“Prototypical and non-prototypical expressions of transitivity in Russian” Laura A. JandaUniversity of North Carolinajanda@unc.edu

Our tasks:

Motivate transitivity as an abstraction grounded in human physical experience

Find the prototype and relations to the prototype Figure out what properties of the prototype are

more important than others Think about what makes a construction transitive

– the grammatical devices it uses or its meaning?

Things we won’t do:

Look at ALL possible constructions (but we will look at a lot of them)

Find a precise boundary between transitive and intransitive

Advantages to this type of analysis

Gives an accurate picture of the true complexity of transitivity

Focuses attention on the interaction of semantics and syntax

Motivates some specific constraints on constructions

Provides a hierarchy of constructions, predicting what combinations of constructions can exist in a language

Provides a basis for cross-linguistic comparison

The structure of a construction (Croft 2001: 204)

Conceptual space for transitivity (Croft 2001: 147)

Canonical Event Model (Langacker 1991: 285)

A little bit about Russian…

Six cases:NominativeAccusativeAccusativeDativeInstrumentalGenitiveLocative

Relatively free word order

If N is present, V agrees with it

If N is absent, V has default (neuter singular) agreement

“Bare case” meanings for the four cases we will focus on: Accusative:

a destination Dative:

a receiver, an experiencer, a competitor Instrumental:

a means, a label Genitive:

a source, a goal, a reference, a whole

The prototypical transitive construction= Langacker’s canonical event

N+V+AДевушка сшила юбку.[Girl-N sewed skirt-A.]‘The girl sewed a skirt.’Agent – Patient

Prototypical transitive verbs focus energy on a patient, involve “doing something to X”

The prototypical intransitive construction

N+VМальчик спит.[Boy-N sleeps.]‘The boy is sleeping.’

AgentPrototypical intransitive verbs describe

states, emotions, or are reflexive

Three Strategies

1: 1: AddAdd items to the N+V+A construction 2: 2: ChangeChange A and N to other cases 3: 3: RemoveRemove items from the N+V+A

construction (and its enlargements)

Strategy 1: Strategy 1: AddingAdding items to the N+V+A construction We can add:

a preposition: N+V+P+Aa prepositional phrase: N+V+A+P+L/G/A…a Dative participant: N+V+A+Dan Instrumental participant: N+V+A+I

Generally this strategy does not do much harm to transitivity

Some N+V+A constructions require a preposition

N+V+P+AЛюбой спортсмен надеется на победу.

[Every athlete-N hopes for victory-A.]‘Every athlete hopes for victory.’

Compare N+V+A: Каждый клуб хочет победу.

[Every club-N wants victory-A.]‘Every club wants victory.’

Adding a prepositional phrase is no problem:

N+V+A+P+GДевушка сшила юбку из старого пальто.

[Girl-N sewed skirt-A from old coat-G.]‘The girl sewed a skirt from an old coat.’

N+V+A+P+LДевушка сшила юбку на машинке.[Girl-N sewed skirt-A on machine-L.]‘The girl sewed a skirt on a machine.’

N+V+A+P+A Девушка принесла юбку в школу.[Girl-N brought skirt-A to school-A.]‘The girl brought a skirt to school.’

Adding a Dative participant is ok:

N+V+A+DЛюдмила Путина сшила мужу костюм.

[Ludmila Putin-N sewed husband-D suit-A.]

‘Ludmila Putin sewed her husband a suit.’

Adding an instrumental participant is also ok:

N+V+A+I

Девушка резала рыбу ножом.

[Girl-N cut fish-A knife-I.]

‘The girl cut the fish with a knife.’

Strategy 2: Strategy 2: ChangingChanging A and N to other participants Here are the options

for changing A:

N+V+P+L

N+V+G

N+V+D

N+V+I

N+V+N

Here is the option for changing N:

D+V+A

Changing A to a prepositional phrase

N+V+P+LЛукашенко признался в убийстве.

[Lukashenko-N confessed in murder-L.]‘Lukashenko confessed to murder.’Compare N+V+A:

Лукашенко признал свою вину.[Lukashenko-N admitted own guilt-A.]

‘Lukashenko admitted his guilt.’

However, MOST N+V+P+L is unambiguously intransitive

N+V+P+L

Мама работает в кабинете.

[Mother-N works in office-L.]

‘Mother is working in her office.’

What if we change Accusative to Genitive?

N+V+GРахманинов избегал всяких интервью.[Rakhmaninov-N avoided all interviews-G.] ‘Rakhmaninov avoided all interviews.’

N+V+G involves: verbs expressing avoidance (fear, aversion = G a source), or approach

(attaining, needing, expecting = G a goal), or quantification (=G a whole)

Where do we draw the line between N+V+A and N+V+G? Both constructions show an interaction between

N+V and an object. N+V+G de-emphasizes the effect of N+V on the

object, which is merely a reference point for the situation.

Nearly all verbs associated with N+V+G can also be constructed as N+V+A. Sometimes there is a meaning difference, and sometimes there isn’t.

Compare N+V+G to N+V+A

Игорь ищет жены.

‘Igor is looking for a wife.’

Игорь выпил чаю.

‘Igor drank (some) tea.’ Игорь боится жены.

‘Igor is afraid of his wife.’

Игорь ищет жену.

‘Igor is looking for his wife.’

Игорь выпил чай.

‘Igor drank (all the) tea.’ Игорь боится жену.

‘Igor is afraid of his wife.’

What if we change Accusative to Dative?

N+V+D

Мальчик ей улыбнулся.

[Boy-N her-D smiled.]

‘The boy smiled at her.’

N+V+D involves many verbs where the object is a receiver, experiencer, or

competitor/submitter

The continuum from ditransitive to N+V+D

Людмила сказала ему свое имя.[Ludmila-N said him-D her name-A.]‘Ludmila told him her name.’

Людмила сказала ему «вы».[Ludmila-N said him-D “vy”.]‘Ludmila said “vy” to him.’

Людмила ему выкала.[Ludmila-N him-D vy-said.]‘Ludmila addressed him formally.’

N+V+D constructions related to “giving”:

позвонить ‘ring’ + communication verbs

заплатить ‘pay’ + gift/money verbs

помогать ‘help’ + “benefit” verbs

наскучить ‘bore’ + “harm” verbs

These constructions are motivated as versions of N+V+A+D in which A is implicit in the verb.

N+V+D constructions related to “competition”:

сопутствовать ‘accompany’ + “equality” verbs

подчиниться ‘submit to’+ “submission” verbs

These verbs are motivated by the comparison of the actual subjecthood of N with the potential subjecthood of D.

But where do we draw the line between N+V+A and N+V+D? In both constructions N has impact on D. They differ in that D places greater emphasis on

the ability of the object to react to N+V. However, it is very easy to find N+V+D clauses

that are nearly synonymous with N+V+A, and this is true of both types of constructions (motivated by “giving” and by “competition”).

Compare N+V+D to N+V+A

Я заплатила адвокату.‘I paid a lawyer.’

Я помогaла ему.‘I helped him.’

Он наскучил жене.‘He bored his wife.’

Он сопутствовал eй.‘He accompanied her.’

Он подчинился жене.‘He submitted to his wife.’

Я наняла адвокатa. ‘I hired a lawyer.’

Я защищала его. ‘I protected him.’

Он раздражал жену. ‘He irritated his wife.’

Он всретил ee.‘He met her.’

Он избаловал жену. ‘He spoiled his wife.’

What if we change Accusative to Instrumental?

N+V+I

Он улетит следующим рейсом.

[He-N fliesaway next flight-I.]

‘He leaves on the next flight.’

This seems hopelessly intransitive.

Types of verbs associated with Instrumental: a means махать ‘wave’ + movement verbs комадовать ‘command’+ leadership verbs владеть ‘possess’ + possession verbs снабдить ‘supply’ + manipulation verbs заниматься ‘occupy’ + filling verbs наслаждаться ‘enjoy’ + enjoy/abhor verbs

These verbs are motivated as requiring some object through which they are channeled.

