Corpus Perspectives on Russian Discursive Units: Semantics, Pragmatics, and Contrastive Analysis

Part of the Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics book series (YCLP, volume 3)

Abstract

The present study analyzes a group of Russian discursive units with focus-sensitive semantics such as imenno (just/precisely), kak raz (just/precisely), to-to i ono (that’s just it/the point/problem), to-to i est’ (that’s just it/the point/problem) and to-to i delo (that’s just it/the point/problem). They are important elements of communication but have not yet been adequately described. Some of the analyzed lexical units – for example, imenno and kak raz or to-to i ono, to-to i est’ and to-to i delo – are near synonyms. Others, such as kak raz and to-to i ono, are not near synonyms, but they nevertheless belong to the semantic class of focus-sensitive elements. Thus they can all be put into a single group according to the principle of family resemblance. The material itself suggests the logic of the analysis – on the basis of pairs or groups of the semantically closest near synonyms: (1) imenno vs. kak raz; (2) imenno vs. to-to i ono, (3) to-to i ono vs. to-to i est’ vs. to-to i delo.

Near-synonyms within these groups can be distinguished from each other on the basis of semantics, pragmatics, and usage preferences. Identifying differences of various types requires a good corpus with numerous examples, for they can be present simultaneously on several levels: semantic and pragmatic, pragmatic and usual, etc. Often, although not always, pragmatic and/or usual differences are semantically motivated. Syntactic distinctions among near-synonyms, including those in certain syntactic patterns, are also generally motivated by differences in their semantics. In a number of cases the problem is solved through the use of translational equivalents, that is, not on the level of individual lexical units (words and phrasemes) but on that of the entire utterance. Using relevant lexicographic information, text corpora, including parallel corpora, and works of fiction, we shall:
  1. (a)

    clarify semantic and pragmatic properties as well as usage peculiarities of the focus sensitive discursive units imenno, kak raz, to-to i ono, to-to i est’ and to-to i delo;

     
  2. (b)

    analyze their systemic and translational equivalents in English and Swedish.

     

Keywords

Discursive units Focus sensitive items Synonymy Cross-linguistic equivalence Systemic equivalents Translational equivalents 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on work supported by the RFFI under Grant 13-06-00403. Thanks also go to Pierre-Yves Modicom (Université Paris-Sorbonne), who read a draft version of the present article, for an interesting discussion of theoretical issues raised by us, and to the anonymous reviewers for a number of valuable comments that we have attempted to take into account.

References

  1. Axmanova, O. S., & Smirnickij, A. I. (1985). Russko-anglijskij slovar’ [Russian-English Dictionary]. Moskva: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
  2. Baranov, A. N., Plungjan, V. A., & Raxilina, E. V. (1993). Putevoditel’ po diskursivnym slovam russkogo jazyka [Guide to Russian discursive words]. Moskva: Pomovskij i partnery.Google Scholar
  3. Birgegård, U., & Sharapova Marklund, E. (Eds.). (2010). Norstedts ryska ordbok: rysk-svensk, svensk-rysk [Norstedt’s Russian dictionary: Russian-Swedish, Swedish-Russian]. Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.Google Scholar
  4. BTS. (2002). Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Comprehensive explanatory dictionary of Russian], (Ed.). Sergej А. Kuznecov. Sankt-Peterburg: Norint.Google Scholar
  5. Davidsson, K. (Ed.). (1976). Russko-švedskij slovar’ [Russian-Swedish dictionary]. Moskva: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
  6. Dobrovol’skij, D. O., & Levontina, I. B. (2012). О sinonimii fokusirujuščix častic (na materiale nemeckogo i russkogo jazykov) [Synonymous focus particles in German and Russian]. In Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies. Papers from the annual international conference “Dialogue 2012”. Issue 11 (18), (Vol. 1, pp. 138–149). Moskva: RGGU.Google Scholar
  7. Dobrovol’skij, D. O., & Levontina, I. B. (2014). Timiologičeskij komponent v semantike diskursivnyx slov [The timiological component in the semantics of discursive words]. In A. D. Šmelev (Ed.), Trudy Instituta russkogo jazyka RAN II (pp. 334–343). Moskva: Institut russkogo jazyka.Google Scholar
  8. Dobrovol’skij, D., & Šarandin, A. (2013). Die Fokuspartikel EBEN und ihre Quasisynonyme in deutsch-russischer lexikographischer Perspektive. In E. Breindl & A. Klosa (Eds.), Germanistische Linguistik, 221–222 (19–57). Hidesheim/Zürich/New York: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Ermolovič, D. I. (2011). Anglo-russkij i russko-anglijskij slovar’ [English-Russian and Russian-English dictionary]. Moskva: AST, Astrel’, Хаrvest.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, K. (2000). From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Kiseleva, K. L., & Paillard, D. (Eds.). (1998). Diskursivnyje slova russkogo jazyka: opyt kontekstno-semantičeskogo opisanija [Russian discursive words: an attempt at a context-semantic description]. Moskva: Metatekst.Google Scholar
  12. Kiseleva, K. L., & Paillard, D. (Eds.). (2003). Diskursivnyje slova russkogo jazyka: kontekstnoe var’irovanie i semantičeskoe edinstvo [Russian discursive words: contextual variation and semantic invariance]. Moskva: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
  13. Kobozeva, I. M. (2006). Opisanie označajuščego diskursivnyx slov v slovare: nerealizovannye vozmožnosti [Describing the signifier of discursive words in the dictionary: Unrealized possibilities]. In Vestnik MGU. Serija 9, 2. Filologija.Google Scholar
  14. Kobozeva, I. M. (2007). Polisemija diskursivnyx slov i vozmožnosti ee razrešenija v kontekste predloženija (na primere slova vot) [Ambiguity of discourse markers – Can it be resolved in clausal context? (the case of vot).] In Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies. Papers from the annual international conference “Dialogue 2007”. Vypusk 6 (13), 250–255. Moskva: RGGU.Google Scholar
  15. Kobozeva, I. M., & Zakharov, L. M. (2004). Types of information for the multimedia dictionary of Russian discourse markers. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference “Speech and computer”. St-Petersburg: St-Petersburg University.Google Scholar
  16. Levontina, I. B. (2004). Imenno 2, kak raz 1. In J. D. Apresjan (Ed.), Novyj ob”jasnitel’nyj slovar’ sinonimov russkogo jazyka. Izd. 2 ispr. i dop. Moskva; Wien: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.Google Scholar
  17. Lubensky, S. (2013). Russian-English dictionary of idioms. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. MAS – Malyj akademičeskij slovar’. (1985–1988). Slovar’ russkogo jazyka v иetyrex tomax [Dictionary of Russian in four volumes]. 3-е, stereotip. izd. Moskva: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
  19. Molotkov, A. I. (Ed.). (1967). Fraseologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Phraseological dictionary of Russian]. Moskva: Sovetskaja ėnciklopedija.Google Scholar
  20. Padučeva, E. V. (2014). Nestandartnye otricanija v russkom jazyke: vnešnee, smeščennoe, global’noe, radikal’noe [Nonstandard negations in Russian: external, shifted, global, radical]. In Voprosy jazykoznanija, 5, 3–23.Google Scholar
  21. Paillard, D. (1998a). Kak raz ili Mirom pravit slučaj [Kak raz, or The world is ruled by chance]. In Ksenija Kiseleva & Denis Paillard (Eds.), Diskursivnyje slova russkogo jazyka: opyt kontekstno-semantičeskogo opisanija (pp. 278–284). Moskva: Metatekst.Google Scholar
  22. Paillard, D. (1998b). Imenno ili Kak nazyvat’ vešči svoimi imenami. [Imenno, or How to call things by their names.]. In K. Kiseleva & D. Paillard (Eds.), Diskursivnyje slova russkogo jazyka: opyt kontekstno-semantičeskogo opisanija (pp. 285–293). Moskva: Metatekst.Google Scholar
  23. Paukkeri, P. (2006). Recipient v russkom razgovore: o raspredelenii funkcij meždu otvetami da, nu i tak [The recipient in Russian conversation: On the distribution of functions between the answers da, nu, and tak]. Helsinki: Helsinki University.Google Scholar
  24. Romero-Trillo, J. (2009). Discourse markers. In J. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (2nd ed., pp. 191–194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Šaronov, I. A. (2009). Kommunikativy i metody ix opisanija [Communicative units and methods of their description]. In Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies. Papers from the annual international conference “Dialogue 2009”. Vypusk 8 (15), 543–548. Moskva: RGGU.Google Scholar
  26. Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Travis, C. E. (2005). Discourse markers in Colombian Spanish: A study in polysemy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  28. Wheeler, M., Unbegaun, B., & Falla, P. (Eds.). (1997). The Oxford Russian dictionary (Revised and updated Colin Howlett). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Russian Language InstituteRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch and GermanStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations