Russian Linguistics

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 125–155

Subordinate clause prolepsis in Russian

Article

Abstract

This paper provides a semantic analysis of Russian sentences in which an element, that is dependent on an element in the subordinate clause, occurs in the main clause. We will call this phenomenon, which is typical for spoken and informal Russian, ‘subordinate clause prolepsis’. The paper offers a qualitative analysis, using data from the literature, the internet, the Russian National Corpus, and an acceptability survey. It is shown that there are two factors which are relevant in the case of subordinate clause prolepsis. Firstly, subordinate clause prolepsis is only possible if the subordinate clause is a content clause. Secondly, subordinate clause prolepsis is triggered by factors of information structure. This paper gives a detailed analysis of the specific factors of information structure that can trigger prolepsis, such as topicalization, focalization, and parallelism.

Пролепсис придаточного предложения в русском языке

Аннотация

Данная статья рассматривает высказывания с интерпозицией главной части предложения по отношению к зависимой. Иначе говоря, в таких конструкциях элемент предложения, который по семантике принадлежит элементу придаточного предложения, находится в главном предложении. Этот феномен, который является характерным для разговорной речи, авторы этой статьи называют «пролепсис придаточного предложения». Целью статьи является семантический анализ и объяснение этой конструкции. На большом фактическом материале (материал состоит из примеров, взятых из литературы, корпуса, интернета, и результатов анкеты по приемлемости среди носителей русского языка) оказывается, что есть два фактора, влияющих на пролепсис. Во-первых, пролепсис возможен только с членами изъяснительного предложения. Во-вторых, возможность употребления этой конструкции связана с актуальным членением предложения. В статье подробно устанавливаются критерии актуального членения, которые позволяют употреблять конструкцию (т.е. топикализация (topicalization), фокализация (focalization), и параллелизм (parallelism)).

References

  1. Allwood, J. (1976). The complex NP constraint as a non-universal rule and some semantic factors influencing the acceptability of Swedish sentences which violate the CNPC. In J. Stillings (Ed.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 1–20). Amherst (reprint 2005). Google Scholar
  2. Bailyn, J. F. (2003). Does Russian scrambling exist? In S. Karimi (Ed.), Word order and scrambling (Explaining Linguistics, 4, pp. 156–176). Oxford. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailyn, J. F. (2012). The syntax of Russian (Cambridge Syntax Guides, 18). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  4. Berwick, R. C., Pietroski, P., Beracah, Y., & Chomsky, N. (2011). Poverty of stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science, 35, 1207–1242. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01189.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnot, C., & Fougeron, I. (1982). L’accent de phrase initial en russe est-il toujours un signe d’expressivité ou de familiarité? Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 77(1), 309–330. Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). New York. Google Scholar
  7. Deane, P. (1991). Limits to attention: a cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(1), 1–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engdahl, E. (1997). Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 60, 51–79. Google Scholar
  9. Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. In F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (Janua linguarum. Studia memoriae Nicoali Van Vijk dedicata Series Minor, 147, pp. 11–37). Prague. Google Scholar
  10. Formanovskaja, N. I. (1978). Stilistika složnogo predloženija. Moskva. Google Scholar
  11. Gregory, M. L., & Michaelis, L. A. (2001). Topicalization and left dislocation: a functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(11), 1665–1706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gundel, J. K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. A. Moravcsik, & J. R. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language, 17, pp. 209–239). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  13. Jarin, A. J. (2003). Neknižnye sintaksičeskie konstrukcii v bytovyx dokumentax vtoroj poloviny XVIII veka (javlenija, učastvujuščie v organizacii aktual’nogo členenija). Doklady meždunarodnoj konferencii Dialog 2003. Retrieved from http://www.dialog-21.ru/Archive/2003/Jarin.pdf (26 July 2012).
  14. Keijsper, C. E. (1985). Information Structure: with examples from Russian, English and Dutch (Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  15. King, T. H. (1995). Configuring topic and focus in Russian (Doctoral dissertation, Center for the Study of Language and Information). Stanford. Google Scholar
  16. Kiprianovič, I. Ja. (1887). Sintaksis russkago jazyka, sličennyj s sintaksisom klassičeskix i ts.-slavjanskago jazykov. Kurs srednix učebnyx zavedenij. Sankt-Peterburg. Google Scholar
  17. Koch, P., & Österreicher, W. (1985). Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36, 15–43. doi:10.1515/9783110244922.15. Google Scholar
  18. Koch, P., & Österreicher, W. (2007). Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 35(3), 346–375. doi:10.1515/ZGL.2007.024. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kovtunova, I. I. (1969). Porjadok slov v russkom literaturnom jazyke XVIII–pervoj treti XIX v. Puti stanovlenija sovremennoj normy. Moskva. Google Scholar
  20. Kručinina, I. N. (1974). Ob odnom sposobe linejnoj organizacii složnogo predloženija. In G. A. Zolotova (Ed.), Sintaksis i norma (pp. 235–248). Moskva. Google Scholar
  21. Lambrecht, K. (1981). Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French (Pragmatics & Beyond, II:6). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  22. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 71). Cambridge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lambrecht, K. (2001). Dislocation. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and universals. An international handbook. Vol. 2 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 20, pp. 1050–1078). Berlin. Google Scholar
  24. Mathesius, V. (1947). Čeština a obecný jazykozpyt. Soubor statí. Praha. Google Scholar
  25. Novakovskij, V. (1860). Sintaksičeskij kurs russkogo jazyka. Sankt-Peterburg. Google Scholar
  26. Prince, E. F. (1984). Topicalization and left-dislocation: a functional analysis. In S. J. White & V. Teller (Eds.), Discourse in reading and linguistics (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 433, pp. 213–225). New York. Google Scholar
  27. Revzin, I. I. (1967). Metod modelirovanija i tipologija slavjanskix jazykov. Moskva. Google Scholar
  28. Richter, N., & Mehlhorn, G. (2006). Focus on contrast and emphasis: evidence from prosody. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (Studies in Generative Grammar, 82, pp. 347–371). Berlin. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  30. Sirotinina, O. B. (1965). Porjadok slov v russkom jazyke. Saratov. Google Scholar
  31. Švedova, N. Ju. (Ed.) (1980). Russkaja grammatika. Moskva. Google Scholar
  32. Tajsner, P. (2008). Aspects of the grammar of focus (Polish Studies in English Language and Literature, 24). Frankfurt am Main. Google Scholar
  33. Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford. Google Scholar
  34. Verhagen, A. (2006). On subjectivity and ‘long-distance Wh-movement’. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: various paths to subjectivity (Cognitive Linguistics Research, 31, pp. 323–346). Berlin. Google Scholar
  35. Ward, G. L., & Prince, E. F. (1991). On the topicalization of indefinite NP’s’. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(2), 167–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  37. Yngve, V. H. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104(5), 444–466. Google Scholar
  38. Yokoyama, O. T. (1986). Discourse and word order (Pragmatics & Beyond Companion Series, 6). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  39. Zemskaja, E. A. (Ed.) (1973). Russkaja razgovornaja reč’. Moskva. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities, Leiden University Centre for LinguisticsLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations