1 / 30

Oblique Subjects in Slavic: From Common Slavic to Contemporary Russian

Oblique Subjects in Slavic: From Common Slavic to Contemporary Russian. Steven Clancy Slavic Languages and Literatures University of Chicago SCLC-2009 Prague Thurs 15 October 2009 Theme Session: Cognitive and construction-based approaches to syntactic evolution. Slavic Case Systems.

kare
Download Presentation

Oblique Subjects in Slavic: From Common Slavic to Contemporary Russian

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Oblique Subjects in Slavic: From Common Slavic to ContemporaryRussian Steven Clancy Slavic Languages and Literatures University of Chicago SCLC-2009 Prague Thurs 15 October 2009 Theme Session: Cognitive and construction-based approaches to syntactic evolution

  2. Slavic Case Systems • The Case Book for Russian (2002) • The Case Book for Czech (2006) • The Case Book for Polish (forthcoming 2009) all books co-authored with Laura Janda (University of Tromsø) For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  3. Slavic Case Systems • Each book covers about 1000 constructions involving case and is intended to be comprehensive • including verbs, prepositions, a few postpositions, nouns, and adjectives governing the six cases in Slavic languages: NOM (VOC), ACC, GEN, DAT, INST, LOC For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  4. Slavic Case Systems • larger research project involves creating semantic maps for the conceptual space of case using Multidimensional Scaling (cf. Croft and Poole, forthcoming, Clancy 2006, Haspelmath 1997, 2003) • development of these conceptual spaces and semantic maps will contribute to better understanding of diachronic development of case systems and will feed back into the refinement of the language-specific analyses in these books For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  5. Core Meaning and Submeanings prototypes and radial extensions for RUSS case • NOM: name, identity • INST: means, label, adjunct, landmark • ACC: destination, dimension, endpoint • DAT: receiver, experiencer, competitor • GEN: whole, source, reference, goal • LOC: place For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  6. The Russian Genitive Genitive: a whole ‘of’, possession, of a certain color prepositions and prepositional phrases expressing ‘of’ numerals, quantifiers сколькоskol'ko ‘how many’ несколькоneskol'ko ‘some’ столькоstol'ko ‘so many’ многоmnogo ‘many/much’ немногоnemnogo ‘not many/much’ малоmalo ‘few/little’ большеbol’še‘more’ меньшеmen’še‘fewer/less’ немалоnemalo ‘not a few’ partitive genitive, ‘some’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  7. The Russian Genitive Genitive: a source отot 'from’ сs 'from’ изiz 'from’ из-заiz-za 'from beyond, because of’ из-подiz-pod 'from beneath' some verbs бояться bojat’sja‘fear, be afraid’ избегать/избежать izbegat’/izbežat’ ‘avoid’ пугаться/испугаться pugat’sja/ispugat’sja ‘befrightened’ стесняться/постесняться stesnjat’sja/postesnjat’sja ‘be shy’ стыдиться/постыдиться stydit’sja/postydit’sja ‘be ashamed’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  8. The Russian Genitive • lack, genitive of negation • не было/нет/не будет • ne bylo/net/ne budet • ‘there was not/is not/will not be’ • some other expressions • лишать/лишитьlišat’/lišit’ ‘deprive’ • лишаться/лишиться lišat’sja/lišit’sja‘be deprived’ • лишенный lišennyj‘deprived’ • недостатокnedostatok‘lack’ • comparison • старше меня staršemenja ‘older than me’ Genitive: a reference dates первого октября pervogooktjabrja'on the first of October' some prepositions без bez‘without’ вне vne‘outside of’ вокруг vokrug‘around’ кроме krome‘except, besides, aside from’ мимо mimo‘by, past’ около okolo‘around; approximately’ после posle‘after’ у u ‘near, at, by’ y uX-GEN + (есть est’) + Y-NOM [by X is Y] ‘X has Y’ y u X ‘atX’splace’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  9. The Russian Genitive Genitive: a goal some prepositions дodo 'to, as far as; before, until’ дляdlja 'for’ радиradi 'for the sake of’ противprotiv 'against’ some