Advertisement

Russian Linguistics

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 181–204 | Cite as

Prezidentskie vybory vs. vybory prezidenta: how to choose?

  • Laura A. JandaEmail author
  • Tore Nesset
  • Sergey Say
Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

We present three case studies of the distribution of adjective + head noun (‘adjective’) vs. head noun + noun-genitive (‘genitive’) constructions based on datasets extracted from the Russian National Corpus. Each case study focuses on a different set of non-head referents: case study 1 examines non-heads that are country names (like ‘Norway’ as in norvežskij N vs. N Norvegii), case study 2 looks at non-heads that refer to leaders (like ‘president’ as in prezidentskij N vs. N prezidenta), and the focus of case study 3 is non-heads that are person names (like ‘Petja’ as in Petina N vs. N Peti). Head nouns in all three datasets were annotated for the same set of nine semantic categories representing an Individuation Hierarchy. This hierarchy accounts for only some of the patterns that we see across the case studies. Other patterns can be explained in terms of: ‘uniqueness’, which favors the genitive construction when the head noun is a unique entity; ‘salience’, which favors the genitive construction when the non-head is more salient than the head noun; and ‘obligatoriness’, which favors the genitive construction when the head is a relational noun that presupposes a specific non-head.

Президентские выборы или выборы президента: как выбрать?

Аннотация

Опираясь на данные, извлеченные из Национального корпуса русского языка, мы рассматриваем три частных случая конкуренции между ‘адъективной конструкцией’ (прилагательное + вершинное имя) и ‘генитивной конструкцией’ (вершинное имя + определение в генитиве). Три частных случая выделяются на основании семантики зависимого компонента: в первом случае рассматриваются названия стран (например, для ‘Норвегии’: норвежский N или N Норвегии), во втором—обозначения различных «лидеров» (например, для ‘президента’: президентский N или N президента), а в третьем—краткие личные имена (например, для имени ‘Петя’: Петин N или N Пети). Для всех трех групп данных вершинные имена были разбиты на 9 семантических категорий, различающихся по положению на иерархии индивидуированности. Эта иерархия объясняет лишь некоторые аспекты полученных нами распределений. Другие аспекты этих распределений связаны с тремя параметрами: ‘уникальность’ (вершины, задающие уникальный референт, притягивают генитивную конструкцию), ‘значимость’ (генитивная конструкция более вероятна, если зависимый компонент обладает большей значимостью, чем вершина) и ‘обязательность’ (генитивная конструкция более вероятна, если вершиной является реляционное имя, семантика которого предполагает наличие определенного зависимого).

Notes

References

  1. Borschev, V., & Partee, B. H. (2001). Genitive modifiers, sorts, and metonymy. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 140–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borschev, V., & Partee, B. H. (2004). Genitives, types and sorts: the Russian genitive of measure. In J.-Y. Kim, Y. A. Lander, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Possessives and beyond: semantics and syntax (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 29, pp. 29–43). Amherst. Google Scholar
  3. Bratishenko, E. (1998). Morphosyntactic variation in possessive constructions and the accusative in Old East Slavic texts. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto. Google Scholar
  4. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Syntax and morphology (2nd ed.). Oxford. Google Scholar
  5. Corbett, G. G. (1987). The morphology / syntax interface: evidence from possessive adjectives in Slavonic. Language, 63(2), 299–345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbett, G. G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  8. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eckhoff, H. M. (2011). Old Russian possessive constructions: A Construction Grammar approach (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 237). Berlin. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enger, H.-O., & Nesset, T. (2011). Constraints on diachronic development: the Animacy Hierarchy and the Relevance Constraint. Language Typology and Universals. STUF—Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 64(3), 193–212.  https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2011.0015. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frolova, S. V. (1960). K voprosu o prirode i genezise pritjažatel’nyx prilagatel’nyx russkogo jazyka. Učenye zapiski Kujbyševskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo instituta, 32, 323–340. Google Scholar
  12. Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (Typological Studies in Language, 3, pp. 1–41). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graščenkov, P. V. (2018). Grammatika prilagatel’nogo. Tipologija ad”jektivnosti i atributivnosti. Moskva. Google Scholar
  14. Grinšpun, V. M. (1965). Sistema značenij pritjažatel’nyx prilagatel’nyx s suffiksami -ov, -in v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Učenye zapiski Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo instituta imeni V. I. Lenina. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: sintaksis i morfologija, pp. 239–252. Google Scholar
  15. Grinšpun, B. M. (1967). Pritjažatel’nye prilagatel’nye s suffiksami -in, -ov v sovremennom russkom jazyke (Avtoreferat dissertacii). Moskva. Google Scholar
  16. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299.  https://doi.org/10.2307/413757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1985). The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24–6, 1983 (Typological Studies in Language, 6, pp. 151–183). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ivanova, T. A. (1975). Nekotorye aspekty sopostavitel’nogo analiza posessivnyx konstrukcij (na materiale sovremennyx slavjanskix literaturnyx jazykov). In M. P. Alekseev, P. A. Dmitriev, & G. I. Safronov (Eds.), Slavjanskaja filologija. Sbornik statej (Vol. 3, pp. 148–152). Leningrad. Google Scholar
  19. Janda, L. A. (1996). Back from the brink (LINCOM Studies in Slavic Linguistics, 01). München, Newcastle. Google Scholar
  20. Janda, L. A., & Clancy, S. J. (2002). The case book for Russian. Bloomington. Google Scholar
  21. Kopčevskaja-Tamm, M., & Šmelev, A. (1994). Alešina s Mašej stat’ja (o nekotoryx svojstvax russkix ‘pritjažatel’nyx prilagatel’nyx’). Scando-Slavica, 40(1), 209–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2002). Adnominal possession in the European languages: form and function. Language Typology and Universals. STUF—Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 55(2), 141–172.  https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2002.55.2.141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kustova, G. I. (2018). Prilagatel’nye. In V. A. Plungjan & N. M. Stojnova (Eds.), Materialy k korpusnoj grammatike russkogo jazyka. Vypusk III. Časti reči i leksiko-grammatičeskie klassy (pp. 40–107). Sankt-Peterburg. Google Scholar
  24. Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization (Cognitive Linguistics Research, 14). Berlin. Google Scholar
  25. Mel’čuk, I. A. (2018). Genitive adnominal dependents in Russian: Surface-syntactic relations in the N→Ngen Phrase. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 4, 25–46.  https://doi.org/10.31857/S0373658X0000031-3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nikolaeva, I., & Spencer, A. (2013). Possession and modification—a perspective from Canonical Typology. In D. Brown, M. Chumakina, & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax (pp. 207–238). Oxford. Google Scholar
  27. Padučeva, E. V. (2009). Posessivy i imena sposoba dejstvija. Komp’juternaja lingvistika i intellektual’nye texnologii. Po materialam ežegodnoj Meždunarodnoj konferencii “Dialog 2009”, 8(15) (pp. 365–372). Moskva. Google Scholar
  28. Partee, B. H., & Borschev, V. (2001). Some puzzles of predicate possessives. In I. Kenesei & R. M. Harnish (Eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (Pragmatics & Beyond. New Series, 90, pp. 91–117). Amsterdam. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Partee, B. H., & Borschev, V. (2003). Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (Interface Explorations, 4, pp. 67–112). Berlin, New York. Google Scholar
  30. Partee, B. H., & Borschev, V. (2012a). Sortal, relational, and functional interpretations of nouns and Russian container constructions. Journal of Semantics, 29(4), 445–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Partee, B. H., & Borschev, V. (2012b). Dva stakana moloka: Substances and containers in genitive of measure constructions in Russian. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, 24(2), 140–166. Google Scholar
  32. Raxilina, E. V. (1998). Semantika otymennyx prilagatel’nyx. In M. Ja. Glovinskaja (Ed.), Liki jazyka. K 45-letiju naučnoj dejatel’nosti E. A. Zemskoj (pp. 298–304). Moskva. Google Scholar
  33. Raxilina, E. V. (2000). Kognitivnyj analiz predmetnyx imen: semantika i sočetaemost’. Moskva. Google Scholar
  34. Raxilina, E. V. (2008). Semantika russkix imennyx konstrukcij s genitivom: ‘ustojčivost’ ’. In J. Lindstedt et al. (Eds.), S ljubov’ju k slovu. Festschrift in honour of Professor Arto Mustajoki on the occasion of his 60th birthday (Slavica helsingiensia, 35, pp. 338–349). Helsinki. Google Scholar
  35. Raxilina, E. V. (2010). Konstrukcija s russkim rodytel’nym i ee formal’naja interpretacija. In E. V. Raxilina (Ed.), Lingvistika konstrukcii (pp. 247–286). Moskva. Google Scholar
  36. Sannikov, V. Z. (1968). Soglasovannoe opredelenie. In V. I. Borkovskij (Ed.), Sravnitel’no-istoričeskij sintaksis vostočnoslavjanskix jazykov (pp. 47–95). Moskva. Google Scholar
  37. Sasse, H.-J. (1993). 30. Syntactic categories and subcategories. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (pp. 646–686). Berlin. Google Scholar
  38. Šmelev, A. D. (2008). Posessivy v sovremennoj russkoj grammatike. In A. V. Bondarko, G. I. Kustova, & R. I. Rozina (Eds.), Dinamičeskie modeli. Slovo. Predloženie. Tekst. Sbornik statej v čest’ E. V. Padučevoj (pp. 927–942). Moskva. Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, J. R. (1996). Possessives in English. An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford. Google Scholar
  40. Timberlake, A. (1985). Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. In R. D. Brecht & J. S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 338–360). Columbus. Google Scholar
  41. Timberlake, A. (2004). A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  42. Zemskaja, E. A. (1964). Izmenenija v sisteme slovoobrazovanija prilagatel’nyx. In V. V. Vinogradov & N. Ju. Švedova (Eds.), Očerki po istoričeskoj grammatike russkogo literaturnogo jazyka XIX veka. I: Izmenenija v slovoobrazovanii i formax suščestvitel’nogo i prilagatel’nogo v russkom literaturnom jazyke XIX veka (pp. 277–555). Moskva. Google Scholar
  43. Zemskaja, E. A. (2004). Otnositel’noe prilagatel’noe kak specifičeskij klass proizvodnyx slov. In E. A. Zemskaja (Ed.), Jazyk kak dejatel’nost’. Morfema. Slovo. Reč’ (pp. 158–196). Moskva. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UiT The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Laboratory for Typological Study of LanguagesInstitute for Linguistic Studies RASSt. PetersburgRussian Federation
  3. 3.Department of General LinguisticsSaint Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations