DATIVE-PREDICATIVE STRUCTURES

AND LEXICAL PREDICATIVES IN

RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN

Anton Zimmerling (Moscow State University for

Humanities) & Elena Kulinich (University of Montreal)

THE 5TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SLAVIC

LINGUISTIC SOCIETY

29-30 October 2010

University of Chicago, Saturday, October 30

Session 3-B: Case. 9.30-10.00 AM

Anton Zimmerling (Moscow State University for Humanities) & Elena Kulinich (University of Montreal)

‗Dative-predicative structures and lexical predicatives in Russian‘.

DATIVE CASE MARKING ON THE SUBJECT

A prominent feature of Slavic, Baltic and Germanic

languages are sentence patterns with the dative

case marking on the semantic subject.

The predicative nucleus in these patterns can be

represented by a) an infinitive used in Dative-

Infinitive Structures Ndat — Vinf, cf. [Mrazek 1990]; b)

a special finite verbal form, as in Latvian [Holvoet

2001]; c) a non-agreeing nominal predicate called

slovo kategorii sostojanija (lit. ‗Category-of-State

form‘ in the Russian tradition [Ščerba 1974], or

lexical predicatives in [Zimmerling 2010].

DATIVE-PREDICATIVE STRUCTURES AND

DATIVE-INFINITIVE STRUCTURES

Contrary to Grishina (2002) there is no uniform dative sentence pattern in Russian.

In Russian, Dative-Predicative Structures (DPS) and Dative-Infinitive Structures (DIS) are formally and semantically heterogeneous.

DPS only take animated subjects, the subject of DIS may be inanimate.

The Dative case in DPS is assigned lexically, the Dative case in DIS is assigned non-lexically.

Negation test, cf. (Kondrashova 2007).

Subject strength criterion, cf. (Zimmerling 2009).

DIS AND DPS WITH MODAL PREDICATES IN

RUSSIAN

The opposition of modal predicates in the

construction with an infinitive as a core element

(DIS) and in the construction where the core

element is a LexP and the infinitive is its

descending valency (DPS) conforms to a formula:

DPS is used both for deontic and for alethetic

predication, but DIS does not express deontic

meanings and is always used in situations of

external compulsion.

DEONTIC AND DYNAMIC USES OF RUSSIAN

DPS

Sentences with LexPs надо and нужно in many

contexts allow (1) or even require (2) deontic

interpetation.

(1) Девушкам надо почаще улыбаться. <Тогда

их карьера и личная жизнь будут успешными>.

(2) Инессе не нужно улыбаться во время

доклада начальника.

<Это действие может повредить Х-у>.

RUSSIAN DIS: ONLY DEONTIC READINGS

Russian DIS do not convey deontic meanings and

always signal dynamic (alethetic) modality, i.e.

situation of external compulsion.

Examples (3) and (4) pattern with the same type,

despite (3) has an animated dative NP, while (4)

has an inanimate dative NP.

(3) Грузовикам тут не не проехать.

(P is excluded).

(4) Девушкам – идти в постель и улыбаться!

<Такова воля Атамана.>

(External compulsion makes P inevitable)

LEXICAL PREDICATIVES (LEXPS)

The paper discusses the status of lexical

predicatives used in dative-impersonal structures in

two neighbor Slavic languages, Russian and

Ukrainian.

Both languages have large classes of non-agreeing

nominal forms which are used as Stage-level

predicates and denote state of affairs that cannot

be interpreted as a direct result of any process or

activity, cf. Ukr. Meni sumno ―I am sad‖, Rus. mne

grustno ―the same‖.

LEXICAL PREDICATIVES (LEXP) IN RUSSIAN

LexP = an indeclinable non-verbal word, denoting

that a specific animated subject is found in some

psychological and/or physiological state during

some period of time (cf. Rus. Х-у муторно,

стыдно, грустно, весело, жаль).

Semantic subject is marked by a prepositionless

dative and is specified as {+ animated}.

The valency on the dative of person for Russian

LexPs is not a trivial feature — it outlines a

subclass of Stage-level predicates (predicates of

inner states).

LEXPS: MORPHOLOGY AND SEMANTICS

Inner states = predicate expressions denoting that their subject is found in some invariable state which did not result from any direct coercion, during some period of time.

The majority of Russian and Ukrainian inner states are morphologically derived forms.

The absence/presence of an adjective correlate (грустный vs *стыдный) is irrelevant for State predication in Russian and Ukrainian, but indeclinable forms with an о-final capable of filling the Pred slot in the DPS structure Ndat — Vlink —Pred cannot be derived from many adjectival stems.

PREDICATE CATEGORIES AND ADJECTIVAL

STEMS

Adjectival stems should be divided into a class

permitting derivation of Stage-level predicates and a

class banning it.

Stems banning derivation of Stage-level predicates can

only produce designations of properties tied up to

specific referents.

Stems permitting derivation of Stage-level predicates as

a rule also produce designations of properties, but there

are few exceptions, where predicatives with an o-final

don‘t correlate with any agreeing forms, cf. stydno ‗X is

ashamed‘, *stydnyj, bojazno ‗X is frightened‘, *bojaznyj.

The forms like stydno are more typical of Russian than

of Ukrainian, where adjectives stydnyj, bojaznyj exist.

ADJECTIVAL STEMS I

Russian has ca. 300 predicatives, which select a dative subject with the feature [+Animate], Ukrainian has 200-210 predicatives of this kind.

The majority of predicatives in both languages have an –o-final and are derived from adjectival stems (cf. sumn-yj, grustn-yj).

We argue that the ability to take a dative subject is a non-trivial feature in both languages: both Russian and Ukrainian have many adjectival stems from which no Stage-level form can be derived, cf. Rus. mne smeshno ‗it makes me laugh‘, smeshn-ojadj. ‗funny, amusing‘, but Rus. *mne smeshlivo, smechlivyj, adj. ‗X is easily amused‘.

ADJECTIVAL STEMS II

Stems, from which LexPs and attributive words are

produced are classified with 3 groups:

1) Stems with an actant polarity only produce

expressions linked with a specific referent and do

not produce situative designations.

2) Stems with a situative polarity only produce

LexPs in standard Russian.

3) Ambivalent stems produce expressions of both

types.

LexPs with a taxonomic meaning of inner State can be produced from only one class of qualitative adjectives.

Semantic features {+ Animate; + experential + specific; - generic}.

The main syntactic pattern: DPS [Ndat — Vlink —Pred].

Volume of the class: ca. 350-400 LexPs in Russian, over 250 LexPs produced from adjectival stems, ca. 210 LexPs in Ukrainian.

Productivity: the class of LexP can be expanded but the number of lexical meanings is denotatively restricted.

RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN LEXPS: SUMMARY

ONE MORPHOSYNTACTIC TYPE, ONE

LEXICON?

We argue that the parallelism of Russian and

Ukrainian syntax of predicatives is a result of

contact development.

While the patterns of the dative-predicative

structures in both languages are almost identical,

Ukrainian and Russian share about 100 predicative

stems, roughly one half of the entire Ukrainian

class.

The origin of this shared stock has never been

investigated.

PROPOSAL

We assume that a minor part of the shared stems

might be inherited from a common source, while the

major part was borrowed from Russian into

Ukrainian.

The tentative borrowings from Russian always have

close synonyms in predicatives attested only in

Ukrainian and lacking from Russian.

The borrowing in the opposite direction is unlikely

since the class of predicatives is larger in Russian,

and their lexical meanings are more varied.

LEXPS AND PREDICATIVE MEANINGS

Predicatives of Ukrainian origin (= non-Russian for

sake of comparison), cf. sumno, zhurno, tuzhno ‗X

is sad, bored, distressed‘) do not add new lexical

meanings compared with their equivalents in

codified Russian.

The chances that such items can be absorbed by

the Russian lexicon are low, since they introduce

new predicative stems which are synonymic to the

existing ones. Such forms don‘t get a high social

status and are associated with stylistically non-

neutral texts.

RUSSIAN LEXPS AS AN (ALMOST) OPEN

CLASS

More recent LexPs with an о-final which came to existence in the last decades and became widespread in Russian slang are no longer linked adjectival stems producing agreeing short forms.

Х-у стремно, Х-у очково, Х-у ссыкотно.

The emergence of new LexPs is not excluded, since the number «Х-у is afraid up to a degree that a physiological reaction Z1, Z2…Zn arises» can be prolonged.

At the same time, the number of lexical meanings which can be expressed by DPS [Ndat — Vlink —Pred] is denotatively restricted by psychological and physiological reactions of a human being.

PRODUCTIVITY

The class of predicatives is closed in neither

language and can accommodate borrowings and

new formations.

Cf. Ukr. colloquial meni kul’n-o ‗I feel cool‘ < Eng.

cool and Rus. colloquial mne fioletov-o ‗It doesn‘t

matter to me‘ < fioletov-yj ‗purple‘.

Any ultimate list of Russian LexPs is based on a

consent which texts are shared by a majority of

native speakers.

The emergence of new LexPs is explained by a

rotation of synonyms and ousting of archaic words

by new colloquial formations and not with

adaptation of entirely new lexical meanings.

Colloquial X-у лениво replaces neutral X-у лень

and bookish X-у невместно, and slang Х-у

фиолетово – is an epatage variant of colloquial Х-

у по барабану or neutral Х-у все равно, Х-у

безразлично.

NEW LEXPS: NEW LEXICAL MEANINGS?

1. Апресян Ю.Д. Синтаксические признаки лексем // Russian Linguistics, Vol.9, N 2-3, 1985, 280-315.

2. Бонч-Осмоловская А. Конструкции с дативным субъектом в русском языке. Диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата фил.наук. М., МГУ, 2003.

3. Булыгина Т.В. К построению типологии предикатов в русском языке // Семантические типы предикатов, М., 1982, 7-85.

4. Виноградов В.В. Русский язык. Грамматическое учение о слове. М.-Л., 1947.

5. Исаченко А.В. О возникновении и развитии "категории состояния" в славянских языках // Вопросы языкознания, 1955, N 6.

6. Грамматика 1980 - Русская грамматика. АН СССР, т.1-2. М.: Наука, 1982.

ЛИТЕРАТУРА (1)

7. Гришина Н.И. Дативные предложения в парадигматическом аспекте. М., 2002.

8. Золотова Г.А. Коммуникативные аспекты русского синтаксиса. М., 1982.

9. Исаченко А.В. О возникновении и развитии "категории состояния" в славянских языках // Вопросы языкознания, 1955, N 6.

10. Мразек Р. Сравнительный синтаксис славянских литературных языков. Брно, 1990.

11. Поспелов Н.С. В защиту категории состояния // Вопросы языкознания, 1955, № 2.

12. Селиверстова О.Н. Второй вариант классификационной сетки и описание некоторых предикатных типов русского языка // Семантические типы предикатов, М., 1982, 86 -157.

13. Щерба Л.В. Языковая система и речевая деятельность. М.- Л., 1974.

ЛИТЕРАТУРА (2)

14. Циммерлинг А.В. История одной полемики // Язык и речевая деятельность, 1998, № 1, 63-88.

15. Циммерлинг A.В. Древнеисландские предикативы и гипотеза о категории состояния // Вопросы Языкознания, 1998, № 2.

16. Циммерлинг А.В. Субъект состояния и субъект оценки // Логический анализ языка. Образ человека в зеркале языков и культур/Арутюнова Н.Д. (ред.). М., Индрик, 1999.

17. Циммерлинг А.В. Типологический синтаксис скандинавских языков. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2002.

18. Циммерлинг А.В. Два типа дативных предложений в русском языке // Слово - чистое веселье: Сборник статей в честь А. Б. Пеньковского М.: Языки славянских культур, 2009, 471-489.

19. Hoelvoet A. Studies in the Latvian Verb. Kraków. 2001.

ЛИТЕРАТУРА (3)

20. Moore J. and D. Perlmutter. What Does it Take to Be a Dative Subject? //

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18 (2000), 373-416.

21. Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. To be an Oblique Subject: Russian vs. Icelandic //

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20 (2002), 691-724.

22. Zatovkaňuk M. Neosobní predikativa a utváry přibuzné, zvlaště v ruštine

//Rozpravy Československé akademie věd, 1965, sešit 6, ročník 75.

23. Zimmerling A. Die unpers nlichen Satzmodelle in der altisl ndischen

Sprache // Texte und Untersuchungen zur Germanistik und Skandinavistik,

Bd., 30, Lilja Popowa (hrsg). Peter Lang Verlag, 1992. Frankfurt a.M.-

Berlin- Bern - Paris- New York, 309-328.

24. Zimmerling A. Zero Lexemes and Derived Sentence Patterns // Wiener

Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 69 (2007).

25. Zimmerling А. Dative Subjects and Semi-Expletive pronouns // Studies in

Formal Slavic Phonology, Syntax, Semantics and Information

Structure/G.Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Denisa Lenertová, Petr Biskup

(eds). Frankfurt-a-M-Berlin-Bern-Bruxelles-N.Y –Oxford-Wien: Peter Lang,

2009, 253-265.

ЛИТЕРАТУРА (4)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research was done with support from the grant

RGNF 09-04-00297a «The typology of syntactic

constrains».

http://antonzimmerling.wordpress.com/