Transcript N+V - The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

“Prototypical and nonprototypical
expressions of
transitivity in Russian”
Laura A. Janda
University of North Carolina
[email protected]
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:
Nominative
Accusative
Dative
Instrumental
Genitive
Locative
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

Dative:
a

receiver, an experiencer, a competitor
Instrumental:
a

destination
means, a label
Genitive:
a
source, a goal, a reference, a whole
The prototypical
transitive construction
= Langacker’s canonical event
N+V+A
Девушка 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+V
Мальчик спит.
[Boy-N sleeps.]
‘The boy is sleeping.’
Agent
Prototypical intransitive verbs describe
states, emotions, or are reflexive
Three Strategies
1: Add items to the N+V+A construction
 2: Change A and N to other cases
 3: Remove items from the N+V+A
construction (and its enlargements)

Strategy 1: Adding items to the
N+V+A construction

We can add:
a
preposition: N+V+P+A
 a prepositional phrase: N+V+A+P+L/G/A…
 a Dative participant: N+V+A+D
 an 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+A
Любой 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+G
Девушка 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+L
Девушка 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+D
Людмила 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: Changing 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+L
Лукашенко 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+G
Рахманинов 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+I
Почему 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: Removing 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

From N+V+A+D:
 A+D
 N+A
A

From N+V+A+I:
 V+A+I
(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+A
Кто 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+I
Москвича 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

(A+D)
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
N+V+A+D
N+V+A+P+…
V+A
(A)
(N+A)
N+V+P+A
N+V+A
D+V+A
N+V+P+L
N+V+I
N+V+I
(intrans)
N+V+D
N+V+G
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.