1

Macedonian se-constructions and their equivalents in English: A Cognitive Study, Skopje: Makedonska re, 2011
(Summary in English) Liljana Mitkovska FON University, Skopje liljana.mitkovska@fon.edu.mk

1. Introduction The aim of this study is to investigate the structure and functions of the Macedonian constructions with the grammatical element se of reflexive origin and establishing their equivalent constructions in the English language. The main goal is to show that the functions expressed by these se-constructions in Macedonian represent semantically connected contexts rather than a random sum of meanings that have accidentally acquired the same form. This assumption is based on the hypothesis that the common form indicates semantic relation: a structure may be extended from one function to another if those two functions are semantically related, i.e., share certain semantic features. Even though some of them are of morpho-syntactic or syntactic and some of lexical-syntactic nature, all identified classes of constructions are semantically related and together make up a complex conceptual network. Heines (1992:349) suggestion for continuous linguistic structures, called grammaticalization chain, was adopted as the most appropriate model for the organization of this network (Figure 1). It is based on the principle of family resemblances, so that each class is characterized by a number of features and could be considered as a separate phase on a semantic continuum. However, each phase shares some features with the neighbouring phases. The more remote the phases are from each other, the fewer common characteristics they have.

1.

Figure 1. Grammaticalization chain (Heine 1992:349) The study is organised as follows: chapter one, Introduction, consists of an exposition of the theoretical background and the previous studies on reflexive constructions in Macedonian and other Slavic and non-Slavic languages; chapter two gives an extensive analysis of the classes of the Macedonian se-constructions on syntactic, semantic and referential level with special emphasis on the relations between their internal members and the links with the neighbouring phases on the continuum; chapter three discusses the structures that are used to express the same situations in English. They were identified in the compiled translation equivalents from Macedonian and the most common correspondents to each class were established; since English deals with the relevant semantic field in a very different

2
way, some typologically relevant conclusions can be drawn from this analysis, which are presented at the end of this chapter and in chapter four. Here we present a brief summary of the basic findings.

2. Types of situations expressed with se-constructions in Macedonian he separate classes of the Macedonian se-constructions represent different phases of the process of grammaticalization of the reflexive pronoun: from an independent lexical item (in direct reflexive constructions) to a grammatical marker (in the reflexive passive constructions). They represent various types of diathesis, differentiated according to the semantic role of the subject referent. The four types of situations they express (two types of reflexive situations, autonomous situations and agent defocusing situations) can be graphically represented as positioned on two intersected axes: on the vertical axis is the continuum between the transitive and intransitive situations, and on the horizontal axis the continuum between active and passive situations, as shown in Figure 2 below. The classes themselves are not unified structures, but are built on the prototype principle with some members exhibiting more central features than others. Following the proponents of Cognitive Grammar (Lakoff 1987, Johnson 1987, Langacker 1991, Kemmer 1993, Janda 2000, among others), the relations between the members are explained by metaphorical and other cognitive mechanisms of meaning extension.
ACTIVE
TRANSITIVE DIRECT REFLEXIVE