verbs держатьсяderžat’sja‘hold to’ достигать/достигнуть/достичьdostigat’/dostignut’/dostič’‘attain, reach’ желать/пожелатьželat’/poželat’ ‘desire, wish’ заслуживать/заслужитьzasluživat’/zaslužit’ ‘deserve, merit’ касаться/коснутьсяkasat’sja/kosnut’sja‘touch; concern’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  10. Continuity in the networks Genitive as four-part dynamic model of part and whole (whole-source-reference-goal-whole) For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  11. Continuity in the networks Instrumental continuity is more complex For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  12. Semantic maps and revisions to the proposed networks For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  13. Overlap of Functions • DESTINATION/DIMENSION • v/na +ACC ‘to’, k +DAT ‘to, towards’, do +GEN ‘as far as’, za+ACC ‘behind, beyond’, pod +ACC ‘under’, po +DAT ‘along’ • LOCATION • u +GEN ‘at’, v/na +LOC ‘in’/‘on’, za/pered+INST ‘behind/before’, nad/pod +INST ‘above/below’, meždu +INST ‘in between’ • OBJECTS • ACC, GEN, DAT, INST (LOC?) • SUBJECT (candidates...) • NOM, GEN, u +GEN, DAT, INST, ACC, (LOC?) For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  14. Russian Subjects • almost always a NOM subject with corresponding verbal agreement, but can occur anywhere in the sentence • На́шапе́рваявстре́чапрошла́темнеме́неебезизли́шниxвосто́ргов. • [Our first meeting-NOM passed the-INST not less without excess enthusiasm-GEN.] • Nonetheless, our first meeting passed with no excess enthusiasm. • Вокру́гкостра́стоя́лилю́диисмотре́лисзаду́мчивымилица́ми. • [Around campfire-GEN stood people-NOM and looked with pensive faces-INST.] • People were standing around the campfire and staring with pensive faces. • Вотизтре́тьегоподъе́здавыхо́дитспортфе́леммойсосе́д. • [Here from third doorway-GEN walks-out with briefcase-INST my neighbor-NOM.] • And here my neighbor walks out of the third doorway with his briefcase. For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  15. Russian Subjects • but some contexts of negation (GEN), impersonals (DAT, u+ GEN) and other constructions that are anomalous from the perspective of NOM-only subjects • if they are subjects, then one must account for lack of agreement on verbs, etc. • what are the candidates for oblique/non-NOM subjects? • how do we certify these various constructions as subjects? For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  16. Russian Subjects: Candidates • u + GEN ‘at, by’ + (est’) ‘there is’ • possessed item is in the NOM • —U menjakot, — skazal Peters. (Uppsala Corpus) • [—at me-GEN cat-NOM, — said Peters-NOM.] • “I have a cat,” said Peters. • Čerezmesjacumenjaotpusk. (Uppsala Corpus) • [Through month-ACC at me-GEN vacation-NOM.] • In a month I have a vacation. • under negation the possessed item is marked GEN; no NOM present • No jadumaju, čtoumenjadrugogopartnera ne budet. (Uppsala Corpus) • [But I-NOM think ,that at me-GEN other partner-GEN not will-be-3sg-neut.] • But I don’t think I’ll have another partner. [there will be another partner for me.] • Rabotyumenja ne bylo. (Uppsala Corpus) • [Work-GEN at me-GEN not was-3sg-neut.] • I didn’t have a job/any work. For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  17. Russian Subjects: Candidates • u + GEN ‘at, by’ + (est’) ‘there is’ • used alongside DAT as an EXPERIENCER marker (Cienki 1993), DAT greater empathy • Nadosostričusobakišerst’. (Cienki 1993: 84) • [Necessary cut-off-INF by dog-GEN hair-ACC.] • ‘(We) have to cut the dog’s hair.’ • Nadosostričsobakešerst’. (Cienki 1993: 84) • [Necessary cut-off-INF dog-DAT hair-ACC.] • ‘(We) have to cut the dog’s hair.’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  18. Russian Subjects: Candidates • in dialectal Russianu+GEN has grammaticalized as subject in a new perfect construction • R u + agent-GEN + the past passive participle or verbal adverb (Timberlake 1993, Allen 1978) • U menjatelenkazarezano. (Timberlake 1993:884) • [At me-GEN calf-ACC slaughtered-PPP-neut.] • ‘I have slaughtered the calf.’ • U negozalezenonaelku. (Timberlake 1993:884) • [At him-GEN climbed-PPP-neut on fir-tree-ACC.] • ‘He climbed the fir tree.’ • Kotsobeda do večera ne byliprosnuvši. (Timberlake 1993:885) • [Cat-NOM from lunch-GEN to evening-GEN not was-Msg and woken-up-VerbAdv.] • ‘The cat had not woken up from lunch until evening.’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  19. Russian Subjects: Candidates • in dialectal Russian u+GEN has grammaticalized as subject in a new perfect construction • R u + agent-GEN + the past passive participle or verbal adverb (Timberlake 1993, Allen 1978) • U volkovedenokorovu. (Allen 1978:20) • [At wolves-GEN eaten-PPP-NOM/ACC cow-ACC.] • ‘The wolves have eaten the cow.’ • U menjavsedelasdelany. (Allen 1978:16) • [At me-GEN all deeds-PPP-NOM/ACC done-NOM/ACC] • ‘I have done all the deeds.’ • Xlebu vas xorošonamaslivši. (Allen 1978:23) • [Bread-NOM at you-GEN well spread-VerbAdv.] • ‘You have buttered the bread well.’ • Oni vojnuperebyvši. (Allen 1978:23) • [They-NOM war-ACC been-through-VerbAdv.] • ‘They have been through the war.’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  20. Russian Subjects: Candidates • DAT impersonals • experiencer of environment, emotion, etc. • Emu byloveselo, interesno, žarko • [he-DAT was happy, interested, hot] • ‘He was happy, interested, hot.’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  21. Russian Subjects: Candidates • DAT and modal subjects • NOM subject for some modal constructions • NOMmoč’ ‘be able, can’, xotet’ ‘want’, umet’ ‘know how’ • NOM dolžen/dolžna/dolžno/dolžny + INF ‘should, ought’ • but otherwise DAT is used • DAT nado/nužno + INF ‘need to do X’ • DAT nužen/nužna/nužno/nužny + NOM ‘need X’ • DAT prixodit’sja ‘have to’ • and other DAT modal particles/adverbs • nel’zja‘not allowed’, možno ‘allowed, may’, etc. For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  22. Russian Subjects: Candidates • INST raw forces • Paxlo gorjačim xlebom iz tostera. • [Smelled-3sg-neut hot bread-INST from toaster-GEN.] • There was a smell of hot bread from the toaster. (Janda and Clancy 2002: 35) • Mal’čikazadaviloélektričkoj. • [Boy-ACC ran-over-3sg-neut commuter-train-INST.] • The boy was run over by a commuter train . (Janda and Clancy 2002: 36) • Lodkuperevernulovolnoj. • [Boat-ACC overturned-3sg-neut wave-INST.] • The boat was overturned by a wave . (Janda and Clancy 2002: 36) For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  23. Russian Subjects: Candidates • GEN of negation with absence • Eene bylo. • [her-GEN not was.] • ‘She was absent.’ • ACC impersonal • Ona ne umerla, eeprostovyrvalo... (www.ruscorpora.ru) • [She-NOM not died, her-ACC simply ripped-out-3sg-neut...] • She didn’t die, she just threw up... • znobit’ ‘havethe chills’ • rvat’ ‘vomit’, • tošnit’ ‘feel nauseated’ • trjasti ‘shake, have the shivers’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  24. Russian Subjects: Tests • the reflexive possessive pronoun svoj ‘one’s own’ • usually refers back to NOM subject as possessor • also occurs with DAT experiencer and u +GEN possessor • Vam neobxodimo ispravit' svoi ošibki. • [You-DAT necessary correct-INF own mistakes-ACC.] • ‘You must correct your own mistakes.’ (Pulkina 1980:165) • Mne nužno sobrat' svoi vešči. • [I-DAT need gather-INF own things-ACC.] • ‘I must collect my things.’ (Pulkina 1980:165) • U menja svoja mašina. • [At me-GEN own car-NOM.] • ‘I have my own car.’ (Wade 200:144) • Pulkina 1980 fails to mention u + GEN with svoj ‘one's own’ and Wade 2001 fails to mention the DAT option with svoj ‘one’s own’ For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  25. Russian Subjects: Tests • Moore and Perlmutter 2000 did not accept DAT experiencers as surface subjects, despite svoj agreement • Borisu žal’ sebja i svoju sem’ju. • [Boris-DAT sorry self-ACC and own family-ACC.] • Boris feels sorry for himself and his family. • But they do accept examples of controlled infinitives • Borisu ne istratit’ tak mnogo deneg na sebja. (Moore and Perlmutter 2000: 374) • [Boris-DAT not spend-INF so much money-GEN on self-ACC.] • It‘s not for Boris to spend so much money on himself. • this study only addressed possible DAT subjects • lack of verbal agreement was a problem, but not all agreement is straightforward in Russian • Étobylimoiden’gi. • [This-NOM was-3pl my money-NOM-pl] • That was my money. For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  26. Old Russian Subjects • what about Old Russian? • similar case usage to the modern language • we do find svoj agreement with u +GEN and DAT experiencers • I uvelikogoknjazjasvojamysl’... • [And at great prince-GEN own thought-NOM...] • And the great prince has his own thought... (Tale of the Taking of Pskov, end of 15th-first half of 16th cent.) • ...idětemъtvoimglavysvojapoložiti... • [...and children your-DAT heads own-ACC lay-INF...] • and for your children to give up their lives... (Lay of the Life of the Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovič, 14th-mid-15th cent.) For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  27. Future directions • look into quantitative corpus study of Uppsala corpus for contemporary Russian and Old Russian corpus compiled from electronic texts available at Pushkinksij Dom (http://lib.pushkinskijdom.ru); both are about 1 million words • processing these in R for quantitative corpus analysis (Gries forthcoming, Gries and Stefanowitsch 2006) • look further back to OCS texts • look broader to subject constructions in other Slavic languages • identify all relevant constructions for NOM as well as oblique subjects and explore fully For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  28. For further information... • contact Steven Clancy sclancy@uchicago.edu • visit my website http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy • Thank you! For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  29. References Barðdal, Jóhanna and ThórhallurEythórsson. 2009 to appear. “The Origin of the Oblique Subject Construction: An Indo-European Comparison”, in Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. Eds. VitBubenik, John Hewson and Sarah Rose. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barðdal, Jóhanna and ThórhallurEythórsson. 2005. “Oblique Subjects: A Common Germanic Inheritance”, Language 81–4:824–81. Barðdal, Jóhanna and ThórhallurEythórsson. 2003. “The Change that Never Happened: The Story of Oblique Subjects”, Journal of Linguistics 39-3: 439-72. Clancy, Steven J. 2006. “The Topology of Slavic Case: Semantic Maps and Multidimensional Scaling”, in Glossos, Issue 7, pp. 1-28. http://www.seelrc.org/glossos/issues/7/ Croft, William, and Keith T. Poole. 2008. “Inferring universals from grammatical variation: multidimensional scaling for typological analysis”, Theoretical Linguistics, 34.1-3. Divjak, Dagmar. 2006. “Ways of intending: Delineating and structuring near synonyms”. In Gries, Stefan Th. and AnatolStefanowitsch, eds. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Divjak, Dagmar and Stefan Th. Gries. Forthcoming. ‘Corpus-based cognitive semantics: A contrastive study of phasal verbs in English and Russian’. _____. 2006. ‘Ways of trying in Russian: clustering behavioral profiles’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (2)1:23-60. Greenberg, Gerald R. and Steven Franks. 1991. A Parametric Approach to Dative Subjects and the Second Dative in Slavic. The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 71-97. For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

  30. References (cont.) Gries, Stefan Th. and Dagmar S. Divjak. Forthcoming. “Behavioral profiles: a corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis”, in Evans, Vyvyan and Stephanie S. Pourcel (eds.). New directions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gries, Stefan Th., and AnatolStefanowitsch, eds. 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Moore, John, and David M. Perlmutter. 2000. What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18.373–416. For updated information, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy/Bergen.pdf

More Related