Gender Roles in Russian Prohibitive Constructions: A Corpus Study

  • Olga BlinovaEmail author
  • Ekaterina Troshchenkova
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10257)


The study is aimed at describing various aspects of the context that influence interpretation of a Russian prohibitive construction Noun-Dat.Pl + нeльзя ‘should not’ + Verb-Inf. For this the data of the corpus “Russian Web 2011” (15.8 billion words) were used: the queries for several most frequent nouns encoding gender roles (women, men, girls, boys, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands) are analyzed. The study showed that for different cases different degree of broadness for the context is important. Firstly, it is syntactic features of the construction (the elements it consists of and the word order). Secondly, it is the semantic-syntactic features (the semantic role of the dative argument and the meaning of the infinitive). Thirdly, it is the surrounding elements within the sentence or the neighboring sentences. However, in many cases an even broader cognitive and cultural context plays a significant role, thus, one should also pay attention to the topical domain of prohibitions and how the topics are related to the social role expectations existing as background knowledge shared by the members of a community.


Social roles Speech acts Gender groups Gender stereotypes Prohibitive constructions Semantic roles Topics Frequency lists 



The research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation (RSF), project # 14-18-02070 «Everyday Russian Language in Different Social Groups».


  1. 1.
    Goffman, E.: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre (1959)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parsons, T.: O strukture social’nogo dejstvija [On social action structure]. Akademicheskij proekt, Moscow (2000). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kon, I.S.: Lichnost’ kak subjekt obshhestvennyh otnoshenij [Person as a subject of social relations]. Znanie, Moscow (1966). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kon, I.S.: Sociologija lichnosti [Sociology of a person]. Politizdat, Moscow (1967). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krysin, L.P.: Rechevoe obshhenie i social’nye roli govorjashhih [Verbal communication and social roles of the interlocutors]. In: Krysin, L.P., Shmeleva, D.N. (eds.) Social’no-lingvisticheskie issledovanija [Sociolinguistic Studies], pp. 42–52 (1976). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krysin, L.P.: Sociolingvisticheskie aspekty izuchenija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka [Sociolinguistic aspects of modern Russian language]. Nauka, Moscow (1989). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belikov, V.I., Krysin, L.P.: Sociolingvistika [Sociolinguistics]. Rossijskij gumanitarnyj universitet, Moscow (2001). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karasik, V.I.: Jazyk social’nogo statusa [Language of social status]. Gnozis, Moscow (2002). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lyashevskaya, O., Sharov, S: Chastotnyj slovarʹ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka na materialach Nacionalʹnogo korpusa russkogo jazyka [The frequency dictionary of modern Russian language], Moscow (2009). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goussev, V.J.: Tipologija specializirovannykh glagol’nykh form imperativa [A typology of specialized imperative verb forms]. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Moscow (2005). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aikhenvald, A.Y.: Imperatives and Commands. Oxford University Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khrakovskij, V.S., Volodin, A.P.: Semantika i tipologija imperativa: Russkij imperativ [Semantics and typology of imperative: Russian imperative]. Nauka, Leningrad (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biryulin, L.A., Xrakovskij, V.S.: Povelitel’nye predlozhenija: problemy teorii [Imperative sentences: problems of the theory]. In: Xrakovskij, V.S. (ed.) Tipologiya imperativnykh konstruktsii, pp. 5–50. Nauka, St. Petersburg (1992). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerasimova, I.A.: Deonticheskaja logika i kognitivnye ustanovki [Deontic logic and cognitive attitude]. In: Logical Analysis of the Language: Ethics languages, pp. 7–16. Jazyki russkoj kul’tury, Moscow (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petrova, M.A.: Tipy nemodal’nyh znachenij modal’nyh predikatov (na materiale slavjanskih i germanskih jazykov) [Types of non-modal meanings of modal predicates (on the material of Slavic and Germanic languages)]. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Moscow (2007). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanderveken, D.: Meaning and Speech Acts, Volume 2: Formal Semantics of Success and Satisfaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allan, K.: Linguistic Meaning, vol. 2. Roultedge and Kegan Paul, London (1986)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Kashkin, E.V., Lyashevskaya, O.N.: Semanticheskie roli i set’ konstrukcij v sisteme FrameBank [Semantic roles and construction net in Russian FrameBank]. In: Proceedings of International Conference “Dialog” on Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies, vol. 12-1, pp. 297–311. RSUH, Moscow (2013). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  20. 20.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations