Russ Linguist (2012) 36:193–211DOI 10.1007/s11185-012-9092-4

Semantic defocusing: semantically motivated syntaxof Russian SJA constructionsСемантический дефокус: семантически мотивированныйсинтаксис конструкций c -СЯ в русском языке

Hyug Ahn

Published online: 25 April 2012© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This paper aims to investigate the prototypical function of SJA and to classify SJAconstructions in Russian. These so-called reflexive constructions express a ‘semantic defo-cus’, not intransitivity. By defocusing on a participant a different construal of a situation isshown. This different construal often leads the focus towards the action of the verb. Semanticdefocusing is the prototype of SJA constructions in Russian. SJA constructions have diversemeanings and the categorization of these meanings shows the relationships among the SJAconstructions. There are a number of elements that play a role in the realization of thesediverse meanings, such as verbal aspects, the lexical meaning of a verb, etc. However, thesubcategories of SJA constructions are related and the concept of semantic defocus plays animportant role in the network of SJA constructions.

Аннотация Настоящая статья исследует прототипическую функцию -СЯ и класси-фицирует конструкции с -СЯ в русском языке. Так называемые «возвратные» кон-струкции выражают не непереходность, а «семантический дефокус». Дефокусировкаодного из участников показывает различия в конструировании ситуации. А эти раз-личия часто приводят к фокусировке на действии, обозначаемом данным глаголом.Поэтому семантический дефокус функционирует как прототип конструкций с -СЯ врусском языке. Конструкции с -СЯ выражают разнообразные значения; классифика-ция этих значений выявляет семантические отношения между конструкциями. Эле-ментами, оказывающими влияние на реализацию этих значений, являются глагольныйвид, лексическое значение данного глагола и др. Субкатегории конструкций с -СЯсвязаны между собой, и понятие семантического дефокуса играет важную роль в сетиконструкций с -СЯ.

This work was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2011.

H. Ahn (�)Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Language Research Institute, Seoul, Republic of Koreae-mail: hyugahn@gmail.com

194 H. Ahn

1 Introduction

There used to be two types of the reflexive pronoun—the long and short forms in CommonSlavic (henceforth CS). CS sę is a short form of the reflexive pronoun sebę in the accusativecase in Slavic (Isačenko 1960, 380). Ivanov mentions that the enclitic form sę lost its inde-pendence and changed into a particle in the 15th century (Ivanov 1983, 297–298).1 SJA incontemporary standard Russian expresses not only the reflexive meaning, but there are alsovarious situations that can be designated by SJA verbs (cf. Ahn 2006b). For example, sen-tence (1) does not mean that the nettle stings itself, but that it is characteristic for a nettle tosting.

(1) Krapiva žžetsja.2‘A nettle stings.’

The purpose of the current paper is to categorize SJA verbs from a semantic point of viewand to reveal the structure of SJA functions. The etymology of SJA forces us to call theSJA verbs vozvratnye ‘reflexive’ (Švedova et al. 1980, 617), but the semantic diversity ofSJA constructions prevents us from calling them ‘reflexive’ without reserve. The reflexivemeaning, however, functions as the prototype of SJA, but it is necessary to explain othernon-reflexive SJA constructions. The prototype of SJA expresses that the participant is beingdefocused and the event is being highlighted to a different extent. Another important criterionof SJA verb classification is meaning of case, since the reflexive pronouns in CS were usedin various case forms and SJA is definitely related to the reflexive pronouns.

On the quest for the semantics of SJA it is necessary to consider not only semantic charac-teristics of SJA verbs, but also syntactic constructions where the SJA verbs are used. To startwith, I will discuss the prototypicality of SJA. I will then move on to explain the classificationof SJA verbs using prototypes and case meaning in Russian.

2 Semantic defocus in SJA constructions

Russian linguistic tradition shows that the semantic function of SJA is often related to a signof grammatical intransitivity.3 However, Ahn (2006a) suggests that the speaker uses SJAto express his / her focus on the action or state rather than on the patient or theme of theaction. This semantic perspective on SJA is very useful for explaining the following SJAconstructions:

(2) a Otec moet sebja.‘Father is washing himself.’

b. Otec moet ne sobaku, a sebja.‘Father is washing not the dog, but himself.’

1CS and some of the contemporary Slavic languages such as Czech and Bulgarian have a separate form ofthe short reflexive pronoun in the dative case as well as in the accusative case (cf. Scatton 1993, 235–237 andShort 1993, 514–517).2Unless otherwise indicated, all examples are mine.3Vinogradov (1972, 630) and Isačenko (1960, 374) specifically mention intransitivity as the invariant meaningof SJA. Švedova et al. (1980) classified SJA verbs into the passive and intransitive meanings. Gerritsen (1990)explains the meaning of SJA using the action and the participants as starting and terminal points of the action.Israeli (1997) defines the meaning of SJA according to Kemmer’s (1993) notion of the meaning of the middlevoice as low elaboration of an event.

Defocusing in Russian reflexives 195

c. Otec moetsja.‘Father is washing himself.’

These sentences can all be used to refer to an identical situation, however they are not se-mantically synonymous. The sentences reflect that the speaker has a different focus. Thesentence (2a) shows a focus on the patient and this can be verified in the sentence (2b). Thecorresponding SJA sentence (2c) means that the subject is involved in the action of wash-ing. Despite the etymology of the reflexive pronoun and SJA, their semantic functions aredifferent.

Geniušiene (1987, 37–53) shows the difference between transitive and reflexive construc-tions using the concept of diathesis, cf. Fig. 1:

Otec moet sobaku. Otec moetsja.�1 �2

Human Animate HumanAgent Patient Agent PatientSubj. Obj. Subj.

Fig. 1 Diathesis correspondences in non-SJA and SJA sentences4

The ‘�’ in the figure designates diathesis. “Diathesis is defined as a pattern of correspon-dences between the constituents of the RefS [referent structure] and the constituents of theRolS [role structure] and SynS [syntactic structure]” (Geniušiene 1987, 53).5 Ontologicalfeatures such as ‘human’, ‘animate’ appear on the referent level, while ‘agent’, ‘patient’, andother semantic roles6 are expressed on the semantic role level, and ‘subject’, ‘object’, andother syntactic features are marked on the syntactic function level. This figure explains thecorrespondence between transitive and reflexive constructions well, but it does not explainthe semantic characteristics of the reflexive construction briefly mentioned after examples(2a)–(2c). Geniušiene’s diathesis analysis is useful for showing the different uses of a SJAverb, cf. Fig. 2.

Mal’čik moetsja mamoj. Mal’čik moetsja.�1 �2

Human Human HumanPatient Agent Agent PatientSubj. Adj. Subj.

Fig. 2 Diathesis of the passive and reflexive SJA constructions

The diathesis figures of the SJA verbs provide useful information about the argument struc-ture of SJA constructions, but it still seems difficult to detect the function of SJA from the

4For more information about the methodology of the diagram see Geniušiene (1987, 54f.).5In Geniušiene (1987, 52), diathesis is defined differently as ‘a pattern of correspondences between units atthe syntactic level and units at the semantic level’.6Geniušiene (1987, 37–44) also postulates that the semantic roles are systematic and that they play an im-portant role in the reflexive constructions. Geniušiene tries to classify these roles using a simpler and moregeneralized ‘hyper-role’. The concept of hyper-role is semi-syntactic rather than purely semantic and sharesfeatures with Fillmore’s ‘hyper-case’ (1977, 65), known as ‘allo-case’ by Cook (1972).

196 H. Ahn

figures. Reflexive SJA constructions signal that a participant exists who is carrying out morethan one role in a situation, and that this is a semantic feature of the prototypical reflexiveSJA in Russian.

‘Focus on the action’ was suggested as the prototypical function of SJA in Ahn (2006a,2006b) and this prototype is often reinterpreted as the intensive meaning especially in pre-fixed SJA constructions (Ahn 2009). Janko-Trinickaja (1962, 245f.) explains that the Russianreflexive verb emphasises the independence of the event denoted by the verb from the actantsof the verb. In other words, in SJA verbs the performance of the event becomes highlighted,rather than the participant(s) of the event, which is similar to the idea of ‘focus on the action’in Ahn (2006a, 2006b, 2009). It is, however, necessary to think about the difference betweenSJA and intransitive constructions. For example, (3a) is a SJA construction of ‘grooming’and (3b) is an intransitive construction. In both clauses (a and b) there is an agent who isshaving and the difference between them would be related to the direct object. In (3a) theobject is implied on a semantic level, while in (3b) it is not implied or only implied on acontextual level.

(3) a. Brat breetsja.‘The brother is shaving.’

b. Brat breet.‘The brother is shaving.’

c. ∗Brat breet sebja.‘The brother is shaving himself.’

d. Brat breet (sebe) borodu.‘The brother is shaving his beard.’

For a typical grooming verb like brit’sja ‘shave (oneself)’, it is known that the SJA verb cannotbe replaced by a non-SJA verb with a reflexive pronoun as in (3c), but only by a constructionas in (3d) (Veyrenc 1980, 227f.). However, Google and the Russian National Corpus give679 and 2 examples, respectively, of the substitution of breetsja with breet sebja as in (4).

(4) On breet sebja prosto kak vsjakij čelovek.‘He shaves himself just like any other person does.’

(http://www.sycok.narod.ru/25.html. Accessed 2012-03-27)

Another construction to consider is the passive SJA construction. A number of SJA verbsare realized in different meanings. A SJA verb can be used in a passive meaning (5a) and areciprocal construction (5b).

(5) a. Takie vystuplenija vstrečalis’ odobritel’no.‘Those performances were encountered favorably.’

b. Oni často vstrečalis’.‘They often met.’ (Xrakovskij 1991, 149)

The one thing we have to notice is that SJA sentences with a passive meaning are often usedwithout an agent in the instrumental case. In many languages agentless passives by far out-number those with an overt agent. For written English, the percentage of agentless passivesis said to be between 90 % and 70 % (cf. Svartvik 1966; Givón 1979 and Krauthamer 1981).Dušková (1972) gives the figure 85 % for written Czech (cf. Siewierska 1988). The agent inthe instrumental case is often restricted to the third person, and this restriction attests thatSJA constructions with a passive meaning are not about highlighting the agent, but aboutthe action imposed on the object. The information about the agent may be retrieved from thecontext. The frequency of agentless passive SJA gives an idea about the semantic function of

Defocusing in Russian reflexives 197

SJA. The SJA here does not have the same function as in the reflexive SJA constructions. Un-like the reflexive construction, SJA carries the implication that there is an agent and that theevent is being highlighted. These two meanings—the first being the existence of a retrievableparticipant, the second being a stronger focus on the action and not on the participant—arethe common semantic denominator of SJA in reflexive and passive constructions. I’d like tocall these meanings ‘semantic defocus’. ‘Defocus’ is a term in photography: it is “an opticaberration in which an image is simply out of focus” (Zamudio-Fuentes et al. 2011, 81). Forexample, the following two pictures (Fig. 3) were taken in the same setting with differentfoci.

Fig. 3 Defocus7

The person who took these pictures decided wether to choose to focus on the foregroundor the background items in the picture. On the left, the background entity is blurred, but itsexistence is perceived in the picture. The same mechanism works for SJA constructions. SJAsignals that there is a participant out of focus. The participant plays a role in the event of theverb, but the speaker puts his focus on other elements, such as the event or other participant(s).The reflexive SJA construction defocuses on its direct object while highlighting the agentand event. Passive SJA constructions often express an event that has affected a participant.Semantic defocus is a conceptual prototype that captures characteristics of SJA constructions.

3 Categorization of SJA constructions

Categorization of SJA has been attempted in the previous research (cf. Isačenko 1960;Vinogradov 1972; Švedova et al. 1980; Gerritsen 1990; Israeli 1997) based on the lexicalmeaning of SJA verbs. The lexical meaning of non-SJA verbs is important, but, as mentionedabove, it is necessary to consider other aspects such as syntactic construction, participantstructure, the etymology of SJA, and etc. Here classification will be attempted based on theprototypical function of SJA which is semantic defocus. Diverse relationships to peripheralgroups in the classification will be suggested.

Another interesting idea is to make use of the Russian case system in the classification.Considering the etymological origin of SJA, which is a short form of the reflexive pronoun,it is a plausible idea to employ the concept of case in the categorization of SJA meanings (for

7There are instances where we have been unable to trace or contact the copyright holder. If notified the pub-lisher will be pleased to rectify any errors or omissions at the earliest opportunity.

198 H. Ahn

instance, Czech and Bulgarian still maintain separate forms for the short reflexive pronounin the accusative and dative cases, cf. fn. 1).

A complicated case system8 is one of the characteristics of most Slavic languages. Janda(1993, 15) mentions that case functions as a marker for expressing the role assigned to partic-ipants in a situation that is being expressed by a predicate: “[. . .] the following assumptionsare inherent in the cognitive framework:

(i) case is always meaning-bearing(ii) case meaning has a constant objective moment that can be subjectively applied(iii) case meaning involves the organization of rather than the specification of information(iv) case meaning is not essentially different from lexical meaning in structure.”

However, it is not necessary to consider all the Russian cases to explain SJA categories. Theaccusative and dative cases seem to be the only ones we need when we consider that the shortreflexive pronoun in CS is only realized in the accusative and dative cases. The accusativecase is used to explain the reflexive, middle and some reciprocal SJA constructions and thedative case works as a common feature of the receiver, passive, consequential and someimpersonal SJA constructions.

The category of the accusative SJA includes the reflexive SJA, the middle SJA and somereciprocal SJA verbs, because those SJA constructions show similar diatheses on the semanticrole level, i.e. an agent performs an action affecting the same entity or a part of the entity.The patient of the event is defocused, but exists on referential and semantic levels. Janda andClancy (2002, 53) describe the meaning of the accusative case as a destination of an action,cf. Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 Image schema of the accusative case (taken from Janda and Clancy 2002, 53)9

The accusative case as a destination usually shows focus on the patient, but the direct objectis defocused in the reflexive construction. Therefore the focus is changed by the action orevent referred to by the verb. “The action moves along a path from the agent to the patient”(Janda and Clancy 2002, 64), for the speaker or conceptualizer, the event itself becomes

8Švedova et al. (1980, 479) defines case in the Russian Academy Grammar as follows: cases are polysemous,each case has its own system of meanings, and some meanings are basic and central, whereas others aresemantically peripheral.9In the sense of Lakoff (1987), Croft and Cruse (2004, 44) state that “[i]mage schemas are defined as schematicversions of images. Images are representations of specific, embodied experiences (see Fillmore 1975, 123;1977, 73–74). Domains that give rise to images are described as embodied (Lakoff 1987, 267 [. . .]) or grounded(Lakoff and Turner 1989, 113) [. . .]. Image schemas are not specific images, but are schematic.” In other words,the role of the participants in Fig. 4 is separated in a circle, but this separation appears to be difficult in realsentences. “They represent schematic patterns arising from imagistic domains, such as containers, paths, links,forces, and balance that recur in a variety of embodied domains and structure our bodily experience (Lakoff1987, 453) [. . .] and they structure our non-bodily experience as well, via metaphor (Lakoff 1987, 453 [. . .]).This definition clarifies the seemingly contradictory description of image schemas [. . .]: image schemas are‘abstract’ in one sense of that word—they are schematic—but not ‘abstract’ in another sense of that word—they are embodied” (Croft and Cruse 2004, 44).

Defocusing in Russian reflexives 199

more important than its participants. The dative case in Russian expresses the meaning ofthe receiver, which can be metaphorically extended to an affected participant as an agentreceiving a metaphorical influence from outside. Themeaning of the receiver is the prototypeof the dative case (Janda and Clancy 2002, 84), cf. Fig. 5.

Fig. 5 Image schema of thedative case in Russian (takenfrom Janda and Clancy 2002, 84)

The dative SJA signifies that the subject is affected by an event, and this event can be eitherpositive or negative for the subject. In other words, the subject does something for his or herown sake, or the subject is affected by the action but not in a positive way, cf. (6):

(6) My ošiblis’.‘We made a mistake.’

The reciprocal SJA exemplifies an interesting point regarding the use of case in the classi-fication of SJA. A reciprocal SJA construction can either be accusative or dative dependingon the lexical meaning of the verb. For example, obnimat’sja ‘hug (each other)’ is a mem-ber of the accusative reciprocal SJA verbs, while perepisyvat’sja ‘write (to each other)’ andsovetovat’sja ‘advise (each other)’ are members of the dative reciprocal SJA verbs.

3.1 The accusative SJA

The reflexive SJA constructions, as explained above, are from semantic and etymologicalperspectives prototypes. First of all, one group of verbs is the proper reflexive or the “reflex-ive[s] par excellence” (Israeli 1997, 52), cf. (7). The frequency of the substitution is, however,relatively low, because the verb with the reflexive pronoun sebja is only possible when thereis another object with the pronoun as in (8), i.e. the conversion of a SJA verb into a verbphrase with the reflexive pronoun sebja is not found frequently (Israeli 1997, 52–58). Theconversion does not happen frequently, because of contextual complexity, however it doeshappen when the context provides proper conditions. This productivity of conversion alsoshows that the reflexive SJA is the prototype.

(7) Vy napadaete, my zaščiščaemsja.‘You attack, we defend!’

(http://s1.jugger.mail.ru/info/forum/topic.php?t=32474&f=2&p=62.Accessed 2012-03-20)

(8) My zaščiščaem i sebja, i druzej.‘We are defending both ourselves and our friends.’

200 H. Ahn

Frequency is, of course, an important feature of prototypicality, but in the case of SJA, theproductivity or closeness to the etymological origin also play a crucial role in judging thecategory prototype.10

From the case perspective and considering the syntactic structure the reflexive SJA isaccusative and therefore the proper name for it will be the accusative reflexive SJA.

Another group of the accusative SJA is called the middle SJA constructions. The mid-dle voice in Indo-European is historically related to the category of ‘medium’ in AncientGreek and the medium category expresses a subject’s interest in the action of the predicate(Perel’muter 1984, 4).11 This is another argument for the current assertion that SJA expressesthe speaker’s focus on the action. The middle SJA constructions include three subcategoriesdistinguished by the different semantics of their constructions: they designate a subject’s ac-tion when engaging a body (part), an emotion or a (non-translational) motion.

The first subcategory of the middle SJA contains the SJA verbs describing actions engag-ing a body (part). This subcategory is semantically related to the reflexive SJA verbs of bodycare or actions relating to the body, but verbs of this subcategory of the middle SJA denotean action facilitated by an object such as deržat’sja za perila ‘hold on to the banister / rail’,stuknut’sja ob ugol ‘knock (bump) against the corner’, udarit’sja / ušibit’sja ob ugol ‘hit, hurtoneself, bruise oneself against the corner’, teret’sja o zabor ‘rub against a fence’ etc.

The body part in this subcategory of SJA plays a different role than in the reflexive SJAused for describing body care. In other words, the SJA verbs of grooming or body care denoteaction directed towards the body part, i.e. the body part plays the role of the patient of theaction, but the engaged body part in the middle SJA verbs does not appear as a patient,although the body part is involved in the performance of the action. The definiteness of thebody part also seems different. The body parts in the examples with the reflexive SJA appearto be quite obviously identifiable by the SJA constructions and the contexts, cf. (9a), (9b) and(10a), (10b):

(9) a. On ponuril golovu.b. On ponurilsja.

‘He hung his head.’

(10) a. On zažmuril glaza.b. On zažmurilsja.

‘He closed his eyes tightly.’

The SJA verb phrase stuknut’sja ob ugol ‘knock (bump) against the corner’ entails that thebody part of the subject is involved in the action of knocking, but the identity of the body partis given by the context. The lexical meaning of SJA verbs gives us a clue to understandingwhy SJA is used in many types of seemingly isolated SJA verbs.

The second subcategory of the middle meaning is comprised of SJA verbs denotingchanges in or states of emotion of the subject such as serdit’sja ‘get angry’, udivit’sja ‘besurprised’, radovat’sja ‘be happy’, somnevat’sja ‘doubt’, volnovat’sja ‘become agitated’, etc.

10The prototype approach presents “the fact that some members of a category are judged ‘better’, or ‘morerepresentative’ of the category than others.” At the same time, “the classical model can offer no account ofwhy category boundaries seem to be vague and variable” (Croft and Cruse 2004, 77). It is difficult or almostimpossible to list all elements which are important in the decision of prototype. Croft and Cruse use the ratingof Goodness-Of-Exemplar (GOE) for judging prototypicality of the members of a category (Croft and Cruse2004, 74–78).11Schenker (1986, 31) claims that “the marked reflexive signals the interiorization of the subject in the ac-tion or state expressed by the verb.” However, Gerritsen (1990, 289) does not find Schenker’s classificationsufficient to explain the semantics of the middle category.

Defocusing in Russian reflexives 201

(11) a. Uslyšav poslednie svodki s fronta, on volnuetsja.‘After hearing the last reports from the front, he became agitated.’

(RNC: N. Granina. Budennovskaja ataka. Vdovy legendarnyx sovetskixpolkovodcev vedut boi na podstupax k rodnomu domu.

Izvestija. 2002.07.28)b. Esli [obščestvo] tak volnuet sebja semejnoj dramoj, to est’, ne stali li predatel’stva

normoj žizni?‘If society itself can get so excited over a family drama, does that mean that be-trayal has become the norm of life?’

(J. Dinaburg. O strane Arestan’.http://zubova-poliana.narod.ru/me-ocherk-dubravlag95.htm.

Accessed 2012-03-20)

Example (11a) denotes a situation in which aman experiences a change in his emotional state.The SJA verb in this example is not derived from the corresponding non-SJA verb volnovat’‘worry’, because we cannot transform (11a) into a sentence on volnuet sebja. However, it ispossible to find examples with the non-SJA verb and reflexive pronoun, althoughGoogle onlycame up with 5 examples of the phrase volnuet sebja and the Russian National Corpus doesnot even have one example. The sentence (11b) from Google signals that the meaning of thewhole construction appears unrelated to the reflexive meaning, but related to the meaning ofempathy as indicated in the English translation. Of course, low frequency cannot prove thatthis sentence is not acceptable or grammatically wrong, but shows that it is realized whenthe conditions such as the context and the speaker’s intension are met. The SJA verbs thatexpress that a subject is experiencing a certain emotional state or a change of emotion can beconsidered as a metaphorical extension of the SJA verbs that mean action being imposed ona body part. If we use a Lakoffian formula (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 25–32), EMOTIONIS A BODY (PART). Israeli classified verbs of emotion into a group of verbs of decausativemeaning, but she also mentioned that these SJA verbs can be in the same group as verbs ofactional decausative meaning (Israeli 1997, 66).

The third subcategory of the reflexive SJA describes motion made by the subject, but themotion is non-translational, i.e. the subject moves his / her body, changing his / her posturewithout changing his / her location as in (12a).

(12) a. [Ja] povernulsja k devuške i uvidel ee glaza.‘I turned to the girl and saw her eyes.’

(RNC: V. Aksenov. Romantik Kitousov, akademik Velikij-Salazkin itainstvennaja Margarita. Literaturnaja gazeta. 1973).

b. Posle tragedii 11 sentjabrja dve strany povernulis’ drug k drugu [. . .].‘After the tragedy on Sep. 11 the two countries turned to each other.’

(RNC: M. Nikolaev. V poiskax kapitala. Večernjaja Moskva. 2002.02.07)

This example of non-translational motion (12a), (12b) shows an extension of meaning fromconcrete motion (12a) to abstract motion by metaphor (12b). As in (12b), the two countriesare abstract entities incapable of performing the motion of turning, but the motion of turningtowards each other can be interpreted metaphorically as becoming friendly with one another.

The middle and reflexive SJA constructions express a situation in which the subject of theSJA verb performs an action and the patient of the action is related to the subject physicallyor emotionally. However, the middle SJA constructions are located in the periphery of thesemantic network of SJA for the following reasons: 1) the lexical meaning of the middle SJAverbs is limited; 2) the reflexive SJA verbs are closer to the etymological origin of SJA than

202 H. Ahn

the middle SJA verbs; 3) the middle SJA constructions do not appear to be as productive asthe reflexive SJA constructions.

The third accusative SJA category includes a subgroup of reciprocal SJA verbs. Isačenko(1960, 382) classifies ‘reciprocal-reflexive’ verbs into one group and Vinogradov (1972),Švedova et al. (1980), Gerritsen (1990), and Israeli (1997), among other linguists, have alsocategorized reciprocal verbs into a group when classifying Russian reflexive verbs. Thesereciprocal SJA constructions have common characteristics: semantically, each participant ina reciprocal SJA construction (a single entity on the referent level) carries more than onesemantic role and the performance of the action is the information that is being focused on,cf. (13):

(13) [M]užčiny i ženščiny, kotorye na protjaženii vsej čelovečeskoj istorii borolis’ [. . .].‘Men and women who have fought throughout the entire course of human history.’

(RNC: Mitropolit Antonij (Blum). Roždestvo Božiej Materi. 1981)

In (13), the subjects are the agents of the fight, as well as, at the same time, being the patientsinvolved in the fight. The meaning of the sentence can be paraphrased using the adverbialphrase drug druga ‘each other’ as follows. The preposition protiv ‘against’ is used for thelexical meaning of the verb borot’sja ‘fight’, cf. (14):

(14) Juna i Juri is SNSD budut borot’sja drug protiv druga.‘Juna and Juri of SNSD will fight each other.’

(http://lovedorama.ru/news/juna_i_juri_iz_snsd_budut_borotsja_drug_protiv_druga/2012-02-18-1346. Accessed 2012-03-20)

The reciprocal SJA verbs are different from the reflexive SJA verbs in that the subject in thereciprocal SJA sentence does not act on himself or for himself. However, as in (14), one par-ticipant (Juna) in the reciprocal construction fights with the other (Juri), and that one (Juri)fights back against the first-mentioned participant (Juna) at the same time. In other words,the two participants in the reciprocal construction, A and B carry out the double functionssimultaneously, i.e. each participant functions as both agent and patient in one action en-coded by a given verb. Double roles for single participants in reciprocal constructions can bediagrammed as follows in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6 Image schema ofreciprocal semantics

3.2 The dative SJA

The dative SJA shows the semantic characteristics of focused events and participants affectedby these events. The first group can be called ‘receiver’ SJA verbs because the subject-agentcarries another semantic role as a receiver of the result or effect of the action. In other words,the subject-agent performs an action and simultaneously the subject-agent is affected by theaction, cf. (15). Etymologically the existence of the dative case form of the CS short reflexivepronoun might be the reason why Russian SJA verbs denote this kind of situation.

Defocusing in Russian reflexives 203

(15) Ivan stroitsja. V pervom etaže doma budut žit’ ego roditeli.‘Ivan is building a house for himself. His parents will occupy the first floor.’

(Gerritsen 1990, 87)

In example (15) Ivan is building something (a house in this context) and Ivan is carryingout the action for himself or for his own sake. If the receiver SJA incorporates meaningsassociated with the dative case, it should be possible to paraphrase SJA verbs using the dativecase form of the reflexive pronoun, cf. (16a) and (16b):

(16) a. Kak že ty v dorogu ideš’, a tabakom ne zapassja?‘How can it be that you go on a trip without stocking up on tobacco?’

(Evgen’eva 1981, 554)b. [. . .], a tabaka ne zapas sebe (dlja sebja)?

‘without stocking up on tobacco for yourself?’

As shown in (16b), the SJA verb can be paraphrased using the long form of the dative reflex-ive pronoun sebe or the prepositional phrase dlja with the genitive reflexive pronoun sebja(Švedova et al. 1980, 618). The difference between (15) and (16a), (16b) lies in the fact thatthe first verb stroit’sja ‘build something for oneself’ does not allow an object / patient that isbeing built to be stated explicitly, while the second verb zapastis’ ‘stock up’ does allow theexplicit expression of the semantic object or thing that has been stocked up for one’s own ben-efit in the instrumental case. The explicit expression of the object in the construction mightbe explained by the inferable possibility of an object, i.e. anything stackable can be the objectof the verb zapastis’ ‘stock up’, while the object of stroit’sja ‘build’ is more limited than thatof zapastis’. Vinogradov (1972, 498) defines these kinds of verbs as actions performed forthe subject, or in the subject’s interests. Russian has conventionalized this use in verbs suchas stroit’sja ‘build (one’s home)’, zapastis’ ‘provide / stock up for oneself’, prosit’sja ‘ask forsomething for oneself’, etc. which are called ‘benefactive verbs’.

The receiver SJA constructions occur relatively less frequently in Russian than in otherSlavic languages. For example, Czech has the verb koupit si ‘buy something for oneself’ asin example (17). “The Czech dative reflexive particle si exhibits surprisingly high frequencyand semantic range, particularly in the spoken language” (Janda 1993, 97).12

(17) Chystáte si koupit starší automobil v bazaru?‘Are you planning to buy a used car at the bazar?’

(http://www.mimibazar.cz/vtip.php?id=22661. Accessed 2012-03-20)

The corresponding verb in Russian, kupit’sja ‘buy (an idea)’ does not mean that a personbuys something for himself or herself. And so, the person in the following construction doesnot accept or believe what he / she was told. This SJA verb undergoes semantic shift.

(18) Ja ne kupljus’ tak legko, kak moj bednyj Genrix.‘I am not as gullible as my poor Genrix.’

(RNC: V. Pelevin. Muzyka so stolba. 1991)

Here the subject in the first person form says that he / she is not as gullible as Genrix is, but themeaning of the SJA verb can be paraphrased as ‘buy an idea for oneself from another person’using an ontological metaphor like IDEA IS A THING. The subject in the nominative case

12Colloquial Czech shows very interesting behavior regarding the reflexive clitic SE / SI. For more informa-tion, cf. Townsend (1990, 107f.).

204 H. Ahn

is the agent of the action of buying. The patient of the action is lexically limited to an ideaand this entailment has caused the verb to undergo a semantic shift in Russian.

The second dative SJA is the passive SJA verbs. As mentioned above, passive SJA con-structions also mean focus on an event by defocusing the agent. The concept of the agentcould be retrieved from the context in most cases.

(19) Okno moetsja rabočimi.‘The window is being washed by workers.’

Example (19) seems a typical passive sentence with SJA, but the RNC which consists of 300million words gives just one example of myt’sja ‘wash’ with an animate compliment in theinstrumental case, cf. (20):

(20) Aleša prixodil s utra, [. . .] i jutilsja na lavke u bani, poka mylis’ xozjajčikami rotnye.‘Alesha came here in the morning, [. . .] and took shelter in the bathhouse, whilecompany commanders were being washed by the mistresses.’

(RNC: O. Pavlov. Karagandinskie devjatiny, ili Povest’ poslednix dnej.Oktjabr’. 2001)

The information about the agent can be retrieved from the context. However, it is difficultto measure the frequency of passive SJA constructions, because most SJA verbs are usedfor more than one meaning. Among 5279 transitive verbs in Ušakov’s (2000) dictionary,4717 verbs have synthetic passive forms, i.e. SJA forms. 2241 reflexive verbs contain pas-sive meanings as well as other meanings, and the ambiguity of these verbs is solved only incontext (Zelenov 1963; Xrakovskij 1991, 149). The SJA verbs of the passive meaning are notsemantically similar to the reflexive SJA, because the passive SJA constructions maintain twoseparate roles on the reference level (cf. Figs. 1 and 2 of the present paper and Geniušiene1987), while the reflexive SJA implies the distinction only on a semantic level. There mightbe, nonetheless, an explanation as to why both constructions employ the same clitic. Theprototypical semantic function of SJA—focus on the action and defocus on the participantis also realized in the passive SJA, but the details are different from the reflexive SJA. It is,however, possible to say that both constructions are related semantically and structurally.

The third subcategory of the dative SJA expresses an elevated intensity of the action anda participant being affected by the action or event of the verb.

(21) Čerez pjat’ minut Medvedev stučal v okoško zakrytogo cvetočnogo kioska, vymani-vaja na razgovor uborščicu s mokroj švabroj v ruke, a ešče čerez sem’minut stučalsjav nomer 608 gostinicy “Mediterranean”, izvestnyj emu ranee po telefonnoj versii kak“siks-zero-ejt”.‘Five minutes later Medvedev was knocking at the window of the closed florist kiosk,luring a maid with a wet mop into a conversation, and another seven minutes later hewas knocking at room 608 of the hotel ‘Mediterranean’, which was already knownto him from the telephone as ‘six-zero-eight’.’

(RNC: D. Karalis. Roman s geroinej. Zvezda. 2001)

As we see in (21), the action of knocking is expressed by two verbs—stučat’ and stučat’sja.The agent doing the knocking, Medvedev, was knocking at the window of the florist withoutany ‘intensive meaning’, but the second knocking at the hotel room is different, becauseMedvedev, the knocker, knows that the person he is looking for is in that room or at least isstaying in that room. The knocking on the door of that room is different from the knockingon the window of the florist because the first knocking is just checking whether the florist isopen, whereas the second knocking means that the knocker has the intention to go into the

Defocusing in Russian reflexives 205

room to meet somebody who is already there. The term ‘intensive’ can be interpreted in twoways here. At first, the speaker is observing the action of knocking being carried out moreintensively than usual. Secondly, the speaker knows that the agent of knocking has a strongintention to get into the place.

Another subcategory of the intensive SJA is comprised of so-called prefixed SJA verbs.13Švedova et al. (1980, 384–391) gives a list of prefixed SJA verbs: the prefixes v-, vz-, vy-, do-,za-, iz-, na-, o-, ob-, ot-, pod-, pri-, pro-, raz-, s-, and u-, are used with SJA. Example (22)is an example of the prefixed SJA verb vslušat’sja ‘listen attentively or carefully (to); strainone’s ears to hear’.

(22) Ja stal umyvat’sja i vdrug vslušalsja v kakoe-to odnoobraznoe, tixoe, naraspev, čten’e[. . .].‘I started washing and suddenly became engrossed in listening to a monotonous,quiet, sing-song reading.’

(RNC: S. T. Aksakov. Detskie gody Bagrova-vnuka, služaščie prodolženiemsemejnoj xroniki. 1858)

Semantically, the intensive SJA is similar to the passive SJA—the focus lies on an action orevent. However, the intensive SJA does not undergo a change in syntactic structure, i.e. anagent in the intensive SJA remains in the same position of the sentence as in the correspond-ing non-SJA construction. However, the intensiveness is not the same as the one which thepassive SJA expresses. The intensive performance causes a new different meaning impliedin the given SJA verb. Gerritsen (1990, 88–98) classified a group called the consequentialreflexive SJA verbs. The consequential SJA describes a situation in which a speaker or asubject of a sentence emphasizes the result of an action. Verbs of grasping or holding makeup the first subcategory of the consequential SJA. The second subcategory is composed ofsome prefixed SJA verbs, such as doždat’sja ‘wait until’, zasiživat’sja ‘sit for a long time’, etc.Here is an example of the prefixed SJA verb—odumat’sja ‘come to one’s senses, be capableof thinking logically’, cf. (23):

(23) Junyj xokkeist Čemodanov mnogo vozomnil o sebe i brosil učebu. Zatem odumalsja.‘The young hockey player Chemodanov had too high an opinion of himself and quitstudying. Then he came back to his senses.’ (RNC: S. Dovlatov. Zapovednik. 1983)

This SJA verb expresses an outcome that has been brought about as a result of thinking. Theagent in this example, the young hockey player, found out his real status as a result of seriousdeliberation. The consequence of the action of thinking is expressed by the prefix o- and theclitic SJA. The positive result of the action is not always expressed by both a prefix and SJA,it totally depends on the lexical meaning of the verb. Example (24) shows that the result maynot be desirable to the agent:

(24) Tol’ko sdelal povorot, ponjal srazu, čto prosčitalsja, potomu čto vperedi stojalamašina GAI.‘As soon as I turned, I understood at once that I was wrong, because there was apolice car in front of me.’ (RNC: I. E. Kio. Illjuzija bez illjuzij. 1995–1999)

The SJA verb prosčitat’sja ‘make a mistake in (counting), be wrong’ is derived from the verbsčitat’ ‘count, consider’: the action of counting is continued for a certain period of time, in

13Ahn (2009) has analyzed the semantics of the intensiveness in the SJA circumfix in Russian.

206 H. Ahn

which the agent repeatedly makes mistakes whilst counting. The action of counting repeat-edly leads to an undesirable result—a mistake. The consequence of the action being com-municated by the verb obviously has to be expressed by a prefixed SJA verb. This is becausethe prefix pro- makes the verb perfective and the perfective aspect expresses the meaningof accomplished action. The meaning of consequence that is implied by the consequentialSJA is different from the meaning of accomplished action of the perfective aspect, becausethe consequential SJA entails that the repeated performance of an action results in anotheraction, whereas the perfective aspect does not imply connected actions.

The meanings of intensiveness and consequence are sometimes difficult to differentiatelike in the case of prosčitat’sja. The semantic shift in the lexical meaning of these conse-quential SJA verbs is a major feature of this category, but the shift does not happen to all theSJA verbs.

Another subcategory of consequential meaning is comprised of SJA verbs derived fromnouns and adjectives such as petušit’sja ‘get on one’s high horse’, xolmit’sja ‘have a qualityof a hump’, uglit’sja ‘get a feature of coal’, tolpit’sja ‘get crowded’, etc.

The consequential SJA and intensive SJA are difficult to differentiate in some SJA verbs,especially some prefixed SJA verbs, cf. (25):

(25) I vot za den’ tak vybegaeš’sja, čto i nogi polopajutsja, potreskajutsja.‘And so you have run so much for one day that your feet are exhausted and are startingto crack.’

(http://magazines.russ.ru/oz/2002/7/2002_07_51.html. Accessed 2012-03-20)

The SJA verb in (25), vybegat’sja ‘exhaust oneself after a long run’, has both the semanticcomponents intensiveness and focus on the consequence of something. However, themeaningof the consequential SJA can be seen separately from the meaning of the intensive SJA incases such as those in the examples (23) and (24). The consequence of an action is beingfocused on with SJA and sometimes undergoes a semantic shift.

Another interesting subcategory of SJA verbs is called the qualitative SJA. The qualitativeSJA expresses the quality of the subject. There are two subcategories of the qualitative SJA—active and passive qualities. The passive quality describes a quality that the subject of the SJAverb has. Here the subject is the patient of the action meant by the SJA verb. For example,the stick in example (26) is the patient of the verb sgibat’ ‘bend’.

(26) Palka ne sgibaetsja.‘The stick does not bend.’

This SJA construction can be used as an agentless passive in certain situations. If the speakeris watching a specific person (agent) trying to bend a stick, but the stick remains in the samestate, the sentence above would be an agentless passive. When the speaker of the sentencedoes not actually see the act of the stick being bent and the speaker is talking about a verysturdy stick, the sentence has a qualitative meaning. The passive SJA denotes a situation inprocess, and the qualitative SJA describes an entity’s feature. The meaning of qualitative SJAis also realized for an agent of action. Example (27) shows a feature of a certain nettle.

(27) Krapiva žžetsja.‘A nettle stings.’

The subject of this SJA is an agent performing the action of stinging. The performance isnot an actual performance; the sentence is about the characteristics of performing the ac-tion habitually or repeatedly. This active qualitative SJA shares semantic characteristics andgrammatical features—verbal aspect and tense—with the passive qualitative SJA.

Defocusing in Russian reflexives 207

The qualitative SJA can be paraphrased with an expression of a generic agent or patient,but the synonymy is not perfect here. Different interpretations for each sentence can be givenby the context in which the sentences are used. Here are more examples of the verb kusat’(sja)‘tend to bite’ with different contextual information.

(28) a. Esli sobaka kusaet čeloveka—to eto ne novost’. Vot esli čelovek kusaet sobaku—eto novost’.‘If a dog bites a person—it is not news. But if a person bites a dog—it is news.’

(http://masagutov.ru/article/226-15.html. Accessed 2012-03-20)b. Slučaetsja, čto iz-za nevnimatel’nosti ili ošibki odnogo iz xendlerov, razgorjačen-

naja sobaka kusaet čeloveka. Esli Vy i drugoj xendler rabotaete pravil’no, to opas-nost’ popast’ v takuju situaciju ravna nulju.‘An excited dog could bite a person, due to carelessness or mistakes by the handler.If you and the other handler were to work properly, the danger of that kind ofsituation would equal zero.’

(pitbullworld.org/view.php?f=guliakov-sc. Accessed 2012-03-22)c. Nel’zja dopuskat’, čtoby sobaka kusalas’, potomu čto ona možet nanesti ser’eznye

povreždenija.‘Never let a dog bite someone, because it can cause serious injury.’

(http://zooclub.ru/dogs/dres/142.shtml. Accessed 2012-03-27)

If the SJA verb kusat’sja can be paraphrased with kusat’ čeloveka ‘bite a person’ and bothexpressions are considered absolutely synonymous, then these two sentences must be re-placeable with each other all the time. The examples, however, show that the two sentencesare used in slightly different contexts. Authentic examples from the Internet can identify thedifference between the uses of the sentences as in (28a)–(28c). SJA sentence (28c) describesa property of a dog or a group of dogs. The dog is the topic of the whole context, and thespeaker keeps talking about the dog and the dog’s behavior, which could end badly. Thesentences with kusat’ čeloveka ‘bite a person or people’ (28a) and (28b) are more about anincident in which a dog bites a person. Example (28a) is about a possible incident. Example(28b) is also about a situation that an excited or agitated dog can bite a person, but is notabout biting as a constant quality of a dog. SJA sentence (28c) is more about the dog’s bitinghabit as a characteristic feature of the dog. This kind of different connotation can be foundin example (29a)–(29c):

(29) a. Kniga čitaetsja s interesom.‘This book is being read with interest.’

b. Kniga čitaetsja s interesom ljud’mi raznyx pokolenij.‘The book is being read with interest by people of various generations.’

c. Vaši stixi čitajutsja mnoj.‘Your poems are read by me.’

(http://www.playcast.ru/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t2234.html.Accessed 2012-03-20)

Example (29a) is a SJA sentence with a qualitative meaning, and the sentence can be para-phrased with a phrase expressing a generic agent as in (29b). These two sentences share thesame topic—a book, but (29a) is about the quality of the book and (29b) focuses on thefact that the book is read with interest by people not only of one generation, but of differentgenerations. The agent in the instrumental case in example (29b) could be considered as aperipheral use of SJA, considering that the statistics show that passives with an overt agentare less than 20 %. A prototypical passive SJA expresses a speaker’s focus on the action,

208 H. Ahn

and the added agent in the instrumental case is considered to take over the focus. There-fore it is possible to say that the SJA verbs of qualitative meaning are closely related to thepassive SJA verbs, and the passive SJA sentences with generalized agents are a linking areabetween the two meanings above. The ambiguity between the passive and qualitative SJAscan be explained using the verbal aspect in Russian. The imperfective aspect in the passiveconstructions shows the meaning of concrete process, while the same imperfective aspect inthe qualitative constructions expresses a habitual meaning or a meaning of generalized fact.However, the context always provides a key to this ambiguity.

The next category of SJA has a semantic feature signaling that there is no agent controllingthe action of the SJA verb. An agent can occur in the SJA sentence, but the agent does not havecontrol over the action of the verb. Galkina-Fedoruk (1958, 156) mentions that the SJA formemphasizes and reinforces the independence of the process from the subject. The participantwho performs the action appears as a setting and the action expressed by the SJA verb ishighlighted. The notion of the independence of process can be an argument for the fact thatneither subject nor agent have control over the process denoted by the verb.

The first subgroup of SJA verbs consists of the SJA verbs expressing uncontrolled actionby an agent. These SJA verbs denote an emotionally or physically uncontrollable action orchange of state of a participant. This group typically includes the following verbs: ikat’sja‘hiccup’, nezdorovit’sja ‘feel unwell’, dyšat’sja ‘breathe’, vzgrustnut’sja ‘feel sad, depressed’,čixat’sja ‘sneeze’, zevat’sja ‘yawn’, dremat’sja ‘doze, drowse’, etc. The subject in the dativecase with these SJA verbs carries a double role, that of the agent and that of the affectedparticipant of the action.

The second semantic subgroup of the meaning of no control is comprised of the SJAverbs of natural phenomena. This subgroup expresses the meaning of atmospherical andmeteorological phenomena and the meaning of phenomena happening in a place or to a per-son. The SJA verbs of climatological phenomena include smerkat’sja ‘get dark’, brezžit’sja‘dawn’, tumanit’sja ‘become hazy’, projasnjat’sja ‘clear’, etc. It is interesting to comparethese SJA verbs with SJA verbs of color. Leinonen (1985, 81) states that the SJA verb’s mean-ing is stronger than the corresponding non-SJA verb’s meaning in the verbs smerkat’ andsmerkat’sja. Boguslavskij (1962, 79) mentions that belet’ ‘become white’ shows a strongerwhiteness than belet’sja ‘showwhite’. These comments seem to oppose one another, but thereis a plausible explanation. SJA verbs of color describe an entity with a certain color. If we seea color on a background of another color, the change of the color, i.e. the meaning of inchoa-tiveness, makes the color more vivid than just showing one color without change. However,SJA verbs of climatological phenomena usually denote colors or changes on a much big-ger scale. If a person sees an already dark sky, this sky feels much darker than a sky that isbecoming dark.

Galkina-Fedoruk (1958, 129) states that impersonal verbs denoting daylight or climato-logical phenomena such as svetaet ‘it is getting light’, večereet ‘it is becoming evening’, etc.are more frequently used than the corresponding impersonal SJA verbs. However, in the caseof smerkat’ ‘get dark’ statistics show a different tendency. The Russian National Corpus hasjust one use of smerkaet ‘it is getting dark’, but yields 24 contexts for the corresponding SJAverb smerkaetsja ‘it is getting dark’. A Google search likewise shows 154 hits for smerkaet,but 7230 for smerkaetsja. The frequency of SJA and non-SJA uses totally depends on thelexical semantics of a particular verb. My next research will be aimed at investigating thereason for their frequency.

The SJA of no control has various subcategories of SJA verbs. The SJA of no controlexpresses focus on the action or event being denoted by the verb. These SJA verbs are in theperiphery of the semantic network of the passive SJA.

Defocusing in Russian reflexives 209

4 The semantic network of the REFLEXIVE SJA

Russian SJA verbs have various semantic subcategories that can be expressed by the semanticnetwork in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7 The semantic network ofthe SJA constructions.(Cons. = consequential SJA,Int. = intensive SJA, Mid. =middle SJA, N.C. = SJA ofno-control, Pass. = passive SJA,Qual. = qualitative SJA, Reci. =reciprocal SJA, Recv. = receiverSJA, Refl. = reflexive SJAconstruction)

The prototype of SJA is the reflexive SJA construction (Refl.). All the SJA categories aresemantically related to each other. The semantic function of SJA is difficult to summarize inone phrase, but semantic defocus is the primary and prototypical function of SJA. A semanticdefocus expresses a speaker’s construal of a situation by putting a participant off the focusedstage. A reflexive construction does not remove the participant, the participant simply existsin a situation without being especially highlighted. This defocus causes, or leads to, anothersemantic feature—focus on the action of the verb. The focus on the action is realized dif-ferently depending on the lexical meaning of individual verbs. The typology of SJA verbsshows this diverse realization.

Subcategories of SJA constructions are the middle SJA (Mid.), the reciprocal SJA (Reci.),the receiver SJA (Recv.), the passive SJA (Pass.), the intensive SJA (Int.), the SJA of no-control (N.C.), the qualitative SJA (Qual.), and the consequential SJA (Cons.). Refl., Mid.,and a part of Reci. SJA can be listed under the title accusative SJA, because of a defocus hap-pening in relationship to a participant in the accusative case, this participant being the directobject of the corresponding non-SJA construction, if there is one. The other subcategoriescan be listed under the title dative SJA, because of the same reason. However, the dativeSJA shows extended usage, for example, SJA constructions that express or imply affectedparticipant(s).

This network of SJA constructions does not show a so-called invariant meaning, which isshared in all SJA verbs, but the network displays the relationships between SJA constructions.SJA constructions share semantic features and these features evolve, interacting with thelexical meanings of the verbs and the participants in a given situation.

210 H. Ahn

5 Conclusion

Russian SJA is known as a clitic expressing reflexivity and a passive meaning. These twomeanings are the prototypical meanings of Russian SJA. The whole category of SJA is, ofcourse, a semantic network of two prototypical meanings with a number of peripheral mem-bers with diverse meanings.

Traditional interpretation of the reflexive construction often leads to the idea of intransi-tivity, which is related to the elimination of a participant. SJA constructions, however, do noteliminate a participant, but decrease or change the speaker’s focus on the situation and theparticipant. The participant remains in the situation, but with a different focus on him / her.The semantic defocus of a participant often makes the whole construction show a strongerfocus on the verb.

Classification of the SJA constructions according to the function of SJA clearly showsthat the SJA constructions are related to each other. When considering the meaning of SJA,the reflexive SJA is the best example for showing this function. There are other SJA subcat-egories such as the middle SJA, the reciprocal SJA, the receiver SJA, the passive SJA, theintensive SJA, the SJA of no-control, the qualitative SJA, and the consequential SJA. SJAconstructions do not share a single meaning, but do show semantic connections. However,there are a number of variables such as verbal aspect, tense, and lexical meanings of verbs. Aspeaker chooses SJA constructions to express a certain meaning, not for indicating intransi-tiveness. Cognitive linguistics offers a better way of understanding the structure of SJA verbsby graded centrality and semantic networks, not through binary opposition.

References

Ahn, H. (2006a). Additional information introduced by SJA in Russian. Glossos, 7 (http://www.seelrc.org/glossos/).

Ahn, H. (2006b). The semantics of SJA in Russian: focus on the action. PhD dissertation. Chapel Hill.Ahn, H. (2009). The semantics of intensiveness in the SJA circumfix in Russian. Slavic and East European

Journal, 53(4), 623–637.Boguslavskij, A. S. (1962). Obrazovanija tipa belet’sja i otymennye glagoly. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 1, 77–80.Cook, W. A. (1972). A set of postulates for case grammar analysis. Languages and Linguistics. Working

Papers, 4, 35–49.Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge.Dušková, L. (1972). On some functional and stylistic aspects of the passive voice in present-day English.

Philologica Pragensia, 14(1), 117–143.Evgen’eva, A. P. (Ed.) (1981). Slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Vols. 1–4. Moskva.Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cogen et al. (Eds.), Berkeley

Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the annual meeting, 1 (pp. 123–131). Berkeley.Fillmore, C. J. (1977). The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. M. Saddock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics.

Vol. 8: Grammatical relations (pp. 59–81). New York.Galkina-Fedoruk, E. M. (1958). Bezličnye predloženija v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moskva.Geniušiene, E. (1987). The typology of reflexives (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 2). Berlin.Gerritsen, N. (1990). Russian reflexive verbs. In search of unity and diversity (Studies in Slavic and General

Linguistics, 15). Amsterdam.Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York.Isačenko, A. V. (1960). Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim. Morfologija. Vol. 2.

Bratislava.Israeli, A. (1997). Semantics and pragmatics of the ‘reflexive’ verbs in Russian (Slavistische Beiträge, 349).

München.Ivanov, V. V. (1983). Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moskva.Janda, L. A. (1993). A geography of case semantics. The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental (Cognitive

Linguistics Research, 4). Berlin, New York.Janda, L. A., & Clancy, S. J. (2002). The case book for Russian. Bloomington.

Defocusing in Russian reflexives 211

Janko-Trinickaja, N. A. (1962). Vozvratnye glagoly v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moskva.Kemmer, S. (1993). The middle voice (Typological Studies in Language, 23). Amsterdam, Philadelphia.Krauthamer, H. (1981). The prediction of passive occurrence. Linguistics, 19(3/4), 307–324.Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago.Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago.Leinonen,M. (1985). Impersonal sentences in Finnish and Russian: syntactic and semantic properties (Slavica

Helsingiensia, 3). Helsinki.Perel’muter, I. A. (1984). Indoevropejskij medij i refleksiv (Opyt funkcional’nogo analiza). Voprosy jazyko-

znanija, 1, 3–13.Scatton, E. A. (1993). Bulgarian. In B. Comrie &G. G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 188–248).

London, New York.Schenker, A. M. (1986). On the reflexive verbs in Russian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and

Poetics, 33, 27–41.Short, D. (1993). Czech. In B. Comrie &G. G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 455–532). London,

New York.Siewierska, A. (1988). The passive in Slavic. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Passive and voice (Typological Studies in

Language, 16) (pp. 243–289). Amsterdam, Philadelphia.Svartvik, J. (1966).On voice in the English verb (Janua linguarum. StudiamemoriaeNicolai vanWijk dedicata.

Series practica, 58). The Hague.Švedova, N. J. et al. (1980). Russkaja grammatika. Vol. I. Moskva.Townsend, C. E. (1990). A description of spoken Prague Czech. Columbus.Ušakov, D. N. (2000). Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moskva.Veyrenc, J. (1980). Études sur le verbe russe (Bibliothèque Russe de l’Institut d’Études Slaves, 56). Paris.Vinogradov, V. V. (1972). Russkij jazyk (grammatičeskoe učenie o slove). Moskva.Xrakovskij, V. S. (1991). Passivnye konstrukcii. In A. V. Bondarko (Ed.), Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki.

Personal’nost’. Zalogovost’ (pp. 141–180). Sankt-Peterburg.Zamudio-Fuentes, L. M. et al. (2011). Local quality method for the iris image pattern. In C. San Martin &

S.-W. Kim (Eds.), Progress in pattern recognition, image analysis, computer vision, and applications.Proceedings of the 16th Iberoamerican Congress, CIARP 2011, Pucón, Chile, November 15–18, 2011(pp. 79–88). Berlin, Heidelberg.

Zelenov, A. N. (1963). Vozvratnye glagoly stradatel’nogo zaloga v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke.Avtoreferat dis. kand. fil. nauk. Leningrad.