Vilnius Pedagogical University Faculty of Foreign Languages Department of English Philology

Rita Ivaškaitė

REFLEXIVIZATION IN LITHUANIAN AND ENGLISH Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of MA in English philology

Academic adviser: Professor Laimutis Valeika

Vilnius 2005 Contents

Abstract 4 Introduction 5 1. Theoretical Prerequisites 7 1.1. The term reflexive 7 1.2. Reflexive meaning 7 1.3. Reflexive marker 8 1.3.1. Reflexives in Lithuanian 9 1.3.2. Reflexives in English 10 1.3.3. Reflexive vs. Emphatic 13 1.4. Diathesis as a Model of Description of Reflexive Constructions 16 1.4.1. Types of Diathesis Changes in Reflexive Structures 18 2. Semantic Patterns of Reflexive Constructions and their Realization in Lithuanian 20 2.1. Semantic Reflexives 20 2.1.1. Pure Reflexives 21 2.1.2. Metonymical Reflexives 23 2.1.3. Autocausative Reflexives 25 2.2. Semantic Patterns of Formally Reflexive Constructions 26 2.2.1. Reciprocal Reflexive Verbs 26 2.2.1.1. Conjoint Participation in the Action 27 2.2.1.2. Characterizing Reflexives 28 2.2.2. Dative Reflexives 28 2.2.3. Decausative Reflexive 30 2.2.3.1. Self-Acting Processes 31 2.2.4. Notional Passive Reflexive Constructions 32 2.2.5. Impersonal Reflexive Constructions 34 2.2.6. Reflexive Causative Pattern 35 2.2.7. The Emphatic Pattern 35 2.2.8. Resultative Reflexives 36 2.3. Reflexiva Tantum (Non-Reversible Reflexives) 36 3. Semantic Patterns of Reflexive Constructions and their Realization in English 37

2 3.1. Semantic Reflexives 37 3.1.1. Pure Reflexives 37 3.1.2. Metonymical Reflexives 39 3.1.3. Autocausative Reflexives 40 3.2. Semantic Patterns of Formally Reflexive Constructions 41 3.2.1. Decausative (Self-Acting) Processes 41 3.2.2. Dative Reflexives 43 3.2.3. Resultative Reflexives 43 3.2.3.1. Reflexives with the Postpositive Particle out 43 3.2.3.2. Reflexives with a Resultative Clause 43 3.2.4. Reflexiva Tantum (Non-Reversible Reflexives) 44 4. A Contrastive Analysis of the Means of Reflexivization in Lithuanian and English 44 4.1. A Contrastive Analysis of the Means Expressing Semantic Reflexives 46 4.1.1. Pure Reflexives 46 4.1.2. Metonymical Reflexives 50 4.1.3. Autocausative Reflexives 52 4.2. A Contrastive Analysis of Formally Reflexive Constructions in Lithuanian and English 54 4.2.1.Decausative Reflexives 54 4.2.2. Dative Reflexives 57 4.2.3. Resultative Reflexive Constructions 59 4.3. Analysis of the Patterns which are based on Reflexive Constructions only in Lithuanian and their Realization in English 60 4.3.1. Reciprocal Reflexives 60 4.3.2. Notional Passive Reflexive Constructions 62 4.3.3. Emphatic Reflexives 63 4.3.4. Impersonal Reflexive Constructions 64 Conclusions 65 Summary 68 References 72 Sources 74

3 Abstract

The present paper focuses on the problem of reflexivization in Lithuanian and English. The study is based on a corpus of 6718 instances of reflexive constructions in the novel “Sodybų Tuštėjimo Metas” by Jonas Avyžius and their equivalents in the English variant of the text translated by Olga Shartse. The aim of the paper is to describe the semantic patterns that can be expressed by reflexive constructions in Lithuanian and English, and to determine the basic similarities and differences in the employment of reflexivization in the two languages. The analysis is carried out by means of the descriptive method. The results show that both in Lithuanian and English the greatest number of reflexive constructions are used in their primary function, i.e. to mark the coreference of two semantic roles. In both the languages reflexives can be used to mark other meanings than that of semantic reflexivity, but Lithuanian reflexive constructions are in a position to express more meanings. The analysis of the data shows that, in contrast to Lithuanian, in English there is a strong preference for the use of unmarked reflexive constructions rather than for the marked ones in all the semantic patterns. The differences in the use of reflexive constructions in the two languages can be accounted for by the peculiarities of the morphological structure of the languages. In English the reflexive marker is a pronoun with a relatively independent syntactical status, which can be omitted if the context makes it clear that the process is confined to the sphere of the agent. The Lithuanian reflexive affix, apart from encoding semantic reflexivity or any other possible meaning, is also a marker of intransitivity; therefore in most cases it must be retained in order to avoid ambiguity.

4 Introduction

The present study is concerned with a comparison of reflexive constructions in Lithuanian and English. The choice of the object of investigation has been motivated by the fact that although both Lithuanian and English reflexive constructions have been extensively described from various perspectives in linguistic literature, there have not been many attempts to compare the peculiarities of reflexivization in the two languages. However, we are convinced that a contrastive analysis of reflexives in both the languages would contribute to a better understanding of reflexivization in a cross- linguistic perspective.

The hypothesis of this study is that, in comparison with English, Lithuanian is richer in reflexive constructions and their semantic functions. The purpose of this investigation is to produce a comprehensive description of how the reflexive meaning is expressed and what other semantic patterns can be realized by reflexive constructions in Lithuanian and English, i.e. we are going to determine the means the two languages employ for the realization of the same meanings in the surface structure sentence as well as the meanings the two languages can express by using formally reflexive constructions.

The objectives of the study:

• To survey the main theoretical issues in the investigation of reflexivity in Lithuanian and English; • To present the semantic patterns of reflexive constructions in both the languages; • To examine how semantic reflexivity can be expressed in both the languages; • To examine other meanings expressed by reflexive constructions in Lithuanian and English; • To determine the possible reasons for the differences in the use of reflexivization in both the languages.

The study is based on a corpus of 6718 occurrences of reflexive constructions in the novel “Sodybų Tuštėjimo Metas” by Jonas Avyžius (I) and their English equivalents in

5 the English variant of the novel translated by Olga Shartse (II). Both reflexive verbs and their derivatives (participles, nouns) were analyzed.

The investigation was carried out by means of the descriptive method. The hypothesis we put forward determined the choice of Lithuanian as the base language of the research. First, we collected the data in Lithuanian and grouped the reflexive constructions into semantic patterns. Then, we looked for the ways the constructions were translated into English with the aim of identifying the basic tendencies of expressing semantic reflexivity and other possible meanings by means of marked reflexives.

In accordance with the basic purpose, the paper is divided into four parts. In Part 1 the main concepts and the use of terminology are explained. This part explicates the concept of reflexivity, the means of expressing reflexivity in Lithuanian and English, and the method of the three-level diathesis, which is used for the identification of the semantic patterns of reflexives.

Part 2 is concerned with the discussion of the semantic patterns of reflexive constructions and their realization in Lithuanian.

Part 3 is devoted to the description of the semantic patterns of reflexive constructions and their realization in English.

Part 4 focuses on the comparison of the means the two languages employ for the realization of semantic reflexivity in the surface structure sentence, the possible meanings that can be expressed by means of formally reflexive constructions in Lithuanian and English, and the means English employs for the realization of the semantic patterns that can be based on reflexives only in Lithuanian.

The results of the investigation are summed up in Conclusions.

6 1. Theoretical Prerequisites

1.1. The Term Reflexive

According to Geniušienė (1987: 27), the term reflexive is used to refer both to form and meaning. It refers to form in the term reflexive verb which, in accordance with tradition, is used to speak about verbs containing a reflexive marker whatever their meaning. And it refers to the meaning of semantic role coreference in the phrases reflexive meaning, semantically reflexive (verb), semantic reflexivity.

1.2. Reflexive Meaning

There have been quite a few attempts to define reflexive meaning. Usually it is defined as a verbal action confined to “the sphere of the agent” (i.e. the action that does not go over from the agent to any outer entity) or intransitivity (Blokh, 1983: 180). The processes are then confined to no other participant of the situation than the performer of the action, i.e. the subject, the latter constituting its own object of performance (ibid):

(1a) Bijau, kad Marytė dar neapsirengė ← Bijau, kad Marytė dar neaprengė Marytės; (b) I’m afraid Mary hasn’t dressed herself yet ← I’m afraid Mary hasn’t dressed Mary yet.

However, according to Geniušienė (1987: 14), the concept of “the sphere of the agent” has never been satisfactorily explained and does not seem to have any positive semantic content. Intransitivity is indeed the general characteristic of all reflexive verbs in Russian and many other languages, but not in Lithuanian, Latvian, German, French, English and others, though it does characterize large numbers of reflexive verbs in the latter languages, too (ibid).

According to Saha (1987: 5), the etymology of the word reflexive (re - back, and flectere - bend) indicates the basic meaning of the word. Reflexivity involves action “bending back” to its source. In other words, in the most general sense, reflexivity involves action by an agent (or experiencer) that affects himself/herself. Reflexive processes are then processes which directly affect their performer – the action is thrown back (or reflected) on its performer so that the doer of the process is at the same time

7 the patient of the action (Gordon, 1970: 59). Hence, the term semantic reflexivity in fact stands for coreference of arguments (Geniušienė, 1987: 15).

In the surface structure, the reflexive meaning can be expressed in various ways - some languages use a special anaphoric pronoun while others make use of a verbal affix. Implicit (unmarked) reflexivity is not ruled out either, i.e. in some cases it is possible to render the same reflexive meaning without the reflexive marker in the surface structure (Blokh, 1983: 180).

Syntactically, reflexivity is a process which enables the speaker or writer to eliminate a constituent by including it in the process. Consider:

(2a) The boy is washing his hands → The boy is washing; (b) Berniukas prausia (savo) rankas → Berniukas prausiasi.

By suppressing the constituent, the sentence is simplified structurally, but becomes more complex semantically and consequently more difficult to process. Cf. also:

(3a) The boy is turning the wheel → The wheel is turning; (b) Berniukas suka ratą → Ratas sukasi.

1.3. Reflexive Marker

The reflexive marker can be broadly defined as an element in the verb (affix, ending, etc) or its environment (particle, pronoun, etc) which has a reflexive meaning (of the coreference of two semantic roles) as its only or one of many meanings (Geniušienė, 1987: 25). Thus, it is possible to distinguish between synthetic and analytical reflexive markers. A language may possess either one reflexive marker, as in the case of French, Italian, Spanish, and English, or it may possess two (both synthetic and analytical) reflexive markers, as in Lithuanian, Latvian and Russian (ibid: 25, 26).

Reflexive markers can be polyfunctional if they mark a variety of meanings, or they can be monofunctional if they happen to mark semantic reflexivity only.

8 1.3.1. Reflexives in Lithuanian

In Lithuanian, reflexive meaning (i.e. the meaning of the coreference of two semantic roles) can be expressed analytically – the language employs a verb and a special reflexive pronoun savęs to render the process reflexive. The reflexive pronoun in Lithuanian is marked only for case – it has all the case forms except for the nominative and vocative, and the means of expressing the case in the reflexive are the same as those used in the pronoun: • the genitive case form savęs; • the dative case form sau; • the accusative case form save; • the instrumental case form savimi; • the locative case form savyje (Kniūkšta, 2000: 153).

(4) Jonas prausia save [Jonas washes himself]; (5) Aš perku sau knygą [I am buying myself a book].

Furthermore, in Lithuanian reflexivity can also be expressed synthetically. Reflexive verbs are marked by the reflexive marker -si-(-is, -s) which comes from the Old Lithuanian enclitic pronoun si1 (Ulvydas, 1971: 186). Reflexive verbs are derived by adding the reflexive marker -si- to the stem of the verb. The affix is added to the end of root and suffixed verbs, as in bartis, naudotis, sveikintis, etc; and if the base is a prefixed verb, the reflexive affix is inserted between the root and the prefix, as in pasisukti, susilaukti, etc (Ambrazas, 1997: 406).

It is interesting to note that Lithuanian can employ a combination of reflexivizing devices in the sentence: synthetic and analytical, e.g.:

(6) Jonas pasistatė sau namą ← Jonas pastatė Jonui namą [Jonas PREF+REFL+built himself a house] [Jonas built Jonas a house]

1 In the Old Lithuanian there were enclitic pronouns for all the three persons mi, ti, si, which had developed from the old enclitic dative forms *mei, *tei, *sei. The enclitic pronoun forms mi, ti, si had the dative and the accusative meaning. The particle si has been always used with all the three persons (Ulvydas, 1971: 186).

9 According to Paulauskienė (1979: 31), the main function of the reflexive affix is to express reflexive meaning and at the same time to detransitivize the verb, i.e. to narrow the process denoted by the base verb down to the sphere of the agent. However, in Lithuanian there are numerous cases when the reflexive marker -si- does not change the transitivity of the verb but simply changes the relation of the process to the agent and gives the construction some new shade of meaning (ibid). Thus, the Lithuanian reflexive marker -si- possesses several different functions which are going to be discussed below. Semantic reflexivity then is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to licence the presence of the reflexive marker (Lidz, 2001: 5).

When the reflexive marker -si- is used in the function of the coreference of two semantic roles, it can be used interchangeably with the reflexive pronoun save with no (or little) difference in meaning, although the reflexive verb is more usual:

(7) Katinas prausiasi cf. Katinas prausia save [The cat washes+REFL] [The cat washes itself]

However, when the reflexive marker -si- is used in a function other than that of the coreference of two semantic roles, the replacement of -si- by a form of the reflexive pronoun would result in a change of the meaning of the reflexive construction:

(8) Jie mylisi cf. Jie myli save [They love+REFL→ [They love themselves] They love each other]

Thus, in contrast to the affix -si-, the reflexive pronoun savęs in Lithuanian is monofunctional and is only used to express semantic reflexivity.

1.3.2. Reflexives in English

In contrast to Lithuanian, English possesses only one reflexive marker – a variable reflexive pronoun oneself [myself/yourself/ himself/ herself/ itself/ ourselves/ yourselves/ themselves] which is marked for person, number, and – in the case of third person singular – gender (Geniušienė, 1987: 26):

10 (9) Mary is dressing herself ← Mary is dressing Mary; (10) I am washing myself ← I am washing I (me).

Mary and herself, I and me have the same referent – the verbal action, then, is “reflected” or thrown back on its performer (Christophersen, 1980: 122; König, 2002: 2).

In the investigation of English reflexive verbs, one of the most controversial issues is that of their status (Geniušienė, 1987: 180). The following viewpoints have been expressed:

1) English reflexives are referred to as reflexive verbs, in which case they are implicitly regarded as lexical items with the status of a word; at the same time, the authors usually view oneself as an independent part of speech, viz. a reflexive pronoun functioning as a syntactic object; 2) The reflexives in question are sometimes termed reflexive constructions, or phrases, composed of a verb and a reflexive pronoun, which means that they are viewed as units with the status of free word combinations; 3) At least some reflexives are viewed as phraseological (idiomatic) units, i.e. bound word-combinations (ibid); 4) Reflexives are viewed as indicators of the reflexive voice (Ilyish, 1971: 116-119).

Quirk et al. (Geniušienė, 1987: 181) use the term reflexive verbs to cover all the occurrences of verbs with the non-emphatic reflexive pronouns, but they distinguish three subsets: a) ‘obligatorily reflexive verbs’ such as absent oneself (from), pride oneself (on); b) ‘optionally reflexive verbs’ such as dress (oneself), shave (oneself); c) ‘non-reflexive verbs’ where the reflexive pronouns are used to denote coreference in contrast to non-co-referential objects, as in He saw himself/him in the mirror.

According to Geniušienė (1987: 182), such a diversity of opinions is due to the syntactically independent status of the reflexive marker oneself and exceptional heterogeneity of reflexives with regard to the degree of semantic independence of oneself. The scholar argues that the most relevant factor in determining the status of

11 reflexive verbs then is the degree of semantic fusion between the components (a verb and a reflexive pronoun), i.e. the degree of the dependence of their meaning upon the meaning of the components. The following three types could be distinguished here:

1) Reflexives with a zero degree of semantic fusion which denote total coreference of the surface subject and object. These constructions always have non-reflexive correlates:

(11) John blames Mary cf. John blames himself

The verb and the pronoun preserve their categorial status of verb and pronoun as well as their syntactic functions of predicate and direct object. A verb in these constructions preserves both its lexical meaning and role structure. The reflexive pronoun as a direct object is a lexical means of marking subject-object coreference, i.e. semantic reflexivity (see section 2.1.1 for detail). Because of the zero degree of semantic fusion, such units are best viewed as free word-combinations or reflexive phrases (ibid: 183);

2) Reflexives with an intermediate degree of semantic fusion which can be exemplified by throw oneself, manifest oneself in which the reflexive marker does not express coreference of any semantic role with the deep subject. Its function is to change the semantic component structure of the verb – to mark semantic intransitivization without expressing subject- object coreference (the autocausative model; see section 2.1.3). Therefore units like these can be regarded as formally complex verbs, with the reflexive marker having lost its status of a pronoun. Reflexiva tantum, such as pride oneself (on), i.e. ‘obligatorily reflexive verbs’, can also be viewed as adhering to this type (ibid: 184);

3) Reflexives with a maximum degree of semantic fusion. Units like pull oneself together, conduct oneself should be regarded as phraseological units since their distinctive feature is individual semantic relationship with the corresponding non-reflexive verb (conduct somebody/something vs.

12 conduct oneself). The units in question differ from the above types in both their idiomaticity and non-recoverability of meaning from the meanings of the separate components (ibid: 185).

Hence, the reflexive marker in English is polysemous (just as it is in Lithuanian) and can either mark semantic reflexivity, which makes verbs with oneself free word- combinations, or change the meaning of verbs, which makes them lexical items, or can serve as an emphatic element (see section 1.3.3) (Geniušienė, 1987: 185).

1.3.3. Reflexive vs. Emphatic

Many languages have reflexive and emphatic grammatical elements. Just as some other languages, English encodes the reflexivizing function and intensification by means of the same expression (Gast; Siemund, 2004: 3), i.e. in English reflexive and emphatic elements are phonetically homonymous and it may cause some difficulty interpreting the sentences:

(12) John washes himself vs. John washes his hands himself

Nevertheless, as indicated by Moyne (1971: 141), the reflexive and the emphatic have completely distinct characteristics in their underlying syntactic and semantic structure.

In 1963 Lees and Klima proposed the original rule for the reflexive and its constraints: X – Nom – Y – Nom′ - Z → X – Nom – Y - Nom′ + self – Z where Nom = Nom′ = a nominal, and where Nom and Nom′ are within the same simplex sentence (ibid: 141).

Postal (ibid: 142) states that reflexives are derived transformationally when an underlying noun phrase is identical to a preceding one. This identity is subject to certain conditions – the two noun phrases have to occur within the same sentence structure.

To Moyne (1971: 155) reflexivization is a process between the subject and object of the verb and he suggests the following formulation of the obligatory reflexive rule:

13 NP1 X NP2 Y 1 2 3 4 → 1 2 3 4 [+REF] Conditions: a. 1 and 3 are coreferential and identical. b. 1 and 3 are in the same simplex sentence. c. 1 is the subject and 3 is the direct object of the sentence.

The scholar argues that a crucial difference between the emphatic and the reflexive is that the former does not require the identity or coreferentiality of the noun phrases in the subject and direct object position (ibid: 146):

(13) Mary dressed herself vs. Mary dressed the child herself ↑ ↑ Mary dressed Mary. Mary herself dresses the child. ║ ║ NP + process + NP′ + self NP1 + NP1 self + process + NP2

According to Saha (1987: 6-7), there are at least eight ways in which the emphatic (or intensive, as the scholar puts it) himself in John himself did not eat the food differs from the reflexive:

1. The reflexive meaning involves action directed at the self, while the emphatic meaning is that it is a matter of special significance that the antecedent John is involved in that particular situation. Thus, an emphatic, unlike a reflexive, always has the basic function of intensifying the significance of the antecedent in a given situation.

2. An intensive can never be involved in a direct subject-object with its antecedent. The emphatic oneself is an adjunct to its antecedent, not a direct object in a sentence in which its antecedent is the subject.

3. An intensive can never be involved in a predicate nominative-subject relationship with its antecedent. In John is not himself today the reflexive is a

14 predicate nominative while in John himself did not eat the food the antecedent- intensive sequence can never be a subject-nominative predicate sequence.

4. An intensive can always appear immediately after its antecedent (when the antecedent is not a complex noun phrase). Reflexives are generally not adjacent to their antecedents because there are intervening items in the deep structure. The topicalized reflexive in the surface structure Myself I cannot understand, but others I can analyze well is indeed adjacent to its antecedent, but it cannot be placed immediately after its antecedent. (When complex structures are present, the location of nonadjacent intensives in surface structures can be explained in terms of stylistic or grammatical transformations that have nothing to do with the basic reality of the intensives themselves).

5. Intensives that are part of subject phrases can undergo a transformation that reflexives cannot. This transformation could be called intensive shifting. In John himself might have been explaining the problem to Bill the emphatic himself can appear in at least five different places (after John or might or have or been or problem).

6. A reflexive can never be the subject of a tensed verb. In sentences like

(14a) John believes himself to be a champion; (b) John himself is the champion; (c) John believes that he is the champion; (d) *John believes that himself is the champion; (e) *Himself is the champion.

we see that in (b) the emphatic along with its antecedent is the subject of a tensed verb, while in (d) and (e) the reflexives used as subjects of tensed verbs cause the sentences to be ungrammatical.

7. Deletion of an intensive does not destroy the basic meaning and structure of the sentence in which it occurs. Deletion of a reflexive wrecks a sentence. The contrast between (a) and (b) is clear proof of this claim:

15 (15a) John likes himself *John likes; (b) John himself likes apples John likes apples.

8. Reflexives can have indefinite pronouns as antecedents while intensives cannot, unless there is a definitizing item like a relative clause. This difference can be seen in

(16a) Anyone can analyze himself; (b) *Anyone himself can do this job.

The function of an emphatic is, of course, to intensify the significance of the antecedent, and other things remaining equal, it is harder to attach special significance to indefinite items than to definite items (ibid).

In Lithuanian the emphatic can be expressed both by means of a separate lexeme pats and the polysemantic reflexive marker -si-.

1.3. Diathesis as a Model of Description of Reflexive Constructions

In traditional grammar the term diathesis is generally used interchangeably with voice (Geniušienė, 1987: 52). In the 1970s, Kholodovich suggested treating diathesis as “a pattern of correspondences between units at the syntactic level and units at the semantic level” (ibid). Here the syntactic level units are the surface subject and object and the semantic level units are case-like notions of semantic subject and object. For instance, the sentence John killed Peter has the diathesis Subject=Agent, Direct Object=Patient. In diathesis, the semantic role level of representation is mapped onto the syntactic level of representation. According to Kholodovich (ibid: 53), voice is a regular marking in the verb of the correspondences between units at the syntactic level and units at the semantic level, or, in other words, voice is a diathesis grammatically marked on the verb. The two-level diathesis suggested by Kholodovich proved to be an adequate tool for the description of the active-passive voice opposition as it reveals changes in the

16 mapping of the semantic roles onto the syntactic roles involved in the passive transformation, the lexical meaning of the verb being preserved (ibid).

For a description of reflexive verbs, however, the two-level diathesis is inadequate as it does not capture all the possible changes which may involve the referent structure. In the early eighties Geniušienė (1987: 53), who was researching reflexive verbs in the Baltic languages, proposed to include the referent structure in the diathesis. She defined diathesis as a pattern of correspondences between the constituents of the referent structure and the constituents of the role structure and syntactic structure. The diathesis then shows interaction of the three levels of representation and is a means of presenting the three structures of a verb (and construction) jointly in their interaction. Diathesis is a cluster of the basic semantic and syntactic properties of a verb reflecting its semantic component structure. In other words, it is a super-parameter that subsumes three distinct parameters.

In simple non-reflexive constructions the referent hierarchy matches up with the role hierarchy and with the syntactic functions hierarchy, there being a one-to-one correspondence between the referents, roles, and syntactic positions. Therefore, the number of correspondences between levels in a diathesis equals the number of constituents at each level (ibid).

A three-level diathesis can be constructed for each non-reflexive and related reflexive construction. Thus the diathesis of the structures (1) Marytė rengė vaiką [Mary dressed a child] and (2) Marytė apsirengė [Mary PREF+REFL+dressed] in Lithuanian could be illustrated in the following way:

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Referent level Person 1 Person 2 Person 1 Semantic role level Agent Patient Agent Patient Syntactic function level Subject Direct Object Subject

Likewise, the diathesis of the English constructions (1) Jane dresses the baby and (2) Jane dresses herself would look as follows:

17 (1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Referent level Person 1 Person 2 Person 1 Semantic role level Agent Patient Agent Patient Syntactic function level Subject Direct Object Subject Direct Object

The three-level diathesis is a convenient model which allows us to show the range of possible changes in the structure of the verbal meaning involved in the derivation of reflexive verbs and the interaction of changes at different levels of representation (Geniušienė, 1987: 54).

Thus, the concept of three-level diathesis helps to capture all possible changes within and between the referent structure, role structure and syntactic structure in their inner- relation and interdependence (ibid: 55).

1.4.1. Types of Diathesis Changes in Reflexive Structures

According to Geniušienė (1987: 55), reflexive verb derivation may involve changes either at one, two, or three levels simultaneously entailing shifts in the correspondences. The two basic changes are deletion and mutation.

1) In the referent structure it is possible to delete one referent: the second referent in semantic reflexives (see section 2.1.1), and the first referent (person or non-person) in decausative reflexive models (see section 2.2.3), otherwise the referent structure is retained. It is important to note that elimination of a referent is related to change of the lexical meaning; no change in the referent structure does not necessarily imply no change in the lexical meaning (ibid);

2) In the role structure both types of changes or no change are possible: a role may be deleted, e.g. the deletion of the semantic subject (agent) in decausative constructions (see section 2.2.3); or the role of some referent may change (mutate), and both deletion and mutation of a role are related with a change of the lexical meaning of a verb. The role structure can also remain unchanged, but it does not mean that the lexical meaning is

18 necessarily preserved. As a third kind of change in role structure we could single out doubling of semantic roles which occurs in reciprocal constructions (see section 2.2.1) where the situation doubles as each referent is both agent and patient relative to the other referent (ibid: 56);

3) The recessive changes that may occur in the syntactic structure can be of two types:

a) mutation proper, when a noun phrase changes its function of subject or direct object into a syntactic function absent in the base noun construction;

b) permutation, when a referent assumes the syntactic position of a deleted referent, viz. direct object changes its function into subject. Permutation accompanies either deletion or mutation proper (ibid: 57).

Changes at any of the levels in the diathesis entail a change in the pattern of correspondences between the levels. The changes at the three levels of representation are interdependent: the deletion of a syntactic function is secondary to changes in the referent structure, while mutation is secondary to changes in the role structure but it may also be independent if the role structure is preserved; changes in the referent and role structures are less interrelated: if the referent structure undergoes no change, the role structure can either change or remain unchanged; in case of referent elimination, its role may be eliminated as well, or it can be retained as in the case of semantic reflexives (see section 2.1.1) (Geniušienė, 1987: 57).

The semantic relationship of reflexive verbs with the corresponding base non-reflexive verbs, identified with the help of the three-level diathesis, makes it possible to group reflexive constructions into separate semantic patterns which are going to be discussed in sections 2 and 3 of this paper.

19 2. Semantic Patterns of Reflexive Constructions and their Realization in Lithuanian

The reflexive marker -si- in Lithuanian is polysemantic and can express a variety of meanings other than that of semantic role coreference (i.e. semantic reflexivity).

Hence, aiming at a systematic description of reflexives, in order to achieve simplicity and economy of description, it is useful to group reflexive verbs into semantic patterns. The following classification is made on the basis of the semantic relationship of reflexive verbs with the corresponding non-reflexive verbs determined by means of the three-level diathesis.

