The Grammar of Russian Metalinguistic Comparatives
The paper studies Russian metalinguistic comparatives. Specifically, it argues that Russian exhibits three single meta-comparatives (skoree ‘sooner’, bol′še ‘more’, and lučše ‘better’, lit.), which are derived as a result of grammaticalisation of corresponding standard comparatives and three double meta-comparatives (skoree bol′še, bol′še skoree, and skoree lučše). From a morphological and syntactic point of view, these meta-comparatives are quite distinct from standard comparatives. Unlike standard comparatives, they have only synthetic forms, are ungrammatical with Genitive and show prosodic restrictions and linearly syntactic preferences. Moreover, the metacomparatives are divided into two major groups: skoree, bol′še, skoree bol′še, bol′še skoree vs. lučše, skoree lučše. Each of these two groups imposes specific restrictions on a syntactic category and/or grammatical form of the two compared phrases. Last but not least, due to a relatively free combination of skoree with other single meta-comparatives, which results in double metacomparatives, the paper reveals that skoree is the most grammaticalised metacomparative in Russian.
Progressive periphrases in German are analyzed in a quantitative and qualitative way. The subject of the analysis is progressive constructions in the XVII–XIX centuries. It is stated that the process of their formation was not homogeneous, as there were two forms of progressive periphrases during the IX–XV centuries that were existing concurrently and were interchanging. It is determined that in any period the most frequent periphrases are im-construction and am-construction, moreover, the frequency of the latter is increasing. It is confi rmed that the process of grammaticalization mostly referred to contraction of locative prepositions and defi nite articles, which lost their lexical meaning in the development of progressive periphrases.
This is an interdisciplinary volume that focuses on the central topic of the representation of events, namely cross-cultural differences in representing time and space, as well as various aspects of the conceptualisation of space and time. It brings together research on space and time from a variety of angles, both theoretical and methodological. Crossing boundaries between and among disciplines such as linguistics, psychology, philosophy, or anthropology forms a creative platform in a bold attempt to reveal the complex interaction of language, culture, and cognition in the context of human communication and interaction.
The authors address the nature of spatial and temporal constructs from a number of perspectives, such as cultural specificity in determining time intervals in an Amazonian culture, distinct temporalities in a specific Mongolian hunter community, Russian-specific conceptualisation of temporal relations, Seri and Yucatec frames of spatial reference, memory of events in space and time, and metaphorical meaning stemming from perception and spatial artefacts, to name but a few themes.
This book is a collection of articles dealing with various aspects of grammatical relations and argument structure in the languages of Europe and North and Central Asia (LENCA). Topics covered with respect to individual languages are: split-intransitivity (Basque), causativization (Agul), transitives and causatives (Korean and Japanese), aspectual domain and quantification (Finnish and Udmurt), head-marking principles (Athabaskan languages), and pragmatics (Eastern Khanty and Xibe). Typology of argument-structure properties of ‘give’ (LENCA), typology of agreement systems, asymmetry in argument structure, typology of the Amdo Sprachbund, spatial realtors (Northeastern Turkic), core argument patterns (languages of Northern California), and typology of grammatical relations (LENCA) are the topics of articles based on cross-linguistic data. The broad empirical sweep and the fine-tuned theoretical analysis highlight the central role of argument structure and grammatical relations with respect to a plethora of linguistic phenomena.
The paper is an analysis of the concessive domain in Agul (Lezgic, East Caucasian). The main means to express concession in Aghul is a dedicated concessive converb. Also described are constructions with the optative and the temporal converb and conditional concessive constructions.
The starting point of the study is the hypothesis of a discursive proximity of Church Slavonic and Christian religious discourse of the modern Russian language. Analysing lexical structure with quantitative corpus methods we show that the latter is closer to Church Slavonic than the mainstream modern Russian language. This can serve as a proof of the specificity of the register in question, an additional argument when deciding on its separate status. Research is based on the material of the Russian National Corpus, namely, the Church-Slavonic corpus, the Main corpus and the Subcorpus of church-and-theologу texts. Using the log-likelihood criterion and PCA visualizations, we reveal the body of lexemes in Russian texts that can be considered Slavonicisms (tserkovnoslavyanizmy) and show that the "distance" between the corpora can be measured differently if one takes into account adjectives, nouns and verbs separately.