Last week, I took a moment to discuss verb aspects, in hopes of clearing up those scary words perfective and imperfective. Today I want to share the amazing formula with which Russian verbs become perfective or imperfective.
Very aspects are largely an afterthought in Latin languages, and almost always a complete mystery in English, but they are so important in Russian that they literally affect every choice of every verb you ever use. This is one of the many details of Russian that tends to scare people off, but once you understand it, it will become one of the things that you love about the language.
Every Russian verb is either perfective or imperfective. Only a rare handful are both. When you talk about doing anything, your choice of verb requires you to know whether it is being done in an ongoing way (imperfective) or in a temporary, or complete (perfective) way.
Verb pairs
Because it is so completely different to think in this way, a concept of verb pairs gets used a lot. Many books, web sites, teachers, etc., will describe verb as aspect pairs: one the perfective, and one the imperfective.
Indeed, out of logical necessity, there are always at least two. (Except in those rare cases of a single verb that is both.) You need to have a way to describe the action in an ongoing way as well as a completed way, so it’s convenient to learn both at once.
For example, people typically learn видеть and увидеть together. The same with говорить and сказать. And снимать-снять, пить-выпить, and so on.
Yes, I can see how this is actually a good way to ease the learner’s mind into a new way of thinking. The problem is, it’s wrong.
Word stems
Only a small number of Russian verbs exist in pairs. Most of the time, that’s just not how they work. Learning to think of them as pairs is wrong, and it is setting yourself up for difficulty later on. In reality, the formula is really only a tiny bit more complicated, and it would be much better if people learned it correctly from the start.
Most Russian words consist of a stem, a prefix, a suffix, and various endings. A stem can usually become a verb or a noun, depending on what ending is applied. When the stem is used as a verb, it is imperfective, and it describes an action at its most basic level.
For instance, the stem -каз- describes «indicating» or «pointing», but at a more basic leven than can be described with any English word I can think of. This isn’t even a useful word on its own, so it’s never seen. But the stem exists.
In many cases, you could now just add the -ать ending to make this into an imperfective verb describing an action based on the meaning of that stem. However in this case, казать is not a word you’ll actually see used.
The magic is in the prefix
Adding any of the various Russian prefixes allows the meaning to be tailored. For instance, от- means «away from», and when you add it to казать you get отказать, which means «to refuse». You can think of it as «point away». Similarly, у- means «out», and no surprise, указать means «to point out». What’s more interesting is that adding any prefix to a stem makes that stem perfective.
You’ll often find that most times when you would use an imperfective, the basic stem works. But there are still plenty of times when you’ll want an imperfective version of a prefixed verb. Fortunately, there’s one easy way to get it.
Adding the prefix -ывать onto the end of a perfective verb stem changes it all back to imperfective. So when someone pointed out a location on a map, for instance, you would use указать, but if they are pointing out the location right now, you would use указывать.
Examples
That description may or may not have been clear, so here are a few examples of verb construction at work:
- -дум-
stem — meaning thought
- думать
imperfective — verb to think
- придумать
perfective — verb to think up, invent
- обдумать
perfective — verb to think about, consider
- придумывать
imperfective — verb thinking up, inventing
- обдумывать
imperfective — verb thinking about, considering
Summary
As I said, it’s just a bit more difficult than memorizing verb pairs. But I promise it’s only a little bit more difficult! And unlike verb pairs, which require you to do endless memorization without any understanding, this gives you an actual understanding of the workings of verb construction. Understanding how it works gives you the ability to break down and understand words you don’t know, and form new words on-the-fly if you need to, and helps to build that web of knowledge that props up your mind when memory fails!
Loading…
1 Morphology, derivation, parts of speech
1.1 Morphology, word-formation
The term morphology consists of two parts: μορφή (‘form, shape‘) and λόγος (‘word, doctrine’), therefore morphology can be understood as a science that deals with forms such as cell morphology, phytomorphology, geomorphology etc.
The unit (object) of the study of linguistic morphology is a word whose form is understood to be a structure whose components are morphemes or complexes of morphemes.
In the traditional structural linguistics approach to the language the following are divided:
- the sound plane (sounds, phonemes) — phonetics, phonology,
- the plane of the building elements consisting of the words (morphs and morphemes) — morphematics (morphemics),
- the plane of words or word forms — morphology, lexicology,
- the plane of collocation and sentence — syntax,
- the text plane — text linguistics.
Elements of the lower planes consist of elements of higher planes, e.g. sentences consist of words. The plane of the building elements, which consist of words, examines the linguistic discipline morphematics (morphemics). The smallest, non-separable language units that act as building blocks of words and carry some lexical or grammatical meaning (or have a certain function) and which are repeated at least in two words or verbal forms are called morphs.
The boundary between the two morphs, which are part of the same word, is called a morphemic seam (we will mark it a dash): вод-а, вод-н-ый, на-вод-н-ени-е.
A set of morphs of the same kind, which have the same lexical or grammatical significance (or the same function) and which are similar to their formal structure, are called morphemes. Morpheme is an abstract unit that is realized through one of its morphs, e.g.: ног-а, нож-к-а, без-ног-ий. Concrete morphs -ног- [ног], -нож- [нож], -ног- [ног’] are realising here morpheme with a lexical meaning „одна из двух нижних конечностей человека, а также одна из конечностей птиц, некоторых животных“. The morphs belonging to such a set (which form one morpheme) are referred to as variants of the given morpheme or as an alomorphs, in other words -ног- [ног], -нож- [нож], -ног- [ног’] are the alomorphs of the morpheme -ног- with a lexical meaning „одна из двух нижних конечностей человека, а также одна из конечностей птиц, некоторых животных“.
Morph(eme)s, from which Russian words and grammatical word forms are composed, are usually divided into root word and affixes. Root morph(eme)s (root) are the central type of morph(eme)s and carry the main lexical meaning of the whole word or grammatical form of word, that every word has a root morf(eme): вод-а, жив-ой, трав-а, мног-о, пис-а-ть, глав-н-ый, мой. Affixes are morphemes that are located in a word in front of a root morph(eme)s or after it:
- Prefixes are located in front of the root, e. g.: под-писать, супер-герой, с-делать.
- Suffixes are found after the root or between the root and the ending, e. g.: ум-н-ый, дом-ик, красн-еньк-ий.
- Postfixes for certain types of words or grammatical forms can be attached to the so-called absolute end, i.e. behind a case, gender or personal inflexion or suffix, e. g.: умываться, кто-нибудь.
- Interfixes, which are used to join the front and rear composite members into a new word, in Russian most often -o-, -e-, e.g.: пар-о-ход, земл-е-трясение, вод-о-провод, лес-о-заготовки.
- Inflection (ending, inflectional morph(eme)s), in Russian they are morphemes whose change is accompanied by a change in morphological gender, numbers, case and persons, e. g.: стен-а, стен-ы, стен-е…; нов-ая, нов-ый, нов-ое, нов-ые; пиш-у, пиш-ешь, пиш-ем…, пиш-ут. Inflexion morph(eme)s are at the end of a word or grammatical form, after which only postfixes can be found in Russian, e. g.: -ся, -сь, -те, -то, -либо, -нибудь: стро-ит-ся, занимал-а-сь, ид-ём-те, как-ой-то.
Prefixes and suffixes can also be divided into:
- word-forming (derivation), which specify, modify, change the main lexical meaning of a word or word form, e.g.: дом – дом-ик („маленький дом“), писать – пере-писать („написать заново, иначе“);
- form-building (derivation of word forms), which express grammatical meanings (grammatical categories) and can only be used for flexible word types, e.g. case inflections of nouns (вод-а, вод-ы, вод-е), verb suffix of past time -л- (чит-а-л, чит-а-л-а, чит-а-л-о, чит-а-л-и).
Form-building morph(eme)s in Russian can be realized using so-called null morphs (morphological zero, mark Ø), in other words formally unrecognized morph, e.g. столØ, стол-а, стол-у or учительØ, учител-я, учител-ю, where in the nominative case the ending of a masculine gender is not expressed formally (i.e. by letter or special sound), but in other cases the ending is expressed on a formal level. If the word does not decline or conjugate, we can not speak of any null morphs at its end, e.g. in the words радио, хаки, какаду, Сочи, Брно, бордо, but in words such весело, улыбаясь we can talk about the final suffixes/postfixes: весел-о (suffix -о-), улыб-а-я-сь (postfix -сь).
The stem of a word or word form is the part of it that remains after separation of inflection (ending) or inflection with postfix -те. Morphs of other postfixes are part of a word or word form, e.g.: stem of word form пишется is пиш…ся, stem of word form чья-то is /ч’j/…то. Such stems are called intermittent in the Russian grammatical tradition.
Another branch associated with the structure of the word and its separation into morphs is word-forming (derivation) that deals with word-motivated words, i.e. words whose meaning and pronunciation are influenced in other words by the same root.
The term word-forming motivation refers to the relationship between two words with the same root, the relationship between the two words being of a dual nature:
- the meaning of one word is determined by the meaning of the second word (дом – домик „маленький дом“, победить – победитель „тот, кто победил“);
- the meaning of the two words is similar / the same, but each word of the pair is another part of speech (бежать — бег, белый — белизна, быстрый — быстро).
Words with the same root that do not meet the above requirements are not found in the word-motivation relationship, e.g.: the word домик and домище, but дом – домик, дом – домище are already in relation to word-forming motivation, while one of the words pair is motivating (underlying word), the second word is motivated. Features of a motivated word are as follows:
- If both words have a different lexical meaning, the motivated word is the one whose stem is longer (whether from formal or phonemic point of view): горох — горошина, писать — написать, есть — съесть.
- If both words have a different lexical meaning, but the same/similar formal page, motivated is a word whose semantics is determined over the meaning of the first word: химия – химик („тот, кто занимается химией“), художник – художница („женщина-художник“).
- In pairs verb — noun, adjective — noun motivated word is the noun: косить — косьба, выходить — выход, атаковать — атака, красный — краснота, синий — синь; in the pair adjective — adverb motivated is a word with a longer stem (q. v. point a): вчера – вчерашний.
- Stylistically colored words can not be motivating if they have a stylistically neutral adjective, e.g.: гуманитарный – гуманитар (colloquial), технический – техник (colloquial).
The underlying (motivating) word in relation to the next word may be motivated, e. g.: the word учитель in the pair with the word учительница is underlying, but in relation to the word учить is motivated. Such words form derivation chains (word-forming chains): учить → учитель → учительница. The derivation chain consists of words with the same root, which are related to motivation. The first member of the derivation chain is an unmotivated word, all other members of the derivation chain are determined by their distance from the first non-motivated word (so-called motivation degree):
старый → стареть (I) → устареть (II) → устарелый (III) → устарелость (IV)
The words of the second and the higher motivation degree can be motivated by the words of the previous motivation degree, e.g.: преподавать → преподаватель → преподавательский, where the word преподавательский can be motivated both by the word преподаватель and the word преподавать.
Another important term in the field of morphematics is a family of words, which means a group of words with the same root, which is organized on the basis of its motivation. The first word (vertex) of the family of words can be an unmotivated word. A family of words can also be defined as a series of derivation chains with the same first non-motivated word.
Family of words or derivation chains can be found in Russian-language vocabulary, e.g.:
- ГУРКОВА, И. В.: Морфемно-словообразовательный словарь. Как растёт слово? (1–4 классы). Москва: АСТ-ПРЕСС КНИГА, 2012. 192 с. ISBN 978–5-462–01047–7.
- ПОПОВА, Т. В., ЗАЙКОВА, Е. С.: Морфемно-словообразовательный словарь русского языка (5–11 классы). Москва: АСТ-ПРЕСС КНИГА, 2012. 272 с. ISBN 978–5-462–00922–8.
- ТИХОНОВ, А. Н.: Словообразовательный словарь русского языка: в 2 томах (около 145000 слов). Москва: Русский язык, 1985. 854 с.
- ТИХОНОВ, А. Н.: Новый словообразовательный словарь русского языка для всех, кто хочет быть грамотным. Москва: АСТ, 2014. 639 с. ISBN 978–5-17–082826–5.
Ways of word formation in Russian
I Ways of derivation words having one motivating root (stem)
1 Suffixation (suffixal way of word formation)
New words are created using suffixes that perform a classification function and classify words into certain paradigm, so new words created by the same suffix usually belong to the same paradigm (pattern), e.g.: учить — учи-тель, писать — писа-тель, both new words (учитель, писатель) have the same declension (учитель/писатель, без учителя/без писателя, к учителю/к писателю etc.).
Other examples of sufixation: вода — вод-н-ый, стол — стол-ик, три — три-жды.
The suffix may be null morpheme, e.g.: выходить — выход, синий — синь, задирать — задира, проезжать — проезжий.
2 Prefixation (prefixal way of word formation)
New words are created using prefixes, e.g.: дедушка — прадедушка, огромный — преогромный, завтра — послезавтра, герой — супергерой.
3 Postfixation (postfixal way of word formation)
New words are created by word-forming postfixes. Postfixes in Russian may be form-building (e.g.: -те in the imperative forms пишите, пойте; -ся/-сь in forms of passive voice Дом строится рабочими) and word-forming (-ся/-сь, -то, -либо, -нибудь): переписывать — переписываться (postfix — ся has a word-forming meaning of reciprocity), кто-то / что-либо / где-нибудь (postfixes -то, -либо, -нибудь have the word-forming meaning of uncertainty).
Prefixes and postfixes, unlike suffixes, attach to the whole word, not to the root, so the words created by prefixing or postfixing belong to the same word type and paradigm as an underlying word.
4 Mixed ways
- prefixal sufixal way of word formation (the suffix may be null morpheme): море – приморье, новый – по-новому, стол – застольный, рука – безрукий;
- prefixal postfixal way of word formation: бежать – разбежаться, гулять – нагуляться;
- sufixal postfixal way of word formation: гордый – гордиться, нужда – нуждаться.
5 Substantivation of adjectives and participles (semantic way of word formation)
E.g.: больной (больной ребёнок) – больной (Доктор принял пять больных), заведующий (Иван Петрович, заведующий отделением контроля, сегодня не придёт на работу) – заведующий (Заведующий кафедрой пришёл на работу к восьми утра).
II Ways of derivation words that have more than one motivating root (stem)
1 Composition
New words are created by compounding a few roots (stems), with the last (supporting) component equal to the whole word, the previous part(s) being equal to the stem. A derivation morpheme is an interfix, the order of the components is fixed, the accent is the only one, and is usually located on the last (supporting) component of the word: первый, источник – первоистóчник; половина, обернуться – полуобернýться; слепой, глухой, немой – слепоглухонемóй; чешский, русский — чешско-рýсский. The interfix can be null morpheme, e.g.: царь-пушка.
2 Mixed ways (suffixal compounding way of word formation)
New words are created by a combination of composition (compounding) and suffixation (which may be null morpheme): один, рука – однорукий; хлеб, резать – хлеборез; разный, язык — разноязычный.
3 Coalescence
New words are created based on the word combination with parataxis or governmen: лишённый ума – умалишённый; ребёнок, долго играющий на улице… – долгоиграющий; растворимый, быстро – быстрорастворимый.
4 Abbreviation
New words come from the first letters of words, from the first syllables of words, by combining one part of the word with the whole word, or combining the beginning of the first word and the end of the second word: США (Соединённые Штаты Америки), ЕС (Европейский Союз), вуз (высшее учебное заведение), сбербанк (сберегательный банк), физкультура (физическая культура), педфак (педагогический факультет). The words resulting from the abbreviation are inflected, but the abbreviations США, ЕС are uninflected.
Задания
1
Разделите слова на морфемы, определите, при помощи каких морфем было образовано данное слово:
2
Выделите корневые алломорфы.
а) рука, ручной, безрукий,
б) сонный, сон, сна,
в) земля, земной, земельный,
г) любить, люблю, влюблённый,
д) свет, свеча, освещение,
е) треск, трещина, треснуть.
3
Определите значения омонимичных корней и распределите слова на группы, учитывая значение корня, от которого данное слово образовано. Укажите словообразовательный способ.
а) Дорога, дóрого, дорожать, дорожка, дорогой, дорожный.
б) Зарисовка, рисинка, рисовать, рисовод, рисовый, рисунок.
в) Выкуп, выкупаться, купить, купальник, купля, купать, покупка, покупатель, купальщик.
4
Приведённые ниже слова распределите в зависимости от того, есть ли в них словообразовательный аффикс либо формообразующий.
знал, писатель, быстрее, котёнок, говорить, шелковистый, добрейший, плáча, переделать, наилучший, ближний, ошейник.
5
Определите, в каких словах конечные -а, -о, -е, -и, -ей являются суффиксом, окончанием или входят в состав корня:
6
Определите, какое слово из пары является мотивированным (производным), а какое мотивирующим (производящим):
строитель – строить, жéмчуг – жемчýжина, верно – верный, журналист – журналистка, новизнá – новый, добротá – добрый, сýхость – сухой, брóнза – брóнзовый, газета – газéтный, двигать – движение.
7*
Разделите слова на морфемы. Докажите, что Вы правы, подбирая другие формы слова, родственные слова или слова, построенные по аналогичной модели.
Образец
| выпускной | -пуск- | – | корень (пускать, пусковой, пуск); |
| вы- | – | приставка (выпрямить, выплатить); | |
| -н- | – | суффикс (вкусный, снежный); | |
| -ой | – | окончание (выпускн-ого, выпускн-ые). |
- переводчик
- приземлиться
- бесшумный
- ледник
- водопад
- подарок
- проигрывать
8*
Найдите по пять примеров слов к каждому словообразовательному способу русского языка.
9*
Работая со словообразовательными словарями русского языка, найдите словообразовательные гнёзда следующих слов:
- писать,
- читать,
- думать,
- учить,
- быть,
- виноград,
- вкус,
- голова,
- дочь,
- забота,
- много,
- здесь,
- вода,
- газета,
- новый,
- друг
Какие словообразовательные способы представлены в этих словообразовательных гнёздах?
10*
Прочитайте главу «Активные процессы в словообразовании» из учебника Н. С. Валгиной «Активные процессы в современном русском языке». При помощи каких продуктивных аффиксов в современном русском языке образуются названия лиц (в т. ч. названия лиц, образованные от корней (основ) иностранного происхождения)? Каковы особенности аббревиации в современном русском языке? Приведите примеры.
Russian grammar employs an Indo-European inflexional structure, with considerable adaptation.
Russian has a highly inflectional morphology, particularly in nominals (nouns, pronouns, adjectives and numerals). Russian literary syntax is a combination of a Church Slavonic heritage, a variety of loaned and adopted constructs, and a standardized vernacular foundation.
The spoken language has been influenced by the literary one, with some additional characteristic forms. Russian dialects show various non-standard grammatical features, some of which are archaisms or descendants of old forms discarded by the literary language.
Various terms are used to describe Russian grammar with the meaning they have in standard Russian discussions of historical grammar, as opposed to the meaning they have in descriptions of the English language; in particular, aorist, imperfect, etc., are considered verbal tenses, rather than aspects, because ancient examples of them are attested for both perfective and imperfective verbs. Russian also places the accusative case between the dative and the instrumental, and in the tables below, the accusative case appears between the nominative and genitive cases.
Nouns[edit]
Nominal declension involves six main cases – nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, and prepositional – in two numbers (singular and plural), and absolutely obeying grammatical gender (masculine, feminine, and neuter). Up to ten additional cases are identified in linguistics textbooks,[1][2][3] although all of them are either incomplete (do not apply to all nouns) or degenerate (appear identical to one of the six main cases) – the most recognized additional cases are locative, partitive and vocative. Old Russian also had a third number, the dual, but it has been lost except for its use in the nominative and accusative cases with the numbers two, three, and four (e.g. два стула, «two chairs»), where it is now reanalyzed as genitive singular.
More often than in many other Indo-European languages, Russian noun cases may supplant the use of prepositions entirely.[4] Furthermore, every preposition is exclusively used with a particular case (or cases). Their usage can be summarised as:[5]
- nominative (имени́тельный):
- main subject;
- default case to use outside sentences (dictionary entries, signs, etc.);
- prepositions: за ‘(what) kind of?’; в: ‘join the ranks of’ (with plural noun only);
- accusative (вини́тельный):
- direct object;
- some time expressions;
- prepositions indicating motion: в ‘into, in(ward)’, на ‘onto (the top of)’, за ‘behind, after’, под ‘under’;
- other prepositions: про ‘about’, через ‘over, through’, сквозь ‘through’;
- genitive (роди́тельный):
- possession – ‘of’ (genitive noun);
- numerals and quantifiers;
- negated verbs (which take direct objects in Accusative) to indicate total absence;
- some time expressions;
- prepositions: без ‘without’, вместо ‘instead of’, возле ‘near’, вокруг ‘around’, впереди ‘ahead of’, для ‘for’, до ‘before’, из ‘from’, из-за ‘because of, from behind’, от ‘from’, кроме ‘except for’, мимо ‘past by’, около ‘near’, после ‘after’, против ‘against, opposite’, среди ‘among’, у ‘by’, близ ‘near’, вдоль ‘along’, вне ‘out of, outside’, внутри ‘inside’;
- verbs: бояться ‘afraid of’, достигать ‘reach’, избегать ‘avoid’;
- adjectives: полный ‘full of’ (genitive noun);
- dative (да́тельный):
- indirect object – ‘to’ (dative noun);
- some time expressions;
- impersonal clauses: мне холодно – ‘I am cold’, lit. «to_me (is) cold»;
- age statements: мне двадцать лет – ‘I am 20 (years old)’, lit. ‘to_me (is) 20 years’;
- prepositions: по ‘on’, к ‘to(wards)’, благодаря ‘thanks to’;
- auxiliaries: нужно or надо ‘need/must (to)’, можно ‘allowed’, нельзя ‘forbidden’;
- verbs: верить ‘believe’, помочь ‘help’, советовать ‘advise’, звонить ‘call’, удивить(ся) ‘amaze (self)’;
- instrumental (твори́тельный):
- instrument used in the action or means by which action is carried out – ‘by’ (I. noun);
- logical subject of passive clause: письмо написано Иваном – ‘the letter was written by Ivan’;
- secondary direct object: его считают студентом – ‘he is considered (to be) a student’;
- durational time expressions;
- verbs: интересовать(ся) ‘interest (to be interested in)’, пользоваться ‘use’, занимать(ся) ‘occupy (to be preoccupied with)’;
- associates of connective verbs: быть ‘be’, стать ‘became’, остаться ‘remain’, казаться ‘appear to be’, оказаться ‘turn out to be’;
- prepositions of position: за ‘behind’, перед ‘in front of’, над ‘above’, под ‘below’, между ‘between’, (вместе) с ‘(together) with’;
- adjective: довольный ‘pleased by’;
- prepositional (предло́жный):
- prepositions of place: в ‘inside’, на ‘on (top of)’;
- other prepositions: о ‘about’, при ‘by/of/with’;
Definite and indefinite articles (corresponding to ‘the’, ‘a’, ‘an’ in English) do not exist in the Russian language. The sense conveyed by such articles can be determined in Russian by context. However, Russian also utilizes other means of expressing whether a noun is definite or indefinite:
- The use of a direct object in the genitive instead of the accusative in negation signifies that the noun is indefinite, compare: Я не ви́жу кни́ги («I don’t see a book» or «I don’t see any books») and Я не ви́жу кни́гу («I don’t see the book»).
- The same goes for certain verbs expressing a desire to achieve something: wait, wish, ask, want, etc. When the inanimate object is definite (certain, or at least expected), the accusative is used; when it is indefinite (uncertain), the genitive is used. Compare: Я жду автобус («I’m waiting for the bus», а specific, scheduled bus) and Я жду автобуса («I’m waiting for a bus», any bus, if one will come).[6]
- The use of the numeral one sometimes signifies that the noun is indefinite, e.g.: Почему́ ты так до́лго? – Да так, встре́тил одного́ дру́га, пришло́сь поговори́ть («Why did it take you so long?» – «Well, I met one [=a] friend and had to talk»).
- Word order may also be used for this purpose; compare В ко́мнату вбежа́л ма́льчик («Into the room rushed a boy») and Ма́льчик вбежа́л в ко́мнату («The boy rushed into the room»).
- The plural form may signify indefiniteness: Вы мо́жете купи́ть э́то в магази́нах («You can buy this in shops») vs. Вы мо́жете купи́ть э́то в магази́не («You can buy this in the shop»).
The category of animacy is relevant in Russian nominal and adjectival declension.[7] Specifically, the accusative has two possible forms in many paradigms, depending on the animacy of the referent. For animate referents (persons and animals), the accusative form is generally identical to the genitive form. For inanimate referents, the accusative form is identical to the nominative form. This principle is relevant for masculine singular nouns of the second declension (see below) and adjectives, and for all plural paradigms (with no gender distinction). In the tables below, this behavior is indicated by the abbreviation ‘N or G’ in the row corresponding to the accusative case.
Russian uses three declensions:[8]
- The first declension is used for feminine nouns ending with -а/-я and some masculine nouns having the same form as those of feminine gender, such as па́па (papa) or дя́дя (uncle); also, common-gender nouns like зади́ра (bully) are masculine or feminine depending on the person to which they refer.
- The second declension is used for most masculine and neuter nouns.
- The third declension is used for feminine nouns ending in ь.
A group of irregular «different-declension nouns» (Russian: разносклоняемые существительные), consists of a few neuter nouns ending in -мя (e.g. время «time») and one masculine noun путь «way». However, these nouns and their forms have sufficient similarity with feminine third declension nouns that scholars such as Litnevskaya[9] consider them to be non-feminine forms of this declension.
Nouns ending with -ий, -ия, -ие (not to be confused with substantivated adjectives) are written with -ии instead of -ие in prepositional (as this ending is never stressed, there is no difference in pronunciation): тече́ние – в ни́жнем тече́нии реки́ «streaming – in lower streaming of a river». However, if words в течение and в продолжение represent a compound preposition meaning – «while, during the time of» – they are written with -е: в тече́ние ча́са «in a time of an hour». For nouns ending in -ья, -ье, or -ьё, using -ьи in the prepositional (where endings of some of them are stressed) is usually erroneous, but in poetic speech it may be acceptable (as we replace -ии with -ьи for metric or rhyming purposes): Весь день она́ лежа́ла в забытьи́ (Fyodor Tyutchev).
First declension[edit]
Feminine and masculine nouns ending with ‘а’ or я vowel[edit]
| singular | plural | |
|---|---|---|
| nominative | -а -я, -ия | -ы -и, -ии |
| accusative | -у -ю, -ию | N or G |
| genitive | -ы -и, -ии | ∅ -ь, -ий |
| dative | -е -е, -ии | -ам -ям, -иям |
| instrumental | -ой -ей, -ией | -ами -ями, -иями |
| prepositional | -е -е, -ии | -ах -ях, -иях |
Second declension[edit]
Masculine nouns ending with a consonant sound[edit]
| singular | plural | |
|---|---|---|
| nominative | ∅ -ь/-й, -ий, +ин-∅ | -ы -и, -ии, -е |
| accusative | N or G | |
| genitive | -а -я, -ия, +ин-а | -ов -ей/-ев, -иев, -∅ |
| dative | -у -ю, -ию, +ин-у | -ам -ям, -иям, -ам |
| instrumental | -ом -ем, -ием, +ин-ом | -ами -ями, -иями, -ами |
| prepositional | -е -е, -ии, +ин-е | -ах -ях, -иях, -ах |
Some singular nouns denoting groups of people may include -ин- suffix before ending.
Neuter nouns[edit]
| singular | plural | |
|---|---|---|
| nominative | -о -е | -а -я |
| accusative | N or G | |
| genitive | -а -я | ∅ -й, -ей |
| dative | -у -ю | -ам -ям |
| instrumental | -ом -ем | -ами -ями |
| prepositional | -е -е | -ах -ях |
Third declension[edit]
Feminine nouns ending with letter ь[edit]
| singular | plural | |
|---|---|---|
| nominative | -ь | -и |
| accusative | N or G -и | |
| genitive | -и | -ей |
| dative | -ям | |
| instrumental | -ью -ём | -ями -я́ми |
| prepositional | -и | -ах -ях |
Neuter nouns ending with мя[edit]
| singular | plural | |
|---|---|---|
| nominative | -я | -ена́ -ёна |
| accusative | ||
| genitive | -ени | -ён -ён |
| dative | -ена́м -ёнам | |
| instrumental | -енем | -ена́ми -ёнами |
| prepositional | -ени | -ена́х -ёнах |
Indeclinable nouns[edit]
Some nouns (such as borrowings from other languages, abbreviations, etc.) are not modified when they change number and case. This occurs especially when the ending appears not to match any declension pattern in the appropriate gender. An example of an indeclinable noun is кофе («coffee»).
Additional cases[edit]
Some nouns use several additional cases. The most important of these are:
- Locative (ме́стный): the most common minor case, used after prepositions of location (на, в(о)). With most nouns the prepositional form is used in such instances. When there is a distinct locative, it may match the dative, or may take a unique form. For example, in во рту́ («in the mouth»), the locative of рот («mouth») matches the dative form ртy (and thus differs from the prepositional ртe). In в лесу́ («in the forest»), the locative of лес («forest») differs from both the prepositional ле́се and the dative ле́сy (the dative and locative are spelt identically but pronounced differently).
- Partitive (отдели́тельный), or second genitive: sometimes used instead of the accusative (as it should be for the direct object) to imply, that a part of the object is affected by the verb: налить ча́ю «to pour some tea» (not all the tea) — from налить чай «to pour the tea».
- Vocative (зва́тельный): used to call or speak to a person. There are two types of vocative in modern Russian. The common Slavic vocative is archaic and survives only in fixed expressions: Бо́же мой! (My God!). The modern vocative (sometimes called neo-vocative) is produced from a first-declension noun by removing the vowel ending: мам, ты меня слышишь? «mom, can you hear me?» from ма́ма. It can only be applied to familiar (affectionate) terms for family members or close friends and diminutives of commonly used Slavic names: Ива́н (full name) — Ва́ня (short, affectionate) — Вань (neo-vocative); Мари́я — Ма́ша — Маш. It also cannot be used in the plural.
- Caritive (лиши́тельный), often used with the negation of verbs: не знать пра́вды (not to know the truth) — знать пра́вду (to know the truth). This case is identical to the genitive and obligatory replaces the accusative for all negated forms of the verb быть «to be», including compound verbs: Меня не было дома «I wasn’t home» — cf. Я был дома «I was home»; Этого не может быть! «It can’t be!» — cf. Это может быть (так) «It (This) can be (so)» (however: Это не может быть правдой «This can’t be true» is the only correct option). Some negated verbs are allowed be used with caritive in a casual speech, if considered synonymous with «to be» (существовать «to exist», случиться «to happen», появиться «to appear»). For many other verbs use of caritive may be considered illiterate: Вас тут не стояло «You were not standing here» — cf. Вы тут не стояли (same, but with proper use of the accusative).
Adjectives[edit]
A Russian adjective (и́мя прилага́тельное) is usually placed before the noun it qualifies, and it agrees with the noun in case, gender, and number. With the exception of a few invariant forms borrowed from other languages, such as беж (‘beige’, non-adapted form of бе́жевый) or ха́ки (‘khaki-colored’), most adjectives follow one of a small number of regular declension patterns (except for some that complicate the short form). In modern Russian, the short form appears only in the nominative and is used when the adjective is in a predicative role: нов, нова́, нóво, новы́ are short forms of но́вый (‘new’). Formerly (as in the bylinas) short adjectives appeared in all other forms and roles, which are not used in the modern language, but are nonetheless understandable to Russian speakers as they are declined exactly like nouns of the corresponding gender.[10]
Adjectives may be divided into three general groups:
- qualitative (ка́чественные) – denote a quality of the object; this is the only group that usually has degrees of comparison.
- relational (относи́тельные) – denote some sort of relationship; unlikely to act as a predicate or have a short form.
- possessive (притяжа́тельные) – denote belonging to a specific subject; have some declensional peculiarities.
Adjectival declension[edit]
The pattern described below holds true for full forms of most adjectives, except possessive ones. It is also used for substantivized adjectives as учёный («scientist, scholar» as a noun substitute or «scientific, learned» as a general adjective) and for adjectival participles. Russian differentiates between hard-stem and soft-stem adjectives, shown before and after a slash sign.
| singular | plural | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| masculine | neuter | feminine | ||
| nominative | -ый/-ий | -ое/-ее | -ая/-яя | -ые/-ие |
| accusative | N or G | -ую/-юю | N or G | |
| genitive | -ого/-его | -ой/-ей | -ых/-их | |
| dative | -ому/-ему | -ым/-им | ||
| instrumental | -ым/-им | -ыми/-ими | ||
| prepositional | -ом/-ем | -ых/-их | ||
| short form | zero ending | -о | -а | -ы/-и |
- The masculine and neuter genitive singular adjectival endings -ого and -его are pronounced as -ово and -ево.
- After a sibilant (ш, ж, ч, щ) or velar (к, г, х) consonant, и is written instead of ы.
- When a masculine adjective ends in -ой in the nominative, the stress falls on the final syllable throughout its declension: прямо́й ([prʲɪˈmoj], «straight»), compare упря́мый ([ʊˈprʲamɨj], «stubborn»).
- The «хоро́шее rule» states that after a sibilant consonant, neuter adjectives end in -ее.
- The masculine accusative singular and the accusative plural endings depend on animacy, as with nouns.
- The instrumental feminine ending -ой/-ей has old-fashion alternative form -ою/-ею for all adjectives, which has only a stylistic difference.
- There are often stress changes in the short form. For example, the short forms of но́вый («new») are нов (m.), но́во (n.), нова́ (f.), новы́/но́вы (pl.).
- In the masculine singular short form, when a word-final consonant cluster is being formed after ending removal, an additional е or о interfix is inserted after the root, as in го́лоден, from голо́дный («hungry»).
- Some adjectives (e.g. большо́й «big», ру́сский «Russian») have no short forms.
Comparison of adjectives[edit]
Comparison forms are usual only for qualitative adjectives and adverbs. Comparative and superlative synthetic forms are not part of the paradigm of original adjective but are different lexical items, since not all qualitative adjectives have them. A few adjectives have irregular forms that are declined as usual adjectives: большо́й ‘big’ – бо́льший ‘bigger’, хоро́ший ‘good’ – лу́чший ‘better’. Most synthetically-derived comparative forms are derived by adding the suffix -е́е or -е́й to the adjective stem: кра́сный ‘red’ – красне́е ‘more red’; these forms are difficult to distinguish from adverbs, whose comparative forms often coincide with those of their adjectival counterparts.[10] Superlative synthetic forms are derived by adding the suffix -е́йш- or -а́йш- and additionally sometimes the prefix наи-, or using a special comparative form with the prefix наи-: до́брый ‘kind’ – добре́йший ‘the kindest’, большо́й ‘big’ – наибо́льший ‘the biggest’.
An alternative is to add an adverb to the positive form of the adjective. The adverbs used for this are бо́лее ‘more’ / ме́нее ‘less’ and са́мый ‘most’ / наибо́лее ‘most’ / наиме́нее ‘least’: for example, до́брый ‘kind’ – бо́лее до́брый ‘kinder’ – са́мый до́брый ‘the kindest’. This way is rarely used if special comparative forms exist.
Possessive adjectives[edit]
Possessive adjectives are less frequently used in Russian than in most other Slavic languages,[11] but are in use. They respond to the questions чей? чья? чьё? чьи? (whose?) and denote only animate possessors. See section below.
Pronouns[edit]
Personal pronouns[edit]
| singular | plural | reflexive | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | ||||
| neuter | masculine | feminine | |||||||
| English | I | you (thou) | it | he | she | we | you | they | -self |
| nominative | я | ты | оно́ | он | она́ | мы | вы | они́ | |
| accusative | меня́ | тебя́ | его́ | её | нас | вас | их | себя́ | |
| genitive | |||||||||
| dative | мне | тебе́ | ему́ | ей | нам | вам | им | себе́ | |
| instrumental | мной (мно́ю) |
тобо́й (тобо́ю) |
им | ей (ею) |
на́ми | ва́ми | и́ми | собо́й (собо́ю) |
|
| prepositional | мне | тебе́ | нём | ней | нас | вас | них | себе́ |
- Russian is subject to the T–V distinction. The respectful form of the singular you is the same as the plural form. It begins with a capital letter: Вы, Вас, Вам, etc., in the following situations: personal letters and official papers (addressee is definite), and questionnaires (addressee is indefinite); otherwise it begins with minuscule. Compare the distinction between du and Sie in German or tu and vous in French.
- When a preposition is used directly before a third-person pronoun, it is prefixed with н-: у него (read: у нево), с неё, etc. Because the prepositional case always occurs after a preposition, the third person prepositional always starts with an н-.
- There are special cases for prepositions before first person singular pronouns: со мной – «with me» (usually с), ко мне – «to me» (usually к), во мне – «in me» (usually в), обо мне – «about me» (usually о). All of these preposition forms are unstressed.
- Like adjectives and numerals, letter «г» (g) in masculine and neuter 3rd person genitive and accusative forms is pronounced as «в» (v): (н)его – (н)ево.
- English «it» can be translated as both оно́ (neuter personal pronoun) and э́то (neuter proximal demonstrative, «this»). The latter is used as a stub pronoun for a subject: э́то хорошо́ – «it/this is good», кто́ это? – «who is it/this?».
Demonstrative pronouns[edit]
| masculine | neuter | feminine | plural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nominative | э́тот | э́то | э́та | э́ти |
| accusative | N or G | э́ту | N or G | |
| genitive | э́того | э́той | э́тих | |
| dative | э́тому | э́тим | ||
| instrumental | э́тим | э́тими | ||
| prepositional | э́том | э́тих |
| masculine | neuter | feminine | plural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nominative | тот | то | та | те |
| accusative | N or G | ту | N or G | |
| genitive | того́ | той | тех | |
| dative | тому́ | тем | ||
| instrumental | тем | те́ми | ||
| prepositional | том | тех |
If the preposition «about» is used (usually о), for singular demonstrative pronouns (as with any other words starting with a vowel) it is об: об э́том – about this.
Possessive adjectives and pronouns[edit]
Unlike English, Russian uses the same form for a possessive adjective and the corresponding possessive pronoun. In Russian grammar they are called possessive pronouns притяжательные местоимения (compare with possessive adjectives like Peter’s = Петин above). The following rules apply:
- Possessive pronouns agree with the noun of the possessed in case, gender, and number.
- The reflexive pronoun свой is used when the possessor is the subject of the clause, whatever the person, gender, and number of that subject.
- No non-reflexive exists for the third person: the genitive of the personal pronoun is instead, i.e. его for a masculine/neuter singular possessor, её for a feminine singular possessor and их for a plural possessor. But unlike other genitives used with a possessive meaning, in modern Russian these words are usually placed before the object of possession.
- Example of the difference between reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns:
- «Он лю́бит свою́ жену́ = He loves his (own) wife» while «Он лю́бит его́ жену́ = He loves his (someone else’s) wife».
- Unlike Latin where a similar rule applies for the third person only, Russian accepts using reflexives for all persons:
- «Люблю́ (свою́) жену́ = (I) love my wife»
- «Люблю́ себя́ = (I) love myself«
| masculine | neuter | feminine | plural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nominative | мой | моё | моя́ | мои́ |
| accusative | N or G | мою́ | N or G | |
| genitive | моего́ | мое́й | мои́х | |
| dative | моему́ | мои́м | ||
| instrumental | мои́м | мои́ми | ||
| prepositional | моём | мои́х |
| masculine | neuter | feminine | plural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nominative | твой | твоё | твоя́ | твои́ |
| accusative | N or G | твою́ | N or G | |
| genitive | твоего́ | твое́й | твои́х | |
| dative | твоему́ | твои́м | ||
| instrumental | твои́м | твои́ми | ||
| prepositional | твоём | твои́х |
| masculine | neuter | feminine | plural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nominative | свой | своё | своя́ | свои́ |
| accusative | N or G | свою́ | N or G | |
| genitive | своего́ | свое́й | свои́х | |
| dative | своему́ | свои́м | ||
| instrumental | свои́м | свои́ми | ||
| prepositional | своём | свои́х |
| masculine | neuter | feminine | plural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nominative | наш | на́ше | на́ша | на́ши |
| accusative | N or G | на́шу | N or G | |
| genitive | на́шего | на́шей | на́ших | |
| dative | на́шему | на́шим | ||
| instrumental | на́шим | на́шими | ||
| prepositional | на́шем | на́ших |
| masculine | neuter | feminine | plural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nominative | ваш | ва́ше | ва́ша | ва́ши |
| accusative | N or G | ва́шу | N or G | |
| genitive | ва́шего | ва́шей | ва́ших | |
| dative | ва́шему | ва́шим | ||
| instrumental | ва́шим | ва́шими | ||
| prepositional | ва́шем | ва́ших |
The ending -его is pronounced as -ево́.
Interrogative pronouns[edit]
| кто | что | |
|---|---|---|
| nominative | кто | что (read: што) |
| accusative | кого́ (read: ково́) | |
| genitive | чего́ (read: чево́) | |
| dative | кому́ | чему́ |
| instrumental | кем | чем |
| prepositional | ком | чём |
These interrogatives are used by scholars to denote «usual» questions for correspondent grammatical cases (prepositional is used with о): (кто?) Ма́ша лю́бит (кого?) Ва́сю – (who?) Masha [N.] loves (whom?) Vasya [G.].
| masculine | neuter | feminine | plural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nominative | чей | чьё | чья | чьи |
| accusative | N or G | чью | N or G | |
| genitive | чьего́ | чьей | чьих | |
| dative | чьему́ | чьим | ||
| instrumental | чьим | чьи́ми | ||
| prepositional | чьём | чьих |
The ending «-его» is pronounced as «-ево».
Numerals[edit]
Nouns are used in the nominative case after «one» (один рубль, ‘one ruble’).
Russian has several classes of numerals ([имена] числительные): cardinal, ordinal, collective, and also fractional constructions; also it has other types of words, relative to numbers: collective adverbial forms (вдвоём), multiplicative (двойной) and counting-system (двоичный) adjectives, some numeric-pronominal and indefinite quantity words (сколько, много, несколько). Here are the numerals from 0 to 10:
| cardinal numbers | ordinal numbers (nominative case, masculine) |
collective numbers | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | ноль or нуль | нулево́й | — |
| 1 | оди́н (m.), одна́ (f.), одно́ (n.), одни́ (pl.) (раз is used when counting) |
пе́рвый | — |
| 2 | два (m., n.), две (f.) | второ́й | дво́е |
| 3 | три | тре́тий | тро́е |
| 4 | четы́ре | четвёртый | че́тверо |
| 5 | пять | пя́тый | пя́теро |
| 6 | шесть | шесто́й | ше́стеро |
| 7 | семь | седьмо́й | се́меро |
| 8 | во́семь | восьмо́й | (во́сьмеро)[12] |
| 9 | де́вять | девя́тый | (де́вятеро) |
| 10 | де́сять | деся́тый | (де́сятеро) |
Verbs[edit]
Grammatical conjugation is subject to three persons in two numbers and two simple tenses (present/future and past), with periphrastic forms for the future and subjunctive, as well as imperative forms and present/past participles, distinguished by adjectival and adverbial usage (see adjectival participle and adverbial participle). Verbs and participles can be reflexive, i.e. have reflexive suffix -ся/-сь appended after ending.
The past tense is made to agree in gender with the subject, for it is the participle in an originally periphrastic perfect formed (like the perfect passive tense in Latin) with the present tense of the verb «to be» быть [bɨtʲ], which is now omitted except for rare archaic effect, usually in set phrases (откуда есть пошла земля русская [ɐtˈkudə jesʲtʲ pɐˈʂla zʲɪˈmlʲa ˈruskəjə], «whence is come the Russian land», the opening of the Primary Chronicle in modern spelling). The participle nature of past-tense forms is exposed also in that they often have an extra suffix vowel, which is absent in present/future; the same vowel appears in infinitive form, which is considered by few scholars not to be verbal (and in the past it surely used to be a noun), but in which verbs appear in most dictionaries: ходить «to walk» – ходил «(he) walked» – хожу «I walk».
Verbal inflection is considerably simpler than in Old Russian. The ancient aorist, imperfect, and (periphrastic) pluperfect have been lost, though the aorist sporadically occurs in secular literature as late as the second half of the eighteenth century, and survives as an odd form in direct narration (а он пойди да скажи [ɐ on pɐjˈdʲi də skɐˈʐɨ], etc., exactly equivalent to the English colloquial «so he goes and says»), recategorized as a usage of the imperative. The loss of three of the former six tenses has been offset by the development, as in other Slavic languages, of verbal aspect (вид). Most verbs come in pairs, one with imperfective (несоверше́нный вид) or continuous, the other with perfective (соверше́нный вид) or completed aspect, usually formed with a (prepositional) prefix, but occasionally using a different root. E.g., спать [spatʲ] (‘to sleep’) is imperfective; поспать [pɐˈspatʲ] (‘to take a nap’) is perfective.
The present tense of the verb быть is today normally used only in the third-person singular form, есть, which is often used for all the persons and numbers.[13] As late as the nineteenth century, the full conjugation, which today is extremely archaic, was somewhat more natural: forms occur in the Synodal Bible, in Dostoevsky and in the bylinas (былины [bɨˈlʲinɨ]) or oral folk-epics, which were transcribed at that time. The paradigm shows as well as anything else the Indo-European affinity of Russian:
| English | Archaic Russian |
Latin | Ancient Greek |
Sanskrit | Gothic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| «I am» | (есмь) [jesʲmʲ] |
sum [sũː] |
εἰμί [eːmí] |
अस्मि [ˈɐsmi] |
ik im [ik im] |
| «you are» (sing.) | (еси́) [jɪˈsʲi] |
es [ɛs] |
εἶ [êː] |
असि [ˈɐsi] |
þu is [θuː is] |
| «he, she, it is» | есть [jesʲtʲ] |
est [ɛst] |
ἐστί(ν) [estí(n)] |
अस्ति [ˈɐsti] |
is ist [is ist] |
| «we are» | (есмы́) [jɪˈsmɨ] |
sumus [ˈsʊmʊs] |
ἐσμέν [esmén] |
स्मः [smɐh] |
weis sijum [wiːs ˈsijum] |
| «you are» (plural) | (е́сте) [ˈjesʲtʲɪ] |
estis [ˈɛstɪs] |
ἐστέ [esté] |
स्थ [stʰɐ] |
jus sijuþ [jus ˈsijuθ] |
| «they are» | (суть) [sutʲ] |
sunt [sʊnt] |
εἰσί(ν) [eːsí(n)] |
सन्ति [ˈsɐnti] |
eis sind [iːs sind] |
Infinitive[edit]
The infinitive is the basic form of a verb for most purposes of study. In Russian it has the suffix -ть/-ти (the latter is used after consonants), or ends with -чь (but -чь is not a suffix of a verb). For reflexive verbs -ся/-сь suffix is added in the end. Note that due to phonological effects, both -ться and -тся endings (latter is used for present-future tense of a 3rd person reflexive verb; see below) are pronounced as [t͡sə] or [tsə] and often cause misspellings even among native speakers.
Present-future tense[edit]
Future tense has two forms: simple and compound.
- Future simple forms are formed by the perfective verbs with the help of personal endings: «She will read» (She will have read) — «Она прочита́ет»; «She will read» (She will read [for a certain amount of time]) — «Она почита́ет».
- Future compound forms are formed by the imperfective verbs: future simple tense form of the verb «быть» (to be) and the infinitive of the imperfective verb. The Russian compound future tense is remarkably similar in structure to the English simple future tense: «She will read» (She will be reading) — «Она бу́дет чита́ть».
| First conjugation | Second conjugation | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st singular | -у or -ю | -у or -ю |
| 2nd singular | -ешь | -ишь |
| 3rd singular | -ет | -ит |
| 1st plural | -ем | -им |
| 2nd plural | -ете | -ите |
| 3rd plural | -ут or -ют | -ат or -ят |
- -у/-ут,-ат is used after a hard consonant or ж, ш, щ or ч; otherwise -ю/-ют,-ят is used.
- A mutating final consonant may entail a change in the ending.
- е becomes ё when stressed.
Two forms are used to conjugate the present tense of imperfective verbs and the future tense of perfective verbs.
The first conjugation is used in verb stems ending in:
- a consonant,
- -у,-ы or -о,-я
- -е (In addition to below)
- Бить, пить, жить, шить, лить, вить, гнить, брить, стелить, зиждить.
- -а not preceded by a hush (ж, ш, щ or ч):
The second conjugation involves verb stems ending in:
- -и or -е (Глядеть, смотреть, видеть, ненавидеть, обидеть, зависеть, терпеть, вертеть, пыхтеть, сидеть, лететь, гудеть, гореть, сопеть, дудеть, блестеть, храпеть, смердеть, хрипеть, шелестеть, хрустеть, сипеть, кишеть, бдеть, звенеть, кряхтеть, кипеть, корпеть, зудеть, скорбеть, тарахтеть, шуметь, зреть, висеть, греметь, шипеть)
- -а preceded by a hush (ж, ш, щ or ч)(Слышать, дышать, держать, лежать, дребезжать, жужжать, брюзжать, дрожать, бренчать, стучать, мычать, кричать, молчать, рычать, мчать, урчать, звучать, бурчать, ворчать, торчать, журчать, гнать):
- Стоять, бояться
Example: попро-с-ить – попро-ш-у, попро-с-ят [pəprɐˈsʲitʲ, pəprɐˈʂu, pɐˈprosʲɪt] (to have solicited – [I, they] will have solicited).
Examples[edit]
| чита́ть (‘to read’, stem: чита–) | |
|---|---|
| я чита́ю | I read (am reading, do read) |
| ты чита́ешь | you read (are reading, do read) |
| он/она́/оно́ чита́ет | he/she/it reads (is reading, does read) |
| мы чита́ем | we read (are reading, do read) |
| вы чита́ете | you (plural/formal) read (are reading, do read) |
| они чита́ют | they read (are reading, do read) |
| верну́ть (‘to return [something]’, stem: верн–) | |
|---|---|
| я верну́ | I will return |
| ты вернёшь | you will return |
| он/она́/оно́ вернёт | he/she/it will return |
| мы вернём | we will return |
| вы вернёте | you will return |
| они верну́т | they will return |
| рисова́ть (‘to draw’, stem: рису-) | плева́ть (‘to spit’, stem: плю-) | танцева́ть (‘to dance’, stem: танцу-) |
|---|---|---|
| я рису́ю | я плюю́ | я танцу́ю |
| ты рису́ешь | ты плюёшь | ты танцу́ешь |
| он/она́/оно́ рису́ет | он/она́/оно́ плюёт | он/она́/оно́ танцу́ет |
| мы рису́ем | мы плюём | мы танцу́ем |
| вы рису́ете | вы плюёте | вы танцу́ете |
| они́ рису́ют | они́ плюю́т | они́ танцу́ют |
| мочь (‘to be able’, stem: мог-/мож-) | печь (‘to bake’, stem: пек-/печ-) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| я могу́ | I can | я пеку́ | I bake |
| ты мо́жешь | you can | ты печёшь | you bake |
| он/она́/оно́ мо́жет | he/she/it can | он/она́/оно́ печёт | he/she/it bakes |
| мы мо́жем | we can | мы печём | we bake |
| вы мо́жете | you (all) can | вы печёте | you (all) bake |
| они́ мо́гут | they can | они́ пеку́т | they bake |
| нести́ (‘to carry’, stem: нес-) | вести́ (‘to lead’, stem: вед-) | мести́ (‘to sweep’, stem: мет-) | грести́ (‘to row’, stem: греб-) | красть (‘to steal’, stem: крад-) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| я несу́ | I carry | я веду́ | I lead | я мету́ | I sweep | я гребу́ | I row | я краду́ | I steal |
| ты несёшь | you carry | ты ведёшь | you lead | ты метёшь | you sweep | ты гребёшь | you row | ты крадёшь | you steal |
| он/она́/оно́ несёт | he/she/it carries | он/она́/оно́ ведёт | he/she/it leads | он/она́/оно́ метёт | he/she/it sweeps | он/она́/оно́ гребёт | he/she/it rows | он/она́/оно́ крадёт | he/she/it steals |
| мы несём | we carry | мы ведём | we lead | мы метём | we sweep | мы гребём | we row | мы крадём | we steal |
| вы несёте | you (all) carry | вы ведёте | you (all) lead | вы метёте | you (all) sweep | вы гребёте | you (all) row | вы крадёте | you (all) steal |
| они́ несу́т | they carry | они́ веду́т | they lead | они́ мету́т | they sweep | они́ гребу́т | they row | они́ краду́т | they steal |
| везти́ (‘to convey’, stem: вез-) | лезть (‘to climb’, stem: лез-) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| я везу́ | I convey | я ле́зу | I climb |
| ты везёшь | you convey | ты ле́зешь | you climb |
| он/она́/оно́ везёт | he/she/it conveys | он/она́/оно́ ле́зет | he/she/it climbs |
| мы везём | we convey | мы ле́зем | we climb |
| вы везёте | you (all) convey | вы ле́зете | you (all) climb |
| они́ везу́т | they convey | они́ ле́зут | they climb |
| мыть (‘to wash’, stem: мо-) | |
|---|---|
| я мо́ю | I wash |
| ты мо́ешь | you wash |
| он/она́/оно́ мо́ет | he/she/it washes |
| мы мо́ем | we wash |
| вы мо́ете | you (all) wash |
| они́ мо́ют | they wash |
| бить (‘to beat’, stem: бь-) | вить (‘to weave’, stem: вь-) | лить (‘to pour’, stem: ль-) | пить (‘to drink’, stem: пь-) | шить (‘to sew’, stem: шь-) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| я бью | I beat | я вью | I weave | я лью | I pour | я пью | I drink | я шью | I sew |
| ты бьёшь | you beat | ты вьёшь | you weave | ты льёшь | you pour | ты пьёшь | you drink | ты шьёшь | you sew |
| он/она́/оно́ бьёт | he/she/it beats | он/она́/оно́ вьёт | he/she/it weaves | он/она́/оно́ льёт | he/she/it pours | он/она́/оно́ пьёт | he/she/it drinks | он/она́/оно́ шьёт | he/she/it sews |
| мы бьём | we beat | мы вьём | we weave | мы льём | we pour | мы пьём | we drink | мы шьём | we sew |
| вы бьёте | you (all) beat | вы вьёте | you (all) weave | вы льёте | you (all) pour | вы пьёте | you (all) drink | вы шьёте | you (all) sew |
| они́ бьют | they beat | они́ вьют | they weave | они́ льют | they pour | они́ пьют | they drink | они шьют | they sew |
| жить (‘to live’, stem: жив-) | плыть (‘to swim’, stem: плыв-) | слыть (‘to pass for’, stem: слыв-) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| я живу́ | I live | я плыву́ | I swim | я слыву́ | I pass for |
| ты живёшь | you live | ты плывёшь | you swim | ты слывёшь | you pass for |
| он/она́/оно́ живёт | he/she/it lives | он/она́/оно́ плывёт | he/she/it swims | он/она́/оно́ слывёт | he/she/it passes for |
| мы живём | we live | мы плывём | we swim | мы слывём | we pass for |
| вы живёте | you (all) live | вы плывёте | you (all) swim | вы слывёте | you (all) pass for |
| они́ живу́т | they live | они́ плыву́т | they swim | они́ слыву́т | they pass for |
| говори́ть (‘to speak’, stem: говор-) | |
|---|---|
| я говорю́ | I speak (am speaking, do speak) |
| ты говори́шь | you speak (are speaking, do speak) |
| он/она́/оно́ говори́т | he/she/it speaks (is speaking, does speak) |
| мы говори́м | we speak (are speaking, do speak) |
| вы говори́те | you (plural/formal) speak (are speaking, do speak) |
| они говоря́т | they speak (are speaking, do speak) |
| люби́ть (‘to love’, stem: люб-) | лови́ть (‘to catch’, stem: лов-) | топи́ть (‘to sink’, stem: топ-) | корми́ть (‘to feed’, stem: корм-) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| я люблю́ | I love | я ловлю́ | я топлю́ | я кормлю́ | |||
| ты лю́бишь | you love | ты ло́вишь | ты то́пишь | ты ко́рмишь | |||
| он́/она́/оно́ лю́бит | he/she/it loves | он́/она́/оно́ ло́вит | он́/она́/оно́ то́пит | он́/она́/оно́ ко́рмит | |||
| мы лю́бим | we love | мы ло́вим | мы то́пим | мы ко́рмим | |||
| вы лю́бите | you (all) love | вы ло́вите | вы то́пите | вы ко́рмите | |||
| они́ лю́бят | they love | они́ ло́вят | они́ то́пят | они́ ко́рмят |
| проси́ть (‘to ask’, stem: прос-) | вози́ть (‘to convey’, stem: воз-) | плати́ть (‘to pay’, stem: плат-) | ходи́ть (‘to go [to walk]’, stem: ход-) | прости́ть (‘to forgive’, stem: прост-) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| я прошу́ | я вожу́ | я плачу́ | I pay | я хожу́ | я прощу́ | ||||
| ты про́сишь | ты во́зишь | ты пла́тишь | you pay | ты хо́дишь | ты прости́шь | ||||
| он/она́/оно́ про́сит | он/она́/оно́ во́зит | он/она́/оно́ пла́тит | he/she/it pays | он/она́/оно́ хо́дит | он/она́/оно́ прости́т | ||||
| мы про́сим | мы во́зим | мы пла́тим | we pay | мы хо́дим | мы прости́м | ||||
| вы про́сите | вы во́зите | вы пла́тите | you (all) pay | вы хо́дите | вы прости́те | ||||
| они́ про́сят | они́ во́зят | они́ пла́тят | they pay | они́ хо́дят | они́ простя́т |
There are five irregular verbs:
- бежа́ть (run), бре́зжить (glimmer) – first conjugation in the plural third person, second in other forms;
- хоте́ть (want) – first conjugation in the singular, second in plural;
- дать (give) – дам, дашь, даст, дади́м, дади́те, даду́т;
- есть (eat) – ем, ешь, ест, еди́м, еди́те, едя́т.
Past tense[edit]
The Russian past tense is gender specific: –л for masculine singular subjects, –ла for feminine singular subjects, –ло for neuter singular subjects, and –ли for plural subjects. This gender specificity applies to all persons; thus, to say «I slept», a male speaker would say я спал, while a female speaker would say я спалá.