But where do we draw the line between N+V+A and N+V+I? In both constructions N’s energy affects an

object. N+V+I de-emphasizes the impact of N+V on the

object, which serves merely as a conduit for the action.

For the movement verbs sometimes the same verb can be constructed as both N+V+A and N+V+I (with some meaning differences), other types of I verbs may have close synonyms with N+V+A.

Compare N+V+I with N+V+A

Я бросал(ся) камнями.

‘I threw stones.’ Я хлопнул дверью.

‘I slammed the door.’ Он командовал

солдатами.

‘He commanded the soldiers.’

Я бросал камни.

‘I threw stones.’ Я закрыл дверь.

‘I shut the door.’ Он вел солдат.

‘He led the soldiers.’

Types of verbs associated with Instrumental: a label:

N+V+IПочему я не родилась мужчиной?[Why I-N not born man-I?]‘Why wasn’t I born a man?’

The group of verbs that expresses being, seeming, and becoming is motivated as

expressing a category label that mediates the expression of an entity. These show no overlap

with transitivity.

N+V+N is quite hopeless

N+V+N

Отец был человек глубоко верующий.

[Father-N was person-N deeply religious-N.]

‘Father was a deeply religious person.’

Copular BE is the only V acceptable, and there is no transitivity here.

Let’s change N to D

D+V+A

Что нам делать?

[What-A us-D do?]

‘What are we to do?’

Here the Dative, as a potential subject, has an experience of the situation, rather than being an agent.

Strategy 3: Strategy 3: RemovingRemoving items from the transitive construction Most constructions so far have N (and

personal V agreement). It is possible to remove N from all of these

constructions, in which case we have impersonal, default agreement for V (neuter sg)

It is sometimes possible to remove V, but an implicit verb remains.

What do we get when we remove items from transitive constructions? From N+V+A:

V+A N+A A

From N+V+A+I: V+A+I

From N+V+A+D: A+D

(Bold-faced

constructions are

robustly productive;

others are restricted and

have implicit V)

Let’s remove N from N+V+A

V+A

Меня тошнит.

[Me-A be-sick.]

‘I feel sick’

(Very productive! See examples on handout)

Other removals from N+V+A

N+AКто кого?

[Who-N who-A?]‘Who will get whom?’

A(Я сказал:) "Деньги!"; (Игорь сказал:) "На руку!"

[Money-A!; Here hand-A!](I said:) “Money!”; (Igor said:) “Here, take my hand!”

Let’s remove N from N+V+A+I

V+A+IМосквича убило сосулькой.

[Muscovite-A killed icicle-I.]‘A Muscovite was killed by an icicle.’

See further examples on handout. Note close connection to V+A.

A benefit of looking at a semantic map of constructions

The relationship between N+V+A+I and V+A+I explains why you cannot have a sentence like:

*Москвича убило солдатом.

[Muscovite-A killed soldier-I.]

‘A Muscovite was killed by a soldier.’

Let’s remove items from N+V+A+D

A+D

Кому что?

[Who-D what-A?]

‘Who gets what/What is for whom?’

Adding, Changing, and Removing

These three parameters suggest a semantic map for relationships among constructions

By exploring these relationships we have explored the structure of transitivity in Russian

N+V+A+P+…

N+V+P+A

N+V+A

N+V+A+DN+V+A+I

N+V+P+L

N+V+GN+V+D

N+V+I

D+V+A

V+A

(N+A)(A)

V+A+I(A+D)

N+V+I (intrans)

N+V+P+L(intrans)

Note features of the radial category: Shows the structuring of relationships

between constructions Motivates relationships even among

constructions that share no participants (e.g., N+V+G and V+A+I)

Presents a correlation between prototypicality and order of appearance of constructions

What does cognitive linguistics give us? Structure of relationships among

constructions Sense of which types are prototypical

which aren’t , and which must exist before others exist

Basis for cross-linguistic comparison – semantic map of transitivity

Bibliography

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford U Press.

Janda, Laura A. and Steven J. Clancy. 2002. The Case Book for Russian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, v. II. Stanford: Stanford U Press.

Smith, Michael B. 1994. “Agreement and iconicity in Russian Impersonal Constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics 5, 5-56.