Cover not available
Part of
Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Na'ama Pat-El and Stephen Mark Carey
[Studies in Language Companion Series 200] 2018
► pp. 23–54

Chapter 2
Non-nominative and depersonalized subjects in the Balkans

Areality vs. genealogy

| The University of Chicago & La Trobe University
| The Ohio State University & La Trobe University
The languages of the Balkan sprachbund are surveyed here with regard to their constructions that show non-nominative subjects, typically in impersonal constructions. The issue of origins is considered, specifically as to whether these constructions represent inheritances from some earlier stage of the relevant languages or instead reflect the effects of contact. In the end, it is argued that a mix of areality, i.e. contact, and genealogy, i.e. inheritance, is needed to explain these constructions, with a nod required as well to typologically common patternings.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Impersonals
    • 2.1Atmospheric and natural phenomena
    • 2.2Experiencer constructions
    • 2.3Impersonal constructions with corresponding personal forms
    • 2.4Impersonal passives, real and potential
      • 2.4.1Gnomic impersonal passives: Verbs of speaking/communicating
      • 2.4.2Impersonal passives for generalized activity
      • 2.4.3Impersonal passives expressing potential
    • 2.5Impersonal modals
      • 2.5.1Internal disposition
      • 2.5.2Modality of possibility and necessity
    • 2.6‘Have’ existential vs. ‘be’ possession
  • 3.Non-imperative imperatives
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.200.02fri
References (45)
References
Asenova, Petja. 2002. Balkansko ezikoznanie. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber.Google Scholar
Banfi, Emanuele. 1985. Linguistica balcanica. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. Lexical vs structural case: A false dichotomy. Morphology 21: 619–654.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Icelandic valency classes: Oblique subjects, oblique anticausatives and the actional passive. In Valency Classes: A Comparative Handbook, Bernard Comrie & Andrej Malchukov (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Arnett, Carlee, Carey, Stephen Mark, Eythórsson, Thórhallur, Jenset, Gard B., Kroonen, Guus & Oberlin, Adam. 2016. Dative subjects in Germanic: A computational analysis of lexical semantic verb classes across time and space. STUF: Language Typology and Universals 69(1): 49–84.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smitherman, Thomas, Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður, Danesi, Serena, Jenset, Gard B. & McGillivray, Barbara. 2012. The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3): 511–547.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert & Igla, Birgit. 2004. Komentierter Dialektatlas des Romani, 2 Vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit. 1998. Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa) [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 165]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capidan, Theodr. 1925. Meglenoromânii, I. Bucharest: Academia Română.Google Scholar
Caragiu–Marioțeanu, Matilda. 1958. Habēre impersonal în Aromînă și meglenoromînă. In Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan, 139–141. Bucharest: Academia Republicii Popolare Romîne.Google Scholar
Danesi, Serena & Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2018. Case marking of predicative possession in Vedic: The genitive, the dative, the locative. In Non-canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík–Eyjafjallajökull Papers, Jóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El & Stephen Mark Carey (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demiraj, Shaban. 1994. Gjuhësi ballkanike. Skopje: Logos-A.Google Scholar
Eriksen, Pål, Kittilä, Seppo & Kolehmainenm, Leena. 2010. The linguistics of weather: Cross-linguistic patterns of meteorological expressions. Studies in Language 34(3): 565–601.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 2012. Perhaps mirativity is phlogiston, but admirativity is perfect: On Balkan evidential strategies. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 502–527.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawelko, Marek. 2005. La perspective indo-européenne de l’impersonel Polonais. Wiener Slawistisches Jahrbuch 51.21–30.Google Scholar
Georgiev, Vladimir I. (chief ed.) 1979. Bălgarski etimologičen rečnik II. Sofia: BAN.Google Scholar
Gołąb, Zbigniew. 1976. On the mechanism of Slavic–Rumanian linguistic interference in the Balkans. In Bulgaria, Past and Present: Studies in History, Literature, Economics, Music, Sociology, Folklore & Linguistics, Thomas Butler (ed.), 296–309. Columbus OH: AAASS.Google Scholar
Guentchéva, Zlatka. 2010. l’Impersonnel dans les languges balkaniques: Convergences et divergences. In Glagolata sistema na balkanskite ezici – nasledstvo i neologija / The Verbal System of the Balkan Languages – Heritage and Neology, Petya Assenova, Anastasiya Petrova & Tsenka Ivanova (eds), 24–50. Sofia: Faber (for the Commission on Balkan Linguistics, International Committee of Slavists).Google Scholar
Hale, William Gardner & Darling Buck, Carl. 1903[1966]. A Latin Grammar. Tuscaloosa AL: University of Alabama.Google Scholar
Igla, Birgit. 1996. Das Romani von Ajia Varvara. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ikonomov, Nikolai. 1968. Balkanska narodna mûdrost. Sofia: BAN.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1983[2009]. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kibort, Anna. 2001. The Polish passive and impersonal in lexical mapping theory. In Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI. <[URL]>
Koneski, Blaže. 1967. Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik. Skopje: Kultura.Google Scholar
Lunt, Horace G. 2001. Old Church Slavonic Grammar, 7th edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & Ogawa, Akio. 2011. Towards a typology of impersonal constructions: A semantic map approach. In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Compaion Series 124], Andrej L. Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 19–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maretić, Tomo. 1963. Gramatika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin. 1976. South Asia as a Linguistic Area. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. The definition and significance of linguistic areas. In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 205–268. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
McAnallen, Julia. 2011. Predicative possession in Old Church Slavic Bible translations. In Indo-European Syntax and Pragmatics: Contrastive Approaches, Eirik Welo (ed.), Oslo Studies in Language 3(3):155–172. <[URL]>
Matras, Yaron. 1994. Untersuchungen zu Grammatik und Diskurs des Romanes: Dialekt der Kelderaša/Lovara. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nicolova, Ruselina. 2008. Bălgarska gramatika: Morfologija. Sofia: Universitet “Sv. Kliment Ohridski.”Google Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela. 2013. The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Papahagi, Pericle N. 1908. Parallele ausdrücke und redensarten im rumänischen, albanesischen, neugriechischen und bulgarischen. Leipzig: J.A. Barth.Google Scholar
Papanastassiou, George & Papadamou, Eleni. 2012. The position of the northern dialects of the Prefecture of Kastoria. Paper presented at Fifth International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory (MGDLT 5). University of Ghent, 21 September.
Perlmutter, David M. & Moore, John. 2002. Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language 78(4): 619–650.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romalo, Valeria Guțu (chief ed.). 2008. Gramatica limbii române: Cuvîntul. Bucharest: Academia Română.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2008. Introduction: Impersonalization from a subject-centred vs. agent-centred perspective. Special guest-edited issue on Impersonal Constructions in Grammatical Theory of Transactions of the Philological Society 106(2): 1–23.Google Scholar
. 2011. Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals: Man-constructions vs. third person plural-impersonals in the languages of Europe. In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrej L. Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 57–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skorniakova, Oxana. 2008. The existence of expletive pronominal subjects in Russian impersonal constructions. In Issues in Slavic Syntax and Semantics, Anastasia Smirnova & Matthew Curtis (eds), 35–53. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Stevanović, Mihailo. 1986. Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik, I. Beograd: Naučna Kniga.Google Scholar
Teodorov–Balan, Alexandar S. 1940. Nova bălgarska gramatika. Sofia: Čipev.Google Scholar
Thomaj, Jani et al. 1999. Fjalor Frazeologjik Ballkanik. Tirana: Dituria.Google Scholar
Twardzisz, Piotr. 2012. To be and not to have in Polish locationals. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics 3:1–23.Google Scholar
Večerka, Radoslav. 1996. Altkirchenslavische (Altbulgarische) Syntax [Monumenta Linguae Slavicae Dialecti Veteris 27], Vol. 3. Freiburg: U.W. Weiher.Google Scholar