1732-8160 Agentive Reading in the Middle: The Structure of Polish reflexiva tantum Dadan Marcin R. author University of Iowa 036jqmy94 Correspondence to: Marcin R. Dadan 03 07 2024 Vol. 19, Issue 1 Volume 19 (2024) 1 36 Copyright © 2024 2024 <p>Morphosyntactic marking connected with the Middle contexts, broadly speaking expressing the involvement and affectedness of the subject (Cotticelli Kurras and Rizza 2013, Inglese 2020), tends to give rise to characteristic Voice syncretism, i.e., the appearance of different readings, e.g., inherently reflexive, anticausatives, antipassive, etc., which are argued to occur via allosemy at LF (Arad 2003, 2005; Marantz 2013a, 2013b; Wood 2015, 2016; Wood and Marantz 2017; Oikonomou and Alexiadou 2022).1 Looking at <em>reflexiva tantum </em>(RT), i.e., predicates with reflexive clitic <em>si</em><em>ę</em> (SE) without any non-<em>si</em><em>ę </em>marked counterparts, this paper claims that in a language like Polish, where the Middle readings are not expressed by non-active/mediopassive synthetic morphology, this class of contexts does not have to be related to one specification of the Voice, but since it depends on the reflexive SE-clitic, the syntax of the Middle encompasses all the contexts that license the insertion of this element. Only a subset of the syncretic readings in Polish arises as post-syntactic allosemy, and unergative and unaccusative SE-reflexives differ with regards to the base-generation of the nominative-marked subject. Importantly, agentive readings involve the agentive Voice with the NP argument merged in its specifier. Polish <em>reflexiva tantum </em>are discussed in cross-linguistic contexts of other non-alternating predicates, i.e., <em>media tantum </em>and deponents, and it is shown that they cover the same semantic spectrum, but differ in the syntax, especially in their active and agentive readings. It is shown that the idiosyncratic and omplex nature of <em>reflexive tantum </em>is reflected in its potential to create idiomatic extensions, which arise due to both overt syntax and post-spellout allosemy.</p> 1 Alexiadou Artemis (2012). Non-canonical passives revisited: Parameters of non-active voice. Linguistics 50, 1079–1110. 2 Alexiadou Artemis (2013). Where is non-active morphology? In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed.), 244–262. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 3 Alexiadou Artemis, Anagnostopolou Elena (2004). Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopolou, Martin Everaert (eds.), 114–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4 Alexiadou Artemis, Anagnostopolou Elena, Schäfer, Florian (2015). External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5 Alexiadou Artemis, Doron Edit (2012). The syntactic construction of two non-active voices: Passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics 48, 1–34. 6 Allan Rutger (2014). Activa tantum. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages and Linguistics vol. 1, Georgios K. Giannakis (ed.), 23–24. Boston: Brill. 7 Arad Maya (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 737–778. 8 Arad Maya (2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. 9 Armstrong Grant (2013). Agentive reflexive clitics and transitive ‘se’ constructions in Spanish. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2), 81–128. 10 Baerman Matthew, Corbett Greville G., Brown Duncan, Hippisley Andrew (eds.) (2007). Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Proceedings of the British Academy 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 11 Basilico David (2021). Spanish se as a high and low verbalizer. In Unraveling the Complexity of SE, Grant Armstrong, Jonathan E. Macdonald (eds.), 321–348. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. 12 Bennis Hans (2004). Unergative adjectives and psych verbs. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnastopoulou, Martin Everaert (eds.), 84–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 13 Bjorkman Bronwyn A.M. (2001). BE-ing Default: The Morphosyntax of Auxiliaries. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 14 Bobaljik Jonathan, Wurmbrand Susi (2012). Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the ¾ signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3), 371–421. 15 Bondaruk Anna (2020). The syntax of accusative and dative experiencers in Polish. In Beyond Emotions in Language: Psychological Verbs at the Interfaces, Bożena Rozwadowska, Anna Bondaruk (eds.), 141‒212. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bondaruk Anna, Charzyńska-Wójcik Magdalena (2003). Expletive pro in impersonal passives in Irish, Polish, and Old English. Linguistische Berichte, 195, 325–362. 16 Bošković Željko (2008). What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 37, Emily Elfner, Martin Walkow (eds.), 101–114. Amherst, MA: Amherst GLSA, University of Massachusetts. 17 Bruening Benjamin (2013). By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16(1), 1–41. 18 Cennamo Michela (1999). Late Latin pleonastic reflexives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Transactions of the Philological Society 97(1), 103–150. 19 Cetnarowska Bożena (2000). The unergative/unaccusative split and the derivation of resultative adjectives in Polish. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Philadelphia Meeting 1999, Tracy Holloway King, Irina A. Sekerina (eds.), 78–96. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 20 Clackson James (2007). Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 21 Cotticelli Kurras Paola, Rizza Alfredo (2013). Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European categories: The reflexive and the middle in Hittite and in the proto-language. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3(1), 7–27. 22 Cuervo Maria Cristina (2015). Causation without a CAUSE. Syntax 18(4), 388–424. 23 Delbrück Berthold (1897). Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen II. Straßburg: Trübner. 24 Déchaine Rose-Marie, Wiltschko Martina (2017). A formal typology of reflexives. Studia Linguistica 72(1–2), 60–106. 25 Doron Edith (2003). Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11(1), 1–67. 26 Embick David (1997). Voice and the interfaces of syntax. PhD dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. 27 Embick David (1998). Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. In Papers from the Penn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, May 1997, Heidi Harley (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 28 Embick David (2000). Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2), 185–230. 29 Embick David (2004). Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopolou, Martin Evarert (eds.), 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 30 Embick David (2010). Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 31 Folli Raffaella, Harley Heidi (2004). Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In Aspectual Inquiries, Paula Kempchinsky, Roumyana Slabakova (eds.), 95–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 32 Fortson Benjamin W. (2010). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Chichester: Blackwell Wiley. 33 Frąckowiak Ewelina, Rivero Maria-Luisa (2011). Unintentional agents vs. unintentional causers in Polish. In Generative investigations: Syntax, Morphology, and Phonology, Piotr Bański, Beata Łukaszewicz, Monika Opalińska, Joanna Zaleska (eds.), 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34 Gelderen Elly van (2014). Changes in psych-verbs: A reanalysis of little v. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 13, 99–122. 35 Geniušienė Emma (1987). The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 36 Glushan Zhanna A. (2013). The role of animacy in Russian morphosyntax. PhD dissertation. University of Connecticut. 37 Golędzinowska Maria (2004). Syntactic transitivity of SE-reflexives in Polish. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 22, 93–120. 38 Goodwin William W. (1900). Greek Grammar. Boston: Ginn &amp; Company. 39 Grestenberger Laura (2014). Feature mismatch: Deponency in Indo-European languages. PhD dissertation. Harvard University. 40 Grestenberger Laura (2015). From inalienable possession to reflexivity: The development of Vedic tanū ‘body. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 25–44. 41 Grestenberger Laura (2016). Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European deponents. Indo-European Linguistics 4: 98–149. 42 Grestenberger Laura (2018a). Deponency in finite and nonfinite contexts. Language 94(3), 487–526. 43 Grestenberger Laura (2018b). Two types of passive? Voice morphology and “low passives” in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. In Passives Cross-Linguistically. Theoretical and Experimental Approaches, Kleanthes K. Grohmann, Akemi Matsuya, Eva-Maria Remberger (eds.), 210–245. Boston: Brill. 44 Grestenberger Laura (2018c). Variation and change in Indo-European reflexives. Talk at Variation and Contact in the Ancient Indo-European languages: between Linguistics and Philology, Pisa, 19–20 April 2018. 45 Haspelmath Martin (2001). Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, Masayuki Onishi (eds.), 53–83. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 46 Harley Heidi (2005). How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English, In The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation, Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Tova Rapaport (eds.), 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 47 Harley Heidi (2009). The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, Anastasia Giannakidou, Monica Rathert (eds.), 320–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 48 Harley Heidi (2014). On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4), 225–276. 49 Harley, Heidi (2017). The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In The Verbal Domain, Roberta D’alessandro, Irene Franco, Ángel J. Gallego (eds.), 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 50 Hock Hans Henrich (2022). Passives and anticausatives in Vedic Sanskrit. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, Eystein Dahl (ed.), 166–187. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 51 Holvoet Axel, Linde-Usiekniewicz Jadwiga (2015). The middle voice in Polish: An attempt at rehabilitation. Studies in Polish Linguistics 10(3), 105–124. 52 Inglese Guglielmo (2020). The Hittite Middle Voice: Synchrony, Diachrony, Typology. Leiden, Boston: Brill. 53 Jabłońska Patrycja (2007). Radical decomposition and argument structure. PhD dissertation. University of Tromsø. 54 Janic Katarzyna (2014). A rare type of reflexive use in Slavonic languages. In New Insights into Slavic Linguistics, Jacek Witkoś, Sylwester Jaworski (eds.), 161–178. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 55 Kallulli Dalina (2013). (Non-)canonical passives and reflexives: deponents and their like. In Non-Canonical Passives, Artemis Alexiadou, Florian Schäfer (eds.), 337–358. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 56 Kallulli Dalina (2021). Voice morphology (mis)behaving itself. In Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences III: Inside Syntax, András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas, Sten Vikner (eds.), 3–22. Berlin: Language Science Press. 57 Kastner Itamar (2020). Voice at the Interfaces: The Syntax, Semantics and Morphology of the Hebrew Verb. (Open Generative Syntax 8). Berlin: Language Science Press. 58 Kaufmann Ingrid (2007). Middle voice. Lingua 117, 1677–1714. 59 Kemmer Suzan (1993). The Middle Voice (Typological Studies in Language, 23). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 60 Kibort Anna (2004). Passive and passive-like constructions in English and Polish. PhD dissertation. Pembroke College, University of Cambridge. 61 Krasnowolski Antoni, Niedźwiedzki Władysław (eds.) (1920). Słownik staropolski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo M. Arcta. 62 Kratzer Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck, Laurie Zaring (eds.), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 63 Kulikov Leonid (2007). Reciprocal constructions in Vedic. In Reciprocal Constructions (Typological Studies in Language, 71), Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Geniušienė, Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), 709–738. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 64 Kulikov Leonid (2011). Passive to anticausative through impersonalization: The case of Vedic and Indo-European. In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-L inguistic Perspective, Andrej Malchukov, Anna Siewierska (eds.), 229–254. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 65 Kupść Anna (2000). Lexical analysis of Polish multifunctional reflexive marker. In Proceedings of FASL 8, Tracy Holloway King, Irina A. Sekerina (eds.), 214–237. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 66 Lavine James E. (2000). Topics in the syntax of non-agreeing predicates in Slavic. PhD dissertation. Princeton University. 67 Lavine James E. (2005). The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian -no/-to. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13, 75–117. 68 Legate Julie Anne, Akkus Faruk, Šereikaite Milena, Ringe Don (2020). On passives of passives. Language, 96(4), 771–818. 69 Luraghi Silvia (2012). Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite. Studies in Language 36(1), 1–32. 70 Madariaga Nerea (2017). Understanding grammars through diachronic change. Frontiers in Psychology (8), 1–16. 71 Malicka-Kleparska Anna (2012). Decausatives in Polish: A non-reflexive analysis. Studies in Polish Linguistics (1), 83–105. 72 Marantz Alec (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Colloquium (UPenn WPL, 4), Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, Alexander Williams (eds.), 201–255. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. 73 Marantz Alec (2013a). Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, Ora Matushansky, Alec Marantz (eds.), 95–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 74 Marantz, Alec (2013b). Locating the Verbal Root. Talk given at the 25th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Reykjavík, Iceland, 13 May 2013. 75 Marelj M. (2004). Middles and Argument Structure across Languages. OTS. PhD dissertation. University of Utrecht. 76 Medová Lucy (2009). Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages. A comparative view from an antipassive perspective. PhD dissertation. Princeton University. 77 Migdalski Krzysztof (2006). The syntax of compound tenses in Slavic. PhD dissertation. Tilburg University. Utrecht: LOT Publications. 78 Myler Neil. 2014. Building and interpreting possession sentences. PhD dissertation. New York University. 79 Nash Léa (2021). Nonunitary structure of unergative verbs in Georgian. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory 40, 1201–1267. 80 Oikonomou Despina, Alexiadou Artemis (2022). Voice syncretism crosslinguistically: The view from minimalism. Philosophies 7, 19, 1–33. 81 Pisarkowa Krystyna (1984). Historia składni języka polskiego. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. 82 Pitteroff Marcel (2014). Non-canonical lassen-middles. PhD dissertation. University of Stuttgart. 83 Potsdam Eric (2011). Against covert A-movement in Russian unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 42(2), 345–355. 84 Puddu Nicoletta (2007). Typology and historical linguistics: Some remarks on reflexives in ancient IE languages. In New Challenges in Typology: Broadening the Horizons and Redefining the Foundations, Matti Miestamo, Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), 249–270. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 85 Pylkkänen Liina (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 86 Reinhart Tanya, Siloni Tal (2004). Against the unaccusative analysis of reflexives. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopolou, Martin Everaert (eds.), 288–331. Oxford: Oxford Academic. 87 Rivero Mariá Luisa (2001). On impersonal Reflexives in Romance and Slavic and semantic variation. In Romance Syntax, Semantics, and L2 acquisition, Joaquim Camps, Caroline R. Wiltshire, 169–195. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 88 Rivero Maria Luisa, Golędzinowska Magda (2002). The acquisition of constructions with reflexive clitics in Polish. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa 30, 60–90. 89 Rivero Maria Luisa, Milojević Sheppard Milena (2003). Indefinite reflexive clitics in Slavic: Polish and Slovenian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 89–155. 90 Rooryck Johan, Vanden Wyngaerd Guido (2011). Dissolving Binding Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 91 Rozwadowska Bożena (1992). Thematic Constraints on Selected Constructions in English and Polish. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. 92 Rozwadowska Bożena, Bondaruk Anna (eds.) (2020). Beyond Emotions in Language. Psych Verbs at the Interfaces. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 93 Schäfer Florian (2008). The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Changeof-State Contexts. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 94 Schäfer Florian (2017). Romance and Greek medio-passives and the typology of Voice. In The Verbal Domain, Roberta D’alessandro, Irene Franco, Ángel J. Gallego (eds.), 129–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 95 Spathas Giorgos, Alexiadou Artemis, Schäfer Florian (2015). Middle voice and reflexive interpretations: Afto-prefixation in Greek. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(4), 1293–1350. 96 Stump Gregory T. (2007). A non-canonical pattern of deponency and its implications. In Linguistics Faculty Publications 35, Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, Duncan Brown, Andrew Hippisley (eds.), 71–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 97 Svenonius Peter (2004). Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd 32(2), 205–253. 98 Tabakowska Elżbieta (2003). Those notorious Polish reflexive pronouns: A plea for Middle Voice. Glossos 4, 1–18. 99 Taraldsen Medová Lucie, Wiland Bartosz (2019). Semelfactives are bigger than degree achievements. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory, 37, 1463–1513. 100 Tollan Rebecca (2018). Unergatives are different: Two types of transitivity in Samoan. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 25. 101 Tollan Rebecca, OXFORD Will (2018). Voice-less unergatives: Evidence from Algonquian. WCCFL 2018(35), 399–408. 102 Willim Ewa (2020a). Polish impersonal middles with a dative as syntactically derived experience events. In Beyond Emotions in Language: Psychological Verbs at the Interfaces, Bożena Rozwadowska, Anna Bondaruk (eds.), 245–318. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 103 Willim Ewa (2020b). On scalarity in the verbal domain. The case of Polish psych verbs. Part 1: Polish perfective psych verbs and their prefixes. Studies in Polish Linguistics 15(4), 221–247. 104 Witkoś Jacek (2000). Nominative-to-genitive shift and the negative copula nie ma: Implications for checking theory and for nature or EPP in Polish. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8(1/2), 295–327. 105 Wolfsgruber Anne C. (2021). Null-subjects and se revisited: What medieval romance arieties reveal. In Unraveling the Complexity of SE, Grant Armstrong, Jonathan E. Macdonald (eds.), 321–348. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. 106 Wood Jim (2015). Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer. 107 Wood Jim (2016). How roots do and don’t constrain the interpretation of Voice. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 96, 1–25. 108 Wood Jim (2023). Icelandic Nominalizations and Allosemy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 109 Wood Jim, Marantz Alec (2017). The interpretation of external arguments. In The Verbal Domain, Roberta D’allessandro, Irene Franco, Ángel J. Gallego (eds.), 255–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 110 Wróbel Henryk (1999). Słowotwórstwo czasowników. In Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Cz. 2: Morfologia, Renata Grzegorczykowa, Roman Laskowski, Henryk Wróbel (eds.), 467–511, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 111 Xu Zheng, Aronoff Mark, Anshen Frank (2007). Deponency in Latin. In Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, Matthew Baerman, Dunstan Brown, Greville G. Corbett, Andrew Hippisley (eds.), 127–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 112 Zombolou Katerina, Alexiadou Artemis (2014). The canonical function of deponent verbs. In Morphology and meaning, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschutzky, Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), 331–344. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.