Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 357–372

Syntactic vs pragmatic passive

Evidence from Romanian

| University of Bucharest | ‘Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti’ Institute of Linguistics
This chapter discusses the relationship between the two passive constructions in Romanian (se-passive and be-passive) in a twofold comparison: old Romanian vs present-day Romanian, and standard vs substandard present-day Romanian. Stipulating the distinction ‘syntactic passive’ vs ‘pragmatic passive’, I argue that the evolution of the two competing structures illustrates a typical case of convergence and I invoke the situation in present-day subdialectal Romanian as an additional proof. In old Romanian, se-structures functioned as syntactic passives under the Slav(on)ic influence, while be-structures had a temporal or copular meaning, pragmatically implying the passive meaning. In present-day standard Romanian, be-structures are grammaticalized for the passive meaning following the influence of Western Romance languages, while se-structures have acquired an impersonal-presentative meaning, continuing to pragmatically imply the passive meaning. The situation in present-day dialectal spoken varieties, more conservative compared to standard Romanian, reflects the grammaticalization/degrammaticalization processes that affected the evolution of the two structures: while se-structures followed the long-term evolution in standard Romanian and lost their grammaticalized passive function acquiring an impersonal-presentative meaning, the more recent grammaticalization process of be-structures as passives has not fully extended to subdialectal varieties. Hence, active constructions are the preferred option across subdialects, which currently lack a grammaticalized passive construction, as the passive meaning is pragmatically implied both by se-structures and be-structures.
Keywords: Romanian, se-passive/be-passive, syntactic passive/pragmatic passive
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The evolution of se-structures
  • 3.The evolution of be-structures
  • 4.Evidence from dialectal oral varieties of Romanian
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpus
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.18vas
References (50)
Corpus
BIU.1763 – Vlad Boţulescu de Mălăiești, Scrieri III. Istoria universală. Asia, ed. Emanuela Timotin, Andrei Timotin, Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic Gold, 2003, 101–195.Google Scholar
CC2.1581 – Coresi, Evanghelie cu învăţătură. Ed.: Diaconul Coresi, Carte cu învăţătură (1581), Volume 1, Textul, ed. Sextil Pușcariu, Al. Procopovici, Bucharest: Socec, 1914.Google Scholar
CIst.1700–1750 – Constantin Cantacuzino, Istoria Ţării Românești. Ed.: Istoria Ţărâi Rumânești atribuită stolnicului Constantin Cantacuzino, ed. Otilia Dragomir, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2006, 145–202.Google Scholar
CLM.1700–1750 – Miron Costin, Letopiseţul Ţărâi Moldovei. Ed.: M. Costin, Opere, ed. P. P. Panaitescu, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă, 1958, 41–201.Google Scholar
CSxiv.1609–1618 – Codex Sturdzanus. Tâlcul evangheliei de la judecată (Zise Domnul). Ed. Gh. Chivu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
CT.1560–1561 – Coresi, Tetraevanghel. Ed.: Tetraevanghelul tipărit de Coresi. Brașov 1560–1561, comparat cu Evangheliarul lui Radu de la Mănicești 1574, ed. Florica Dimitrescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1963.Google Scholar
DΠ– Documente și însemnări românești din secolul al XVI-lea, text stabilit și indice de Gh. Chivu, Magdalena Georgescu, Magdalena Ioniţă, Alexandru Mareș, Alexandra Roman-Moraru, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1979.Google Scholar
Ev.1642 – Evanghelie învăţătoare. Ed. Alin-Mihai Gherman, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2011, 153–480.Google Scholar
FN.1693–1704 – Foletul Novel. Calendarul lui Constantin Vodă Brâncoveanu (1693–1704), ed. Emil Vârtosu, Bucharest: Monitorul Oficial și Imprimeriile Statului, 1942, 4–194.Google Scholar
GIst.~1750 – Radu Greceanu, Începătura istoriii vieții luminatului și preacreștinului Domnului Țării Rumânești. Ed. Cronicari munteni, Volume 2, ed. Mihail Gregorian, Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură, 1961, 5–272.Google Scholar
NL.~1750–1766 – Ion Neculce, Letopiseţul. Ed.: Ion Neculce, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei și O samă de cuvinte, ed. Iorgu Iordan, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă, ed. a II-a, 1959, 31–388.Google Scholar
NT.1648 – Noul Testament. Ed. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea, 1998.Google Scholar
Prav.1581 – Pravila ritorului Lucaci. Ed. I. Rizescu, Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1971, 161–183.Google Scholar
TD – Texte dialectale. Muntenia. III, de Costin Bratu, Galina Ghiculete, Maria Marin, Bogdan Marinescu, Victorela Neagoe, Ruxandra Pană, Marilena Tiugan, Magdalena Vulpe, 1987 [1976]. Bucharest: [Editura Academiei].
ULM.~1725 – Grigore Ureche, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei. Ed. P. P. Panaitescu, Bucharest: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură și Artă, 1955, 57–210.Google Scholar
References
Berea Găgeanu, Elena. 1966. Observaţii asupra diatezei pasive în limba română. Studii și cercetări lingvistice 17(4). 567–578.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2003. Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 39. 473–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michaela. 1993. The reanalysis of reflexives: A diachronic perspective. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar
Chivu, Gheorghe. 2000. Limba română de la primele texte până la sfârșitul secolului al XVIII-lea. Variantele stilistice. Bucharest: Editura Univers Enciclopedic.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra & Alexandru Nicolae. 2014. The grammaticalization of a constraint on passive reflexive constructions in Romanian. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Irina Nicula, Alexandru Nicolae & Louise Esher (eds.), Diachronic variation in Romanian, 309–362. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Dragomirescu, Adina. 2016. The past participle and the participial clause. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan & Martin Maiden (eds.), The syntax of old Romanian, 259–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dragomirescu, Adina & Alexandru Nicolae. 2012. Pasivul cu a veni – traducere din italiană sau inovaţie românească?. Limba română 61(1). 73–81.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara & Paul J. Hopper (eds.). 1995. Voice: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frâncu, Constantin. 2009. Gramatica limbii române vechi (1521–1780). Iași: Casa Editorială ‘Demiurg’.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1982. Transitivity, topicality, and the Ute impersonal passive. In Paul J. Hopper & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, 143–160. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 3–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Study of Language 14(1). 25–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2010. Language contact: Reconsideration and reassessment. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 1–28. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallmeyer, Werner. 2002. Verbal practices of perspective grounding. In Carl Friedrich Graumann & Werner Kallmeyer (eds.), Perspective and perspectivation in discourse, 113–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9. 153–185.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska (eds.). 2011. Impersonal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela. 2008. Construcţii pasive şi construcţii impersonale. In Valeria Guţu Romalo (ed.), Gramatica limbii române, Volume 2, 133–147. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela & Martin Maiden (eds.). 2013. The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 229–290.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Tal Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3). 389–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25. 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1988. Passive and voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Joong-Sun. 2000. Passivity and impersonality of the Romance reflexive clause. Linguistics 8(1). 333–352.Google Scholar
Stan, Camelia. 2013. O sintaxă diacronică a limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Timotin, Emanuela. 2000a. Pasivul românesc în epoca veche. Aplicaţie asupra textelor originale din secolul al XVI-lea. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 51. 225–231.Google Scholar
. 2000b. Modalităţi de exprimare a pasivului în dialectele româneşti sud-dunărene. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 51. 481–490.Google Scholar
. 2002. Originea pasivului românesc. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 53. 95–109.Google Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko. 1981. Introduction au Latin vulgaire. Troisième Edition Revue et augmentée. Paris: Editions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Vasilescu, Andra. 2016. Passive Constructions. In Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The syntax of old Romanian, 188–202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017a. Diateză şi perspectivă. In Adina Dragomirescu, Alexandru Nicolae, Camelia Stan & Rodica Zafiu (eds.), Sintaxa ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Gabrielei Pană Dindelegan, la aniversare, 461–479. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Pasivul canonic vs pasivul reflexiv în româna nonstandard. Studii și cercetări lingvistice 68(2). 187–217.Google Scholar
Zafiu, Rodica. 2012/2015. Sintaxa. In Gheorghe Chivu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Isabela Nedelcu & Irina Nicula (eds.), Studii de istorie a limbii române. Morfosintaxa limbii literare în secolul al XIX-lea şi al XX-lea, 322–323. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar