Prezidentskie vybory vs. vybory prezidenta: how to choose?

Президентские выборы или выборы президента: как выбрать?

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.

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).

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    All numbered examples in this article, except (1), are from the RNC unless otherwise stated. For each example we provide a year, as well as the name of the author (for books and works of fiction) or the name of the periodical (for articles in newspapers and journals). For the convenience of the reader, in each example we italicize the construction under scrutiny.

  2. 2.

    This text is available at http://nik191-1.ucoz.ru/blog/pervaja_mirovaja_vojna_06_ijunja_24_maja_1915_goda/2015-06-05-1024. Accessed January 8, 2019.

  3. 3.

    Available on http://gosindex.ru/chausov-zdrsmysl/. Accessed 8 January 2019.

  4. 4.

    We use ‘??’ rather than ‘*’ in our acceptability judgments, since examples like geolog Norvegii ‘Norway’s geologist’ may be marginally acceptable in, say, a context where different countries have nominated one member of an international commission of geologists. Importantly, in this context geolog Norvegii ‘Norway’s geologist’ would refer to one unique individual, and this usage is therefore not at variance with the Uniqueness Hypothesis.

  5. 5.

    Chi-squared = 241.73, \(\mathit{df} = 8\), \(p\)-value < 2.2e-16, and Cramer’s \(V = 0.435\), indicating both a significant association and an effect size between ‘moderate’ and ‘strong’.

  6. 6.

    Fisher test evaluations for all five of these relationships are highly significant (\(p < 0.001\)).

  7. 7.

    Bratishenko (1998, p. 162 and elsewhere) discussed the ways in which high position of the non-head nominal on the animacy scale attracted the PA construction (rather than the genitive construction) in the history of Russian.

  8. 8.

    Constraints on the use of genitive possessors also exist (e.g. genitive possessors are problematic in the predicative position and especially in headless noun phrases, see Kopčevskaja-Tamm and Šmelev 1994, pp. 211, 220), but these constraints are largely irrelevant for our data.

  9. 9.

    These search queries are not ideal, because they both yield some noise and miss some relevant uses. For example, appositional constructions such as ot djadi Saši ‘from uncle Sasha’ are among the search hits, although Saša is not a possessor in this example. On the other hand, PAs where the head noun is modified by an additional adjective (Sašin staršij brat ‘Sasha’s elder brother’) did not meet the search criteria. However, overall these queries do cover most of the relevant examples.

  10. 10.

    As can be seen from Table 5, it is more natural for proper names to be used as possessors repeatedly within a given text. For that reason, in case study 3 we decided against taking only one example per document (cf. case study 2). Implementing this principle would have artificially biased the distribution in favor of the relatively unusual pattern with just one instance of the construction per document.

  11. 11.

    There is some debate as to how genitives and possessive adjectives and pronouns are interpreted when the head noun is a nominalization (Corbett 1987, p. 330; Kopčevskaja-Tamm and Šmelev 1994, pp. 223–224; Padučeva 2009). These details are irrelevant for our purposes.

  12. 12.

    This observation is related to a more general idea that prenominal possessors are modifier-like, whereas postnominal genitives are argument-like (Partee and Borschev 2001; see also Eckhoff 2011, p. 155 for a historical perspective). Another potentially relevant generalization is that possessive pronouns are interchangeable with the genitives when they represent arguments, whereas in those cases when they represent “possessors” sensu stricto they can’t be replaced by genitives. Šmelev (2008, p. 928) critically assesses this latter claim; however, his analysis is concerned with pronominal rather than nominal possessors, on the one hand, and with grammaticality judgements rather than quantitative evidence, on the other hand.

  13. 13.

    There seems to be a weak effect of the head noun’s case on the choice between the two constructions. The genitive and the accusative attract the PA constructions, whereas two clearly peripheral cases, the instrumental and the locative attract the genitive construction (the nominative and the dative are neutral). The role of this factor and its possible interrelations with other factors should be explored elsewhere.

References

  1. Borschev, V., & Partee, B. H. (2001). Genitive modifiers, sorts, and metonymy. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 140–160.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Corbett, G. G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Eckhoff, H. M. (2011). Old Russian possessive constructions: A Construction Grammar approach (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 237). Berlin.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

  15. Grinšpun, B. M. (1967). Pritjažatel’nye prilagatel’nye s suffiksami -in, -ov v sovremennom russkom jazyke (Avtoreferat dissertacii). Moskva.

  16. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/413757.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura A. Janda.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janda, L.A., Nesset, T. & Say, S. Prezidentskie vybory vs. vybory prezidenta: how to choose?. Russ Linguist 43, 181–204 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-019-09214-w

Download citation