THE CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN POLISH MARKERS1 OF REFLEXTVTTY: SIEBIE AND SIĘ
Anna Drogosz
Instytut Neofilologii Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w OlsztynieAbstract
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 volitio- nality 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:
Polish Markers (się, siebie) Conceptual DistictionReferences
Drogosz A. (2002), Reflexivization Phenomena in English and Polish. A Cognitive Grammar Perspective. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation. Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin.
Faltz L. (1977/1985), Reflexivization. A Study in Universal Syntax, New York: Garland.
Givon T. (1984), Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grzegorczykowa R., R. Laskowski and H. Wróbel (eds.) (1984), Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia, Warszawa: PWN.
Hopper P. and S. Thompson (1980), 'Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse', Language 56: 251-99.
Langacker R. (1987), Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker R. (1991), Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kemmer S. (1997), Middle Voice, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Saloni Z. (1975), „W sprawie języka”, Język Polski LXV: 9-23.
Szymańska I. (2000), A Construction Grammar Account of the Reflexive się in Polish. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Taimy L. (1972), Semantic Structures in English and Atsugewi. Ph.D. diss. Berkeley: University of California.
Taimy L. (1985), „Force dynamics in language and thoughts”. Papers from the Para- session on Causatives and Agentivity. 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. Fraj- zyngier and T. Curl, (eds.) Reflexives. Forms and Functions. Amsterdam/Phila- delphia: John Benjamins.
Wilczewska К. (1966), Czasowniki zwrotne we współczesnej polszczyźnie, Toruń: Towarzystwo Nauk w Toruniu.
Instytut Neofilologii Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Anna Drogosz, EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IS A JOURNEY: FROM DARWIN TO DAWKINS , Acta Neophilologica: Vol. 2 No. XV (2013): Acta Neophilologica
- Anna Drogosz, FROM OBJECTIFICATION TO PERSONIFICATION. DARWIN’S CONCEPT OF (NATURAL) SELECTION , Acta Neophilologica: Vol. 1 No. XIX (2012): Acta Neophilologica
- Anna Drogosz, CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROGRESS IN DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION , Acta Neophilologica: Vol. 2 No. XIV (2012): Acta Neophilologica
