние
десятилетия
уступает
свое
место
классификации,
основанной
на
синтаксической
"предыстории" этих глаголов», т.е. классификации,
связанной «с формированием (и преобразованием) в
сознании говорящего синтаксической структуры
предложения» [Норман 2004: 400].
10
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
 Derivational approach is ardently asserted in many
studies:
частица -ся ничего не говорит нам о значении того или
иного глагола, если мы рассматриваем такой глагол вне
сопоставления с соответствующим невозвратным
[Янко-Триницкая 1962: 41].
 Similar declarations elsewhere [Исаченко 2003/1960:
386; Князев 2005: 175; Норман 2004: 400; Geniušienė 1987].
 Cf.
11
approaches to inflectional categories like
number and derivational processes [Rainer 2005:
421], e.g. causative (but not categories like aspect or
noun classes)
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
 In many cases the two approaches converge. E.g.
поцеловаться is both semantically and derivationally
reciprocal:
Миша и Маша поцеловались
 ‘Миша и Маша поцеловали друг друга’

-ся signals the reciprocal meaning.
12
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
 Not necessarily so, cf. ссориться
 semantically (in terms of “situation types”) reciprocal
 derivationally non-reciprocal (“anticausative”):
Миша и Маша поссорились.
 *‘Миша и Маша поссорили друг друга’
Cf. Петя поссорил Мишу и Машу.

Symmetrical / reciprocal meaning is already
present in the non-reflexive verb.

If compared to the transitive counterpart, –ся
signals lack of external causation / deletion of the causer.
13
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
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
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
Semantic approach:
V1
V2
V3
etc.




 Products are similar!
15
V1-ся
V2-ся
V3-ся
…
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
Derivational approaches!
V1
V2
V3
etc.




 Processes are similar!
16
V1-ся
V2-ся
V3-ся
…
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
In many studies the two perspectives are mixed,
e.g. [РГ 1980: § 1468]:
 reflexives proper are described in terms of their
derivational properties;
 reciprocal and «общевозвратные» reflexive
verbs (сердиться, радоваться etc.) are defined
in terms of their own lexical meanings;
 impersonal reflexives are defined in terms of
their syntactic property (lack of subject, cf.
вериться, думаться etc.).
 This inconsistency is unfortunate.
17
Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
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 talk
 Semantic approach is often claimed archaic /
outdated
 But see the last part of the talk.
18
Outline of the talk
o Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
o Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
o Frequency
o Detour: depatientive sja-verb in (colloquial) Russian
o Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
o Summary
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
 Primary aim: an attempt to build a consistently
derivational classification of reflexive verbs
 That is, to classify verb based on their regular
relationships with corresponding non-reflexives.
 Important for frequencies, productivity, and
ultimately storage, processing etc.
20
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
The first question to answer:
 is there any regularly related non-reflexive
counterpart at all?
 Four criteria of reversibility (= non-idiomatic
correspondence), cf. [Geniušienė 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 –ся-derivation)
21
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
 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
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
Examples of irreversibility
 Formally irreversible reflexive verbs (reflexiva tantum):
23
бояться ‘fear’, остаться ‘remain’, смеяться ‘laugh’;
 Semantically / syntactically irreversible verbs: пытаться
‘try’
пытать ‘torture’
прощаться ‘bid farewell’
прощать ‘forgive’
жаловаться ‘complain’
жаловать ‘grant’
 Verbs derived through circumfixation
разбежаться ‘disperse’ etc., *разбежать бежать ‘run’
наесться ‘eat one’s fill’ наесть (not related) есть ‘eat’
 Prefixed verbs derived from reflexive verbs:
засмеяться , поинтересоваться (?поинтересовать).
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
 Classes of reversible verbs
 Three levels of description:
 referential
 semantic (roles)
 syntactic
 Cf. Leningrad / St. Petersburg typological
school and the notion of “diathesis”
 An attempt is made to abstract oneself from
inherent lexical-semantic components of
individual verbs
24
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
1. Reflexives proper
А я еще и одеваться не начал [NKRJa, www.ruscorpora.ru].
Level:
semantic
referential
syntactic
25
одевать
одеваться
Agent
≈ Theme
Agent = Theme
1
2
1
Subj
Dir Obj
Subj
Role specifications of the two arguments of одевать
converge on the sole argument of одеваться: animacy,
volition, control, manner (buttoning, etc.), result (not
dressed => dressed)
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
 Reflexives proper are very few!
 Many verbs that are often mentioned in this
class do not meet all the relevant criteria:
повеситься  повесить себя
 partially reversible (see below)
умываться

умыть себя
=
умыть лицо / руки.
 reflexive-possessive
26
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
2. Reciprocal
Они то и дело толкались.
Level:
semantic
толкать
толкаться
Agent
≈ Theme
1
2
1, 2
Subj
Dir Obj
Subj
ростые случаи: пассивные РГ
referential
Agent = Theme
Но он быстро угадывал обман, и эти проделки
syntactic
27
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
3. Oblique-reflexive
Я этим вопросом не задавался
‘I did not ask myself this question’. Cf.
Я не задавал себе этот вопрос.
Level:
semantic
referential
syntactic
28
задавать
Agent Theme Addressee
1
Subj
2
3
Dir Obj Obj (DAT)
задаваться
Agent = Theme
Addressee
1, 3
2
Subj
Obl (INST)
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
4. Autocausative
Тогда я поднялась к ним и забрала его к себе.
NB! Problematic class
 Extensionally stable across descriptions, but
typically the definitions of this particular class
encompass a non-derivational (semantic)
property: motion.
29
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
 An alternative: decomposition of roles. Agent of
transitive verb поднимать is characterized in
terms of both causation and manner:
Я поднял чемодан на третий этаж.
Level:
semantic
referential
syntactic
30
поднять
подняться
+causation,
+manner
≈ Theme
+causation, manner, +Theme
1
2
1, 2
Subj
Dir Obj
Subj
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
There are verbs that are not related to motion
that meet this definition of autocausatives, e.g.
учиться, прятаться:
Он заново учился ходить.
Вы же прячетесь, как мелкие жулики.
31
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
5. Anticausative (декаузатив)
У них сломался компьютер.
Level:
semantic
referential
syntactic
32
сломать
сломаться
Agent
Patient
Patient
1
2
2
Subj
Dir Obj
Subj
(Cause)
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
6. Emotive anticausative
Я испугалась, что он умрет
Level:
semantic
referential
syntactic
испугать
Cause +
Content
испугаться
Experiencer Experiencer
Content
1
2
2
1
Subj
Dir Obj
Subj
Obl
 Between anticausatives and passives
 Despite its name, this class is defined without reference
33
to thematic properties of verbs
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
7. Passives
Мои книги публикуются и будут
опубликованы все до единой.
Level:
semantic
referential
syntactic
34
испугать
испугаться
Agent
Patient
Patient
Agent
1
2
2
1
Subj
Dir Obj
Subj
(Obl)
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
Further classes:
8. Involuntary reflexive:
Я запутался в поводках, упал, и они разбежались.
9. Conversive:
я стал тяготиться ее обществом
ему хотелось курить
10. Object-demoting verbs:
Кидалась камнями в мальчишек, чтобы они не
лезли к нему
35
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
36
Further classes:
11. Reflexive-possessive verbs
Те, кто защищался, как-то мало-помалу
отдалялись, шли в свою жизнь.
= ‘защищал диссертацию’
Медвежонок плыл, зажмурившись, …
= ‘зажмурив глаза’
12. Absolutive verbs
он не целуется
13. Modal-quasipassive verbs
Из шести дверей открывается только одна
Ключи не нашлись
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
Further classes:
14. Modal-deagentive
Богатым живётся лучше.
15. Synonymous
Всюду она белеется, принять ее за гуся было
нехитрое дело.
37
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
Partially reversible verbs
 Reflexive 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 nonreflexive verb and the model applied.
38
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
Оправдываться
Pro: very close to reflexives proper
Contra: idiosyncratic shift in lexical meaning:
Оправдывать ‘to acquit’ vs.
Оправдываться ‘make excuses to sb, most likely in vain’.
Speech component is introduced, which is not obligatorily
present in the transitive verb:
Неужели вам не совестно заставлять
оправдываться женщину, к которой вы испытываете
если не любовь, то страсть?
39
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
кинуться ‘rush’ (lit. ‘throw oneself’)
 Very close to autocausative verbs, cf. отправиться
‘set off (for sth)’.
 However, the metaphor is only found in the
reflexive verb, not in the transitive caused motion
verb кинуть.
40
отправил детей в школу
отправился в школу
# кинул детей к окну
кинулся к окну
Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
увидеться  ‘see each other’
 Very close to reciprocal verbs.
 However, the verb describes a social, rather
than a perceptual event. Cf.:
Жучка и Шарик увиделись и стали
гоняться друг за другом.
???
41
Outline of the talk
o Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
o Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
o Frequency
o Detour: depatientive sja-verb in (colloquial) Russian
o Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
o Summary
Frequency
 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
[Королев 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 [Генюшене 1983:11].
43
Frequency
 Frequency data should help understand better the
relationships between individual classes…
 and eventually to localize synchronic distribution
of uses in dynamic (diachronic) perspective (cf.
grammaticalization).
44
Frequency
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
Frequency
Data on type frequency:
 Zaliznjak’s dictionary [Зализняк 1977].
 All reflexive verbs were annotated for potential
irreversibility.
 Finer analysis requires inspection of individual
uses
 Hence, same sample of examples from NRC.
46
Frequency
token frequency
type frequency
N (NRC)
%
N [Зализняк]
%
Irreversible
5219
52%
2254
29%
Partially reversible
369
4%
Reversible
4412
44%
5411
71%
Total
10000
7665
 Semantically 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].
47 Irreversible verbs are disregarded in subsequent counts.
Frequency
Token & type frequency of sublclasses among the 4412
reversible verbs from the 10000-verbs sample
48
tokens
%
types
%
Autocausative
1362
31%
320
20.9%
Decausative
1330
30%
529
34.6%
Emotive decausative
381
9%
79
5.2%
Passive
332
7.5%
167
10.9%
Reflexive possessive
287
6.5%
133
8.7%
Conversive
199
4.5%
49
3.2%
Reflexive proper
152
3.4%
68
4.4%
Other classes (each)
< 87
<2%
≤ 41
2.7%
Total
4412
1529
Frequency
1) Stages in grammaticalization (see e.g. [Croft et al. 1987])
Coreference marking >
valency decrease (≈ “middle”, актантная деривация,
“situation-changing” [Haspelmath 2002:218]) >
perspective-changing (syntactic, «function-changing» etc.)
Most frequent are those classes that correspond to
intermediate stages in grammaticalization
49
Frequency
tokens
%
type of operation
Reflexive proper
152
3.4%
coreference
Autocausative
1362
31%
event-changing
Decausative
1330
30%
event-changing
Emotive decausative
381
9%
event-changing
Reflexive possessive
287
6.5%
event-changing
Passive
332
7.5%
perspective-changing
Conversive
199
4.5%
perspective-changing
50
Frequency
2) Various stages along the usual pathways can be
synchronically covered by the same verbs
2a. Reflexive > autocausative – anticausative > passive
 Reflexive: Барон Мюнхгаузен поднимает себя за волосы
(*поднимается).
 autocausative: Алеша поднимается по ветхой
деревянной лестнице в гору…[НКРЯ]
 anticausative: Может, это заражение крови —
температура поднимается... [НКРЯ]
 Passive: При помощи блоков все балки будущего
перекрытия поднимаются на стену.
51
http://vladirom.narod.ru/
Frequency
Token frequency
 Reflexive proper:
 Autocausative:
 Anticausative :
 Passive:
52
152
1362
1330
332
Frequency
2b. Reflexive proper > possessive-reflexive > depatientive
 Reflexive proper:
 Reflexive-possessive:
 Depatientive (see below):
53
152
287
2
Frequency
3)High token frequency ≠ salient, “prototypical”, etc.
54
Frequency
For example: reflexives proper, despite their low
token frequency, are
 diachronically primary
 semantically 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
Frequency
«Слушайте сюда, лично я на лодке для того,
чтобы развлекаться. Чуете? Не развлекать вас,
– а развлекаться. Возвратная частица "ся". Это
понятно?» [forum.podlodka.com // Ivetta].
«Народ, знаете, что означает славянская
частица "ся" в слове "обижаться"? Себя! То есть
дословно – обижать себя. То есть заведомо
бессмысленный и губительный для себя процесс»
[www.livejournal.ru // Red Angel].
56
Frequency
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.
 «Из 5279 переходных глаголов, зафиксированных в Толковом
словаре под редакцией Д.Н.Ушакова, синтетическую
пассивную форму имеют 4717 глаголов» [Храковский 1991:
149].
 Comparable data in [Koролев 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 wordformation pole of the continuum
57
Frequency
4) Productivity: measuring lexical diversity of classes
Method 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
вернуться, возвращаться and остановиться 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
Frequency
Method 2 (50% tokens)
Rank
N verbs
1
77
anticausative
2-3
27
reflexive-possessive
2-3
27
autocausative
5-6
10
object-demoting
4
21
passive
7
9
emotive anticausative
8
8
involuntary
5-6
10
reflexives proper
9
6
modal quasipassive
10
4
reciprocal
11
3
modal-deagentive
59
12
1
conversive
Method 1 (3 verbs)
Rank
%
1
10,8%
2
11,8%
3
16,2%
4
23,8%
5
24,1%
6
24,4%
7
25,7%
8
26,3%
9
41,4%
10
46,3%
11
60,7%
12
72,9%
Frequency
4) Productivity: measuring lexical diversity of classes
Method 3. Plotting cumulative type and token frequencies in
randomized sequences of verbs from individual classes.
60
Frequency
61
Frequency
4) Productivity: measuring lexical diversity of classes
Simplifying 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
o Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
o Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
o Frequency
o Detour: depatientive sja-verb in (colloquial) Russian
o Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
o Summary
Detour: depatientive reflexive verbs in (colloquial) Russian
Standard Russian: possessive-reflexive verbs (aslo
referred to as ‘reflexive verbs of (semantically)
incorporated (inanimate) object’ [Kretov 1978] or
[partitive object reflexives] (Geniušienė 1987). )
Every reflexive verb is roughly synonymous to the
combination of the transitive verb and a particular
lexically specified direct object:
Я зажмурился ≈ Я зажмурил глаза
‘I screwed up my eyes’
64
Detour: depatientive reflexive verbs in (colloquial) Russian
Typical objects are (cf. also [Kretov 1978]):
 body-parts: высморкаться “to blow one’s nose”
 ‘spiritual parts’ (thoughts, attention etc.):
сосредоточиться ‘to concentrate one’s attention’
 products of one’s creativity: печататься ‘to have
one’s works published (in ...)’
 Clothes: застегнуться ‘to button one’s clothes up’
 Money: потратиться ‘to spend one’s money’
 Vehicles: заправиться ‘to refuel one’s vehicle’
 Living places: убраться ‘clean up one’s flat’.
65
Detour: depatientive reflexive verbs in (colloquial) Russian
One may stroit’ (“build” – S.S.) houses, bridges, clubs,
roads etc., stroit’sja means “to build a living place, a
house, an edifice for living”; (...) one may tratit’ (“spend”
– S.S.) one’s money, salary, stipend, paper as well as
(metaphorically) one’s time, forces etc., but tratit’sja
means “to spend one’s money, (financial) means”; (...)
one may propit’ (“drink away” – S.S.) anything (without
any lexical restriction), but propit’sja means “to drink
away everything one possesses” [Janko-Trinickaja
1962:175].
66
Detour: depatientive reflexive verbs in (colloquial) Russian
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:
67
Когда я перед этим запускалась, он работал.
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).
Вы там сами завернетесь?
“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).
Detour: depatientive reflexive verbs in (colloquial) Russian
А, стабилизнемся!
‘Ah, let’s stabilise-sja!’ (Winnings; the transitive verb
stabiliznut’, literally ‘to stabilise’, is a novel verb introduced in
a TV show in which players gain money).
Не давись, открой новую.
Don’t squeeze-sja, open a new one. (Parcel; the addressee is
trying to squeeze the dregs of sour cream off an almost empty
pack).
68
Detour: depatientive reflexive verbs in (colloquial) Russian
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)
Stage:
early
middle
late
Path1
reflexive
autocausative,
anticausative
passive
Path2
reflexive
reflexivepossessive
depatientive
(“antipassive”)
Salience
Salient
less salient
still less salient
Token frequency
moderate
high
moderate
Productivity
limited
high
very high
70
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
The derivational approach to classification of verbs (see
e.g. above) is well established in current studies and
needn’t be advocated as such.
What about the “semantic” (logical, cognitive, nonderivational…) approach to reflexive verbs? Is it simply
outdated and useless?
71
Outline of the talk
o Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
o Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
o Frequency
o Detour: depatientive sja-verb in (colloquial) Russian
o Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
o Summary
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
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
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
1) The very ratio of irreversible verbs is very high:
token frequency
74
type frequency
N (NRC)
%
N [Зализняк]
%
Irreversible
5219
52%
2254
29%
Partially reversible
369
4%
Reversible
4412
44%
5411
71%
Total
10000
7665
Although irreversible verbs play relatively minor role
in most descriptions, it is hard to believe that half of–ся
uses are just a heap of unstructured lexical garbage.
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
2) Partially irreversible verbs
E.g. many verbs that are very similar to regular
autocausatives, but have various idiosyncratic semantic
nuances, that is, are not entirely compositional:
More compositional
подняться ‘go up, ascend’, наклониться ‘bend, stoop’
отправляться ‘leave, depart’
кинуться, броситься ‘rush’
рваться (в бой) ‘strive’
Less compositional
75
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
3) Speech errors:
Этот вид спорта сильно эволюционировался.
Correct: эволюционировал.
The likeliest explanation: “non-proportional analogy”.
Other verbs with similar meanings typically are reflexive
verbs, cf. изменяться, развиваться.
The speakers must have established a direct link between
the meaning of the verb and the meaning of –ся.
76
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
Она там не совсем потухлась (‘go out’; cigarette).
Да она уже протухлась совсем (‘become rotten’;
sausage).
Чай уже остылся. (‘cool (down)’)
(and other similar errors in child language [Цейтлин 1978: 178]).
 change-of-state verbs that happened to be nonreflexives in Standard language.
Отношение к рекламе коррелируется с полом.
 Correct: коррелирует (correlate). A semantically and
syntactically reciprocal (symmetrical) verb that happened to be
77 non-reflexive, unlike соотноситься, связываться.
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
4) Historical changes
Verbs from several semantic groups tend to become
reflexive (data from [Булаховский 1954]):
XIX century
modern language
виднеть
 виднеться ‘be visible’
помолвить (на ком-то)  помолвиться (с кем-то)
‘affiance’
прислушивать
 прислушиваться
‘listen carefully to sth’
совещать
 совещаться (‘consult’)
78
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
5) Potentially productive productive irreversible micro-classes
 E.g.: evaluative verbs that denote types of behaviour
associated with (too) high self-esteem:
чваниться ‘swagger’, зазнаваться ‘be presumptuous’,
кичиться ‘put on airs’, похваляться ‘boast’, задаваться,
заноситься…
 These are all irreversible verbs!
 Is this just a coincidence that they are all reflexive? Unlikely.
79
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
6) Metalinguistic evidence
Many 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.
 бороться ‘struggle’ (*бороть) and познакомиться
(‘get acquainted’, cf. познакомить ‘introduce’) are
often listed among reciprocal verbs.
 I believe that in such cases speakers’ intuition overrides
linguistic precision.
80
Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
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: 126−129]:
«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
o Intro: approaches to classifying Russian reflexive verbs
o Derivational classes of Russian reflexive verbs
o Frequency
o Detour: depatientive sja-verb in (colloquial) Russian
o Back to the roots: product-oriented approach
o Summary
Summary
 There are two perspectives from which reflexive verbs can
be analyzed: “derivational” and “semantic”
 The 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
Summary
 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!
85
References
АГ-80 – Русская грамматика. Под ред. Н. Ю. Шведовой. М.: АН СССР. 1980.
Генюшене Э.Ш. 1983. Рефлексивные глаголы в балтийских языках и типология рефлексивов. Вильнюс: Вильнюсский
университет.
Гото К. В., Сай С. С. 2009. Частотные характеристики классов русских рефлексивных глаголов // К. Л. Киселева,
В. А. Плунгян, Е. В. Рахилина, С. Г. Татевосов (ред.). Корпусные исследования по русской грамматике. М.: Пробел-2000,
2009. 184–223.
Зализняк А.А. Грамматический словарь русского языка. Словоизменение. М.: Русский язык, 1977.
Исаченко А.В. Грамматический строй русского языка в сопоставлении с словацким. Морфология. Часть вторая (Первое
издание: Братислава, 1960). Москва: Языки славянской культуры, 2003.
Князев Ю.П. 2007. Грамматическая семантика. Русский язык в типологической перспективе. М.: Языки славянских
культур.
Королев Э.И. 1968. Количественные характеристики смысловых классов возвратных глаголов. [Неопубликованная
рукопись].
Норман Б.Ю. Возвратные глаголы-неологизмы в русском языке и синтаксические предпосылки их образования // 40
лет Санкт-Петербургской типологической школе. Ред. В.С. Храковский, А.Л. Мальчуков, С.Ю. Дмитренко. М.: Знак, 2004.
С. 394-406.
Перцов Н. В. 2003. Возвратные страдательные формы русского глагола в связи с проблемой существования морфологии
// Вопросы языкознания, 2003, № 4. С. 43-71.
Пешковский А.М. 1956/2001. Русский синтаксис в научном освещении (Репринт 7-го издания, М., 1956). М.: Языки
славянской культуры.
Сай, С. C. 2007. Прагматически обусловленные возвратные конструкции «опущенного объекта» в русском языке //
Вопросы языкознания, 2. 75–91.
Сай С. С. 2010. Два подхода к семантике русских рефлексивных глаголов // В. Ф. Выдрин, С. Ю. Дмитренко, Н. М. Заика,
С. С. Сай, Н. Р. Сумбатова, В. С. Храковский (ред.). Проблемы грамматики и типологии. Сб. статей памяти В. П. Недялкова
(1928 — 2009). М.: Знак. 303–318.
Храковский В.С. 1991. Пассивные конструкции // Теория функциональной грамматики. Персональность. Залоговость.
Ред. А.В. Бондарко. СПб. Наука. С. 141-180.
86
86
References
Шелякин М.А. Русские возвратные глаголы в общей системе отношений залоговости // Теория функциональной
грамматики. Персональность. Залоговость. Ред. А.В. Бондарко СПб.: Наука, 1991. С. 312-326.
Янко-Триницкая Н.А. 1962. Возвратные глаголы в современном русском языке. М.: Наука, 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. T Endresen (eds.). A Cognitive approach to the verb. Morphological and constructional perspectives. De
Gruyter Mouton. 223-242.
Geniušienė 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: Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky,
Oskar E. Pfeiffer & Franz Rainer (eds). Morphology and its demarcations. [= Current issues in linguistic theory, 264]. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2005. 253–275.
Say, Sergey. 2005b. The pragmatic motivation of antipassive in Russian. In: Piotr Cap (ed.). Pragmatics today. [= Łódź Studies in
Language, 12]. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 2005. 421–440.
87