A Lexical Analysis of Polish Multifunctional Reflexive
Marker
Anna Kupsc
As common in Slavic, e.g., Russian, Bulgarian or
Serbo-Croatian,
Polish reflexive marker (RM) `sie' `self'
is multifunctional. It
can be an impersonal, (1a) middle, (1b), inherent (1c)
or anaphoric
marker (ARM), (1d). Verbs in (1a)-(1c) are often considered to be
lexically specified for RM, unlike in (1d) where RM is treated as
a
counterpart of the complement. In this paper, we provide evidence that
ARM is not fully equivalent to the complement `siebie', either,
and we
propose a lexical analysis of Polish RM.
The correspondence between the complement
and ARM is not
always maintained. ARM cannot replace the complement of transitive
verbs in (2), the complement of inherent reflexives, (3a),
or
impersonals, (3b). The contrast between (3) and (4b)-(4c)
cannot be
attributed to so-called haplology of RM, (4a). Haplology
occurs if
one occurrence of a morpheme satisfies several requirements for this
morpheme. In (4a), a single RM has a function of
impersonal and
inherent RM. Note that (4b) has an `object-drop'
rather than an
intended haplology meaning (=/=(3a)), while (4c) is ambiguous
between
haplology (=(3b)) and `object-drop' (=/=(3b))interpretation.
These data show that ARM cannot freely substitute `siebie'
and we
assume that RM is always lexically specified. We treat Polish
RM as a
syntactic item (e.g., it can be elided), subcategorized for
by the
verb, just like other complements. Hence, in the
framework of HPSG
(Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Pollard and Sag(1994)) we
adopt,
RM and complements are present on the COMPS (COMPLEMENTS) list of a
word. We distinguish RM from complements by representing
them as
objects of distinct `synsem' types (`ana-clitic'
for RM and
`non-ana-clitic' for other nominals). Hence, all verbs that occur
with
RM have the argument `ana-cl' specified in
the lexicon. Lexical
specification of (A)RM explains (2): these verbs are
[COMPS<non-ana-clitic>]. On the other hand,`zobaczyl' `saw' in (1d)
(or
`myje' `washes' in (4c)) are ambiguous, i.e.,
they have two
possible subcategorization frames: [COMPS<ana-cl>] or
[COMPS<non-ana-cl>]. We use lexical rules to derive impersonals,
cf.
(1a), (3b), (4a), (4c), and middles, (1b), from other
verbs. The
lexical rule we propose for impersonals,
accounts also for
haplology in (4a) and (4c). Since the single occurrence of RM
needn't
yield haplology, (4b-c), this rule correctly predicts
that
haplology occurs only in impersonals.
In (4c), the `object-drop'
meaning is obtained if the impersonal form is derived from
the
transitive verb ([COMPS<non-ana-cl>]). Inherent reflexives,
(1c) and
(3a), have `ana-clitic' (RM) on COMPS but
the complement (if any)
is `non-ana-cl'. Hence, another RM in (3a) is not
licensed whereas
in (4b) `object-drop' reading results (the complement is missing).
(1) a. Czyta sie/ *siebie te ksiazke z przyjemnoscia.
reads self
this book with pleasure
`One reads this book this pleasure.'
b. Zupa sie/ *siebie szybko gotuje.
soup self
quickly cooks
`The soup is cooking quickly.'
c. Jan boi sie/ *siebie Piotra.
John fears self
Peter
`John is afraid of Peter.'
d. Janek zobaczyl sie/ siebie w lustrze.
John saw
self in mirror
`John saw himself in the mirror.'
(2) Jan siebie/ *sie lubi/ rozumie/ kocha.
John self
likes/understands/loves
`John likes/understands/loves himself.'
(3) a. Jan sie siebie/ *sie boi.
John self self
fears
`John is afraid of himself.'
b. Janowi sie latwo siebie/ *sie myje
w cieplej wodzie.
John self easily self
washes in warm water
`John finds it easy to wash himself
in warm water.'
(4) a. Przyjemnie sie nam przechadza po parku.
nicely self
us strolls in park
`We enjoy strolling in the park.'
(haplology)
b. Jan sie boi.
John self fears
(`object-drop')
`John is afraid.'
c. Janowi latwo sie myje w cieplej
wodzie.
John easy self washes
in warm water
`John finds it easy to wash oneself/himself
in warm water.'
(ambiguous)
References:
Pollard, C., and I. A. Sag (1994) Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar.
Chicago University Press
|BACK TO PROGRAM|