First of all, it is necessary to make a distinction between reversible reflexive verbs (i.e. verbs which have non-reflexive equivalents) and non-reversible reflexive verbs (i.e. verbs which do not have non-reflexive equivalents) (Ambrazas, 1997: 406). Reversible reflexive verbs form a derivational opposition with their base verbs, i.e. differ from them in both the form and semantic content; hence, they lend themselves to a semantic analysis on the synchronic level. The meaning of non-reversible reflexive verbs, however, is not synchronically motivated by the meanings of the base verb and the reflexive marker, therefore, this group falls out of the scope of this paper.

In the group of reversible reflexive verbs a distinction is made between semantic reflexives and formally reflexive verbs, the latter being only marked by the reflexive marker in the surface structure but possessing some other meaning than that of semantic reflexivity; and then the two big groups of reflexives are further subdivided into more specific subpatterns.

2.1. Semantic Reflexives

In this pattern the reflexive marker performs its primary function – it restricts the process denoted by the verb to the sphere of the agent (Paulauskienė, 1979: 55). The agent performs an action which does not go over to any outer participant of the situation but is reflected on the agent himself/herself. Thus, the agent is at the same time the affected participant of the situation. In the surface structure the subject and the object

20 coincide, thus the direct object is pronominalized and reflexivized. Reflexive verbs in this model typically express the agent’s (a person’s or some other animate entity’s) action directed at himself/herself, or a change of state/situation the agent gets into as a result of his/her own efforts. On the basis of the changed relation of the referent, the role and syntactic structures as well as the meaning of the verb the following subpatterns could be distinguished here:

2.1.1. Pure Reflexives

Reflexive verbs in this subpattern express a process directed at the agent himself/herself which results in a change, either physical or emotional.

The pattern is typically based on material processes. The agent, which is typically human, performs mostly volitional actions upon his/her body. The pattern can be exemplified by the following opposition with a non-reflexive construction:

(17) Ona prausė savo dukrą vs. Ona prausėsi ← Ona prausė Oną; [Ann washed her daughter] [Ann washed+REFL] [Ann washed Ann].

The diathesis changes in the following way (Geniušienė, 1987: 76):

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person 1 Person 2 Person 1 Agent Patient Agent Patient Subject Direct Object Subject

Thus, there is only one participant in the situation and he/she is the agent and the affected at the same time.

In Lithuanian this pattern is realized in the surface structure by the reflexive verbs of the following lexical range:

21 • verbs related to dressing, changing one’s appearance: rengtis, puoštis, autis, etc; • verbs related to covering oneself with something: apsikloti, prisidengti; išsitepti, išsipurvinti, etc; • verbs related to washing oneself: praustis, maudytis, mazgotis,etc; • verbs related to providing oneself with: ginkluotis,etc; • verbs expressing processes that affect the body as a whole: saugotis, gintis, gelbėtis; prisispausti, užsidaryti, atsitverti, etc; • verbs related to hurting oneself: pasikarti, pasipjauti, nusižudyti, nusinuodyti, etc.

The reflexive meaning of the semantic coreference with these verbs is supported by instances where the corresponding non-reflexive verb is followed by a reflexive pronoun save, as in apkloti save, šluostyti save, etc. However, not all such reflexives in Lithuanian have parallel synonymous constructions with save. Consider:

(18a) Pavojingose situacijose žmonės galvoja, kaip apsaugoti save. [In dangerous situations people think how to protect themselves] vs. (b) Pavojingose situacijose žmonės *ginkluoja save. [In dangerous situations people arm themselves]

Mental material verbs can also occur in this pattern. They express intentional actions performed upon the agent’s state of mind:

(19) Jonas drąsina draugą vs. Jonas drąsinasi [Jonas encourages his friend] [Jonas encourages+REFL]

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person 1 Person 2 Person 1 Agent Patient Agent Patient Subject Direct Object Subject

22 Other reflexive mental verbs used in this model are guostis, ramintis, kankintis, aukotis, žemintis, etc. However, typically semantic reflexivity with verbs denoting mental activity in Lithuanian is expressed by means of reflexive pronouns: gerbti save, niekinti save, kaltinti save; matyti save, etc. Consider:

(20) Kiekvienas žmogus privalo pirmiausia gerbti save vs. Kiekvienas žmogus privalo *gerbtis. [Each man must respect himself] [Each man must respect+REFL]

2.1.2. Metonymical Reflexives

This subpattern is very similar to the previous one, the only difference being that the action performed by the agent does not affect the whole of the body – only some part of it. Thus, reflexive constructions can also possess a metonymical function – the reflexive marker blocks the expression of the patient in the surface structure though it is retained in the role structure:

(21) Berniukas užmerkė akis vs. Berniukas užsimerkė [The boy closed his eyes] [The boy PREF+REFL+closed]

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person Part of the body Person Part of the body Agent Patient Agent Patient Subject Direct Object Subject ------

The reflexive marker here marks the omission of the noun phrase referring to the patient in the syntactic structure as its mention is redundant. But the reflexive verb preserves the referent and role structures of the base verb and therefore the lexical meaning remains unchanged.

The agent in this pattern is typically human and the patient may be a part of the body, a piece of clothing the agent is wearing, or even some alienable possession of the agent: šukuotis, dažytis, skustis, kasytis; užsisegti, atsiraitoti; skalbtis, tvarkytis etc (Geniušienė, 1987: 79). Consider:

23 (22) Sekmadieniais mes visada tvarkomės. [On Sundays we always tidy+REFL]

In Lithuanian, when used with the patient denoting some alienable possession of the agent, some of these verbs may be ambiguous as the same construction can possess either a metonymical meaning, or a dative meaning (expressing action for one’s own benefit, see section 2.2.2 of this paper):

(23) Jonas skalbiasi may mean: (a) Jonas skalbia savo rūbus [Jonas is washing+REFL] [Jonas is washing his clothes] (b) Jonas skalbia rūbus sau [Jonas is washing his clothes for himself]

Or, when used together with the reflexive pronoun savo, the reflexive verb in this construction may serve as an emphatic element:

(24) Jonas skalbiasi savo rūbus may mean Jonas skalbia savo rūbus pats [Jonas is washing+REFL his clothes] [Jonas is washing his clothes himself]

The subpattern can also be based on verbs expressing mental activity. In this case the actor is typically human, and the affected participant is some inalienable feature of the actor: tvardytis (jausmus, ašaras), valdytis (jausmus), susitelkti (dėmesį), susikaupti, keistis (elgesį, požiūrius) etc. Consider:

(25) Po avarijos jis buvo toks susijaudinęs, kad vos tvardėsi. [After the accident he was so excited that he barely controlled+REFL]

Moreover, verbal processes are not ruled out in this pattern either, as in pasikartoti, pasiaiškinti etc. Consider:

(26) Petras buvo pakviestas pas direktorių pasiaiškinti. [Petras was called to the director to explain+REFL]

24 2.1.3. Autocausative Reflexives

The subpattern can be exemplified by the following opposition:

(27) Petras paslėpė daiktus vs. Petras pasislėpė [Petras hid the things] [Petras PREF+REFL+hid]

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person Non-person Person ------Agent Patient Agent ------Subject Direct Object Subject ------

In the reflexive construction of the type, there is only one referent which is typically animate. The agent performs an action, as a result of which he/she changes his/her position in space – i.e. the agent causes the movement of his/her body. Hence the name autocausative.

As the construction without the reflexive marker is not ambiguous, the reflexive pronoun can be omitted in the surface structure and some autocausative reflexives in the surface structure can be realized by reflexively unmarked verbs: eiti, bėgti, skristi, šliaužti, ropoti, etc:

(28) Vaikai ropojo po stalu [The children were crawling under the table]

It is important to remember here that in Lithuanian reflexivization is at the same time a means of detransitivization of the verb; but verbs expressing movement in Lithuanian are generally intransitive and therefore there is no need to add the reflexive marker in the surface structure to indicate that the process does not go over to any outer entity (Valeckienė, 1998: 29).

Nevertheless, the agent’s change of position can also be expressed by reflexive verbs: artintis, tolintis, lenktis, verstis, trauktis, klauptis, slėptis, atsistoti, atsisėsti, suktis, nusigręžti, ridentis/ristis etc:

25 (29) Paraginus šeimininkui, svečiai atsisėdo prie stalo. [With the host’s encouragement the guests PREF+REFL+sat down to table]

Moreover, in Lithuanian in some cases there are two possibilities to express movement reflexives – both by means of reflexive and non-reflexive verbs: gulti/gultis, stoti/stotis, klaupti/klauptis, etc (ibid: 29). Or, in some cases, transitive verbs can have both reflexive intransitive equivalents expressing movement and non-reflexive verbs with a root vowel interchange, as in:

Kelti (raise) – kilti (rise) – keltis (rise+REFL)

Judinti (movetr) – judėti (movei) – judintis (movei+REFL):

(30) Svečiai kilo nuo stalo and Svečiai kėlėsi nuo stalo [The guests were rising from the table] [The guests were rising+REFL from the table]

(31) Žiūrėk, tas žmogus vos juda. and Žiūrėk, tas žmogus vos judinasi. [Look, that man is barely moving] [Look, that man is barely moving+REFL]

According to Paulauskienė (1979: 34), when the reflexive and non-reflexive counterparts are absolute synonyms, the reflexive verb is used more frequently as the language tends to formalize the expression of intransitivity.

2.2. Semantic Patterns of Formally Reflexive Constructions

In this section we will be examining verbs which are only formally reflexive, i.e. the reflexive marker here is added to the base in order to subtract some participant from the surface structure and thus detransitivize the verb, and to mark some other meaning than that of the semantic coreference.

2.2.1. Reciprocal Reflexive Verbs

In Lithuanian, reflexively marked verbs can be used to express reciprocity – a situation of mutual interaction between people or groups when two individuals are interacting in

26 both directions (or several individuals are interacting in various directions) so that both agents (initiators of the process) are patients at the same time (Geniušienė, 1987: 91):

(32) Aš apkabinau jį Jis apkabino mane Mes apsikabinome [I embraced him] [He embraced me] [We PREF+REFL+embraced] (1) (2) (3) Person1 Person2 Person1 Person2 Person1 Person2 Agent1 Patient2 Agent2 Patient1 Ag1/Pt2 Ag2/Pt1 S DO S DO S

Thus, in this pattern reflexive verbs denote situations in which each of the referents is both the agent and the patient in regard to each other. The referents are encoded by one surface structure subject expressed by a plural noun phrase (or personal pronoun) or by two conjoined subjects. According to Paulauskienė (1979: 40), reflexive verbs can possess a reciprocal meaning only when the two participants are of equal status, i.e. both are either persons or non-persons.

The reciprocal model can be realized by reflexive verbs denoting a) material processes like muštis, peštis, stumdytis, spardytis, kautis, dalytis etc; b) verbal processes like kalbėtis, šnabždėtis, ginčytis, bartis etc; or c) mental processes of affection like mylėtis, pyktis etc.

2.2.1.1. The Pattern of Conjoint Participation in the Action

As a variant of the reciprocal pattern we could distinguish the subpattern of conjoint participation in the action (Paulauskienė, 1979: 48) which differs from the former in the way that the affected participant does not perform the function of the agent at the same time:

(33) Jonas nusivedė vaiką su savimi [John PREF+REFL+took the child with him]

In contrast to the reciprocal pattern, reflexively marked verbs used here are transitive, and the meaning of conjoint participation is stressed by the context su savimi, drauge su

27 savimi, kartu su savimi. In such a context it is also possible to use non-reflexive verbs to express the same meaning (ibid: 48). Consider:

(34) Jonas nusivedė vaiką su savimi vs. Jonas nuvedė vaiką su savimi [John PREF+REFL+took the child with him] [John PREF+took the child with him]

2.2.1.2. Characterizing Reflexives

Another variant of the reciprocal pattern can be illustrated by the following examples (Geniušienė, 1987: 83):

(35) Berniukas muša vaikus vs. Berniukas mušasi [The boy beats children] [The boy beats+REFL]

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Animate1 Animate2 Animate1 Animate2 Agent Patient Agent Patient Subject Direct Object Subject ------

In this pattern formally reflexive verbs denote a characteristic activity of the agent. The reflexive marker makes it possible to subtract the realization of the patient participant from the surface structure though it is present in the semantic role structure. The agent can be both person and non-person animate entity, as in Šuo kandžiojasi [The dog bites+REFL]. Other reflexive verbs used in this pattern are based either on material processes, as in peštis, stumdytis, kumščiuotis; badytis, kramtytis, žnaibytis, pjautis, etc, or on verbal processes, as in bartis, keiktis, etc.

2.2.2. Dative Reflexives

The pattern can be illustrated by the following examples (Geniušienė, 1987: 126):

(36) Marytė pasiuvo dukrai suknelę vs. Marytė pasisiuvo suknelę [Mary made her daughter a dress] [Mary PREF+REFL+made a dress]

28 (1) (2) Person1 Person2 Non-person Person1 Non-person Agent Recipient Affected Agent Recipient Affected S IO DO S DO

In the pattern the same participant performs the action and receives the ‘goods’ (Valeika, 1998: 31). The agent performs some action for himself/herself, for his/her own benefit. The pattern can be based on material processes, as in pasisiūti, pasigaminti, nusipirkti, pasidaryti etc, or on relational possessive processes, as in Na ir turėkis! Lai turisi!, where the reflexive marker -si- is used to stress the dative meaning. It could be substituted by a combination of a non-reflexive verb and the dative case of the reflexive pronoun sau in this pattern. Consider:

(37) Aš pasigaminau pietus vs. Aš pagaminau sau pietus [I PREF+REFL+made dinner] [I PREF+made myself dinner]

It is also possible to make the dative meaning in this pattern more explicit by using the reflexive verb together with the reflexive pronoun in the dative case (sau), e.g.:

(38) Marytė pasisiuvo sau suknelę [Mary PREF+REFL+ made herself a dress]

However, according to Paulauskienė, this redundancy is not considered to be a mistake (2000: 218) as it actually helps to resolve the possible ambiguity which arises when a reflexive verb is used without any additional reflexive markers and it may be not clear whether the construction is used in the dative meaning or emphatically (to emphasize the agent’s involvement in or his ability to perform the action), consider:

(39) Jonas pasigamino pietus [Jonas PREF+REFL+made dinner]

Jonas pats pasigamino pietus or Jonas sau pasigamino pietus [John made the dinner himself] [John made the dinner for himself] [John himself made the dinner] [John made himself the dinner]

29 2.2.3. Decausative Reflexives

The term refers to the following kind of opposition with the base non-reflexive verb (Geniušienė, 1987: 98):

(40) Jonas atidarė langą vs. Langas atsidarė [John opened the window] [The window PREF+REFL+opened]

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Some power Referent ------Referent (person/non-person) Agent (causer) Patient ------Patient Subject Direct Object ------Subject

The pattern is based on an intransitive verb, so that the process seemingly does not go over to any outer entity but is thrown back on the subject of the sentence. However, in contrast to the above patterns, the given process cannot occur by itself and therefore has to be brought about by external causation (ibid: 99). The subject here is not the agent – it does not cause the action (Valeika, 1998: 26). The causer of the action (agent), which can be both animate and inanimate, is suppressed (ibid: 25). The subject of the target sentence is the affected participant, which is typically inanimate. The affected participant seems to sustain the action, so that it seems that the subject “performs” the action by itself (i.e. a self-generating process). In other words, an externally caused event is presented as spontaneous (Grahek, 2002: 57). The action is not passed on to any outer object and affects only the affected participant.