PROTOTYPICAL RECIPROCAL

A U P T A O O C S C T S A I U O S S N S A NATURAL A I T RECIPROCAL L V I E V E REMOTE CAUSATION APSOLUTIVE INTRANSITIVE

MODAL IO CAUSATIVE-REF. PASSIVE EMOTIONS RESULTATIVE PREUDO-PASSIVE

DECAUSATIVE

P A S S I V E

ACTIVE

Figure 2. The Continuum of the Macedonian se-constructions

3
2.1. Reflexive situations Reflexive situations encode events which require two participants with different semantic roles, but they involve only one referent. The entity causing the event (Initiator) is at the same time the entity which suffers the consequences of this event (Endpoint). Depending on the degree of differentiation of the two roles of the participant, we can distinguish two types of constructions: direct reflexive and subject reflexive.1 The two constructions exhibit separate semantic, pragmatic and syntactic features. Their differentiation is based on the degree of distinguishability of participants, due to the relative elaboration of events (Kemmer 1993:71-73; 1994:206-212). In direct reflexive constructions the two participants are maximally distinguished and as a result the participant is viewed as doubled. The agent acts upon her/himself in the same way as s/he would act upon some other entity. This property determines the basic functions of these constructions: for expressing emphasis and/or contrast (example 1 and 2). (1) Kirkov se vide i sebesi vo ogledaloto. (JBSA:212) Kirkov also saw himself in the mirror. (2) Vas ve unesreiv, a sebe ne se usreiv. (VIMS:264) I made you unhappy, and did not make myself any happier. These semantic characteristics are reflected in the syntactic structure. The direct reflexive construction builds a transitive sentence with the reflexive pronoun sebe(si) se taking the position of the DO. Even if the long form is omitted in some contexts, it can always be recovered. Consequently, even though this construction codes situations with a single referent it is semantically transitive and syntactically represented as a two-argument structure. Subject reflexive constructions comprise several different types. They all show lower degree of distinguishability of participants. The subject referent has an active role in the event, but this is also the case with the entity which suffers the effects of the event. In contrast to direct reflexive constructions, these two aspects of the initial participant are not clearly differentiated but merge in one complex semantic role. The degree of differentiation varies depending on the lexical meaning of the verb and the nature of the participant. The central types of constructions, involving an intentional volitional participant, are located at the active pole. They comprise autocausal constructions expressing body actions such as grooming (se kape bathe, se minka make up,), change in body posture (se pokloni bow, se navedne bend down, se svrti turn round), translational motion (se pomesti move, se kai climb); actional constructions comprising various typically human activities (se preprava pretend, se odnesuva behave, se gotvi prepare, se prijavi register) as well as emotional speech acts (se izvini excuse oneself, se moli pray, se zakani threaten) and the so called possessive constructions in which the verb incorporates the part of the body
1

The term direct reflexive is from Kemmer (1988, 1993). It is used for the central reflexive constructions with coreferential subject and direct object. The term subject reflexive is from Geniusiene (1987), who uses it for verbs which belong to the transitive class, but when used intransitively keep the subject of the transitive counterpart in the subject position.

4
involved (se mie wash ones face, se obliuva lick ones lips). Constructions expressing events in which the participant loses some of its agentive properties (intentionality in the first place) lean towards the passive pole. There are two main types: non-intentional human activities called resultative (se sopne stumble, se zakai get caught) and emotional reactions (se vozbudi get excited, se iznenadi get surprised, se raduva rejoice). The reflective causative constructions represent a marginal sub-type (se potiuva na berber have ones hair cut at the barbers). According to Kemmer (1993, 1994), the type of constructions we call subject reflexive represent the central middle domain. The two constructions used for coding reflexive situations in Macedonian, direct reflexive and subject reflexive, although related, express two different types of situations that exhibit different pragmatic, semantic and syntactic properties. Both involve only one participant with two semantic roles, but while in the direct reflexive construction they are represented by two syntactic arguments, the subject reflexive construction is syntactically intransitive. The reflexive pronoun is reduced to a verbal marker signalling the complex role of the referent in the subject position, (i.e., it is both the initiator and the end point), but the second participant is not individualised and has no syntactic representation. Only the clitic form of the reflexive pronoun is part of this construction, while adding the long form sebe(si) typically results in ungrammaticality (example 3) or semantic change of the verb (example 4). (3) Ne se prekrstivme (*sebe), - bez zdiv r iman. (MJB:339) We didnt cross ourselves Shishman said breathlessly. (MJC:114) (4) . Toj pove zanimavae sebe otkolku decata. He entertained himself more than the children. . Taa se zanimava so intelektualna rabota. She is engaged in intellectual activities. 2.2. Reciprocal situations Reciprocal situations involve typically two (and sometimes more) participants which are in symmetrical relation to one another, the relation A stands to B is the same as that in which B stands to A (Lichtenberk 1985:21). The reciprocal domain is also complex and exhibits properties parallel to the reflexive domain, which explains their formal affinity in many languages. An important distinguishing factor between the prototypical reciprocal situations (se mrazat megju sebe they hate each other, se kolnat edni so drugi they curse each other) and the natural ones (se razdelija they parted, se dogovorija they agreed) is the complexity of the subject referent role and the degree of elaboration of events (Kemmer 1988:147). In the prototypical reciprocal events the role of each participant is individualised and they are temporally indifferent (ibid.:148), which is matched on syntactic level with a heavy marker (the reflexive clitic plus eden so drug/megju sebe). The natural reciprocal situation, on the other hand, is marked with the reflexive clitic se and it is strongly associated with simultaneity (ibid.).

5
2.3. Autonomous situations Object reflexive construction2 are used for coding autonomous situations, which represent the final phase of the event, irrespective of whether it occurs spontaneously or is caused by some outside causer. The clitic pronoun se does not take up a syntactic position but is rather a part of the verb lexeme. As a result, the construction is formally an intransitive structure. As in the previous class, there are central and peripheral constructions connecting this domain with the active pole on one hand and with the passive on the other. Decausative constructions encode events involving one participant, the referent of which is the main target (example 5 and 6). However, this participant is not presented as a passive undergoer, but retains some agentive properties which contributes to its conceptualisation as an active subject. Those events are mainly physical processes: they could not be caused intentionally, neither could they be prevented. The participant is actively involved in the occurrence of the event and the focus of attention is what happens to it. (5) I Vilant ree, se istroija bateriite. (MR:150) But Villant said, the batteries were dead. (MSS:129) (6) Moebi vrnelo. Se pomestila nekoja keramida i ... (PM:293) Maybe it has rained. A roof tile has moved and Some spontaneous change of place or position (as well as condition) of the nonpotent referent could be presented as set off by this very participant (Topkata sama od sebe se strkala nadolu. The ball rolled down by itself. Jas ne go rasipav aparatot, sam si se rasipa. I did not break the camera, it broke by itself.). We consider these and similar meanings as an indication of the metaphorical transfer from subject reflexive constructions involving a human participant, to decausative where the participant is typically non-human. The metaphor has gradually become usual, hence decausative constructions can be used for types of events remote from the reflexive ones. Generally, the spontaneity of the event is only a way of representation, while in reality there can always be imagined some potential distant causer. It can be more strongly felt in some situations so that those constructions incline towards passive sentences, i.e., sentences in which the initiator is clearly implied and present both on the referential and on the semantic level. We often encounter constructions that are ambiguous out of context. For example, the sentences in (7) can be equally well interpreted as happening spontaneously or initiated by some generalized human agent. (7) Cenite se krevaat. Prices rose/were raised. Vesta se proiri brzo. The news spread/was spread quickly.

In the transfer zone between object and passive reflexive constructions we find a range of constructions (pseudo-passive se-constructions) in which the initiator is implied to a certain degree and the subject referent loses its active role properties because the events they code require human involvement. These implications

This term is from Geniusiene 1987, who uses it for verbs which belong to the transitive class, but when used intransitively the transitive object takes the subject position.

6
combine with the verbal aspect and result in various types of modal interpretations: potential (example 8), normative (9), subjective (10), volitional (11) 3. (8) (9) ... zloto ne se kornit lesno od oveka. (B:81) evil cannot be rooted out easily out of men. Vaka li se istat alita, glupava Anastasijo? (VIT:177) Is this how you clean clothes, you silly Anastasia?!

(10) Ona tamu bee kamen, no sega mu se gleda kako zalegnat vojnik. (MJZT:35) That thing over there was a boulder, but now it seemed to him as a lying soldier. (11) Ottuka na starcite ne im se davae edoto, ... (B:112) Thus the old people did not feel like giving away their daughter. 2.4. Agent defocusing situations Macedonian se-constructions are also used for expressing situations which are perceived as agent initiated, but the agent, having no important role, does not occur in the syntactic structure. It is nevertheless present on the semantic level, i.e., it is implied as an unidentified or generalised human agent. We consider these constructions to be a logical extension of those expressing autonomous events. There is only small difference between situations where the causer is totally abstracted and those where it is generalized. Moreover, as pointed out above, the degree of abstraction of the causer varies depending on the type of the coded event and other circumstances. When the se-construction is used with a verb for an activity that requires an agent, then it is implied in a general sense and the construction is re-analysed. We claim that the se-constructions expressing agent defocusing situations can rightfully be classified as passive se-constructions because the core representatives correspond to the passive prototype properties proposed by Shibatani (1985:837). Actually, two thirds of the passive se-constructions have the position of the subject filled by the thematic argument (example 12), but there are also subjectless constructions (example 13), if the base verb is intransitive or has a clausal or prepositional complement. The latter are less prototypical passive constructions, but they share the agent defocusing function with the prototypical passives. (12) Na razni strani se izvikuvaa razni komandi... (MJB:259) Different commands were cried out on all sides... (MSS:203) (13) ..., isto taka pretono se znaee koj na koe sedite sedi ... (MJCA:392) ... it was also determined who sits where in the official red bus. (MJFM:74) Both constructions share the characteristic of agent demotion and thus placing the event itself in the focus rather than the undergoer or the effects of the activity. There is a possibility of expressing the agent in an agentive adjunct phrase (Toa se osuduva od site. That is criticized by everyone.), but it is rarely encountered.4
3

In the last two examples the dative object has a key role in the interpretation of the construction.
4

See 1997.

7
The marker se is of fundamentally different character in these constructions. Unlike in the subject and object reflexive constructions, where it signals some kind of departure from the typical predicate-argument structure of the verb base, here it signals the rearrangement of arguments along the syntactic positions.

3. Equivalents of the Macedonian se-constructions in English There is no single structure in English which figures as the main equivalent to all Macedonian se-constructions, but rather a range of constructions perform these functions. However, there is a significant pattern which supports our hypothesis about the continuum. Namely, for each type of situations the core structures are repeated, though with different frequency and for each situation type one dominant structure can be isolated. Constructions with verb + reflexive pronoun (myself, yourself, etc.) are the only equivalents for the direct reflexive construction (example 14), but central subject reflexives are rendered with three constructions mainly: the reflexive construction (example 15); implicit reflexive, with omitted DO (example 16); or a new intransitive lexeme (example 17). The so called possessive constructions are transitive in English, because they express the involved body part explicitly: se preoblee changed his clothes. (14) Ti se gleda sebesi kako sedi vo zamok,... (PM:243) You see yourself sitting in a castle,... (PM:242) (15) Muzikata e prijatna. Sakam da i se predadam kako to umeev nekoga. (MR:237) I want to abandon myself to the sound as I used to do. (MSS:213) (16) Kako to izleze taka se protegna zagleduvaji se vo sonevinata (MJB:239) As he walked, he stretched and gazed at the sunshine... (MJC:56) (17) Se preprava deka ne go slua. (PM:125) He pretended not to have heard him. (PM:124) The implicit reflexive construction is the predominant equivalent in this class of se-constructions; it is especially common with verbs of non-translational body motions (example 16). Situations leaning towards the transitive pole are often translated with the reflexive construction in English, even if they are undoubtedly subject (not direct) reflexive constructions in Macedonian (cf. example 3 above). Those approaching the intransitive pole, on the other hand, tend to be expressed with intransitive verbs which have no transitive counterpart in English (example 17). The three English constructions express different degrees of distinguishability of the two participants in the situation, that is, different degrees of elaboration of events. In Macedonian they are all covered by se + verb construction. Peripheral subject reflexive constructions (resultative and emotional reactions) have a different range of equivalents in English, which corresponds to their function to express unintentional events. The implicit reflexive and the intransitive construction are also present, but the significant occurrence of the pseudo-passive get- and be-constructions and the passive ones demonstrates the inclination of these constructions towards the passive pole. Such equivalents are

8
indicative of the intermediate position of these constructions between the subject and the object reflexives. The most common equivalent of the Macedonian se-constructions for autonomous events seems to be the so called ergative construction (with a zero marker) (example 18). Its functional zone correlates closely with that of the Macedonian decausative se-construction. However, the other equivalents suggest that the Macedonian construction has a wider scope. Namely, among the equivalents we also find two types of forms: active intransitive verbs (around 20%), which imply that it is positioned closer to the intransitive pole and passive constructions (8% of pseudo-passive get- constructions and 9% of passive beconstructions), which prove their affinity to the passive pole. (18) Naedna poputa dzidot. Se otvora samo trojka, ... i dovolno. (PM:135) Suddenly the wall cracks. It opens just a tiny bit, but enough... (PM:134) The English reflexive construction does not have a significant role in this type of constructions, since it strongly suggests an activity of an agent upon him/herself. Nevertheless, it may also occur in situations where the referent of the subject is inanimate. Frequently, this subject is personified (example 19), but the metaphor may also be weakened and then the reflexive pronoun signals the autonomous nature of the event (example 20). (19) The words would not form themselves, his voice would not issue forth,... (H.H.:14) Zborovite nikako da se oformat, glasot odbivae da izleze ... (20) History seems to be repeating itself. (Longman, 1978:937) Istorijata izgleda deka se povtoruva. The different types of equivalents in English prove the different degrees of grammaticalisation of the se-constructions and reveal how the decausative senses (autonomous events) are linked to the reflexive senses (events without an outside causer). On the other hand, we consider the passive equivalents especially significant, as they prove the affinity between decausative and passive situations. The equivalents of the pleudo-passive se-constructions are typically intermediate between active and passive constructions. Those which are closer to the decausatives (with potential modal meaning) are partly equivalent to the English construction known as middle, its form being identical with the ergative construction, the main English decausative strategy (example 21). Those which are closer to passive usually correspond to passive constructions, with explicit modal meanings (example 22). (21) The floor paints easily. (Kejzer & Roper 1984:383) Podot se bojadisuva lesno. (22) Lae! Na policijata se kauva s. (P:127) You are lying! The police must be told everything. (PM:126) Macedonian passive se-constructions are not always translated by the passive construction in English. Among the equivalents of those which have a verb marked for person, 43% of the equivalents are passive and approximately the same percentage falls to active constructions of two types: with generalized human subject (one, man,

9
they) or with the subject whose referent is evoked from the context of the Macedonian sentence (example 23). (23) - Drugar, - se u glasot na ovekot vo sina obleka. (MJSO:400) Fellow, they heard the voice of the man in the blue suit, ... (MJFM:3) The subjectless passive reflexive constructions rarely have passive equivalents in English. They are most often translated as active constructions with a generalised (one, you, people) or indefinite (someone, they) agent in subject position. These types of equivalents indicate that the passive se-construction is different from the English passive be-construction. To sum up, it is important to point out that as equivalents of the Macedonian se-constructions in the medial domain (subject and object se-constructions) we mainly encounter three English constructions: the construction in which the change in the predicate-argument structure of the verb has no overt marking (implicit reflexive, ergative and middle); the pseudo-passive constructions with the resultative copula get, become, etc. or the stative copula be, seem etc.; and intransitive verb, a new lexeme which is not related to a transitive verb. 3. Concluding remarks The structure of the English equivalents of the Macedonian se-constructions offers some insights into the nature of the Mac se-constructions. The fact that the same functions (subject-reflexive, decausative and potential) are coded in English with a construction with identical structure indicates the semantic affinity of these three types of situations. Therefore, their formal expression with the same type of construction in Macedonian is not unmotivated. The intransitive equivalents, however, confirm the fact that the Macedonian se-constructions have extended their zone towards the intransitive pole. On the other hand, the relation between passive and medial strategies indicates similarity between these two domains, pronounced at the overlapping points. Consequently, the spread of the Macedonian se-constructions in the passive domain could be conceived as a natural extension of the construction from the autonomous domain.

4. References 4.1. Sources in Cyrillic alphabet

, . . 1981. ( ) : 160-184. , . 1978. : 152-155. , . 1988. 5: 3-69. , . . 1978. : 162-171.

10
, . . 1981. : 46-81. , . 1961/62. : 137-147.

, . 1988. . : , 183-190. , . 1981. , 81-98. , . 1987. . : , 360-363. , . . 1979. - ( ). : . , . 1990. . : , 117-350. , . . 1992. , I, - . : . -, . 1994. . : . , . 1993. . : . , 223-234. , . 1995. - . -, ., . . (.) , : , 31-38. , . 1997. , , . . (.), , : , 19-30. , . 2001. - , (.)) , : , : 61-72. , ( ) - . , : . ( . ) , . . 1978. : 28-37. , . . 1972. , , . : . , . 1981. . . : , . , . 1993. , /, XI . : , 107-116.

11
, . 1984. , 35: 147-158. , .., . 1978. . : . , . . 1978. : 50-60. , . . . 1981. . : . , . . 1981. e ( , , ) : 5-38. , . 1983. /6, 29-33. , . 1989. . : , 257-159.

4.2. Sources in Latin alphabet

Andersen, Paul Kent. 1991. A New Look at the Passive. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang. Arce-Arenales, Manuel, Melissa Axelrod and Barbara A. Fox. 1994. Active Voice and Middle Diathesis: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective In Fox. B. and P. J. Hopper:1-22. Babby, H.L. 1975. A Transformational Analysis of Transitive -sja Verbs in Russian Lingua 35: 297-332. Babcock, Sandra S. 1970. The Syntax of Spanish Reflexive Verbs. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive Argument Raised Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 20, No 2:219-251. Bakker, Egbert. 1994. Voice, Aspect and Actionsart: Middle and Passive in Ancient Greek In Fox. B. and P. J. Hopper: 23-48. Barber, E .J.W. 1975. Voice Beyond the Passive BSL 1: 16-24. Baron, N. S. 1974. The Structure of English Causatives Lingua, Vol. 53, No 4: 317-334. Benvinist, E. 1975. Aktivni i srednji oblik kod glagola In Problemi Opte Lingvistike. Beograd: Nolit, 135-142. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan,. 1999. Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited. Brecht, Richard D. and James S. Levin. 1985. Conditions on Voice in Russian In Flier and Brecht: 118-137. Brus, Ineke. 1992. Towards a Typology of Voice In Keffer et al.: 45-76. Bursten, J. L. 1979. The Pronominal Verb Constructions in French Lingua 48: 147-176. Chappell, Hilary. 1980. Is the Get-Passive Adversative? Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, Vol. 13, No 3: 411-451. Collins, Peter C. 1996. Get-passives in English World Englishes 15: 43-56. Croft, William, Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkroft and Suzanne Kemmer. 1987. Diachronic Semantic Processes in the Middle Voice In Giacalone R. A., O. Carruba and G.

12
Bernini. (eds.) Papers from the international conference on historical linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 179-192. Croft, William. 1990. Typology of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William. 1994. Voice: Beyond Control and Affectedness In Fox B. and P. J. Hopper : 89-118. Davidse, K. & L. Heyvaert. 2007. On the middle voice: an analysis of the English middle Linguistics 45-1, 37-83. Dik, Simon. 1993. On the Status of Verbal Reflexives Communication & Cognition, Vol.16, No 1/2: 39-63. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection Language, Vol. 67, No 3: 547-618. Fagan, Sara. 1992. The Syntax of Middle Constructions: a Study with Special Reference to German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York/ London: Garland Publishing, Inc. Fellbaum, Christiane and Anne Zribi-Hertz. 1989. The Middle Constructions in French and English: A Comparative Study of Its Syntax and Semantics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Publications. Fellbaum, Christiane. 1989. On the Reflexive Middle in English CLS, Vol.25, No 1: 123132. Fleisher, Nickolas. 2006. The origin of passive get English Language and Linguistics 10: 225-252. Flier, Michael S. and Richard D. Brecht (eds). 1985. Issues in Russian Morphosyntax. UCLA Slavica Studies. Vol.10. Columbus: Slavica. Foley, William A. and R. D. Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper. (eds.) 1994. Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fried, Mirjam. 1990. Reflexives as Grammatical Constructions: A Case Study in Czech BLS 16: 127-139. Garcia, Erika. 1977. On the Practical Consequences of Theoretical Principles Lingua 43: 129-170. Geniusiene, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1986. -SJA and SEBJA Dutch Studies in Russian Linguistics. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 9, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 87-113. Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1988. "How Passive is Passive -sja." Dutch Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, Linguistics. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 11, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 97-179. Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1990. Russian Reflexive Verbs: In Search of Unity in Diversity. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, vol 15. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Givn, Talmy and Lynne Yung. 1994. The Rise of the English GET Passive In Fox B. and P. J. Hopper: 119-150. Green, J. N. 1975. Reflections on Spanish Reflexives Lingua 35: 345-391. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1991. The Last Stages of Grammatical Elements: Contractive and Expansive Desemanticization In Traugott, E.C. and B. Heine: 301-314.

