Рецензия на: O. Bond et al. (eds.). Archi: Complexities of agreement in crosstheoretical perspective. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2016.
The paper discusses the main features of Tundra Nenets grammar,which is in many respects quite peculiar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Special attentionis paid to the new book by Irina Nikolaeva «A Grammar of Tundra Nenets» (De Gruyter Mouton, 2014) uncovering a great deal of hitherto virtually unexamined aspects of Tundra Nenets syntax. Careful consideration is given to the weak and strong points of the description as well as its important role in the context of Samoyedic studies.
The paper presents clustering experiments on Russian verbs based on the statistical data drawn from the Russian FrameBank (framebank.ru). While lexicology has essentially abandoned the idea of syntactic transformations as the primary basis for grouping verbs into semantic classes (Apresjan 1967, Levin 1993), the hypothesis of the same lexical and syntactic distributional profiles underlying lexical clusters is still attractive. In computational linguistics, some attempts have been made to obtain verb classes for English, German and other languages using observable morpho-syntactic and lexical properties of context (Dorr and Jones 1996; Lapata 1999; Schulte im Walde 2006; Lenci 2014, among others). Our experiments on semantic classification of Russian verbs are based on two types of tags embedded in the annotation of argument constructions: a) semantic roles and b) morpho-syntactic patterns. The domain of speech verbs is classified automatically on vectors, and the resulting clusters are contrasted against Babenko (2007)’s semantic classes and three other manual classifications. The classes within the domain of possessive verbs are constructed using rule-based solutions and evaluated against Berkeley FrameNet verb clusters. We conclude that clustering on morpho-syntactic (pure formal) patterns loses the race to more intelligent approaches which take into account semantic roles.
This article discusses the mechanism of feature sharing in the analysis of agreement across theories. We argue that there are agreement phenomena that require an agreement mechanism which is both symmetric and feature sharing. Our main argument relies on a Latin nominalized clause construction which has until now remained ill understood. We show that this construction requires a feature sharing and symmetrical approach to agreement. We also show that phenomena in Tsez and in Algonquian that have so far been described in terms of long distance agreement lend themselves to a treatment in terms of feature sharing, and we look at the consequences for the theory of agreement. We show that there are also cases of agreement which resist a feature-sharing treatment. This means that we cannot pin down a single agree mechanism. Some agreement phenomena require feature sharing, others do not, and yet others are incompatible with feature sharing.
The paper enters the controversy between different approaches to East Caucasian relativization. In one analysis, East Caucasian relativization is constrained only by the semantic and pragmatic frame of the situation. However, our analysis of the data shows a divergence between corpus data on relativization that can only be explained in syntactic terms: Udi reflexivization prefers A over P, and Archi relativization prefers P over A. We suggest that Udi the reason of this asymmetry is that Udi morphosyntax might have been strongly influenced by the contacting accusative languages such as Azerbaijani and Armenian.
The morphology of aspect in many East Caucasian languages is usually described in terms of two aspectual stems. One stem, called ‘perfective’, derives perfective forms, including perfective past (i.e. aorist), perfective converb, perfective participle and other forms. The other stem, called ‘imperfective’, derives imperfective forms, including e.g. imperfective past (i.e. imperfect) and imperfective present, imperfective converb, imperfective participle and some others. Some of the imperfective- vs. perfective-based forms may be formally identical in terms of inflection (e.g. aorist and imperfect may be produced by the same suffix), but this is a matter of variation. In addition to the forms with clear aspectual semantics (e.g. aorist vs. imperfect), there is a number of forms that are not obvious in their aspectual quality. Thus, the prohibitive, expressed morphologically, is consistently derived from the imperfective stem. Imperative and infinitive, on the other hand, may be derived from both stems, thus distinguishing between perfective and imperfective, as in Dargwa (including Mehweb), or from separate secondary stems, as in Archi.
The parallels between East Caucasian languages are not absolute. The study of intra-family variation may focus on two different issues – the distribution of the forms lacking a clear aspectual meaning between the two stems (e.g. where do the prohibitive and the imperative or various types of special converbs go) or on the formal correlation between the perfective and the imperfective stem. It is the latter issue that I consider below. I study the mutual relation between the two stems, the ways in which they are formally different, and whether and to what extent one of them may be considered the primary one and the other derived. I will address this issue in three languages belonging to three different branches of the family: Archi (Lezgic), Mehweb (Dargwa) and Khinalug (Khinalug). My main conclusion is that, notwithstanding a plethora of patterns that differs across and within languages, the general tendency is that the imperfective stem is, in various ways, the marked member of the opposition, either straightforwardly derived from the perfective stem (Khinalug) or being structurally marked in the sense of Croft (2002).
I use the same parameters to arrive at conclusions comparable across the three languages, including:
formal asymmetry of the two sets of inflectional forms: if the two sets include comparable functional categories (past, general converb, participle, action nominal), are they produced by the same affixes?
(un)markedness of one of the stems in paradigmatic terms (structural markedness): whether one of the stems shows more irregularities and formal diversity, including especially expression of noun class agreement
relative morphological primacy of the two stems (morphological markedness): whether one of the stems may be shown to derive from the other;
The languages considered in the paper show different degrees of such asymmetry, from clearly asymmetrical Archi through Mehweb whose system seems to be perfectly symmetrical but where the imperfective stem is somewhat more marked to Khinalug where the imperfective stem is almost unequivocally derived from the perfective stem. The data comes from descriptions, including (Kibrik 1977) (also the dictionary (Chumakina et al. 2008) for Archi; (Kibrik et al. 1972) for Khinalug, and (Magometov 1982, Daniel in preparation) for Mehweb.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 treat Archi, Mehweb and Khinalug, respectively. Section 5 is a comparison of the three languages across the relevant parameters. Section 6 is a summary of the results.
The paper is focused on the study of reaction of italian literature critics on the publication of the Boris Pasternak's novel "Doctor Jivago". The analysys of the book ""Doctor Jivago", Pasternak, 1958, Italy" (published in Russian language in "Reka vremen", 2012, in Moscow) is given. The papers of italian writers, critics and historians of literature, who reacted immediately upon the publication of the novel (A. Moravia, I. Calvino, F.Fortini, C. Cassola, C. Salinari ecc.) are studied and analised.
In the article the patterns of the realization of emotional utterances in dialogic and monologic speech are described. The author pays special attention to the characteristic features of the speech of a speaker feeling psychic tension and to the compositional-pragmatic peculiarities of dialogic and monologic text.