Reflexive Marking in Romance

Voice and Feature Deficiency

Bibliographic Data

ID23747601
AuthorsCarmen Dobrovie‐sorin (0000-0002-8658-9746, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, corresponding author)
Year2017
Pages1-105
Publication date2017-11-24
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeOTHER
VenueThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition (JOURNAL)
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom110
OpenAlexW3199355480
ISBN9781118358733
LanguageEN
Citations received7
References cited105

The various meanings of SE/SI‐marked verbs (reflexive, inchoative, middle, and passive) are described with the aim of pointing out the most prominent empirical generalizations across Romance languages. An important number of pages is devoted to the distinction between the impersonal clitic subject SE/SI (assigned nominative) found in the major Romance languages with the exception of Romanian, and the homophonous passivizing accusative SE/SI. The analysis of SE/SI is subject to numerous theoretical debates concerning the status of SE/SI (voice marker or pronominal clitic?); the distinction between unaccusative, unergative, and transitive configurations; passivization; and, related to passivization, the (non‐)realization of the external argument of passives in a subject‐like position.

Argument (complex analysis) · Clitic · Feature (linguistics) · Linguistics · Modal verb · Nominative case · Realization (probability) · Reflexive verb · Reflexivity · Romance · Romance languages · Sociology · Subject (documents) · Transitive relation · Verb · Computer Science · Linguistics and Discourse Analysis · Mathematics · Philosophy · Phonetics and Phonology Research · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub