Reflexives in middles and the syntax-semantics interface

In this paper we will address one of the basic questions raised at the colloquium: the division of labour between the modules of the linguistic system and the role of interface economy. In this respect we will explore the properties of reflexive markers in middle constructions, in particular se/si in French/Italian and zich in Heerlen Dutch. Our goal is to find out which part of the interpretation is configurationally determined and how much can be achieved by independently motivated principles of interpretation. In general, it is assumed that middles, such as in (1), have some essential properties in common with passives: that (i) the logical subject argument is syntactically absent although it is semantically present, and that (ii) the grammatical subject, such as this shirt/dit hemd/cette chemise in (1) is the logical object. What is more, if we consider middles in various languages, two types of middles can be distinguished, namely ‘plain’ and reflexive middles, as is demonstrated by the English, Standard Dutch and French example in (1a,b) and (1c), respectively (Eng=English, SD=Standard Dutch, Fr=French):

[1]  S. J. Keyser,et al.  On the middle and ergative constructions in English , 1984 .

[2]  T. Hoekstra.  The Temporal Interpretation of Predication , 1994 .

[3]  La construction impersonnelle et la structure de la phrase , 1989 .

[4]  Henk J. Verkuyl,et al.  A theory of aspectuality , 1993 .

[5]  Johan Rooryck,et al.  The Self as Other: a minimalist approach to zich and zichzelf in Dutch , 1998 .

[6]  Realizing End Points: The Syntax and Semantics of Dutch ge and Mandarin le , 1997 .

[7]  Werner Abraham,et al.  The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions: A Study with Special Reference to German , 1992 .

[8]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The syntax of event structure , 1991, Cognition.

[9]  P. Ackema,et al.  The middle construction and the syntax-semantics interface☆ , 1994 .

[10]  Gertjan Postma.  Zero semantics: A study of the syntactic conception of quantificational meaning , 1995 .

[11]  Anne Zribi-Hertz,et al.  La construction moyenne en français et en anglais : étude de syntaxe et de sémantique comparées , 1989 .

[12]  Chiyo Nishida,et al.  The Spanish reflexive clitic se as an aspectual class marker , 1994 .

[13]  R. Oehrle,et al.  Books Awaiting Review , 1984, CL.

[14]  Van Valin,et al.  Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity , 1990 .

[15]  A. Zribi-Hertz,et al.  La réflexivité ergative en français moderne , 1987 .

[16]  Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin,et al.  Impersonal se Constructions in Romance and the Passivization of Unergatives , 1998, Linguistic Inquiry.

[17]  T. Hoekstra,et al.  UNERGATIVES AS COPULAR VERBS; LOCATIONAL AND EXISTENTIAL PREDICATION , 1990 .

[18]  Lincoln Ward Cutting.  Semantic Parameters of Basque Split Intransitivity in Role and Reference Grammar , 1994 .

[19]  Sten Vikner,et al.  Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure of Events , 1993 .

[20]  C. Tenny.  Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness , 1987 .

[21]  T. Hoekstra,et al.  Aspect and Theta Theory , 1992 .

[22]  P. Ackema,et al.  Middles and nonmovement , 1995 .

[23]  Marie Labelle,et al.  Change of state and valency , 1992, Journal of Linguistics.

[24]  Richard S. Kayne.  Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO , 1991 .

[26]  Maria Luisa Zubizarreta,et al.  Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax , 1987 .

[27]  G. Cinque.  On si Constructions and the Theory of Arb , 1988 .

[28]  R. Jackendoff.  The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in english , 1996 .