Introduction The aim of this study is to investigate the structure and functions of theMacedonian constructions with the grammatical

element se of reflexive origin andestablishing their equivalent constructions in the English language. The main goalis to show that the functions expressed by these seconstructions in Macedonianrepresent semantically connected contexts rather than a random sum of meaningsthat have accidentally acquired the same form. This assumption is based on thehypothesis that the common form indicates semantic relation: a structure may beextended from one function to another if those two functions are semanticallyrelated, i.e., share certain semantic features. Even though some of them are ofmorpho-syntactic or syntactic and some of lexicalsyntactic nature, all identifiedclasses of constructions are semantically related and together make up a complexconceptual network. Heines (1992:349) suggestion for continuous linguisticstructures, called grammaticalization chain, was adopted as the most appropriatemodel for the organization of this network (Figure 1). It is based on the principle offamily resemblances, so that each class is characterized by a number of featuresand could be considered as a separate phase on a semantic continuum. However,each phase shares some features with the neighbouring phases. The more remotethe phases are from each other, the fewer common characteristics they have. 1. 2 3 4 Figure 1. Grammaticalization chain (Heine 1992:349) The study is organised as follows: chapter one, Introduction, consists of anexposition of the theoretical background and the previous studies on reflexiveconstructions in Macedonian and other Slavic and non-Slavic languages; chaptertwo gives an extensive analysis of the classes of the Macedonian se-constructionson syntactic, semantic and referential level with special emphasis on the relationsbetween their internal members and the links with the neighbouring phases on thecontinuum; chapter three discusses the structures that are used to express the samesituations in English. They were identified in the compiled translation equivalentsfrom Macedonian and the most common correspondents to each class wereestablished; since English deals with the relevant semantic field in a very different 2. 2way, 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 presenta 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 differentphases of the process of grammaticalization of the reflexive pronoun: from anindependent 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 typesof situations they express (two types of reflexive situations, autonomous situationsand agent defocusing situations) can be graphically represented as positioned ontwo intersected axes: on the vertical axis is the continuum between the transitiveand intransitive situations, and on the horizontal axis the continuum between activeand passive situations, as shown in Figure 2 below. The classes themselves are notunified structures, but are built on the prototype principle with some membersexhibiting more central features than others. Following the proponents of CognitiveGrammar (Lakoff 1987, Johnson 1987, Langacker 1991, Kemmer 1993, Janda2000, among others), the relations between the members are explained bymetaphorical and other cognitive mechanisms of meaning extension. ACTIVE TRANSITIVE DIRECT REFLEXIVE A MODAL IO

PROTOTYPICAL U CAUSATIVE-REF. RECIPROCAL P T A O O PASSIVE P C S C EMOTIONS A T S A S I U RESULTATIVE PREUDO-PASSIVE O S S S N S A I NATURAL A I T DECAUSATIVE V RECIPROCAL L V I E E V E REMOTE CAUSATION APSOLUTIVE INTRANSITIVE ACTIVE Figure 2. The Continuum of the Macedonian se-constructions 3. 3 2.1. Reflexive situations Reflexive situations encode events which require two participants withdifferent semantic roles, but they involve only one referent. The entity causing theevent (Initiator) is at the same time the entity which suffers the consequences ofthis event (Endpoint). Depending on the degree of differentiation of the two rolesof the participant, we can distinguish two types of constructions: direct reflexiveand subject reflexive.1 The two constructions exhibit separate semantic, pragmaticand syntactic features. Their differentiation is based on the degree ofdistinguishability of participants, due to the relative elaboration of events(Kemmer 1993:71-73; 1994:206-212). In direct reflexive constructions the twoparticipants are maximally distinguished and as a result the participant is viewed asdoubled. The agent acts upon her/himself in the same way as s/he would act uponsome other entity. This property determines the basic functions of theseconstructions: 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 twoargument 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 body1 The term direct reflexive is from Kemmer (1988, 1993). It is used for the central reflexiveconstructions with coreferential subject and direct object. The term subject reflexive is fromGeniusiene (1987), who uses it for verbs which belong to the transitive class, but when usedintransitively keep the subject of the transitive counterpart in the subject position.

4. 4involved (se mie wash ones face, se obliuva lick ones lips). Constructionsexpressing events in which the participant loses some of its agentive properties(intentionality in the first place) lean towards the passive pole. There are two maintypes: non-intentional human activities called resultative (se sopne stumble, sezakai get caught) and emotional reactions (se vozbudi get excited, se iznenadiget surprised, se raduva rejoice). The reflective causative constructions representa marginal sub-type (se potiuva na berber have ones hair cut at the barber s).According to Kemmer (1993, 1994), the type of constructions we call subjectreflexive 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 typesof situations that exhibit different pragmatic, semantic and syntactic properties.Both involve only one participant with two semantic roles, but while in the directreflexive construction they are represented by two syntactic arguments, the subjectreflexive construction is syntactically intransitive. The reflexive pronoun isreduced to a verbal marker signalling the complex role of the referent in thesubject position, (i.e., it is both the initiator and the end point), but the secondparticipant is not individualised and has no syntactic representation. Only the cliticform of the reflexive pronoun is part of this construction, while adding the longform sebe(si) typically results in ungrammaticality (example 3) or semanticchange 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) participantswhich are in symmetrical relation to one another, the relation A stands to B is thesame as that in which B stands to A (Lichtenberk 1985:21). The reciprocaldomain is also complex and exhibits properties parallel to the reflexive domain,which explains their formal affinity in many languages. An importantdistinguishing factor between the prototypical reciprocal situations (se mrazatmegju 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 thecomplexity of the subject referent role and the degree of elaboration of events(Kemmer 1988:147). In the prototypical reciprocal events the role of eachparticipant is individualised and they are temporally indifferent (ibid.:148),which is matched on syntactic level with a heavy marker (the reflexive clitic pluseden so drug/megju sebe). The natural reciprocal situation, on the other hand, ismarked with the reflexive clitic se and it is strongly associated with simultaneity(ibid.). 5. 5 2.3. Autonomous situations Object reflexive construction2 are used for coding autonomous situations, whichrepresent the final phase of the event, irrespective of whether it occursspontaneously or is caused by some outside causer. The clitic pronoun se does nottake up a syntactic position but is rather a part of the verb lexeme. As a result, theconstruction is formally an intransitive structure. As in the previous class, there arecentral and peripheral constructions connecting this domain with the active pole onone hand and with the passive on the other. Decausative constructions encode events involving one

participant, the referentof which is the main target (example 5 and 6). However, this participant is notpresented as a passive undergoer, but retains some agentive properties whichcontributes to its conceptualisation as an active subject. Those events are mainlyphysical processes: they could not be caused intentionally, neither could they beprevented. The participant is actively involved in the occurrence of the event andthe 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 non-potent referent could be presented as set off by this very participant (Topkata samaod 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 theseand similar meanings as an indication of the metaphorical transfer from subjectreflexive constructions involving a human participant, to decausative where theparticipant is typically non-human. The metaphor has gradually become usual,hence decausative constructions can be used for types of events remote from thereflexive ones. Generally, the spontaneity of the event is only a way ofrepresentation, while in reality there can always be imagined some potential distantcauser. It can be more strongly felt in some situations so that those constructionsincline towards passive sentences, i.e., sentences in which the initiator is clearlyimplied and present both on the referential and on the semantic level. We oftenencounter constructions that are ambiguous out of context. For example, thesentences in (7) can be equally well interpreted as happening spontaneously orinitiated by some generalized human agent.(7) Cenite se krevaat. Vesta se proiri brzo. Prices rose/were raised. The news spread/was spread quickly.In the transfer zone between object and passive reflexive constructions we find arange of constructions (pseudo-passive se-constructions) in which the initiator isimplied to a certain degree and the subject referent loses its active role propertiesbecause the events they code require human involvement. These implications2 This term is from Geniusiene 1987, who uses it for verbs which belong to the transitive class, butwhen used intransitively the transitive object takes the subject position. 6. 6combine with the verbal aspect and result in various types of modal interpretations:potential (example 8), normative (9), subjective (10), volitional (11) 3.(8) ... zloto ne se kornit lesno od oveka. (B:81) evil cannot be rooted out easily out of men.(9) 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 areperceived as agent initiated, but the agent, having no important role, does not occurin the syntactic structure. It is nevertheless present on the semantic level, i.e., it isimplied as an unidentified or generalised human agent. We consider theseconstructions to be a logical extension of those expressing autonomous events.There is only small difference between situations where the causer is totallyabstracted and those where it is generalized. Moreover, as pointed out above, thedegree of abstraction of the causer varies depending on the type of the coded eventand other circumstances. When the seconstruction is used with a verb for anactivity that requires an agent, then it is implied in a general

sense and theconstruction is re-analysed. We claim that the se-constructions expressing agent defocusing situations canrightfully be classified as passive se-constructions because the core representativescorrespond to the passive prototype properties proposed by Shibatani (1985:837).Actually, two thirds of the passive se-constructions have the position of the subjectfilled by the thematic argument (example 12), but there are also subjectlessconstructions (example 13), if the base verb is intransitive or has a clausal orprepositional 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 theevent 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 seosuduva od site. That is criticized by everyone.), but it is rarely encountered.43 In the last two examples the dative object has a key role in the interpretation of theconstruction.4 See 1997. 7. 7 The marker se is of fundamentally different character in these constructions.Unlike in the subject and object reflexive constructions, where it signals some kindof departure from the typical predicate-argument structure of the verb base, here itsignals 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 toall Macedonian seconstructions, but rather a range of constructions perform thesefunctions. However, there is a significant pattern which supports our hypothesisabout the continuum. Namely, for each type of situations the core structures arerepeated, though with different frequency and for each situation type one dominantstructure can be isolated. Constructions with verb + reflexive pronoun (myself, yourself, etc.) are theonly equivalents for the direct reflexive construction (example 14), but centralsubject reflexives are rendered with three constructions mainly: the reflexiveconstruction (example 15); implicit reflexive, with omitted DO (example 16); or anew intransitive lexeme (example 17). The so called possessive constructions aretransitive in English, because they express the involved body part explicitly: sepreoblee 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 classof se-constructions; it is especially common with verbs of non-translational bodymotions (example 16). Situations leaning towards the transitive pole are oftentranslated with the reflexive construction in English, even if they are undoubtedlysubject (not direct) reflexive constructions in Macedonian (cf. example 3 above).Those approaching the intransitive pole, on the other hand, tend to be expressedwith intransitive verbs which have no transitive counterpart in English (example17). The three English constructions express different degrees of distinguishabilityof the two participants in the situation, that is, different

degrees of elaboration ofevents. In Macedonian they are all covered by se + verb construction. Peripheral subject reflexive constructions (resultative and emotionalreactions) have a different range of equivalents in English, which corresponds totheir function to express unintentional events. The implicit reflexive and theintransitive construction are also present, but the significant occurrence of thepseudo-passive get- and be-constructions and the passive ones demonstrates theinclination of these constructions towards the passive pole. Such equivalents are 8. 8indicative of the intermediate position of these constructions between the subjectand the object reflexives. The most common equivalent of the Macedonian se-constructions forautonomous events seems to be the so called ergative construction (with a zeromarker) (example 18). Its functional zone correlates closely with that of theMacedonian decausative se-construction. However, the other equivalents suggestthat the Macedonian construction has a wider scope. Namely, among theequivalents we also find two types of forms: active intransitive verbs (around 20%),which imply that it is positioned closer to the intransitive pole and passiveconstructions (8% of pseudo-passive get- constructions and 9% of passive be-constructions), 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 ofconstructions, 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 isinanimate. Frequently, this subject is personified (example 19), but the metaphormay also be weakened and then the reflexive pronoun signals the autonomousnature 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 ofgrammaticalisation of the se-constructions and reveal how the decausative senses(autonomous events) are linked to the reflexive senses (events without an outsidecauser). On the other hand, we consider the passive equivalents especiallysignificant, as they prove the affinity between decausative and passive situations. The equivalents of the pleudo-passive se-constructions are typicallyintermediate between active and passive constructions. Those which are closer tothe decausatives (with potential modal meaning) are partly equivalent to theEnglish construction known as middle, its form being identical with the ergativeconstruction, the main English decausative strategy (example 21). Those which arecloser to passive usually correspond to passive constructions, with explicit modalmeanings (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 passiveconstruction in English. Among the equivalents of those which have a verb marked forperson, 43% of the equivalents are passive and approximately the same percentagefalls to active constructions of two types: with generalized human subject (one, man, 9. 9they) or with the subject whose referent is evoked from the context of theMacedonian 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 inEnglish. They are most often translated as active constructions with a generalised (one,you, people) or indefinite (someone, they) agent in subject position. These types ofequivalents indicate that the passive se-construction is different from the Englishpassive be-construction. To sum up, it is important to point out that as equivalents of the

Macedonianse-constructions in the medial domain (subject and object se-constructions) wemainly encounter three English constructions: the construction in which the change inthe predicateargument 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 lexemewhich is not related to a transitive verb. 3. Concluding remarks The structure of the English equivalents of the Macedonian se-constructionsoffers some insights into the nature of the Mac se-constructions. The fact that thesame functions (subject-reflexive, decausative and potential) are coded in Englishwith a construction with identical structure indicates the semantic affinity of thesethree types of situations. Therefore, their formal expression with the same type ofconstruction in Macedonian is not unmotivated. The intransitive equivalents,however, confirm the fact that the Macedonian se-constructions have extendedtheir zone towards the intransitive pole. On the other hand, the relation betweenpassive and medial strategies indicates similarity between these two domains,pronounced at the overlapping points. Consequently, the spread of the Macedonianse-constructions in the passive domain could be conceived as a natural extension ofthe construction from the autonomous domain.4. References4.1. Sources in Cyrillic alphabet, . . 1981. ( ) : 160-184., . 1978. : 152-155., . 1988. 5: 3-69., . . 1978. : 162-171.