Abstract
Set within the generative syntactic tradition, the present article examines the interchange in the layout of the reflexive/ reciprocal marker (RM) and the verb in prefixed and prefixless Lithuanian verbs, a long-standing historical puzzle. It is first shown that the RM is obligatorily coreferential with the subject of the sentence. Given the generative premise that all subjects are merged within the verb, it is argued that the RM is a physically manifest trace of the subject and forms a binding domain with its antecedent, which stipulates the layout of morphemes within the verb. In addition, the position of the RM also depends on whether its antecedent is an agent, experiencer, or theme, since these have different merging, i.e. original, positions. After the relationship between the RM, the sentence subject and the verb has been defined, prefixes are examined since they form the left boundary of the RM in prefixed verbs. Given their resultative meaning, verbal prefixes are argued to occupy an aspectual position AspP, placed immediately above the verbal complex, i.e. v/VP and the RM within it. Since in non-contrastive contexts, the negative clitic is attached to the verb and consequently affects the position of the RM in otherwise prefixless verbs, inducing change just as the resultative prefixes, the binding domain is determined for the following types of the morphological composition of the verb: prefixed and non-prefixed positive and negative verb forms.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.28.15126
Highlights
The idea of argument movement to its subject position was formulated as the Extended Projection Principle, the name of being no concern in the present study, stating essentially that finite clauses must have a subject: “subjects originate internally within the Verb Phrase as arguments of verbs, and are subsequently raised into the specifier position within Tense Phrase (TP), with the relevant movement operation being triggered by an (EPP) feature carried by T” (Radford, 2009, p.238)
The present article has provided an account for the placement of the reflexive marker in Lithuanian prefixed and prefixless verbs, a long-standing unresolved issue of Lithuanian morphosyntax
It has been shown that the reflexive marker –si- acts as a subject anaphor, and, given the theoretical premise that all arguments are merged within the verb, is a physically manifest trace of the subject argument, whether it be the agent, experiencer, or theme, merged and originally placed in its corresponding position: spec-v for agents, spec-V for experiencers, and comp-V for themes
Summary
Korostenskienė (2014) attempted to identify the position of the RM employing the framework of Distributive Morphology, as developed by Embick and Noyer (2005), suggesting the following account: The middle/ reflexive -si- immediately follows the left-most affixal material (Korostenskienė, 2014, p.66). This rule, cannot explain the reasons standing behind the repositioning of the RM that takes place depending on the morphological composition of the verb. The analysis will incorporate earlier findings regarding the generative representation of Lithuanian verbal morphology These premises will be used in the identification of the position of the RM on the syntactic tree relative to the rest of the verb in both prefixed and prefixless verbs.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
