Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Russian pseudosynonymous prepositional constructions: semantics and acquisition

Русские квазисинонимичные предложные конструкции: семантика и усвоение

  • Published:
Russian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study is devoted to the semantics and acquisition of two semantically close groups of Russian pseudosynonymous prepositional constructions: 1) constructions with speech act verbs: govorit’ o Y Loc  / govorit’ pro Y Acc meaning ‘to speak about Y’; 2) ‘verbs of sorrow’ constructions: skučat’ o Y Loc  / skučat’ po Y Dat meaning ‘to miss Y’. The constructions in each group differ in preposition and case. They used to be considered synonymous. Indeed, the interchangeability of the two constructions in each group is possible in most examples, but according to data retrieved from the Russian National Corpus, there are contexts that make this interchangeability impossible. Having analyzed Ruscorpora data from the CxG point of view, we can see that the semantic differences between the two constructions in each group are connected with the restrictions which the construction as a whole imposes on the semantics of its components. The results of the investigation of the acquisition emphasises the semantic differences between the two constructions in each group. This part of the study is based on the longitudinal data of the speech of the authour’s daughter and the records of the spontaneous speech of children learning Russian as a native language kindly provided by the Department of Child Language, Saint-Petersburg State Pedagogical University.

Аннотация

Данное исследование посвящено усвоению семантических различий в пределах двух семантически близких групп предложных конструкций русского языка: 1) конструкций с предикатами речемыслительного действия (говорить о Y Loc  / говорить про Y Acc ); 2) конструкций с предикатами ‘горестного чувства’ (скучать о Y Loc  / скучать по Y Dat ). Дело в том, что при сопоставлении двух конструкций в каждой из групп принято говорить об их синонимичности. Действительно, они взаимозаменимы в большинстве случаев, однако, как показывают данные Национального корпуса русского языка, существуют употребления, в которых подобная взаимозамена невозможна. Проанализировав соответствующие данные НКРЯ в аспекте грамматики конструкций, мы приходим к выводу о том, что семантические различия между конструкциями в каждой группе связаны с теми ограничениями, которые конструкция в целом накладывает на семантику своих компонентов. Исследование усвоения данных конструкций русскоязычными детьми подчеркивает значимость семантических различий между анализируемыми конструкциями в каждой группе. С точки зрения языкового материала эта часть исследования базируется на лонгитюдных записях речи дочери автора данной статьи и на записях спонтанной речи из Фонда данных кафедры детской речи РГПУ им. А. И. Герцена.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Russian National Corpus, www.ruscorpora.ru.

  2. Iakovleva, I. (2011). Modelling variable government in Russian pseudosynonymous verb-preposition constructions: a Construction Grammar approach. Speech held at the Explorations in Syntactic Government and Subcategorisation conference, 31 August–3 September 2011, University of Cambridge. Handout available at: http://ak243.user.srcf.net/gvt/programme.html#otherpapers (27 November 2014).

  3. In this case ‘valence of object’ is understood as a macrorole (like the macroroles of undergoer or theme in a broader sense), which can include several semantic roles such as patient, stimulus, etc. and is often marked with an oblique case in Russian.

  4. Cf.: (i)

    Odna vse plačet pro svoi dela.

     

    one.nom constantly cry.pres about her affairs.acc

     

    ‘One girl constantly complains about her life.’     (V. Vysotskij. Roman o devočkax. 1977)

References

  • AG-80: Švedova, N. Ju. (Ed.) (1980). Russkaja grammatika. Tom II: Sintaksis. Moskva.

  • Apresjan, Ju. D. (Ed.) (1999). Novyj ob”jasnitel’nyj slovar’ sinonimov russkogo jazyka (Vol. 1). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cejtlin, S. N., & Eliseeva, M. B. (Eds.) (1998). Ot dvux do trex. Dnevnikovye zapisi. Sankt-Peterburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, Ch. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried, M., & Östman, J. (2004). Construction Grammar: a thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iomdin, L. L. (1991). Slovarnaja stat’ja predloga PO. In Ju. D. Apresjan (Ed.), Semiotika i informatika. Vypusk 32: Materialy k integral’nomu slovarju sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (obrazcy slovarnyx statej) (pp. 94–120). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leino, J., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Chapter 8: Constructions and variability. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Back to the roots (pp. 191–213). Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voejkova, M. D. (2011). Rannie ėtapy usvoenija det’mi imennoj morfologii russkogo jazyka. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (1991). Slovarnaja stat’ja glagola govorit’. In Ju. D. Apresjan (Ed.), Semiotika i informatika. Vypusk 32: Materialy k integral’nomu slovarju sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (obrazcy slovarnyx statej) (pp. 71–89). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zolotova, G. A. (2001). Sintaksičeskij slovar’. Repertuar ėlementarnyx edinic russkogo sintaksisa. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ulyanovsk State University, Ulyanovsk, Russia

    Irina Iakovleva

Authors
  1. Irina Iakovleva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irina Iakovleva.

Additional information

This study was carried out with the support of the Russian Foundation for Humanities (Project No. 11-34-00302a2).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iakovleva, I. Russian pseudosynonymous prepositional constructions: semantics and acquisition. Russ Linguist 39, 117–127 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-014-9141-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-014-9141-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation