Russian Linguistics

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 251–270 | Cite as

Evidence for weight effects in Russian

  • Johannes Kizach


It is well-known that factors such as weight, pronominality, animacy and newness influence word order in several languages, but whereas newness has repeatedly been argued as being a relevant factor for Russian, little or no attention has been paid to weight. In this paper, which is based on evidence from corpus data, weight is demonstrated as having a very significant influence on word order in Russian. Specifically, four constructions have been examined: Postverbal PPs, the double object construction, adversity impersonals and the order of S, V and O. In all cases the same pattern emerges: The heavier constituents follow the lighter ones.


Word Order Double Object Frequent Order Basic Order Exact Binomial Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Вес влияет на порядок слов в русском языке


Известно, что такие факторы, как одушевленность, «новизна», и вес или длина составляющих, влияют на порядок слов в разных языках. В русском языке порядок слов часто связывают с понятием «новое» в передаваемой информации. А на такой фактор, как вес, обращают незначительное внимание. В настоящей статье, основывающейся на данных корпуса, приводятся доказательства того, что фактор веса оказывает существенное влияние на порядок слов в русском языке. Рассматриваются четыре конструкции: конструкция с двумя предложными группами, дативная конструкция, ‘стихийная’ конструкция, а также конструкция ‘субъект, глагол, объект’. Везде обнаруживается одна и та же тенденция: более длинные составляющие следуют за более короткими.


  1. Arnold, J., et al. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28–55. Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bailyn, J. (1995). Configurational case assignment in Russian syntax. The Linguistic Review, 12(4), 315–360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailyn, J. (2004). Generalized inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 1–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, J. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(4), 591–656. Google Scholar
  6. Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In S. Featherston & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots. Linguistics in search of its evidential base (Studies in Generative Grammar, 96) (pp. 75–96). Berlin. Google Scholar
  7. Bresnan, J., et al. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  8. Bresnan, J., & Hay, J. (2008). Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua, 118(2), 245–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 13). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  10. Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L. (2004). Should given information appear before new? Yes and no. Memory and Cognition, 32(6), 886–895. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daneš, F. (1986). The ‘question test’ re-examined. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Language and discourse: test and protest. A Festschrift for Peter Sgall (Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe, 19) (pp. 261–286). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Google Scholar
  12. Diderichsen, P. (1946). Elementær dansk grammatik. København. Google Scholar
  13. Emonds, J., & Whitney, R. (2006). Double object constructions. In H. van Riemsdijk & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Vol. II (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics, 19) (pp. 73–144). Oxford. Google Scholar
  14. Firbas, J. (1964). On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. In F. Daneš et al. (Eds.), Travaux Linguistiques de Prague. Vol. 1 (pp. 267–280). Prague. Google Scholar
  15. Firbas, J. (1971). On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective. Sborník Prací Filosofické Fakulty Brnĕnské University, A19, 135–144. Google Scholar
  16. Firbas, J. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  17. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1998). Attach anyway. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, 21) (pp. 101–141). Dordrecht. Google Scholar
  18. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: a tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hove. Google Scholar
  19. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain. Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 95–126). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  20. Gómez Gallo, C., Jaeger, T. F., Allen, J., & Swift, M. (2008a). Production in a multimodal corpus: how speakers communicate complex actions. The Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2008). Marrakech, Morocco. Accessed 23 July 2012.
  21. Gómez Gallo, C., Jaeger, T. F., & Smyth, R. (2008b). Incremental syntactic planning across clauses. The 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1294–1299). Accessed 23 July 2012.
  22. Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 76). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  23. Green, M. C. (1980). On the syntax and semantics of impersonal sentences in Russian: a study of sentence type: “Vetrom uneslo lodky”. Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell. Google Scholar
  24. Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics. A study of particle placement. London, New York. Google Scholar
  25. Hawkins, J. A. (1990). A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(2), 223–261. Google Scholar
  26. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 73). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  27. Hawkins, J. A. (1998). A processing approach to word order in Danish. Acta linguistica Hafniensia, 30(1), 63–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford. Google Scholar
  29. Jaeger, T. F., & Norcliffe, E. J. (2009). The cross-linguistic study of sentence production. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(4), 866–887. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaeger, T. F., & Wasow, T. (2008). Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation. In The proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Prosodic Variation and Change (pp. 169–180). Berkeley. Google Scholar
  31. Jørgensen, H. (2001). Studien zur Morphologie und Syntax der festlandskandinavischen Personalpronomina mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Dänischen (Acta Jutlandica, LXXV(2). Humanities Series, 73). Aarhus. Google Scholar
  32. Keijsper, C. E. (1985). Information structure. With examples from Russian, English and Dutch. Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  33. King, T. H. (1995). Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford. Google Scholar
  34. Kovtunova, I. I. (1976). Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Porjadok slov i aktual’noe členenie predloženija. Moskva. Google Scholar
  35. Lavine, J. E. (1998). Null expletives and the EPP in Slavic: a minimalist analysis. In Ž. Bošković, S. Franks, & W. Snyder (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-6). The Connecticut Meeting 1997 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 43) (pp. 212–230). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  36. Lavine, J. E., & Freidin, R. (2002). The subject of defective t(ense) in Slavic. In J. E. Lavine & G. R. Greenberg (Eds.), Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10(1–2) (2002). A special volume in honor of Leonard H. Babby (pp. 251–287). Google Scholar
  37. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago, London. Google Scholar
  38. Lohse, B., Hawkins, J. A., & Wasow, T. (2004). Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language, 80(2), 238–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Madariaga, N. (2006). Why Russian semi-predicative items always agree. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14(1), 45–78. Google Scholar
  40. Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. A. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol. 2 (pp. 421–488). New York, London. Google Scholar
  41. Mustajoki, A., & Kopotev, M. V. (2005). Lodku uneslo vetrom: uslovija i konteksty upotreblenija russkoj ‘stixijnoj’ konstrukcii. Russian Linguistics, 29(1), 1–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newmeyer, F. J. (2001). The Prague School and North American functionalist approaches to syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 101–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago. Google Scholar
  44. Primus, B. (1998). The relative order of recipient and patient in the languages of Europe. In A. Siewierska (Ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 20. EUROTYP, 1) (pp. 421–473). Berlin. Google Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team. (2009). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. Accessed 23 July 2012.
  46. Rozental’, D. Ė. (1979). Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Čast’ 2: Sintaksis. Moskva. Google Scholar
  47. Sgall, P., Hajíčová, E., & Panevová, J. (1986). The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht. Google Scholar
  48. Slioussar, N. (2007). Grammar and information structure. Ph.D. dissertation. Utrecht. Google Scholar
  49. Smith, M. B. (1994). Agreement and iconicity in Russian impersonal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 5–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Svenonius, P. (1996). The optionality of particle shift. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 57, 47–75. Google Scholar
  51. Švedova N. Ju. (Ed.) (1970). Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moskva. Google Scholar
  52. Švedova N. Ju. (Ed.) (1980). Russkaja grammatika. Tom II: Sintaksis. Moskva. Google Scholar
  53. Szmrecsányi, B. M. (2004). On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In G. Purnelle, C. Fairon, & A. Dister (Eds.), In Le poids des mots. Actes des 7es Journées Internationales d’Analyse Statistique des Données Textuelles. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, Louvain-la-Neuve, March 10–12. Vol. 2 (pp. 1032–1039). Louvain-la-Neuve. Google Scholar
  54. Szucsich, L. (2007). Nothing wrong with finite T: non-agreeing accusative impersonal sentences. In M. Golędzinowska, U. Savchenko, & R. Compton (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-15). The Toronto Meeting 2006 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 52) (pp. 417–435). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  55. Vikner, S. (2005). Object shift. In H. van Riemsdijk & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Vol. III (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics, 19) (pp. 392–436). Oxford. Google Scholar
  56. Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9(1), 81–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Parsing: overview. The encyclopedia of cognitive science. Vol. 3: Mental models—signal detection theory (pp. 465–476). London. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aesthetics & Communication, English Degree ProgrammeUniversity of AarhusAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations