Abstract
The aim of this paper is to work towards an account of the multiple functions of the Polish dative reflexive pronoun sobie/se in spontaneous spoken discourse. Although typically used for recipient-beneficiary marking, sobie/se fulfills a wide range of semantico-pragmatic functions, comparable to ‘ethical datives’ found across many languages. Using corpus data from spontaneous spoken registers, I analyze the potential of sobie/se to be used in situation-backgrounding functions, focusing specifically on (i) scale-lowering and normalization, (ii) generic situations and ordinariness, (iii) narrative uses. In order to explore the relations between the marker and these situation-backgrounding functions, I present a quantitative, exploratory study comparing the uses of the state/posture verb siedzieć ‘to sit’ with and without sobie/se. The results suggest that narrative and generic uses are compatible with sobie/se – yet, at the same time, restricted to specific types of genericity and narrativity. On the methodological level, the results demonstrate that quantitative empirical analyses can be successfully employed in semantico-pragmatic analyses of constructions in spoken discourse, making it possible for researchers to elaborate and falsify their qualitative results.
References
Bartnicka, Barbara. 1975. Leksykalizacja zwrotów z formą zaimka sobie [Lexicalization of phrases with a form of the pronoun sobie]. Prace Filologiczne 25. 105–112.Search in Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative (Cognitive Linguistics Research 9). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110814781Search in Google Scholar
De Fina, Anna & Barbara Johnstone. 2015. Discourse analysis and narrative. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 2nd edn. Vol. 1, 152–167. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118584194.ch7Search in Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Johan van der Auwera. 2013. Towards a distributional typology of human impersonal pronouns, based on data from European languages. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries. Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 119–158. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110331127.119Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Peter Bakema. 1994. The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context (Cognitive Linguistics Research 5). Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110873061Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Correspondence analysis. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (Human Cognitive Processing 43), 443–486. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.17glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.). 2014. Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (Human Cognitive Processing 43). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Dagmar Divjak. 2009. Behavioral profiles: a corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In Vyvyan Evans & Stephanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing 24), 57–75. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.07griSearch in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2020. Investment in a model of stance taking: I mean and just sayin’. Language Sciences 82. 1–15.10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101333Search in Google Scholar
Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky. 1997. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7(1–4). 3–38.10.1075/jnlh.7.02narSearch in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. In Woodford E. Beach, Samuel E. Fox & Shulamith Philosoph (eds.), Papers from the thirteenth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, 236–287. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1979. Grammar as image. Linguistic Notes from La Jolla 6. 87–126.Search in Google Scholar
Lê, Sébastien, Julie Josse & François Husson. 2008. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25(1). 1–18.10.18637/jss.v025.i01Search in Google Scholar
Łojasiewicz, Anna. 1992. Słowo sobie w połączeniach typu idę sobie, śpiewam sobie [The word sobie in combinations such as idę sobie, śpiewam sobie]. Poradnik Językowy (7). 508–521.Search in Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor & Lisa Capps. 1996. Narrating the self. Annual Review of Anthropology 25. 19–43.10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.19Search in Google Scholar
Pęzik, Piotr. 2015. Spokes – a search and exploration service for conversational corpus data. In Jan Odijk (ed.), Selected papers from the CLARIN 2014 conference, October 24–25, 2014, Soesterberg, The Netherlands, 99–109. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press.Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.Search in Google Scholar
Szupryczyńska, Maria. 1992. Le datif du pronom réfléchi en polonais contemporain. Revue des Études Slaves 64(4). 651–664.10.3406/slave.1992.6079Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Figure and ground in complex sentences. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 419–430. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v1i0.2322.Search in Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2). 385–396.10.1017/S0022226700010318Search in Google Scholar
©2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
