1

Macedonian se-constructions and their equivalents in English:

A Cognitive Study, Skopje: Makedonska reč, 2011 (Summary in English)

Liljana Mitkovska

FON University, Skopje

liljana.mitkovska@fon.edu.mk

1. Introduction

The aim of this study is to investigate the structure and functions of the

Macedonian constructions with the grammatical element se of reflexive origin and

establishing their equivalent constructions in the English language. The main goal

is to show that the functions expressed by these se-constructions in Macedonian

represent semantically connected contexts rather than a random sum of meanings

that have accidentally acquired the same form. This assumption is based on the

hypothesis that the common form indicates semantic relation: a structure may be

extended from one function to another if those two functions are semantically

related, i.e., share certain semantic features. Even though some of them are of

morpho-syntactic or syntactic and some of lexical-syntactic nature, all identified

classes of constructions are semantically related and together make up a complex

conceptual network. Heine‟s (1992:349) suggestion for continuous linguistic

structures, called grammaticalization chain, was adopted as the most appropriate

model for the organization of this network (Figure 1). It is based on the principle of

family resemblances, so that each class is characterized by a number of features

and could be considered as a separate phase on a semantic continuum. However,

each phase shares some features with the neighbouring phases. The more remote

the phases are from each other, the fewer common characteristics they have.

Figure 1. Grammaticalization chain (Heine 1992:349)

The study is organised as follows: chapter one, Introduction, consists of an

exposition of the theoretical background and the previous studies on reflexive

constructions in Macedonian and other Slavic and non-Slavic languages; chapter

two gives an extensive analysis of the classes of the Macedonian se-constructions

on syntactic, semantic and referential level with special emphasis on the relations

between their internal members and the links with the neighbouring phases on the

continuum; chapter three discusses the structures that are used to express the same

situations in English. They were identified in the compiled translation equivalents

from Macedonian and the most common correspondents to each class were

established; since English deals with the relevant semantic field in a very different

1. 2 3 4

2

way, some typologically relevant conclusions can be drawn from this analysis,

which are presented at the end of this chapter and in chapter four. Here we present

a brief summary of the basic findings.

2. Types of situations expressed with se-constructions in Macedonian

Тhe separate classes of the Macedonian se-constructions represent different

phases of the process of grammaticalization of the reflexive pronoun: from an

independent lexical item (in direct reflexive constructions) to a grammatical marker

(in the reflexive passive constructions). They represent various types of diathesis,

differentiated according to the semantic role of the subject referent. The four types

of situations they express (two types of reflexive situations, autonomous situations

and agent defocusing situations) can be graphically represented as positioned on

two intersected axes: on the vertical axis is the continuum between the transitive

and intransitive situations, and on the horizontal axis the continuum between active

and passive situations, as shown in Figure 2 below. The classes themselves are not

unified structures, but are built on the prototype principle with some members

exhibiting more central features than others. Following the proponents of Cognitive

Grammar (Lakoff 1987, Johnson 1987, Langacker 1991, Kemmer 1993, Janda

2000, among others), the relations between the members are explained by

metaphorical and other cognitive mechanisms of meaning extension.

Figure 2. The Continuum of the Macedonian se-constructions

ACTIVE

TRANSITIVE

DIRECT –

REFLEXIVE

PROTOTYPICAL RECIPROCAL

NATURAL

RECIPROCAL

A

C T

I

O N

A

L

P

O

S S

Е

S S

I

VE

A

U T

O

C A

U

S A

T

I V

E

MODAL IO

CAUSATIVE-REF.

PASSIVE

EMOTIONS

RESULTATIVE PREUDO-PASSIVE

DECAUSATIVE

P

A

S

S

I

V

E

REMOTE CAUSATION APSOLUTIVE

INTRANSITIVE

ACTIVE

3

2.1. Reflexive situations

Reflexive situations encode events which require two participants with

different semantic roles, but they involve only one referent. The entity causing the

event (Initiator) is at the same time the entity which suffers the consequences of

this event (Endpoint). Depending on the degree of differentiation of the two roles

of the participant, we can distinguish two types of constructions: direct reflexive

and subject reflexive.1 The two constructions exhibit separate semantic, pragmatic

and syntactic features. Their differentiation is based on the degree of

distinguishability of participants, due to the „relative elaboration of events‟

(Kemmer 1993:71-73; 1994:206-212). In direct reflexive constructions the two

participants are maximally distinguished and as a result the participant is viewed as

doubled. The agent acts upon her/himself in the same way as s/he would act upon

some other entity. This property determines the basic functions of these

constructions: for expressing emphasis and/or contrast (example 1 and 2).

(1) Kirkov se vide i sebesi vo ogledaloto. (JBSA:212)

„Kirkov also saw himself in the mirror.‟

(2) Vas ve unesreќiv, a sebe ne se usreќiv. (VIMS:264)

„I made you unhappy, and did not make myself any happier.‟

These semantic characteristics are reflected in the syntactic structure. The direct

reflexive construction builds a transitive sentence with the reflexive pronoun

sebe(si) se taking the position of the DO. Even if the long form is omitted in some

contexts, it can always be recovered. Consequently, even though this construction

codes situations with a single referent it is semantically transitive and syntactically

represented as a two-argument structure.

Subject reflexive constructions comprise several different types. They all show

lower degree of distinguishability of participants. The subject referent has an

active role in the event, but this is also the case with the entity which suffers the

effects of the event. In contrast to direct reflexive constructions, these two aspects

of the initial participant are not clearly differentiated but merge in one complex

semantic role. The degree of differentiation varies depending on the lexical

meaning of the verb and the nature of the participant.

The central types of constructions, involving an intentional volitional participant,

are located at the active pole. They comprise „autocausal‟ constructions expressing

body actions such as grooming (se kape „bathe‟, se šminka „make up‟,), change in

body posture (se pokloni „bow‟, se navedne „bend down‟, se svrti „turn round‟),

translational motion (se pomesti „move‟, se kači „climb‟); „actional‟ constructions

comprising various typically human activities (se preprava „pretend‟, se odnesuva

„behave‟, se gotvi „prepare‟, se prijavi „register‟) as well as emotional speech acts

(se izvini „excuse oneself‟, se moli „pray‟, se zakani „threaten‟) and the so called

„possessive‟ constructions in which the verb incorporates the part of the body

1 The term „direct reflexive‟ is from Kemmer (1988, 1993). It is used for the central reflexive

constructions with coreferential subject and direct object. The term „subject reflexive‟ is from

Geniusiene (1987), who uses it for verbs which belong to the transitive class, but when used

intransitively keep the subject of the transitive counterpart in the subject position.

4

involved (se mie „wash one‟s face‟, se obližuva „lick one‟s lips‟). Constructions

expressing events in which the participant loses some of its agentive properties

(intentionality in the first place) lean towards the passive pole. There are two main

types: non-intentional human activities called „resultative‟ (se sopne „stumble‟, se

zakači „get caught‟) and emotional reactions (se vozbudi „get excited‟, se iznenadi

„get surprised‟, se raduva „rejoice‟). The reflective causative constructions represent

a marginal sub-type (se potšišuva na berber „have one‟s hair cut at the barber‟s).

According to Kemmer (1993, 1994), the type of constructions we call subject

reflexive represent the central middle domain.

The two constructions used for coding reflexive situations in Macedonian,

direct reflexive and subject reflexive, although related, express two different types

of situations that exhibit different pragmatic, semantic and syntactic properties.

Both involve only one participant with two semantic roles, but while in the direct

reflexive construction they are represented by two syntactic arguments, the subject

reflexive construction is syntactically intransitive. The reflexive pronoun is

reduced to a verbal marker signalling the complex role of the referent in the

subject position, (i.e., it is both the initiator and the end point), but the second

participant is not individualised and has no syntactic representation. Only the clitic

form of the reflexive pronoun is part of this construction, while adding the long

form sebe(si) typically results in ungrammaticality (example 3) or semantic

change of the verb (example 4).

(3) – Ne se prekrstivme (*sebe), - bez zdiv rеčе Šišman. (MJB:339)

„We didn‟t cross ourselves Shishman said breathlessly.‟ (MJC:114)

(4) а. Toj poveќе се zanimavaše sebe otkolku decata.

„He entertained himself more than the children.‟

б. Taa se zanimava so intelektualna rabota.

„She is engaged in intellectual activities.‟

2.2. Reciprocal situations

Reciprocal situations involve typically two (and sometimes more) participants

which are in symmetrical relation to one another, “the relation A stands to B is the

same as that in which B stands to A” (Lichtenberk 1985:21). The reciprocal

domain is also complex and exhibits properties parallel to the reflexive domain,

which explains their formal affinity in many languages. An important

distinguishing factor between the prototypical reciprocal situations (se mrazat

megju sebe „they hate each other‟, se kolnat edni so drugi „they curse each other‟)

and the natural ones (se razdelija „they parted‟, se dogovorija „they agreed‟) is the

complexity of the subject referent role and the degree of elaboration of events

(Kemmer 1988:147). In the prototypical reciprocal events the role of each

participant is individualised and they “are temporally indifferent” (ibid.:148),

which is matched on syntactic level with a heavy marker (the reflexive clitic plus

eden so drug/megju sebe). The natural reciprocal situation, on the other hand, is

marked with the reflexive clitic se and it “is strongly associated with simultaneity”

(ibid.).

5

2.3. Autonomous situations

Object reflexive construction2 are used for coding autonomous situations, which

represent the final phase of the event, irrespective of whether it occurs

spontaneously or is caused by some outside causer. The clitic pronoun se does not

take up a syntactic position but is rather a part of the verb lexeme. As a result, the

construction is formally an intransitive structure. As in the previous class, there are

central and peripheral constructions connecting this domain with the active pole on

one hand and with the passive on the other.

Decausative constructions encode events involving one participant, the referent

of which is the main target (example 5 and 6). However, this participant is not

presented as a passive undergoer, but retains some agentive properties which

contributes to its conceptualisation as an active subject. Those events are mainly

physical processes: they could not be caused intentionally, neither could they be

prevented. The participant is actively involved in the occurrence of the event and

the focus of attention is what happens to it.

(5) I Vilant reče, se istrošija bateriite. (MR:150)

‟But Villant said, the batteries were dead.‟ (MSS:129)

(6) Moţebi vrnelo. Se pomestila nekoja keramida i ... (PM:293)

„Maybe it has rained. A roof tile has moved and …‟

Some spontaneous change of place or position (as well as condition) of the non-

potent referent could be presented as set off by this very participant (Topkata sama

od sebe se strkala nadolu. ‟The ball rolled down by itself‟. Jas ne go rasipav aparatot,

sam si se rasipa. „I did not break the camera, it broke by itself.‟). We consider these

and similar meanings as an indication of the metaphorical transfer from subject

reflexive constructions involving a human participant, to decausative where the

participant is typically non-human. The metaphor has gradually become usual,

hence decausative constructions can be used for types of events remote from the

reflexive ones. Generally, the spontaneity of the event is only a way of

representation, while in reality there can always be imagined some potential distant

causer. It can be more strongly felt in some situations so that those constructions

incline towards passive sentences, i.e., sentences in which the initiator is clearly

implied and present both on the referential and on the semantic level. We often

encounter constructions that are ambiguous out of context. For example, the

sentences in (7) can be equally well interpreted as happening spontaneously or

initiated by some generalized human agent.

(7) Cenite se krevaat. Vesta se proširi brzo.

„Prices rose/were raised.‟ „The news spread/was spread quickly.‟

In the transfer zone between object and passive reflexive constructions we find a

range of constructions (pseudo-passive se-constructions) in which the initiator is

implied to a certain degree and the subject referent loses its active role properties

because the events they code require human involvement. These implications

2 This term is from Geniusiene 1987, who uses it for verbs which belong to the transitive class, but

when used intransitively the transitive object takes the subject position.

6

combine with the verbal aspect and result in various types of modal interpretations:

potential (example 8), normative (9), subjective (10), volitional (11) 3

.

(8) ... zloto ne se kornit lesno od čoveka. (ŢČB:81)

„… evil cannot be rooted out easily out of men.‟

(9) Vaka li se čistat ališta, glupava Anastasijo? (VIČT:177)

„Is this how you clean clothes, you silly Anastasia?!‟

(10) Ona tamu beše kamen, no sega mu se gleda kako zalegnat vojnik. (MJZT:35)

„That thing over there was a boulder, but now it seemed to him as a lying soldier.‟

(11) Ottuka na starcite ne im se davaše čedoto, ... (ŢČB:112)

„Thus the old people did not feel like giving away their daughter.‟

2.4. Agent defocusing situations

Macedonian se-constructions are also used for expressing situations which are

perceived as agent initiated, but the agent, having no important role, does not occur

in the syntactic structure. It is nevertheless present on the semantic level, i.e., it is

implied as an unidentified or generalised human agent. We consider these

constructions to be a logical extension of those expressing autonomous events.

There is only small difference between situations where the causer is totally

abstracted and those where it is generalized. Moreover, as pointed out above, the

degree of abstraction of the causer varies depending on the type of the coded event

and other circumstances. When the se-construction is used with a verb for an

activity that requires an agent, then it is implied in a general sense and the

construction is re-analysed.

We claim that the se-constructions expressing agent defocusing situations can

rightfully be classified as passive se-constructions because the core representatives

correspond to the passive prototype properties proposed by Shibatani (1985:837).

Actually, two thirds of the passive se-constructions have the position of the subject

filled by the thematic argument (example 12), but there are also subjectless

constructions (example 13), if the base verb is intransitive or has a clausal or

prepositional complement. The latter are less prototypical passive constructions,

but they share the agent defocusing function with the prototypical passives.

(12) Na razni strani se izvikuvaa razni komandi... (MJB:259)

„Different commands were cried out on all sides...‟ (MSS:203)

(13) ..., isto taka pretočno se znaeše koj na koe sedište sedi ... (MJCA:392)

„... it was also determined who sits where in the official red bus.‟ (MJFM:74)

Both constructions share the characteristic of agent demotion and thus placing the

event itself in the focus rather than the undergoer or the effects of the activity.

There is a possibility of expressing the agent in an agentive adjunct phrase (Toa se

osuduva od site. „That is criticized by everyone.), but it is rarely encountered.4

3 In the last two examples the dative object has a key role in the interpretation of the

construction. 4 See Митковска 1997.

7

The marker se is of fundamentally different character in these constructions.

Unlike in the subject and object reflexive constructions, where it signals some kind

of departure from the typical predicate-argument structure of the verb base, here it

signals the rearrangement of arguments along the syntactic positions.

3. Equivalents of the Macedonian se-constructions in English

There is no single structure in English which figures as the main equivalent to

all Macedonian se-constructions, but rather a range of constructions perform these

functions. However, there is a significant pattern which supports our hypothesis

about the continuum. Namely, for each type of situations the core structures are

repeated, though with different frequency and for each situation type one dominant

structure can be isolated.

Constructions with „verb + reflexive pronoun (myself, yourself, etc.)‟ are the

only equivalents for the direct reflexive construction (example 14), but central

subject reflexives are rendered with three constructions mainly: the reflexive

construction (example 15); implicit reflexive, with omitted DO (example 16); or a

new intransitive lexeme (example 17). The so called possessive constructions are

transitive in English, because they express the involved body part explicitly: se

preobleče „changed his clothes‟.

(14) Ti se gledaš sebesi kako sediš vo zamok,... (PM:243)

„You see yourself sitting in a castle,...‟ (PM:242)

(15) Muzikata e prijatna. Sakam da i se predadam kako što umeev nekogaš. (MR:237)

„I want to abandon myself to the sound as I used to do.‟ (MSS:213)

(16) Kako što izleze taka se protegna zagleduvajќi se vo sončevinata … (MJB:239)

„As he walked, he stretched and gazed at the sunshine...‟ (MJC:56)

(17) Se preprava deka ne go sluša. (PM:125)

„He pretended not to have heard him.‟ (PM:124)

The implicit reflexive construction is the predominant equivalent in this class

of se-constructions; it is especially common with verbs of non-translational body

motions (example 16). Situations leaning towards the transitive pole are often

translated with the reflexive construction in English, even if they are undoubtedly

subject (not direct) reflexive constructions in Macedonian (cf. example 3 above).

Those approaching the intransitive pole, on the other hand, tend to be expressed

with intransitive verbs which have no transitive counterpart in English (example

17). The three English constructions express different degrees of distinguishability

of the two participants in the situation, that is, different degrees of elaboration of

events. In Macedonian they are all covered by „se + verb‟ construction.

Peripheral subject reflexive constructions (resultative and emotional

reactions) have a different range of equivalents in English, which corresponds to

their function to express unintentional events. The implicit reflexive and the

intransitive construction are also present, but the significant occurrence of the

pseudo-passive get- and be-constructions and the passive ones demonstrates the

inclination of these constructions towards the passive pole. Such equivalents are

8

indicative of the intermediate position of these constructions between the subject

and the object reflexives.

The most common equivalent of the Macedonian se-constructions for

autonomous events seems to be the so called „ergative‟ construction (with a zero

marker) (example 18). Its functional zone correlates closely with that of the

Macedonian decausative se-construction. However, the other equivalents suggest

that the Macedonian construction has a wider scope. Namely, among the

equivalents we also find two types of forms: active intransitive verbs (around 20%),

which imply that it is positioned closer to the intransitive pole and passive

constructions (8% of pseudo-passive get- constructions and 9% of passive be-

constructions), which prove their affinity to the passive pole.

(18) Naednaš popušta dzidot. Se otvora samo trojčka, ... i dovolno. (PM:135)

„Suddenly the wall cracks. It opens just a tiny bit, but enough...‟ (PM:134)

The English reflexive construction does not have a significant role in this type of

constructions, since it strongly suggests an activity of an agent upon him/herself.

Nevertheless, it may also occur in situations where the referent of the subject is

inanimate. Frequently, this subject is personified (example 19), but the metaphor

may also be weakened and then the reflexive pronoun signals the autonomous

nature of the event (example 20).

(19) The words would not form themselves, his voice would not issue forth,... (H.H.:14)

„Zborovite nikako da se oformat, glasot odbivaše da izleze ...‟

(20) History seems to be repeating itself. (Longman, 1978:937)

„Istorijata izgleda deka se povtoruva.‟

The different types of equivalents in English prove the different degrees of

grammaticalisation of the se-constructions and reveal how the decausative senses

(autonomous events) are linked to the reflexive senses (events without an outside

causer). On the other hand, we consider the passive equivalents especially

significant, as they prove the affinity between decausative and passive situations.

The equivalents of the pleudo-passive se-constructions are typically

intermediate between active and passive constructions. Those which are closer to

the decausatives (with potential modal meaning) are partly equivalent to the

English construction known as „middle‟, its form being identical with the ergative

construction, the main English decausative strategy (example 21). Those which are

closer to passive usually correspond to passive constructions, with explicit modal

meanings (example 22).

(21) The floor paints easily. (Kejzer & Roper 1984:383) „Podot se bojadisuva lesno.‟

(22) Laţeš! Na policijata ì se kaţuva sè. (PМ:127)

„You are lying! The police must be told everything.‟ (PM:126)

Macedonian passive se-constructions are not always translated by the passive

construction in English. Among the equivalents of those which have a verb marked for

person, 43% of the equivalents are passive and approximately the same percentage

falls to active constructions of two types: with generalized human subject (one, man,

9

they) or with the subject whose referent is evoked from the context of the

Macedonian sentence (example 23).

(23) - Drugar, - se ču glasot na čovekot vo sina obleka. (MJČSO:400)

“Fellow,” they heard the voice of the man in the blue suit, ... (MJFM:3)

The subjectless passive reflexive constructions rarely have passive equivalents in

English. They are most often translated as active constructions with a generalised (one,

you, people) or indefinite (someone, they) agent in subject position. These types of

equivalents indicate that the passive se-construction is different from the English

passive be-construction.

To sum up, it is important to point out that as equivalents of the Macedonian

se-constructions in the medial domain (subject and object se-constructions) we

mainly encounter three English constructions: the construction in which the change in

the predicate-argument structure of the verb has no overt marking (implicit reflexive,

ergative and middle); the pseudo-passive constructions with the resultative copula get,

become, etc. or the stative copula be, seem etc.; and intransitive verb, a new lexeme

which is not related to a transitive verb.

3. Concluding remarks

The structure of the English equivalents of the Macedonian se-constructions

offers some insights into the nature of the Mac se-constructions. The fact that the

same functions (subject-reflexive, decausative and potential) are coded in English

with a construction with identical structure indicates the semantic affinity of these

three types of situations. Therefore, their formal expression with the same type of

construction in Macedonian is not unmotivated. The intransitive equivalents,

however, confirm the fact that the Macedonian se-constructions have extended

their zone towards the intransitive pole. On the other hand, the relation between

passive and medial strategies indicates similarity between these two domains,

pronounced at the overlapping points. Consequently, the spread of the Macedonian

se-constructions in the passive domain could be conceived as a natural extension of

the construction from the autonomous domain.

4. References

4.1. Sources in Cyrillic alphabet

Генюшене, Э. Ш. 1981. „К теории описания рефлексивных глаголов (на материале

литовского яазыка)” Во Храковский: 160-184.

Главса, З. 1978. „Некоторые замечания о рефлексивности” Во Храковский: 152-155.

Гуржанов, Гоце. 1988. „Безличните реченици во македонскиот јазик” Македонистика

5: 3-69.

Долинина, И. Б. 1978. „Рефлексив и средний залог в системе английских залогов и

проблема гиперлексемы” Во Храковский: 162-171.

10

Долинина, И. Б. 1981. „Пассивные диатезы английских глагольных лексем” Во

Храковский: 46-81.

Ивић, Милка. 1961/62. „Један проблем словенске синтагматике осветљен

трансформационим методом” Јужнословенски Филолог: 137-147.

Илиевски, Петар Хр. 1988. „Проклиза на рефлексивот се во македонскиот и во

несловенските балкански јазици” Во Балканолошки лингвистички студии.

Скопје: Институт за македонски јазик „Крсте Мисирков”, 183-190.

Козинцева, Н А. 1981. „Рефлексивные глаголы в армянском языыке” Во Храковский,

81-98.

Конески, Блаже. 1987. Граматика на македонскиот литературен јазик. Скопје:

Култура, 360-363.

Корубин, Благоја. Ред. 1979. Синтаксичко-генеративен речник на македонските

глаголи (пробна свеска). Скопје: Институт за македонски јазик „Крсте

Мисирков”.

Корубин, Благоја. 1990. На македонскограматички теми. Скопје: Институт за

македонски јазик „Крсте Мисирков”, 117-350.

Корубин, Благоја. Ред. 1992. Интенцијално синтаксички речник на македонските

глаголи, том I, А - Ж. Скопје: Институт за македонски јазик „Крсте Мисирков”.

Минова-Ѓуркова, Лилјана. 1994. Синтакса на македонскиот стандарден јазик.

Скопје: Радинг.

Митковска, Лилјана. 1993. „Кон рефлексивноста во македонскиот и во англискиот

јазик” Во Прв научен собир на млади македонисти. Скопје: Универзитет „Св.

Кирил и Методиј”, 223-234.

Митковска, Лилјана. 1995. „За псевдо-пасивните конструкции со се во македонскиот

јазик“. Во Минова-Ѓуркова, Л., С. Велева и Н. Вујадиновиќ (Ред.) Втор научен

собир на млади македонисти, Скопје: Филолошки факултет „Блаже Конески“, 31-38.

Митковска, Лилјана. 1997. „Конструкции со предлогот од и агенсниот предлошки

објект во македонскиот јазик“, во Цветковски, Ж. и др. (ред.), Трет научен собир

на млади македонисти, Скопје: Филолошки факултет „Блаже Конески“, 19-30.

Митковска, Лилјана. 2001. „Глаголските се-конструкции како семантичка

категорија“ во Велковска, Снежана (Ред.)) Зборник на трудови од собирот

Македонскиот глагол – синхронија и дијахронија, Скопје: Институт за

македонски јазик „Крсте Мисирков“, Скопје: 61-72.

Митковска, Лилјана и Елени Бужаровска (во печат) „Псевдо-пасивните рефлексивни

конструкции во македонскиот јазик од типолошка перспектива“. Во Прилози,

Скопје: МАНУ. (том посветен на З. Тополињска)

Недялков, В. П. 1978. „Заметки по типологии рефлексивных деагентивных

конструкций” Во Храковский: 28-37.

Норман, Б. Ю. 1972. Переходность, залог, возвратность. Минск: Издательство БГУ.

Спасов, Људмил. 1981. Преодноста на глаголите во македонскиот јазик. Докторска

дисертација. Скопје: Универзитет „Кирил и Методиј”, Филолошки факултет.

Спасов, Људмил. 1993. „Македонските се пасивни конструкции и нивните

еквиваленти во полскиот, српскиот/хрватскиот, рускиот и словенечкиот јазик”

Во Реферати на македонските слависти за XI меѓународен славистички

конгрес во Братислава. Скопје: МАНУ, 107-116.

11

Усикова, Рина. 1984. „Семантика на глаголските формации со повратниот елемент се

во македонскиот литературен јазик” Македонски јазик, 35: 147-158.

Храковский, В.С., Ред. 1978. Проблемы теории грамматического залога. Ленинград:

Наука.

Храковский, В. С. 1978. „Залог и рефлексив” Во Храковский: 50-60.

Храковский, В. С. Ред. 1981. Залоговые конструкции в разноструктурных языках.

Ленинград: Наука.

Храковский, В. С. 1981. „Диатеза и реферeнтность (К вопросу о соотношении

активных, пассивных, рефлексивных и реципрочных конструкций)” Во

Храковский: 5-38.

Цветковски, Владимир. 1983. „Омонимијата на се во двојазичната лексикографија”

Литературен збор ХХХ/6, 29-33.

Чашуле, Илија. 1989. Синтакса на македонската глаголска именка. Скопје: НИО

„Студентски збор”, 257-159.

4.2. Sources in Latin alphabet

Andersen, Paul Kent. 1991. A New Look at the Passive. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter

Lang.

Arce-Arenales, Manuel, Melissa Axelrod and Barbara A. Fox. 1994. “Active Voice and

Middle Diathesis: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective” In Fox. B. and P. J. Hopper:1-22.

Babby, H.L. 1975. “A Transformational Analysis of Transitive -sja Verbs in Russian”

Lingua 35: 297-332.

Babcock, Sandra S. 1970. The Syntax of Spanish Reflexive Verbs. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.

Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts. 1989. “Passive Argument Raised” Linguistic

Inquiry, Vol. 20, No 2:219-251.

Bakker, Egbert. 1994. “Voice, Aspect and Actionsart: Middle and Passive in Ancient

Greek” In Fox. B. and P. J. Hopper: 23-48.

Barber, E .J.W. 1975. “Voice Beyond the Passive” BSL 1: 16-24.

Baron, N. S. 1974. “The Structure of English Causatives” Lingua, Vol. 53, No 4: 317-334.

Benvinist, E. 1975. “Aktivni i srednji oblik kod glagola” In Problemi Opšte Lingvistike.

Beograd: Nolit, 135-142.

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan,.

1999. Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.

Brecht, Richard D. and James S. Levin. 1985. “Conditions on Voice in Russian” In Flier

and Brecht: 118-137.

Brus, Ineke. 1992. “Towards a Typology of Voice” In Keffer et al.: 45-76.

Bursten, J. L. 1979. “The Pronominal Verb Constructions in French” Lingua 48: 147-176.

Chappell, Hilary. 1980. “Is the Get-Passive Adversative?” Papers in Linguistics:

International Journal of Human Communication, Vol. 13, No 3: 411-451.

Collins, Peter C. 1996. “Get-passives in English” World Englishes 15: 43-56.

Croft, William, Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkroft and Suzanne Kemmer. 1987. “Diachronic

Semantic Processes in the Middle Voice” In Giacalone R. A., O. Carruba and G.

12

Bernini. (eds.) Papers from the international conference on historical linguistics.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 179-192.

Croft, William. 1990. Typology of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Croft, William. 1994. “Voice: Beyond Control and Affectedness” In Fox B. and P. J.

Hopper : 89-118.

Davidse, K. & L. Heyvaert. 2007. “On the middle voice: an analysis of the English

middle” Linguistics 45-1, 37-83.

Dik, Simon. 1993. “On the Status of Verbal Reflexives” Communication & Cognition,

Vol.16, No 1/2: 39-63.

Dowty, David. 1991. “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection” Language, Vol. 67,

No 3: 547-618.

Fagan, Sara. 1992. The Syntax of Middle Constructions: a Study with Special Reference to

German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York/ London:

Garland Publishing, Inc.

Fellbaum, Christiane and Anne Zribi-Hertz. 1989. The Middle Constructions in French and

English: A Comparative Study of Its Syntax and Semantics. Bloomington: Indiana

University Linguistic Publications.

Fellbaum, Christiane. 1989. “On the „Reflexive Middle‟ in English” CLS, Vol.25, No 1: 123-

132.

Fleisher, Nickolas. 2006. “The origin of passive get” English Language and Linguistics 10:

225-252.

Flier, Michael S. and Richard D. Brecht (eds). 1985. Issues in Russian Morphosyntax.

UCLA Slavica Studies. Vol.10. Columbus: Slavica.

Foley, William A. and R. D. Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal

Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fox, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper. (eds.) 1994. Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam/

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Fried, Mirjam. 1990. “Reflexives as Grammatical Constructions: A Case Study in Czech”

BLS 16: 127-139.

Garcia, Erika. 1977. “On the Practical Consequences of Theoretical Principles” Lingua 43:

129-170.

Geniusiene, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1986. “-SJA and SEBJA” Dutch Studies in Russian Linguistics. Studies

in Slavic and General Linguistics 9, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 87-113.

Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1988. "How Passive is Passive -sja." Dutch Contributions to the Tenth

International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, Linguistics. Studies in Slavic and General

Linguistics 11, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 97-179.

Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1990. Russian Reflexive Verbs: In Search of Unity in Diversity. Studies

in Slavic and General Linguistics, vol 15. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Givòn, Talmy and Lynne Yung. 1994. “The Rise of the English GET – Passive” In Fox B.

and P. J. Hopper: 119-150.

Green, J. N. 1975. “Reflections on Spanish Reflexives” Lingua 35: 345-391.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1991. “The Last Stages of Grammatical Elements: Contractive and

Expansive Desemanticization” In Traugott, E.C. and B. Heine: 301-314.

13

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haiman, John. 1983. “Iconic and Economic Motivation” Language, Vol. 59, No 4: 781-819.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. “The Gramaticalization of Passive Morphology” Studies in

Language,14-1: 25-72.

Haspelmath, Martin (ed.). 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals, vol. 2: An

International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friderike Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A

Conceptual Framework. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

Heine, Bernd. 1992. “Grammaticalization Chains” Studies in Language 16 (2): 335-368.

Hirschbuhler, Paul. 1988. “The Middle and the Pseudo-Middle in French” In Birdsong D.

and J. P. Montreui. eds. Advances in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 97-110.

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. “On Some Principles of Grammaticalization” In Traugott, E. C. and

B. Heine: 17-36.

Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse”

Language, Vol. 56, No 2:251-299

Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English

Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hundt, Marianne. 2007. English mediopassive constructions: A cognitive, corpus-based

study of their origin, spread, and current status (Language & Computers 58).

Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Janda, Laura. 2000. “Cognitive Linguistics”, SLING2K Workshop.

Jespersen, Otto. 1960. Essentials of English Grammar. (First edition 1933) London: G.

Alen and Unwin.

Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination,

and Reason. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

Kanski, Zbigniew. 1986. Arbitrary Reference and Reflexivity: A Generative Study of the

Polish Pronoun sie and its English Equivalents. Katowice: Uniwersytet Slaski.

Kanski, Zbigniew. 1992. “Impersonal Constructions and Strategy for Second-Order

Predication” In Keffer et al.: 45-77.

Karlovčan, Vjekoslav. 1985. A Survey of English Grammar. Zagreb: Radničko i narodno

sveučiliste “Mosa Pijade”.

Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001a. “The passive voice” In Haspelmath (ed.), 899-913.

Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001b. “Verbal reflexives and the middle voice” In Haspelmath

(ed.), 913-927.

Keenan, Edward. 1984. “Passive in World‟s Languages” In Shopen: 243-281.

Keffer, Michael and Johan von der Auwera, (eds.) 1992. Meaning and Grammar: Cross

Linguistic Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1988. The Middle Voice: A Typological and Diachronic Study. Ph.D.

dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1994. “Middle Voice, Transitivity and Elaboration of Events. In Fox.

B. and P. J. Hopper:197-230.

Keyser, Samuel Jay and Thomas Roeper. 1984. “On the Middle and Ergative Constructions

in English” Linguistic Inquiry , Vol. 15, No 3: 381-417.

14

Klaiman, M. H. 1988. “Affectedness and Control: A Typology og Voice” In Shibatani

1988: 25-83.

Klaiman, M. H. 1991a. “Control and Grammar” Linguistics 29: 623-651.

Klaiman, M. H. 1991b. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klaiman, M. H. 1992. “Middle Verbs, Reflexive Middle Constructions and Middle Voice”

Studies in Language 16-1: 35-61.

Kučanda, Dubravko. 1987. “„True‟ Reflexives and Pseudo-reflexives with Particular

Reference to Serbo-Croatian” In Von der Auwera et al.: 77-92.

Lakoff, George. 1977. “Linguistic Gestalt” CLS 13: 236-287.

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about

the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. and Pamela Munro. 1975. “Passives and Their Meaning” Language

51(4): 789-830.

Langacker, Roland W. 1988a. “A Usage - Based Model” In Rudzka-Ostyn: 127-161.

Langacker, Roland W. 1988b. “A View of Linguistic Semantics” In Rudzka-Ostyn: 49-90.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application.

Volume II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Roland W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. [Cognitive Linguistics

Research 14]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Lees, R. B. and Edward S. Klima. 1963. “Rules for English Pronominalization”, Language

39 (1): 17-28.

Lehmann, Christian. 1985. “Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic

Change” In Lingua e Stile / a. XX, n. 3, luglio-settembre 1985: 303-318.

Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.

Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport. 1986. “The Formation of Adjectival Passive” Linguistic

Inquiry, Vol. 17. No 4: 623-661.

Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical

semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. “Multiple Uses of Reciprocal Constructions” Australian

Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 5: 19-41.

Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Manney, Linda. 1990. “Mental Experience Verbs in Modern Greek: A Cognitive

Explanation of Active versus Middle Voice” BLS 16: 229-240.

Mitkovska, Liljana. 1994. “On se Constructions in Macedonian” In Fowler G. et. al (eds),

Indiana Slavic Studies, Vol. 7: 136-145.

Mitkovska, Liljana. 1998. “The SE Passive in Macedonian Compared to the Neighbouring

Slavic Languages” Studia Linguistica Polono-Meridianoslavica, Tom 9, Torun, 47-60.

Mitkovska, Liljana and Eleni Buzarovska. (in press) “An alternative analysis of the English

get-passive constructions: is get all that passive?” Journal of English Linguistics

15

Murgoski, Zoze. 1983. Pasivne konstrukcije u engleskom i makedonskom jeziku:

kontrastivna analiza. Magisterski rad. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu.

Napoli, Donna Jo. 1993. Syntax: Theory and Problems. New York, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ogura, Michiko. 1989. Verbs with Reflexive Pronoun and Constructions with ‘self’ in Old

and Middle English. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.

Parker, Frank. 1976. “Language Change and the Passive Voice” Language, Vol. 52, No 2,

449-460.

Quirk, Randolf, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Startvik. 1985. A

Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Risselada, Rodie. 1987. “Voice in Antient Greek: Reflexives and Passives” In Van der

Auwera et al.:123-136.

Roberts, Ian. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht:

Foris.

Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. (ed.) 1988. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Schenker, Alexander M. 1986. “On the Rreflexive Verbs in Russian” International Journal

of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 33: 27-41.

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. “Passives and Related Constructions: A Prototype Analysis”

Language 61 (4): 821-848.

Shibatani, Masayoshi. (ed.) 1988. Passive and Voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamin Publishing Company.

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. “On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena” In

Linguistics 44-2, 217-269.

Shopen, Timothy, ed. 1984. Language Typology and Syntactic Description I. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive: A Comprehensive Linguistic Analysis. London:

Croom Helm.

Siewierska, Anna. 1988. “The Passive in Slavic” In Shibatani: 243-289.

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I and II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard Konig. 1991. “The Semantics-Pragmatics of

Grammaticalization Revisited” In Traugott, E. C. and B. Heine: 189-218.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1988. “Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization” BLS 14:

406-416.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Bernd Heine. (eds.) 1991. Approaches to Gramaticalization,

Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Van Oosten, Jeanne. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive

Explanation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Publications.

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. “Synopsys of Role and Reference Grammar” In Van Valin:

1-163.

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., (ed.) 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar.

Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Van Voorst, Jan. 1988. Event Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

16

Van der Auwera, Johan and Louis Goossens (eds.) 1987. Ins and Outs of Predication.

Dordrecht: Forris.

4.3. Sources of examples

4.3.1. Macedonian texts

Алексиев, Александар. (Уредник). 1976. Македонската драма меѓу двете светски

војни, I и II книга. Скопје: Македонска книга.

Бошковски, Јован, 1969. Избор. Скопје: Македонска книга.

1969. „Немиот скитник” Во Бошковски :19-23. (ЈБН)

1969. „Чапа” Во Бошковски: 24-27. (ЈБЧ)

1969. „Растрел” Во Бошковски: 28-41. (ЈБР)

1969. „Солунските атентатори” Во Бошковски: 173-289. (ЈБСА)

Бошковски, Петар. Уредник. 1972. Македонски раскази (антологија).

Скопје: Култура. (МР)

Иљоски, Васил. 1976. „Чорбаџи Теодос” Во Алексиев А., I книга. (ВИЧТ)

1986. Бегалка. Скопје: Наша книга. (ВИБ)

1989. Млади синови. Скопје: Мисла. (ВИМС)

Јаневски, Славко. 1969. Две Марии. Скопје: Наша книга. (СЈ2М)

Јовановски, Мето. 1985. Избор. Скопје: Македонска книга

1985. „Будалетинки” Во Јовановски: 243-348. (МЈБ)

1985. „Земја и тегоби” Во Јовановски: 9-240. (МЈЗ)

1985. „Човекот во сина облека” Во Јовановски : 398-403. (МЈЧСО)

1985. „Црвениот автобус” Во Јовановски: 391-397. (МЈЦА)

Конески, Блаже. 1975. Од историјата на јазикот на словенската писменост во

Македонија. Скопје: Македонска книга. (БКИ)

Костов, Владимир. 1969. Игра. Скопје: Мисла. (ВКИ)

Крле, Ристо. 1976. „Парите се отепувачка” Во Алексиев А., II книг: 9-90. (РКПО)

1976. „Антица” Во Алексиев А., II книга: 95-180. (РКА)

Петковски, Радослав. 1976. „Продадена” Во Алексиев А., II книга: 285-346. (РПП)

Цветановски, Саво. (Уредник) 1990. Антологија на македонскиот постмодернистички

расказ. Скопје: Наша книга. (ПМ)

Чинго, Живко. 1989. Бунило. Скопје: Мисла. (ЖЧБ)

Чашуле, Коле. 1980. Простум. Скопје: Култура и Македонска книга. (КЧП)

„Нова Македонија” (НМ) 6.11.92 / 27.06.93 / 21.07.93 / 22.07.93 / 23.07.93 / 26.07.93 /

10.08.94

„Вечер” (Вечер) 9.10.1992 / 10/11.07.94 / 17/18.07.94

„Пулс” (Пулс) 5.11.93.

„Блеф” (Блеф) број 1, 1993.

17

4.3.2. English texts

4.3.2.1. Translated from Macedonian

Cvetanovski, Savo. (ed.) 1990. Anthology of the Macedonian Postmodern Short Story.

Skopje: Nasa kniga. (PM)

Holton, Milne. (ed.) 1974. The Big Horse (And Other Stories of Modern Macedonia).

Columbia: University of Missouri Press. (MSS)

Jovanovski, Meto. 1987. Cousins. San Francisco: Mercury House, Incorporated. (MJC)

Jovanovski, Meto. 1992. Faceless Man and Other Stories. London/Boston: Forest Books.

(MJFM)

4.3.2.2. Original texts

Browning, Pamela. 1988. Harvest Home. Toronto: Harlequin Books. (HH)

Carter, Rosemary. 1979. Bush Doctor. Toronto: Harlequin Books. (BD)

Earley, Fran. 1986. Candidate for Murder. Toronto: Harlequin Books. (CM)

Lodge, David. 1988. Nice Work. London: Penguin. (NW)

O‟Brien, Edna. 1974. Country Girls. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. (CG)

Newsweek , Nov. 23, 1993 / Nov. 29, 1993 / Dec. 6, 1993 / Dec. 13, 1993 / Jan. 24, 1994 /

Feb. 7, 1994 March 7, 1994 / May 2, 1994 / May 9, 1994 / June 20, 1994

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.1980. Harlow/London: Longman.

Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus. 1990. New Lanark: Geddes and Grosset Ltd.

The Concise Macquarie Dictionary. 1982. Sydney: Macquarie University.