Hence, in the pattern, the reflexive marker encodes the subtraction of the causative sense from the semantic component structure of the base non-reflexive verb and thus serves as an anticausative marker (Geniušienė, 1987: 98).

In Lithuanian, the decausative pattern can be realized in the surface structure by reflexive verbs, as in ritasi, keičiasi, užsidaro, atsidaro, susitinka, tiesiasi, sukasi, lenkiasi, laikosi, etc. Consider the following examples:

(41) Kamuolys ritasi [The ball is rolling+REFL]

30 (42) Langas atsidarė [The window PREF+REFL+opened] (43) Ratas sukasi [The wheel is turning+REFL] (44) Lubos laikosi ant kolonų [The ceiling support+REFL on the pillars→The ceiling is supported by the pillars]

In some cases it is also possible to realize the decausative meaning by reflexively unmarked intransitive verbs derived from their transitive counterparts by means of root vowel interchange, as in: daužti – dūžti; laužti – lūžti; veisti – veistis – visti; berti – bertis – birti; skelti – skeltis – skilti; risti – ristis - riedėti etc (Paulauskienė, 1979: 33), e.g.:

(45) Pušį lengva perskelti – Pušis lengvai skeliasi – Pušis lengvai skyla [It is easy to split the pine tree – The pine tree splits (+REFL) easily] (46) Jonas rita kamuolį – Kamuolys ritasi – Kamuolys rieda [John is rolling the ball – The ball is rolling (+REFL)]

2.2.3.1. Self-Acting Processes

As a variant of the decausative pattern we could distinguish constructions which are seemingly self-acting, self-contained or spontaneous (Vilkinienė, 2002: 13), e.g.:

(47) Giedrijasi [The sky is clearing+REFL] (48) Saulė leidžiasi [The sun is setting+REFL]

However, the given process (or state) does not occur by itself – the state of the referent changes by force of its inherent properties, or some natural laws. Consider:

(49) Pumpurai skleidžiasi [The buds unfold+REFL] (50) Visi veidai senatvėje raukšlėjasi [All faces wrinkle +REFL in old age]

Such self-acting processes in Lithuanian can be expressed by both reflexively marked (šakotis, lapotis, niauktis, keistis, baigtis, prasidėti, veistis, daugintis, atsirasti, etc), and unmarked verbs (aušti, niukti, vysti, daugėti, kisti etc) (Ulvydas, 1971: 208).

31 2.2.4. Notional Passive Reflexive Constructions

The pattern can be illustrated by the following examples:

(51) Medžiaga lamdosi [The fabric crumples+REFL] (52) Megztinis veliasi [The sweater felts+REFL] (53) Suknelė gerai dėvisi [The dress wears+REFL well]

Semantically this type of construction is similar to the passive; therefore, it is called the notional passive or middle construction. But it is not possible in every case to express these meanings by the passive without some lexical or grammatical modifications (Valeika, 1998: 29).

The construction indicates a characteristic property of the patient (subject). The process in the construction seems to be self-acting. However, the agent is clearly implicit even though not realized in the surface structure (ibid). The following diathesis illustrates the model:

(54) Vaikas greitai ištepa baltus rūbus vs. Balti rūbai greitai tepasi [The child quickly dirties white clothes] [White clothes dirty+REFL quickly]

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person Non-person Person Non-person Agent Patient Agent Patient Subject Direct Object ------Subject

The pattern actually has a modal component of meaning – that of the ability or suitability of an entity to perform some action. According to Lyons, these constructions are “process-oriented”; they possess a feature of characterization of the process as such (Valeika, 1998: 29). Even though the process is caused with the interference of some external force, it is not the agent who is responsible for the properties of the process, but rather some inherent qualities of the affected participant (the surface structure subject). In other words, the properties of the patient influence the quality of the process itself:

32 (55) Medžiaga gerai skalbiasi [The fabric washes+REFL well] means that The fabric can be washed well due to some of its qualities.

However, in Lithuanian the use of reflexive verbs in this pattern is not always the norm (Paulauskienė, 2000: 218). Frequently, the reflexive verb in this pattern is used due to the influence of Slavic languages and violates the norm of the Lithuanian language. According to Paulauskienė (2000: 218), when the reflexive form can be easily replaced by either a passive voice form or a modal construction in the active voice, and the subject of the surface structure sentence denotes an inanimate entity unable to initiate or affect the process in any way, then the use of the reflexive verb is a grammatical mistake. The scholar indicates the following most frequently occurring misuses of the reflexive forms:

1. Reflexive constructions are often used in the meaning of the passive:

(56) *Parsiduoda dar gera spinta → Parduodama dar gera spinta. [A good wardrobe PREF+REFL +sell] [A good wardrobe is being sold]

(57) *Vilniuje atsidarė nauja parduotuvė → Vilniuje buvo atidaryta nauja parduotuvė. [A new shop PREF+REFL+open in Vilnius] [A new shop was opened in Vilnius]

2. There are three verbs in Lithuanian – girdėti, matyti, justi – the non-reflexive forms of which are frequently used interchangeably with their reflexive equivalents, consider:

(58) Čia jaučiasi nemalonus kvapas vs. Čia justi nemalonus kvapas [A bad smell feel+REFL here] [A bad smell can be felt here] (59) Girdėjosi garsi muzika vs. Buvo girdėti garsi muzika [Loud music heard+REFL] [Loud music could be heard] (60) Pro kiaurą stogą matėsi žvaigždės vs. Pro kiaurą stogą buvo matyti žvaigždės [Stars see+REFL through the leaky roof] [Stars could be seen through the leaky roof]

According to Paulauskienė (2000: 220), the use of the reflexive form in such constructions has appeared under of the influence of Slavic languages. Thus, even though now there is a strong tendency to use reflexive constructions in such situations,

33 the non-reflexive form is more characteristic of the Lithuanian language and therefore is the norm in the examples of the above indicated type.

Or, when the process is modified by an adjunct, it is advisable to render the target meaning by means of a passive construction, as in:

(61) *Tas namas gerai matosi [That house sees+REFL well → →Tas namas gerai matomas →That house is well seen] (62) *Muzika gerai girdėjosi [The music heard+REFL well → → Muzika buvo gerai girdima →The music could be heard well] (ibid: 220).

2.2.5. Impersonal Reflexive Constructions

Reflexively marked verbs are also often used in impersonal constructions of the following type:

(63) Mums šiandien nesidirba [We not +REFL+work today → →We cannot work today] (64) Man šiandien visai nesigalvoja [I not +REFL+think today at all → →I cannot think today]

Such reflexive constructions indicate either the physical or mental state of the participant expressed by the dative case of a noun or personal pronoun. Other verbs used in this model could be nesimiega, nesirašo, nesisėdi, nesidainuoja, nesiguli; nesimąsto, nesitiki, etc. The construction is typically negative, but its positive variant is not ruled out either, e.g.:

(65) Norėjosi valgyti [(I) wanted+REFL to eat]

According to Paulauskienė (2000: 220), such constructions have also appeared under the influence of Slavic languages and should be replaced by the corresponding non- reflexive constructions with some lexical or grammatical modifications, as in:

(66) Man nesimiega → Aš negaliu užmigti

34 [(I) not+REFL+sleep] [I cannot sleep] (67) Man norisi → Aš noriu. [(I) want+REFL] [I want]

However, the reflexive impersonal construction is widely used, and Paulauskienė admits that the pattern is becoming the accepted norm (ibid: 220).

2.2.6. Reflexive Causative Pattern

The pattern can be illustrated by the following example (Geniušienė, 1987: 124):

(68) Kirpėjas apkirpo Joaną vs. Joana apsikirpo pas kirpėją. [The hairdresser cut Joana‘s hair] [Joana PREF+REFL+cut at the hairdresser‘s→ →Joana had her hair cut] (1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person1 Person2 Person1 Person2 Agent1 Patient1 Patient2/Agent1 Patient1 Subject Direct Object Prep. Object Subject

Other examples of the pattern in Lithuanian could be Susiremontavau batus pas batsiuvį [I PREF+REFL+mend my shoes at a cobbler’s]; Susitaisiau dantis pas garsų stomatologą [I PREF+REFL+cured my teeth at a famous dentist] etc.

The agent in the surface structure of the reflexive construction does not carry out the action himself/herself; rather he/she sees to it that somebody else performs the action for him/her. The reflexive marker here then detransitivizes the verb and hence it becomes possible to thematize the affected participant of the situation.

2.2.7. The Emphatic Pattern

In Lithuanian, reflexively marked verbs can also serve to emphasize the agent’s involvement in or his/her ability to perform the action:

(69) Petras pasistatė namą → Petras pats pastatė namą

35 [Petras PREF+REFL+built a house] [Petras built a house himself]

However, more often than not the emphatic meaning of the reflexive marker is made more explicit by using the reflexively marked verb together with the lexeme pats, as in Petras pats pasistatė namą. But this redundancy, as pointed out by Paulauskienė (2000: 218), is not considered to be a mistake as it actually helps to resolve the possible ambiguity which arises when a reflexive verb is used without any additional reflexive markers and it may be not clear whether the construction is used emphatically or in the dative meaning (see section 2.2.2 of this paper).

2.2.8. Resultative Reflexives

As a separate group of reflexives it is possible to single out resultative reflexive verbs. These verbs are always prefixed, and their meaning is derived from the combination of the prefix, which typically means “a lot, to satiety; to perform the action denoted by the base verb intensively, to the full, etc”, and the reflexive marker, which emphasizes the fact that the results of the action are for the benefit of the agent, e.g. nusilakti, prisivalgyti, nusivaikščioti, atsidirbti, prisivažinėti, atsidainuoti, atsimyluoti, išsilyti, išsirėkti, etc (Kniūkšta, 2000: 205-206; Ambrazas, 1997: 410):

(70) Ten jie tavęs jau užsilaukė [They PREF+REFL+wait for you there] (71) Tegu išsityli [Let them PREF+REFL+be quiet]

2.3. Reflexiva Tantum (Non-Reversible Reflexives)

There are also verbs that occur only in the reflexive form. These verbs are sometimes called reflexiva tantum verbs, i.e. non-reversible reflexive verbs which have no non- reflexive equivalents and possess a variety of meanings, e.g. džiaugtis, juoktis, sektis, dairytis, tyčiotis, drovėtis, gėdytis, ryžtis, ilgėtis; apsimesti, užsigauti, atsiliepti, atsidurti, etc.

To this group it is also possible to ascribe such reflexive verbs which seemingly have

36 non-reflexive equivalents; however, the meaning of the former has developed so far that they are no longer recognized to be derived from the non-reflexive base, as in dėti vs. dėtis (apsimesti), lakstyti vs. pasilakstyti (apsivaisinti), sekti vs. sektis, stebėti vs. stebėtis, etc. In all these cases the element -si- serves not as the reflexive marker but as a word building element.

3. Semantic Patterns of Reflexive Constructions and their Realization in English

As mentioned in section 1.3.2, the function of the English reflexive marker oneself consists in either marking semantic reflexivity, which makes verbs with oneself free word combinations, or in changing the meaning of verbs, and this case they are lexical items. In other words, just like in Lithuanian, in English reflexive verbs are semantically heterogeneous and can be therefore grouped into certain semantic patterns. The following classification is made on the basis of the semantic relationship of reflexive verbs with the corresponding base non-reflexive verbs identified with the help of the three-level diathesis.

3.1. Semantic Reflexives

3.1.1. Pure Reflexives

The reflexive marker in this pattern marks agent-patient coreference. Hence the construction indicates a process directed towards oneself which results in a change, either physical or emotional:

(72) Mary is defending her child. vs Mary is defending herself ← Mary is defending Mary.

The pattern can be illustrated by the following diathesis:

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person 1 Person 2 Person 1 Agent Patient Agent Patient

Subject Direct Object Subject Direct Object refl

37 The subpattern can be based on material processes. The lexical range of verbs that can be used in this model is very similar to the one in Lithuanian:

• verbs related to dressing: dress oneself, etc; • verbs related to covering oneself with something: cover oneself; dirty oneself etc; • verbs related to washing oneself: wash oneself, bathe oneself, lick oneself; dry oneself etc; • verbs related to hurting oneself: cut oneself, hurt oneself, kill oneself, drown oneself, etc; • verbs like defend oneself, protect oneself, save oneself etc; • verbs related to hurting oneself: kill oneself, poison oneself, etc; • verbs expressing processes that affect the body as a whole: protect oneself, defend oneself, etc (Geniušienė, 1987: 78).

