| This dissertation analyzes dative-reflexive (DR) constructions whose subjects and predicates are expressed by dative noun phrases and third person reflexives respectively.;The impersonal reflexive (RV(,1)) represents a state, similar to the Russian deverbal noun. These two entities express generic activities, avoiding any implication of a participant. RV(,1), functioning as the predicate verb of an absolute stative construction (AS), blocks subject expression and the reflexive describes natural or environmental phenomena.;The relationship between DR sentence constituents differs from that between PS components. The PS syntactic relationship is one of agreement, whereas that between DR components is one of government. Government in the DR signifies the subject's feelings about the predicate, as opposed to actualized participation as conveyed by PS agreement.;The expression of the DR relationship--considered to be a particular type of modality--has been alternately attributed to NPd and RV(,1) in previous works. This study rejects such proposals; neither of the DR components represents modality outside the DR syntax. The expression of modality is therefore attributed to the DR syntax itself.;Dative subjects (NPd) experience the state described by the reflexive verb. NPd is always animate, usually human; it rarely stands for an unidentified being. While surface manifestation of subject is optional, the DR is not considered subjectless, as the DR implies, or refers to contextually, a previously named experiencer.;This dissertation compares the components of the DR to those of PS based on the optional or obligatory appearance of those components. Identifying DR subjects as optional, and predicate verbs and modifiers as obligatory, suggests that transforming PS into DR raises the status of optional components (modifiers) to obligatory. Actualized performance--represented in PS--can generally stand without any modification. The DR conveys subjective human feelings, which are more likely to be accompanied by a modifier.;DR formation is not a live process. New verbs can be transformed into RV(,1), but speakers seem to revert rather to DR forms which they know, which are "frozen" in the spoken language. This shows the simultaneous productive, nonetheless dead, status of DR formation in Russian. |
