Reflexive Particle and Reflexive Pronoun in Russian

Canadian Slavonic Papers

Reflexive Particle and Reflexive Pronoun in RussianAuthor(s): GUNTER H. SCHAARSCHMIDTSource: Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring,1970), pp. 9-22Published by: Canadian Association of SlavistsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40866270 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 04:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Association of Slavists and Canadian Slavonic Papers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.47 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:00:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=canassocslav

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40866270?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Reflexive Particle and Reflexive Pronoun in Russian

GUNTER H. SCHAARSCHMIDT

More than fifty years ago, in 1914, the Russian linguist A. M. PeSkov- skij aptly characterized the strange status of the affix sja in Russian by pointing out the difficulties linguists encounter in their efforts to assign an appropriate term to it. After considering terms such as suffix and inflectional ending and rejecting them on various grounds, PeSkovskij comes to the conclusion that 'affiks ètot stoF iskljuèitelen, òto dlja nego daze i termina ne podberesY and that the most suitable term might be nadstavka ( piece put on ) -1

The term nadstavka has, unfortunately perhaps, not been adopted as a terminus technicus in the scientific literature on the subject. Most contemporary linguists use terms such as affiks (affix),2 èastica (particle),3 or avoid referring to sja altogether by analyzing a verb like uèit'sja (learn) as an independent reflexive verb, and a verb like stroit'sja (be built) as the reflexive form of a non-reflexive verb.4

In contrast, there is no doubt about the status of the reflexive pronoun: its forms, sebja, sebe, and soboj, and its syntactic behaviour have close parallels in other pronominal forms. As a result, the reflexive particle sja and the reflexive pronoun are typically treated in different sections of handbooks on Russian: the former in the section dealing with verbal voice, the latter in the section on pronouns. In practice, this can lead to astonishing results: the student of Russian grammar attempting to locate the Russian equivalent for English 'defend oneself will, if he is lucky, run across a handbook or article which happens to list this verb as an example for the co-existence of a

1 / A. M. PeSkovskij, Russkij sintaksis ν naucnom osvesòenii (Moscow 1956), p. 113. z/ in. A. janKo-innicKaja, vozvratnye guigoiy ν sovremennom russKom jazyice (Moscow 1962), pp. 30-5. 3 /A. M. Finkel i N. M. Bazenov, Kurs sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo iazyka (Kiev 1965), pp. 401-9. 4 / See, tor example, A. V. isacenko, Ute russtscne bpracne aer Gegenwart. Teil I: Formenlehre (Halle 1962), pp. 453-6.

Canadian Slavonic Papers, xn, 1, 1970, Revue canadienne des Shvistes



10 CANADIAN SLAVONIC PAPERS

s/a-verb with a semantically equivalent verb + sebja expression, that is, zaSâiSâat'sja = za$éi$6at' sebja.5 Otherwise, he will wish to resort to one of the mono- or bilingual dictionaries on the market. However, since dictionaries of this kind quite legitimately assume that it is part of the linguistic competence of a native speaker of Russian to know the use of sja and sebja, they only list zaSèisâafsja as the reflexive voice (vozratnyj zàlog) of za$di&oat' and our student of Russian grammar must conclude that the use of sebja with this verb is ungrammatical (unless he does what he should have done in the first place - consult a native speaker) .

The purpose of the present paper is to show that in an adequate syntactic treatment of Russian reflexive constructions the forms sja and sebja must be considered as different surface representations of one and the same type of underlying element. Specifically, it will be argued that the surface distribution of sja and sebja in Russian sentences can be explained in terms of deeper grammatical operations, namely, transformations, which effect the reduction of repeated noun phrases to pronouns, on the one hand, and, on the other, the contrastive stressing of pairs of non-identical noun phrases. The investigation will be carried out within the general framework of generative transformational grammar as developed by Noam Chomsky.6 It should be noted that it cannot be the goal of this paper to demonstrate how each individual s/a-form in Russian might be generated, an under- taking that would require the specification of the full set of lexical items of Russian. Nor is it claimed that the proposed syntactic analysis of the relation sja : sebja is of any immediate pedagogical value. Rather, this paper is an attempt to provide an explicit ( that is, generative) account of the kind of knowledge about this relation which a native speaker of Russian must have internalized by the age of seven or eight.7

ι

A generative transformational grammar of language l is an explicit description of the ideal speaker-hearer's intrinsic competence, that is,

5/ See Ch. E. Townsend, 'Voice and Verbs in -sja' SEEJ, xi (1967), 196-203. 6 / See in particular N. Chomsky, Aspects of the 1 heory of byntax ( e.ambriage, Mass. 1965); and N. Chomsky, 'Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar/ in Current Trends in Linguistics, éd. T. A. Sebeok, m (Mouton 1966), 1-60. 7 / See Dan I. Slobin, The Acquisition ot Russian as a Native Language, in The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach (Cambridge, Mass. 1966), pp. 129-48. It should be noted that the present paper deals only with sja in truly reflexive constructions, and not with sja in passive constructions. For a detailed discussion of the latter, see G. H. Schaarschmidt, 'The Syntax of sja- Verbs in Russian/ unpublished phd thesis, Indiana University, 1968.



REFLEXIVE PARTICLE AND PRONOUN IN RUSSIAN 11

the kind of knowledge native speakers of language l possess about the sentences of this language. This knowledge ranges from correct judgments about grammatical well-formedness to the ability to recognize certain sentences as being synonymous and to interpret certain other sentences as being ambiguous. Thus, for example, it is part of the linguistic competence of a native speaker of Russian to provide a para- phrase like (3) for sentence (1), but not one like (4) for sentence (2), although (1) and (2) look superficially very much alike.8

(1) risunok byl nabrosan xudoznikom (The drawing was sketched by an artist)

(2) risunok byl nabrosan perom (The drawing was sketched with a pen)

(3) xudoznik nabrosal risunok (An artist sketched the drawing) ( 4 ) *pero nabrosalo risunok

An adequate grammar of Russian that purports to account for the relatedness of (1) and (3) and for the ungrammaticality of (4) must not only state that xudoinikom in (1) is the logical subject, and that perom in (2) is the instrument, but it must also provide for the principled derivation of (1) and (3) from the same underlying structure and for the non-occurrence of (4) as a semantically interprétable sentence. Furthermore, such a grammar must relate (2) to a sentence like (5):

(5) kto-to nabrosal risunok perom (Someone sketched the drawing with a pen)

The linguistic competence of a native speaker of Russian also in- cludes correct judgments about identity of reference in sentences such as the following:

( β ) ja vizu seb ja ν zerkale ( I see myself in the mirror ) ( 7 ) * ja vizu men ja v zerkale (8) ty nedovolen soboj (You are dissatisfied with yourself) ( 9 ) * ty nedovolen tobo j (10) mal'cik vidit seb ja v zerkale (The boy sees himself in the

mirror) ( 11 ) maFcik vidit ego ν zerkale ( The boy sees him in the mirror ) (12) mal'cik vidit mal'èika v zerkale (The boy sees the boy in the

mirror)

8 / Here and elsewhere, ungrammatical, that is, syntactically or semantically deviant, sentences are preceded by an asterisk.



12 REVUE CANADIENNE DES SLAVISTES

(13) rybak rybaka vidit izdaleka (Literally: A fisherman sees a fisherman from a distance [Birds of a feather flock together] )

Every grammar book on Russian contains a statement to the effect that if the subject and object in a sentence are identical, the forms of the reflexive pronoun must be used instead of the normal personal pronoun forms. In other words, the use of a personal pronoun form, as in (11), or the repetition of an identical noun phrase, as in (12) and (13), invariably causes the latter to be interpreted as referring to another person. What grammar books and, for that matter, specialized taxonomic studies, of Russian do not state, however, is why a sentence like (14) is severely deviant, while (15) is perfectly grammatical:

( 14 ) *maFcik moetsja, a ne brata (15) mal'öik moet sebja, a ne brata (The boy washes himself, and

not the brother)

Transformational grammar can account for these and other facts of linguistic competence in terms of a general hypothesis about the nature of language: that articulatory objects commonly called sentences are to be analyzed on at least two levels, the level of deep structure and the level of surface structure, and that there are rules relating these two levels, that is, grammatical transformations.

A generative grammar of a given language, then, is organized as an explicit system of rules which are essentially of two types: 1) forma- tion rules, which specify or enumerate the set of possible deep structures of language l; and 2) transformational rules, which relate these deep structures with actually pronounceable surface structures.

Thus, the knowledge of Russian speakers about a sentence such as (10) can be expressed as follows: at the level of deep structure, reflexive constructions are represented as propositions containing two occurrences of coreferential nominais indicated by identical indices (following a convention proposed by Chomsky9). That is, (10) will have a deep structure like ( 16) :

( 16) mal'èiki vidit maFciki ν zerkale

The transformational component of a grammar of Russian will contain a rule which might be stated as follows: identity of reference of subject and object in deep structure requires reflexivization of the object noun phrase.

In the following, we will try to present a more explicit account of 9 / See Chomsky, Aspects, pp. 145-6.




these facts, as well as of the facts illustrated by sentences (14) and (15).

Π

For the purpose of the present discussion, the following fragment of the base component of a grammar of Russian will be assumed:10

(17) (i) S -» NPVP

(ii) vp -» ν (np) (np) (ill) V -» SEGMENT

(iv) NP -» Ν

(ν) Ν -> SEGMENT

( VÍ ) [ +n] "> [± ANIMATE, ±PLURAL, ±SUBJECT ...] (vii) [-subj] -» [±locative] (viii) [+v] -> segment/[+n]-([+n]) ([+n])

In addition, the base component will contain a lexicon which lists sets of lexical items such as mal'cik, videt' with their relevant syntactic and semantic features.

These rules, applied in an ordered sequence, will generate deep structures such as the one represented in the phrase-marker (18): (18) ^-^"S^-^

NP""" ""-VP

/ /-T^" Ν V Ν Ν

"+N 1 "+vl Γ+Ν' 1 Γ+Ν +ΑΝΙΜ · +ΑΝΙΜ - ANIM - PLUR * ~ PLUR - PLUR +SUBJ L ' J -SUBJ -SUBJ

_- LOC J L+LOC maVoikx vidit maÎëi^ zerkalo

Since the two occurrences of maÎèïk are specified as being coreferential, the second one will be reflexivized to yield the derived structure (19): 10 / Details irrelevant to the present discussion have been omitted both from this set of rules and from the phrase-markers (tree diagrams) that follow. The symbols in (17) are to be interpreted as follows: s = sentence; np = noun phrase; vp = verb phrase; ν = verb; ν = noun; segment = set of inherent and contextual features of syntactic categories. Segments are indicated by square brackets; parentheses indicate the optional presence of the category involved.




(19) ̂ -^~S"^^_

NP' """"-VF.

/ /Γ-Λ Ν V Ν Ν

"+Ν 1 Γ+Vl +Ν +Ν +ΑΝΙΜ * +ΑΝΙΜ - ANIM -^■PLUR · - PLUR - PLUR

_+SUBJ J L #J +PRO - SUBJ +REFL L+LOC -SUBJ .- LOC

maTâik vidit sebfa zerkalo

A late, low-level transformation applying to the locative np will then derive the surface structure (20), that is, sentence (10):

(20) _^-^S^--^_

NP ""VP.

/ </'

NP / /

V / Τ Ν

/ /' NP

Ν V Ν / Ν maTèïk vidit sebja ν zerkale

If, however, the indices in (18) had been different, as in (21), the result would have been sentence ( 12) :

( 21 ) maFciki vidit maròik2 v zerkale

Using the formalism currently available in transformational theory, the reflexivization operation in Russian can thus be stated as follows:

(22) T-REFL # W [+N, +SUBj]i Χ [+Ν, - SUBjli Ζ # 12 3 4 5 6 7

=n> 12 3 4 [5 1 67 +PRO

_+REFLj

Rule (22) states that if a simple sentence (indicated by #s) contains two occurrences of coreferential noun segments, the one marked [-subj] must be reflexivized. The variables x, w, and ζ stand for




other possible contexts, such as adverbs, a verb, locative and other np's. By convention, any variable may also stand for the null string.

This rule, then, will account for the principled derivation of reflexive constructions from underlying structures containing coreferential noun phrases. Notice, however, that the rule says nothing about the actual surface form of the reflexive pronoun, that is, whether it is going to be realized as sebja or sja. In the case of the verb videt', the addition of sja never produces a reflexive, but rather a reciprocal meaning. Consider, however, the following sentences:

( 23 ) mal'èik moetsja ( The boy washes himself ) ( 24 ) maFcik moet sebja ( The boy washes himself ) What sentences such as (23) and (24) have in common is the

fact that their subjects and objects refer to the same person. In traditional terms, the action is directed back to the actor.11 The two sentences differ, however, in the amount of emphasis which is placed upon the undergoer (the actor) of the action: in (23) the amount is none, while in (24) there is considerable emphasis. The latter can still be increased in Russian by adding samogo: ( 24' ) mal'cik moet samogo sebja ( The boy washes himself ) The question as to whether the above two sentences differ in

meaning (other than emphasis), has been answered both positively and negatively in the literature. Thus, while Ovsjaniko-Kulikovskij, Vinogradov, and Rûzicka accept them as being semantically equivalent,12 PeSkovskij and Isaõenko tend to consider them as 'not fully synonymous/ without, however, giving an indication as to the exact difference in meaning.13

In view of this unclear situation, it would seem best to consider expressions such as myt'sja : myf sebja (wash oneself), zastrelit'sja : zastrelif sebja (shoot oneself), and za$âitit'sja : zaSòitW sebja (defend oneself), that is, constructions involving action verbs, as synonymous and contextually conditioned syntactic variants.

This hypothesis receives further support from the fact that an adequate grammar of Russian must, in any case, contain a rule which

11 / PeSkovskii, Russkij sintaksis, p. 114. 12 / R. Rûftèka, 'Versuch einer Modellierung des genus verbi moderner slawi- scher Sprachen im Rahmen der generativen Transformationsgrammatik/ Zeit- schrift für Slawistik, xin ( 1968), 137-78. 13 / PeSkovskij, Russkij sintaksis, p. 114; see also A. V. Isaõenko, Grammati- Òeskij stroj russkogo jazyka ν sopostavlenii s slovackim (Bratislava 1960), p. 383.




stresses the non-identical constituents w, z of a pair of otherwise identical structures. Following Sanders, this rule might be roughly stated as follows:14

(25) T~ EMPH [[x [w, -stress] y] [x [z, -stress] y]]

1 2 3 4 5 6 zzz> 1 Γ 2 Ί 3 4 Γ 5 16

Ij+stressJ L+stressJ

If this rule is correct, then if one of the non-identical constituents, that is, z, is a nominal subject to reflexivization, the surface form of the latter should always be sebja. As will be shown below, this is precisely what happens.

Consider the following deep structures (26) and (27) :

(26)

NP VP NP VP.

NP / NP

/ NP '

V I NP '

Ν V' Ν C Ν NEG V Ν

maVòíkx mòet mal'âiki a maTöiki ne moet brat

(27)

NP VP NP VP

NP / NP

/

NP ' /

NP '

Ν V Ν C Ν V Ν

maVéiki moet brat i maVOÏkx. moet maVöikx

Rule (25) will assign contrastive stress to the object noun phrases of both (26) and (27) before reflexivization applies. After reflexivization, the two intermediate structures (26') and (27') are obtained (the features are indicated only for the object nouns):

14 / G. Sanders, Some General Grammatical Processes in English ( phd thesis, Indiana University, 1968), p. 158.




(26') S

NP VP NP VP^

/ ^*NP

/ι Ν / ' / Ν /Ν

/ /r '

η 1 / / /Ν

r X -, / Γ+Ν η 1 / r Γ+Ν / -SUBJ / - SUBJ

/ +PRO / -PRO

/ +REFL / - REFL Ν V +STRESS C Ν NEG V +STRESS » / | I I /

maToiki moet maVoikx a maïèïki ne moet brat

(27') -S·^^

NP VP NP VPv.

/ ^NP

/ ' / x / ν im

/ /r Γ+Ν

ν '

1 π Ι / im

r X -τ / Γ+Ν π 1 Ι r Γ+Ν / -SUBJ / -SUBJ

/ -PRO / +PRO

/ -REFL / +REFL Ν V L+STRESSJ C Ν V L+STRESS

maVâiki moet brat i maTcïk^ moet maVèiki

Russian grammar then contains subsequent optional reduction transformations which apply to conjoined structures and effect the deletion of identical elements. In addition, the grammar contains a set of post-transformational lexical rules which substitute either sja or the appropriate forms of sebja for the reflexivized noun. These lexical substitution transformations can be stated as follows:

(28) [-SUBJ, 4-PRO, -f REFL, 4-stress] -» sebja (29) [-SUBJ, +PRO, +REFL, -STRESS, +affix] - » SJd

The label [+affix] in (29) accounts for the fact that sja is not detachable from the verb like sebja.

Following the application of the above rules, (267) and (27') will thus be converted into the surface structures (15) and (30), respec- tively: (15) mal'cik moet sebja, a ne brata (The boy washes himself, and

not the brother)




(30) mal'cik moet brata i [mal'eik moet] sebja (The boy washes the brother and [the boy washes] himself)

The combination of the stress assignment rule (25) and the reflexivization rule (22) will thus effectively prevent the generation of ungrammatical sentences such as (14) and (31): ( 14 ) ^mal'èik moetsja, a ne brata ( 31 ) *marcik moet brata i [mal'cik] moetsja

The ungrammatically of such sentences has been duly noted in the traditional literature on the subject, but it has normally been treated as an isolated fact.15 The hypothesis that sja is the weakly stressed form of sebja in reflexive constructions involving action verbs provides a reasonable starting-point for the investigation of a number of less clear cases and of cases which can only be considered as exceptions at the moment. Without such an hypothesis, however, we would not only be unable to explain the ungrammaticality of (14) and (31), but it would also be impossible to even start asking ques- tions as to why certain verbs cannot occur with sebja at all, while they do take sja. Any hypothesis that can provide such a basis within a particular theory of grammar must clearly be considered superior to a mere listing of both regular and irregular cases alike.

in

Consider as a case in point several sentences involving 'absolute reflexives/ but where sja cannot be replaced by sebja: (32) devuäka vyrazaet blagodarnost' (The girl expresses grati-

tude) (33) devuska vyrazaetsja xoroso (The girl expresses herself well) ( 34 ) * devuska vyrazaet sebja xoroso ( 35 ) njanja kipjatit moloko ( The nanny boils milk ) (36) njanja kipjatitsja iz-za pustjakov (The nanny gets worked

up [literally: boils herself] about trifles) ( 37 ) * njanja kipjatit sebja iz-za pustjakov ( 38 ) devuSka boits ja volkov ( The girl is afraid of wolves ) ( 39 ) * devuska boit sebja volkov

Such cases are often cited in the literature in defence of the assump- tion that reflexive verbs are independent, separate lexical items as compared with the corresponding non-reflexive forms.16 No expla- 15 / See, for example, Townsend, Voice and Verbs in -sja, p. 198. 16/ See Janko-lnnickaja, Vozvratnye glagoly, p. 23,




nation, however, is given to the fact that in none of the above cases can sja be replaced by sebja, as was possible for the verbs discussed in the previous section.

Notice now that a very natural explanation can be given to the facts illustrated by sentences (32) to (37) in terms of transformational grammar. The two verbs vyra&af and kipjatif will be entered in the lexicon of the grammar with the following representations:

<«> H0* +[+H0MiKSOTJ]1_ {£™f} That is, a verb like vyraiaf takes a human object only if the latter

is identical with the subject, otherwise it may freely take abstract objects in deep structure.

Given the rule of stress assignment (25), it will thus be impossible to stress the human object (=human subject) of vyraiaf, since it can never be contrasted with another human object. In other words, given (40), we would never even get a source for the ungrammatical (42) :17

(42) *devu3ka ne vyrazaet sebja, a Ivana

In the case of the verb bojat'sja (be afraid), the explanation why sja cannot be replaced by sebja follows quite clearly from the fact that this verb takes no direct object at all except if the latter is identical with the subject. This can be expressed by the selectional feature (43) for bojat'sja:

(43) boja? +[+ ANIMATE SUBjli- [+ ANIMATE OBj]i

Other verbs of this type are, for example, nadejafsja (hope); sta- rat'sja (try); smejat'sja (laugh); ulybat'sja (smile); str emit' sja (strive); and klanjat'sja (greet). The question whether the postulation of subject-object identity in the deep structure of such verbs is motivated on semantic grounds is, of course, difficult to answer in the present stage of research in semantics.18 It would seem, however, that considering the above verbs as 'absolute reflexives/ that is, as verbs requiring subject-object identity in deep structure, is motivated on 17 / The same is true for English where the reflexive object of express can never be contrastively stressed. 18 / See, however, Ju. D. Apres jan, Èksperimental noe issledovanie semantiki russkogo ghgola (Moscow 1967), p. 172, where sentences involving such verbs are analyzed as being of the nuclear type noun-verb-noun ( in the genitive case ) .




syntactic grounds, since no additional mechanism is needed to predict s/a-spelling in surface structure. That is, the reflexivization rule (22) will apply to (43) as it would to any other verb with subject-object identity in a given sentence.

There are, of course, several other alternatives for handling such verbs in transformational terms. To mention only three:

1 ) We could list the above verbs as intransitives in the lexicon and consider sja as part of the lexical item, as shown in (44): ( 44 ) boja ... sja +[+animate subj]-

This would mean that all absolute reflexives would have to be considered as discontinuous morphemes with internal modification, that is, something that does not occur elsewhere in the grammar of Russian.

2) Similar to this, but avoiding the problem of discontinuous morphemes, would be the association of absolute reflexives with a rule feature [+s/a-ad junction]. That is, in the lexicon such verbs would be considered intransitive: ( 45 ) boja [ + [ Η-animate subj] - , +s/a-ad junction]

The rule feature [+s/a-adjunction] will then obligatorily trigger a late transformational rule which adjoins the element sja after all personal endings have been properly attached. Notice, however, that such a rule would not be needed for any other purpose in Russian grammar, and it must thus be considered ad hoc.

3) Absolute reflexives, while considered as intransitives in deep structure, could be marked for having to undergo an obligatory subject-copying rule: ( 46 ) boja [+ [+ animate subj]-, +subject-copying]

This rule, which precedes reflexivization, would insert a replica of the subject in object position.19 That is, a sentence like (38) would start out in the deep structure as (47) :

(47) ^-^^S"^^.

NP" ^r ^^*^NP

Ν V^ Ν

/ Γ+ν 1 ' / +[+ANIM SUBj]-. '

/ L+subJ-copying J ' devuSka boit volkoO

19 / See R. B. Lees and E. S. Klima, 'Rules for English Pronominalization,' Language, xxxix (1963), 17-28.




After the subject-copying rule we would get the derived structure (48):

(48) _^-^S^^^

Ν V N Ν / ι N Τ ' devuSkã! boit devuhkax volkov

The reflexive rule (22) will then obligatorily apply to this structure to yield (38). Again, however, the status of a subject-copying rule of this kind in Russian grammar seems highly dubious.

It would appear, therefore, that the lexical specification of absolute reflexives such as (43) is still the most general and economical way of deriving such verbs in Russian without involving the additional mechanism of the other alternatives.

Furthermore, it may be that the specification (43) is itself pre- dictable by a redundancy rule defined on natural classes of verbs. Although this may not seem possible for all of the above listed verbs, it does hold for a class of verbs known as 'emotion' verbs, including, for example, radovat'sja (be pleased), vozmutit'sja (be annoyed), udivifsja (be surprised), serdit'sja (be angry).20 For such verbs, it would then be unnecessary to specify subject-object identity in the deep structure, since this fact can be stated by a syntactic redundancy rule:

( 49 ) [+V, +EMOTION] -> [+ [+ANIMATE SUBj] χ- [+ ANIMATE OBj]i]

IV

The conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing syntactic analysis of Russian reflexive constructions involving the pronoun sebja and the particle sja are as follows:

1) Both sja and sebja are derived elements in the surface structure of Russian sentences. In the deep structure they are represented as object noun phrases which are coreferential with subject noun phrases. The deep and surface structures of reflexive constructions are related by a transformational rule which reduces the second occurrence of

20 / Schaarschmidt, The Syntax of sja- Verbs, pp. 102ff. For a similar situation in Polish, see R. A. Rothstein, Predicate Complementation in Contemporary Polish, unpublished phd thesis, Harvard University, 1966, pp. 96-108.




two coreferential noun phrases in the same simple sentence to a reflexive pronoun.

2) The occurrence of two sets of forms of the reflexive pronoun in Russian (as in other Slavic languages) can be explained in terms of a transformational rule which assigns emphatic stress under certain conditions. The particle sja can thus be viewed as the non-stressed, enclitic form of the reflexive pronoun, that is, Peskovskif s nadstavka, much in the same way as it is usually analyzed for Old Russian.21

It should be emphasized that these two generalizations can in no way guarantee the unique derivation of each individual reflexive construction in Russian. No explanation can be given, for example, to the fact that there are verbs that can only take sebja: mdef sebja (see oneself), but not videfsja in a reflexive meaning.

The further investigation, case by case, of reflexive constructions and other related phenomena will no doubt reveal whether such verbs are indeed exceptions, or whether they can be combined to form a natural syntactic class. The proposal, advanced recently by the Leip- zig linguist Rûzicka, to construct what amounts to a general transformational grammar of Slavic, that is, a theory of Slavic syntax, would appear to be a good start in this direction, since it is by compari- son with other Slavic languages that the idiosyncratic features of certain lexical items in one language could be most adequately shown.22

21 / For example, see N. S. Zarickij, Formy i funkcii vozvratnyx glagolov (na materiale drevnerusskogo jazvka) (Kiev 1961). 22 / See Rûzicka, 'Versuch einer Modellierung des genus verbi,' p. 138; see also Β. Koenitz and H. Walter, 'Zur syntaktischen Interpretation der Klitika in den slawischen Sprachen der Gegenwart/ Zeitschrift für Slawistik, xin (1968), 179-200.



Documents

Reflexive Particle and Reflexive Pronoun in Russian