As a number of reflexive verbs in this pattern denote actions typically performed upon oneself rather than another person, sometimes it is possible to render the same reflexive meaning even without the reflexive marker in the surface structure, e.g.:

(73) John bathed vs. John bathed himself

Such constructions could be then termed implicitly reflexive. However, according to Geniušienė (1987: 191), the meanings of the implicit and explicit constructions do not always coincide. In some cases implicit constructions are somewhat broader, for example, the implicitly reflexive “to dress”, when restricted by appropriate circumstances, can also mean “to wear clothes” or “to change clothes”, and it is not then interchangeable with the explicitly reflexive dress oneself (ibid). Consider the following examples:

(74) Mary dresses (*herself) plainly/shabbily, etc (75) John never dresses (*himself) for dinner. Cf. Mary dresses, which means that Mary gets dressed.

38 Hence, there are cases when the deletion of the reflexive participant can change the meaning of the construction.

Mental material verbs of behaviour can also occur in this subpattern. In contrast to material processes, they express intentional actions performed upon the agent’s state of mind rather than his/her body, e.g. behave oneself, reproach oneself, astonish oneself, comfort oneself, deceive oneself, trust oneself, persuade oneself, accuse oneself, etc. Consider:

(76) I am trying to persuade my parents that I was right. vs. I am trying to persuade myself that I was right.

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person 1 Person 2 Person 1 Agent Patient Agent Patient

Subject Direct Object Subject Direct Object refl

Unsimilar to material verbs, these verbs require the reflexive pronoun. Only behave can be used on its own, e.g.:

(77) She behaved which means She behaved well (Huddleston, 2002: 671).

3.1.2. Metonymical Reflexives

This subpattern is very similar to the previous one, the only difference being that the action performed by the agent does not affect the whole of the body – the construction denotes an action performed by the agent upon his/her body part. Thus, reflexive constructions can also possess a metonymical function – the reflexive marker is used to mark the coreference of the agent and some part of his/her body (Geniušienė, 1987: 195), e.g.:

(78) He pricked his finger vs. He pricked himself

39 (1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person Inalienable possession Person Inalienable possession Agent Patient Agent Patient

Subject Direct Object Subject Direct Object refl

Other examples could be cut one’s finger vs. cut oneself, burn one’s hand vs. burn oneself, powder one’s face vs. powder oneself, scratch one’s back vs. scratch oneself, etc.

The subpattern can also be based on mental and verbal processes, as in collect oneself (one’s thoughts), compose oneself (one’s thoughts), control oneself (one’s anger, temper), devote oneself (one’s life, time), explain oneself (one’s words, meaning), repeat oneself (one’s words), etc.

3.1.3. Autocausative Reflexives

The subpattern can be illustrated by the following opposition:

(79) John placed the book on the windowsill. vs. John placed himself on the windowsill.

(1) Non-reflexive (2) Reflexive Person Non-person Person ------Agent Patient Agent ------

Subject Direct Object Subject Direct Object refl.

The agent performs an action, as a result of which he/she changes his/her position in space – i.e. the agent causes the movement of his/her body:

(80) John is walking ← John is causing John to be walking ↓ John is walking himself

40 The repeated subject is pronominalized and reflexivized, e.g. balance oneself, cast oneself, curl oneself, drag oneself, hide oneself, raise oneself, seat oneself, squeeze oneself (into some place), thrust oneself, etc.

However, as the construction without the reflexive marker is usually not ambiguous, the reflexive pronoun can be omitted in the surface structure. As a result, the pattern is realized in the surface structure by reflexively unmarked verbs which might have developed this function from the primary reflexive meaning oneself (Geniušienė, 1987: 87).

Other implicitly reflexive verbs in this model are: run, fly, kneel, hide, move, crawl, roll, turn; rise, stand up, sit down, seat, get up; bend etc, e.g.:

(81) The old woman knelt in front of the altar. (82) John rose from the table when Mary came into the room. (83) He bent to the audience.

3.2. Semantic Patterns of Formally Reflexive Constructions

In this section we are going to examine verbs which are only formally reflexive, i.e. the constructions where the reflexive marker is used to mark a meaning other than that of semantic coreference.

3.2.1. Decausative (Self-Acting) Processes

In this pattern reflexive verbs typically occur with inanimate entities functioning as the subject in the surface structure and the construction denotes seemingly self-acting or spontaneous processes, e.g.:

(84) John corrected the problem vs. The problem corrected itself

However, the process does occur by itself - the entity denoted by the subject has some inherent qualities that make it possible for the process to happen in a more or less

41 automatic (spontaneous) way. Hence, the state of the referent changes by force of its inherent properties, or some natural laws.

According to Geniušienė (1987: 205-206), the pattern is used with three lexical subsets:

1. reflexive verbs like assert itself, add itself, accommodate itself, complicate itself, communicate itself, express itself, etc are used with nouns denoting abstract notions;

2. reflexive verbs are used with concrete inanimate nouns, body parts to indicate change of position implying that the motion is involuntary or unintentional on the part of the person, as in arch itself (his eyebrows arched themselves), clasp itself, clench itself, distort itself, knit itself, lift itself, narrow itself, part itself (his lips parted themselves), etc;

3. verbs expressing physical process and collocating with names of plants, lower life, machines, etc: blow itself up, combine itself, detach itself, duplicate itself, multiply itself, reproduce itself, etc.

More frequently, the pattern is realized by reflexively unmarked intransitive verbs in the surface structure. According to Valeika (1998: 25), the following processes can participate in the causative alternation: cook, bend, move, boil, ring, fly, stop, roll, burn, burst, change, close, open, drop, join, meet, run, shake, shut, stand, stretch, tighten, turn, etc. Consider:

(85) The boil is rolling ← John caused the ball to roll and now it continues to roll itself. (86) The bread is baking← Somebody started baking it and now it continues baking itself. (87) The window opened← Somebody opened it.

In some cases it is possible to express the same meaning either by reflexive constructions or by the corresponding non-reflexive verbs, as in show (itself), shape (itself), form (itself), double (itself), fold (itself), twist (itself), wind (itself), etc.

42 3.2.2. Dative Reflexives

The reflexive marker here marks the coreference of the human recipient or the beneficiary with the agent:

(88) John bought Mary a present vs. John bought himself a present

(1) (2) Person1 Person2 Non-person Person1 Non-person Agent Recipient Affected Agent Recipient Affected

S IO DO S IOrefl DO

The agent performs the action for his/her own benefit. In English this pattern is based on transitive verbs with the reflexive pronouns in the role of recipient and functioning as the indirect object in the surface structure.

3.2.3. Resultative Reflexives

3.2.3.1. Reflexives with the Postpositive Particle Out

The pattern could be illustrated by the following examples:

(89) It has rained itself out. (90) He worked himself out. (91) The team played themselves out.

According to Geniušienė (1987: 214), the construction has an aspectual meaning of the resultative mode of action. The reflexive marker in conjunction with the particle out marks the meaning “exhaust oneself (itself) as a result of an intense process (or action) which lasted for some time”.

3.2.3.2. Reflexives with a Resultative Clause

Reflexive constructions here express a causative-resultative meaning “bring oneself into

43 the state denoted by an adjective, as in cut oneself free, dance oneself lame, talk oneself hoarse, drink oneself sick, etc, or a noun phrase, as in fret oneself into a fever, lull oneself into a bliss, read oneself to sleep, smoke oneself to calmness, etc, as a result of performing the action expressed by the verb for too long (Geniušienė, 1987: 215):

(92)John talked himself hoarse ← John caused himself to become hoarse by talking.

3.2.4. Reflexiva Tantum (Non-Reversible Reflexives)

To this group it is possible to assign:

1. Formally non-reversible reflexive verbs, i.e. the obligatorily reflexive verbs which are not related to any non-reflexive verbs in Modern English like pride oneself (on), demean oneself, betake oneself, absent oneself, deport oneself, disport oneself, etc. All these reflexive verbs are literary and/or archaic (Geniušienė, 1987: 211); 2. Semantically non-reversible reflexive verbs, which can be regarded as phraseological units since their characteristic distinctive feature is individual semantic relationship with the corresponding non-reflexive verb. For example: conduct oneself, betray oneself, pat oneself (on the back), suit oneself, show oneself (at a meeting), throw oneself into, find oneself (find one’s vocation), etc (ibid: 212-213).

4. A Contrastive Analysis of the Means of Reflexivization in Lithuanian and English

The contrastive analysis of the means of reflexivization in Lithuanian and English is based on a corpus of 6718 occurrences of reflexive constructions (5521 explicitly marked and 1197 implicitly reflexive examples) in the novel “Sodybų Tuštėjimo Metas” by Jonas Avyžius (I) and its English version translated by Olga Shatse (II). Both reflexive verbs and their derivatives (participles, nouns) were analyzed.

44 The analysis was carried out by means of the descriptive method in the following way: the collected data in Lithuanian were first of all grouped into reversible (4423 cases) and non-reversible reflexives (2295 cases). Then, the collected reversible reflexive constructions (3226 reflexively marked and 1197 unmarked verbs and their derivatives) were grouped into semantic patterns on the basis of the semantic relationship of reflexive verbs with the corresponding base non-reflexive verbs determined with the help of the three-level diathesis (see section 1.4 of this paper). The frequency of occurrence of reflexive constructions in different semantic patterns is presented in Table1.

Table 1. The number of reversible reflexive constructions in different semantic patterns in Lithuanian

Semantic Reflexives Formally Reflexive Constructions 2726 1697

Pure Dative Passive Notional Emphatic Reciprocal Resultative Resultative Impersonal Decausative Metonymical Autocausative

760 262 618 1087 722 110 540 223 70 13 16 2 marked unmarked marked unmarked 1705 832

The next step of the analysis was to look for the ways the target reflexive constructions in Lithuanian were translated into English. The aim was to determine the means the two languages can employ for the realization of the semantic reflexivity in the surface structure sentence as well as the meanings the two languages express by using formally reflexive constructions.

We are going to start our analysis by the description of the semantic patterns that can be realized by means of reflexive constructions in both the languages, i.e. the pattern of semantic reflexives (pure, metonymical and autocausative reflexives) and the formally reflexive constructions (the decausative pattern, the dative and the resultative patterns), and then we are going to describe the realization of the semantic patterns which can be based on reflexive constructions in Lithuanian but not in English (the reciprocal pattern, the emphatic pattern, the notional passive and the impersonal patterns).

45 4.1. A Contrastive Analysis of the Means Expressing Semantic Reflexives

4.1.1 Pure Reflexives

Most of the verbs in this subpattern denote processes typically performed by the speaker upon himself/herself rather than another person; therefore, it is sometimes possible to express the same reflexive meaning even without the reflexive marker in the surface structure.

Out of the 760 examples of pure reflexives encountered in the Lithuanian text, only 84 were translated into English by means of explicitly marked reflexive constructions. Hence, the language data we have collected enable us to maintain that explicitly reflexive constructions in this subpattern are more common in Lithuanian than in English. Consider the following examples:

(93 a) Gediminas persirengia <…> (I: 96); (b) Gediminas went into the house to change (II: 87); (94 a) Panelė Onutė sėdi prie lango susisupusi į baltą pūkinę skarą <…> (I: 110); (b) Onutė sat at the window muffled up in a white angora shawl <…> (II: 101).

In the Lithuanian examples, the omission of the reflexive marker would be impossible, consider:

(95) Gediminas *perrengia ir eina padėti liuobti; (96) Panelė Onutė sėdi prie lango *susupusi į baltą pūkinę skarą.

The target constructions without the reflexive marker in the surface structure would become transitive and would need the indication of the patient affected by the action.

In English, the construction without the reflexive marker in the surface structure in most cases was not ambiguous and was used more frequently than explicitly marked reflexives.

Out of the 84 cases of explicitly marked pure reflexives in English, 4 were used in

46 obligatorily reflexive constructions which should be regarded as phraseological units (see section 1.3.2 of this paper), e.g.:

(97a) Nusiraminkite, ponas Kerši (I: 318); (b) Pull yourself together, Mister Keršis (II: 275); (98a) Suėmė save kietai į rankas <…> (I: 483); (b) He took himself in hand <…> (II: 406).

The rest of the explicitly marked reflexives were used when the construction was based on a transitive verb, and the reflexive marker was obligatory in the surface structure sentence to avoid ambiguity, consider:

(99 a) <…> o patys užsidarykime auksiniuose narveliuose (I: 55); (b) <…> and just lock ourselves up in your golden cages (II: 51); (100 a) <…> bet jis turi tvirtovę, kurioje užsidaręs su savo sąžine,gali gintis! (I: 94); (b) <…> he has a stronghold, and if he locks himself up in this stronghold alone with his conscience, he can defend himself (II: 90); (101 a) Gediminas, pasirėmęs ant alkūnės, <…> (I: 331); (b) Raising himself on an elbow, Gediminas<…> (II: 286).

The comparison of the Lithuanian and English examples of marked reflexives in this subpattern also shows that there is a strong tendency to express Lithuanian analytical reflexive constructions by means of explicitly reflexive constructions in English. Out of the 84 examples of marked pure reflexives in Lithuanian, 13 constructions had the analytical reflexive marker – the reflexive pronoun savęs – in the surface structure, and all of them were translated by marked reflexives in English, e.g.:

(102a) <…> ir pamatai, kad visa tai tik nesąmoningas savęs apgaudinėjimas (I: 426); (b) <…> when you realize that you have been deceiving yourself all along (II: 356); (103a) Aš žudžiau, gindamas save <…> (I: 418); (b) I killed defending myself <…> (II: 349).

The other examples in the subpattern of pure reflexives were translated by either unmarked (implicitly reflexive) verbs (see examples 93-94) or by some nominal constructions, as in:

47 (104a) Žmogus <…> ginasi dengiamąja spalva (I: 91); (b) Men <…> use a protective coloration (II: 86).

The relative frequency of occurrence of marked, unmarked and nominal constructions used in English to express the pattern of pure reflexives is demonstrated in Figure 1:

84; 11% Marked reflexive 229; 30% constructions Non-reflexive constructions Nominal constructions 447; 59%

Figure 1. The frequency of use of the ways to express pure reflexives in English

Then, our data show that the choice between the marked or unmarked reflexive constructions in the surface structure sentence hardly depended on the meaning of the base verb. When the pattern was based on mental material verbs (294 cases out of the total of 760), it was most frequently translated into English by means of non-reflexive verbs (119 out of 294) or some nominal constructions (158 out of 294), just like in the case of material processes, consider:

(105a) <…> kol visai nusiramino <…> (I: 129); (b) <…> until she had cooled off completely <…> (II: 116); (106a) Ne, ne, nesivargink tamsta, aš sotus (I: 149); (b) No thanks, don’t bother, I’m full (II: 135); (107a) Bet šiandien turėsite nusivilti savo gabumais (I: 439); (b) But tonight you are in for a disappointment (II: 366); (108a) Aš nežudžiau, tik gyniausi <…> (I: 452); (b) I did not murder, I killed in self-defence (II: 376).

And only in the cases when the base verb was transitive (17 out of 294), the pattern was expressed by explicitly reflexive constructions, as in:

48 (109a) Nesigraužk, man užteks ir tiek gimnazijos (I: 332); (b) Don’t torture yourself, I’ll manage with the education I have (II: 287).

The relative frequency of the possible means to express the pattern of pure reflexives based on mental material verbs in English is shown in Figure 2:

Marked reflexive 17; 6% constructions

Unmarked reflexive 158; 54% 119; 40% conctructions Nominal constructions

Figure 2. The frequency of use of the ways to express pure reflexives based on mental material verbs in English

Then, the examples we have collected in this subpattern enable us to claim that the pure reflexives encountered in the Lithuanian text could have been translated into English by means of explicitly marked reflexive constructions in another 154 cases. Nevertheless, examples 110-112 illustrate that the corresponding implicitly reflexive constructions used by the translator were not ambiguous. Consider:

(110a) Gediminas prisivertė nusišypsoti (I: 78); (b) Gediminas had forced a smile (II: 71), or Gediminas forced himself to smile; (111a) Tylutėliai apsirengė <…> (I: 152); (b) Keršis dressed quietly <…> (II: 138), or Keršis dressed himself quietly; (112a) <…> nesupratau, kodėl žmonės žudosi dėl jos <…> (I: 424); (b) <…> I did not understand then why people committed suicide <…> (II: 353), or <…> I did no understand then why people killed themselves <…>.

We could conclude then that the choice between the marked and unmarked constructions in this subpattern seems to have been determined by either the valency peculiarities of the base verbs or some stylistic considerations of the translator.

49 4.1.2. Metonymical Reflexives

In the subpattern the reflexive marker marks the omission of the noun phrase referring to the patient in the syntactic structure - a part of the body, a piece of clothing the agent is wearing, or some alienable possession of the agent. The analysis of the data shows that the use of the reflexive construction in the metonymical pattern in English is rare – in the text under discussion explicit reflexives occurred only in 9 cases out of a total of 261 examples of this subpattern, e.g.:

(113a)Bet paskutinę akimirką susivaldo <…> (I: 376); (b) <…> but he controlled himself at the last moment <…> (II: 314); (114a) Susitvarkykite, ponia<…> (I: 444); (b) Make yourself tidy, Madame <…> (II: 369).

The collected data enable us to claim that in most cases (110 out of 261 cases) the metonymical reflexive constructions were translated into English by the corresponding reflexively unmarked intransitive verbs. Consider:

(115 a) Adomas kvailai išsiviepė (I: 20); (b) Adomas sneered (II: 19); (116 a) Purtėsi, atsikalbinėjo (I: 126); (b) He shook and wagged his head in negation (II: 113).

The translated construction was not ambiguous as the base verb actually includes the affected participant in its definition, as in: to sneer – to laugh or smile with a curl of the lips (14: 1279); to shake – to move your body up and down or from side to side with quick short movements (ibid: 1234).

Less frequently (in 91 out of 261 cases), the subtracted patient was restored in the surface structure sentence in English. Consider:

(117 a) Užsimerkė (I: 39); (b) She squeezed her eyes shut (II: 34);

50 (118 a) Bigė žiojosi <…> (I: 46); (b) He opened his mouth to <…> (II: 41); (119a) <…> vaikščioti be kaklaraiščio, nešvariam, susiglamžiusiam <…> (I: 78); (b) <…> not to wear a necktie, not to wash, to go about in crumpled clothes (II: 72).

Another alternative to express the metonymical meaning in English, the same as in the case of the pure reflexives, was to use the corresponding nominal constructions, as in:

(120a) Paskui iš kažkur atsirado išsidažiusi merga <…> (I: 52); (b) Afterwards, a painted tart <…> appeared from nowhere <…> (II: 48); (121a) Baukus susikaupęs ilgai tyli (I: 204); (b) Baukus remained silent for a long time, busy with his own thoughts (II: 184).

The relative frequency of occurrence of the means expressing the metonymical reflexives in English is demonstrated in Figure 3:

39; 16% 9; 4% Explicit reflexives

Non-reflexive constructions 110; 43% Restored patient 91; 37% Nominal constructions

Figure 3. The frequency of use of the ways expressing the metonymical pattern in English

Some of the metonymical reflexive constructions encountered in the Lithuanian text (74 examples) were not translated at all. In our opinion, about one third of them (26 cases) could have been translated by explicitly marked reflexive verbs in English, as in:

(122a) <…> bet nepajėgdamas susivaldyti (I: 122); (b) <…> but he couldn’t control himself; (123a) Išsižergė tarpduryje <…> (I: 451); (b) He planted himself in the doorway.

51 Moreover, in our opinion, as many as 44 instances of metonymical reflexives, although translated by some other alternatives, could have been translated by the corresponding explicitly marked reflexive constructions:

(124a) Adomas <…> atsisagstė ištisai (I: 41); (b) <…> so Adomas unbuttoned <…> (II: 37) or Adomas unbuttoned himself; (125a) <…> nesupratau, kodėl žmonės neapkenčia, aukojasi <…> (I: 424); (b) <…> I did not understand why people hated, and sacrificed everything <…> (II: 353) or <…> I did not understand why people hated, and sacrificed themselves <…>.

Thus, the use of the marked or unmarked forms in some cases seems to have been determined by a personal choice of the translator.

4.1.3. Autocausative Reflexives

The subpattern indicates an action as a result of which the agent changes his/her position in space – i.e. the agent causes the movement of his/her body. The verbs expressing movement are generally intransitive; therefore, when the construction is based on a transitive verb, in Lithuanian it is necessary to add the reflexive marker, which is also a means to detransitivize the verb, in order to indicate that the action does not go over to any outer entity (Valeckienė, 1998: 29), as in:

(126a) Ji pasilenkia, bučiuoja jį į kaktą (I: 48); (b) She bent down, and kissed him on the forehead (II: 44).

Nevertheless, the collected data show that in Lithuanian unmarked autocausative constructions were more frequent than the marked ones (see Table 2).

Table 2. The number of marked and unmarked autocausatives in Lithuanian

Autocausative Reflexives. Total: 1705 Marked in the surface structure Unmarked in the surface structure 618 1087

52 The collected examples show that in English this pattern was also typically based on reflexively unmarked intransitive verbs (in 1628 out of 1705 cases). Consider:

(127 a) <…> judinkimės namučio <…> (I: 136); b) <…> he’d better go home <…> (II: 121); (128 a) Akvilė pasikėlė eiti (I: 142); (b) Akvilė rose to go (II: 129).

Only in the cases when the construction was based on a transitive verb, the autocausative pattern was translated by explicitly reflexive constructions. Nonetheless, in English the occurrence of the reflexive marker in surface structure sentences of the autocausative pattern was infrequent (in 21 out of 1705 cases), e.g.:

(129 a) Adomas tingiai atsisėdo (I: 70); (b) He lowered himself into the chair (II: 64); (130 a) Adomas sunkiai atsistojo ir priėjo prie lango (I: 71); (b) Adomas heaved himself up from the chair and went to the window (II: 65); (131 a) <…> pati šalia kūmų įsispraudė <…> (I: 127); (b) <…> she squeezed herself between the godparents <…> (II: 114); (132 a) <…> paskui atsiplėšė nuo tvoros <…> (I: 12); (b) <…> then he wrenched himself away from the fence <…> (II: 12).

In the corpus we have collected, there were also autocausative constructions translated by unmarked verbs which could have been used with the reflexive marker in the surface structure. Nevertheless, in our opinion, the use of explicitly reflexive verbs in most of the cases would have been superfluous as the unmarked constructions were not ambiguous. Consider the following examples:

(133a) Paskui iš lėto ir ilgai tiesėsi <…> (I: 13); (b) It took him a long time to straighten [himself] up again <…> (II: 14); (134a) Gediminas pasilenkė paimti nukritusios nosinės (I: 13); (b) Gediminas said bending [himself] to pick up the handkerchief he had dropped (II: 14).

There were also cases when the use of a reflexively marked verb in the surface structure

53 sentence would have been possible, but the construction would have acquired a new shade of meaning, consider:

(135a) <…> ir laiptais nusileido žemyn (I: 447); (b) <…> and rolled down the stairs into the darkness below (II: 372); or <…> and rolled himself down the stairs <…>.

The given examples demonstrate that in some cases, if the construction is explicitly marked, the action becomes intentional as if the agent purposefully performed some action upon himself/herself. The non-marked construction, however, sounds more neutral and can code both intentional and intentional actions.

4.2. A Contrastive Analysis of Formally Reflexive Constructions in Lithuanian and English

4.2.1. Decausative Reflexives

The language data we have collected enable us to maintain that the use of reflexively marked constructions to express the decausative pattern is quite common in Lithuanian. Out of the 832 examples of this pattern found in the Lithuanian text, 722 were expressed by means of reflexively marked and only 110 – by unmarked constructions. The corpus data also show that it is more typical of Lithuanian than of English to employ explicitly reflexive constructions to realize the decausative pattern in the surface structure. Out of the 832 decausative constructions used in the Lithuanian text, only 7 were translated into English by means of the corresponding explicitly reflexive construction, e.g.:

(136a) <…> kol praauš ir durys atsivers <…> (I: 288); (b) <…> and to wait for the front door to open itself (II: 253); (137a) Nuo sienos atsiskyrė patalų krūva <…> (I: 318); (b) A bed, disattached itself from the wall <…> (II: 276).

More frequently, however, English employed some other ways to express the same meaning. Consider the examples:

54 (138 a) <…> ir iš ten atsirito suirzęs balsas (I: 88); (b) Gediminas caught the words <…> (II: 82); (139 a) <…> Keršio pečiai irgi nusisuko (I: 223); (b) And Keršis turned his back on Gediminas (II: 201); (140 a) <…>ir tada jame automatiškai įsijungdavo atitinkami reguliatoriai <…> (I: 64); (b) <…> and he automatically put on the brakes (II: 59); (141a) <…> apmaudu išsilieja žodžiai (I: 257); (b) <…> he spoke vexedly (II: 232).

These examples demonstrate that in some cases (78 out of a total of 832), when a reflexive decausative construction was translated into English, the subtracted causative sense, marked by the reflexive marker in the surface structure in Lithuanian, was restored. As a result, the translated construction became explicitly causative, i.e. the causer the action (the agent) was reinserted in the surface structure sentence.

The collected data also show that another way to express the decausative sense in the English text was to use the passive (47 cases out of 832). Consider the following examples:

(142 a) <…> kuri parodytų, kad jos ramus, savimi patenkintas pasaulėlis susijaukė (I: 116); (b) <…>anything to show that her serene, smug little world was shaken <…> (II: 106); (143a) <…> bet tuo metu tyliai prasivėrė durys (I: 171); (b) <…> and in that terrible moment the door was pushed open quietly <…> (II: 158); (144a) <> kol paukščiai neišsiperės (I: 300); (b) <…> until the young were hatched (II: 258).

The use of the passive in the English sentence rendered the causative sense of the construction explicit. But, in contrast to the previously discussed examples, the causer of the action here was unknown, unimportant or clear from the situation, hence the passive construction was chosen.

However, most frequently, i.e. in 548 cases out of a total of 832, in the English text the pattern was expressed by means of the corresponding reflexively unmarked verbs, as in:

(145 a) Adomo skruostais ritosi girtos ašaros (I: 23);

55 (b) <…> and tears trickled down his face (II: 23); (146 a) Krūtinė sunkiai kilnojosi po suprakaitavusiais marškiniais (I: 23); (b) His chest heaved under his sweat-stained shirt (II: 23); (147 a) <…>durys, minkštai girgžtelėjusios, prasivėrė (I: 53); (b) <…> the door opened with a gentle sigh (II: 48); (148 a) <…> geltoni antakiai pasišiaušė <…> (I: 137); (b) <…>his yellow eyebrows bristled (II: 123); (149 a) Ant tavęs kaip ant pilkų pamatų laikosi visas namas <…> (I: 327); (b) You were the grey foundation on which the whole house rested <…> (II: 283.)

The analysis of the collected data showed that in English it was also possible to express the decausative pattern, coded by explicitly reflexive verbal constructions in Lithuanian, by means of the corresponding nominal constructions (154 cases out of 832), e.g.:

(150 a) <…> gamtos grožis, neišsenkantis jos gajumas taip nesiderino su klaikia laidotuvių giesme <…> (I: 16); (b) The beauty of nature, reborn for the countless time, and its inexhaustible vitality was so incompatible with the dismal funeral chant <…> (II: 16).

The relative frequency of occurrence of the possible ways to express the decausative pattern in English is demonstrated in Figure 4:

Explicit reflexives 47 7

154 Unmarked reflexive constructions Restored causer 78 Nominal 548 constructions Passive constructions

Figure 4. The frequency of occurrence of the different means expressing the decausative sense in English

56 Some of the decausative reflexive constructions encountered in the Lithuanian text were not translated at all. In our opinion, most of them could have been translated by the corresponding unmarked reflexive intransitive verbs, as in:

(151 a) Priemenėje žvangėdamas nusirito užkliudytas kibiras (I: 171); (b) A bucket rolled down the floor; (152 a) <…> stebėdamas, kaip neatpažįstamai keičiasi jos veidas (I: 123); (b) <….> watching how her face was changing.

There were also cases where several options to translate the target reflexive constructions would have been possible: either by using the corresponding reflexively unmarked verb, or the passive, as in:

(153 a) <…> kalbėjo užuominomis, už kurių slėpėsi netikrumas ir baimė (I: 349); (b) <…> he kept making hints that concealed fear and insecurity; or <…> fear and insecurity were concealed under his hints.

However, when the target construction was based on a transitive verb, it would have been obligatory to use an explicitly reflexive construction to render the target meaning, e.g.:

(154 a) Ji buvo girdėjusi: istorija kartojasi <…> (I: 38); (b) She had heard that history repeated itself <…>.

4.2.2. Dative Reflexives

Out of the 540 examples of dative reflexives found in the Lithuanian text, only 19 were translated into English by constructions containing a reflexive marker in the surface structure sentence, e.g.:

(155 a) Per porą trejetą metų išsiauginsite tvirtą mergą (I: 222); (b) <…> you’ll have trained a first-class worker for yourselves (II: 200); (156 a) Tik vargo prisidarė <…> (I: 313); (b) He only made trouble for himself <…> (II: 270). (157 a) <…> Pėliksas susiradęs tinkamą porą <…> (I: 282);

57 (b) Keršis got himself a wife <…> (II: 252); (158 a) <…> neregėtus ratus, parsivežęs juos apkaustytus iš kalvės (I: 336); (b) <…> also got himself a cart like that (II: 290).

In 160 cases out of a total of 540, the dative pattern was translated into English without the reflexive pronoun in the surface structure. Nevertheless, the recipient of the process was made clear by means of the corresponding possessive pronouns used with the surface structure object. The pronouns indicated that the affected participant belonged to the agent (the surface structure subject). Consider the following examples:

(159a) <…> įsikišo į kišenę nebaigtą valgyti duonos abišalę <…> (I: 611); (b) <…> he thrust his unfinished chunk of bread <…> into his pocket <…> (II: 513); (160a) Taisosi ant sofos patalą <…> (I: 399); (b) She was making her bed on the sofa (II: 332);

However, most of the dative constructions were translated into English without the reflexive marker indicating the recipient of the process as the context made it clear who received the ‘goods’. Consider:

(161 a) Žiemai prisisūdysime grybų <…> (I: 43); (b) We’ll pickle some mushrooms for the winter <…> (II: 39); (162 a) <…> o nusipirkę nuėjome į cukrainę <…> (I: 118); (b) When she bought it, we went to a café <...> (II: 108).

The frequency of occurrence of the different ways to express the dative pattern in English is summarized in Figure 5:

Reflexive pronoun in the surface structure 19; 4%

160; 30% The corresponding possessive pronoun indicating the recipient of the process 361; 66% Reflexively unmarked constructions without any special indication of the recipient

Figure 5. The relative frequency of the ways to express dative constructions in English

58 4.2.3. Resultative Reflexive Constructions

The corpus data we have collected show that reflexively marked constructions in the resultative pattern occur more frequently in Lithuanian than in English. Out of the 70 examples of resultative constructions encountered in the Lithuanian text, only 3 were translated into English by constructions with the reflexive marker in the surface structure, viz. by a reflexive construction with a resultative clause stuff oneself full, which was repeated three times, e.g.:

(181a) Ag ir smagūs vagys, svetimos kiaulienos prisiriję…(I: 459); (b) The dirty thieves, they’ve stuffed themselves full of stolen pork <…> (II: 383); (182a) Atsiės mūsų lašinių <…> (I: 491); (b) They’ll stuff themselves full of our pork <…> (II: 415).

In the rest of the cases of this pattern, English employed some other means to express the resultative mode of action, viz. lexemes which denote satiety, fullness, completion of the action, (see example 183); phrasal verbs with the particles out, up (see example 184); adverbs of quantity much, a lot, all, etc (see example 185); verbal constructions with the link verbs have, get, give or be which indicate a completed instance of an action (example 186) or a combination of one of these alternatives with some grammatical means, like the forms of the perfect aspect (example 187):

(183a) <…> o kai svečias įšilęs, pasisotinęs <…> (I: 398); (b) <…> and when Adomas was sated with food and drink <…> (II: 331); (184a) <…> ir iki valiai išsiverkti (I: 16); (b) <…> and cry her heart out (II: 16); (185a) <…> tiek varguolių prisikentėta <…> (I: 258); (b) <…> the poor have suffered so much <…> (II: 229); (186a) Bet pasistenkime nepasigerti (I: 14); (b) Only let’s not get drunk (II: 14); (187a) <…> pro nusivoliojusius, dobilus šlamščiančius arklius <…> (I: 363); (b) <…> past horses that had had their roll <…> (II: 304).

The relative frequency of occurrence of the ways to express resultative constructions is demonstrated in Figure 6:

59 Reflexives with a resultative clause

8; 15% 3; 6% Lexemes with the inherent perfective aspect 17; 33% 7; 13% Verbal constructions with the link verbs "have", "get", "give" Phrasal verbs with 17; 33% "out", "up"

Adverbs of quantity

Figure 6. The frequency of use of the ways to express the resultative mode of action

In the rest of the cases, no special means were employed to stress the completion of the action, consider:

(188a) O dar prieš tai išsimiegojo utėlėtas švarioje lovoje <…> (I: 613); (b) <…> he went to sleep in a clean bed <…> (II: 515); (189a) <…> bet prisibuvo našta ir sau, ir kitam <…> (I: 247); (b) <…> but she was a burden <…> (II: 221).

4.3. Analysis of the Patterns which are based on Reflexive Constructions only in Lithuanian and their Realization in English

4.3.1. Reciprocal Reflexives

The collected data demonstrate that reciprocity can be expressed by means of reflexively marked constructions in Lithuanian but not in English, e.g.:

(163 a) Pasigėrę visada susipykstame (I: 14); (b) We always quarrel when we’ve had a drink too many (II: 14).

The analysis of the corpus data shows that English employed other means to express reciprocity. In the English variant of the text, the reciprocal meaning was expressed by some syntactic means, viz. the phrases each other (12 cases out the total number of 223

60 of reciprocal constructions), one another (5 out of 223) and together (2 out of 223), as in:

(164 a) Išsiskersti nesunku <…> (I: 47); (b) If we start settling accounts with one another <…> (II: 43); (165 a) Trejus metus nesimatę! (I: 157); (b) We haven‘t seen each other for three years! (II: 144); (166a) Samdiniai kuždėjosi tarpusavyje <…> (I: 416); (b) Some of the farmhands whispered together <…> (II: 348).

More frequently, however, (in the remaining 204 cases) reciprocity was expressed lexically, i.e. by means of lexemes which have an inherent reciprocal meaning, e.g.:

(167 a) <…> dabar galėsime apsivesti (I: 167); (b) He thought they could marry <…> (II: 153); (168 a) <…> jam šlykštu, kai vyrai bučiuojasi <…> (I: 52); (b) <…> he hated it when two burly men kissed <…> (II: 48) (169a) Ant jo tvirtų pečių pešėsi žvirbliai (I: 343); (b) Sparrows were having a fight on his strong shoulders <…> (II: 297).

Figure 7 demonstrates the relative frequency of occurrence of the different ways expressing reciprocity in the English translation of “Sodybų Tuštėjimo Metas”:

5 12 2 The use of "each other" The use of "one another" The use of "together"

Special lexemes

204

Figure 7. The frequency of use of the means expressing reciprocity in English

61 4.3.2. Notional Passive Reflexive Constructions

In the corpus data we have encountered only 16 examples of reflexively marked notional passive constructions, e.g.:

(170) Beveik nesigirdėjo paukštelių čiulbėjimo <…> (I: 333); (171) Pro obuolių ir kažkokio žalsvo kraiko sluoksnį nesimatė žemės <…> (I: 334).

The collected examples of the notional passive pattern were based on the verbs girdėti (10 cases), the verb matyti (4 cases) and the verb vadinti (2 cases) – the constructions which, according to Paulauskienė (see section 2.2.4 for detail), tend to be widely spread among language users even though the corresponding reflexively unmarked form is more characteristic of the Lithuanian language.

The analysis of the data shows that the pattern was not typically expressed by reflexive constructions in English. Consider the following examples:

(172a) Pro obuolių ir kažkokio žalsvo kraiko sluoksnį nesimatė žemės <…> (I: 334); (b) The ground was carpeted with apples and a strange green mixture (II: 289);

(173a) Šūvių nebesigirdėjo <…> (I: 448); (b) He heard no sound of shots <…> (II: 372);

(174a) <…> ratuose pasigirdo silpnas, širdį veriantis dejavimas (I: 152); (b) <…> he caught a faint, heart-breaking moan coming from the cart (II: 138).

The examples show that in English notional passive constructions can be expressed by means of either active constructions with the recipient experiencer functioning as the subject in the surface structure sentence, as in (173), (174) (10 cases out of the total of 16), or by the passive proper, as in (172) (6 cases out 16). Figure 8 illustrates the relative frequency of occurrence of the possible means to express the notional passive in English:

62 Constructions with 6; 38% the recipient experiencer Passive proper 10; 62%

Figure 8. The frequency of occurrence of the means expressing notional passive in English

4.3.3. Emphatic Reflexives

In Lithuanian, reflexively marked verbs can also be used to emphasize the agent’s involvement in or his/her ability to perform the action. In the corpus data we have encountered 13 examples of reflexively marked constructions which could be ascribed to this semantic pattern. In all the cases the emphatic meaning of the reflexive marker -si- was made explicit by using a reflexively marked verb together with the lexeme pats/pati, e.g.

(175a) Aš su tuo maita pats susidorosiu (I: 410); (b) I’ll manage the skunk myself (II: 342). (176a) <…> veidus, pasmerktus baisiai mirčiai, kurią kankiniai patys pasirinko (I: 591); (b) <…> he saw faces condemned to horrible death they had chosen themselves (II: 497).

In 11 cases reflexively marked verbs were translated into English by means of constructions with the emphatic oneself (for detail see section 1.3.3 of this paper). In the remaining 2 cases the emphasis of the agent’s involvement in the action was not retained in the English translation, consider:

(177a) <…> jeigu jūs patys to neužsigeisite (I: 386); (b) <…> unless you wish it (II: 323); (178a) <…> tą vaizdą, kurį pats susikūrė (I: 584); (b) <…> an associative scene forced upon him by his imagination (II: 494).

63 4.3.4. Impersonal Reflexive Constructions

Out of the total number of 3226 marked reversible reflexive constructions encountered in the text, only 2 can be attributed to the impersonal pattern. The analysis of the data shows that the pattern was not based on explicitly reflexive constructions in English but rather was expressed by means of the corresponding reflexively unmarked constructions, as in:

(179a) <…> o vis tiek norėjosi prisiglausti prie jo kelių <…> (I: 341); (b) <…> and Gediminas wanted to hug his knees (II: 295); (180a) <…> norisi griūti ant žemės ir kvatotis iki ašarų (I: 434); (b) <…> they wanted to flop on the ground and laugh (II: 363).

64 Conclusions

The present study was an attempt to produce a comprehensive description of the use of reflexivization in Lithuanian and English. 6718 instances of reflexive constructions in Lithuanian and their equivalents in the English translation of the text were analyzed, and the following observations were made:

1. The comparison of the semantic reflexives revealed that:

• In Lithuanian reflexive constructions were most frequently used to express semantic reflexivity – in 2726 cases out of a total of 4423 reversible reflexive constructions; hence, in the majority of cases the reflexive marker performed its primary function, i.e. restricted the process denoted by the verb to the sphere of the agent. 60% of all the examples in the semantic pattern (1639 out of 2726) in Lithuanian were reflexively marked. The greatest number of marked reflexive constructions (760 out of 2726) occurred in the subpattern of pure reflexives, where the reflexive marker encoded the coreference of two semantic roles (the agent and the patient). All the reflexively unmarked constructions belonged to the autocausative subpattern. As movement verbs are generally intransitive, there was no need to add the detransitivizing reflexive marker to show that the process was thrown back upon the agent.

• The English translations of the Lithuanian semantic reflexives show that in English there is a strong tendency to use unmarked reflexive constructions to express semantic reflexivity. Only 4.18% of all the constructions in this pattern (114 out of a total of 2726) contained a reflexive marker in the surface structure sentence in English. 84 reflexively marked constructions were used in the subpattern of pure reflexives, 21 – in the autocausative subpattern and 9 – in the metonymical subpattern. This can be accounted for by a relatively independent syntactical status of the English reflexive pronoun. When the coreference of the semantic roles (the agent and the patient) was clear from the context, or when the target verbs denoted actions typically performed upon oneself rather than another person, the reflexive marker could be omitted in the surface structure.

65 2. In both languages there were the so-called formal reflexives, i.e. reflexively marked constructions were used to mark other meanings than that of semantic reflexivity. Both in Lithuanian and English marked reflexives were used to express the decausative, the dative and the resultative patterns. Nevertheless, the analysis of the data enables us to claim that it is more common of Lithuanian to employ explicit reflexives to mark these semantic patterns. Out of the 832 decausatives in Lithuanian, only 0.84% (7 cases) were translated by means of marked reflexives in English. Out of the 540 dative constructions in Lithuanian, 3.52% (19 examples) were translated by constructions with a reflexive marker in the surface structure. Out of the 70 resultative reflexives in Lithuanian, 4.29% (3 cases) were translated by the corresponding reflexively marked constructions in English. The analysis showed that English employed a variety of other possibilities to express these meanings. The reflexive pronoun was used only in the cases when the construction was based on a transitive verb and the reflexive marker was necessary to indicate that the action did not go over to any outer entity, i.e. to avoid ambiguity.

3. The collected data show that the possible application of reflexive forms is wider in Lithuanian than in English. In addition to the decausative, dative and resultative patterns, in Lithuanian formally reflexive constructions were also used in the reciprocal, emphatic, notional passive and impersonal patterns. In English, reflexively marked constructions were not used to express the said semantic patterns. Rather, a variety of other means were employed for the expression of the target meanings.

To sum up, the results of the analysis confirm our hypothesis that, in comparison with English, Lithuanian is richer in reflexively marked constructions and they are used to mark a wider range of meanings. The basic differences in the employment of reflexivization in Lithuanian and English are determined by the peculiarities of the morphological structure of the languages – the former is a synthetic language, and the latter is an analytical one. Due to the relatively independent status of the English reflexive pronoun, when the construction is based on an intransitive base verb and there is no need to emphasize the fact that the process is confined to the sphere of the agent, the reflexive marker can be subtracted from the surface structure. Hence, when there is no danger of ambiguity in understanding the meaning of the target construction, English

66 tends to eliminate the coreferential constituent by including it in the process; the surface structure sentence then becomes simpler structurally, but more complex semantically.

