Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A multifactorial analysis of the Russian adversity impersonal construction

Многофакторный анализ русской стихийной имперсональной конструкции

  • Published:
Russian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The adversity impersonal construction involves two arguments: an accusative and an instrumental. The order of these two elements is investigated with the help of 669 examples taken from a Russian corpus, and the analysis shows that the primary determinants of the word order are the pronominality of the accusative argument and the length difference between the arguments. These results are consistent with the idea that fast recognition of the sentential structure is a primary factor in sentence processing. A less influential, but still significant, variable is the animacy of the accusative—when the accusative is animate it is more prone to precede the instrumental argument. This finding shows that animacy directly affects word order in Russian.

Аннотация

В так называемой стихийной имперсональной конструкции присутствуют два структурных элемента: один в винительном падеже и другой в творительном. Порядок этих элементов рассматривается на 669 примерах из корпуса русского языка. Анализ показывает, что порядок расположения структурных элементов в русском предложении больше всего зависит от их длины и от того, является ли элемент в винительном падеже местоимением или нет. Результаты связаны с идеей о том, что самое важное при построении предложения—скорость осознания структуры предложения. Анализ также показывает, что на порядок слов оказывает влияние одушевленность: структурный элемент в винительном падеже, если он одушевленный, чаще предшествует структурному элементу в творительном падеже. Таким образом, одушевленность прямо влияет на порядок слов в русском языке.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Retrieved from http://www.vinartus.com/spa/87a.pdf (26 March 2014).

  • Arnold, J. E., Losongco, A., Wasow, T., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, R. H. (2011). LanguageR. R package. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/languageR/ (26 March 2014).

  • Babby, L. (1994). A theta-theoretic analysis of adversity impersonal sentences in Russian. In S. Avrutin, S. Franks & L. Progovac (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-2). The MIT meeting 1993 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 36, pp. 25–67). Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartoń, K. (2012). MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.7.2. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn (26 March 2014).

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (26 March 2014).

  • Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118, 172–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, J. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2012). Female fertility affects men’s linguistic choices. PLoS ONE, 7(2), e27971. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cuypere, L., & Verbeke, S. (2013). Dative alternation in Indian English: a corpus-based analysis. World Englishes, 32(2), 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. C. (1980). On the syntax and semantics of impersonal sentences in Russian: a study of the sentence type: “Vetrom uneslo lodky”. Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics. A study of particle placement. London, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 73). Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kizach, J. (2010). The function of word order in Russian, compared to English and Danish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Aarhus, Aarhus.

  • Kizach, J. (2012). Evidence for weight effects in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 36(3), 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kizach, J., & Balling, L. W. (2013). Givenness, complexity and the Danish dative alternation. Memory and Cognition, 41(8), 1159–1171. doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0336-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohse, B., Hawkins, J. A., & Wasow, T. (2004). Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language, 80(2), 238–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki, A., & Kopotev, M. V. (2005). Lodku uneslo vetrom: uslovija i konteksty upotreblenija russkoj ‘stixijnoj’ konstrukcii. Russian Linguistics, 29(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbach, A. (2005). Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language, 81(3), 613–644. doi:10.1353/lan.2005.0149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royall, R. M. (1986). The effect of sample size on the meaning of significance tests. The American Statistician, 40(4), 313–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seoane, E. (2009). Syntactic complexity, discourse status and animacy as determinants of grammatical variation in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics, 13(3), 365–384. doi:10.1017/S1360674309990153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. B. (1994). Agreement and iconicity in Russian impersonal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 5–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szmrecsányi, B. M. (2004). On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In G. Purnelle, C. Fairon & A. Dister (Eds.), Le poids des mots. Actes des 7es Journées internationales d’Analyse Statistique des Données Textuelles (JADT 2004, vol. 2, pp. 1031–1038). Louvain-la-Neuve.

    Google Scholar 

  • The R Development Core Team (2011). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. http://www.R-project.org.

  • Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Farrell, S. (2004). AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 192–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiechmann, D., & Lohmann, A. (2013). Modeling domain minimization. PP order revisited. Language Variation and Change, 25, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Aesthetics and Communication, English Degree Program, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark

    Johannes Kizach

Authors
  1. Johannes Kizach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Kizach.

Additional information

The work was financed by the Danish Council for Independent Research. The author wishes to thank Arto Mustajoki for providing the data, Michael Krabbe Borregaard for advice on the statistics and Galina Starikova for language assistance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kizach, J. A multifactorial analysis of the Russian adversity impersonal construction. Russ Linguist 38, 205–211 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-014-9128-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-014-9128-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation