Article published In:
Languages in Contrast: Online-First Articles

Reflexivity patterns in West-Slavic languages

Between introversion, extroversion, and mutuality

ORCID logo | Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Language Institute , Czech Republic
The aim of this paper is to analyse differences in reflexive coding in Slovak, Czech and Polish and to evaluate the factors responsible for using phonologically more or less complex reflexive markers. To address this issue, we looked at preferred reflexive coding strategies in Slovak, Czech, and Polish, relying on data extracted from InterCorp multilingual corpus. The results are then verified by data from monolingual corpora of investigated languages for one semantic group of verbs labelled as ‘Prevarication’ in FrameNet. The results show that semantic frame underlying the meaning of lexical items cannot be the only possible explanation for distribution of reflexive markers but there are also other semantic, syntactic and pragmatic factors playing a pivotal role in reflexive coding strategies, often unique for a given language.
Keywords: reflexivity, reciprocity, parallel corpus, contrastive analysis, Czech/Polish/Slovak
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reflexivity as formal and semantic phenomenon
  • 3.Research of reflexive marking in the parallel corpus
    • 3.1The database and the sampling method
    • 3.2Results of corpus analysis
    • 3.3Discussion
      • 3.3.1Between introversion and mutuality
      • 3.3.2Between reflexivity and passivity
      • 3.3.3Between reflexivity and decausativity
  • 4.Research of reflexive marking in the monolingual corpora
    • 4.1Data and sampling method
    • 4.2Frequency results
    • 4.3Discussion
      • Verbs with low extroversion ratio
      • Verbs with middle extroversion ratio
      • Verbs with high extroversion ratio
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00039.iva
References (41)
References
Alexiadou, A. and Schäfer, F. 2014. Towards a Non-uniform Analysis of Naturally Reflexive Verbs. In Conference proceedings of WCCFL 31 1, R. E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), 1–10. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Danielowiczowa, M. 2002. Wiedza i niewiedza: studium polskich czasowników epistemicznych. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.Google Scholar
Faltz, L. M. 1977. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. PhD Thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
Gellerstam, M. 1986. Translationese in Swedish novels translated from English. In Translation studies in Scandinavia: Proceedings from the Scandinavian Symposium on Translation Theory (SSOTT) II, L. Wollin and H. Lindquist (eds), 88–95. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4): 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The new psychology of language, M. Tomasello (ed.), 211–243. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2008. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1): 40–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics 57(3): 605–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2023. Comparing reflexive constructions in the world’s languages. In Reflexive constructions in the world’s languages. (Research on Comparative Grammar 3), K. Janic, N. Puddu and M. Haspelmath (eds), 19–62. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Israeli, A. 1997. Semantics and Pragmatics of the “Reflexive” Verbs in Russian. München: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeffreyh, H. 2019. Correspondence Analysis: What is it, and how can I use it to measure my Brand? Available at [URL] [last accessed 23 January 2024].
Jenset, G. B. and McGillivray, B. 2012. Multivariate analyses of affix productivity in translated English. In Quantitative Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies, M. P. Oakes and M. Ji (eds), 301–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanová, M. 2020. Reciprocita v slovenčine a optimalizácia jej lexikografického spracovania. Slovenská reč 85(2): 143–161.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice. Typological Studies in Language 23 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kettnerová, V. and Lopatková, M. 2018. Lexicographic Potential of the Syntactic Properties of Verbs: The Case of Reciprocity in Czech. XVIII EURALEX International Congress, Lexicography in Global Contexts, 685–698. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
Kettnerová, V. 2020. Derived reciprocal verbs in Czech. Prace Filologiczne 75(1): 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, K. and Károly, K. 2005. Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6(1): 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. and Siemund, P. 1999. Intensifiers and reflexives: a typological perspective. In Reflexives: Forms and functions, Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl (eds), 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
König, E. and Vezzosi, L. 2004. The role of predicate meaning in the development of reflexivity. In What makes Grammaticalization?: A Look from its Fringes and its Components, W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann and B. Wiemer (eds), 213–244. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lefer, M. and Cartoni, B. 2013. Word-formation in original and translated English: Source language influence on the use of un- and -less. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis lingüístics 181: 49–59.Google Scholar
Lopatková, M., Kettnerová, V., Vernerová, A., Bejček, E. and Žabokrtský, Z. 2020. VALLEX 4.0. Praha: LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ Digital Library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University. Available at [URL] [last accessed 23 January 2024].
Malicka-Kleparska, A. 2012. Decausatives in Polish: a non-reflexive analysis. Studies in Polish Linguistics 7(1): 83–105.Google Scholar
Marsili, N. 2021. Lying: Knowledge or belief? Philosophical Studies 179(5): 1445–1460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nykamp, D. Q. 2020. Dot product examples. Available at [URL] [last accessed 23 January 2024].
Siewierska, A. 1988. The passive in Slavic. In Passive and voice. Typological studies in language 16 1, M. Shibatani (ed.), 243–289. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siloni, T. 2012. Reciprocal verbs and symmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(1), 261–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sokolová, M. and Ivanová, M. 2017. Vybrané aspekty gramatických a sémantických modifikácií valencie. In Vybrané aspekty valencie verb v slovenčine, M. Ivanová (ed.), 461–541. Prešov: Filozofická fakulta PU.Google Scholar
Tabakowska, E. 2003. Those notorious Polish reflexive pronouns: a plea for Middle Voice. Glossos 41: 1–18.Google Scholar
Veselý, V. 2018. K slovotvorné funkci reflexivních morfémů se, si . Naše řeč 101(3): 138–157.Google Scholar
Wielki słownik języka polskiego PAN. Available at [URL] [last accessed 23 January 2024].
Wiemer, B. 2007. Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in Polish. In Reciprocal constructions. Vol. 2, V. P. Nedjalkov (ed.), 513–559. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaucha, J. 2020. O tak zwanym samooszustwie w świetle znaczeń wybranych czasowników. Poradnik Językowy 778(9): 75–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpora
Benko, V. 2015a. Araneum Bohemicum Maximum, version 15.04. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. Available at [URL] [last accessed 23 January 2024].
2015b. Araneum Polonicum Maius, version 15.02. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. Available at [URL] [last accessed 23 January 2024].
2015c. Araneum Slovacum Maximum, version 15.04. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. Available at [URL] [last accessed 23 January 2024].
2023. Omnia Slovaca IV Maior. Bratislava: Jazykovedný ústav Ľ. Štúra SAV. Available at [URL] [last accessed 3 March 2023].
FrameNet Data. Available at [URL]. [last accessed 3 March 2023].
KOLOKAT. 2023. Bratislava: Jazykovedný ústav Ľ. Štúra SAV. Available at [URL] [last accessed 3 March 2023].
Křen, M., Bartoň, T., Cvrček, V., Hnátková, M., Jelínek, T., Kocek, J., Novotná, R., Petkevič, V., Procházka, P., Schmiedtová, V. and Skoumalová, H. 2010. SYN2010: žánrově vyvážený korpus psané češtiny. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. Available at [URL] [last accessed 3 March 2023].
Rosen, A., Vavřín, M. and Zasina, A. J. 2022. InterCorp Parallel Corpus, version 15 from 11. 11. 2022. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. Available at [URL] [last accessed 3 March 2023].