Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:36:56.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘feel like’ construction in Russian and its kin: Implications for the structure of the lexicon1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2014

ANASTASIA SMIRNOVA
ANASTASIA SMIRNOVA*
Affiliation:
Tufts University
*
Author's address: Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, 111 Miner Hall, Medford, MA 02155, USAAnastasia.Smirnova@tufts.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Russian has a family of reflexive constructions that have non-canonical syntax and express a variety of meanings that range from disposition (‘I feel like working’) to ability (‘I cannot work here’) and generic assessment of quality (‘I work well here’). Previous analyses assume that these constructions are derived by a regular syntactic rule and postulate a null modal in the structure to account for their semantics (Benedicto 1995, Franks 1995, Rivero & Arregui 2012). Focusing on the ‘feel like’ construction, I show that derivational analyses have difficulty explaining its idiosyncratic properties, including non-canonical agreement (independent of the structural subject), as well as the interpretation of aspect. Moreover, derivational analyses overgeneralize, since only a subset of predicates occur in the ‘feel like’ construction in Russian, as the data from the Russian National Corpus indicate. In order to account for their idiosyncratic properties and semi-productivity, I propose that the ‘feel like’ construction and its kin are stored in the lexicon as constructions (Goldberg 1995; Jackendoff 1997, 2008). The proposed analysis clarifies the status of reflexive constructions in Russian and establishes the scope of cross-linguistic semantic variation by comparing reflexives in Russian to that in other Slavic languages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 107 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I am grateful to Ray Jackendoff for inspiring me to work on this topic, and for his insightful feedback on every stage of this project. I also thank Adele Goldberg for a fruitful discussion and comments on an earlier draft of the paper, as well as four anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, whose comments helped me to improve the manuscript. Special thanks go to Barbara Tomaszewicz, and Rumen Iliev and Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan for their help with Polish and Bulgarian data, respectively. I also thank Oxana Skorniakova for her thoughtful comments on Russian data and the analysis. The usual disclaimer applies.

Abbreviations used in glosses: 1, 2, 3 = first, second, third person; acc = accusative case; cl = clitic; dat = dative case; fem = feminine gender; gen = genitive case; imprf = imperfective aspect; inch = inchoative; inf = infinitive; masc = masculine gender; neg = negation; neut = neuter gender; nom = nominative case; part = particle; past = past tense; pl = plural; prep = prepositional case; pres = present tense; prf = perfective aspect; refl = reflexive; sg = singular.

References

REFERENCES

Babby, Leonard & Brecht, Richard D.. 1975. The syntax of voice in Russian. Language 51.2, 342–367.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena. 1995. Mne ne čitaetsja: (Relativized) modality, datives and reflexive suffixes. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 2.2, 1–16.Google Scholar
Borik, Olga. 2002. Aspect and Reference Time. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University. [LOT Dissertation Series 64]Google Scholar
Borras, Frank Marshall & Christian, Reginald. 1971. Aspects of modern Russian syntax and vocabulary: Russian syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Braginsky, Pavel. 2008. The semantics of the prefix ZA- in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
Bulygina, Tatjana Vjacheslavovna. 1982. K postroeniju tipologii predicatov v russkom jazyke. In Seliverstova, Olga Nikolaevna (ed.), Semantičeskije tipy predikatov, 7–85. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget. 2002. The semantics of the future. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 2013. Grammar and complexity: Language at the interface of competence and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila. 1999. Verb semantics, diathesis and aspect. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 1994. Polish subjects. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, Susen. 2011. Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fehrmann, Dorothee, Junghanns, Uwe & Lenertová, Denisa. 2010. Two reflexive markers in Slavic. Russian Linguistics 34, 203–238.Google Scholar
Fleisher, Nicholas. 2006. Russian dative subjects, case, and control. Ms., University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galkina-Fedoruk, Evdokija Mihajlovna. 1958. Bezličnye predloženija v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moscow: Moscow University.Google Scholar
Georgiev, I. S. 1972. Struktura i semantičeskije osobennosti odnoj bezlichnoj konstrukcii v russkom i bolgarskom jazykah. Filologicheskije Nauki 15.3, 98–105.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1990. Russian rerflexive verbs: In search of unity and diversity (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 15). Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80.3, 532–569.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73.3, 534–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84.1, 8–28.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 1993. A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina. 2006. Unaccusatives with dative causers and experiencers: a unified account. In Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, André & Abraham, Werner (eds.), Datives and other cases, 271–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Korolev, E. I. 1969a. Issledovanije semantiki russkih vozvratnyh glagolov i obrabotka nekotoryh subjektno-objektnyh konstrukcij pri avtomaticheskom perevode. Moscow: Academija Nauk SSSR, Institut russkogo jazyka.Google Scholar
Korolev, E. I. 1969b. O zalogah russkogo glagola. In Vinogradov, Viktor (ed.), Mysli o sovremennom russkom jazyke, 199–214. Moscow: Prosveščšenije.Google Scholar
Kortland, Frederik. 1983. Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11.3/4, 307–324.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, Hans-Jürgen & Rieser, Hannes (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, 38–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In von Stechow, Arnim & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani. 2008. Low-frequency constructions and salience: A case study on Russian verbs of motion of dative impersonal construction type. In Mustajoki, Arto, Kopotev, Mikhail, Birjulin, Leonid & Protasova, Ekaterina (eds.), Instrumentarij rusistiki: korpusnye podhody, 176–197. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures.Google Scholar
Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani. 2013. Reflexive space: A construcionist model of the Russian reflexive marker. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Turku.Google Scholar
Łazorczyk, Agnieszka. 2010. Decomposing Slavic aspect: The role of aspectual morphology in Polish and other Slavic languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Lyashevskaya, Olga & Sharoff, Serge. 2009. Častotnyj slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (na materialah Natsional'nogo korpusa russkogo jazyka). Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc & Žaucer, Rok. 2006. On the intensional FEEL-LIKE construction in Slovenian: A case of a phonologically null verb. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24.4, 1093–1159.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72.2, 215–247.Google Scholar
Norman, Boris Justinovich. 1972. Perehodnost’, zalog, vozvratnost’ (na material bolgarskogo i drugih slavjanskih jazykov). Minsk: Izdatel'stvo BGU.Google Scholar
Paducheva, Elena V. 2011. Egocentricheskije valentnosti i dekonstrukcija govorjaščego. Voprosy Jazykoznaija 3, 3–18.Google Scholar
Pariser, Jon Richard. 1982. Dative-reflexive constructions in contemporary Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David & Moore, John. 2002. Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language 78.4, 619–650.Google Scholar
Peškovskij, Aleksandr Matveevich. 1956. Russkij sintaksis v nauchnom osveshenii. Moscow: Učebno-pedagogičeskoje izdatel'stvo.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa. 2009. Intensionality, high applicatives, and aspect: Involuntary state constructions in Bulgarian and Slovenian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27.1, 151–196.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa & Arregui, Ana. 2012. Building involuntary states in Slavic. In Demonte, Violeta & McNally, Louise (eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure, 300–357. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa & Sheppard, Milena Milojević. 2003. Indefinite reflexive clitics in Slavic: Polish and Slovenian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.1, 89–155.Google Scholar
Růžička, Rudolf. 1988. On the array of arguments in Slavic languages. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 41.2, 155–178.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler–gap constructions. Language 86.3, 486–545.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily M.. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction, 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1994. Dative subjects in Russian. In Toman, Jindřich (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ann Arbor Meeting, 129–172. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1999. Dative subject constructions twenty-two years later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29.2, 45–76.Google Scholar
Skorniakova, Oxana. 2008. Syntactic and semantic properties of Russian dative “subjects” in the impersonal construction. Ms., The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Zaretskaya, Marina. 2001. The stative middle construction in Russian: A covert category. In Zybatow, Gerhild, Junghanns, Uwe, Mehlhorn, Grit & Szucsich, Luka (eds.), Current issues in formal Slavic linguistics, 546–553. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Švedova, Natalja Yurjevna. 1970. Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moscow: Akademia nauk SSSR, Institut russkogo jazyka.Google Scholar
Veyrenc, Jacques. 1980. Études sur le verbe russe. Paris: Institut d’études slaves.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, Victor Vladirmorovich. 1972. Russkij jazyk (Grammaticheskoje uchenije o slove), 2nd edn. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Vysshaja Shkola.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1979. Ethno-syntax and the philosophy of grammar. Studies in Language 3, 313–383.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. The meaning of a case: A study of the Polish dative. In Brecht, Richard D. & Levine, James S. (eds.), Case in Slavic, 386–426. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Anna Andreevna. 1995. Opyt modelirovanija semanitiki pristavochnyh glagolov v russkom jazyke. Russian Linguistics 19.2, 143–185.Google Scholar