Syntactic vs pragmatic passive
-
Andra Vasilescu
Abstract
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.
Abstract
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.
Kapitel in diesem Buch
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Introduction 1
- The acquisition of verbal passives by Portuguese-speaking children 9
- Plus in the French negative system 29
- An experimental approach to parallelism in ellipsis 49
- On focal and wh -projections, indirect wh -questions, and quantificational chains 73
- Is there a dative alternation in Romanian? 91
- The interpretation of null subjects in Romanian 111
- Verum focus and Romanian polar questions 135
- The downward grammaticalisation of irrealis subordinators in Romanian, Salentino and southern Calabrese 157
- Differential object marking 171
- The effects of language ecology on syntactic structure 193
- The syntactic distribution of raddoppiamento fonosinttatico in Cosentino 205
- The causative-inchoative alternation (as we know it) might fall short 239
- On wh -extraction in de + que constructions in Spanish 263
- On another apparent violation of the subject-island constraint in French 277
- Moving towards an event 297
- Cyclicity without containment in Romanian perfects 311
- Dative clitics in Romanian ditransitives 335
- Syntactic vs pragmatic passive 357
- Index 373
Kapitel in diesem Buch
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Introduction 1
- The acquisition of verbal passives by Portuguese-speaking children 9
- Plus in the French negative system 29
- An experimental approach to parallelism in ellipsis 49
- On focal and wh -projections, indirect wh -questions, and quantificational chains 73
- Is there a dative alternation in Romanian? 91
- The interpretation of null subjects in Romanian 111
- Verum focus and Romanian polar questions 135
- The downward grammaticalisation of irrealis subordinators in Romanian, Salentino and southern Calabrese 157
- Differential object marking 171
- The effects of language ecology on syntactic structure 193
- The syntactic distribution of raddoppiamento fonosinttatico in Cosentino 205
- The causative-inchoative alternation (as we know it) might fall short 239
- On wh -extraction in de + que constructions in Spanish 263
- On another apparent violation of the subject-island constraint in French 277
- Moving towards an event 297
- Cyclicity without containment in Romanian perfects 311
- Dative clitics in Romanian ditransitives 335
- Syntactic vs pragmatic passive 357
- Index 373
