Slavistische Beiträge ∙ Band 349 (eBook - Digi20-Retro) Alina Israeli Semantics and Pragmatics of the "Reflexive" Verbs in Russian Verlag Otto Sagner München ∙ Berlin ∙ Washington D.C. Digitalisiert im Rahmen der Kooperation mit dem DFG-Projekt „Digi20“ der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, München. OCR-Bearbeitung und Erstellung des eBooks durch den Verlag Otto Sagner: http://verlag.kubon-sagner.de © bei Verlag Otto Sagner. Eine Verwertung oder Weitergabe der Texte und Abbildungen, insbesondere durch Vervielfältigung, ist ohne vorherige schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages unzulässig. «Verlag Otto Sagner» ist ein Imprint der Kubon & Sagner GmbH. Alina Israeli - 9783954790753 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:56:30AM via free access 00051911 SLAVISTICHE BEITRÄGE Begründet von Alois Schmaus Herausgegeben von Peter Rehder Beirat: Johanna Renate Döring-Smirnov ־ Tilman Berger • Waller Breu Klaus Steinke ־ Wilfried Fiedler ■ Walter Koschmal * Ulrich Schweier • Miloš Sedmidubskÿ BAND 349 V erlag O tto Sagner M ünchen 1997 Alina Israeli - 9783954790753 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:56:30AM via free access Alina Israeli Semantics and Pragmatics of the “Reflexive” Verbs in Russian V e r l a g Ot t o Sa g n e r M ü n c h en 1997 Alina Israeli - 9783954790753 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:56:30AM via free access 00051911 To Paul Beywleeh• etaatsbibtiott)•« Muncheo ISBN 3-87690-669-5 © Verlag Otto Sagner, München 1997 Abteilung der Firma Ku bon & Sagner D-80328 München Alina Israeli - 9783954790753 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:56:30AM ״־ן via free access PREFACE This book represents a revised version of a 1991 Yale University Ph.D. dissertation. While one chapter of the original dissertation will be published separately as an article, one additional chapter (Chapter 3) was added. All original chapters underwent substantial revisions and updating. I would like to thank Olga Yokoyama for rescuing the project, Laura Janda for suggesting that it be published. Valentina Zaitseva for her careful reading and her many suggestions, and Dr. Peter Rchder for accepting it for publication. My thanks also go to George Fowler for providing the font for the transliterations of the Rus- sian examples. Washington, D.C. Alina Israeli January 30, 1997 Alina Israeli - 9783954790753 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:56:30AM via free access Alina Israeli - 9783954790753 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:56:30AM via free access 00051911 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 11 Chapter 1. Subjectivity 13 1. Theoretical Considerations 13 1.1. Subjectivity Defined 13 1.2. Subjectivity and Types of Knowledge 15 2. External Forces and Impersonal Constructions 16 3. Body Parts and Involuntary Movements 22 4. Empathy 23 4.1. terjat'sja 24 ״ poslat' vs. prislat 25 .4.2 4.3. do vs. pered 27 4.4. Summary 30 5. The Modesty Principle (or The "Me First Principle" Revisited) 30 6. Summary 36 Chapter 2. The Postfix -Sja: Theory and Taxonomy 39 1. Taxonomic Approaches 39 2. Anti-Taxonomic Approaches 40 3. Semantic Approaches 45 4. -Sja Verbs and -Sja Forms 47 5. The Kemmer Hypothesis and the Semantics of -Sja 51 5.1. Reflexive 51 Partitive Object’ 58׳ .5.2 5.3. Decausative 63 5.3.1. Actional Decausative 65 5.3.2. Emotional Decausative 65 5.3.3. Medial Decausative 66 5.4. Medial Proper 67 5.5. Benefactive 68 Alina Israeli - 9783954790753 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:56:30AM via free access 14 CHAPTER 1 such'. ,Pragmatic meanings’ are inextricably intertwined in natural languages with meanings based on ‘denotational conditions*. The second facet of the *4human factor" is related to what Saussure calls parole , that is the ac- tual manifestation in speech. Yokoyama(1986, 1991 and 1994) addresses the theoretical aspect of human choices involved in creating language material within a communication. It is within the above specified contexts that I discuss subjectivity. Lyons (1982, 101) writes that the notion of subjectivity has acquired a pejorative connotation “by virtue of its opposition with a positivistic interpretation of ,objectivity’.” Here, however, I deal with subjectivity not as the op- posite of objectivity, but in two senses that language is subjective (let us call them SI and S2). Both types of subjectivity result from the fact that language is the product of the collective national linguistic consciousness. It is the grid of concepts through which a speaker of a given language sees the outside world and his own inner feelings or states. Apresjan (1986) calls this “the naive view of the world.” Wierzbicka (1979, 313) points out that “it is a commonplace to say that every language em- bodies in its very structure a certain world-view, a certain philosophy.” In her study entitled “Ethno-syntax,” she begins with the premise that “since the syntactic constructions of a language embody and codify certain language-specific meanings and ways of thinking, the syntax of a lan- guage must determine to a considerable extent this language’s cognitive profile,” (Wierzbicka 1979, 313) which constitutes a manifestation of S 1. The second kind of subjectivity (S2) is the result of the speaker's choice when the language of- fers different ways of describing given facts, and the speaker, naturally, chooses one of those ways. S2 involves his/her personal judgement and attitude towards the narrated event and/or the participants of the narrated event. Previous definitions have given a more limited view of subjectivity. Apresjan (1988, 8-9) de- fines pragmatics as subjectivity that is language based (S I ) and not discourse-related subjectivity (“freely created by the speaker in discourse”, S2 in my terms). I will refrain from using the term “pragmatics” in this sense in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion. Maynard (1993) subdivides linguistic material into that which has propositional characteristics and that which has non-propositional characteristics, the latter being interactionality, subjectivity and textuality. This is a narrow view of subjectivity which suggests that some elements of the lan- guage are purely subjective while others are not. The elements of language that Maynard discusses that have no referents represent SI, while their use in discourse represents S2. However, the subjectivity of S2 includes much more than just the non-referential lexemes. The message itself as well as the shape it takes is the result of processing by the speaker’s mind. Being the product of an individual human mind, any utterance bears some elements of subjectivity. With regard to human limitations as compared to computers, Zubin ( 1979, 471 ) argues: “We are subject to the limitation of selective attention. We are subject to an egocentric bias.” And according to Yokoyama (1986, 148): A pragmatic model of discourse must give primacy to (he subjectivity of the speaker, on whose as- sessment of the discourse situation alone an utterance is based, and whose knowledge, both infor- mational and metinformational, the utterance conveys. Verbal communication is part of human be­ Alina Israeli - 9783954790753 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:56:30AM via free access SUBJECTIVITY 15 havior. It is therefore hardly surprising that the speaker's subjectivity plays an important role in it, as it does in other forms of human behavior. S2 is present in discourse participant’s assessment, in choice of information and in mode of in- formation. For example, according to Jakobson (1959/1971), the speaker is presented with a choice between active and passive, while at the same time there are rules of language and communi- cation. SI and S2 arc fundamental concepts which will be used throughout this work. 1.2. Subjectivity and Types of Knowledge Subjectivity manifests itself not only in assessment or mode of expression. The way that cer- tain propositional knowledge may be attained has bearing on grammar. A number of linguists, in- eluding Russell (1940), Kuroda (1973), Coppieters (1982) and Vogeleer (1987), have noted that there are three types of messages and that not all statements represent the same type of perception of or knowledge about the Object. For example, statements (1)—(4) even though quite parallel in syntactic structure, do not represent the same kind of knowledge: (1) John is tall. (2) I am hungry. (3) John is hungry. (4) John is stupid. In ( 1) and (2), the speaker relates information acquired through observation and personal expe- rience. This is perceptual knowledge. In (3), there arc three possibilities: first, the speaker (or rather the narrator) has omniscient power, that is s/he can “enter" any character’s skin and knows just as much about the character’s feelings as about his/her own. In this case, the sentence represents the same type of statement and knowledge as in (2), except that the third person is used instead of the first. Genette (1972) calls this “focalization"; that is, the narrative represents John’s point of view even though it is told in the third person. The second possibility is that the speaker does not possess omniscience and somehow came to the possession of his/her knowledge through ordinary means, such as being informed by someone. Kuroda (1973) calls this “reportive style." It is epistemological knowledge. The third possibility is that the speaker is observing John, who either is eating at the moment that this statement is uttered or else has a starved look in his eyes that suggests hunger to the on- looker. In this case, the speaker deduces that John is hungry. This is deductive knowledge. Statement (4) represents the speaker’s opinion and may well not be shared by anyone else. This is conceptual knowledge. Alina Israeli - 9783954790753 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 02:56:30AM via free access 00051911 16 CHAPTER I Kuroda, Coppieters and Vogeleer demonstrate that these different types of knowledge (or, in Coppieters* terms, attitudes — intrinsic or extrinsic; in Vogeleer’s terms, point of view — percep- tual or epistemological) have a bearing on Japanese and French grammar.