The paper present the lexical-typological approach to the problem of reality of "semantic fields"
A non-native Russian speaker at the advanced level of language proficiency makes the same mistakes as a native speaker does; however, these mistakes are much more frequent as the non-native speaker is influenced heavily by Russian language system and speech patterns.
Russian jussives with a particle pust’, while being rare and late acquired, still demonstrate some features special for child-adult communication. The communicative situation influences the characteristics of these constructions in terms of the use of aspect and transitive verbs, causing dissimilarity between child-directed and adult-directed speech.
The paper briefly describes the formal and semantic properties of Russian construction composed of поди and a second imperative form VIMPER. The construction поди VIMPER may represent either unrealizable action from the speaker’s point of view or an action perceived by the speaker as very difficult. The theoretical framework used in this study is based on Construction Grammar. Поди VIMPER construction inherits its properties both from Russian non-directive imperative readings (or pseudo-imperative constructions) and from discourse word поди.
The article comprises a study of a developed polysemy of the markers of two spatial cases, ablative (main allomorph -lt) and elative (main allomorph -st). Apart from the central meaning (source of movement—with orientations ‘at’ / (‘near’) and ‘in’ / ‘at’ respectively), each of these two markers is able to express a wide and diverse range of peripheral meanings that no longer provide any single invariant meaning. Examples of the most sematically “isolated” meanings discussed in the article are detected property (He looks happy), theme (I write about people), subject of evaluation (To my [mind], it was…). On the other hand, some groups of meanings semantically adjacent and connected to the central ones (in one way or another) can surely be found, too. This description may have made a certain contribution to the study of Finnish and other Baltic Finnic languages. The analysis of some meanings—such as secondary object of trade exchange (…paid five roubles for the pencil, …bought the pencil for five roubles) or “captative” (I carry the bag by the handles)—may be of interest from typological point of view also.
This article includes the study of the properties of possessive and relative markers in Chukchi language (-in(e)/-en(a) и -kin(e)/-ken(a)). The co-occurence with different parts of speech was observed using animacy hierarchy. The incorporation and predicativisation ability was also analysed.
The paper concerns the main syntactic and semantic features of a basic converb in the Tundra Nenets language. According to certain classifications, the converb in Tundra Nenets should be regarded as a non-canonical, varying-subject, and contextual converb. It retains most verbal properties, and could be regularly built on the basis of any verbal stem. The converb can occupy the positions of adjunct, complement, and nominal attribute. The temporal (taxis) interpretation of the converb depends on the aspectual characteristics of the verbal stem from which it is derived. The research is based on the analysis of the examples from the published sources and on the author’s own fieldwork on the Yamal Peninsula.
The paper discusses two ‘again’-markers (refactives) of Abaza, a polysynthetic North-West Caucasian language. The main property of the first ‘again’-marker (suffix -χ) is that it acquires various meanings depending on the semantics of the verb it combines with. Specifically, the most frequent meanings of suffix -χ are reditive (‘return to the starting point’), completive (‘finishʼ), responsive (‘response to a similar action’), and restitutive (repetition of an earlier state). The most widespread subtype of the ‘again’-meaning — the repetitive (‘do one more time’) — can apply to almost all verbs regardless of their semantics. In addition, there are some frequent uses of the suffix -χ in combination with other elements whose semantic links to the refactive proper are not immediately clear. The only meaning of the second ‘again’-marker (combination ata-+-χ) is repetitive but at the same time it can also preserve one of the subtypes of the ‘again’-marker -χ within the scope of the repetitive meaning. In this paper, I argue that the difference in behavior of ‘again’-markers in Abaza is explained by the different semantic scope of the affixes. While the marker -χ “sees” the internal structure of an event and can have scope over any part of it, the marker ata-+-χ is “blind” to the internal structure of the situation and can only “copy” the whole event with its arguments. Typologically, suffixes -χ and ata-+-χ in Abaza appear to represent examples of ‘heavy’ again-markers and ‘light’ again-markers respectively: light again-markers frequently occur in texts and form specific lexical collocations with certain verbs, while the meaning of heavy again-markers usually does not depend on particular verbs.
The article focuses on the dialogical (non-narrative) uses of Russian delimitative predicates with prefix po (poguljat’, porabotat’). In dialogical discourse, such predicates almost obligatorily receive perfect interpretation (i. e. in almost all cases — at least for non-topical predicates — they always express the semantics of current relevance). They differ in this respect from the transformative perfective verbs (napisat’, kupit’), which also frequently receive perfect interpretation in dialogical discourse, but it can be easily cancelled. In addition, in dialogical discourse delimitative verbs form a functional opposition with the corresponding imperfective verbs (in their “general-factual” uses) (cf. a pair Ja pospal vs. Ja spal). While the former express perfect semantics proper (current relevance semantics) — Ja pospal; Ja uže poguljal, — the latter express opposite experiential ~ “existential” semantics — Ja spal; Ja uže guljal. Given the fact that the delimitative derivation is highly productive in Russian (delimitative predicate can be formed from almost any imperfective verb), it can be considered to perform in Russian the role of a specialized perfect for atelic situations and for telic situations not achieving their natural endpoint. At the same time this device is (almost) obligatory in this function only in dialogical discourse in non-topical uses. The role of “non-perfect” grammatical device in the same conditions is performed by corresponding imperfective predicates.
The paper deals with a Moksha Mordvin aspectual morpheme which is ambiguous between inchoative and anticausative
The paper deals with semantic and morphosyntax of one aspectual derivation in Moksha
The paper discusses patterns of person agreement in Mehweb Dargwa. The focus of the paper is constructions with dative subjects where person agreement can be controlled by neither the dative subject or absolutive direct object. This constitutes a violation of Bobaljik’s conjecture about the role of morphological case in agreement. The paper shows that person agreement in dative subject constructions is possible only under condition that both the dative and absolutive NPs are first person arguments.
The constructions čto nazyvaetsja ‘what is called’ and to, čto nazyvaetsja ‘that what is called’ share properties with both parentheticals and relative clauses, especially transparent relatives. The construction čto nazyvaetsja ‘what is called’ is extremely close to parentheticals and highly lexicalized. The construction to, čto nazyvaetsja ‘that what is called’ patterns in some respects with relative clauses, e. g. it is more frequent if the designation is a NP and it is avoided in postposition to the designation. During the 18th–19th centuries the construction čto nazyvaetsja ‘what is called’ acquired some common features with parenthetical clauses. For instance, the lexical constraints became stricter, and non-NP designations became more frequent. The data allows to suggest that the observed constructions constitute intermediate stages on the cline of change from relative clauses to parentheticals.