13
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and Economic Motivation Language, Vol. 59, No 4: 781-819. Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The Gramaticalization of Passive Morphology Studies in Language,14-1: 25-72. Haspelmath, Martin (ed.). 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals, vol. 2: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friderike Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd. 1992. Grammaticalization Chains Studies in Language 16 (2): 335-368. Hirschbuhler, Paul. 1988. The Middle and the Pseudo-Middle in French In Birdsong D. and J. P. Montreui. eds. Advances in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 97-110. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On Some Principles of Grammaticalization In Traugott, E. C. and B. Heine: 17-36. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse Language, Vol. 56, No 2:251-299 Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hundt, Marianne. 2007. English mediopassive constructions: A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread, and current status (Language & Computers 58). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Janda, Laura. 2000. Cognitive Linguistics, SLING2K Workshop. Jespersen, Otto. 1960. Essentials of English Grammar. (First edition 1933) London: G. Alen and Unwin. Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Kanski, Zbigniew. 1986. Arbitrary Reference and Reflexivity: A Generative Study of the Polish Pronoun sie and its English Equivalents. Katowice: Uniwersytet Slaski. Kanski, Zbigniew. 1992. Impersonal Constructions and Strategy for Second-Order Predication In Keffer et al.: 45-77. Karlovan, Vjekoslav. 1985. A Survey of English Grammar. Zagreb: Radniko i narodno sveuiliste Mosa Pijade. Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001a. The passive voice In Haspelmath (ed.), 899-913. Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001b. Verbal reflexives and the middle voice In Haspelmath (ed.), 913-927. Keenan, Edward. 1984. Passive in Worlds Languages In Shopen: 243-281. Keffer, Michael and Johan von der Auwera, (eds.) 1992. Meaning and Grammar: Cross Linguistic Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1988. The Middle Voice: A Typological and Diachronic Study. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1994. Middle Voice, Transitivity and Elaboration of Events. In Fox. B. and P. J. Hopper:197-230. Keyser, Samuel Jay and Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English Linguistic Inquiry , Vol. 15, No 3: 381-417.

14
Klaiman, M. H. 1988. Affectedness and Control: A Typology og Voice In Shibatani 1988: 25-83. Klaiman, M. H. 1991a. Control and Grammar Linguistics 29: 623-651. Klaiman, M. H. 1991b. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Klaiman, M. H. 1992. Middle Verbs, Reflexive Middle Constructions and Middle Voice Studies in Language 16-1: 35-61. Kuanda, Dubravko. 1987. True Reflexives and Pseudo-reflexives with Particular Reference to Serbo-Croatian In Von der Auwera et al.: 77-92. Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic Gestalt CLS 13: 236-287. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. and Pamela Munro. 1975. Passives and Their Meaning Language 51(4): 789-830. Langacker, Roland W. 1988a. A Usage - Based Model In Rudzka-Ostyn: 127-161. Langacker, Roland W. 1988b. A View of Linguistic Semantics In Rudzka-Ostyn: 49-90. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Volume II. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Roland W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lees, R. B. and Edward S. Klima. 1963. Rules for English Pronominalization, Language 39 (1): 17-28. Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change In Lingua e Stile / a. XX, n. 3, luglio-settembre 1985: 303-318. Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport. 1986. The Formation of Adjectival Passive Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 17. No 4: 623-661. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. Multiple Uses of Reciprocal Constructions Australian Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 5: 19-41. Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manney, Linda. 1990. Mental Experience Verbs in Modern Greek: A Cognitive Explanation of Active versus Middle Voice BLS 16: 229-240. Mitkovska, Liljana. 1994. On se Constructions in Macedonian In Fowler G. et. al (eds), Indiana Slavic Studies, Vol. 7: 136-145. Mitkovska, Liljana. 1998. The SE Passive in Macedonian Compared to the Neighbouring Slavic Languages Studia Linguistica Polono-Meridianoslavica, Tom 9, Torun, 47-60. Mitkovska, Liljana and Eleni Buzarovska. (in press) An alternative analysis of the English get-passive constructions: is get all that passive? Journal of English Linguistics

15
Murgoski, Zoze. 1983. Pasivne konstrukcije u engleskom i makedonskom jeziku: kontrastivna analiza. Magisterski rad. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu. Napoli, Donna Jo. 1993. Syntax: Theory and Problems. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ogura, Michiko. 1989. Verbs with Reflexive Pronoun and Constructions with self in Old and Middle English. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Parker, Frank. 1976. Language Change and the Passive Voice Language, Vol. 52, No 2, 449-460. Quirk, Randolf, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Startvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Risselada, Rodie. 1987. Voice in Antient Greek: Reflexives and Passives In Van der Auwera et al.:123-136. Roberts, Ian. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris. Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. (ed.) 1988. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Schenker, Alexander M. 1986. On the Rreflexive Verbs in Russian International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 33: 27-41. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and Related Constructions: A Prototype Analysis Language 61 (4): 821-848. Shibatani, Masayoshi. (ed.) 1988. Passive and Voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena In Linguistics 44-2, 217-269. Shopen, Timothy, ed. 1984. Language Typology and Syntactic Description I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive: A Comprehensive Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm. Siewierska, Anna. 1988. The Passive in Slavic In Shibatani: 243-289. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I and II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard Konig. 1991. The Semantics-Pragmatics of Grammaticalization Revisited In Traugott, E. C. and B. Heine: 189-218. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1988. Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization BLS 14: 406-416. Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Bernd Heine. (eds.) 1991. Approaches to Gramaticalization, Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Van Oosten, Jeanne. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Publications. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. Synopsys of Role and Reference Grammar In Van Valin: 1-163. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., (ed.) 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Van Voorst, Jan. 1988. Event Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

16
Van der Auwera, Johan and Louis Goossens (eds.) 1987. Ins and Outs of Predication. Dordrecht: Forris.

4.3. Sources of examples 4.3.1. Macedonian texts

, . (). 1976. , I II . : . , , 1969. . : . 1969. :19-23. () 1969. : 24-27. () 1969. : 28-41. () 1969. : 173-289. () , . . 1972. (). : . () , . 1976. ., I . () 1986. . : . () 1989. . : . () , . 1969. . : . (2) , . 1985. . : 1985. : 243-348. () 1985. : 9-240. () 1985. : 398-403. () 1985. : 391-397. () , . 1975. . : . () , . 1969. . : . () , . 1976. ., II : 9-90. () 1976. ., II : 95-180. () , . 1976. ., II : 285-346. () , . () 1990. . : . () , . 1989. . : . () , . 1980. . : . () () 6.11.92 / 27.06.93 / 21.07.93 / 22.07.93 / 23.07.93 / 26.07.93 / 10.08.94 () 9.10.1992 / 10/11.07.94 / 17/18.07.94 5.11.93. ()

() 1, 1993.

17
4.3.2. English texts 4.3.2.1. Translated from Macedonian
Cvetanovski, Savo. (ed.) 1990. Anthology of the Macedonian Postmodern Short Story. Skopje: Nasa kniga. (PM) Holton, Milne. (ed.) 1974. The Big Horse (And Other Stories of Modern Macedonia). Columbia: University of Missouri Press. (MSS) Jovanovski, Meto. 1987. Cousins. San Francisco: Mercury House, Incorporated. (MJC) Jovanovski, Meto. 1992. Faceless Man and Other Stories. London/Boston: Forest Books. (MJFM)

4.3.2.2. Original texts

Browning, Pamela. 1988. Harvest Home. Toronto: Harlequin Books. (HH) Carter, Rosemary. 1979. Bush Doctor. Toronto: Harlequin Books. (BD) Earley, Fran. 1986. Candidate for Murder. Toronto: Harlequin Books. (CM) Lodge, David. 1988. Nice Work. London: Penguin. (NW) OBrien, Edna. 1974. Country Girls. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. (CG) Newsweek , Nov. 23, 1993 / Nov. 29, 1993 / Dec. 6, 1993 / Dec. 13, 1993 / Jan. 24, 1994 / Feb. 7, 1994 March 7, 1994 / May 2, 1994 / May 9, 1994 / June 20, 1994 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.1980. Harlow/London: Longman. Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus. 1990. New Lanark: Geddes and Grosset Ltd. The Concise Macquarie Dictionary. 1982. Sydney: Macquarie University.