The Conceptual Distiction between Polish Markers of Reflexivity siebie and się

• Authors: Drogosz Anna
• Languages of publication: PL RU EN DE

Abstracts

EN

The article discusses reflexivity as a departure from the canonical event model and examines the distinction between two Polish markers of reflexivity: siebie and się. Both these markers code the direct reflexive situation type but semantically and syntactically they are not always interchangeable. This distinction is explained within Langacker's Cognitive Grammar framework and attributed to the difference in profile, trajector/landmark alignment and construal that these markers impose on a given situation. The article suggests that siebie functions as a nominal reflexive marker, which profiles a thing, and in a reflexive construction stands as the landmark of a relation. Thus siebie imposes the construal of volitionality and contrastiveness, and syntactically, it is obligatory as a prepositional complement and after verbs of perception. Się is a relational reflexive, and as such it profiles a relation, and specifies the identity of trajector and landmark of a relation, which become conflated in the single participant, i.e. the referent of the sentence subject. Consequently, the się-constructions are neutral with respect to intentionality of the profiled action, and conceptually simpler than siebie-constructions, which accounts for their higher frequency of occurrence.

Keywords

EN

Polish Markers (się, siebie); Conceptual Distiction

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
• Journal: Acta Neophilologica
• Year: 2005
• Issue: VII
• Pages: 107-118

Dates

published

2005

Contributors

author

Drogosz Anna

• Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie

References

• Bogusławski A. (1977), „Polskie się - słowo nie do końca poznane”, International Review of Slavic Lingustics, vol. 2 no. 1, 99-124.
• Drogosz A. (2002), R eflexivization P henom ena in E nglish an d Polish. A Cognitive Grammar Perspective. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation. Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin.
• Faltz L. (1977/1985), R eflexivization. A S tudy in U niversal S yntax, New York: Garland.
• Givon T. (1984), S yntax: A F unctional-T ypological Introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grzegorczykowa R., R. Laskowski and H. Wróbel (eds.) (1984), Gramatyka współczesnego język a polskiego. M orfologia, Warszawa: PWN.
• Hopper P. and S. Thompson (1980), 'Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse', Language 56: 251-99.
• Langacker R. (1987), F oundations o f C ognitive G ram m ar, vol. 1: Theoretical P rerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Langacker R. (1991), F oundations o f C ognitive Gram m ar, vol. 2: D escriptive A p plication. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Kemmer S. (1997), M iddle Voice, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
• Saloni Z. (1975), „W sprawie języka”, Język Polski LXV: 9-23.
• Szymańska I. (2000), A Construction G ram m ar A ccoun t o f the R eflexive się in Polish. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Uniwersytet Warszawski.
• Taimy L. (1972), S em antic S tructures in E nglish and A tsugew i. Ph.D. diss. Berkeley: University of California.
• Taimy L. (1985), „Force dynamics in language and thoughts”. Papers from the Parasession on C ausatives and A gentivity. CSL 21/2.
• Waltereit R. (2000), 'What it means to deceive yourself: The semantic relation of French reflexive verbs and their corresponding transitive verbs'. In Z. Frajzyngier and T. Curl, (eds.) R eflexives. Form s and Functions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Wilczewska К. (1966), C zasow niki zw rotne we w spółczesnej polszczyźn ie, Toruń: Towarzystwo Nauk w Toruniu.

Identifiers

ISSN

1509-1619