The reflexive marker is obligatorily retained in the surface structure when the base verb is transitive and the reflexive marker is necessary to show that the action does not go over to any outer entity. Moreover, the reflexive pronoun cannot be subtracted from the sentence in the cases of formally reflexive constructions when the pronoun oneself is used to change the meaning of the target verbs, so that the construction becomes a phraseological unit, the meaning of which cannot be deduced from the meanings of its elements.

The main function of the Lithuanian reflexive affix -si- is to express the reflexive meaning. However, by marking the coreference of two semantic roles, the reflexive affix at the same time confines the action to the sphere of the agent, i.e. detransitivizes the verb. As the language tends to formalize the expression of intransitivity, the affix -si- has become a means of detransitivization of verbs whatever their meaning. Hence, the omission of the reflexive marker in the sentence would make the construction transitive and would require the realization of the patient participant. In some cases, however, the reflexive affix does not change the transitivity of the verb, but then the construction acquires a new meaning. Thus, in Lithuanian there are a greater number and variety of reflexive constructions. What all the patterns have in common is that they all involve the reduction of an action seen as involving two entities to an action seen as involving only one.

67 Summary

Šiame darbe palyginsime lietuvių ir anglų kalbų sangrąžos vartojimo ypatumus. Pats terminas sangrąža gali būti vartojamas dvejopai – tiek reikšmei, tiek formai nusakyti. Kai jis vartojamas pirmąja prasme, kalbame apie sangrąžinę reikšmę, t.y. procesus, apribotus veikėjo sfera. Kai šis terminas vartojamas antrąja prasme, kalbame apie sangrąžinius veiksmažodžius, t.y. bet kokios reikšmės veiksmažodžius turinčius sangrąžos žymeklį paviršinėje struktūroje. Skiriami sintetiniai ir analitiniai sangrąžos žymenys (t.y. sangrąžiniai afiksai ir sangrąžiniai įvardžiai).

Lietuvių kalboje refleksyvinė reikšmė gali būti išreikšta analitiniu būdu, t.y. veiksmažodžiu su sangrąžiniu įvardžiu savęs, sintetiniu būdu, t.y. veiksmažodžiu su sangrąžos afiksu -si-, arba šių dviejų būdų kombinacija. Pagrindinė lietuvių kalbos sangrąžos afikso funkcija – žymėti sangrąžinę reikšmę ir tuo pat metu pakeisti veiksmažodžio tranzityvumą. Tačiau yra atvejų, kai sangrąžos dalelytė neverčia veiksmažodžio intranzityviniu, bet paprasčiausiai modifikuoja jo reikšmę. Todėl galima teigti, kad lietuvių kalbos sangrąžinis afiksas, skirtingai nuo sangrąžinio įvardžio, yra daugiafunkcinis ir gali žymėti daug įvairių reikšmių.

Anglų kalboje refleksyvinė reikšmė reiškiama analitiniu būdu – veiksmažodžiu ir sangrąžiniu įvardžiu oneself. Pagal veiksmažodžio ir sangrąžinio įvardžio reikšmių sintezės laipsnį, skiriami trys sangrąžinių veiksmažodžių tipai: 1) refleksyvai su nuliniu semantinės sintezės laipsniu, turintys nesangrąžinius atitikmenis; 2) refleksyvai su vidutiniu semantinės sintezės laipsniu, kur sangrąžinis įvardis nežymi sangrąžinės reikšmės, o tiesiog keičia veiksmažodžio tranzityvumą; 3) refleksyvai su maksimaliu semantinės sintezės laipsniu, kur sangrąžinis įvardis visiškai pakeičia veiksmažodžio reikšmę. Kitaip tariant, anglų kalbos sangrąžos žymuo taip pat gali atlikti keletą skirtingų funkcijų.

Todėl, siekdami sistemingai ir nuosekliai aprašyti refleksyvizacijos procesą lietuvių ir anglų kalbose, mes sugrupavome sangrąžinius veiksmažodžius į semantinius modelius. Tokia klasifikacija grindžiama sangrąžinių ir atitinkamų nesangrąžinių veiksmažodžių semantiniu ryšiu, kuris nustatytomas trijų lygmenų diateze. Diatezės teorija leidžia kompleksiškai aprašyti sangrąžinių konstrukcijų sintaksinę, semantinę ir referentinę

68 charakteristikas. Nesangrąžinėse konstrukcijose sakinio elementų funkcijos atitinka viena kitą visuose trijuose lygmenyse. Pakitimai bet kuriame diatezės lygmenyje atitinkamose sangrąžinėse struktūrose žymi pakitusį semantinį konstrukcijų ryšį. Remdamiesi diatezės modeliu lietuvių kalboje išskyrėme semantinį, reciprokinį datyvinį, dekozatyvinį, „prasminį-pasyvinį“, beasmenį, kozatyvinį, emfatinį ir rezultatyvinį modelius; o anglų kalboje – semantinį, dekozatyvinį, datyvinį ir rezultatyvinį modelius.

Šiame darbe siekėme ištirti, ar sutampa šių modelių raiška lietuvių ir anglų kalbose, t.y. norėjome:

1. palyginti, kokiomis priemonėmis lietuvių ir anglų kalbose reiškiama sangrąžos reikšmė; 2. apibūdinti kokias dar reikšmes galima išreikšti sangrąžiniais veiksmažodžiais abiejose kalbose; 3. ir nustatyti, kas lemia refleksyvizacijos proceso ypatumus ir skirtumus šiose kalbose.

Tyrime remiamės 6718 sangrąžinių konstrukcijų pavyzdžiais, surinktais J. Avyžiaus romane „Sodybų tuštėjimo metas“, ir šių veiksmažodžių angliškais atitikmenimis Olgos Shartse romano vertime. Tyrimas atliktas deskriptyviniu metodu. Pirmiausia surinktus lietuviškus pavyzdžius sugrupavome į dvi grupes pagal tai, ar jie turi nesangrąžinius atitikmenis. Veiksmažodžiai, kurie neturi nesangrąžinių atitikmenų, t.y. kurių reikšmės pakitimas negali būti motyvuotas sangrąžos afiksu sinchroniniame analizės lygmenyje, iškrito iš šio tyrimo ribų. Konstrukcijos, turinčios nesangrąžinius atitikmenis, buvo sugrupuotos į semantinius modelius. Kitame analizės etape nustatėme, kaip šios konstrukcijos išverstos į anglų kalbą.

Tyrimas parodė, kad lietuvių kalboje sangrąžos dalelytė dažniausiai atlieka savo tiesioginę funkciją, t.y. žymi semantinį refleksyvumą. 60% visų semantinių refleksyvų (1639 iš 2726) turėjo sangrąžos afiksą paviršinėje sakinio struktūroje. Daugiausiai (760 iš 2726) markiruotų sangrąžinių konstrukcijų buvo vartojama tiesioginei sangrąžinei reikšmei išreikšti. Markiruotose konstrukcijose sangrąžos dalelytė -si- rodo, kad veiksmas nukreiptas į patį atlikėją. Visi nemarkiruoti refleksyvai buvo pavartoti

69 autokozatyviniame modelyje. Dauguma judėjimo veiksmažodžių ir taip yra intranzityviniai, todėl tam, kad apribotume veiksmą ties veikėjo sfera, sangrąžos afiksas nereikalingas.

Lietuviškų semantinių refleksyvų angliški vertimai parodė, kad anglų kalboje semantinio refleksyvumo modelyje dažniau vartojamos nemarkiruotos konstrukcijos. Tik 4.18% visų šio modelio pavyzdžių buvo išversti į anglų kalbą markiruotomis konstrukcijomis. Šią tendenciją galėtume pagrįsti gana laisva anglų kalbos sangrąžinio įvardžio sintaksine padėtimi, nes, kai semantinio refleksyvumo reikšmė buvo aiški iš konteksto arba kai veiksmažodžiai reiškė veiksmus, tipiškai nukreiptus į patį atlikėją, įvardis galėjo būti praleistas nepakeičiant sakinio reikšmės.

Taip pat nustatėme, kad abiejose kalbose sangrąžinės konstrukcijos ne tik atlieka savo tiesioginę funkciją, t.y. žymi semantinį refleksyvumą, bet gali atlikti ir kitas funkcijas. Taigi, formaliai sangrąžinės konstrukcijos vartojamos ir kituose semantiniuose modeliuose. Abiejose kalbose refleksyvai išreiškia datyvinį, dekozatyvinį ir rezultatyvinį modelius. Tačiau, analizuojant rezultatus, paaiškėjo, kad lietuvių kalboje ir šiuose modeliuose markiruotos konstrukcijos vartojamos dažniau negu anglų kalboje. Anglų kalboje dekozatyviniame modelyje refleksyvai buvo naudojami tik 0.84% visų konstrukcijų. Datyviniame modelyje - 3.52%, o rezultatyviniame - 4.29% visų konstrukcijų. Anglų kalboje markiruoti refleksyvai buvo vartojami tik tada, kai konstrukcija buvo išreikšta tranzityviniu veiksmažodžiu. Sangrąžinio įvardžio praleidimas būtų sukėlęs tam tikro neaiškumo sakinyje.

Tyrimo rezultatai leidžia mums teigti, kad lietuvių kalboje galimas platesnis sangrąžinių konstrukcijų pritaikymas, t.y. jos gali išreikšti daugiau semantinių modelių. Skirtingai nei anglų kalboje, lietuvių kalboje refleksyvai vartojami dar ir reciprokinėse, emfatinėse, „prasminėse-pasyvinėse“ ir beasmenėse konstrukcijose. Anglų kalboje šie modeliai reiškiami įvairiais kitais būdais, bet ne sangrąžinėmis konstrukcijomis.

Apibendrindami galėtume teigti, kad sangrąžos vartojimo lietuvių ir anglų kalbose skirtybes lemia šių kalbų morfologinių struktūrų ypatumai. Anglų kalbos sangrąžinis įvardis yra sąlygiškai nepriklausomas sakinyje. Kai iš konteksto yra aišku, kad procesas apribotas veikėjo sfera, bei sakinio veiksmažodis yra savaime intranzityvinis,

70 sangrąžinis įvardis gali būti praleistas be jokių konstrukcijos reikšmės pakitimų. Tuo tarpu lietuvių kalbos sangrąžos dalelytė yra sudėtinė žodžio dalis, afiksas, kuris vartojamas ne tik sangrąžinei reikšmei išreikšti, bet kartu yra universalus veiksmažodžių intranzityvumo žymuo. Todėl, praleidus šį afiksą paviršinėje sakinio struktūroje, dažniausiai ne tik pakistų konstrukcijos reikšmė, bet ir pats sakinys virstų gramatiškai netaisyklingu.

71 References

1. Ambrazas, V. (ed.). 1997. Dabartinės Lietuvių Kalbos Gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir Technologijų Leidybos Institutas.

2. Blokh, M. Y. 1983. Theoretical English Grammar. Moscow: Высшая Школа.

3. Christophersen, P. & Sandved, A. O. 1980. An Advanced English Grammar. Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press Limited.

4. Gast, V. & Siemund, P. 2004. Rethinking the Relation between Intensifiers and Reflexives. Available from: http://www.philologie.fu-berlin.de/~gast/home/publications.htm; the Internet.

5. Geniušienė, E. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

6. Gordon E. M. 1970. Способы Передачи Русских Глаголов на –ся в Английском Языке. Русский Язык За Рубежом, 1: 55-63.

7. Grahek, S. 2002. Alternating Unaccusative verbs in Slovene, in Nelson, D. (ed.). Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 9, pp 57-72. Available from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/linguistics/WPL/WP2002/Grahek.pdf; the Internet.

8. Huddleston, R. et al. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

9. Hulk, A. & L. Cornips. 2000. Reflexives in middles and the syntax-semantics interface, in Bennis H. & Everaert M. (eds.). Interface Strategies. KNAW – series. Amsterdam: Elsevier; pp 207-222. Available from: http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/medewerkers/leonie.cornips/reflexives.pdf; the Internet.

10. Ilyish, B. 1971. The Structure of Modern English. Leningrad.

72 11. Kniūkšta, P. (ed.). 2000. Lietuvių Kalbos Žinynas. Kaunas: Šviesa.

12. König, E. & Gast, V. 2002. Reflexive pronouns and other uses of self-forms in English. Available from: http://noam.philologie.fu-berlin.de/~gast/home/papdf/zaa.pdf; the Internet.

13. Lidz, J. 2001. The Argument Structure of Verbal Reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19.2:311-353. Available from: http://babel.ling.northwestern.edu/~lidz/vrmpub.pdf; the Internet.

14. Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (1998). Longman.

15. Lyons, J. 1969. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16. Moyne J. A. 1971. Reflexive and Emphatic. Language 47/1: 141- 163.

17. Paulauskienė, A. 1979. Gramatinės Lietuvių Kalbos Veiksmažodžio Kategorijos. Vilnius: Mokslas.

18. Paulauskienė, A. 2000. Lietuvių Kalbos Kultūra. Kaunas: Technologija.

19. Saha, P. K. 1987. Strategies of Reflexivization in American English. American Speech, 62.3, pp 211-234.

20. Turbova, M. 1988. On the Semantico-Syntactic Variations of Sentences with Identical Verbal and Participant Lexemes. Philologica Pragensia, 70: 18-29.

21. Ulvydas, K. 1971. Lietuvių Kalbos Gramatika. II tomas. Vilnius: Mintis.

22. Valeckienė, A. 1998. Funkcinė Lietuvių Kalbos Gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

73 23. Valeika, L. 1998. An Introductory Course in Semantic Syntax. Vilnius: Publishing House of Vilnius University.

24. Vilkinienė, L. et al. 2002. 365 Lietuvių Kalbos Veiksmažodžiai. Vilnius: Homo Liber.

Sources

I. Avyžius, J. 1982. Sodybų Tuštėjimo Metas. Vilnius: Vaga.

II. Avyžius, J. 1975. The Lost Home (translated by Olga Shartse). Moscow: Progress Publishers.

74