scholarly journals Dative radial category in Old Church Slavonic and Modern Russian

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 13-32
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Voloshina

In this paper, the semantic roles expressed by the Dative case in Modern Russian and Old Church Slavonic are described in terms of radial categories. The corpus data shows that the radial category of the Dative case has changed since Old Church Slavonic. The radial category in Modern Russian is smaller, and it includes fewer subcategories than attested in Old Church Slavonic. The change of the category prototype could explain the changes in the category of the Dative case. Recipient is postulated to be the prototype of the Dative case category in Modern Russian, while Direction appeared to be the best prototype for Old Church Slavonic data.

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans C. Boas ◽  
Ryan Dux

AbstractThis paper first shows how Frame Semantics grew out of earlier work on Case Grammar. Then, it discusses some of the basic principles of Frame Semantics and shows how these have been implemented in FrameNet, an online corpus-based lexicographic database (http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu). Using semantic frames to structure the lexicon of English, FrameNet provides a wealth of information showing how frame elements (situation-specific semantic roles) are realized syntactically (valence patterns). Finally, the paper provides an overview of how frame-semantic principles have been applied to cover non-lexical phenomena using compatible annotation and data formats. This so-called “constructicon” offers entries of grammatical constructions that are also based on corpus data and that are parallel to lexical entries in FrameNet.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-97
Author(s):  
Kristin Melum Eide ◽  
Marit Julien ◽  
Tor Erik Jenstad

Complex demonstratives consist of a definite element (in Norwegian e.g. den or sa) followed by a deictic element which can be proximal (‘here’) or distal (‘there’). In Norwegian there is much variation in complex demonstratives, in particular in the dialects. Many dialects have demonstrative systems that differ considerably from the systems found in the standard varieties Nynorsk and Bokmål. Some systems make more distinctions than the standard varieties, for example nominative and dative case, or different forms for deictic and anaphor-ic reference, whereas other systems make fewer distinctions than the standard varieties, for example with an invariant deictic element that does not agree with the head noun in gender and number. We illustrate these systems using older and newer corpus data from different parts of the country. Our focus is however on dialects from Central Norway.


Author(s):  
V. I. Podlesskaya ◽  

Based on data from the Russian National Corpus and the General InternetCorpus of Russian, the paper addresses syntactic, sematic and prosodic features of constructions with the demonstrative TOT used as an anaphor. These constructions have gained some attention in earlier studies [Paducheva 2016], [Berger, Weiss 1987], [Kibrik 2011], [Podlesskaya 2001], but their analysis (a) covered primarily their prototypical uses; and (b) was based on written data. The data from informal, esp. from spoken discourse show however that the actual use of these constructions may deviate considerably from the known prototype. The paper aims at bridging this gap. I claim (i) that the function of TOT is to temporary promote a referent from a less privileged discourse status to a more privileged one; and (ii) that TOT can be analyzed on a par with switch reference devices in the languages where the latter are grammatically marked (e.g. on verb forms). The following parameters of TOT-constructions are discussed: syntactic and semantic roles of TOT and of its antecedent in their respective clauses, linear and structural distances between TOT and its antecedent, animacy of the maintained referent. Special attention is payed to the information structure of the TOT construction: I give structural and prosodic evidence that TOT never has a rhematic status. The revealed actual distribution of TOT (a) adds to our understanding of cross-linguistic variation of anaphoric functions of demonstratives; and, hopefully, (b) may contribute to further developing computational approaches to coreference and anaphora resolution for Russian, e.g. by improving datasets necessary for this task.


2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayssal Tayalati ◽  
Marleen Van Peteghem

The aim of this paper is to propose a unified account of dative assignment for both verbs and adjectives in French. We will show that both types of predicates assign dative case to their second internal argument, provided that this argument is situated in a higher position in the thematic hierarchy than the first internal argument. This hypothesis, which considers the dative in French as a structural rather than a semantic case, can easily account for all three-argument verbs, for most two-argument verbs and even for adjunct datives. As for the adjectival predicates, we will show that only ergative adjectives, whose first argument is an internal argument, can assign dative to their second internal argument. The few exceptions to this hypothesis can be explained by the fact that, although the dative is not a semantic case, it is associated with certain semantic roles, given that its semantic role is situated in the thematic hierarchy between the role of the external argument and the role of the first internal argument.


2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vsevolod Kapatsinski ◽  
Cynthia Vakareliyska

Modern Russian contains a significant number of right-headed compounds modeled on Germanic [N[N]] compounds and containing recently borrowed English or German stems. The present article argues that these compounds are a family of partially lexically-specific constructions. Quantitative corpus data from the restricted semantic domain consisting of names of food/drink establishments support this claim by showing that the [N[N]] structure is specifically associated with certain head nouns. The article discusses the relationship between these and related constructions, and suggests motivations for the partial productivity of [N[N]] constructions in Russian.1


Slovene ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-273
Author(s):  
Fedor B. Albrekht

The article discusses the subject matching between the adverbial participle construction and the main clause in Russian. Russian normative grammar requires the main clause and the adverbial participle construction within one utterance to express an action or a state of one and the same subject, as the Russian деепричастие (adverbial participle)= is typologically related to an implicit-subject converb. The adverbial participle has developed from a copredicative participle, and now it mostly expresses a subordinate action (or a subordinate state) of the main clause's subject, which has the form of the nominative case. But, according to numerous real language examples, both oral and written, the grammatical subject (if any) in the main clause does not always coincide with the semantic subject of the whole situation. Besides, there are cases when the subjects of the main clause and the adverbial participle construction are different. There exists a wider sphere of semantic and pragmatic relations between participants of the main situation and of the subordinate situation, where the communicative subject, and not the formal one, plays the main role. Several main types of constructions are analysed, in which the semantic and communicative subject, while being the same for both situations, is not expressed by means of the nominative case in the main clause. First, the semantic subject may have the form of the dative case, and that is sometimes = omitted when the subject is clear from the context: Uvidev (see-ADVP.PST) zadaniia, mne (I-DAT) stalo boiazno ‘After seeing the tasks, I became frightened’, Sidia v netoplenoi kvartire, bylo holodno ‘While sitting in the unheated apartment, I (we, etc.) was (were) cold’. Second, there can occur passivisation of the main clause: Vsio eto bylo sdelano (PASS), pod’ezzhaia (approach-ADVP.PRES) k derevne ‘All of this was done (by the author of the sentence) when he was approaching the village’. Third, the semantic subject may be expressed by different possessive constructions: Zakanchivaia (finish-ADVP.PRES) stat’iu, u menia (I-GEN) slomalsia komp’iuter ‘While I was finishing an article, my computer broke down’. The fourth case is represented by the removal of the subject, which is implicit in the given situation: Potrativ (spend-ADVP.PST) vsio na vypivku, na edu ne ostalos ‘Having spent all his/her/our etc. money on booze, nothing was left for food’. In addition, two rare types of using the adverbial participle construction are analysed: 1) when the latter neither morphologically nor semantically relates to the subject of the main clause: Rebionok gladil sobaku, viliaia (wag-ADVP.PRES) hvostom ‘The child caressed the dog (which was) wagging its tail’; 2) when the construction relates to the grammatical object of the main clause: Pozdravliaiu vas, grazhdanin, sovramshi (lie-ADVP.PST) ‘My congratulations, comrade: you’ve just lied!’. While focusing on Russian utterances, the paper also includes data from other Slavic (including ancient) and, in several cases, from Baltic languages. Comparison shows that the given phenomena are not specific to Russian. Besides, the comparative data helps us to avoid deducing some modern structural phenomena directly from older constructions. For example, there seems to be no reason to connect such structures as Rebionok gladil sobaku, viliaia (wag-ADVP.PRES) hvostom ‘The child caressed the dog (which was) wagging its tail’ directly to the absolute predicative use of participles in Old Russian. We come to the conclusion that the lack of formal and grammatical congruence (in other words, of categorial agreement) between the adverbial participle construction and the main clause is the reason why in modern Russian the adverbial participle construction is able to disconnect from the grammatical subject of the main clause. Therefore, the adverbial participle construction can now be used in any situation when the speaker has a communicative intention to designate a subordinate action and the subject of this action is clear from the context.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Ashwini Ganeshan

Abstract In Spanish reverse-psychological verbs, the experiencer argument can have accusative or dative case marking. Transitivity-based approaches identify different factors that influence this accusative-dative alternation(Miglio, Viola G., Stefan T Gries, Michael J Harris, Eva M Wheeler & Santana-Paixão Raquel. A strong predictor for accusative case marking in Spanish r-psych verbs is the animacy of the stimulus. However, there are also instances where the stimulus is inanimate and the experiencer is case marked accusative. In this paper, I provide an analysis of such instances, drawing on corpus data and native speaker judgments. I argue that agentivity, measured on a scale, is a factor that better accounts for the accusative-dative alternation exhibited by Spanish reverse-psychological verbs. I first propose a definition of agentivity and diagnostics for it; then I present evidence that there is a correlation between higher degrees of agentivity and accusative case marking and lower degrees of agentivity and dative case marking. The agentivity scale presented is not unconditional as there are several factors that contribute to case marking. Nevertheless, the agentivity scale accounts for accusative case marking with inanimates and also serves to highlight some parallels between causative verbs and reverse-psychological verbs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-233
Author(s):  
Yulia Kuvshinskaya

Abstract The paper deals with meaning and use of an indefinite pronoun kakojlibo ‘any/some’ in the modern Russian language. Research based on corpus data revealed non-standard usage of the pronoun kakoj-libo ‘any/some’. The paper describes main types of the deviations and evaluates their pragmatic and semantic effect. Finally, tendencies of the change in semantics and use of these pronouns are characterized.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document