Grammar of Autonomy and Heteronomy: Non-Passive and Passive Verbs as the Linguistic Foundation of Moral Intuitions

This article substantiates the linguistic foundation of moral-ethical intuitions through a systematic analysis of the voice dichotomy, based on the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity. It describes the opposition between non-passive and exclusively passive verbs in English grammar to demonstrate its role in shaping basic intuitions about autonomy and heteronomy. The research focuses on two complementary grammatical classes: verbs that lack passive voice forms and verbs used exclusively in the passive. The hypothesis posits that these classes mark a fundamental ontological dichotomy of human experience. Non-passive verbs form the autonomous core of the person: they outline irreducible states (being, having, becoming) that cannot be conceptualized as a result of external influence. In contrast, exclusively passive verbs constitute the passive perimeter of sociality, where the individual acts as an object of external forces, institutions, and normative practices. The methodology of the study includes conceptual, comparative, and corpus analysis, a hermeneutic approach, and a componential analysis of semantic invariants. English grammatical restrictions within the category of voice create semantic taboo zones and beaten paths that structure the moral thinking of native speakers, making some ethical concepts (autonomy, personal responsibility) cognitively more accessible than others (heteronomy, duty). The research overcomes traditional lexical-centrism by identifying a specific syntactic mechanism that mediates the connection between language structure and moral consciousness. Ultimately, the rules of grammar act as an active constitutive factor of moral ontology; grammar is not a passive reflection but an active constitutive force that predetermines the boundaries of the morally acceptable, forming a "linguistic a priori" of ethical experience. The study contributes to meta-ethics by offering an operationalizable tool for testing the linguistic relativity hypothesis in the realm of morality and outlining prospects for cross-linguistic research.

1. Bezrukov A. N. Russian literature in the mode of reception and reading aesthetics. St. Petersburg: Giperion, 2024, 246. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/rsijyo

2. Vitgenshteyn L. Philosophical works. Moscow: Gnozis, 1994, pt. II, 252. (In Russ.)

3. Ivanov N. V. Interpretation in the sign ontology of language and in translation. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2018, 151. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xymghj

4. Konurbaev M. E., Gareeva E. R. Linguistics of spontaneous speech: Comparative cognitive transformation. Lomonosov Philology Journal. Series 9. Philology, 2023, (4): 9–20. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0130-0075-9-2023-47-04-1

5. Leonteva K. I. Cognitive-semiotic model of translation: Dominants, perspective, and discourse in Russian translations of English-language literature of the 19th–20th centuries. Dr. Philol. Sci. Diss. Tver, 2022, 523. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jcizji

6. Macintyre A. After virtue: A study in moral theory. Moscow: Akademicheskiy Proekt; Ekaterinburg: Delovaia kniga, 2000, 384. (In Russ.)

7. Milovidov V. A. Literary translation as a tool for the theory and history of literature. New Philological Bulletin, 2018, (3): 243–252. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24411/2072-9316-2018-00054

8. Nam Hye Hyun. The semantics of the absolute construction in Russian and antipassive. Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 2020, 65(1): 149–163. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.1556/060.2020.00004

9. Nedyalkov V. P. Typology of reflexive constructions. Theory of functional grammar: Personality. Voice, ed. Bondarko A. V. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1991, 241–276. (In Russ.)

10. Austin J. L. Word as action. New in foreign linguistics. Iss. XVII. Theory of speech acts, ed. Gorodetsky B. Y. Moscow: Progress, 1986, 22–129. (In Russ.)

11. Polyakov S. E. Phenomenology of mental representations. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2011, 688. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/krjtma

12. Rarenko M. B. Translation as an instrument to study "Another". Ethnopsycholinguistics, 2022, (1): 50–59. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/epl/2022.01.04

13. Sakhnevich S. V. Complete grammar of the English language. Moscow: Alfa, 2003, 739. (In Russ.)

14. Sapir E. The status of linguistics as a science. History of linguistic studies, comp. Dmitrovskaya M. A. Moscow: Izd-vo inostr. lit., 1950, 207–214. (In Russ.)

15. Searle J. R. What is a speech act? New in foreign linguistics. Iss. XVII. Theory of speech acts, ed. Gorodetsky B. Y. Moscow: Progress, 1986, 151–169. (In Russ.)

16. Tarasov E. F. On the issue of communicants’ common consciousness. Tula Scientific Bulletin. History. Linguistics, 2020, (4): 128–135. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/eyptfx

17. Haidt J., Joseph C. Intuitive ethics: Now innately prepared institutions generate culturally variable virtues. Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federal’nogo universiteta imeni V. I. Vernadskogo. Filosofija. Politologija. Kul’turologija, 2022, 8(4): 41–54. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/uomcyc

18. Boroditsky L. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 2001, 43(1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748

19. Comrie B. The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 317.

20. Cushman F., Young L. Patterns of moral judgment derive from nonmoral psychological representations. Cognitive Science, 2011, 35(6): 1052–1075. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01167.x

21. Efferson C., Lalive R., Fehr E. The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism. Science, 2008, 321(5897): 1844–1849. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155805

22. Enfield N. J. Natural causes of language: Frames, biases, and cultural transmission. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2014, 83.

23. Haidt J. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon, 2012, 419.

24. Hare R. M. The language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952, 202.

25. Malt B. C., Majid A. How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2013, 4(6): 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1251

26. Montalt-Resurrecció V., García-Izquierdo I., Muñoz-Miquel A. Patient-centred translation and communication. London: Routledge, 2024, 198. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429299698

27. Sakamoto A. Why do many translators resist post-editing? A sociological analysis using Bourdieu's concepts. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 2019, (31): 201–216. https://doi.org/10.26034/cm.jostrans.2019.183

28. Sneddon A. Like-minded: Externalism and moral psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 282.

29. Suojanen T., Koskinen K., Tuominen T. User-centered translation. London-New York: Routledge, 2014, 176.

30. Talmy L. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000, 565.

31. Tseng C., Carstensen A., Regier T., Xu Y. A computational investigation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: The case of spatial relations. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, 10–13 Aug 2016. 2016, 2231–2236. URL: https://terry-regier.github.io/lclab/papers/tseng-et-al-2016.pdf (accessed 10 Jul 2025).

32. Van Valin R. D. Jr. A concise introduction to role and reference grammar. Fluminensia, 2000, 12(1-2): 47–78. URL: https://hrcak.srce.hr/7357 (accessed 10 Jul 2025).

33. Whorf B. L. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin lee Whorf. New York: The Technology Press of MIT, 1956, 278.

34. Zethsen K. K. Access is not the same as understanding. Why intralingual translation is crucial in a world of information overload. Across Languages and Cultures, 2018, 19(1): 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2018.19.1.4