RUSSIAN LINGUISTICS最新文献

Статья посвящена сопоставлению грамматикализации нефинитных глагольных форм в русском и казахском языках. В качестве примера выбраны формы глаголов зрительного восприятия смотреть, глядеть и қара-, на основе которых в обоих языках образовались группы служебных слов с семантикой обусловленности. Отправной точкой для исследования стали наблюдения над нестандартным использованием русских деепричастий смотря и глядя, а также несмотря на (то что) в текстах, написанных казахскими билингвами и включенных в Русский учебный корпус (RLC, web-corpora.net/RLC). Мы обнаружили, что соотношение деепричастий смотря и глядя и других форм этих глаголов в текстах билингвов кардинально отличается от аналогичного соотношения в Национальном корпусе русского языка (НКРЯ, ruscorpora.ru). Отталкиваясь от этого наблюдения, мы реконструировали по данным НКРЯ менявшееся с течением времени соотношение русских деепричастий смотря и глядя и семантическую эволюцию производных служебных слов. Обратившись к родному языку авторов, мы обнаружили, что в нем тоже есть послелоги с семантикой обусловленности, являющиеся результатами грамматикализации конвербов и причастия, образованных от глагола қара-. Но, несмотря на это сходство, процесс грамматикализации в казахском языке осуществлялся по иным траекториям. Анализ подтверждает неслучайный характер отклонений от правил русского языка в текстах билингвов, а также выявляет глубокую связь между грамматикализацией глагольных форм и «лексическим фактором», то есть различиями между лексическими системами двух языков и, в частности, неполным семантическим соответствием глаголов зрительного восприятия.

While linguistics traditionally keeps lexicon separate from grammar, Construction Grammar takes the grammatical construction as the basic unit of language. A grammatical construction integrates the roles of lexemes with their typical grammatical contexts, suggesting the advantages of a comprehensive approach. Furthermore, according to Construction Grammar, grammatical constructions comprise a system in which constructions mutually reinforce each other. We reveal the complex connections among Russian grammatical constructions that emerge from the Russian Constructicon, a resource with over 2200 annotated constructions. We achieve this by focusing on a single semantic subclass of 110 constructions labeled Sets and elements. Our analysis follows the connections among constructions through two domains: semantics and syntax. We find that all constructions fit into groupings at various levels of semantic schematicity, as well as presenting various syntactic dimensions. A given construction has affinities both to constructions with similar meanings and with similar form, and any given construction may have multiple affinities in either or both of these domains. Through our focus on multiword grammatical constructions, we reach beyond traditional approaches that separate words from grammar, instead viewing words in their grammatical context and grammar in its lexical context.

This article is concerned with imperfective suffixes in Russian. It argues that there are at least three imperfective suffixes, the progressive morpheme, the iterative marker and the habitual suffix. It is shown that they differ in morphosyntactic and semantic properties. As to their structural properties, the progressive suffix is the lowest marker; the iterative morpheme attaches in a higher position; and the habitual morpheme is structurally the highest element. Thus, the article argues against a unitary approach to the iterative suffix and the habitual morpheme. Semantically, the iterative suffix has a pluractional meaning, whereas the habitual suffix is a vague generic quantifier. As to their phonological properties, the three markers are homophonous; they are spelled out as an -yva- allomorph. In this respect, the suffixes differ from the morphological aspect operator encoding (im)perfectivity in the aspectual head, which is phonologically empty. Further, it is shown that there are certain prefixes in the verbal morphosyntactic structure that are placed between the progressive projection and the iterative projection.

Abstract

This paper offers a new analysis of Russian syntactic idioms consisting of stressed general negation n´e- fused with a wh-word (k-word). The elements from this class take infinitival complements and select dative subjects. The clauses with Russian neg-words like mne negde spat’ ‘I have no space to sleep’ and their affirmative counterparts represent the modal existential construction conveying the meaning ‘p is (not) available & X can (not) do q’. I argue that while the perspective of checking Russian modal existentials on a class of embedded wh-infinitives is important, it must be complemented by a comparison of idioms of the mne negde spat’ type with two productive sentence patterns—dative-predicative and dative-infinitive structures. The former are control structures, where dative subjects are matrix clause elements, while the latter have raising properties. Syntactic idioms display mixed properties: on the one hand, they match the overt syntax of dative predicatives, on the other hand, show residual raising effects and license derived non-animate subjects. Like root dative-infinitive structures, syntactic idioms express the meaning of external (alethic) modality, but the same type of modality can be expressed by some dative predicatives. The clauses with neg-words originated as embedded dative-infinitive structures, a type marginally acceptable in Modern Russian, while the dative-predicative construction extends its coverage and assimilates neg-words. The neg-words are derived by the movement of k-words into the matrix clause. If a case-marked k-word raises to a non-argument position, it loses morphological case and the neg-word is reanalyzed as a predicative. If a case-marked k-word raises to the subject position, the neg-word inherits the case of the k-word, which is possible only for dative k-words komu and čemu.