BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:On the distribution of reflexive and reciprocal markers in Italian
 \, Serbian and English - Ms Maja Miličević.  RCEAL PhD Student.
DTSTART:20071030T160000Z
DTEND:20071030T173000Z
UID:TALK8360@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Napoleon Katsos
DESCRIPTION:Many of the world's languages employ two different reflexive a
 nd reciprocal markers\, one of which is phonologically lighter than the ot
 her. The distribution of 'light' and 'heavy' markers is closely related to
  the predicate the marker is associated with. In languages such as English
 \, Dutch or Russian it is grammaticalised and the light marking can only b
 e used with a limited set of verbs (cf. _Bob washed (himself)_ vs. _Bob ha
 tes ***(himself)_). On the other hand\, in languages like Italian\, Serbia
 n and German there is a preference for the light marker with some verbs\, 
 and the heavy marker with others (Serbian: _Marko *se* obukao_ 'Marko dres
 sed' vs. _Marko voli *sebe*_ 'Marko loves himself'). This paper investigat
 es the distribution of light and heavy reflexive and reciprocal markers in
  Italian\, Serbian and English\, following the account put forward by Hasp
 elmath (2005). \n\nContrary to the accounts based on predicate meaning (Ha
 iman 1983\, König and Vezzosi 2004)\, Haspelmath (2005) claims that the d
 istribution of reflexive markers is directly dependent on the verbs' frequ
 ency of reflexive use: if a verb is often used with reflexive objects\, it
  tends to appear with light reflexive marking\, and if it is more commonly
  used with disjoint pronominal objects\, it normally carries a heavy refle
 xive marker. Applying the same logic to reciprocals\, it can be assumed th
 at verbs often used in reciprocal form tend to occur with light reciprocal
  markers\, while those whose reciprocal use is rare take heavy markers.\n\
 nFor all three languages\, we discuss a corpus study and the judgements of
  a group of native speakers on light and heavy reflexive and reciprocal ma
 rkers used with 22 verbs that differ in frequency of reflexive and recipro
 cal use. It is shown that the empirical data largely lends support to Hasp
 elmath's proposal\, but several additional factors need to be taken into c
 onsideration in order to achieve a full explanation of reflexive and recip
 rocal marker distribution.\n\n*References*\n\nHaiman\, J. (1983). Iconic a
 nd economic motivation. _Language_ 59. 781–819.\n\nHaspelmath\, M. (2005
 ). A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Draf
 t of a paper presented at the Workshop on Reciprocals and Reflexives\, Fre
 ie Universität Berlin\, 1-2 October 2004. Downloaded from http://email.ev
 a.mpg.de/~haspelmt/papers.html\, on 20 January 2006.\n\nKönig\, E. and Ve
 zzosi\, L. (2004). The role of predicate meaning in the development of ref
 lexivity. In Bisang\, W.\, Himmelmann\, N. P. and Wiemer\, B. (eds)\, _Wha
 t makes Grammaticalization?_ Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 213
 –244.
LOCATION:GR-06/07\, English Faculty Building
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR