Part of a Book
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (26) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (26)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (26)
Keywords
- Russisch (26) (remove)
Institute
Within a minimalist framework of sound-meaning correlation, the present study concentrates on process nominalizations of Russian. It is shown how these constructions are built up syntactically and semantically and in which respects they differ from other types of nominalizations. The analysis follows a lexicalist conception of word formation and the differentiation of Semantic Form and Conceptual Structure.
In morphological systems of the agglutinative type we sometimes encounter a nearly perfect one-to-one relation between form and function. Turkish inflectional morphology is, of course, the standard textbook example. Things seem to be quite different in systems of the flexive type. Declension in Contemporary Standard Russian (henceforth Russian, for short) may be cited as a typical example: We find, among other things, cumulative markers, “synonymous” endings (e.g., dative singular noun forms in -i, -e, or -u), and “homonymous” endings (e.g., -i, genitive, dative, and prepositional singular). True, some endings are more of an agglutinative nature, being bound to a specific case-number combination and applying across declensions, e.g., -am (dative plural, all nouns); and some cross the boundaries of word classes, e.g., -o, which serves as the nominative/accusative singular ending of neuter forms of pronouns (and adjectives) and as the nominative/accusative singular ending of (most) neuter nouns as well. Still, many observers have been struck by the impression that what we face here are rather uneconomic or even, so to speak, unnatural structures. But perhaps flexive systems are not as complicated as they seem. What seems to be uneconomic complexity may be, at least partially, an artifact of uneconomic descriptions.
Russian predicate cleft constructions have the surprising property of being associated with adversative clauses of the opposite polarity. I argue that clefts are associated with adversative clauses because they have the semantics of S-Topics in Büring's (1997, 2000) sense of the term. It is shown that the polarity of the adversative clause is obligatorily opposed to that of the cleft because the use of a cleft gives rise to a relevance-based pragmatic scale. The ordering principle according to which these scale
On the early development of aspect in greek and russian child language, a comparative analysis
(2003)
The category of aspect is grammaticized in both Greek and Russian opposing perfective and imperfective verb forms in all inflectional categories except the nonpast (‘present’). Despite these similarities there are important differences in the way the aspectual systems function in the two languages. While in Greek nearly all verbs oppose a perfective to a given imperfective grammatical form, Russian aspect is more strongly lexicalized with pairs of imperfective and perfective lexemes not only differing aspectually, but also as far as their lexical meanings are concerned. This is especially true of perfective verbs formed by prefixes as compared to their imperfective bases. Thus, in pairs of prefixed and unprefixed dynamic verbs, the derived prefixed (perfective) member has a telic meaning while its unprefixed (imperfective) counterpart is atelic (e.g. sjest’ (PFV) ‘to eat up’ vs. jest’ (IPF) ‘to eat’). Such derived perfective verbs may in turn be “secondarily” imperfectivized by suffixation furnishing the only “true” perfective/imperfective pairs of verbs (e.g. sjest’ (PFV) ‘to eat up’ vs. sjedat’ (IPF) ‘to eat up’ (iterative)). “Secondary” imperfectives do not occur in our child data.
In this pilot study, we will analyze the tense-aspect-mood forms of the 20 most frequent verbs with equivalent meanings occurring in the longitudinal audiotaped data of a Greek and a Russian boy between 2;1 and 2;3 (their entire lexical inventories comprise approx. 100 verbs each).
We adopt a constructivist perspective on the development of aspect in Greek and Russian child language and will show that in spite of a broad inventory of imperfective and perfective verb forms to be found in the speech of both children aspect has not yet developed into a generalized grammatical category, but is strongly dependent on aktionsart (stative/dynamic, telic/atelic) in both languages. While this results in a strong preference for perfective verb forms of telic verbs and of imperfective forms of atelic ones in the speech of the Greek boy, the Russian child tends to use the unmarked members.
This paper describes the experience of using the Norwegian and Russian versions of LITMUS-MAIN to elicit narrative data from bilingual Norwegian-Russian children as well as from Norwegian- and Russian-speaking monolinguals (Rodina 2017, 2018). The paper reports on the slight adaptations to the standardized design, procedure and analysis that were done to make the tasks more suitable for this specific population. It highlights the advantages, challenges, and potential associated with the task against a backdrop of the research conducted with Norwegian-Russian bilinguals in Norway.
In this paper I show that the different case marking possibilities on predicate adjectives in depictive secondary predicates in Russian constitute the uninterpretable counterpart of the interpretable tense and aspect features of the adjective. Case agreement entails that the predicate adjective is non-eventive, i.e., it occurs when the event time of the secondary predicate is identical to the event time of the primary predicate. The instrumental case, however, entails that the secondary predicate is eventive: some change of state or transition occurred prior to or during the event time of the primary predicate. I claim that case agreement occurs in conjoined tense phrases in Russian, while the instrumental case occurs in adjoined aspectual phrases. In English, secondary predication is sensitive both to the structural location of its antecedent and to the event structure of the primary predicate. I suggest that depictives with subject antecedents in English are true adjunction structures, while those with direct object antecedents occur in a conjoined aspectual phrase. This hypothesis finds support in the different movement and semantic constraints in conjunction versus adjunction phrases in both English and Russian.
In this paper we provide an account of the historical development of Polish and Russian sibilants. The arguments provided here are of theoretical interest because they show that (i) certain allophonic rules are driven by the need to keep contrasts perceptually distinct, (ii) (unconditioned) sound changes result from needs of perceptual distinctiveness, and (iii) perceptual distinctiveness can be extended to a class of consonants, i.e. the sibilants. The analysis is cast within Dispersion Theory by providing phonetic and typological data supporting the perceptual distinctiveness claims we make.
Im folgenden wird zuerst das Modell vorgestellt, das als theoretische Grundlage für die Betrachtung der Semantik der Aspekt-Tempus-Formen dient (Abschnitt 2). Danach werden die syntagmatischen Markiertheitsrelationen der einzelnen aspektuell-temporalen Formen im Rahmen dieses Modells analysiert (Abschnitt 3). Im Abschnitt 4 werden die paradigmatischen Relationen zwischen den Aspekt-Tempus-Formen erörtert. Abschließend (Abschnitt 5) wird das Fazit aus der Untersuchung gezogen.
Im Frühaltrussischen koexistierten die drei miteinander konkurrierenden aspektuellen Oppositionen, namlich die alten indoeuropäischen Aspekte (der imperfektive, der perfektive und der perfektische), die alte slavische Opposition Nicht-Iterativität/lterativität und die neuen slavischen Aspekte (=Opposition Imperfektivität/Perfektivitat). Im Laufe der Sprachentwicklung wurden die ersten zwei Oppositionen durch die dritte Opposition verdrängt. Der Verlauf und die Mechanismen dieser Entwicklung werden dargestellt und auf der Grundlage des Konzepts des natürlichen grammatischen Wandels erklärt. Es werden Markiertheitsprinzipien betrachtet, die den natürlichen grammatischen Wandel determinieren. Diese Prinzipien werden als generelle Faktoren typologischen Wandels angesehen, mit deren Hilfe die grammatischen Veränderungen im Sprachsystem erklärt werden können. Die Ausprägung der neuen slavischen Aspekte und die immer starker werdende Einbeziehung der Aspekte in das gesamte Verbalsystem haben entscheidend zur Herausbildung des neuen reduzierten aspektsensitiven Tempussystems beigetragen.
Der Umbau des Tempussystems und andere Veränderungen im russischen Verbalsystem wurden durch die Ausprägung der neuen slavischen Aspekte ausgelöst. Die Ausformung und die immer stärker werdende Einbeziehung der Aspekte in das gesamte Verbalsystem hat tiefgreifende Veränderungen der systemdefinierenden Struktureigenschaften des russischen Verbs hervorgerufen. Die Aspekte sind im Laufe der Sprachentwicklung zur eigentlichen Grundlage des gesamten russischen Verbalsystems geworden. Die Entwicklung der Tempora verläuft im präteritalen und im nichtpräteritalen Bereich gewissermaßen in entgegengesetzten Richtungen. Das Subsystem der Vergangenheitstempora wurde im Altrussischen maximal reduziert, während der Funktionsbereich der Nicht-Vergangenheit in Präsens und Futur aufgelöst wurde. Die beiden Entwicklungsrichtungen stehen in direktem Zusammenhang mit der Ausprägung der Aspekte. Ich betrachte deshalb die Entwicklung der Tempora und die Entwicklung der Aspekte parallel.