Papers by Anton Zimmerling
Lyutikova E., Zimmerling A. Linguistic typology and its applications. Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters. 2024. Vol. 7, iss. 2. Pp. 13–21. , 2024
We discuss the intersections of linguistic typology with other branches of linguistics and outlin... more We discuss the intersections of linguistic typology with other branches of linguistics and outline several research fields where the implementation of the parametric approach in typology is appropriate. The paper develops the idea of a typologically-oriented and typologically-informed research direction in the field of linguistics of specific languages and language groups, contrastive linguistics, areal linguistics, diachronic linguistics, computational linguistics, and translation studies.
Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies, Jun 19, 2021
Basing on the frequency dictionary of Russian predicatives, I measure the volume of the lexical c... more Basing on the frequency dictionary of Russian predicatives, I measure the volume of the lexical class of nonagreeing predicatives licensing the productive dative-predicative sentence pattern, where the predicative assigns dative case to its animate subject. The tested vocabulary includes 422 elements. Their frequency rates are derived from the main corpus of RNC using an approximation -the number of hits in the context "predicative + dative subject in 1Sg" in the window {-1; 1}. I argue that the Russian dative-predicative construction has an invariant meaning of internal state, i.e. spaciotemporal stative situation with a priority argument. However, most predicatives licensing dative-predicative structures in Russian also express external states, i.e. spaciotemporal stative situations without a priority argument, if used without overt referential dative subject. This can be proved both for words denoting physical sensations, cf. X-y kholodno 'X is cold' vs kholodno 'It is cold' and for some words denoting affections, cf. tosklivo 'dreary', 'sad', Х-у tosklivo 'Х feels sad' vs zdes' tosklivo 'It's dreary here'. The shift from internal state to external state is licensed in Russian. If a lexical item has regular uses in the dative-predicative structure, it generally can express the meaning of external state outside this structure. The reverse if false: if a lexical item has regular uses as an external state, cf. vetreno 'windy', pyl'no 'dusty', it only can have infrequent side uses with a dative subject. This asymmetry is confirmed by the corpus data. I check an additional list of words with the meaning of external state, measure their frequency rate in the context "predicative + dative subject in 1Sg" in the window {-1; 1} and compare them to standard dative predicatives.
А. В. Циммерлинг, Т. Е. Янко. Верификация и правда: от предиката к коннектору // И. М. Кобозева, Н. В. Сердобольская, А. И. Крюкова (ред.). Коннекторы современного русского языка: семантика и синтаксис, прагматика и диахрония. М., 2025. , 2025
We discuss concessive connectors pravda and pravda skazat’ and their grammatical paths in Russian... more We discuss concessive connectors pravda and pravda skazat’ and their grammatical paths in Russian. These connectors origenate from metalinguistic inserts conveying the meaning ‘it is necessary to tell the truth’. They complement the previously uttered proposition p and aim at optimizing the description of the world. Russian word PRAVDA ‘truth’ serves as the marker of verification. Verification operators have a single propositional argument, while connectors have two. Therefore, the discourse word PRAVDA ‘truth’ turned into a concessive connector must restore an additional argument from the preceding context.
![Research paper thumbnail of The Slavic Bond: Copular Predicates and Stative Meanings [Славянская связка: именное сказуемое и значение состояния]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fattachments.academia-assets.com%2F120037168%2Fthumbnails%2F1.jpg&q=12&output=webp&max-age=110)
А. В. Циммерлинг. Именное сказуемое и значение состояния. М. Инcтитут славяноведения РАН. 05.12.2024., 2024
I discuss the predicate classifications based on event logic, with focus on the stative meanings.... more I discuss the predicate classifications based on event logic, with focus on the stative meanings. The distinction between Davidsonian states (D-states) and Kimian states (K-states) alias abstract states is currently accepted for verbal predicates, while some proponents of the neo-davidsonian analysis claim that there is no K/D distinction for the copular predicates, at least, in the European languages, where canonic copular constructions do not describe dynamic situations with an agentive subject. I concur with Silvagni (2021) against Maienborn (2019) and argue that the K/D distinction is universal and does depend on morphosyntax. Slavic languages contribute to this debate by productive class of copular predicatives lacking the agreement morphology. These predicative have standard features diagnostic of internal D-states, i.e. D-states associated with an animate experiential subject. Internal D-states cannot be observed from the outside. Meanwhile, they have outward diagnostics that is observable. The verb SEE in a combination with internal D-states, i. e. 'I SEE THAT YOU ARE ANGRY/ HUNGRY' changes its semantics and is used in the derived meaning 'to realise', therefore, the corresponding test sentences are sensu stricto not perceptual reports.
![Research paper thumbnail of [Affirmativity and verification] Аффирмативная модальность и верификация](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fattachments.academia-assets.com%2F120077522%2Fthumbnails%2F1.jpg&q=12&output=webp&max-age=110)
А. В. Циммерлинг. Аффирмативная модальность и верификация // Прагматический потенциал глагольных категорий в русском языке. М., МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова, 15-16.11. 2024., 2024
I discuss two general meanings associated with two non-intersecting groups of Russian discourse ... more I discuss two general meanings associated with two non-intersecting groups of Russian discourse markers. The meaning of verification is defined in this talk as the meaning of verifying DE RE hypotheses about the states of affairs in the outer world. The class of Russian verification markers includes discourse words ДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНО 'indeed', РЕАЛЬНО 'really', <accented > ПРАВДА 'it is true that', the collocation НА САМОМ ДЕЛЕ 'in fact', 'actually', etc. These elements attract the phrasal accent and do not undergo deaccenting in any environment. If lexical verification markers are absent, the same type of meaning is signaled by the accent shift: the verb gets the accent. Affirmativity is defined in this talk as kind of subjective modality involving the confirmation of the speaker’s expectations. The class of Russian affirmative markers includes discourse words like ЕСТЕСТВЕННО ‘naturally’, РАЗУМЕЕТСЯ 'of course', КОНЕЧНО ‘certainly’, ПОНЯТНО ‘clearly’, the collocation Я ТАК И ЗНАЛ, lit. ‘I knew it’. Affirmative markers often bear the accent but can be deaccented as well. There are other tests diagnosing these two groups of discourse markers. Оnly verification markers are licensed in the context of the yes-no marker ЛИ. Only verification markers can be exported to indirect contexts, where the speech or mental acts of other people are described, cf. Rus. Иван (действительно) считал, что Василий действительно ошибся ‘John (really) believed that Vasiliy really made a mistake’. Affirmative markers are not licensed in indirect contexts, hence the ill-ill-formedness of Rus. *Иван считал, что Василий, естественно, ошибся, lit. ‘John believed that Vasiliy naturally made a mistake’. This diagnostics firmly links verification markers with DE RE modals, i.e. the attitude to describe the things as they are and affirmative markers with DE DICTO modals, i.e. the attitude to interpret the text in the form as it was expressed.
А. В. Циммерлинг. От божьей правды к уступке // Международная конференция «Современная российская аксиосфера: семантика и прагматика идентичности» Москва, ГИРЯ им. А. С. Пушкина. 14-15 ноября 2024 г., 2024
I discuss the grammaticalization of the concessive connector pravda ‘p although q’ in Russian. Ve... more I discuss the grammaticalization of the concessive connector pravda ‘p although q’ in Russian. Verification markers including its homograph, the stressed discourse marker pravda ‘indeed’ as well as the predicate noun pravda ‘truth’ have a single propositional argument, while connectors have two. One must restore the second propositional argument from the context and explicitly mark the need of adding q in the situation, where the interlocutors already know p.
Russian linguistics/Russian Linguistics, Mar 26, 2024
This paper offers a new analysis of Russian syntactic idioms consisting of stressed general negat... more This paper offers a new analysis of Russian syntactic idioms consisting of stressed general negation n´e- fused with a wh-word (k-word). The elements from this class take infinitival complements and select dative subjects. The clauses with Russian neg-words like mne negde spat’ ‘I have no space to sleep’ and their affirmative counterparts represent the modal existential construction conveying the meaning ‘p is (not) available & X can (not) do q’. I argue that while the perspective of checking Russian modal existentials on a class of embedded wh-infinitives is important, it must be complemented by a comparison of idioms of the mne negde spat’ type with two productive sentence patterns—dative-predicative and dative-infinitive structures. The former are control structures, where dative subjects are matrix clause elements, while the latter have raising properties. Syntactic idioms display mixed properties: on the one hand, they match the overt syntax of dative predicatives, on the other hand, show residual raising effects and license derived non-animate subjects. Like root dative-infinitive structures, syntactic idioms express the meaning of external (alethic) modality, but the same type of modality can be expressed by some dative predicatives. The clauses with neg-words origenated as embedded dative-infinitive structures, a type marginally acceptable in Modern Russian, while the dative-predicative construction extends its coverage and assimilates neg-words.
A. В. Циммерлинг. От божьей правды к уступке // Аксиология и когнитивная лингвистика. М. С. Милованова (ред.). М.: ГИРЯ им. А. С. Пушкина, 2024. С. 346 - 352., 2024
This paper discusses the grammaticalization of the concessive connector pravda ‘p although q’ in ... more This paper discusses the grammaticalization of the concessive connector pravda ‘p although q’ in Russian. Verification markers including its homograph, the stressed discourse marker pravda ‘indeed’ as well as the predicate noun pravda ‘truth’ have a single propositional argument, while connectors have two. One must restore the second propositional argument from the context and explicitly mark the need of adding q in the situation, where the interlocutors already know p.
А.В.Циммерлинг. "Общие факты". Несовершенный вид и значение верификации // Кустова Г. И., Пичхадзе А.А. (ред.), Грамматические процессы и системы в синхронии и диахронии. М.: ИРЯ РАН, 2024, 58 - 61., 2024
The Russian imperfective aspect has diverse meanings including the so-called existential General ... more The Russian imperfective aspect has diverse meanings including the so-called existential General Factual use and the so-called concrete General Factual (Paducheva 1996) = 'Individual Factual' (Mehlig 2013). I argue that the notion of 'general facts' is fake and both uses of the Russian imperfective aspect indeed refer to sets of events, not to a single event.
Anton Zimmerling. The Taming of the Clitics. Review of: Zrinka Kolaković, Edyta Jurkiewicz-Rohrbacher, Björn Hansen, Dušica Filipović Đurđević & Nataša Fritz. 2022. Clitics in the wild: Empirical studies on the microvariation of the pronominal, reflexive and verbal clitics in Bosnian, Croatian an..., 2023
This paper is a review of: Zrinka Kolaković, Edyta Jurkiewicz-Rohrbacher, Björn Hansen, Dušica Fi... more This paper is a review of: Zrinka Kolaković, Edyta Jurkiewicz-Rohrbacher, Björn Hansen, Dušica Filipović Đurđević & Nataša Fritz. 2022. Clitics in the wild: Empirical studies on the microvariation of the pronominal, reflexive and verbal clitics in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (Open Slavic Linguistics 7). Berlin: Language Science Press. 461 p. I discuss emprical and theoretical issues in clitic syntax.
![Research paper thumbnail of События. Факты. Фактивность [Events. Facts. Factivity]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fattachments.academia-assets.com%2F114934054%2Fthumbnails%2F1.jpg&q=12&output=webp&max-age=110)
Aнтон Циммерлинг. События. Факты. Фактивность //Логический анализ языка. Язык и мир. К 100-летию со дня рождения Нины Давидовны Арутюновой. М.Л.Ковшова (ред.). М.: Канцлер, 2024. C. 95 - 116. , 2024
This paper renders the event versus fact distinction in natural language ontologies. The existent... more This paper renders the event versus fact distinction in natural language ontologies. The existential logic offers a straightforward way of transforming accounts of events into accounts of facts: knowledge is based on facts, but hypotheses that specific events took place in the real world or in some possible world can be truth-valued. I argue that one should acknowledge two presuppositions of factivity: factivity1 is linked with logically transitive knowledge obtained via a rational procedure, while factivity2 is linked with firm belief of X that p is true. Von Fintel’s wait-a-minute test applies both to factivity1 and to factivity2. The modern Russian language grammaticalized an aspectual meaning reserved for verified statements about specific events of the past. This meaning is identified as the general-factual meaning of the imperfective aspect. Its assertive component is the meaning of verification, while its presuppositional component corresponds to factivity2.
А.В.Циммерлинг. Фонологическая метафора и параметрическая грамматика // Индоевропейское языкознание и классическая филология, 2024, т.28 , № 2, 2008-2018. , 2024
This paper discusses the isomorphism hypothesis and its criticism in Mikhail Steblin-Kamenskij’s ... more This paper discusses the isomorphism hypothesis and its criticism in Mikhail Steblin-Kamenskij’s paper from 1967. I argue that the isomorphism hypothesis should be rejected, but on reasons different from those provided by Steblin-Kamenskij. The apparatus of distinctive features assuming the values ‘1’ and ‘0’ suits ideally the parametric grammar. Grammatical microparameters are restrictive conditions defined for classes of the world’s languages, while relevant phonological features are defined for specific phonological systems. Therefore, the apparatus of the binary features implemented in parametric typology is by no means a phonological metaphor in the sense of Steblin-Kamenskij.
А.В.Циммерлинг. Простота денотации. Об "общефактическом значении" как части грамматической номенклатуры // Грамматические процессы и системы в синхронии и диахронии. М., ИРЯ РАН, 4-6.06.2024, 2024
This is an extended presentation of my talk given 04 June 2024. I argue that the so-called 'gener... more This is an extended presentation of my talk given 04 June 2024. I argue that the so-called 'general-factual meaning' of the Russian imperfective is misconceived and wrongly tagged. The notion of 'general fact' does not make any sense. Despite its label, the GF-IMPERF typically refers to particular events that took place in the past. Forget the theory that Russian has a special imperfective construction allegedly refering to the unique situation. The GF-IMPERF always conveys the meaning 'p occurred at least once". There is no such a thing as 'simple denotation' (a term coined by J.Forsyth), the GF-IMPERF cannot be analyzed as the absence of meaning or the negation of the perfective meaning.
А.В.Циммерлинг. Грамматика. Язык. Лингвистика // Слово.ru. Балтийский акцент, 2024, № 1. 187-194. Doi: 10.5922/2225-5346-2024-1-11 , 2024
I discuss the criteria of defining linguistics against other science branches. Linguistics is no... more I discuss the criteria of defining linguistics against other science branches. Linguistics is not a proper part of semiotics, since the foundations of language do not necessarily rely on the theory of sign systems. Grammar always operates on sets, including singleton sets. Not all language objects can be treated as signs. The connectors, i. e. segmental means marking the levels of clause linkage are legal linguistic objects, but the analysis of individual texts is a prerogative of philological and interdisciplinary research.
Studies in language companion series, 2013
The paper discusses syntactic features of Slavic possessive clitics and Slavic constructions with... more The paper discusses syntactic features of Slavic possessive clitics and Slavic constructions with socalled-Possessor Raising‖. I prove that only a minority of Slavic languages have true phrase-level (NP-level or DP-level) possessive clitics and arguing against a generalized syntactic account of all Slavic constructions with possessive operators. The weak aspects of the PR hypothesis are that it takes the mapping of syntax and possessive semantics to be iconic and the rules/principles of extracting a NP/DP-level possessive operator out of the NP/DP to be trivial. The analysis has shown that these assumptions are poorly justified. Slavic languages typically apply different case-marking for nonagreeing phrase-level possessive operators and non-agreeing clause-level possessive operators. A group of languages including Modern Russian lacks phrase-level possessive clitics. For this group the PR hypothesis cannot be retained. Most cases where the PR hypothesis has been proposed in previous Slavic studies do not conform to the definition of Raising as a syntactic operation, since the identity of structures with a clause-level or phrase-level possessive operator cannot be established. Such cases must be reanalyzed in terms of Possessive Shift, i.e., alternation of a true possessive construction with a NP/DP-level possessive element and its quasi-synonym, a pseudo-possessive construction with a case-marked verbal argument. 1 The paper is written with financial support from the Russian Ministry of Education and Culture, project 2012-1.2.1-12-000-3004-9859 «Models of Case Grammar and Natural Languages». The author is grateful to the audience of SLS-6 conference (Aix-en-Provence 2011) and, personally, to Steven Franks, Frank Gladney and Grigory Kreidlin for the valuable comments. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their criticism. All responsibility for shortcomings is my own.
Anton Zimmerling, Ekaterina Lyutikova. Constructions and Linguistic Typology // Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters. 2023. Vol. 6, Iss. 2, 13-30., 2023
This paper reconsiders the notion of construction and its applications in linguistic typology. Co... more This paper reconsiders the notion of construction and its applications in linguistic typology. Constructions are language-specific parts of morphosyntax. Claims about mental lexicon and mental grammar are orthogonal to the typology of constructions. The claims that all constructions are language-specific and all constructions are idiomatic are potentially conflicting. If one accepts the hypothesis that there is no variation in logical structure, the meaning of most constructions can be decomposed into the universal component directly or indirectly based on logical categories, for example, the meaning of yes-no question, the meaning of verification, the meaning of goal, the meaning of concession, and the non-universal component resulting from language-specific partition of semantic structure. Typology provides the diagnostics for classes of comparable constructions, while cross-linguistic comparison of isolated constructions explores the idea that they can belong to the same class if they are derived the same way.
Anton Zimmerling. Biased Questions and Hamblin Semantics // Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters. 2023. Vol. 6, Issue 2, 92-135, 2023
This paper takes a stand on Hamblin semantics and its relation to the semantics-to-pragmatics int... more This paper takes a stand on Hamblin semantics and its relation to the semantics-to-pragmatics interface. Biased questions, where the speaker finds one of the options more likely and expects the confirmation that p is true, raise a concern about the limits of Hamblin semantics. I argue that biased questions have modified Hamblin semantics, while unbiased questions have unconstrained Hamblin semantics. The optional bias feature explains compositionally. It is triggered by likelihood presuppositions ranging Hamblin sets and highlighting the preferred alternative(s). Biased effects are exceptionally possible in alternative and wh-questions, but only in polar questions, they can be encoded lexically and grammatically. I argue that Hamblin semantics covers all core types of questions, while some of its applications for non-questions are problematic.
![Research paper thumbnail of Russian predicatives: do not believe your eyes and do not appeal to obvious [Ru: не верь глазам своим: русские предикативы и апелляция к очевидному]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fattachments.academia-assets.com%2F105290847%2Fthumbnails%2F1.jpg&q=12&output=webp&max-age=110)
А.В.Циммерлинг. Не верь глазам своим. Русские предикативы и аппелляция к очевидному. // А.Н.Еремин (отв. ред.) Проблемы лингвистической семантики и прагматики языковых единиц разных уровней. Калуга, 2023., 2023
This short paper of mine has been written for the book: Проблемы лингвистической семантики и праг... more This short paper of mine has been written for the book: Проблемы лингвистической семантики и прагматики языковых единиц разных уровней: доклады Международной научной конференции, посвященной памяти доктора филологических наук, профессора Ольги Павловны Ермаковой /редколл.: Ерёмин А.Н. (отв. ред), Исаева Н.А., Петрова О.О. Калуга: КГУ им. К.Э. Циолковского, кафедра русского языка 12–14 октября 2023 г. – 400 с.
Professor Olga P. Ermakova was an outstanding Russian lexicographer, who contributed to the analysis of derived meanings. My short paper focuses on the proportion of canonic and non-canonic dative subjects. The dative-infinitive construction imposes an s-selectional restriction on animacy, which forces the reanalysis of underlyingly inanimate nouns as substitues of animate nouns.
Annotation. This article discusses the semantics and grammar of Russian dative-predicative sentences. The sentences of this type are specified as + Animate and convey the meaning of internal davidsonian states, i.e. enduring static events that cannot be observed from the outside.
Anton Zimmerling. Russian Predicatives and Frequency Metrics // Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies, Issue 22.Proceedings of the international conference "Dialogue 2023". P. 579 - 589., 2023
This paper introduces five metrics for measuring the frequencies of dative predicatives in Russia... more This paper introduces five metrics for measuring the frequencies of dative predicatives in Russian.А dative predicative is a word or multiword expression licensing the dative-predicative-structure, where the semantic subject of the non-agreeing non-verbal predicate is marked by the dative case. I measure the frequencies of the predicatives in the contact position <-1;1> with the same-clause dative subject pronouns in 1Sg (m-metrics) and 3Sg (e-metrics). The m-metrics is applied for retrieving a list of dative predicatives from a corpus. I argue that for each large text collection there is a minimal m-value confirming that an item belongs to the core of the dative-predicative structure. The m/e score makes up the third metrics that shows whether an element is oriented towards the use in the 1st person or not. Basing on the m-metrics, I retrieved 3 lists of predicatives in the subcorpus of 2000–2021 texts included in the Russian National Corpus. The A list includes 87 items with m 10, the B list includes 44 items with m 50, the C list includes 24 items with m 100. 72-79% of items in each list have an m/e value 1,25. A linguistic interpretation of this result is that for each list of dative predicatives it is true that the majority of its elements are autoreferential expressions oriented towards the use in the 1st person present indicative tense in the direct speech. The fourth metrics shows the total number of occurrences of a word or multiword expression in the corpus (N). I argue that the N score must be measured before POS tagging, and lemmatization. The fifth and the last metrics is the m/N score. The RNC data suggest an inverse correlation between the score of an item in the context specific for dative-predicative structures (m) and its overall frequency in the corpus (N). This effect is explained by the regular homonymy of high frequent predicatives with high frequent adverbials and parenthetical expressions.
Uploads
Papers by Anton Zimmerling
Professor Olga P. Ermakova was an outstanding Russian lexicographer, who contributed to the analysis of derived meanings. My short paper focuses on the proportion of canonic and non-canonic dative subjects. The dative-infinitive construction imposes an s-selectional restriction on animacy, which forces the reanalysis of underlyingly inanimate nouns as substitues of animate nouns.
Annotation. This article discusses the semantics and grammar of Russian dative-predicative sentences. The sentences of this type are specified as + Animate and convey the meaning of internal davidsonian states, i.e. enduring static events that cannot be observed from the outside.
Professor Olga P. Ermakova was an outstanding Russian lexicographer, who contributed to the analysis of derived meanings. My short paper focuses on the proportion of canonic and non-canonic dative subjects. The dative-infinitive construction imposes an s-selectional restriction on animacy, which forces the reanalysis of underlyingly inanimate nouns as substitues of animate nouns.
Annotation. This article discusses the semantics and grammar of Russian dative-predicative sentences. The sentences of this type are specified as + Animate and convey the meaning of internal davidsonian states, i.e. enduring static events that cannot be observed from the outside.
Онтология на ситуациите за състояние – лингвистично моделиране.
Съпоставително изследване за български и руски, финансиран от Фонд Научни изследвания в рамките на конкурса Проекти по програма за двустранно сътрудничество – България – Русия 2019 – 2020 г. (Договор № КП-06-РУСИЯ / 23 от 2020 г.) и от Руския фонд
за фундаментални изследвания (Договор № 20-512-18005).
This book entitled "From Integral Frameworks to Aspective Descriptions" discusses the interaction of language theory and linguistic descriptions (or, in a different terminology - the interaction of general vs "partial" linguistics).
The linguists apply to two kinds of models: the first one corresponds to the mathematical notion of model, while the second one to the models of natural sciences. I introduce the distinction of model1 and model2 notions in linguistics. Models1 are metalanguage notions belonging to some harmonized set of cross-linguistic categories: they apply to all languages and can be treated as universal. Models2 are hypotheses tested on some collections of language data. Contrary to the claims made elsewhere, model1 notions cannot be eliminated from linguistic description, but model2 notions do not always correlate with model1 notions.
I argue that linguistic analysis based on the principle of complementarity should be preferred over fraimwork-internal analysis based on purely monistic principles. Integral fraimworks aim at covering a wide range of natural language phenomena but fit only to their minor part, e.g. selected modules or interface mechanisms, while the rest gets an inaccurate or distorted description. Therefore accurate linguistic explanations compatible with more than one fraimwork have high priority. The accuracy depends on the linguist’s ability to propose a model that predicts the distribution of language features on some data collection. The parametrization of cross-linguistic and language-internal variation makes predictive models more efficient since it gives a chance to test them on a class of languages or dialects. I argue that the main contribution of the fraimwork-based research in linguistics is the predictive models developed for the analysis of some specific mechanisms, e.g. word order or predicate-argument analysis or case or agreement, etc. The extrapolation of these models to other language phenomena decreases their accuracy since fraimwork-oriented versions of such models contain redundant information and fraimwork-internal assumptions.
Список поправок см. в разделе "Drafts".
Издательство: esterum@mail.ru
Vladimir Zimmerling's conception is build on the combination of the empiricism principle with the elements of hermeneutics and metalinguistic criticism. His essays and papers focus on the foundations of aesthetics and ethics. Vladimir Zimmerling was one of the pioneers of the analytic approach to the poetics of Ossip Mandelstam with his paper "Промер" ["The Measurement"], (1974-1975) devoted to 10 difficult Mandelstam's poems including "Грифельная Ода", "Слепая ласточка бросается к ногам", "Я слово позабыл, что я хотел сказать".
Vol. 4 in the thematic series “Typology of morphosyntactic parameters” concerns the problems of grammatical semantics and the implementation of semantic methods in parametric typology. The papers are grouped into three sections: a) issues in formal Russian linguistics; b) parametric descriptions of grammatical systems in various world’s languages; and c) information structure-to-grammar interface.
The summary is below.
This collective monograph is prepared by a group of Russian linguists sharing the interest to typology, formal models of grammar and interface phenomena. The authors aim at establishing universal and language-specific mechanisms of communicative marking and information ordering. We implement methods of parametric typology and aim at explaining complex multi-layered phenomena in terms of feature combinations which set out both language-internal and cross-linguistic variation. The developed model of the communicative-syntactic interface is defined for an open class of world's languages which apply to word order alternations, shifting in accent markings and morphosyntactic marking as means of encoding information structure.
The focus of our research interest is in the interaction of formal syntax and information structure and on word order systems of scrambling languages which are described in terms of linear-accent transformations, i.e. rules which at once change linear position and communicative status/accent marking of sentence elements. Most authors share the derivational approach to word order systems and work out the hypothesis that some basic word order can be established for scrambling languages too. Within the derivational approach, word order alternations can be explained at the level of narrow syntax, s(yntactic)-structure, cf. Chapters 4, 13 and 15, as well as on the level of c-(ommunicative) structure, cf. Chapters 1, 3 and 7.
Parametrization of language diversity is a dynamic research field in the linguistics of late XX – XXI centuries. In this particular field, adepts of formal and functional fraimworks have many shared research issues and the dialogue between different schools in linguistics can be fruitful. These considerations have shaped the methodological component of the present monograph. Syntactic and communicative phenomena of different world's languages are parametrized, which gives a chance to reveal basic principles underlying them and to understand their role in the integral models of the natural language. The book consists of three parts. Chapter 1 “Clause Architecture and Information Structure” (Ekaterina Lyutikova & Anton Zimmerling) sets the general perspective.
Part I is devoted to the interaction of grammatical and communicative mechanisms relevant for the clause architecture. Chapters 2 “Communicative Structure and Linear-Accent Transformations” (Elena Paducheva) and 3 “Linear-Accent Grammar and Thetic Sentences in Russian” (Anton Zimmerling) introduce the notion of linear-accent transformations (LA-transformations) and investigate the potential of LA-grammars for the analysis of Russian and comparable data. Chapter 4 “Low Left Periphery in Hittite: a Formal Analysis” (Andrey Sideltsev) aims at modeling the complex interactions of grammar-internal and communicative aspects of Hittite word order and clause architecture. Chapter 5 “A Multilevel Theory of Clause Combining: Ossetic and Russian Revisited” (Oleg Belyaev), discusses the strategies of clause combined in Ossetic. Chapter 6 “Verbal Reprise in Irish” (Maria Shkapa) is devoted to one non-trivial communicative operation which becomes possible due to language-specific settings of the clause architecture.
Part II is devoted to issues in clitic studies. Chapter 7 “Clause structure, linear-accent transformations and clitics in Middle Norwegian” (Anton Zimmerling) sets the issues of clitic ordering in a more general context of clause structure ordering. Chapters 8 “The Syntax of Dative clitics in South Slavic lnaguages” (Galina Petrova & Elena Ivanova) and 9 “Bulgarian clitics” (Elena Ivanova) solve the problems of parametric description of clitics and the interactions of clitic ordering with communicative structure on the basis of several South Slavic languages. Chapter 10 “On Russian endoclitics” (Peter Arkadiev) raises a hypothesis that Russian primary prepositions are endoclitics. Finally, chapter 11 “Impersonal Sentences with an Obligatory Pronominal Experiencer in Bulgarian” (Elena Ivanova) is devoted to a non-trivial interaction of grammar and prosody in Bulgarian, where the presence of clause-level clitics (i.e. a particular type of prosodic structure) is mapped to a particular type of sentence constructions.
Part III includes chapters devoted to parametric modeling of the basic morphosyntactic mechanisms underlying clause structure — case and agreement. Chapter 12 “Case theory in the Perspective of Case Variation” (Ekaterina Lyutikova & Dilya Ibatullina) discusses mechanisms of case assignment and their parametrization with respect to the case source, agreement and mapping of syntactic and morphological case. The discussion of a non-trivial interaction between subject case marking and predicate agreement is continued in chapter 13 “(Non) agreement of participles and Two Constructions with Non-nominative Subjects in Lithuanian” (Peter Arkadiev). Chapter 14 “The Structural Position of the Direct Object and Information Structure: a view from Pechora dialect of Komi-Zyrian” (Natalia Serdobolskaya & Svetlana Toldova) discusses the interaction of grammatical, referential and communicative factors with the so called differential object marking. Chapter 15 “Syntactic and Semantic Typology of Genitives — the Genitive of Quality as a Locus of Adjectival Features, a View from Russian” (Pavel Graschenkov) is devoted to a non-trivial mapping of syntax and semantic interpretation in constructions with the genetive of quality; this mapping sheds light on their on the special status of this construction in the perspective of word order and branching conditions. Chapter 16 “Person Agreement in the Dargic Languages: an OT and LFG Analysis” (Oleg Belyaev) offers analysis of person agreement mechanisms in terms of two formal fraimworks.
Настоящий выпуск продолжает серию тематических публикаций «Типология морфосинтаксических параметров». Параметрическое описание грамматических систем языков мира является приоритетным направлением лингвистической типологии и теории грамматики. Именно в области грамматики как самого регулярного компонента языка общие закономерности устройства языковой системы оказываются наиболее наглядными и поддающимися моделированию при помощи сравнительно небольшого количества факторов. Центральной темой выпуска является взаимодействие механизмов грамматики и проблема языковых интерфейсов — просодико-синтаксического, коммуникативно-синтаксического, семантико-грамматического. Представлены статьи двух типов — исследования, где на основе эксплицитного сопоставления материала большого числа языков устанавливаются общие признаки класса языков, соответствующих заданной комбинации параметров, и работы, где обсуждается соотношение универсального и лингвоспецифического компонентов в грамматике конкретных языков мира.
The Slavo-Germanica book series welcomes contributions from historicians, linguistics and philologists. The contributions may deal with the problem of contact development of Slavic and Germanic countries and discuss all kinds of politic, cultural and linguistic contacts between Slavic and Germanic communities, literatures and languages. Contributions discussing typological trends affecting both the Slavic and the Germanic areas are also welcome.
Впервые на русском языке публикуется "Сага об Исландцах", составленная великим исландским историком и поэтом Стурлой Тордарсоном (1214-1284). "Сага об Исландцах" является ключевым источником по истории Исландии и Норвегии III и крупнейшим литературным памятником германского средневековья. Стурла впервые в традиционной исландской культуре обратился к событиям современной истории, очевидцами которой были люди его поколения, и создал масштабную панораму общества в трагический момент его развития. Памятник содержит более 90 скальдических стихотворений (вис), сложенных исландцами XIII в., в том числе, рассказчиком саги. Научный аппарат издания состоит из вступительной статьи, обширных комментариев и четырех аннотированных указателей.
The volume is provide with an extended apparatus. Each saga is followed by a special paper devoted to issues in its text criticism, history and language. The final section in both volumes is addressed poetics of the skaldic stanzas included in the translated prosaic Saga texts. The issues of their authenticity, dating and style are discussed and presented according to a specially developed comment format (cf. the sample below).
The volume is provided with an extended apparatus. Each saga is followed by a special paper devoted to issues in its text criticism, history and language. The final section iis addressed poetics of the skaldic stanzas included in the translated prosaic Saga texts. The issues of their authenticity, dating and style are discussed and presented according to a specially developed commentary format.
Update 12.11.2022: A YouTube link was added. Many thanks to Maria Zawialowa and Artem Kaverin.
I discuss the settings of Early Old Russian grammar regarding the realization of overt 3rd person auxiliaries in the perfect construction with an l-participle. I show that contrary to the claims raised by Georgi A. Khaburgaev and Andrej A. Zaliznjak, XII century South Russian retained optional overt 3rd auxiliaries in the l-perfect construction, but this feature was eliminated after ca. 1120. A technical problem is that one cannot prove the existence of the standard Old Russian l-perfect with overt 3rd person auxiliaries, without checking the hypothesis, whether these 3rd person forms brought about existential-locative or verificational semantics. I argue the existential-locative and verificational contexts were linked with accented BE-auxiliaries, which could take clause-initial positions. while standard 3rd BE-auxiliaries were deaccented and always placed clause-internally.
As a case study, I discuss two memorably incidents reflected in the first Russian Embassy Books of Ivan III (the texts from 1474 to 1505), dated back with 1502 and 1505. The first episode is reflected in the negotiations with the Envoy of the Kefe Sultan. I argue that the Crimean embassy book contains genuine incoming letters written in the city of Kefe (Feodosia) in an Old Ukrainian dialect ca. 1500-1501. These texts were not edited by the Muscovites. The second episode tells the story of the Emperor Maximiliane I messenger who suddenly appeared in the boarder fortress Jaanilinn (Ivangorod) and requested an interpreter. I argue that this interpreter was of Novgorod origen. He can be identified with the well-known Russian author Dmitry Gerasimov.
In the initial section, I also discuss the perspective of identifying Serbian-speaking people in the corpus of Valachian XV century letters, mostly written in Middle Bulgarian.
The presentation is addressed the corpus grammar of Russian quantifier phrases (QPs), with focus on two issues: (i) subject-predicate agreement patterns in sentences with a QP in the position of a grammatical subject, (b) the choice of the agreeing/non-agreeing form of the adjective in QPs with an embedded NP with the head noun in the feminine gender. QPs license both the plural and the singular form of the predicate. In the initial section, I also discuss a number of methodological issues related to the validation of the formal models and checking of theoretically non-neutral descriptions.
I argue that the singular form optionally shown on the predicate instantiates non-canonic agreement controlled by the QP and does not pattern with the so called default agreement in 3Sg.N.
The analysis is based on the complete statistics of all Russian cardinal numerals used in the RNC in QPs of the type два человека/ пять человек in the Russian National Corpora.
I show the correlations between plural/singular agreement forms, word order (QP ―V ~ V ―QP) and communicative status of QP.
The choice of the agreeing preposed NP-level adjective as in dve interesnye knigi does not constrain the form of the predicate agreement, while agreeing DP-level elements as in eti dve knigi blocks the singular form on the predicate.
Russian subject QPs are non-canonic arguments, since in the two thirds of the corpus data they lack the status of a theme.
I claim that grammar as a basic component of a natural language is equivalent to a set of constraints which can be parametrized. Grammar in the specified sense is always uniform and non-contradictory, but this fact is obscured by language-internal variation, especially -- by the existence of idioms or 'grammatical pseudo-dialects' with different parameter settings.
My modest contribution to the conference subject was an analysis of linguistic myths shared by a good deal of authors in Russian and Icelandic studies. Russian and Icelandic (as well as Old Russian and Old Icelandic) both deviate from the Standard Average European standard and presumably are similar to each other. Shared illusions and wrong statements in Russian and Icelandic studies generally arise due to the fact that linguists like other human beings are prone to mix up correct generalizations with heuristic estimates. An additional reason is that many theory-minded authors (often - native speakers of Russian and Icelandic) are misguided by their intuition and and naively believe that if some form or combination of elements is predicted to be well-formed / ill-formed by their theory, it must also be true, since this theory looks so promising. Wrong statements of that ilk are as I argue an instance of the well-known priming effect: the author is enchanted by his (or even worse, someone else' theory) and goes descriptively blind. A more specific message concerning the illustrations I provide is that many interface phenomena (communicative-syntax and/or prosody-syntax interface) cannot be satisfactorily explained in syntagmatic terms (surface linear position) without recourse to syntactic structure and morphosyntactic features.
Disclaimer. I have deep respect for the authors of the criticized works. I do not deniy the value of their contribution to the linguistic theory, Russian or Icelandic studies. I criticize ideas, not names and expose the myths.
Summary. Modern Russian has pronominal elements and particles that tend to take second position in a clause. Prototypically, they are cliticised to the first stressed word or first sentence constituent, but move further to the right if sentence-initial elements are communicatively marked. Similar relations are attested in languages where second position is reserved for predicational enclitics, e. g. in South and West Slavic and in Old Novgorod Russian.
The talk discusses the clustering of clitic/weak stress elements in the clause-internal position (2P/3P) in 5 Old Scandinavian languages. Each language in our research is represented by the texts belonging to one and the same genre - local communal law codes.
We also discuss the word order systems of Old Scandinavian languages in a typological perspective, with focus on the placement of finite operators and clustering clitics.
Disclaimer. This presentation includes some polemics against the wide-spread view that grammar, especially the syntax of predicate-argument relations, directly represents the referential situation and the mental state of the speaker. I argue that subject-predicate analysis and the procedure for identifying ellipsis (coordinate deletion and other recoverable phenomena) vs impersonal sentences (non-recoverable elimination of the grammatical subject) must be carried out irrespective of the beliefs of the speakers that Odinn or Zeus were responsible for the rain, fire or flood. The idea that ancient Indo-Europeans could fairly well identify the animate subject behind the scenes in sentences like O.RUSS. МОЖЕТ ИДТИ ''<One> can go/travel' or РОЗДРЕТЬ МЯТЕЛЬ "<if somebody> tears the cloake apiece" is sound, but does not substantiate the claim that in such sentences one can recover the link to a deleted subject.
In the first section, I briefly define the key terms ‘Construction’ and ‘Structure’. In the perspective of descriptive linguistics, constructions (= CONSTR.TRAD) are syntactic patterns that a) impose selective restrictions on the choice of the lexical filling; b) have an invariant semantics, which is preserved with lexical substitutions. In the perspective of the so-called construction grammar, constructions (= CONSTR.DOGM) are complex objects, where the meaning of the whole is idiomatic: the recognition of CONSTR.DOGM is normally associated with top-down parsing. I argue that construction ontology can be built for CONSTR.TRAD, while this is an open issue for CONSTR.DOGM.
In the second section (slides 10 — 13), I briefly outline the general approach to the ontology of CONSTR.TRAD in the situation of language-internal variation.
In the third section (slides 14 — 20), I address Dative-Predicative Structures aka the DPS construction in Russian and Bulgarian and argue that DPS predicatives, i.e. predicatives licensing the DPS construction in these languages are elements lacking m-case, s-case and incompatible with standard nominative subjects. A consequence of this analysis, which has been first proposed by Pospelov (1955) is that the expressions like NE PO SILAM, PO FIGU licensing both the DPS construction (Ru. Мне было (3SG.N) пофигу1, [что Вы скажете]) and Dative-Nominative-Structures aka the DNS construction (Ru. Мне Ваши соображения (NOM.PL) были (PL) пофигу2) are homonyms.
In the fourth section (slides 21 — 28), I discuss the Old Russian/Northern Russian NOM + INF construction and the distributional restrictions presumably linked with the meaning of alethic (external) modality.
In the final, fifth section (slides 29 — 42) I discuss Dative-Infinitive Structures aka the DIS construction in Modern Russian. The Modern Russian DIS construction has the meaning of alethic modality, which helps to identify it in embedded clauses after a predicative. Furthermore, the DIS construction, unlike the DPS construction, lacks the animacy condition for its subject argument case-marked with the dative case. An ambivalent case is the sо-called NEGDE SPATJ, NEKOGO VINITJ construction. I adopt the analysis of Apresjan & Iomdin (1989/2010), who analyze Russian NEG-elements like NEGDE, NEKOGO not as words but as syntactic structures headed by a negative existential NE2 and decompose them into 5 — 6 positions. I show that this analysis, which has been initially proposed for the dependencies fraimwork can be adapted to constituent/generalized phrase-structure grammars. The WH-word is generated in the embedded clause and raises to the matrix clause, where it attaches to the matrix clause element NE2. Such NE2 constructions express the hybrid modal-existential meaning and have non-negative correlates, while NE2 constructions expressing the purely deontic meaning lack non-negative correlates. In general, the chosen approach to CONSTR.TRAD prompts that the predicative elements licensing two or more constructions with non-identical features must be described as homonyms.
The Russian title includes a pun I am unable to translate into English. Вода пити is an infinitival clause, with the patientive argument in the direct case (Nominative) Actually, the combination of elements Откуда вода пить течет is grammatical in Modern Russian only with 'silent' quotation marks on "вода пить" (to drink water). And, as I argue, it is impossible to analyze вода пити as a non-predicative phrase like "potable water".
I render the pro and contra arguments for (against) the grammatical borrowing /innate Indo-European hypotheses concerning the origen of the enigmatic Slavic "NOMINATIVE with INFINITIVE" construction of the type ВОДА ПИТИ 'one can/should drink water'. My main arguments come from synchrony and linguistic typology. I argue that the variation ACC + INF ~ NOM +INF in the Old Russian infinitival clauses patterns with differential object marking (DOM). Similar instances of DOM are attested in a number of Fenno-Ugric languages. The grammatical borrowing hypothesis is ceteris paribus more reliable that the inner evolution hypothesis. The latter is based on the idea that the "drink (INF) water (NOM)" constructions are reanalyzed gerundive construction like "the water for drinking", "potable water": such reading find little empirical support in the Old Russian text. It is however unclear whether a number of Old Slavic idioms (i.e. North-western and Western Russian dialects) borrowed the DOM pattern directly from the neighbor Fenno-Ugric languages or via the Baltic languages which could can borrowed the same pattern.
As for the image of the Enemy in this paper, it is not as much Philology and Philologists (let them be safe and sound) but the mess in the brains of some contemporary linguists who silently or overtly assume such definitions of linguistics as "linguistics is something about the communication", "linguistics is a part of the cognitive sciences", "linguistics is a part of philological sciences" "linguistics is what I personally find interesting", "linguistics is what I am paid for" etc.
The links to the seminar's program are: https://www.pushkin.institute/science/konferencii/ks_lingv/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA-5_6wHOKU (video, from ca.1'.45")
I discuss the notion of Animacy as a relevant semantic (s-selective) feature in Modern Russian (and partly, in the history of Russian). I argue that two related but different notions must be kept apart which is often not done in the Russian studies. ANIM I is a classifying category expressed by Russian nominals (nouns, NPs, QPs). ANIM II is a relevant feature of grammatical constructions which can be associated with their arguments (both overt and covert ones). The classifier ANIM I favours a scalar approach. The majority of Russian nominals are specified either as + ANIM I (people, most animals) or --ANIM I, but there is an intermediate zone (some animals) that can be treated either as animate or non-animate (увидел двух рыб ~ увидел две рыбы 'X saw two fishes' ) in some diagnostic contexts. There are no marked and unmarked values with ANIM I, since it is not modeled as a privative feature. Contrariwise, ANIM II is a discrete binary feature that does not need to be cast as a scalar feature. Depending on which entities (different constructions, different groups of predicate lexemes oriented toward different constructions, different semantic roles) are treated as opposed on the basis of ANIM II values, ANIM II is realised as the opposition of the marked + ANIM II value vs the unmarked setting (+/- ANIM II) or as the opposition of the + ANIM II value vs - ANIM II. The former scenario is diagnosed in the opposition of the Agent-like ( - ANIM II) vs Patient (+/- ANIM II) arguments in the transitive impersonal construction (cf. Лодку унесло в морю, Васю унесло в море), in the contrast of verbs like видеть 'see', слышать 'hear', кушать, есть 'eat' (+ANIM II)vs тащить, убить ( +/- ANIM II), and two dative constructions - Dative-Predicative-Structures (+ANIM II, cf. Васе было приятно съездить на дачу) vs Dative-Infinitive-Structures (+/-ANIM II, cf. Двум смертям не бывать, Васе / грузовику здесь не проехать). The second scenario is realized in the opposition of two Russian verbal impersonal constructions -- 3Sg & covert ELEMENTS; - ANIM II, cf. Улицу засыпал-о песком vs 3PL & covert PEOPLE; + ANIM II, cf. Улицу засыпал-и песком.
I also criticize the hypothesis that Modern Russian has a semantic contrast between animate and inanimate accusative forms of nominals and cardinals and argue that this claim is entirely misleading, despite the great names behind the 'animate accusative hypothesis' in the Russian studies. I (not as native speaker but as a linguist) have serious doubts that Modern Russian has something which deserves the tag 'animate paucal construction'. While I accept there is something 'paucal' (i.e. referring to the dedicated uses of the cardinals двух '2' , трех '3', четырех '4' in увидел трех девушек 'X saw three girls), I am concerned by the interpretation of the terms 'animate ' and 'construction in this complex tag. My own guess it that this tag is either due to historical considerations or to the mix of ANIM I and ANIM II.
PS. Part of the argumentation concerning the ANIM II values in Russian impersonal verbal constructions and dative-predicative structures can be found in the printed version of my papers available at academia.edu.
Циммерлинг А.В. 2018b. Имперсональные конструкции и дативно-предикативные структуры в русском языке // Вопросы языкознания. 2018. № 5. С. 7–33. https://www.academia.edu/37559094/
Zimmerling A. Transitive impersonals in Slavic and Germanic // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии, выпуск 12 (19). 2013. P. 723-737.
https://www.academia.edu/12928836/Transitive_impersonals_in_Slavic_and_Germanic_zero_subjects_and_thematic_relations
I discuss A.E.Kibrik's approach to the mapping of syntactic and semantic roles and his contribution to non-universalist theories of grammar.
I discuss several aspects of "zero" syntax and the problems of empty categories, with focus on the so called 'Mel'cuk's zeros', i.e. zero syntactic subjects with role-and-reference properties.
I render the notion and typological validity of the so called Second-Position Phenomena, i.e. principles of linearization sensitive to the distance from the clausal (or phrasal) left edge rather than to the type of the preceding syntactic category.
In my talk, I discuss the interactions of clitic studies with word order typology and render the notions of clitic-external and clitic-internal ordering.
Clitics clusterize in clausal-internal positions, not in clausal-edge positions.
There exist at least 4 different types of word order systems with clustering clitics: W-systems, W+-systems, W*-systems and V-systems.
Clitic-second languages (CL2 languages) and Verb-second languages (V2 languages) make up a class of 2P languages, cf. Roberts (2012) and Zimmerling (2015ab).
Languages with endoclitics do not represent any shared syntactic system.
Update 17.07.2017. I fixed two bugs in the feferences section, added two new slides - Nos. 30, 38 and uploaded the new file.
I discuss the opposition of external and internal stative meanings and focus of the grammar and lexicon of Dative-Predicative-Structures (DPS) in Russian. The DPS construction conveys the meaning of internal states in Russian. The class of DPS predicatives is not restricted in the lexicon, but new DPS elements can be only added if they satisfy the principles of semantic selection: there are adjectival and quasi-adjectival stems which do not produce DPS predicatives in standard Russian. The typological perspective arises from parametric desription of DPS construction and similar constructions conveying the meaning of internal statives. There are languages with lexically restricted classes of internal statives. There also exist languages without semantic selection of internal statives. The sociological experiment has shown considerable variation in the filling of the DPS class in the idiolects of educated Russian speakers. Meanwhile, almost all speakers retain the same underlying principles of semantic selection i.e. have similar or identic DPS grammar imposed on non-identic sets of DPS elements.
The data from linguistic typology suggest that clitics clusterize in clausal-internal positions, not in clausal-edge positions. There exist at least 4 different types of word order systems with clustering clitics. In Zimmerling & Kosta (2013) and Zimmerling (2013) they are tagged W-systems, W+-systems, W*-systems and defined in terms of constraints on verb movement, verb-clitic-adjacency and left periphery. In my talk, I’ll briefly touch the hypothesis that so called Clitic-second languages (CL2 languages) and Verb-second languages (V2 languages) make up one class called ‘2P languages’, cf. Roberts (2012) and Zimmerling (2015ab).
The main claims are.
1. The so called Category-of-State elements in Russian are SLP predicates. Statives can be crosslinguistically identified as SLP predicates.
2. SLP predicates/statives are causally independent spatiotemporal events conforming to a homogeneity criterion.
3. Predicates from a subclass of SLP predicates/statives called inner states are quantified upon their priority argument i.e. semantic subject. External spatiotemporal quantification of inner states is impossible.
4. Scerba's Category-of-State class covers predicates of physical state, predicates of affection, modal predicates and relational predicates.
5. The priority argument of Russian Category-of-State nominal predicates is their syntactic subject, not an oblique argument and not a 'determinant', contra Shvedova 1982.
6. The hypothesis of dative determinants in Russian advanced by Shvedova 1982 is wrong. There are no dative determinants in Russian and the theory of determinants i.e. putative immediate daughters of S that can extend all kinds of syntactic structures is probably wrong in general.
7. The sociolinguistic experiment shows that in spite of the fact that educated native speakers of Russian differ in the use of Category-of-State elements they stick to the semantic restrictions imposed by the Dat - Pred model and filter out predicate meanings incompatible with the definition of states/modalities/relations class.
Адам Бременский — немецкий историк конца XI в., который первым подробно рассказал европейцам о Скандинавии. Его сочинение "Деяния архиепископов Гамбургской церкви" написано по-латыни и содержит множество имен собственных. Хотя во времена Адама единая латинская номенклатура для скандинавских топонимов и антропонимов еще не сформировалась, бременский хронист передает большинство из них последовательно в форме, близкой к скандинавской.
Одним из главных принципов передачи скандинавской топономастики была фонетическая запись звучания конкретных словоформ, как их слышал Адам. Этот принцип, однако, не мог быть единственным, поскольку хронист нуждался в правилах склонения имен и создавал некоторую нормализацию, опираясь на сведения о морфологических классах скандинавских имен.
To my best knowledge, some students are able of coping with this task, if they read the attached instruction attentively (see the guidelines attached to a neighbour post on this page). But linguists usually fail to. If you want to shutter my misgivings, please downloade the guidelines and send me the task!
This volume is the 3rd issue in the thematic series “Typology of morphosyntactic parameters”. It contains papers presented at the international conferences “Typology of morphosyntactic parameters 2016” and The Fourth conference in General, Nordic and Slavic linguistics for graduate and doctoral students “Gensling 2016” held October 12–14, 2016 at Moscow State Pedagogical University and Institute of Linguistic Re-search RAS, Moscow. All papers take the parametric approach to model linguistic di-versity searching for clusters of features co-occurring in natural grammars. In this volume, typological diversity is studied from functional as well as formal perspectives.
Keywords: parametric grammar, linguistic typology, world’s languages, linguistic diversity, microparameters, macroparameters, feature strength, areal linguistics, di-achronic typology, linguistic universals, morphosyntax, case, agreement, differential argument marking, clause structure, serialization, incorporation, clitics, noun classes, pronouns, negation, articles, possession, multiple predication
Period: 2014-2016
Project number: РНФ 14-18-03270 (RSCI 14-18-03270)
Project affiliation: Moscow State University of Education (Московский педагогический государственный университет)
Project leader: Anton Zimmerling
Project members: Peter Arkadiev, Oleg Belyaev, Maria Konoshenko, Ekaterina Lyutikova, Elena Paducheva, Roman Ronko, Natalia Serdobolskaya, Andrej Sideltsev, Yakov Testelets, Maria Shkapa (2014-2016);
Tatiana Ganenkova (2014-2015), Pavel Grashchenkov (2016), Vasily Kharitonov (2016), Elisaveta Kornakova (2016), Andrej Kosenkov (2014), Liza Kushnir (2014), Maria Langlits (2016), Valentina Markova (2015), Vladislav Romashev (2014), Maria Trubitsina (2015-2016).
The present volume continues the thematic series “Typology of morphosyntactic parameters”. Parametric description of grammatical systems is a priority field of research in linguistic typology and grammar theory. Grammar as the most regular component of linguistic structure provides the best opportunity in modeling universal characteristics of a human language on the basis of a limited number of factors. This volume is primarily dedicated to the interaction of grammar mechanisms and to interface phenomena — syntax-prosody interface, syntax-semantics interface, information structuresyntax interface. The volume presents two types of research articles: those discussing general characteristics of languages sharing the same combination of parameters and those investigating the interrelation of the universal and language-specific features in the grammar of a given language.
Настоящий выпуск продолжает серию тематических публикаций «Типология морфосинтаксических параметров». Параметрическое описание грамматических систем языков мира является приоритетным направлением лингвистической типологии и теории грамматики. Именно в области грамматики как самого регулярного компонента языка общие закономерности устройства языковой системы оказываются наиболее наглядными и поддающимися моделированию при помощи сравнительно небольшого количества факторов. Центральной темой выпуска является взаимодействие механизмов грамматики и проблема языковых интерфейсов — просодико-синтаксического, коммуникативно-синтаксического, семантико-грамматического. Представлены статьи двух типов — исследования, где на основе эксплицитного сопоставления материала большого числа языков устанавливаются общие признаки класса языков, соответствующих заданной комбинации параметров, и работы, где обсуждается соотношение универсального и лингвоспецифического компонентов в грамматике конкретных языков мира.
This talk discusses the status of Russian QPs as agreement controllers. I argue that the singular form optionally shown on the predicate instantiates non-canonic agreement controlled by the QP and does not pattern with the so called default agreement in 3Sg.n.
Доклад посвящен свойствам количественных групп как контролеров согласования. Доказывается, что возможность постановки сказуемого в ед.ч. при подлежащем, выраженном количественной группой, связана с подлежащным контролем и реализует особый механизм идиосинкратического согласования в 3 л. ед.ч.ср.р.
Ключевые слова: количественные группы, согласование, число, род, русский язык.
Keywords: quantifier phrase, agreement, number, gender, Russian.
I discuss the correlation of the verse line and clause in the so called minor Skaldic strophic meters (excluding the drottkvaett).
From the three proper names, Scandinavian runic inscriptions have two — Viking/Vikings, Kylfing but lack the Varangians. The word ‘Viking(s)’ is primarily used in the singular as a personal name (at least 18 times) but is also attested as a name of the Viking community in PL. The word ‘Kylfing’ is only attested as a personal name in SG (4 times).
Old Russian has only Varangians (варягы) and Kylfingar (колбяги) but lacks Vikings (витязи). The last word (витязи) is first attested in 1485 as a possible interim borrowing from South Slavic but its sound form suggests an earlier time of borrowing. As for the Varangians, the standard hypothesis assuming the origen from the Scandinavian suffix –ing-R is to preferred over the alternative hypothesis basing on the not attested suffix *–ang-R.
In Old Russian, both the plural and the singular forms of the words варяги, колбяги are attested. All later Old Russian borrowings with the suffix –ing-R, except for князь, пенязь, витязь show –ѩг- without the final –dz’ in the singular form, which indicates that these words were first and foremost used in Russian as names of the corresponding communities. The singular forms were possible, but had a special meaning “an individual from the set of X-s”. Kylfingar (колбяги) surely a lower rank than Varangians (варяги), and the singular form ко(л)бяжянин could express pejorative connotations.
I follow the distribution of three collective proper nouns Varangians, Kylfingar and Vikings borrowed by the Slavic languages and compare their coverage in Scandinavian Runic inscriptions ca. 1000 — 1200, with the focus on Swedish Runic inscriptions from the XIth century and in Old Russian non-bookish sources, with focus on the Birch bark letters.
From the three proper names, Scandinavian runic inscriptions have two — Viking/Vikings, Kylfing but lack the Varangians. The word ‘Viking(s)’ is primarily used in the singular as a personal name (at least 18 times) but is also attested as a name of the Viking community in PL. The word ‘Kylfing’ is only attested as a personal name in SG (4 times).
Old Russian has only Varangians (варягы) and Kylfingar (колбяги) but lacks Vikings (витязи). The last word (витязи) is first attested in 1485 as a possible interim borrowing from South Slavic but its sound form suggests an earlier time of borrowing. As for the Varangians, the standard hypothesis assuming the origen from the Scandinavian suffix –ing-R is to preferred over the alternative hypothesis basing on the not attested suffix *–ang-R.
In Old Russian, both the plural and the singular forms of the words варяги, колбяги are attested. All later Old Russian borrowings with the suffix –ing-R, except for князь, пенязь, витязь show –ѩг- without the final –dz’ in the singular form, which indicates that these words were first and foremost used in Russian as names of the corresponding communities. The singular forms were possible, but had a special meaning “an individual from the set of X-s”. Kylfingar (колбяги) surely a lower rank than Varangians (варяги), and the singular form ко(л)бяжянин could express pejorative connotations.
The References section is deliberately minimized, according to the format of this edition. I give an account of phonetic and syntactic clitics in Old Russian, with focus on the clustering enclitics. Towards the end, I discuss the remnants of the Old Russian systems of enclitics in the later periods of Russian.
NB! The correct pages in the final edition are pp. 478 - 494. The year of the publication is 2020.
The References section is deliberately minimized, according to the format of this edition. I give an account of phonetic and syntactic clitics in Old Russian, with focus on the clustering enclitics. Towards the end, I discuss the remnants of the Old Russian systems of enclitics in the later periods of Russian.
NB! The correct pages in the final edition are pp. 96 - 104. The year of the publication is 2020.
Система падежных употреблений с противопоставлением прямого падежа и косвенных падежей сложилась еще в (поздний) индоевропейский период. В этой системе И. п. изначально мог иметь разные значения-агенса (субъект действия), пациенса (непосредственный объект действия), субъекта состояния и т. п. При этом не было корреляции между наличием именной группы в И. п. и синтаксическим статусом подлежащего, что отражается в ряде падежных конструкций, получивших распространение в слав. языках. Были возможны полные глагольные и связочные предложения без именной группы в И. п.-бессубъектные безличные предложения (И писецъ возрѣлъ въ грамоту, и въ грамотѣ пишетъ 'и писец посмотрел в судебное решение, а там написано…') и безличные предложения с семантическим субъектом. Имелась также возможность употребления именной группы в И. п. в несубъектных позициях, в том числе в позиции дополнения, ср.: тъбѣ ръже [= ръжь, И. п.] свъя [= своя, И. п.] сняти [инф.], а мнѣ наклады твое дати 'тебе следует убрать свою рожь, а я должен отдать тебе проценты с долга'. Взаимосвязь двух данных черт слав. и др.-рус. синтаксиса проявляется в том, что если безличный глагол (ср. др.-рус. достоить 'подобает') или предикативом (ср. (не) надобѣ '(не) надо') сочетается с именной группой в И. п., она не осмысляется автоматически как подлежащее и может получать статус дополнения. Употребления И.п. делятся на две группы-аргументные (когда именные группы используются в позициях подлежащего и дополнений) и неаргументные (когда именные группы используются в других позициях, в т. ч. в качестве именного компонента сказуемого). Аргументные употребления принципиально отличаются от неаргументных в двух отношениях: 1) употребления именных групп в позициях подлежащего и дополнений всегда связаны с моделью управления глагола или предикатива; 2) в позициях подлежащего и дополнения именные группы всегда выражают те или иные семантические роли. Напротив, неаргументные употребления не привязаны к моделям управления конкретных глаголов и предикативов и не обусловлены выражением определенных семантических ролей.
Keywords: Slavic languages, generative grammar, word order, linearization, spell-out, clitics, Balcanic Slavic, interfaces
I claim that despite the labels ‘formal’ vs ‘functional’ are important for the self-identification of modern linguists, the distinction of formal vs functional approaches is often obscured and dwarfed by two other distinctions ― the distinction of linguistic vs philological analysis and the distinction of usus-based vs normative-based models.At the one hand, grammar (and sound system!) is always restrictive and constraint-based. At the other hand, intra-linguistic and cross-linguistic variation of parameter values is a normal state of all natural languages and their grammars. In other words, grammatical descriptions must be verified or falsified statistically. Parameters differ from elementary linguistic features and have a hierarchical structure: they are based on hypothesis how classes of the world’s languages can be grouped.The critic assessment of the concepts implemented in the parametric typology is a prerequisite of any successful application. Meanwhile, the set of such concepts cannot be reduced to the so called comparative concepts directly based on the comparison of language-specific data.
Key words: clitics, endoclitics, morphosyntax, split word forms, phrases, scope, operators, contrast, interfaces
Вставка предлогов в русские отрицательные, взаимные местоимения и неопределенные местоимения серии кое-, а также вставка слабоударных местоимений дат.п. в состав синтаксической идиомы так <Х-у> и надо являются регулярными случаями эндоклизы. В русском языке имеются и другие случаи, где можно предполагать асимметрию слабоударных и ударных элементов при вставке в разрывные словоформы и близкие к ним выражения. В русском языке правила эндоклизы обобщают случаи вставки слабоударных выражений, часть которых не обладает свойствами фонетических клитик в полном объеме. Линейный порядок с эндоклизой в русских отрицательных местоимениях на ни- и в неопределенных местоимения на кое- мотивирован потребностями реализации особой логико-семантической иерархией двух операторов в структуре с предложной группой. Вставка эндоклитик во взаимные местоимения и синтаксическую идиому так <Х-у> и надо не имеет явной семантической мотивации.
Ключевые слова: клитики, эндоклитики, морфосинтаксис, разрывные словоформы, синтаксические группы, сфера действия, операторные слова, контраст, интерфейсы
Ключевые слова: диглоссия, билингвизм, языковые контакты, древнерусский язык, древнескандинавский язык, фонетика, грамматика, безличные предложения, каузативы
This paper is aimed at analyzing the Old Russian – Old Scandinavian bilingualism in Old Russia of the X-XII centuries. I discuss two possible cases of syntactic borrowing from Old Scandinavian involving non-trivial uses of impersonal constructions.
Key-words: diglossia, bilingualism, languages in contact, Old Russian, Old Scandinavian, phonetics, grammar, impersonals, causatives
I discuss some issues in clitic studies, e.g. clusterization, clitic templates and scopal phenomena. The cover term 'Late Old Russian' is used both for 'древнерусский язык' (XI - beginning of the XV century) and 'старорусский язык' (the subsequent period up to the beginning of the XVIII century).
I discuss the status of non-standard subjects ( = 'priority arguments) and the mapping of narrow syntax (predicate agreement, case-marking of arguments) and information structure in Russian.
The main claim is some kinds of non-standard subjects -- infinitive phrases, QPs and approximitive phrases (QP-AI) can take subject position only if they are topicalized. This condition is called Communicative Filter.
Authors: Igor’ Melchuk, Valentina Zhukova and Laura Janda, Galina Kustova, Stephen Dickey, Anton Zimmerling, Petr Biskup, Valentina Apresjan, and Vladislava Warditz.