Macedonian se constructions and their equivalents in english
-
Upload
croslinguistic -
Category
Education
-
view
642 -
download
8
description
Transcript of Macedonian se constructions and their equivalents in english
1
Macedonian se-constructions and their equivalents in English:
A Cognitive Study, Skopje: Makedonska reč, 2011 (Summary in English)
Liljana Mitkovska
FON University, Skopje
1. Introduction
The aim of this study is to investigate the structure and functions of the
Macedonian constructions with the grammatical element se of reflexive origin and
establishing their equivalent constructions in the English language. The main goal
is to show that the functions expressed by these se-constructions in Macedonian
represent semantically connected contexts rather than a random sum of meanings
that have accidentally acquired the same form. This assumption is based on the
hypothesis that the common form indicates semantic relation: a structure may be
extended from one function to another if those two functions are semantically
related, i.e., share certain semantic features. Even though some of them are of
morpho-syntactic or syntactic and some of lexical-syntactic nature, all identified
classes of constructions are semantically related and together make up a complex
conceptual network. Heine‟s (1992:349) suggestion for continuous linguistic
structures, called grammaticalization chain, was adopted as the most appropriate
model for the organization of this network (Figure 1). It is based on the principle of
family resemblances, so that each class is characterized by a number of features
and could be considered as a separate phase on a semantic continuum. However,
each phase shares some features with the neighbouring phases. The more remote
the phases are from each other, the fewer common characteristics they have.
Figure 1. Grammaticalization chain (Heine 1992:349)
The study is organised as follows: chapter one, Introduction, consists of an
exposition of the theoretical background and the previous studies on reflexive
constructions in Macedonian and other Slavic and non-Slavic languages; chapter
two gives an extensive analysis of the classes of the Macedonian se-constructions
on syntactic, semantic and referential level with special emphasis on the relations
between their internal members and the links with the neighbouring phases on the
continuum; chapter three discusses the structures that are used to express the same
situations in English. They were identified in the compiled translation equivalents
from Macedonian and the most common correspondents to each class were
established; since English deals with the relevant semantic field in a very different
1. 2 3 4
2
way, some typologically relevant conclusions can be drawn from this analysis,
which are presented at the end of this chapter and in chapter four. Here we present
a brief summary of the basic findings.
2. Types of situations expressed with se-constructions in Macedonian
Тhe separate classes of the Macedonian se-constructions represent different
phases of the process of grammaticalization of the reflexive pronoun: from an
independent lexical item (in direct reflexive constructions) to a grammatical marker
(in the reflexive passive constructions). They represent various types of diathesis,
differentiated according to the semantic role of the subject referent. The four types
of situations they express (two types of reflexive situations, autonomous situations
and agent defocusing situations) can be graphically represented as positioned on
two intersected axes: on the vertical axis is the continuum between the transitive
and intransitive situations, and on the horizontal axis the continuum between active
and passive situations, as shown in Figure 2 below. The classes themselves are not
unified structures, but are built on the prototype principle with some members
exhibiting more central features than others. Following the proponents of Cognitive
Grammar (Lakoff 1987, Johnson 1987, Langacker 1991, Kemmer 1993, Janda
2000, among others), the relations between the members are explained by
metaphorical and other cognitive mechanisms of meaning extension.
Figure 2. The Continuum of the Macedonian se-constructions
ACTIVE
TRANSITIVE
DIRECT –
REFLEXIVE
PROTOTYPICAL RECIPROCAL
NATURAL
RECIPROCAL
A
C T
I
O N
A
L
P
O
S S
Е
S S
I
VE
A
U T
O
C A
U
S A
T
I V
E
MODAL IO
CAUSATIVE-REF.
PASSIVE
EMOTIONS
RESULTATIVE PREUDO-PASSIVE
DECAUSATIVE
P
A
S
S
I
V
E
REMOTE CAUSATION APSOLUTIVE
INTRANSITIVE
ACTIVE
3
2.1. Reflexive situations
Reflexive situations encode events which require two participants with
different semantic roles, but they involve only one referent. The entity causing the
event (Initiator) is at the same time the entity which suffers the consequences of
this event (Endpoint). Depending on the degree of differentiation of the two roles
of the participant, we can distinguish two types of constructions: direct reflexive
and subject reflexive.1 The two constructions exhibit separate semantic, pragmatic
and syntactic features. Their differentiation is based on the degree of
distinguishability of participants, due to the „relative elaboration of events‟
(Kemmer 1993:71-73; 1994:206-212). In direct reflexive constructions the two
participants are maximally distinguished and as a result the participant is viewed as
doubled. The agent acts upon her/himself in the same way as s/he would act upon
some other entity. This property determines the basic functions of these
constructions: for expressing emphasis and/or contrast (example 1 and 2).
(1) Kirkov se vide i sebesi vo ogledaloto. (JBSA:212)
„Kirkov also saw himself in the mirror.‟
(2) Vas ve unesreќiv, a sebe ne se usreќiv. (VIMS:264)
„I made you unhappy, and did not make myself any happier.‟
These semantic characteristics are reflected in the syntactic structure. The direct
reflexive construction builds a transitive sentence with the reflexive pronoun
sebe(si) se taking the position of the DO. Even if the long form is omitted in some
contexts, it can always be recovered. Consequently, even though this construction
codes situations with a single referent it is semantically transitive and syntactically
represented as a two-argument structure.
Subject reflexive constructions comprise several different types. They all show
lower degree of distinguishability of participants. The subject referent has an
active role in the event, but this is also the case with the entity which suffers the
effects of the event. In contrast to direct reflexive constructions, these two aspects
of the initial participant are not clearly differentiated but merge in one complex
semantic role. The degree of differentiation varies depending on the lexical
meaning of the verb and the nature of the participant.
The central types of constructions, involving an intentional volitional participant,
are located at the active pole. They comprise „autocausal‟ constructions expressing
body actions such as grooming (se kape „bathe‟, se šminka „make up‟,), change in
body posture (se pokloni „bow‟, se navedne „bend down‟, se svrti „turn round‟),
translational motion (se pomesti „move‟, se kači „climb‟); „actional‟ constructions
comprising various typically human activities (se preprava „pretend‟, se odnesuva
„behave‟, se gotvi „prepare‟, se prijavi „register‟) as well as emotional speech acts
(se izvini „excuse oneself‟, se moli „pray‟, se zakani „threaten‟) and the so called
„possessive‟ constructions in which the verb incorporates the part of the body
1 The term „direct reflexive‟ is from Kemmer (1988, 1993). It is used for the central reflexive
constructions with coreferential subject and direct object. The term „subject reflexive‟ is from
Geniusiene (1987), who uses it for verbs which belong to the transitive class, but when used
intransitively keep the subject of the transitive counterpart in the subject position.
4
involved (se mie „wash one‟s face‟, se obližuva „lick one‟s lips‟). Constructions
expressing events in which the participant loses some of its agentive properties
(intentionality in the first place) lean towards the passive pole. There are two main
types: non-intentional human activities called „resultative‟ (se sopne „stumble‟, se
zakači „get caught‟) and emotional reactions (se vozbudi „get excited‟, se iznenadi
„get surprised‟, se raduva „rejoice‟). The reflective causative constructions represent
a marginal sub-type (se potšišuva na berber „have one‟s hair cut at the barber‟s).
According to Kemmer (1993, 1994), the type of constructions we call subject
reflexive represent the central middle domain.
The two constructions used for coding reflexive situations in Macedonian,
direct reflexive and subject reflexive, although related, express two different types
of situations that exhibit different pragmatic, semantic and syntactic properties.
Both involve only one participant with two semantic roles, but while in the direct
reflexive construction they are represented by two syntactic arguments, the subject
reflexive construction is syntactically intransitive. The reflexive pronoun is
reduced to a verbal marker signalling the complex role of the referent in the
subject position, (i.e., it is both the initiator and the end point), but the second
participant is not individualised and has no syntactic representation. Only the clitic
form of the reflexive pronoun is part of this construction, while adding the long
form sebe(si) typically results in ungrammaticality (example 3) or semantic
change of the verb (example 4).
(3) – Ne se prekrstivme (*sebe), - bez zdiv rеčе Šišman. (MJB:339)
„We didn‟t cross ourselves Shishman said breathlessly.‟ (MJC:114)
(4) а. Toj poveќе се zanimavaše sebe otkolku decata.
„He entertained himself more than the children.‟
б. Taa se zanimava so intelektualna rabota.
„She is engaged in intellectual activities.‟
2.2. Reciprocal situations
Reciprocal situations involve typically two (and sometimes more) participants
which are in symmetrical relation to one another, “the relation A stands to B is the
same as that in which B stands to A” (Lichtenberk 1985:21). The reciprocal
domain is also complex and exhibits properties parallel to the reflexive domain,
which explains their formal affinity in many languages. An important
distinguishing factor between the prototypical reciprocal situations (se mrazat
megju sebe „they hate each other‟, se kolnat edni so drugi „they curse each other‟)
and the natural ones (se razdelija „they parted‟, se dogovorija „they agreed‟) is the
complexity of the subject referent role and the degree of elaboration of events
(Kemmer 1988:147). In the prototypical reciprocal events the role of each
participant is individualised and they “are temporally indifferent” (ibid.:148),
which is matched on syntactic level with a heavy marker (the reflexive clitic plus
eden so drug/megju sebe). The natural reciprocal situation, on the other hand, is
marked with the reflexive clitic se and it “is strongly associated with simultaneity”
(ibid.).
5
2.3. Autonomous situations
Object reflexive construction2 are used for coding autonomous situations, which
represent the final phase of the event, irrespective of whether it occurs
spontaneously or is caused by some outside causer. The clitic pronoun se does not
take up a syntactic position but is rather a part of the verb lexeme. As a result, the
construction is formally an intransitive structure. As in the previous class, there are
central and peripheral constructions connecting this domain with the active pole on
one hand and with the passive on the other.
Decausative constructions encode events involving one participant, the referent
of which is the main target (example 5 and 6). However, this participant is not
presented as a passive undergoer, but retains some agentive properties which
contributes to its conceptualisation as an active subject. Those events are mainly
physical processes: they could not be caused intentionally, neither could they be
prevented. The participant is actively involved in the occurrence of the event and
the focus of attention is what happens to it.
(5) I Vilant reče, se istrošija bateriite. (MR:150)
‟But Villant said, the batteries were dead.‟ (MSS:129)
(6) Moţebi vrnelo. Se pomestila nekoja keramida i ... (PM:293)
„Maybe it has rained. A roof tile has moved and …‟
Some spontaneous change of place or position (as well as condition) of the non-
potent referent could be presented as set off by this very participant (Topkata sama
od sebe se strkala nadolu. ‟The ball rolled down by itself‟. Jas ne go rasipav aparatot,
sam si se rasipa. „I did not break the camera, it broke by itself.‟). We consider these
and similar meanings as an indication of the metaphorical transfer from subject
reflexive constructions involving a human participant, to decausative where the
participant is typically non-human. The metaphor has gradually become usual,
hence decausative constructions can be used for types of events remote from the
reflexive ones. Generally, the spontaneity of the event is only a way of
representation, while in reality there can always be imagined some potential distant
causer. It can be more strongly felt in some situations so that those constructions
incline towards passive sentences, i.e., sentences in which the initiator is clearly
implied and present both on the referential and on the semantic level. We often
encounter constructions that are ambiguous out of context. For example, the
sentences in (7) can be equally well interpreted as happening spontaneously or
initiated by some generalized human agent.
(7) Cenite se krevaat. Vesta se proširi brzo.
„Prices rose/were raised.‟ „The news spread/was spread quickly.‟
In the transfer zone between object and passive reflexive constructions we find a
range of constructions (pseudo-passive se-constructions) in which the initiator is
implied to a certain degree and the subject referent loses its active role properties
because the events they code require human involvement. These implications
2 This term is from Geniusiene 1987, who uses it for verbs which belong to the transitive class, but
when used intransitively the transitive object takes the subject position.
6
combine with the verbal aspect and result in various types of modal interpretations:
potential (example 8), normative (9), subjective (10), volitional (11) 3
.
(8) ... zloto ne se kornit lesno od čoveka. (ŢČB:81)
„… evil cannot be rooted out easily out of men.‟
(9) Vaka li se čistat ališta, glupava Anastasijo? (VIČT:177)
„Is this how you clean clothes, you silly Anastasia?!‟
(10) Ona tamu beše kamen, no sega mu se gleda kako zalegnat vojnik. (MJZT:35)
„That thing over there was a boulder, but now it seemed to him as a lying soldier.‟
(11) Ottuka na starcite ne im se davaše čedoto, ... (ŢČB:112)
„Thus the old people did not feel like giving away their daughter.‟
2.4. Agent defocusing situations
Macedonian se-constructions are also used for expressing situations which are
perceived as agent initiated, but the agent, having no important role, does not occur
in the syntactic structure. It is nevertheless present on the semantic level, i.e., it is
implied as an unidentified or generalised human agent. We consider these
constructions to be a logical extension of those expressing autonomous events.
There is only small difference between situations where the causer is totally
abstracted and those where it is generalized. Moreover, as pointed out above, the
degree of abstraction of the causer varies depending on the type of the coded event
and other circumstances. When the se-construction is used with a verb for an
activity that requires an agent, then it is implied in a general sense and the
construction is re-analysed.
We claim that the se-constructions expressing agent defocusing situations can
rightfully be classified as passive se-constructions because the core representatives
correspond to the passive prototype properties proposed by Shibatani (1985:837).
Actually, two thirds of the passive se-constructions have the position of the subject
filled by the thematic argument (example 12), but there are also subjectless
constructions (example 13), if the base verb is intransitive or has a clausal or
prepositional complement. The latter are less prototypical passive constructions,
but they share the agent defocusing function with the prototypical passives.
(12) Na razni strani se izvikuvaa razni komandi... (MJB:259)
„Different commands were cried out on all sides...‟ (MSS:203)
(13) ..., isto taka pretočno se znaeše koj na koe sedište sedi ... (MJCA:392)
„... it was also determined who sits where in the official red bus.‟ (MJFM:74)
Both constructions share the characteristic of agent demotion and thus placing the
event itself in the focus rather than the undergoer or the effects of the activity.
There is a possibility of expressing the agent in an agentive adjunct phrase (Toa se
osuduva od site. „That is criticized by everyone.), but it is rarely encountered.4
3 In the last two examples the dative object has a key role in the interpretation of the
construction. 4 See Митковска 1997.
7
The marker se is of fundamentally different character in these constructions.
Unlike in the subject and object reflexive constructions, where it signals some kind
of departure from the typical predicate-argument structure of the verb base, here it
signals the rearrangement of arguments along the syntactic positions.
3. Equivalents of the Macedonian se-constructions in English
There is no single structure in English which figures as the main equivalent to
all Macedonian se-constructions, but rather a range of constructions perform these
functions. However, there is a significant pattern which supports our hypothesis
about the continuum. Namely, for each type of situations the core structures are
repeated, though with different frequency and for each situation type one dominant
structure can be isolated.
Constructions with „verb + reflexive pronoun (myself, yourself, etc.)‟ are the
only equivalents for the direct reflexive construction (example 14), but central
subject reflexives are rendered with three constructions mainly: the reflexive
construction (example 15); implicit reflexive, with omitted DO (example 16); or a
new intransitive lexeme (example 17). The so called possessive constructions are
transitive in English, because they express the involved body part explicitly: se
preobleče „changed his clothes‟.
(14) Ti se gledaš sebesi kako sediš vo zamok,... (PM:243)
„You see yourself sitting in a castle,...‟ (PM:242)
(15) Muzikata e prijatna. Sakam da i se predadam kako što umeev nekogaš. (MR:237)
„I want to abandon myself to the sound as I used to do.‟ (MSS:213)
(16) Kako što izleze taka se protegna zagleduvajќi se vo sončevinata … (MJB:239)
„As he walked, he stretched and gazed at the sunshine...‟ (MJC:56)
(17) Se preprava deka ne go sluša. (PM:125)
„He pretended not to have heard him.‟ (PM:124)
The implicit reflexive construction is the predominant equivalent in this class
of se-constructions; it is especially common with verbs of non-translational body
motions (example 16). Situations leaning towards the transitive pole are often
translated with the reflexive construction in English, even if they are undoubtedly
subject (not direct) reflexive constructions in Macedonian (cf. example 3 above).
Those approaching the intransitive pole, on the other hand, tend to be expressed
with intransitive verbs which have no transitive counterpart in English (example
17). The three English constructions express different degrees of distinguishability
of the two participants in the situation, that is, different degrees of elaboration of
events. In Macedonian they are all covered by „se + verb‟ construction.
Peripheral subject reflexive constructions (resultative and emotional
reactions) have a different range of equivalents in English, which corresponds to
their function to express unintentional events. The implicit reflexive and the
intransitive construction are also present, but the significant occurrence of the
pseudo-passive get- and be-constructions and the passive ones demonstrates the
inclination of these constructions towards the passive pole. Such equivalents are
8
indicative of the intermediate position of these constructions between the subject
and the object reflexives.
The most common equivalent of the Macedonian se-constructions for
autonomous events seems to be the so called „ergative‟ construction (with a zero
marker) (example 18). Its functional zone correlates closely with that of the
Macedonian decausative se-construction. However, the other equivalents suggest
that the Macedonian construction has a wider scope. Namely, among the
equivalents we also find two types of forms: active intransitive verbs (around 20%),
which imply that it is positioned closer to the intransitive pole and passive
constructions (8% of pseudo-passive get- constructions and 9% of passive be-
constructions), which prove their affinity to the passive pole.
(18) Naednaš popušta dzidot. Se otvora samo trojčka, ... i dovolno. (PM:135)
„Suddenly the wall cracks. It opens just a tiny bit, but enough...‟ (PM:134)
The English reflexive construction does not have a significant role in this type of
constructions, since it strongly suggests an activity of an agent upon him/herself.
Nevertheless, it may also occur in situations where the referent of the subject is
inanimate. Frequently, this subject is personified (example 19), but the metaphor
may also be weakened and then the reflexive pronoun signals the autonomous
nature of the event (example 20).
(19) The words would not form themselves, his voice would not issue forth,... (H.H.:14)
„Zborovite nikako da se oformat, glasot odbivaše da izleze ...‟
(20) History seems to be repeating itself. (Longman, 1978:937)
„Istorijata izgleda deka se povtoruva.‟
The different types of equivalents in English prove the different degrees of
grammaticalisation of the se-constructions and reveal how the decausative senses
(autonomous events) are linked to the reflexive senses (events without an outside
causer). On the other hand, we consider the passive equivalents especially
significant, as they prove the affinity between decausative and passive situations.
The equivalents of the pleudo-passive se-constructions are typically
intermediate between active and passive constructions. Those which are closer to
the decausatives (with potential modal meaning) are partly equivalent to the
English construction known as „middle‟, its form being identical with the ergative
construction, the main English decausative strategy (example 21). Those which are
closer to passive usually correspond to passive constructions, with explicit modal
meanings (example 22).
(21) The floor paints easily. (Kejzer & Roper 1984:383) „Podot se bojadisuva lesno.‟
(22) Laţeš! Na policijata ì se kaţuva sè. (PМ:127)
„You are lying! The police must be told everything.‟ (PM:126)
Macedonian passive se-constructions are not always translated by the passive
construction in English. Among the equivalents of those which have a verb marked for
person, 43% of the equivalents are passive and approximately the same percentage
falls to active constructions of two types: with generalized human subject (one, man,
9
they) or with the subject whose referent is evoked from the context of the
Macedonian sentence (example 23).
(23) - Drugar, - se ču glasot na čovekot vo sina obleka. (MJČSO:400)
“Fellow,” they heard the voice of the man in the blue suit, ... (MJFM:3)
The subjectless passive reflexive constructions rarely have passive equivalents in
English. They are most often translated as active constructions with a generalised (one,
you, people) or indefinite (someone, they) agent in subject position. These types of
equivalents indicate that the passive se-construction is different from the English
passive be-construction.
To sum up, it is important to point out that as equivalents of the Macedonian
se-constructions in the medial domain (subject and object se-constructions) we
mainly encounter three English constructions: the construction in which the change in
the predicate-argument structure of the verb has no overt marking (implicit reflexive,
ergative and middle); the pseudo-passive constructions with the resultative copula get,
become, etc. or the stative copula be, seem etc.; and intransitive verb, a new lexeme
which is not related to a transitive verb.
3. Concluding remarks
The structure of the English equivalents of the Macedonian se-constructions
offers some insights into the nature of the Mac se-constructions. The fact that the
same functions (subject-reflexive, decausative and potential) are coded in English
with a construction with identical structure indicates the semantic affinity of these
three types of situations. Therefore, their formal expression with the same type of
construction in Macedonian is not unmotivated. The intransitive equivalents,
however, confirm the fact that the Macedonian se-constructions have extended
their zone towards the intransitive pole. On the other hand, the relation between
passive and medial strategies indicates similarity between these two domains,
pronounced at the overlapping points. Consequently, the spread of the Macedonian
se-constructions in the passive domain could be conceived as a natural extension of
the construction from the autonomous domain.
4. References
4.1. Sources in Cyrillic alphabet
Генюшене, Э. Ш. 1981. „К теории описания рефлексивных глаголов (на материале
литовского яазыка)” Во Храковский: 160-184.
Главса, З. 1978. „Некоторые замечания о рефлексивности” Во Храковский: 152-155.
Гуржанов, Гоце. 1988. „Безличните реченици во македонскиот јазик” Македонистика
5: 3-69.
Долинина, И. Б. 1978. „Рефлексив и средний залог в системе английских залогов и
проблема гиперлексемы” Во Храковский: 162-171.
10
Долинина, И. Б. 1981. „Пассивные диатезы английских глагольных лексем” Во
Храковский: 46-81.
Ивић, Милка. 1961/62. „Један проблем словенске синтагматике осветљен
трансформационим методом” Јужнословенски Филолог: 137-147.
Илиевски, Петар Хр. 1988. „Проклиза на рефлексивот се во македонскиот и во
несловенските балкански јазици” Во Балканолошки лингвистички студии.
Скопје: Институт за македонски јазик „Крсте Мисирков”, 183-190.
Козинцева, Н А. 1981. „Рефлексивные глаголы в армянском языыке” Во Храковский,
81-98.
Конески, Блаже. 1987. Граматика на македонскиот литературен јазик. Скопје:
Култура, 360-363.
Корубин, Благоја. Ред. 1979. Синтаксичко-генеративен речник на македонските
глаголи (пробна свеска). Скопје: Институт за македонски јазик „Крсте
Мисирков”.
Корубин, Благоја. 1990. На македонскограматички теми. Скопје: Институт за
македонски јазик „Крсте Мисирков”, 117-350.
Корубин, Благоја. Ред. 1992. Интенцијално синтаксички речник на македонските
глаголи, том I, А - Ж. Скопје: Институт за македонски јазик „Крсте Мисирков”.
Минова-Ѓуркова, Лилјана. 1994. Синтакса на македонскиот стандарден јазик.
Скопје: Радинг.
Митковска, Лилјана. 1993. „Кон рефлексивноста во македонскиот и во англискиот
јазик” Во Прв научен собир на млади македонисти. Скопје: Универзитет „Св.
Кирил и Методиј”, 223-234.
Митковска, Лилјана. 1995. „За псевдо-пасивните конструкции со се во македонскиот
јазик“. Во Минова-Ѓуркова, Л., С. Велева и Н. Вујадиновиќ (Ред.) Втор научен
собир на млади македонисти, Скопје: Филолошки факултет „Блаже Конески“, 31-38.
Митковска, Лилјана. 1997. „Конструкции со предлогот од и агенсниот предлошки
објект во македонскиот јазик“, во Цветковски, Ж. и др. (ред.), Трет научен собир
на млади македонисти, Скопје: Филолошки факултет „Блаже Конески“, 19-30.
Митковска, Лилјана. 2001. „Глаголските се-конструкции како семантичка
категорија“ во Велковска, Снежана (Ред.)) Зборник на трудови од собирот
Македонскиот глагол – синхронија и дијахронија, Скопје: Институт за
македонски јазик „Крсте Мисирков“, Скопје: 61-72.
Митковска, Лилјана и Елени Бужаровска (во печат) „Псевдо-пасивните рефлексивни
конструкции во македонскиот јазик од типолошка перспектива“. Во Прилози,
Скопје: МАНУ. (том посветен на З. Тополињска)
Недялков, В. П. 1978. „Заметки по типологии рефлексивных деагентивных
конструкций” Во Храковский: 28-37.
Норман, Б. Ю. 1972. Переходность, залог, возвратность. Минск: Издательство БГУ.
Спасов, Људмил. 1981. Преодноста на глаголите во македонскиот јазик. Докторска
дисертација. Скопје: Универзитет „Кирил и Методиј”, Филолошки факултет.
Спасов, Људмил. 1993. „Македонските се пасивни конструкции и нивните
еквиваленти во полскиот, српскиот/хрватскиот, рускиот и словенечкиот јазик”
Во Реферати на македонските слависти за XI меѓународен славистички
конгрес во Братислава. Скопје: МАНУ, 107-116.
11
Усикова, Рина. 1984. „Семантика на глаголските формации со повратниот елемент се
во македонскиот литературен јазик” Македонски јазик, 35: 147-158.
Храковский, В.С., Ред. 1978. Проблемы теории грамматического залога. Ленинград:
Наука.
Храковский, В. С. 1978. „Залог и рефлексив” Во Храковский: 50-60.
Храковский, В. С. Ред. 1981. Залоговые конструкции в разноструктурных языках.
Ленинград: Наука.
Храковский, В. С. 1981. „Диатеза и реферeнтность (К вопросу о соотношении
активных, пассивных, рефлексивных и реципрочных конструкций)” Во
Храковский: 5-38.
Цветковски, Владимир. 1983. „Омонимијата на се во двојазичната лексикографија”
Литературен збор ХХХ/6, 29-33.
Чашуле, Илија. 1989. Синтакса на македонската глаголска именка. Скопје: НИО
„Студентски збор”, 257-159.
4.2. Sources in Latin alphabet
Andersen, Paul Kent. 1991. A New Look at the Passive. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter
Lang.
Arce-Arenales, Manuel, Melissa Axelrod and Barbara A. Fox. 1994. “Active Voice and
Middle Diathesis: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective” In Fox. B. and P. J. Hopper:1-22.
Babby, H.L. 1975. “A Transformational Analysis of Transitive -sja Verbs in Russian”
Lingua 35: 297-332.
Babcock, Sandra S. 1970. The Syntax of Spanish Reflexive Verbs. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts. 1989. “Passive Argument Raised” Linguistic
Inquiry, Vol. 20, No 2:219-251.
Bakker, Egbert. 1994. “Voice, Aspect and Actionsart: Middle and Passive in Ancient
Greek” In Fox. B. and P. J. Hopper: 23-48.
Barber, E .J.W. 1975. “Voice Beyond the Passive” BSL 1: 16-24.
Baron, N. S. 1974. “The Structure of English Causatives” Lingua, Vol. 53, No 4: 317-334.
Benvinist, E. 1975. “Aktivni i srednji oblik kod glagola” In Problemi Opšte Lingvistike.
Beograd: Nolit, 135-142.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan,.
1999. Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.
Brecht, Richard D. and James S. Levin. 1985. “Conditions on Voice in Russian” In Flier
and Brecht: 118-137.
Brus, Ineke. 1992. “Towards a Typology of Voice” In Keffer et al.: 45-76.
Bursten, J. L. 1979. “The Pronominal Verb Constructions in French” Lingua 48: 147-176.
Chappell, Hilary. 1980. “Is the Get-Passive Adversative?” Papers in Linguistics:
International Journal of Human Communication, Vol. 13, No 3: 411-451.
Collins, Peter C. 1996. “Get-passives in English” World Englishes 15: 43-56.
Croft, William, Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkroft and Suzanne Kemmer. 1987. “Diachronic
Semantic Processes in the Middle Voice” In Giacalone R. A., O. Carruba and G.
12
Bernini. (eds.) Papers from the international conference on historical linguistics.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 179-192.
Croft, William. 1990. Typology of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William. 1994. “Voice: Beyond Control and Affectedness” In Fox B. and P. J.
Hopper : 89-118.
Davidse, K. & L. Heyvaert. 2007. “On the middle voice: an analysis of the English
middle” Linguistics 45-1, 37-83.
Dik, Simon. 1993. “On the Status of Verbal Reflexives” Communication & Cognition,
Vol.16, No 1/2: 39-63.
Dowty, David. 1991. “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection” Language, Vol. 67,
No 3: 547-618.
Fagan, Sara. 1992. The Syntax of Middle Constructions: a Study with Special Reference to
German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York/ London:
Garland Publishing, Inc.
Fellbaum, Christiane and Anne Zribi-Hertz. 1989. The Middle Constructions in French and
English: A Comparative Study of Its Syntax and Semantics. Bloomington: Indiana
University Linguistic Publications.
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1989. “On the „Reflexive Middle‟ in English” CLS, Vol.25, No 1: 123-
132.
Fleisher, Nickolas. 2006. “The origin of passive get” English Language and Linguistics 10:
225-252.
Flier, Michael S. and Richard D. Brecht (eds). 1985. Issues in Russian Morphosyntax.
UCLA Slavica Studies. Vol.10. Columbus: Slavica.
Foley, William A. and R. D. Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal
Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper. (eds.) 1994. Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fried, Mirjam. 1990. “Reflexives as Grammatical Constructions: A Case Study in Czech”
BLS 16: 127-139.
Garcia, Erika. 1977. “On the Practical Consequences of Theoretical Principles” Lingua 43:
129-170.
Geniusiene, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1986. “-SJA and SEBJA” Dutch Studies in Russian Linguistics. Studies
in Slavic and General Linguistics 9, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 87-113.
Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1988. "How Passive is Passive -sja." Dutch Contributions to the Tenth
International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, Linguistics. Studies in Slavic and General
Linguistics 11, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 97-179.
Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1990. Russian Reflexive Verbs: In Search of Unity in Diversity. Studies
in Slavic and General Linguistics, vol 15. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Givòn, Talmy and Lynne Yung. 1994. “The Rise of the English GET – Passive” In Fox B.
and P. J. Hopper: 119-150.
Green, J. N. 1975. “Reflections on Spanish Reflexives” Lingua 35: 345-391.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1991. “The Last Stages of Grammatical Elements: Contractive and
Expansive Desemanticization” In Traugott, E.C. and B. Heine: 301-314.
13
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haiman, John. 1983. “Iconic and Economic Motivation” Language, Vol. 59, No 4: 781-819.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. “The Gramaticalization of Passive Morphology” Studies in
Language,14-1: 25-72.
Haspelmath, Martin (ed.). 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals, vol. 2: An
International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friderike Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A
Conceptual Framework. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Heine, Bernd. 1992. “Grammaticalization Chains” Studies in Language 16 (2): 335-368.
Hirschbuhler, Paul. 1988. “The Middle and the Pseudo-Middle in French” In Birdsong D.
and J. P. Montreui. eds. Advances in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 97-110.
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. “On Some Principles of Grammaticalization” In Traugott, E. C. and
B. Heine: 17-36.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse”
Language, Vol. 56, No 2:251-299
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hundt, Marianne. 2007. English mediopassive constructions: A cognitive, corpus-based
study of their origin, spread, and current status (Language & Computers 58).
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Janda, Laura. 2000. “Cognitive Linguistics”, SLING2K Workshop.
Jespersen, Otto. 1960. Essentials of English Grammar. (First edition 1933) London: G.
Alen and Unwin.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination,
and Reason. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Kanski, Zbigniew. 1986. Arbitrary Reference and Reflexivity: A Generative Study of the
Polish Pronoun sie and its English Equivalents. Katowice: Uniwersytet Slaski.
Kanski, Zbigniew. 1992. “Impersonal Constructions and Strategy for Second-Order
Predication” In Keffer et al.: 45-77.
Karlovčan, Vjekoslav. 1985. A Survey of English Grammar. Zagreb: Radničko i narodno
sveučiliste “Mosa Pijade”.
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001a. “The passive voice” In Haspelmath (ed.), 899-913.
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001b. “Verbal reflexives and the middle voice” In Haspelmath
(ed.), 913-927.
Keenan, Edward. 1984. “Passive in World‟s Languages” In Shopen: 243-281.
Keffer, Michael and Johan von der Auwera, (eds.) 1992. Meaning and Grammar: Cross
Linguistic Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1988. The Middle Voice: A Typological and Diachronic Study. Ph.D.
dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1994. “Middle Voice, Transitivity and Elaboration of Events. In Fox.
B. and P. J. Hopper:197-230.
Keyser, Samuel Jay and Thomas Roeper. 1984. “On the Middle and Ergative Constructions
in English” Linguistic Inquiry , Vol. 15, No 3: 381-417.
14
Klaiman, M. H. 1988. “Affectedness and Control: A Typology og Voice” In Shibatani
1988: 25-83.
Klaiman, M. H. 1991a. “Control and Grammar” Linguistics 29: 623-651.
Klaiman, M. H. 1991b. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klaiman, M. H. 1992. “Middle Verbs, Reflexive Middle Constructions and Middle Voice”
Studies in Language 16-1: 35-61.
Kučanda, Dubravko. 1987. “„True‟ Reflexives and Pseudo-reflexives with Particular
Reference to Serbo-Croatian” In Von der Auwera et al.: 77-92.
Lakoff, George. 1977. “Linguistic Gestalt” CLS 13: 236-287.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about
the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. and Pamela Munro. 1975. “Passives and Their Meaning” Language
51(4): 789-830.
Langacker, Roland W. 1988a. “A Usage - Based Model” In Rudzka-Ostyn: 127-161.
Langacker, Roland W. 1988b. “A View of Linguistic Semantics” In Rudzka-Ostyn: 49-90.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application.
Volume II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Roland W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. [Cognitive Linguistics
Research 14]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lees, R. B. and Edward S. Klima. 1963. “Rules for English Pronominalization”, Language
39 (1): 17-28.
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. “Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic
Change” In Lingua e Stile / a. XX, n. 3, luglio-settembre 1985: 303-318.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.
Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport. 1986. “The Formation of Adjectival Passive” Linguistic
Inquiry, Vol. 17. No 4: 623-661.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical
semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. “Multiple Uses of Reciprocal Constructions” Australian
Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 5: 19-41.
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Manney, Linda. 1990. “Mental Experience Verbs in Modern Greek: A Cognitive
Explanation of Active versus Middle Voice” BLS 16: 229-240.
Mitkovska, Liljana. 1994. “On se Constructions in Macedonian” In Fowler G. et. al (eds),
Indiana Slavic Studies, Vol. 7: 136-145.
Mitkovska, Liljana. 1998. “The SE Passive in Macedonian Compared to the Neighbouring
Slavic Languages” Studia Linguistica Polono-Meridianoslavica, Tom 9, Torun, 47-60.
Mitkovska, Liljana and Eleni Buzarovska. (in press) “An alternative analysis of the English
get-passive constructions: is get all that passive?” Journal of English Linguistics
15
Murgoski, Zoze. 1983. Pasivne konstrukcije u engleskom i makedonskom jeziku:
kontrastivna analiza. Magisterski rad. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu.
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1993. Syntax: Theory and Problems. New York, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ogura, Michiko. 1989. Verbs with Reflexive Pronoun and Constructions with ‘self’ in Old
and Middle English. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.
Parker, Frank. 1976. “Language Change and the Passive Voice” Language, Vol. 52, No 2,
449-460.
Quirk, Randolf, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Startvik. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Risselada, Rodie. 1987. “Voice in Antient Greek: Reflexives and Passives” In Van der
Auwera et al.:123-136.
Roberts, Ian. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. (ed.) 1988. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Schenker, Alexander M. 1986. “On the Rreflexive Verbs in Russian” International Journal
of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 33: 27-41.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. “Passives and Related Constructions: A Prototype Analysis”
Language 61 (4): 821-848.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. (ed.) 1988. Passive and Voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamin Publishing Company.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. “On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena” In
Linguistics 44-2, 217-269.
Shopen, Timothy, ed. 1984. Language Typology and Syntactic Description I. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive: A Comprehensive Linguistic Analysis. London:
Croom Helm.
Siewierska, Anna. 1988. “The Passive in Slavic” In Shibatani: 243-289.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I and II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard Konig. 1991. “The Semantics-Pragmatics of
Grammaticalization Revisited” In Traugott, E. C. and B. Heine: 189-218.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1988. “Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization” BLS 14:
406-416.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Bernd Heine. (eds.) 1991. Approaches to Gramaticalization,
Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Van Oosten, Jeanne. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive
Explanation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Publications.
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. “Synopsys of Role and Reference Grammar” In Van Valin:
1-163.
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., (ed.) 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar.
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Van Voorst, Jan. 1988. Event Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
16
Van der Auwera, Johan and Louis Goossens (eds.) 1987. Ins and Outs of Predication.
Dordrecht: Forris.
4.3. Sources of examples
4.3.1. Macedonian texts
Алексиев, Александар. (Уредник). 1976. Македонската драма меѓу двете светски
војни, I и II книга. Скопје: Македонска книга.
Бошковски, Јован, 1969. Избор. Скопје: Македонска книга.
1969. „Немиот скитник” Во Бошковски :19-23. (ЈБН)
1969. „Чапа” Во Бошковски: 24-27. (ЈБЧ)
1969. „Растрел” Во Бошковски: 28-41. (ЈБР)
1969. „Солунските атентатори” Во Бошковски: 173-289. (ЈБСА)
Бошковски, Петар. Уредник. 1972. Македонски раскази (антологија).
Скопје: Култура. (МР)
Иљоски, Васил. 1976. „Чорбаџи Теодос” Во Алексиев А., I книга. (ВИЧТ)
1986. Бегалка. Скопје: Наша книга. (ВИБ)
1989. Млади синови. Скопје: Мисла. (ВИМС)
Јаневски, Славко. 1969. Две Марии. Скопје: Наша книга. (СЈ2М)
Јовановски, Мето. 1985. Избор. Скопје: Македонска книга
1985. „Будалетинки” Во Јовановски: 243-348. (МЈБ)
1985. „Земја и тегоби” Во Јовановски: 9-240. (МЈЗ)
1985. „Човекот во сина облека” Во Јовановски : 398-403. (МЈЧСО)
1985. „Црвениот автобус” Во Јовановски: 391-397. (МЈЦА)
Конески, Блаже. 1975. Од историјата на јазикот на словенската писменост во
Македонија. Скопје: Македонска книга. (БКИ)
Костов, Владимир. 1969. Игра. Скопје: Мисла. (ВКИ)
Крле, Ристо. 1976. „Парите се отепувачка” Во Алексиев А., II книг: 9-90. (РКПО)
1976. „Антица” Во Алексиев А., II книга: 95-180. (РКА)
Петковски, Радослав. 1976. „Продадена” Во Алексиев А., II книга: 285-346. (РПП)
Цветановски, Саво. (Уредник) 1990. Антологија на македонскиот постмодернистички
расказ. Скопје: Наша книга. (ПМ)
Чинго, Живко. 1989. Бунило. Скопје: Мисла. (ЖЧБ)
Чашуле, Коле. 1980. Простум. Скопје: Култура и Македонска книга. (КЧП)
„Нова Македонија” (НМ) 6.11.92 / 27.06.93 / 21.07.93 / 22.07.93 / 23.07.93 / 26.07.93 /
10.08.94
„Вечер” (Вечер) 9.10.1992 / 10/11.07.94 / 17/18.07.94
„Пулс” (Пулс) 5.11.93.
„Блеф” (Блеф) број 1, 1993.
17
4.3.2. English texts
4.3.2.1. Translated from Macedonian
Cvetanovski, Savo. (ed.) 1990. Anthology of the Macedonian Postmodern Short Story.
Skopje: Nasa kniga. (PM)
Holton, Milne. (ed.) 1974. The Big Horse (And Other Stories of Modern Macedonia).
Columbia: University of Missouri Press. (MSS)
Jovanovski, Meto. 1987. Cousins. San Francisco: Mercury House, Incorporated. (MJC)
Jovanovski, Meto. 1992. Faceless Man and Other Stories. London/Boston: Forest Books.
(MJFM)
4.3.2.2. Original texts
Browning, Pamela. 1988. Harvest Home. Toronto: Harlequin Books. (HH)
Carter, Rosemary. 1979. Bush Doctor. Toronto: Harlequin Books. (BD)
Earley, Fran. 1986. Candidate for Murder. Toronto: Harlequin Books. (CM)
Lodge, David. 1988. Nice Work. London: Penguin. (NW)
O‟Brien, Edna. 1974. Country Girls. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. (CG)
Newsweek , Nov. 23, 1993 / Nov. 29, 1993 / Dec. 6, 1993 / Dec. 13, 1993 / Jan. 24, 1994 /
Feb. 7, 1994 March 7, 1994 / May 2, 1994 / May 9, 1994 / June 20, 1994
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.1980. Harlow/London: Longman.
Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus. 1990. New Lanark: Geddes and Grosset Ltd.
The Concise Macquarie Dictionary. 1982. Sydney: Macquarie University.