Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2017: 1.62

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.032
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.930

Online
ISSN
1613-3641
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 28, Issue 4

Issues

Testing the boundaries of the middle voice: Observations from English and Romanian

Andreea S. Calude
Published Online: 2017-10-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0046

Abstract

The middle voice has received ample attention in the literature, yet the precise boundary between middle voice and other related constructions still remains elusive. For example, do sentences like Mary slept (*herself) well last night and Mary washed (herself) thoroughly and expertly belong to the middle voice or the reflexive domain, or are they simply intransitive one-participant structures? While ambiguity between reflexive and middles has been noted by (Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.), I show that the problem is more widespread. Depending on the marking patterns available in a given language, such ambiguities can occur between middles and prototypical intransitive one-participant events, or between middles and reflexives. Using data from two languages with distinct marking patterns – English (a language with a reflexive marker but no middle marker) and Romanian (a language with one marker of each type) – I discuss the possibility of distinguishing middles from other related constructions. In English, it is shown that the him/herself test can be used to distinguish direct middles from intransitive one-participant events. In Romanian, we see middle and reflexive markers used together in the same construction without contradiction, bringing together both middle and reflexive semantics (as well as marking). In agreement with (Maldonado, Ricardo. 2000. Spanish reflexives. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci Walker (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 153–185. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.) and (Manney, Linda. 2001. Middle voice in Modern Greek: Meaning and function of a morphoyntactic category. Amsterdam &Philadelphia: John Benjamins.), the account given here supports the view of the middle voice as a unified phenomenon, and following (Maldonado, Ricardo. 2009. Middle as a basic voice system. In Lilian Guerrero, Ibáñez Sergio & Belloro Valeria (eds.), Studies in role and reference grammar. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, UNAM.), the main function of the middle is to profile the core properties of events (but not necessarily to reduce the relative elaboration of participants, as proposed by Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam &Philadelphia: John Benjamins.). So, unlike active and passive voice which concern the focusing of various participants (namely, Agents and Patients, respectively), the middle voice focuses the event itself.

Keywords: middle voice; reflexive; intransitive; Romanian; English

References

  • Alexiadou, Artemis & Edir Doron. 2012. The syntactic construction of two non-active voices: Passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics 48(1). 1–34.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Alexiadou, Artermis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer. Florian 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Avram, Mioara. 1986. Grammatica pentru toți [Grammar for everyone]. București: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.Google Scholar

  • Bărbuță, Ion, Armenia Cicală, Elena Constantinovici, Teodor Cotelnic & Alexandru Dîrul (eds.). 2000. Grammatica uzuală a limbii romane [The regular grammar of Romanian]. Chișinău: Grupul Editorial Litera.Google Scholar

  • Bassac, Christian & Pierrette Bouillon. 2002. Middle transitive alternations in English: A generative lexicon approach. In Paul Boucher & Marc Plénat (eds.), Many morphologies, 29–47. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

  • Beck, David. 2000. Unitariness of participant and event in the Bella Coola (Nuxalk) Middle Voice. International Journal of American Linguistics 66. 218–256.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Börjars, Kirsti & Kate Burridge. 2010. Introducing English grammar. London &New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Calude, Andreea. 2004. Reflexive–middle and reciprocal–middle continua in Romanian. Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/93 (accessed 3 April 2017)

  • Calude, Andreea. 2007. Light and heavy reflexive marking: The middle domain in Romanian. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5. 239–269.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Collins, Peter & Carmella Hollo. 2010. English grammar: An introduction, 2nd edn. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

  • Cornilescu, Alexandra. 1998. Remarks on the syntax and the interpretation of Romanian middle passive se constructions. Revue Rou maine de Linguistique 43. 317–342.Google Scholar

  • Daniliuc, Laura & Radu Daniliuc. 2000. Descriptive Romanian grammar. LINCOM Studies in Romance Linguistics 14. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

  • Dindelegan, Pană Gabriela (ed.). 2013. The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Doron, Edit. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural language semantics 11(1). 1–67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Downing, Angela. 2015. English grammar: A university course. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Enger, Hans-Olv & Tore Nesset. 1999. The value of cognitive grammar in typoloical Studies: The case of Norwegian and Russian passive, middle and reflexive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22. 27–60.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Faltz, Leonard. 1985 [1977]. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

  • Geniušienė, Emma. 1987. The typology of reflexives. Berlin &Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Grimshaw, Joan. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 87–148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59. 781–819.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistics Discovery 6(1). 40–63.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin, Andreea Calude, Michael Spagnol, Heiko Narrog & Elif Bamyacı. 2014. Coding causal-noncausal verb alternations: A form-frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 3. 1–27.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Heine, Bernd. 2000. Polysemy involving reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages. In Zygmunt Franjzyngier & Traci Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions, 1–30. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam &Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kemmer, Suzanne. 1994. Middle voice, transitivity and events. In Barbara Fox Baraba & Paul Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function, 179–230. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. Australian Linguistics Journal 5. 19–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1994. Reflexives and reciprocals. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Y Simpson (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. VII, 3504–3509. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

  • Maldonado, Ricardo. 1992. Middle voice: The case of Spanish se. San Diego, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Maldonado, Ricardo. 2000. Spanish reflexives. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci Walker (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 153–185. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Maldonado, Ricardo. 2008. Spanish middle syntax: A usage based proposal for grammar teaching. In Sabine De Knop & Teun De Rycker (eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, 155–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Maldonado, Ricardo. 2009. Middle as a basic voice system. In Lilian Guerrero, Ibáñez Sergio & Belloro Valeria (eds.), Studies in role and reference grammar. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, UNAM. http://ricardomaldonado.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/6/3/2763410/maldonado-rrg2007_final_review.pdf [retrieved online 26 October 2016].

  • Manney, Linda. 2001. Middle voice in Modern Greek: Meaning and function of a morphoyntactic category. Amsterdam &Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Miller, Jim. 2008. An introduction to English syntax, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Nelson, Gerald & Sidney Greenbaum. 2016. An introduction to English grammar. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Peitsara, Kirsti. 1997. The development of the reflexive strategies in English. In Matti Rissanen, Kytö Merja & Kirsti Heikkonen (eds.), Grammaticalization at work: Studies of long-term developments in English, 277–370. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Radden, Günter & René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Rosen, Carol. 1989. The relational structure of reflexive clauses: Evidence from Italian. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

  • Siemund, Peter. 2010. Grammaticalization, lexicalization and intensification: English itself as a marker of middle situation types. Linguistics 48(4). 797–836.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Siemund, Peter. 2014. The emergence of English reflexive verbs: An analysis based on the Oxford English Dictionary. English Language and Linguistics 18(1). 49–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith, Mark. 2004. Light and heavy reflexives. Linguistics 42(3). 573–615.Google Scholar

  • Vasilescu, Andra. 2013. The semantics of personal and reflexive pronouns. In Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin & Ion Giurgea (eds.), A reference grammar of Romanian, Vol. I: The noun phrase, 268–282. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Vihman, Virve-Anneli. 2002. Middle voice in Estonian. Transactions of the Philological Society 100. 131–160.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wehrli, Eric. 1986. On some properties of French clitic se. The syntax of pronominal clitics. Syntax and Semantics 19. 263–283.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-04-26

Accepted: 2017-02-21

Revised: 2016-12-04

Published Online: 2017-10-21

Published in Print: 2017-11-27


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 599–629, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0046.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in