Русский язык на грани нервного срыва. 3D
The paper discusses two related aspectological topics. First section examines the ‘completive’ — i. e. ‘attainment of the internal limit’ — meaning (together with its counterpart ‘incompletive’, i. e. ‘non-attainment of the internal limit’). Its localization in the semantic structure of the utterance is determined: between aspect proper and actionality proper. Also, ‘completive’ can be included under the semantic scope of an iterative operator. It is argued that ‘completive’ is contained as a fixed component in the semantics of some Russian Imperfective verbs such as sgorat’ ‘burn (down)’ and pročityvat’ ‘read (through)’. Second section demonstrates practical possibility and the advantages of a single-verb approach to actional classification in Russian, an approach which is not based on the notion of aspectual pairs. Actional properties are ascribed separately to single Perfective and Imperfective verbs on the basis of uniform tests. The efficiency of the approach is demonstrated on a pilot sample of Perfective and Imperfective verbs.
In response to the growing demand for highly proficient foreign language (L2) speakers in professional work settings, scholars and educators have increasingly turned their attention to methods for developing greater fluency in their learners who aspire to such jobs. Engaging in persuasive writing and argumentation has been shown to promote both written and oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners (Brown, 2009). This study focuses on the application of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) proficiency guidelines and standards to the design of teletandem courses in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and Russian as a Foreign Language developed to promote Advanced and Superior-level language gains. ACTFL Can-Do statements were used to evaluate learners’ self-reported language gains as a result of participating in the course. The results indicated that such an approach can indeed yield significant perceived gains, especially for spoken language, for all the participants regardless of their target language and home institution.
This paper is a first step towards a corpus-based description of the semantics of Russian pronouns in intensional contexts. Having justified the use of corpus in (formal) semantic research, I delineate a particular issue within the topic: whether a given pronoun is interpreted de se or de re in counteridentity contexts.
A counteridentity context is a clause within the scope of a counterfactual (clause or adverbial) that affects the identity of a real individual, e.g. if I were you, were I you, etc. If a pronoun such as I, my or the Russian reflexive possessive svoj is used in such a context, two options are theoretically possible: either it picks out the speaker’s real self (de re), or it refers to the identity assumed by the speaker in the contrary-to-fact situations introduced by the counterfactual (de se).
Using data from the GICR corpus (approx. 20 billion tokens), I show that for the Russian first-person singular pronoun ja and its corresponding possessive moj, de se reference is possible but de re interpretation is more frequent. The opposite holds for the reflexive sebja, whereas svoj is interpreted de se with no exception. Special attention is paid to situations where more than one referential strategy is possible. The paper concludes with a couple of observations relevant for the future formal accounts of de se reference.
The paper presents a corpus-driven study of the Russian PP-based degree modifier do uzhasa (lit. ‘to horror’), suggesting a two-stage grammaticalization path. The first stage (presumably, XVIII–XIX c.) involves subjectification, while during the second stage, subjective readings give rise to intensifier readings through conceptual metonymy. Both stages see a host class expansion. This process is motivated by a complex interplay of factors, with analogy playing a major role. Finally, the evolution of do uzhasa is contrasted to that of the English PP-based intensifier to death. While there are obvious similarities, a closer look identifies a number of important differences that are relevant for the development of construction-based typology of language change.