Examples[edit]
| masculine | feminine | neuter | plural | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| я сде́лал | I made (says a man) | я сде́лала | I made (says a woman) | мы сде́лали | we made | ||
| ты сде́лал | you made (is said to a man) | ты сде́лала | you made (is said to a woman) | вы сде́лали | you (all) made | ||
| он сде́лал | he made | она́ сде́лала | she made | оно́ сде́лало | it made | они́ сде́лали | they made |
Exceptions[edit]
| infinitive | present stem | past |
|---|---|---|
| ле́зть | лез- | лез, ле́зла, ле́зло, ле́зли |
| нести́ | нес- | нёс, несла́, несло́, несли́ |
| везти́ | вез- | вёз, везла́, везло́, везли́ |
| вести́ | вед- | вёл, вела́, вело́, вели́ |
| мести́ | мет- | мёл, мела́, мело́, мели́ |
| грести́ | греб- | грёб, гребла́, гребло́, гребли́ |
| расти́ | раст- | рос, росла́, росло́, росли́ |
| infinitive | present stem | past |
|---|---|---|
| мочь | мог-/мож- | мог, могла́, могло́, могли́ |
| печь | пек-/печ- | пёк, пекла́, пекло́, пекли́ |
| infinitive | past |
|---|---|
| умере́ть | у́мер, умерла́, у́мерло, у́мерли |
| infinitive | past |
|---|---|
| идти́ (to go) | шёл, шла, шло, шли |
| уйти́ (to go away) | ушёл, ушла́, ушло́, ушли́ |
| найти́ (to find) | нашёл, нашла́, нашло́, нашли́ |
| пройти́ (to pass) | прошёл, прошла́, прошло́, прошли́ |
| прийти́ (to come) | пришёл, пришла́, пришло́ пришли́ |
| вы́йти (to go out) | вы́шел, вы́шла, вы́шло, вы́шли |
| infinitive | past |
|---|---|
| есть | ел, е́ла, е́ло, е́ли |
Moods[edit]
Russian verbs can form three moods (наклонения): indicative (изъявительное), conditional (сослагательное) and imperative (повелительное).[14]
Imperative mood[edit]
The imperative mood second-person singular is formed from the future-present base of most verbs by adding -и (stressed ending in present-future, or if base ends on more than one consonant), -ь (unstressed ending, base on one consonant) or -й (unstressed ending, base on vowel). Plural (including polite на вы) second-person form is made by adding -те to singular one: говорю ‘I speak’ – говори – говорите, забуду ‘I shall forget’ – забудь – забудьте, клею ‘I glue’ – клей – клейте. Some perfective verbs have first-person plural imperative form with -те added to similar simple future or present tense form: пойдёмте ‘let us go’. Other forms can express command in Russian; for third person, for example, пусть particle with future can be used: Пусть они замолчат! ‘Let them shut up!’.[15]
| infinitive | present stem | imperative (2nd singular) | imperative (2nd plural) |
|---|---|---|---|
| де́лать | де́ла- | де́лай | де́лайте |
| рисова́ть | рису- | рису́й | рису́йте |
| тро́нуть | трон- | тро́нь | тро́ньте |
| верну́ть | верн- | верни́ | верни́те |
| ве́рить | вер- | верь | ве́рьте |
| люби́ть | люб- | люби́ | люби́те |
| услы́шать | услыш- | услы́шь | услы́шьте |
| смотре́ть | смотр- | смотри́ | смотри́те |
| пла́кать | плач- | плачь | пла́чьте |
| писа́ть | пиш- | пиши́ | пиши́те |
| лезть | ле́з- | лезь | ле́зьте |
| везти́ | вез- | вези́ | вези́те |
| нести́ | нес- | неси́ | неси́те |
| вести́ | вед- | веди́ | веди́те |
| мести́ | мет- | мети́ | мети́те |
| грести́ | греб- | греби́ | греби́те |
| расти́ | раст- | расти́ | расти́те |
Conditional mood[edit]
The conditional mood in Russian is formed by adding the particle бы after the word which marks the supposed subject into a sentence formed like in the past tense. Thus, to say «I would (hypothetically) sleep» or «I would like to sleep», a male speaker would say я спал бы (or я бы поспа́л), while a female speaker would say я спалá бы (or я бы поспала́).
| masculine | feminine | neuter | plural | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| я бы сказа́л | I would say (says a male speaker) | я бы сказа́ла | I would say (says a female speaker) | мы бы сказа́ли | we would say | ||
| ты бы сказа́л | you would say (said to a male speaker) | ты бы сказа́ла | you would say (said to a female speaker) | вы бы сказа́ли | you (all) would say | ||
| он бы сказа́л | he would say | она́ бы сказа́ла | she would say | оно́ бы сказа́ло | it would say | они́ бы сказа́ли | they would say |
| masculine | feminine | neuter | plural | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| я бы не сказа́л | I wouldn’t say (says a male speaker) | я бы не сказа́ла | I wouldn’t say (says a female speaker) | мы бы не сказа́ли | we wouldn’t say | ||
| ты бы не сказа́л | you wouldn’t say (said to a male speaker) | ты бы не сказа́ла | you wouldn’t say (said to a female speaker) | вы бы не сказа́ли | you (all) wouldn’t say | ||
| он бы не сказа́л | he wouldn’t say | она́ бы не сказа́ла | she wouldn’t say | оно́ бы не сказа́ло | it wouldn’t say | они́ бы не сказа́ли | they wouldn’t say |
Verbs of motion[edit]
Verbs of motion are a distinct class of verbs found in several Slavic languages. Due to the extensive semantic information they contain, Russian verbs of motion pose difficulties for non-native learners at all levels of study.[16] Unprefixed verbs of motion, which are all imperfective, divide into pairs based on the direction of the movement (uni- or multidirectional — sometimes referred to as determinate/indeterminate or definite/indefinite). As opposed to a verb-framed language, in which path is encoded in the verb, but manner of motion typically is expressed with complements, Russian is a satellite language, meaning that these concepts are encoded in both the root of the verb and the particles associated with it, satellites.[17] Thus, the roots of motion verbs convey the lexical information of manner of movement, e.g. walking, crawling, running, whereas prefixes denote path, e.g. motion in and out of space.[18][note 1] The roots also distinguish between means of conveyance, e.g. by transport or by one’s own power, and in transitive verbs, the object or person being transported.[19] The information below provides an outline of the formation and basic usage of unprefixed and prefixed verbs of motion.
Unprefixed[edit]
| English | unidirectional | multidirectional |
|---|---|---|
| to run | бежа́ть | бе́гать |
| to wander | брести́ | броди́ть |
| to convey, transport | везти́ | вози́ть |
| to lead | вести́ | води́ть |
| to drive, chase | гна́ть | гоня́ть |
| to go by vehicle, ride | е́хать | е́здить |
| to go, walk | идти́ | ходи́ть |
| to roll | кати́ть | ката́ть |
| to climb | ле́зть | ла́зить (ла́зать) |
| to fly | лете́ть | лета́ть |
| to carry | нести́ | носи́ть |
| to swim, float | плы́ть | пла́вать |
| to crawl | ползти́ | по́лзать |
| to drag | тащи́ть | таска́ть |
Directionality[edit]
Unidirectional verbs describe motion in progress in one direction, e.g.:
- We are headed to the library.
Мы идём в библиотеку. - I was on my way to work.
Я шла на работу. - The birds are flying south.
Птицы летят на юг.
Multidirectional verbs describe:
- General motion, referring to ability or habitual motion, without reference to direction or destination, e.g.:
- The child has been walking for six months.
Ребёнок ходит шесть месяцев. - Birds fly, fish swim, and dogs walk.
Птицы летают, рыбы плавают, а собаки ходят.
- The child has been walking for six months.
- Movement in various directions, e.g.:
- We walked around the city all day.
Мы ходили по городу весь день.
- We walked around the city all day.
- Repetition of completed trips, e.g.:
- She goes to the supermarket every week.
Она ходит в супермаркет каждую неделю.
- She goes to the supermarket every week.
- In the past tense, a single completed round trip, e.g.:
- I went to Russia (and returned) last year.
В прошлом году я ездил в Россию.
- I went to Russia (and returned) last year.
Unidirectional perfectives with по-[edit]
The addition of the prefix по- to a unidirectional verb of motion makes the verb perfective, denoting the beginning of a movement, i.e. ‘setting out’. These perfectives imply that the agent has not yet returned at the moment of speech, e.g.,[20]: 353–355
- He went to a friend’s place (and has not returned; unidirectional perfective).
Он пошёл к другу.
Compare with: - He was on his way to a friend’s place (unidirectional imperfective).
Он шёл к другу. - He used to go to a friend’s place (multidirectional).
Он ходил к другу. - He went to a friend’s place (and has returned; see prefixed perfective forms of motion verbs below).
Он сходил к другу.
Going versus taking[edit]
Three pairs of motion verbs generally refer to ‘taking’, ‘leading’ with additional lexical information on manner of motion and object of transport encoded in the verb stem. These are нести/носить, вести/водить, and везти/возить. See below for the specific information on manner and object of transport:[20]
- нести/носить – ‘to take (on foot), carry’
- He carries a briefcase.
Он носит портфель. - She is taking her assignment to class.
Она несёт домашнее задание на занятия.
- He carries a briefcase.
- вести/водить – ‘to take, lead (people or animals)’; ‘to drive (a vehicle)’
- The teacher was taking the children to a field trip.
Учитель вёл школьников на экскурсию - She took her friend to the theatre.
Она водила свою подругу в театр. - She knows how to drive a car.
Она умеет водить машину.
- The teacher was taking the children to a field trip.
- везти/возить – ‘to take, drive, convey by vehicle’
- She is wheeling her grandmother in a wheelchair.
Она везёт бабушку в инвалидном кресле. - The train took the passengers to England (and back).
Поезд возил пассажиров в Англию.
- She is wheeling her grandmother in a wheelchair.
Prefixed motion verbs[edit]
Motion verbs combine with prefixes to form new aspectual pairs, which lose the distinction of directionality, but gain spatial or temporal meanings. The unidirectional verb serves as the base for the perfective, and the multidirectional as the base for the imperfective. In addition to the meanings conveyed by the prefix and the simplex motion verb, prepositional phrases also contribute to the expression of path in Russian.[21] Thus, it is important to consider the whole verb phrase when examining verbs of motion.
In some verbs of motion, adding a prefix requires a different stem shape:[22]
- идти → -йти ‘go (on foot)’
- For prefixes ending in a consonant, an -o- is added in all forms, e.g.: войти.
- й is lost in the non-past conjugated forms of прийти, e.g.: приду ‘I come’.
- ездить → -езжать ‘go (by conveyance)’
For prefixes ending in a consonant, a hard sign (ъ) is added before –ехать and –езжать, e.g.: въезжать ‘enter (by conveyance)’. - бéгать → -бегáть ‘run’
The formation of the verb remains the same, but stress shifts from the stem to the endings, e.g.: убегáть ‘run away’. - плáвать → -плывáть ‘swim’
The vowel in the root changes to -ы- and the stress shifts to the endings. - In perfective verbs with the prefix вы-, the prefix is stressed in all forms, e.g. вы́йдешь ‘go out’.
See below for a table the prefixes, their primary meanings, and the prepositions that accompany them, adapted from Muravyova.[19] Several examples are taken directly or modified from Muravyova.
| Prefix / primary meanings | Examples / additional meanings | Prepositional Phrases |
|---|---|---|
| spatial | ||
| в-, о- Movement inwards across a threshold, entering Antonym: вы- |
The tram stopped and the girl entered. Трамвай остановился, и девушка вошла. |
в / на + acc. |
| вы- Movement out of something across a threshold, exiting Antonym: в- |
She exited the office. Она вышла из кабинета. Other:
|
из / с / от + gen. в / на + acc. к + dat. |
| при- Intended arrival, signals presence of the agent at a location as a result of motion Antonym: у- |
He arrived in Moscow a week ago. Он приехал в Москву неделю назад. |
в / на + acc. к + dat. из / с / от + gen. |
| у- Intended departure, signals absence Antonym: при- |
They will leave Vladivostok in a month. Они улетят из Владивостока через месяц. Where is Igor? He already left. Где Игорь? Он уже ушёл. |
в / на + acc. к + dat. из / с / от + gen. |
| под-, подо- Approach Antonym: от- |
He approached the girl to ask for her number. Он подошёл к девушке, чтобы спросить её номер. Other:
|
к + dat. до + gen. |
| от-, ото- Withdrawal a short distance away Antonym: под- |
The boy stepped back from the stranger who had offered him candy. Мальчик отошёл от незнакомца, который предложил ему конфеты. Other:
|
от + gen. |
| до- Reaching a limit or destination |
The passengers reached the last station and exited the bus. Пассажиры доехали до последней остановки и вышли из автобуса. Other:
|
до + gen. |
| за- Movement behind an object; stopping off on the way |
The old woman walked behind the corner and disappeared. Старушка зашла за угол и исчезла. Other:
|
в / на / за + acc. к + dat. за + inst. |
| про- Movement across, through, or past something |
We drove through the city. Мы проехали через город. We passed the metro station. Мы прошли мимо станции метро. Other:
|
сквозь / через / в + acc. мимо + gen. without preposition |
| пере- Movement across, from one point to another; through |
The ducks swam across the river. Утки переплыли реку. Other: |
через + acc without preposition + acc. |
| вз-, взо-, воз-, вс-, вос- Movement upwards Antonym: с- |
The mountain climber walked up the mountain. Альпинист взошёл на гору. |
в / на + acc. |
| с-, со- Movement downwards Antonym: вз- |
After the performance, the actor got off the stage. После представления актёр сошёл со сцены. |
c + gen. на + acc. к + dat. за + inst. |
| о-, об-, обо- Movement around an object or involving a consecutive number of objects, circling, covering a whole place |
The little girl walked around the puddle. Девочка обошла лужу. I’m going around to all the stores in the mall. Я обхожу все магазины в центре. |
вокруг + gen. without preposition + acc. |
| из-, изо-, ис- Movement involving the entire area concerned and carried out in all directions *only formed from multidirectional verb of motion |
I traveled over the whole world. Я изъездил весь мир. |
without preposition + acc. |
| на- Movement onto the surface of an object *only formed from multidirectional verb of motion |
A cloud crept onto the sun. Туча наползла на солнце. Other: |
в/на + acc. without preposition + acc. |
| с-, со- (+сь, +ся) Convergent movement from various directions towards one center Antonym: раз-, разо-, рас- (+сь, +ся) |
In order to study, the student brought all her textbooks from other rooms to her desk. Чтобы заниматься, студентка снесла все учебники из других комнат на письменный стол. The children ran (from all directions) to the playground. Дети сбежались на детскую площадь |
в / на + acc. к + dat. |
| раз-, разо-, рас- (+сь, +ся) Divergent movement in various directions from one center Antonym: с-, со- (+сь, +ся) |
Grandfather Frost brought the gifts to the (various) houses. Дед Мороз разнёс подарки по домам. After dinner, we went to our separate homes. После ужина, мы разошлись по домам. |
по + dat. pl. в + асс. pl. |
| temporal | ||
| по- Beginning of unidirectional movement *with unidirectional verb of motion |
I went to the university. Я пошла в университет. Other:
|
в / на + acc. к + dat. из / с / от + gen. по + dat. without prep. + inst. |
| за- Beginning of multidirectional movement *With multidirection verb of motion |
She started running around the room. Она забегала по комнате. |
по + dat. |
| про- Prolonged multidirectional movement *with multidirectional verb of motion |
We walked around the woods all day. Мы проходили по лесу весь день. |
without prep + acc. |
| по- Slow and measured multidirectional movement *with multidirectional verb of motion |
She walked around the apartment pensively and finally decided to leave. Она задумчиво походила по квартире и наконец решила уйти. |
|
| resultative | ||
| с- Completed semelfactive movement in opposite directions, there and back. *only formed with multidirectional verb of motion |
I went to the pharmacy for medicine and went to bed. Я сходил в аптеку за лекарством и лёг спать. |
в / на + acc. к + dat. |
Idiomatic uses[edit]
The uni- and multidirectional distinction rarely figures into the metaphorical and idiomatic use of motion verbs, because such phrases typically call for one or the other verb. See below for examples:[20]: 357–358
| Verb | Example |
|---|---|
| unidirectional | |
| идти |
|
| вести |
|
| нести |
|
| лететь |
|
| лезть |
|
| везти |
|
| бежать |
|
| multidirectional | |
| носить |
|
| ходить |
|
| водить |
|
| кататься |
|
Adjectival participle[edit]
Russian adjectival participles can be active or passive; have perfective or imperfective aspect; imperfective participles can have present or past tense, while perfective ones in classical language can be only past.[23] As adjectives, they are declined by case, number and gender. If adjectival participles are derived from reciprocal verbs, they have suffix -ся appended after the adjectival ending; this suffix in participles never takes the short form. Participles are often difficult to distinguish from deverbal adjectives (this is important for some cases of orthography).
Active present participle[edit]
Лю́ди, живу́щие в э́том го́роде, о́чень до́брые и отве́тственные – The people living in this city are very kind and responsible.
In order to form the active present participle, the «т» of the 3rd person plural of the present tense is replaced by «щ», and a necessary adjective ending is added:
де́лать (to do, to make) – де́лают (they do/make) – де́лающий (doing, making)
| singular | plural | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| masculine | neuter | feminine | ||
| nominative | де́лающий | де́лающее | де́лающая | де́лающие |
| accusative | N or G | де́лающую | N or G | |
| genitive | де́лающего | де́лающей | де́лающих | |
| dative | де́лающему | де́лающим | ||
| instrumental | де́лающим | де́лающими | ||
| prepositional | де́лающем | де́лающих |
Note: Only imperfective verbs can have an active present participle.
| infinitive | 3rd person plural (present Tense) |
active present participle |
|---|---|---|
| First conjugation | ||
| име́ть (to have) | име́ют | име́ющий |
| писа́ть (to write) | пи́шут | пи́шущий |
| пря́тать (to conceal) | пря́чут | пря́чущий |
| рисова́ть (to draw) | рису́ют | рису́ющий |
| вести́ (to lead) | веду́т | веду́щий |
| печь (to bake) | пеку́т | пеку́щий |
| жить (to live) | живу́т | живу́щий |
| люби́ть (to love) | лю́бят | лю́бящий |
| коло́ть (to break) | ко́лют | ко́лющий |
| идти́ (to go) | иду́т | иду́щий |
| пить (to drink) | пьют | пью́щий |
| мыть (to wash) | мо́ют | мо́ющий |
| брить (to shave) | бре́ют | бре́ющий |
| петь (to sing) | пою́т | пою́щий |
| дава́ть (to give) | даю́т | даю́щий |
| жать (to press) | жмут | жмущий |
| тону́ть (to sink) | то́нут | то́нущий |
| Second conjugation | ||
| слы́шать (to hear) | слы́шат | слы́шащий |
| сто́ить (to cost) | сто́ят | сто́ящий |
| стоя́ть (to stand) | стоя́т | стоя́щий |
| хоте́ть (to want) | хотя́т | хотя́щий |
| Other verbs | ||
| бежа́ть (to run) | бегу́т | бегу́щий |
| есть (to eat) | едя́т | едя́щий |
| быть (to be) | *суть | *су́щий |
(*) Note: These forms are obsolete in modern Russian and they are not used in the spoken language as forms of the verb ‘to be’.
Reflexive verbs paradigm[edit]
| singular | plural | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| masculine | neuter | feminine | ||
| nominative | де́лающийся | де́лающееся | де́лающаяся | де́лающиеся |
| accusative | N or G | де́лающуюся | N or G | |
| genitive | де́лающегося | де́лающейся | де́лающихся | |
| dative | де́лающемуся | де́лающимся | ||
| instrumental | де́лающимся | де́лающимися | ||
| prepositional | де́лающемся | де́лающихся |
The participle agrees in gender, case and number with the word it refers to:
- Я посвяща́ю э́ту пе́сню лю́дям, живу́щим в на́шем го́роде – I dedicate this song to the people living in our city.
- Я горжу́сь людьми́, живу́щими в на́шем го́роде – I’m proud of the people living in our city.
Active past participle[edit]
The active past participle is used in order to indicate actions that happened in the past:
- Де́вушка, чита́вшая тут кни́гу, забы́ла свой телефо́н – The girl, that read this book here, forgot her phone (the girl read the book in the past).
Compare:
- Де́вушка, чита́ющая тут кни́гу, – моя́ сестра́ – The girl reading this book here is my sister (she is reading the book now, in the present).
In order to form the active past participle the infinitive ending ‘-ть’ is replaced by the suffix ‘-вш-‘ and add an adjective ending:
де́лать (to do, to make) – де́лавший
| singular | plural | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| masculine | neuter | feminine | ||
| nominative | де́лавший | де́лавшее | де́лавшая | де́лавшие |
| accusative | N or G | де́лавшую | N or G | |
| genitive | де́лавшего | де́лавшей | де́лавших | |
| dative | де́лавшему | де́лавшим | ||
| instrumental | де́лавшим | де́лавшими | ||
| prepositional | де́лавшем | де́лавших |
| infinitive | active past participle |
|---|---|
| име́ть (to have) | име́вший |
| рисова́ть (to draw) | рисова́вший |
| тону́ть (to drown) | тону́вший |
| люби́ть (to love) | люби́вший |
| писа́ть (to write) | писа́вший |
| коло́ть (to poke through with a needle) | коло́вший |
| бить (to hit) | би́вший |
| мыть (to wash) | мы́вший |
| дава́ть (to give) | дава́вший |
| жать (to squeeze/compress) | жа́вший |
| стать (to become) | ста́вший |
| жить (to live) | жи́вший |
| infinitive | past tense (masculine) |
active past participle |
|---|---|---|
| Some verbs ending in consonant + нуть | ||
| со́хнуть (to dry) | сох | сохший |
| проту́хнуть (to become rancid) | проту́х | проту́хший |
| сдо́хнуть (to die («croak»)) | сдох | сдо́хший |
| Verbs ending in -зть | ||
| лезть (to climb) | лез | ле́зший |
| Verbs ending in -ти | ||
| везти́ (to convey) | вёз | вёзший |
| вести́ (to lead) | вёл | ве́дший |
| нести́ (to carry) | нёс | нёсший |
| мести́ (to sweep) | мёл | мётший |
| грести́ (to row) | грёб | грёбший |
| расти́ (to grow) | рос | ро́сший |
| Verbs ending in -чь | ||
| помо́чь (to help) | помог | помо́гший |
| печь (to bake) | пёк | пёкший |
| Verbs ending in -ереть | ||
| умере́ть (to die) | у́мер | у́мерший |
| запере́ть (to lock) | за́пер | за́перший |
| стере́ть (to erase) | стёр | стёрший |
| The verb красть | ||
| красть (to steal) | крал | кра́вший |
| The verb идти́ | ||
| идти́ (to go) | шёл | шедший |
Reflexive verbs paradigm[edit]
| singular | plural | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| masculine | neuter | feminine | ||
| nominative | де́лавшийся | де́лавшееся | де́лавшаяся | де́лавшиеся |
| accusative | N or G | де́лавшуюся | N or G | |
| genitive | де́лавшегося | де́лавшейся | де́лавшихся | |
| dative | де́лавшемуся | де́лавшимся | ||
| instrumental | де́лавшимся | де́лавшимися | ||
| prepositional | де́лавшемся | де́лавшихся |
Passive present participle[edit]
- обсужда́ть – to discuss;
- обсужда́емый (full form), обсужда́ем (short form) – being discussed or able to be discussed;
In order to form the passive present participle it is necessary to add an adjective ending to the 1st person plural of the present tense:
оставля́ть (to leave) – оставля́ем (we leave) – оставля́емый
| masculine form | оставля́емый |
|---|---|
| feminine form | оставля́емая |
| neuter form | оставля́емое |
| plural form | оставля́емые |
| infinitive | 1st person plural (present tense) |
passive present participle |
|---|---|---|
| поздравля́ть (to congratulate) | поздравля́ем | поздравля́емый |
| рисова́ть (to draw [a picture]) | рису́ем | рису́емый |
| люби́ть (to love) | лю́бим | люби́мый |
| гнать (to race) | го́ним | гони́мый |
| мыть (to wash) | мо́ем | мо́емый |
| infinitive | present stem | passive past participle |
|---|---|---|
| Verbs ending in -авать | ||
| узнава́ть (to discover) | узнава́емый | |
| Verbs ending in -зть, -зти, -сть, -сти | ||
| везти́ (to carry [by cart or vehicle]) | вез- | везо́мый |
| вести́ (to lead) | вед- | ведо́мый |
| нести́ (to carry [by hand]) | нес- | несо́мый |
| мести́ (to sweep) | мет- | мето́мый |
| грести́ (to row) | греб- | гребо́мый |
| красть (to steal) | крад- | крадо́мый |
Passive participles are occasional in modern Russian. Often, same meaning is conveyed by reflexive active present participles:
- рису́ющийся (self-drawing) instead of рису́емый (being drawn, drawable);
- мо́ющийся (self-washing) instead of мо́емый (being washed);
The forms ending in -омый are mostly obsolete. Only the forms ведо́мый (from вести́ – to lead) and иско́мый (from иска́ть – to search, to look for) are used in the spoken language as adjectives:
- ведо́мый челове́к – a slave (driven, following) man;
- иско́мая величина́ – the sought quantity.
Passive past participle[edit]
- сде́лать – to do/to make (perfective verb)
- сде́ланный – done/made
Passive past participles are formed by means of the suffixes ‘-нн-‘ or ‘-т-‘ from the infinitive stem of perfective verbs. Besides that, this kind of participle can have short forms formed by means of the suffixes ‘-н-‘ or ‘-т-‘:
написа́ть (to write) – напи́санный (written) / напи́сан (short form)
уби́ть (to kill) – уби́тый (killed) / уби́т (short form)
| full form | short form | |
|---|---|---|
| masculine | напи́санный | напи́сан |
| feminine | напи́санная | напи́сана |
| neuter | напи́санное | напи́сано |
| plural | напи́санные | напи́саны |
| full form | short form | |
|---|---|---|
| masculine | уби́тый | уби́т |
| feminine | уби́тая | уби́та |
| neuter | уби́тое | уби́то |
| plural | уби́тые | уби́ты |
| infinitive | participle | short forms |
|---|---|---|
| Verbs in -ать, -ять, -еть with a present stem ending in a vowel | ||
| сде́лать (to do, do make) | сде́ланный | сде́лан |
| поменя́ть (to change) | поме́нянный | поме́нян |
| нарисова́ть (to draw) | нарисо́ванный | нарисо́ван |
| услы́шать (to hear) | услы́шанный | услы́шан |
| написа́ть (to write) | напи́санный | напи́сан |
| погреба́ть (to bury) | погребённый | погребён, погребена́, погребено́, погребены́ |
| Verbs ending in -ить and -еть referred to the second conjugation | ||
| пожа́рить (to fry) | пожа́ренный | пожа́рен |
| уви́деть (to see) | уви́денный | уви́ден |
| оби́деть (to offend) | оби́женный | оби́жен |
| оплати́ть (to pay) | опла́ченный | опла́чен |
| порази́ть (to amaze) | поражённый | поражён, поражена́, поражено́, поражены́ |
| спроси́ть (to ask) | спро́шенный | спро́шен |
| прости́ть (to forgive) | прощённый | прощён, прощена́, прощено́, прощены́ |
| проломи́ть (to break in) | проло́мленный | проло́млен |
| установи́ть (to install, to set up) | устано́вленный | устано́влен |
| истреби́ть (to exterminate) | истреблённый | истреблён, истреблена́, истреблено́, истреблены́ |
| купи́ть (to buy) | ку́пленный | ку́плен |
| Verbs ending in -зть, -сть, -зти or -сти | ||
| сгрызть (to chew) | сгры́зенный | сгры́зен |
| укра́сть (to steal) | укра́денный | укра́ден |
| проче́сть (to read) | прочтённый | прочтён, прочтена́, прочтено́, прочтены́ |
| увезти́ (to drive away) | увезённый | увезён, увезена́, увезено́, увезены́ |
| увести́ (to take away) | уведённый | уведён, уведена́, уведено́, уведены́ |
| подмести́ (to sweep) | подметённый | подметён, подметена́, подметено́, подметены́ |
| унести́ (to carry away) | унесённый | унесён, унесена́, унесено́, унесены́ |
| Verbs ending in -чь | ||
| испе́чь (to bake) | испечённый | испечён, испечена́, испечено́, испечены́ |
| сбере́чь (to save) | сбережённый | сбережён, сбережена́, сбережено́, сбережены́ |
| Verbs ending in -йти | ||
| найти́ (to find) | на́йденный | на́йден |
| Verbs ending in -нуть | ||
| согну́ть (to bend) | со́гнутый | со́гнут |
| Verbs ending in -оть | ||
| уколо́ть (to prick) | уко́лотый | уко́лот |
| Verbs ending in -ыть | ||
| намы́ть (to wash) | намы́тый | намы́т |
| забы́ть (to forget) | забы́тый | забы́т |
| Verbs ending in бить, вить, лить, пить, шить | ||
| уби́ть (to kill) | уби́тый | уби́т |
Adverbial participle[edit]
Adverbial participles (деепричастия) express an earlier or simultaneous action providing context for the sentence in which they occur, similar to the English constructions «having done X» or «while doing Y».
Like normal adverbs, adverbial participles are not declined. They inherit the aspect of their verb; imperfective ones are usually present, while perfective ones can only be past (since they denote action performed by the subject, the tense corresponds to the time of action denoted by the verb). Almost all Russian adverbial participles are active, but passive constructions may be formed using adverbial participle forms of the verb быть (past бывши «having been», present будучи «being»); these may be combined with either an adjectival participle in the instrumental case (Будучи раненным, боец оставался в строю – Being wounded, the combatant remained in the row), or a short adjective in the nominative (Бывши один раз наказан, он больше так не делал – Having been punished once, he didn’t do it any more).
Present adverbial participles are formed by adding the suffix -а/-я (or sometimes -учи/-ючи, which is usually deprecated) to the stem of the present tense. A few past adverbial participles (mainly of intransitive verbs of motion) are formed in the same way, but most are formed with the suffix -в (alternative form -вши, always used before -сь), some whose stem ends with a consonant, with -ши. For reflexive verbs, the suffix -сь remains at the very end of the word; in poetry it can take the form -ся.[24][25]
In standard Russian, adverbial participles are considered a feature of bookish speech; in colloquial language they are usually replaced with single adjectival participles or constructions with verbs: Пообедав, я пошёл гулять («Having eaten, I went for a walk») → Я пообедал и пошёл гулять («I had dinner and went for a walk»). But in some dated dialects adverbial and adjectival participles may be used to produce perfect forms which sound illiterate and do not occur in modern Russian; e.g. «I haven’t eaten today» will be «Я сегодня не евши» instead of «Я сегодня не ел».
| infinitive | present tense | present adverbial participle | past adverbial participle |
|---|---|---|---|
| думать (to think, impf.) | думаю | думая | (думав)[tavp 1] |
| сказать (to say, pf.) | — | — | сказав (сказавши) |
| учиться (to be learning, impf.) | учусь | учась | (учившись)[tavp 1] |
| научиться (to learn, pf.) | — | — | научившись |
| войти (to enter, pf.) | — | — | войдя (вошед,[tavp 2] вошедши) |
| сплести (to weave, pf.) | — | — | сплётши (сплетя) |
| ехать (to ride/to drive, impf.) | еду | (ехав, ехавши)[tavp 1] | (едучи)[tavp 3] |
|
Irregular verbs[edit]
| брать1 | ви́деть2 | дава́ть1 | дать3 | есть3 | жить1 | звать1 | идти́1 | писа́ть2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
English |
take | see | give | give (pf.) | eat | live | call | go | write | |
| Present | 1st singular | беру́ | ви́жу | даю́ | дам | ем | живу́ | зову́ | иду́ | пишу́ |
| 2nd singular | берёшь | ви́дишь | даёшь | дашь | ешь | живёшь | зовёшь | идёшь | пи́шешь | |
| 3rd singular | берёт | ви́дит | даёт | даст | ест | живёт | зовёт | идёт | пи́шет | |
| 1st plural | берём | ви́дим | даём | дади́м | еди́м | живём | зовём | идём | пи́шем | |
| 2nd plural | берёте | ви́дите | даёте | дади́те | еди́те | живёте | зовёте | идёте | пи́шете | |
| 3rd plural | беру́т | ви́дят | даю́т | даду́т | едя́т | живу́т | зову́т | иду́т | пи́шут | |
| Past | брал брала́ бра́ло бра́ли |
ви́дел ви́дела ви́дело ви́дели |
дава́л дава́ла дава́ло дава́ли |
дал дала́ да́ло́ да́ли |
ел е́ла е́ло е́ли |
жил жила́ жи́ло жи́ли |
звал звала́ зва́ло зва́ли |
шёл шла шло шли |
писа́л писа́ла писа́ло писа́ли |
|
| Imperative | бери́ | видь | дава́й | дай | ешь | живи́ | зови́ | иди́ | пиши́ | |
| Active Participle | present | беру́щий | ви́дящий | даю́щий | – | едя́щий | живу́щий | зову́щий | иду́щий | пи́шущий |
| past | бра́вший | ви́девший | дава́вший | да́вший | е́вший | жи́вший | зва́вший | ше́дший | писа́вший | |
| Past passive participle | за́бранный | уви́денный | – | да́нный | съе́денный | – | по́званный | – | напи́санный | |
| Past passive participle (short forms) | за́бран за́брана за́брано за́браны |
уви́ден уви́дена уви́дено уви́дены |
– | дан дана́ дано́ даны́ |
съе́ден съе́дена съе́дено съе́дены |
– | по́зван по́звана по́звано по́званы |
– | напи́сан напи́сана напи́сано напи́саны |
|
| Adverbial Participle | present | беря́ | ви́дя | дава́я | – | едя́ | живя́ | зовя́ | идя́ | – |
| past | брав | ви́дев | дава́в | дав | ев | жив | звав | ше́дши | писа́в |
1These verbs all have a stem change.
2These verbs are palatalised in certain cases, namely с → ш for all the present forms of «писа́ть«, and д → ж in the first person singular of the other verbs.
3These verbs do not conform to either the first or second conjugations.
Word formation[edit]
Russian has on hand a set of prefixes, prepositional and adverbial in nature, as well as diminutive, augmentative, and frequentative suffixes and infixes. All of these can be stacked one upon the other to produce multiple derivatives of a given word. Participles and other inflectional forms may also have a special connotation. For example:
| мысль | [mɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲ] | «thought» |
| мысли́шка | [mɨˈs⁽ʲ⁾lʲiʂkə] | «a petty, cute or a silly thought» |
| мысли́ща | [mɨˈs⁽ʲ⁾lʲiɕːə] | «a thought of fundamental import» |
| мышле́ние | [mɨˈʂlʲenʲɪjə] | «thought, abstract thinking, reasoning» |
| мы́слить | [ˈmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪtʲ] | «to think (as to cogitate)» |
| мы́слящий | [ˈmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪɕːɪj] | «thinking, intellectual» (adjective) |
| мы́слимый | [ˈmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪmɨj] | «conceivable, thinkable» |
| мы́сленно | [ˈmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪn(ː)ə] | «mentally, in a mental manner» |
| смысл | [smɨsl] | «meaning» (noun) |
| осмы́слить | [ɐˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪtʲ] | «to comprehend, to conceive; to grasp» (perfect) |
| осмы́сливать | [ɐˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪvətʲ] | «to be in the process of comprehending» (continuous) |
| переосмы́слить | [pʲɪrʲɪɐˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪtʲ] | «to reassess, to reconsider» |
| переосмы́сливать | [pʲɪrʲɪɐˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪvətʲ] | «to be in the process of reassessing (something)» |
| переосмы́сливаемые | [pʲɪrʲɪɐˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪvəjɪmɨje] | «(something or someone plural) in the process of being reconsidered» |
| бессмы́слица | [bʲɪˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪtsə] | «nonsense» |
| обессмы́слить | [ɐbʲɪˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪtʲ] | «to render meaningless» |
| бессмы́сленный | [bʲɪˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪnːɨj] | «meaningless» |
| обессмы́сленный | [ɐbʲɪˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪnːɨj] | «rendered meaningless» |
| необессмы́сленный | [nʲɪəbʲɪˈsmɨs⁽ʲ⁾lʲɪnːɨj] | «not rendered meaningless» |
Russian has also proven friendly to agglutinative compounds. As an extreme case:
| металло̀ломообеспече́ние | [mʲɪtəlɐˌlomɐɐbʲɪsʲpʲɪˈtɕenʲjɪ] | «provision of scrap metal» |
| металло̀ломообеспе́ченный | [mʲɪtəlɐˌlomɐɐbʲɪˈsʲpʲetɕɪnːɨj] | «well supplied with scrap metal» |
Purists (as Dmitry Ushakov in the preface to his dictionary) frown on such words. But here is the name of a street in St. Petersburg:
| Каменноостровский проспект | [ˌkamʲɪnːɐɐˈstrovskʲɪj prɐˈsʲpʲekt] | «Stone Island Avenue» |
Some linguists have suggested that Russian agglutination stems from Church Slavonic. In the twentieth century, abbreviated components appeared in the compound:
| управдом | [ʊprɐˈvdom] = управляющий домом | [ʊprɐˈvlʲӕjʉɕːɪj ˈdoməm] | «residence manager» |
Syntax[edit]
Basic word order, both in conversation and written language, is subject–verb–object. However, because grammatical relationships are marked by inflection, considerable latitude in word order is allowed, and all possible permutations can be used. For example, the words in the phrase «я пошёл в магазин» (‘I went to the shop’) can be arranged:
- Я пошёл в магазин. (I went to the shop; I went to the shop.)
- Я в магазин пошёл. (I to the shop went; approx. I am going out, my destination is the shop.)
- Пошёл я в магазин. (Went I to the shop; two meanings: can be treated as a beginning of a narrated story: «Went I to the shop, and something happened.» or a decision made by someone after a long contemplation: «OK, I think I will go the shop.»)
- Пошёл в магазин я. (Went to the shop I; rarely used, can be treated as a beginning of a line of a poem written in amphibrach due to uncommon word order, or when the speaker wants to highlight that exactly this subject «went to the shop». In that case, the subject is stressed)
- В магазин я пошёл. (To the shop I went; two meanings: can be used as a response: «I went to the shop.» – «Sorry, where did you go?» – «To the shop—that’s where I went.» or an emphasis on the way of transportation: I went to the shop on foot.)
- В магазин пошёл я. (To the shop went I; It was me who went to the shop.)
while maintaining grammatical correctness. Note, however, that the order of the phrase «в магазин» («to the shop») is kept constant.
Word order can express logical stress, and degree of definiteness. The primary emphasis tends to be initial, with a weaker emphasis at the end. Some of these arrangements can describe present actions, not only past (despite the fact that the verb пошёл is in the past).
In some cases, alternative word order can change the meaning entirely:
- Не надо меня уговаривать. («No need me [to] persuade» → One should not persuade me [as I would never agree to do something].)
- Меня не надо уговаривать. («Me no need [to] persuade» → There is no need to persuade me [as I will do it anyway].)
Impersonal sentences[edit]
Russian is a null-subject language – it allows constructing sentences without subject (Russian: безличные предложения). Some of them are claimed to not be impersonal, but to have oblique subject. One possible classification of such sentences distinguishes:[27]
- Subjectless impersonals contain an impersonal verb (in form of single third-person or single neutral), and no other word is used as a subject
- Смеркалось. ‘(It got) dusky.’
- В Москве полночь. ‘(It’s) midnight in Moscow.’
- Dative impersonals usually express personal feelings, where experiencer in dative case can possibly be considered as subject
- Мнеdat. скучно. ‘I’m bored.’
- Other impersonals have an element which is neither nominative nor dative, but still is a nominal verb argument
- Меняacc. тошнит. ‘I feel sick.’
- Васюacc. ударило токомinstr.. ‘Vasya had an electric shock.’
Negation[edit]
Multiple Negatives[edit]
Unlike in standard English, multiple negatives are compulsory in Russian, as in «никто никогда никому ничего не прощает» [nʲɪkˈto nʲɪkɐɡˈda nʲɪkɐˈmu nʲɪtɕɪˈvo nʲɪ prɐɕˈɕæjɪt] (‘No-one ever forgives anyone for anything’ literally, «no one never to no-one nothing does not forgive»). Usually, only one word in a sentence has negative particle or prefix «не» or belongs to negative word «нет», while another word has negation-affirmative particle or prefix «ни»; but this word can often be omitted, and thus ни becomes the signal of negation: вокруг никого нет and вокруг никого both mean «there is nobody around».
Adverbial answers[edit]
As a one-word answer to an affirmative sentence, yes translates да and no translates нет, as shown by the table below.[citation needed]
| English | Russian | |
|---|---|---|
| First speaker | It’s raining | Идёт дождь |
| Agreeing with speaker (rain is falling) | Yes = it’s raining | Да = идёт дождь |
| Disagreeing with speaker (rain is not falling) | No = it’s not raining | Нет = дождь не идёт |
No simple rule supplies an adverbial answer to a negative sentence. B. Comrie[28] says that in Russian answer да or нет is determined not so much by the negative form of the question as by the questioner’s intent for using negation, or whether the response is in agreement with his presupposition. In many cases that means that the adverbial answer should be extended for avoiding ambiguity; in spoken language, intonation in saying нет can also be significant to if it is affirmation of negation or negation of negation.
| Question | Interpretation | Positive answer what was negated is declared |
Negative answer what was negated is refused |
|---|---|---|---|
| Не желаете ли печенья? Would you like to have some cookies? |
Negation is used only for more politeness | Да, пожалуйста. Yes, please. |
Нет, спасибо. No, thank you. |
| Не задумывались ли вы над этим? Haven’t you considered this? |
Presence of a negative particle is conditioned by the expectation of a positive answer | Да, задумывался. Yes, I have. |
Нет, не задумывался. No, I haven’t. |
| Так что, не ку́пите? So, you (definitely) won’t buy (it)? |
Negation is forced by the presumption of negative answer | Нет, берём. No, we will buy it. |
Да, не берём (less common). / Нет, не берём. No, we won’t buy it. |
| Ты ведь не сердишься на меня? (But) you are not angry with me, (are you)? |
Negation is hoped for, rather than expected | Нет, я сержусь. / Да, сержусь. Yes, I am angry. |
Нет, не сержусь. / Да, не сержусь (less common). No, I am not angry. |
Note that while expressing an affirmation of negation by extending «да» with a negated verb is grammatically acceptable. In practice it is more common to answer «нет» and subsequently extend with a negated verb paralleling the usage in English. Answering a negative sentence with a non-extended «нет» is usually interpreted as an affirmation of negation again in a way similar to English.
Alternatively, both positive and negative simple questions can be answered by repeating the predicate with or without не, especially if да/нет is ambiguous: in the latest example, «сержусь» or «не сержусь».
Coordination[edit]
The most common types of coordination expressed by compound sentences in Russian are conjoining, oppositional, and separative. Additionally, the Russian grammar considers comparative, complemental, and clarifying. Other flavors of meaning may also be distinguished.
Conjoining coordinations are formed with the help of the conjunctions и «and», ни … ни («not … not» — simultaneous negation), та́кже «also», то́же («too»; the latter two have complementary flavors), etc. Most commonly the conjoining coordination expresses enumeration, simultaneity or immediate sequence. They may also have a cause-effect flavor.
Oppositional coordinations are formed with the help of the oppositional conjunctions: а «and»~»but», но «but», одна́ко «however», зато́ «on the other hand», же «and»~»but», etc. They express the semantic relations of opposition, comparison, incompatibility, restriction, or compensation.
Separative coordinations are formed with the help of the separative conjunctions: и́ли «or», ли́бо «either», ли … ли «whether … or», то … то «then … then», etc. They express alternation or incompatibility of things expressed in the coordinated sentences.
Complemental and clarifying coordination expresses additional, but not subordinated, information related to the first sentence.
Comparative coordination is a semantic flavor of the oppositional one.
Common coordinating conjunctions include:
- и [i] «and», enumerative, complemental;
- а [a] «and», comparative, tending to «but» or «while»;
- но [no] «but», oppositional.
The distinction between «и» and «а» is important:
- «и» implies a following complemental state that does not oppose the antecedent;
- «а» implies a following state that acts in opposition to the antecedent, but more weakly than «но» («but»).
| они́ уе́хали, и мы уезжа́ем |
[ɐˈnʲi ʊˈjexəlʲɪ] [ɪ ˈmɨ ʊ(ɪ̯)ɪˈʐːa(ɪ̯)ɪm] |
they have left, and we are leaving (too) |
| они́ уже́ уе́хали, а мы ещё нет |
[ɐˈnʲi ʊˈʐɛ ʊˈjexəlʲɪ] [ɐ ˈmɨ ʊ(ɪ̯)ɪˈʐːa(ɪ̯)ɪm] |
they have already left, while (but) we haven’t (left) yet |
| они уе́хали, но ненадо́лго |
[ɐˈnʲi ʊˈjexəlʲɪ] [nə nʲɪnəˈdoɫɡə] |
they have left, but not for long |
The distinction between «и» and «а» developed after medieval times. Originally, «и» and «а» were closer in meaning. The unpunctuated ending of the Song of Igor illustrates the potential confusion. The final five words in modern spelling, «князьям слава а дружине аминь» [knʲɪˈzʲjam ˈslavə ɐ druˈʐɨnʲɪ ɐˈmʲinʲ] can be understood either as «Glory to the princes and to their retinue! Amen.» or «Glory to the princes, and amen (R.I.P.) to their retinue». Although the majority opinion is definitely with the first interpretation, no consensus has formed. The psychological difference between the two is quite obvious.
Subordination[edit]
Complementizers (subordinating conjunctions, adverbs, or adverbial phrases) include:
- если [ˈjesʲlʲɪ] ‘if’ (meaning ‘in case where’ not meaning ‘whether’);
- потому что [pətɐˈmu ʂtə] ‘because’
- так как [tak kak] ‘since’ (meaning ‘for the reason that’)
- чтобы [ˈʂtobɨ], дабы [ˈdabɨ] (bookish, archaic) ‘so that’
- после того, как [ˈposʲlʲɪ tɐˈvo kək] ‘after’
- хотя [xɐˈtʲa] ‘although’
In general, Russian has fewer subordinate clauses than English, because the participles and adverbial participles often take the place of a relative pronoun/verb combination. For example:
| Вот человек, потерявший надежду. |
[vot tɕɪlɐˈvʲek] [pətʲɪˈrʲavʂɨj nɐˈdʲeʐdʊ] |
Here (is) a man who has lost (all) hope. [lit. having lost hope] |
| Гуляя по городу, всегда останавливаюсь у Ростральных колонн. |
[ɡʊˈlʲӕjɪ pɐ ˈɡorədʊ vsʲɪɡˈda] [ɐstɐˈnavlʲɪvəjʉsʲ ʊ rɐˈstralʲnɨx kɐˈlon] |
When I go for a walk in the city, I always pause by the Rostral Columns. [lit. Walking in the city, I…] |
Absolute construction[edit]
Despite the inflectional nature of Russian, there is no equivalent in modern Russian to the English nominative absolute or the Latin ablative absolute construction. The old language had an absolute construction, with the noun in the dative. Like so many other archaisms, it is retained in Church Slavonic. Among the last known examples in literary Russian occurs in Radishchev’s Journey from Petersburg to Moscow (Путешествие из Петербурга в Москву [pʊtʲɪˈʂɛstvʲɪjɪ ɪs pʲɪtʲɪrˈburɡə v mɐˈskvu]), 1790:
- Едущу мне из Едрова, Анюта из мысли моей не выходила. [ˈjedʊɕːʉ mnʲe ɪzʲ jɪˈdrovə, ɐˈnʲutə ɪz ˈmɨsʲlʲɪ mɐˈjej nʲɪ vɨxɐˈdʲilə] «As I was leaving Yedrovo village, I could not stop thinking about Aniuta.»
See also[edit]
- List of Russian language topics
- Reduplication in the Russian language
Notes[edit]
- ^ Nesset (2008) applied Leonard Talmy’s (1985, 2000) terms «manner» and «path» to her image schema for Russian verbs of motion.
- ^ Researchers have also included the reflexive verbs катиться/кататься, гнаться/гоняться, нестись/носиться, and тащиться/таскаться (Gagarina 2009: 451–452).
References[edit]
- ^ (in Russian) Zaliznyak A. A. «Русское именное словоизменение.» Moscow.: Science, 1967
- ^ (in Russian) Uspenskij V. A. «К определению падежа по А. Н. Колмогорову // Бюллетень объединения по проблемам машинного перевода.» Issue. 5. Moscow., 1957 online copy Archived 2012-04-23 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ (in Russian) Klobukov E. V. «Семантика падежных форм в современном русском литературном языке. (Введение в методику позиционного анализа)» Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1986.
- ^ «The Cases of Russian Nouns». Master Russian. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
- ^ «Russian case functions in brief». alphaDictionary. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
- ^ (in Russian) Жду звонка…
- ^ Cooljugator: The Smart Declinator in Russian nouns
- ^ Translated from the Russian by V. Korotky
- ^ Е. И. Литневская. Русский язык. Краткий теоретический курс для школьников БСМП «ЭЛЕКС-Альфа», 2000
- ^ a b Современный русский язык / Под ред. В. А. Белошапковой.
- ^ Corbett, Greville G. (June 1987). «The Morphology/Syntax Interface: Evidence from Possessive Adjectives in Slavonic» (PDF). Language. 2. 63 (2): 299–345. doi:10.2307/415658. JSTOR 415658. Retrieved 13 December 2013.
- ^ Collective numerals for more than 7 are seldom used.
- ^ In very bookish speech also can appear plural third-person form суть; it’s often misused by some native Russian writers who don’t know what this word really is.
- ^ Björn Rothstein; Rolff Thieroff (2010). Mood in the Languages of Europe. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 326.
- ^ «Russian verbs: How to form the imperative».
- ^ Gor, K., Cook, S., Malyushenkova, V., & Vdovina, T (2009). «Verbs of Motion in Highly Proficient Learners and Heritage Speakers of Russian». The Slavic and East European Journal. 53 (3): 386–408. JSTOR 40651163.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Talmy, Leonard (1985). «Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms». In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–149.
- ^ Nesset, Tore (2008). «Path and Manner: An Image-Schematic Approach to Russian Verbs of Motion». Scando-Slavica. 54 (1): 135–158. doi:10.1080/00806760802494232. S2CID 123427088.
- ^ a b c Muravyova, L (1986). V. Korotky (ed.). Verbs of Motion in Russian / Glagoly dviženija v russkom jazyke (5 ed.). Moscow: Russkij jazyk. pp. 211–212, 218–225.
- ^ a b c Wade, Terence (2011). A Comprehensive Russian Grammar (2 ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
- ^ Hasko, Victoria (2010). «Semantic Composition of Motion Verbs in Russian and English». In Renee Perelmutter (ed.). New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 197–224. ISBN 978-9027205827.
- ^ Mahota, William (1996). Russian Motion Verb for Intermediate Students. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- ^ Anna, Medvedeva. «Classification — Russian language grammar on RussianLearn.com». russianlearn.com.
- ^ Paul Cubberley (2002). Russian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press. pp. 162, 164. ISBN 0-521-79641-5.
- ^ А. А. Камынина (1999). Современный русский язык. Морфология. Издательство МГУ. p. 180. ISBN 5-211-04133-X.
- ^ «Деепричастие». Русская корпусная грамматика. Retrieved 2013-09-26.
- ^ Bailyn, John F. (2012). The Syntax of Russian. Cambridge University Press. pp. 115–118. ISBN 978-0-521-88574-4.
- ^ Comrie, Bernard (1984). «Russian». Typological Studies in Language. 4 (Interrogativity: A Colloquium on the Grammar, Typology, and Pragmatics of Questions in Seven Diverse Languages, Cleveland, Ohio, October 5th, 1981 – May 3rd, 1982): 36–37.
External links[edit]
- Interactive On-line Reference Grammar of Russian
- Wikibooks Russian
- Concise one-page tabular grammar reference
- Gramota.ru – dictionaries
- Wiktionary has word entries in Cyrillic with meanings and grammatical analysis in English
- Russian Wiktionary gives word meanings and grammatical analysis in Russian
- Russian grammar overview with practice tests
- Over 400 links to Russian Grammar articles around the Net (wayback machine)
- Free online Russian grammar book (with videos)
- The history of Russian language on YouTube
Introduction
We focus our analysis on two large and partially overlapping networks of grammatical constructions in Russian, namely the Evaluative constructions used to express Assessment and Attitude. While Assessment and Attitude will be defined and elaborated in more detail below, suffice it to say here that Assessment is an evaluation of an item external to the speaker, whereas Attitude is an expression of how the speaker feels about something. Our analysis shows how grammatical constructions function as a structured system, in which the forms of constructions are motivated by their meanings, and meanings together with syntax and anchor words connect constructions to each other.
Our aim is to represent the Assessment and Attitude networks of constructions in terms of their internal structure, as given by the families and clusters defined below. This analysis will show both hierarchical relationships within the networks of constructions, as well as lateral relationships across families, clusters, and networks. These relationships will be modeled as radial categories. While strictly speaking our conclusions are limited to this dataset, given the large size of our sample—the largest analyzed in this way thus far—we suggest that it is likely that both the remainder of Russian constructions as well as constructions in other languages can be modeled in a similar way.
Before turning to our analysis, we explain our theoretical approach in terms of construction grammar and the larger project that has given rise to this analysis, known as the Russian Constructicon, described in the section “The Russian Constructicon.” Our approach and the project provide a rich context for the analysis of the Assessment and Attitude constructions that follow in sections “A Network of Assessment Constructions: 4 Clusters and 25 Families” and “A Network of Attitude Constructions: 4 Clusters and 18 Families.” The section “Overlap of Assessment and Attitude Networks of Constructions” focuses on the ways in which the networks of Assessment and Attitude constructions overlap, and our conclusions are gathered in the section “Conclusions.” The result is a detailed demonstration of how grammatical constructions interact and in aggregate shape a linguistic system, with profound implications for the psychology of language.
Construction Grammar and Cognitive Linguistics
Our approach is informed by construction grammar, which is itself a subfield within cognitive linguistics. Three assumptions about the nature of language characterize cognitive linguistics (Langacker, 2008; Janda, 2015). The first is the minimal assumption that language phenomena emerge from general cognitive strategies. In other words, we can explain the behavior of language in terms of what is otherwise established in the fields of neurobiology and psychology about the behavior of the brain. This assumption obviates any need for a strict division between grammar and lexicon, since both are explained by the same cognitive system. The second assumption is that generalizations about language emerge from observations of language data. Consequently, cognitive linguistics is “usage based” (Diessel, 2015; Janda, 2019), meaning that cognitive linguistics makes no strict division between “langue” and “parole,” and takes the latter as the basis for analysis. Therefore, corpora and other samples of language production are the focus of investigation. Finally, the third assumption asserts the central role of meaning for all language phenomena. Meaning is understood as grounded in human experience and elaborated by metaphor, metonymy, and blending, which supply the links in polysemous networks.
All three assumptions have direct consequences for construction grammar. In accordance with the minimal assumption, constructions cohere as a structured system following the same characteristics observed in cognitive categories, where there can be central and peripheral members (called “radial categories,” see Rosch, 1973a,b), and members of different categories can overlap and be multiply motivated because the system is strongly interconnected. Grammar and lexicon are analyzed in a unified manner. The investigation of constructions is carried out by collecting usage data, particularly from corpora, and extracting patterns that emerge from that data, and therefore construction grammar is also usage-based. Because meaning is central, the semantic pole is an essential part of the definition of a construction, explained in detail immediately below.
Defining the Construction
Following Goldberg (1995, 2005), Croft (2001), Fried and Östman (2004), and Langacker (2008), we define the construction thus:
Constructions are entrenched language-specific form-meaning pairings available at all levels of linguistic complexity.
More specifically, a construction consists of a semantic pole (its meaning), a phonological pole (its form), and a symbolic relationship between the two poles (Langacker, 2008). An example is the Russian construction najti-Pst NP-Acc!1, literally “found X!” as in Našli razvlečenie! “What a bad way to amuse yourself! [lit. Found amusement!].” The semantic pole of this construction can be described thus: “The construction expresses the speaker’s dissatisfaction with the interlocutor(s), who behave incorrectly (from the speaker’s perspective) given the present situation.” The phonological pole is a past tense form of the verb najti “find” followed by an accusative form of a noun which serves as a direct object. This example illustrates the often non-compositional and language-specific nature of constructions. The elements of this construction (“found” + a direct object) do not in themselves indicate dissatisfaction; the whole is something that cannot be predicted on the basis of the parts2. This construction is specific to Russian: we do not expect to find an exact parallel in other languages, and in fact if we want to translate this construction into English, we need to render it in a variety of ways in different contexts. Three examples from the Russian National Corpus illustrate this.
(1) – Vy, značit, emu den’gi poslali? – Našli duru! Ni kopejki.
‘– So, in other words, you sent him money? – Do you take me for a fool?! [lit. Found fool!] Not a kopeck.’
(2) Provodil ja Sonju, vernulsja domoj, i mama govorit: – Našel krasotku! Odna štukaturka.
‘I walked Sonja to her place and when I got home, mom says: – Some beauty you found yourself!! [lit. Found beauty!] She’s just plastered [with makeup].’
(3) Xvatit smejat’sja v biblioteke. Našli mesto!
‘Enough laughing in the library. This is not the right place!! [lit. Found place!]’
Note, however, that neither compositionality nor language-specificity are criteria for identifying a construction. All entrenched form-meaning pairings are constructions. The point of this example is rather to show that constructions can be non-compositional and language-specific.
From the perspective of construction grammar, the construction is the basic unit of language, and, conversely, a language is a system of constructions, also known as a “constructicon” (Fillmore, 2008; Fillmore et al., 2012). The construction is basic in the sense that it is the structure that is found throughout language, at all levels where meaning is expressed. This includes, at the minimal level, the morpheme, such as the prefix na (in našli “found”), which expresses perfective aspect3. Combinations of morphemes to form words are likewise constructions, as in našli “found,” which contains three more morphemes: š here indexes the root “find,” l marks past tense, and i marks plural. Our example najti-Pst NP-Acc! is of course a multi-word construction. Words and multi-word constructions combine to form phrases and sentences, which are also complex constructions. Further complexity is found at the discourse level with the structure of units such as requests, complaints, instructions, and the like. In its current form our Russian constructicon resource (described in more detail in the section “The Russian Constructicon” below) focuses on multi-word constructions, although in principle it would be possible to represent constructions at all levels from phonology to discourse.
The constructicon of a language is not merely an inventory. Constructions are related to each other, not just in terms of smaller parts (morphemes) being combined into units, but also in terms of relations between constructions. The idea that constructions form networks of related members was suggested by Goldberg (2005), using the example of English Subject Auxiliary Inversion, which is present in a wide range of constructions, among them questions (Did he go?), wishes/curses (May you live a good life!), negative conjuncts (Never had she seen anything like it), and positive rejoinders (So do I). Goldberg demonstrates that these constructions constitute a family based on semantic similarities, by sharing some or all of the following characteristics: the meaning of these constructions differs from that of a positive declarative sentence in that the framing is negative and/or non-declarative and/or narrowly focused and/or dependent on other clauses.
Our najti-Pst NP-Acc! construction belongs to a family of over a dozen constructions that signal disapproval of behavior, and in turn this family of constructions is multiply motivated, belonging to both the Assessment and the Attitude networks of constructions and thus forming a link between the two. The way in which families of constructions structure and link these two networks is described in more detail in sections “A Network of Assessment Constructions: 4 Clusters and 25 Families,” “A Network of Attitude Constructions: 4 Clusters and 18 Families,” and “Overlap of Assessment and Attitude Networks of Constructions” below. In aggregate, structured relationships like these constitute the constructicon that represents the language as a whole.
Further properties of the form and meaning of constructions that we observe in construction grammar include their idiomaticity, relationships to specific lexemes, and coercion of meaning.
Construction grammar views idiomaticity as a scalar phenomenon, with all constructions lying somewhere along a continuum between maximal idiomaticity, where a construction has fixed words and idiosyncratic syntax, to maximal schematicity, where a construction has open slots with few restrictions and typical syntactic patterns. For example, the English phrase all of a sudden is maximally idiomatic since it has fixed words that cannot be replaced or changed, and a syntactic pattern (quantifier + preposition + article + adjective) otherwise uncharacteristic of English. Moving slightly away from maximal idiomaticity is a phrase like curiosity killed the cat, where there are still absolute restrictions on the words and their forms, but the construction follows a canonical syntactic pattern, namely that of a transitive clause. Slightly further along the idiomatic <-> schematic scale we find items like kick the bucket, where most lemmas are fixed, but allow variation in grammatical categories, so one can use different forms of the verb, like past (He kicked the bucket last week) and imperative (Go kick the bucket!). Notice that the subject of kick the bucket is an open slot allowing all human (and possibly some animal) referents, and that this construction also follows the canonical transitive pattern. Also on this scale is a construction like the X-er the Y-er (as in The bigger the better), partly schematic because it has open slots albeit with some restrictions (they have to be adjectives referencing scalar qualities), but idiosyncratic syntax. Maximally schematic would be something like NP + V + NP, which represents a canonical transitive clause in English, consisting of only a pattern and open slots with few restrictions.
We can locate our najti-Pst NP-Acc! construction on the scale between idiomaticity and schematicity by observing its slots and syntax. Our construction has two slots: one slot that has a fixed lemma najti “find” that is restricted to past tense forms but allows variation in gender and number4, and one slot that is open and can be filled with any referent that can appear as a direct object of the verb. In terms of syntax, this construction is mostly aligned with standard Russian syntax for a transitive clause (with a finite verb form and a direct object in the Accusative case), but deviates slightly in that the subject is necessarily elided5 (in Russian it is sometimes possible to elide subjects, but not usually required to do so). In short, the najti-Pst NP-Acc! construction is partially idiomatic (one filled slot, restrictions on grammatical categories, requires elision of subject who is also the addressee) and partially schematic (one open slot, mostly follows usual structure of a transitive clause). Although everything on the spectrum from idiomatic to schematic is part of the constructicon of a language, our Russian Constructicon resource focuses on the items that are not at the extreme poles. In other words, we do not focus on constructions that are maximally idiomatic or maximally schematic. The reason for this is that the two poles of the continuum are already well represented in standard resources. Maximally idiomatic constructions are collected in phraseological dictionaries, and maximally schematic patterns are described in grammars. It is the constructions in between (termed “partially schematic” in Ehrlemark et al., 2016) that are the focus of our study.
Aside from the maximally schematic patterns, any given construction will usually have a special relationship to one or more lexemes. These special relationships come in two types: anchor words and common fillers. An anchor word is a fixed lemma in a construction, such as all the words in all of a sudden and curiosity killed the cat. Some anchor words participate in a large number of constructions, such as time in English (time BE up, It’s high time VP, This is not the time for VPing). Common fillers are words that typically appear in the construction, such as bigger, sooner for the first slot and better, harder for the second slot of the X-er the Y-er construction. Fillers are thus variables that appear in open slots in constructions. Fillers often constitute semantic groups of words, as we see in the VP into the phone construction, where common fillers are speaking verbs like yell, mutter, whine. In our najti-Pst NP-Acc! construction najti “find” is an anchor word, and some common fillers for the open slot are illustrated in examples (1)–(3).
Coercion is a phenomenon related to the non-compositional and complex meaning of constructions. Many constructions influence the meanings of the words in the construction, causing them to express meanings that they don’t otherwise have6. Sometimes coercion has a grammatical focus. The caused-motion construction of English can coerce an intransitive verb to express a transitive meaning, as in The audience booed the comedian off the stage (the caused motion construction, cf. Goldberg, 1995, p. 54), and the NP all over (+ DP) construction can coerce a count noun to be interpreted as a mass noun, as in There was cat all over the driveway (cf. Langacker, 2008, p. 144). More often coercion focuses on the lexical meanings and their pragmatic interpretations, as in A(n) NP waiting to happen, where a strong association with negatively evaluated situations causes even a neutral word like event to take on an ominous meaning: an event waiting to happen suggests danger that needs to be averted (cf. Stefanowitsch and Gries, 2003). Our najti-Pst NP-Acc! construction likewise coerces the meaning of its filler nouns, sarcastically forcing them to mean something like “the wrong NP, an NP I disapprove of” rather than just “NP.”
To summarize, constructions are the basic unit of language, composed of a form and a meaning and exist at all levels of language. Constructions vary along a scale from idiomatic to schematic. Constructions can invoke meanings that are not derivable from their components and can even coerce their components to express meanings that they are not usually associated with. An entire language can be modeled as a structured system of constructions, linked by meaning, syntax, and anchor words. This article is primarily focused on the last point, namely the way in which constructions constitute a language. We observe two kinds of structure in the system of the constructicon, namely hierarchical and overlapping patterns. These patterns are explored in more detail in sections “The Russian Constructicon” through “Overlap of Assessment and Attitude Networks of Constructions.”
The Russian Constructicon
The Russian Constructicon is a free open-access electronic resource that offers a searchable database of Russian constructions accompanied with descriptions of their properties and illustrated with examples from the Russian National Corpus (www.ruscorpora.ru). The Russian Constructicon is designed for both linguists and second language learners of Russian, focusing on solid analyses of constructions as well as their annotation in terms of semantic types, syntactic patterns, morphological categories, semantic roles, and levels of language proficiency (Janda et al., 2018). Search functions make it possible to filter constructions for all of these features, as well as to access all of these features for each individual construction. The project page is available at https://site.uit.no/russian-constructicon/ (for more information on the analysis of constructions in the Russian Constructicon see Endresen et al., 2020; Janda et al., forthcoming).
Constructicons are being built for a limited number of languages: English, Swedish, German, Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and Japanese. The Russian Constructicon joined this movement and is currently a part of the international enterprise termed multilingual constructicography (Lyngfelt et al., 2018).
The Russian Constructicon is a joint project administered over 5 years (2016–2020) as a collaboration between two educational and research institutions: UiT The Arctic University of Norway (CLEAR research group) in Tromsø and the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow (School of Linguistics). The building of this resource has been supported by two grants received from the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education [Diku, https://diku.no/en: “Constructing a Russian Constructicon” (NCM-RU-2016/10025) in 2016 and “Targeting Wordforms in Russian Language Learning” (CPRU-2017/10027) in 2017-2020].
The team working on this project includes Laura A. Janda, Tore Nesset, Anna Endresen (UiT); Ekaterina Rakhilina, Olga Lyashevskaya, Valentina Zhukova (HSE); Daria Mordashova (Institute of Linguistics, the Russian Academy of Sciences); and Francis M. Tyers (Indiana U). The website is currently under construction by Radovan Bast (Section for Digital Platform and Operation, UiT).
Semantic Annotation of Constructions
Consistent with the assertion of cognitive linguistics that meaning plays a central role in language, we observe that the primary way in which constructions are organized is according to their semantics. With respect to the over 2,200 constructions in our Russian Constructicon resource, we find 53 meanings that yield both hierarchical and lateral (overlapping) groupings. These meanings are represented as semantic tags in the Russian Constructicon.
Semantic tags were assigned by a panel of three native speakers of Russian (including a co-author of this article) who are also linguists actively engaged in development of the content of the Russian Constructicon resource. The three taggers worked together as a panel and discussed each of over 2,200 constructions in weekly digital meetings over a period of several months. As a result, assignment of semantic and syntactic tags for individual constructions has not been a matter of individual decisions but rather an outcome of a panel decision that was often reconsidered and refined with time. As our classification of semantic and syntactic types of constructions evolved, we came back to already analyzed cases and re-analyzed them, taking into account newly gained knowledge and newly added constructions. Although any semantic interpretation of linguistic data might be regarded as subjective to some degree, we believe that using a panel of taggers helped our project to minimize the subjectivity in the analysis and secure the reliability of the outcome. This approach made it possible to control for identical and consistent understanding of the terminology used in tag-assignment and adopted by all three taggers. The terminology evolved together with the classification of constructions and the size of the database. Our system of semantic tags is to a large degree based on the categories and terminology used in typological literature [cf. the “universal grammatical set of meanings” (Plungian, 2011, p. 65) among others].
The taggers took into account corpus data as well as independent previous scholarship on individual constructions and groups of constructions. For example, in distinguishing between apprehensive and preventive constructions we followed Dobrušina (2006), recognized the types and subtypes of concession constructions according to Apresjan (1999), and consulted Rakhilina (2013) while analyzing continuative prohibitive constructions.
Figure 1 displays the twenty most frequent semantic tags and their overall distribution in our database. Each of these tags is assigned to more than fifty individual constructions. The tags are listed on the left, and the bars visualize the raw numbers of constructions they describe. The numbers of constructions are provided for each bar.
Figure 1. Distribution of constructions across twenty major semantic tags of top frequency.
The tags represented in Figure 1 refer to major semantic types of constructions. Most of these major types have an additional level of granularity represented by their subtypes that yield an overall inventory of 173 specific sub-tags. For instance, the general type Comparison has subtypes such as Inequality, Equality, Similarity, Contrast, and Imitation, following the standard typology of comparative constructions (Treis, 2018). Many constructions (over 40%) belong to more than one major semantic type, and therefore carry two or more major tags and corresponding sub-tags. Using our annotation, we can identify those semantic types of constructions that overlap with each other.
We do not exclude the possibility that when more constructions are added to the Russian Constructicon, new tags will have to be used to account for their semantics. However, the amount of data collected so far suggests that most major semantic types are already represented and identified.
Figure 1 shows that the evaluative meanings of Intensity, Assessment, and Attitude constitute the three semantic types most frequently attested in the Russian Constructicon database. They are assigned to 280, 224, and 222 constructions, respectively. Interestingly, the networks of Assessment and Attitude constructions are of approximately the same size. These networks overlap in 58 constructions that express both Assessment and Attitude.
Taking this overlap into account, we can calculate that Assessment and Attitude constructions yield 388 items, or 18% of the entire database (2,210 constructions) and thus represent a group larger than Intensity (280 constructions, 13%). As we show in sections “A Network of Assessment Constructions: 4 Clusters and 25 Families” and “A Network of Attitude Constructions: 4 Clusters and 18 Families,” both Assessment and Attitude constructions can be analyzed in terms of semantic subtypes and in terms of positive vs. negative values.
Semantic tags make it possible to subdivide the collected inventory of constructions into meaningful classes and smaller groups of constructions, turning an initial list into a structured network. Those constructions that belong to the same semantic subtype often share some syntactic (syntactic function in a clause, the structure of the anchor part) and structural properties (such as negation, inversion, or reduplication). Such groups of constructions form families, and families form clusters, as we detail in the next subsection.
Hierarchical Patterns Within the Constructicon
We find hierarchical patterns within the Russian Constructicon, where we can identify three levels, which we term “Families,” “Clusters,” and “Networks.”
Families are smaller groups, usually of 2–9 constructions. Table 1 displays three families of constructions used to express evaluation of objects and actions in the cluster Assessment in relation to norms/expectations of the Assessment network.
Table 1. Three families of Assessment constructions.
In Table 1, notice that the constructions in each family are nearly synonymous, and some of them also share similar syntactic structure and anchor words. The constructions in Family 1 all evaluate an object as important, though this evaluation can be negated as well. In contrast, the constructions in Family 3 necessarily evaluate the object as inadequate. Family 2 is specialized to the evaluation of activities. Syntactically we see some parallels, for example in Family 1 there are two constructions consisting of an NP followed by the preposition v and a noun in the Locative case (NP-Nom Cop v cene and NP-Nom Cop v počete). Also in Family 1 we see five constructions exhibiting the canonical syntax of a transitive clause [NP-Nom ne igrat’ (nikakoj) roli, NP-Nom imet’ (Adj) značenie, NP-Nom ne imet’ (Adj) značenija, NP-Nom igrat’ Adj rol’, VP NP-Acc s rukami (i nogami)]. Both constructions in Family 2 use the Genitive case to signal quantification. Family 3 is syntactically somewhat diverse, but contains three constructions with adverbial phrases modifying NPs (vsego liš’ NP, vsego-navsego NP, sovsem ešče NP). In terms of anchor words, the collocations imet’ značenie “have meaning” and igrat’ rol’ “play role” are important in Family 1; in Family 2 both constructions contain the verb stoit’ “cost,” and in Family 3 we see that forms of the determiner ves’ “all” recur.
Expansion of the Russian Constructicon
Organization of constructions in terms of families, clusters and networks helped us to expand the scope of the Russian Constructicon by filling out the families of constructions.
Figure 2 visualizes the key stages of database expansion: start of the project, initial inventory, corpus-based expansion, and system-based expansion, showing how many constructions the database contained at each stage.
Figure 2. Stages of database expansion and the cumulative size of the database at each stage.
An initial inventory of 660 constructions was amassed manually from a variety of sources including textbooks for learners of Russian and scholarly literature on Russian constructions, as well as a crowd-sourced Google spreadsheet. We then added 407 constructions using manual text analysis, by culling from running texts of various kinds, particularly those that contain dialogs and spoken discourse, as well as an automatically extracted list of highly frequent collocations attested in the Russian National Corpus. Thus overall, 1,087 constructions were added through corpus-based means. This method does not target semantic or syntactic types, but relies instead on the unpredictable appearance of constructions in running text. Subsequently we worked in a different direction and applied a method of system-based expansion of the database. This method entailed examining semantic families of constructions already in the database and searching for synonyms, antonyms, and related constructions containing the same or similar anchor words in order to fill gaps in each family (mostly using native intuition). We therefore classified the first 1,087 collected constructions into meaningful families and clusters and added the missing constructions to each family. This process yielded 1,123 new items, and the database reached the current size of 2,210 constructions. Comparing the 407 corpus-based added items vs. 1,123 system-based added items shows that the latter methodology turned out to be almost three times more effective (2.8 times, to be precise). In other words, our efficiency in discovering additional constructions was aided by the classification: once we knew what to look for, constructions became easier to find.
Our work on semantic groups of constructions turned what initially was a list of unrelated items into a structured inventory of constructions, where we have plenty of relevant information on both hierarchical and lateral relations among and across constructions. We can now show how families form clusters and how these groupings overlap with each other by sharing some of the same members. Moreover, we are now in a position to estimate the amount of overlap for various semantic types and syntactic patterns of constructions and to show how semantic types and syntactic patterns of constructions can relate to each other.
A Network of Assessment Constructions: 4 Clusters and 25 Families
Overview
Assessment constructions express evaluation of an item external to the speaker. This item can be understood as an object of Assessment, using the word “object” in a broad sense. An object can be a physical object, or an animate participant in a situation, or a situation itself. For example, Assessment constructions can evaluate someone’s appearance or intellectual capacity. We analyze Assessment constructions in terms of semantic types and in terms of the polarity values they carry, that is positive vs. negative Assessment.
Overall, out of 224 (100%) constructions, there are almost twice as many constructions that encode negative Assessment as opposed to those that express positive Assessment (109 vs. 57 items, or 49% vs. 25%). A set of 58 constructions (26%) can express either of the two values depending on the lexical fillers of their slots (as in na redkost’ Adj/Adv used in both na redkost’ umnyj “unusually smart” and na redkost’ lenivyj “unusually lazy [lit. on rareness]”) and the possibility of negation (as in VP (ne) k mestu “do something (not) to the point [lit. (not) to place],” e.g., Ty očen’ k mestu èto skazala “You said it very much to the point” vs. On ljubut ne k mestu pošutit’ “He tends to tell inappropriate jokes”).
Arutjunova (1988) provides a detailed overview of several influential theories of Assessment, showing how they matter for understanding linguistic data, summarizing works by Aristotle, Kant, Perry, Hare, Wittgenstein, Vendler, and many others. Value is a complex category that has been discussed broadly in philosophy, ethics, and logic (cf. theory of value, discussion of moral value, the nature of goodness and other issues). Following “The Varieties of Goodness” by von Wright (1963) and applying his taxonomy to data on Russian value predicates (mostly adjectival), Arutjunova (1988, p. 75) suggests that axiological meanings expressed linguistically can be broken down into two major types: General Assessment (“obščaja ocenka”) and Specific Assessment (“častnaja ocenka”). General Assessment is an overall, undifferentiated Assessment that evaluates an object holistically, approaching it as a whole. General Assessment is expressed by the adjectives that denote “good” or “bad” and their synonyms that vary in terms of expressivity and stylistics (e.g., prekrasnyj “wonderful,” zamečatel’nyj “excellent,” durnoj “nasty,” etc.). By contrast, Specific Assessment evaluates an object not as a whole but from one of various possible perspectives, focusing on a single property of an object. For example, Specific Assessment can refer to evaluation of physical qualities (like shape or smell) or the usefulness of an object. Having re-classified and somewhat simplified the taxonomy of values described by von Wright (1963), Arutjunova suggests that Specific Assessment can be further subdivided into Sensory, Ethical and Aesthetical, and Rationalistic types.
In our analysis of Assessment constructions attested in Russian, we adopt the distinction of General vs. Specific Assessment discussed in von Wright (1963) and Arutjunova (1988), but we group the specific subtypes of the latter in a different way, as motivated by the data we analyzed8. In this section we identify several crucial semantic types of Assessment constructions in Russian and model their relationship as a radial category of families and clusters that form a network of constructions.
A Radial Category Model
Figure 3 presents a radial category model of Assessment constructions, showing how they form families and clusters, and how these units are related to each other within this network. Large boxes visualize clusters of constructions, smaller boxes represent families, and lines between boxes connect clusters and families that are closely related in terms of semantics or/and involve the same individual constructions. Solid lines indicate both conceptual closeness and overlaps between the groups (observed when constructions are associated with more than one family or cluster). Dashed lines link the groups that exhibit conceptual closeness only. The thickness of the box contour and the size of the box represent the type frequency which is likely indicative of relative entrenchment of the cluster in the network. The visualization is determined by these observed relationships. Numbers in parentheses are type frequencies for each family and cluster, that is the number of individual constructions from our dataset that belong to each unit. The classification of constructions across these families and clusters results from our analysis of data and has been verified against the intuitions of two additional taggers.
Figure 3. A radial category model of the network of Assessment constructions.
Figure 3 shows that Assessment has several dimensions. We distinguish between General Assessment, Assessment in relation to quantification, Assessments specific to people, and Assessment in relation to norms/expectations. The two latter clusters are the most prominent in terms of type frequency. Assessment related to knowledge is a distinct type of Assessment that is encoded by a family of six constructions. Because it does not belong to any of the four large clusters, we represent it as a separate structural unit of the network. Many families belong to more than one cluster at the same time: Matching the norm, Confirmation Requests, Not matching the norm, Constructions with interjections and Expressions of surprisal. We call them “transitional” and represent them by boxes placed outside the clusters. These families are connected by lines to those clusters where they belong.
General assessment is conceptually the most basic and prototypical type of assessment and is most intensively connected with all other clusters, a further indication of its prototypicality (Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 2007). In Figure 3, the prototypical cluster is shaded.
Figure 3 represents transitional families that belong to two or more clusters. Table 2 provides type frequencies for each cluster, both without and including transitional families.
Table 2. Distributions of Assessment constructions across the four clusters.
The total is larger than 224 constructions because some of these constructions belong to multiple families.
Table 2 makes it possible to estimate the degree of overlap between the four clusters, that is the number of constructions that belong to more than one unit of this network is 71 constructions, yielding 32% of our sample of Assessment constructions (where 224 = 100%)9.
In what follows we present each cluster and briefly characterize the families it contains.
General Assessment
General assessment is the most basic type of assessment not restricted to a certain domain and expressed by 26 constructions in our database. General Assessment refers to an overall evaluation of an object (in the broad sense) as a whole. Each construction in this cluster contains evaluative lexemes that denote “good” or “bad.” For example, in the construction dela (u NP-Gen) Cop ploxi (as in Dela u nego ploxi “Things go wrong for him [lit. affairs by him bad]”), the anchor includes the adjective ploxoj “bad” that clearly encodes negative evaluation of a situation.
Russian offers a range of various partially schematic expressions that often carry colloquial flavor and are more or less semantically equivalent to the “neutral” standard lexemes xorošij “good” and ploxoj “bad.” Syntactically, such constructions represent a variety of patterns, mostly populating three syntactic subtypes: (1) constructions with a predicative anchor part, (2) constructions where the anchor functions as an adverbial modifier, and (3) biclausal constructions with matrix predicates in the main clause. Each of these syntactic types is compatible with both positive and negative evaluative semantics, as illustrated in the following three paragraphs. These subtypes form families of constructions that we term Assessment of an entity, Assessment of an activity, and Assessment of a proposition respectively.
The Family Assessment of an Entity
Predicative phrases with positive assessment include constructions like NP-Nom Cop ničego (takoj-Nom) (as in professor on byl ničego “He was an okay professor [lit. nothing]”). Examples of predicative phrases with negative evaluation come from the constructions NP-Nom Cop ne očen’ (as in Dlja stojanki mesto ne očen’ “The place is not so good for parking [lit. not very]”), NP-Nom Cop tak sebe (as in kartina tak sebe “the painting is so-so [lit. that self]”), and NP-Nom Cop ne axti (kakoj-Nom/kakoj Adj-Nom/kakoj Noun-Nom) (as in Iz-za vetra skorost’ byla ne axti “Because of the wind the speed was not so good [lit. not ah]”).
The Family Assessment of an Activity
Constructions with the anchor in the role of adverbial modifier include similar expressions encoding positive assessment: VP na slavu (as in Prazdnik udalsja na slavu “The party was a success [lit. on glory]”), and VP ničego (as in Kormili v našej stolovoj ničego “The food in our canteen was okay [lit. They fed in our canteen nothing]”). Negative assessment is expressed in adverbial constructions like VP tak sebe (as in Na pianino ja igraju tak sebe “I play the piano not so well [lit. that self]”) and VP-Ipfv počem zrja (as in Paša rugaetsja počem zrja každyj den’ “Paša (diminutive from Pavel) argues indiscriminately [lit. how-much in vain] every day.”
The Family Assessment of a Proposition
Biclausal constructions of General Assessment contain matrix predicates that are elaborated in a subordinate clause. For example, in the construction PronPoss sčast’je, čto Cl (as in Ego sčast’je, čto rejs zaderžali, inače by ne popal na samolet “He was lucky [lit. his happiness] that the flight was delayed, otherwise he would not have gotten on the plane”), the matrix is the anchor noun sčast’je ‘happiness’, and it requires a dependent clause that explains the grounds for the evaluation. Another good example of this pattern comes from the construction NP-Nom Cop, konečno, NP-Nom, čto Cl (as in Ja, konečno, durak, čto poslušalsja tebja “I am, of course, a fool, that I followed your advice”), where the matrix predicate is not the anchor but a slot that can be filled with evaluative nouns of either positive or negative value: molodec and umnica, both meaning “attaboy,” or durak and glupec, both referring to a “fool.”
Previous scholarship suggested that General Assessment predicates tend to be semantically deficient and therefore require context to support the evaluative judgment (Arutjunova, 1988, p. 92–94). Our data support this claim in that the biclausal constructions with evaluative matrix predicates attach a subordinate clause that substantiates and specifies the meaning of the main clause. Another way to compensate for the informative deficiency of evaluative predicates is to describe the domain of goodness/badness of an object via the instrumental case. As an example, consider the construction NP-Nom Cop xorošij-Short/ploxoj-Short NP-Ins (as in èti mesta xoroši svoimi lesami “These places are good in terms of their forests [lit. by their forests],” where the noun lesa “forests” is used in the instrumental case) (cf. Arutjunova, 1988, p. 94 for discussion).
Summing up, General Assessment contains subgroups of constructions that are defined in terms of both semantic and syntactic properties. On the one hand, semantics is expressed in the syntactic structure, and on the other hand, the syntax predetermines nuances of semantics. Thus, we arrive at a more or less homogeneous group of constructions at the intersection of semantics and syntax, taking both of these characteristics into account.
Assessment in Relation to Norms/Expectations
Previous studies of value predicates showed that the concepts of the norm, the standard, and the expectations associated with them play a crucial role in motivating the linguistic expressions of Assessment. In this sense, Assessment constructions serve as a type of reference point constructions, and the latter are considered pervasive in human cognition (cf. Rosch, 1977, 1978; Langacker, 2008, p. 83–85). The concept of the norm refers to cultural and social conventions that constitute an idealized model of the world that people often rely on (cf. Arutjunova, 1988, p. 202). In cognitive linguistics, this idea has been discussed in terms of Idealized Cognitive Models (Lakoff, 1987) that structure our background knowledge, and in terms of “mental spaces” (Fauconnier, 1985) that represent cognitive constructs of potential worlds relevant for human communication. When evaluating, speakers tend to compare the evaluated object to their idealized cognitive model, which functions as a standard. The idea of what is normal suggests to the speaker what to expect. A failure to match the expectations can cause a surprise, often an unpleasant one. Usually, matching the norm yields positive assessment, whereas deviations from the norm motivate negative assessment.
We find that these concepts are crucial for understanding a prominent group of constructions that encode Assessment in terms of what is normal, standard, and/or expected. Here we can observe the association of positive vs. negative values and matching vs. non-matching of the norm in three families of constructions. These families are transitional in nature and can be best understood as belonging to two clusters: General Assessment and Assessment in relation to norms.
The first family is termed Matching the norm and includes three constructions with anchor words that refer to norms and standards: VP kak nado (as in Otec gotovil jaičnicu kak nado “Father fried the eggs just right [lit. like need]”), VP kak sleduet (as in On rabotal kak sleduet “He worked properly [lit. like follows]”), and NP-Nom Cop čto nado (as in Prazdnik čto nado “The party is super-duper [lit. what need]”). All three constructions express positive evaluation motivated by the semantics of fitting into the standard, expected and proper performance.
The other family is termed Not matching the norm and includes nine constructions that encode negative evaluation. Constructions of this type formally resemble general holistic positive evaluation, but in fact mean the opposite, ironically pointing to deviations from the standard/norm. Examples include xorošij-Short NP-Nom! (as in Xoroš učenyj! “The opposite of a good scholar! [lit. Good scholar!]”), tot ešče NP (as in To ešče udovol’stvie! “A notorious [lit. that yet] pleasure!”), tože mne NP-Nom! (as in Tože mne geroj! “A false/pseudo- [lit. too to me] hero!”). Most constructions of this semantic type share a certain syntactic pattern: they represent exclamatory clausal statements that assign a name to an object of evaluation that does not deserve this name. The exclamatory intonation emphasizes the speaker’s resentment about the mismatch between the evaluated object and the name or status it has been assigned: e.g., [ešče (i)] NP-Nom nazyvaetsja, as in Moloka ne daet. Korova nazyvaetsja! “It gives no milk. What a bad cow it is! [lit. cow is-called].”
A third transitional family of constructions contains Confirmation requests that seek to establish whether an object corresponds to the normal representative of a category X. Syntactically, such constructions share the patterns of rhetorical questions like razve ne NP-Nom Cop? (as in Razve ne krasota? “Isn’t it a beauty? [lit. really not beauty]”) and Cl, čem Cop ne NP-Nom (as in Prismotris’ k Miše. Čem ne ženix? “Take a better look at Miša. As good a bridegroom as any/In what respect is he not a bridegroom? [lit. which not bridegroom]”). Although formally the speaker is questioning whether the object matches the norm, the form of these questions indicates that the assumption behind them is that the object clearly does so, and positive evaluation is conveyed by establishing this correspondence between the object and the norm.
Apart from these transitional families, the cluster Assessment in relation to norms/expectations also includes the families Deviations from the norm and Standard exemplar. Closely related to the concept of the norm and expectedness are the families Appropriateness, Importance/Worth, Usefulness, and Indifference to norms/expectations.
The family Deviations from the norm includes 10 constructions that specify in what respect the norm is not matched. For example, many constructions in this group refer to a large size or a large number of objects, and this relates them to the Quantification cluster: consider the construction NP-Gen.Pl Cop vyše kryši/golovy (Problem vyše kryši “Problems through the roof [lit. higher roof]”). Some constructions in this family refer to deviations from the norm that come with positive evaluation, like ničego sebe (takoj) NP (as in Ničego sebe mašina! “Wow, what a car! [lit. nothing itself car!]”). Other constructions specify deviations that are compatible with both positive and negative views of the situation. For instance, the construction na redkost’ Adj/Adv “unusually [lit. on rareness!]” supports both types of uses: na redkost’ krasiv “unusually pretty” and na redkost’ glup “unusually stupid.”
The family Standard exemplar is a group of eight constructions that evaluate an object as the most prominent of its kind, the best example of a category. Most constructions in this family share a non-trivial structural property: a reduplicative nominal pattern, where the noun is repeated in the same or a different grammatical case. Examples of such constructions are NP-Nom Cop vsem Noun-Dat.Pl ∼Noun-Nom (as in Vsem borščam boršč “The best vegetable soup of all [lit. to all soups soup]”) and NP-Nom Cop Noun-Nom ∼Noun-Ins (as in On takoj glupyj, durak durakom “He is so stupid, a fool times two [lit. fool by-fool],” cf. a detailed discussion of this construction in Janda et al. (2020) and references therein). A closely related subset of constructions compares the object to the standard and indicates that the object is so standard that this makes it average, unremarkable, ordinary, and unimpressive. The construction (èto Cop) Noun-Nom kak ∼Noun-Nom (as in Xleb kak xleb “Just normal bread [lit. bread like bread]”) evaluates the standard exemplar positively, whereas the construction (nu) XP i ∼XP (as in Byl u teti Maši kot. Nu kot i kot. Ničego osobennogo “Aunt Maria had a cat. Just an ordinary cat, nothing special [lit. well cat and cat]”) suggests that the speaker evaluates the standard-like nature of the cat to be uninteresting and even boring.
The family of constructions termed Appropriateness conveys a rationalistic evaluation of whether an object fits the situation. Most of these constructions contain predicative phrases that can alternatively modify verb phrases and can also be negated: compare NP (ne) v temu (as in Tvoi zamečanija sejčas sovsem ne v temu “Your remarks are now completely out of place [lit. not in topic]”) and VP (ne) v temu (as in On skazal èto očen’ v temu! “He said it very much on point [lit. in topic]”). Similarly used prepositional phrases include (ne) k mestu [lit. (not) to place], (ne) po delu [lit. (not) on business], and (ne) v kassu [lit. (not) in cash register] all referring to well-fitting vs. ill-fitting in the conversation, as well as v točku [lit. into point] meaning “to the point” and mimo kassy [lit. past cash register] meaning “beside the point.”
The three families of constructions listed above in Table 1 refer to the concepts of Importance/Worth and Importance/Power and evaluate an object as important vs. unimportant and an activity as worth doing. By assessing an object as important, the speaker assigns it a certain value (e.g., NP-Nom Cop v cene, as in Ran’še družba byla v cene “Friendship used to be appreciated [lit. was in price]”), that can or cannot play a role (NP-Nom igrat’ Adj rol’ “play a role”), matter, and affect the situation (NP-Nom imet’ (Adj) značenie “matter [lit. have meaning]”). Importance motivates positive evaluation, and lack of value implies negative evaluation of an object. In those constructions that assign value to animate referents, the concept of Importance transforms into Power and Respect: consider the constructions NP-Nom Cop u PronPoss-Gen nog (as in Ves’ mir u našix nog “We have power over others [lit. the whole world is at our feet]”) and NP-Nom Cop v počete (as in Fiziki u nas v počete “physicists are highly respected here [lit. physicists by us in honor]”) that connect the Importance/Worth family to the cluster Assessment specific to people (family Importance/Power). Note that most constructions in the three Importance families (Table 1) are specific either to inanimate referents (including abstract notions like factors, properties, relationships) or to animate referents: compare NP-Nom Cop v cene “appreciated” (for inanimates) vs. NP-Nom Cop v počete “respected” (for animates) accordingly. By contrast, a few constructions allow both types of fillers, like the pattern NP s bol’šoj bukvy “very good [lit. with capital letter]” that can be encountered in positive evaluations of persons of certain professions (e.g., vrač/učitel’/aktrisa s bol’šoj bukvy “a highly professional and talented doctor/teacher/actress”) or evaluations of certain occasions (e.g., delo/moment/igra s bol’šoj bukvy “highly important and critical business/moment/game”). Similarly, in the family of Assessment constructions that evaluate an object as unimportant, the first three constructions (vsego liš’ NP; vsego-navsego NP; Cl, (a) tak, Cl, all meaning “merely”) can refer to both animate and inanimate referents, whereas the remaining four constructions (e.g., sovsem ešče NP “merely”; Cl, čto s NP-Gen Cop vzjat’? “what can you expect of?”) encode evaluation of a person and thus rather belong to the cluster Assessment specific to people. In this light, representation of all interrelations between the constructions in a network like Assessment can hardly be adequately depicted in a two-dimensional model like Figure 3, which should be treated as an approximation of the real picture10. Rather, one should keep in mind that analysis allows for different levels of granularity that account for the fact that certain subsets of constructions within a single family can belong to several clusters at the same time (in this case, the clusters Assessment in relation to norms/expectations and Assessment specific to people). This only proves the point of a radial category model that recognizes the legitimacy of multiple overlaps and the lack of rigid categorical distinctions between the established groups of data.
Another important overlap can be observed between the families encoding Importance on the one hand and the Usefulness family on the other hand. Both constructions that evaluate activities (e.g., NP-Nom togo stoit’, as in Poezdka v Afriku togo stoit “The trip to Africa is worth taking [lit. trip that costs]”) and constructions that evaluate objects and persons (VP NP-Acc s rukami (i nogami) [lit. with arms and legs]) suggest that the value of an object or activity is often established on the basis of the speaker’s personal benefit from using this object or performing this activity. One can benefit from something one can effectively use.
The Usefulness family of constructions determines the so-called teleological evaluation of an object and defines whether an object can be of any use. The construction vidavšij vidy NP (as in Na vidavšem vidy velosipede ja poexal dal’še “I went biking on the weather-beaten bicycle [lit. having seen sights bicycle]”) can carry either positive or negative assessment depending on the context: it can either refer to an old and well-worn object in case of negative evaluation or, by contrast, to an object that the speaker has confidence in, values and relishes. Another curious construction in this family is (NP-Dat) NP-Nom (ne) katit’ (as in Mne takoj argument ne katit “For me this point does not work [lit. not rolls]”). This construction has a strong colloquial flavor and shows that usefulness can be assessed on the basis of appropriateness, thus conceptually relating the two categories and the two families. Objects that are appraised as appropriate are “supported” by standard expectations, they tend to be useful and positively evaluated. By contrast, constructions like zrja/naprasno VP (as in Zrja staraeš’sja “You strive in vain”) carry negative assessment, suggesting that there is no need in doing X, as this is not useful for the situation.
A separate family of constructions denote Indifference to norms/expectations. However, in terms of assessment, such constructions are not neutral but clearly negative, as in the following example: VP PronInt popalo (e.g., Vasja šlet pis’ma komu popalo “Vasja sends letters to every Tom, Dick or Harry [lit. to-someone it-fell]”). In this example, the first comer, or any random person is evaluated negatively and the whole activity of dealing with people indiscriminately also receives a negative evaluation.
We have seen that the cluster Assessment in relation to norms/expectations is connected not only to General Assessment, but also to Assessment specific to people (Importance/Worth and Importance/Power families) and to Assessment in relation to quantification (Deviations from the norm family). We will now examine each of these clusters in turn.
Assessment Specific to People
Assessment specific to people is a large cluster that contains several families of constructions. The most important groups here involve Capacity/Intellect and Ethics/Behavior, with smaller groups for Importance/Power, Appearance, and Emotion/Psychological state.
The family Capacity/Intellect contains twenty-one constructions that assess someone’s ability to perform a certain activity or deal with a certain subject or academic discipline. Most of these constructions refer to intellectual abilities and encode positive evaluation of the capacity itself, and any kind of activity can fill the slot.
Syntactically, we can observe a rich variety of patterns including anchor predicative phrases in NP-Nom Cop gorazd VP-Inf/na NP-Acc (as in On na vydumki gorazd “He is very inventive [lit. strong on inventions]”) and NP-Nom Cop NP-Nom VP-Inf (as in On master gotovit’ “He is good at cooking [lit. expert cook]”); anchor light verbs in NP-Nom znat’ tolk v NP-Loc (as in On znaet tolk v nastol’nyx igrax “He is an expert in board-games [lit. He knows sense in board-games]”); anchor adverbials in VP na pjaterku/pjat’ ballov/otlično (as in znat’ matematiku na pjaterku “know math at the highest level [lit. on five]”); and clauses like NP-Nom VP-Inf Cop ne durak (as in On vypit’ ne durak “He can drink well [lit. have-a-drink not fool]”).
Semantically, prominent strategies of referring to good intellectual abilities employ conceptual blending (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002) of producing ideas and cooking food that we see in the metaphorical construction u NP-Gen golova varit’ (as in U Peti golova varit – s nim možno imet’ delo “Peter has his head screwed on right [lit. by Peter head stews], so one can do business with him.” Other constructions denote measuring intellectual abilities in terms of having enough sense to perform an activity: e.g., (NP-Dat/u NP-Gen) xvatit’ NP-Gen VP-Inf, as in U nee xvatilo uma priostanovit’ supruga “She had the wisdom to stop her husband [lit. had enough cleverness]”). An alternative strategy is stating whether one needs to borrow some wisdom (NP-Gen NP-Dat Cop ne zanimat’, as in Xitrosti emu ne zanimat’ “He does not need to borrow any cunning”) or whether wisdom is an inalienable possession (NP-Gen u NP-Gen ne otnimeš’/Cop ne otnjat’, as in Talanta u nego ne otnjat’ “One cannot take his talent from him”).
Negative evaluation of intellectual abilities is expressed by constructions like u NP-Gen NP-Nom xromat’ (as in U brata sil’no xromaet geografija “The brother does not have a good handle of geography/has problems with geography [lit. by brother strongly limps geography]”).
Conceptually, the family Capacity/Intellect is related to Usefulness since persons with strong intellectual capacity can also be useful.
The largest family in the cluster Assessment specific to people is termed Ethics/Behavior and contains constructions that evaluate someone’s behavior in terms of general ethical or personal standards. This group of constructions is closely related to Appropriateness and mostly contains constructions that carry negative evaluation. Syntactically, constructions in this family are comprised of either mono-clausal or biclausal statements, often flavored with an exclamatory intonation of indignant criticism. The above-mentioned construction najti-Pst NP-Acc! “found X!” (as in Našli razvlečenie! “What a bad way to amuse yourself! [lit. found amusement!]” belongs here, along with numerous other clausal constructions like delat’ PronPers-Dat Cop nečego! (as in Delat’ tebe nečego! “You should not be doing this/Don’t you have anything better to do than this!” [lit. do to-you nothing!]”), the construction nado že Cop (NP-Dat) VP-Inf (as in Nado že bylo svjazat’sja s takimi ljud’mi! “And it had to happen so that you got involved with such (bad) people! [lit. needed well was connect with such people!]”), etc. Biclausal constructions denote not only negative evaluation of someone’s activity or behavior, but they also name a positively evaluated alternative behavior that one could have been doing instead: compare the construction net čtoby/by VP-Inf, Cl (as in Net čtoby podoždat’, on ušel bez nas! “Instead of having waited for us, he just left! [lit. no in-order wait]”) and the construction čem by VP, VP (by) (as in čem by učit’sja, on guljaet! “Instead of being busy with his studies, he is outdoors! [lit. than could study, he takes a walk]”). Some constructions in this family convey positive or negative evaluation through evaluative anchor words, and thus relate this family to the General Assessment cluster: e.g., (NP-Dat) ne grex Cop i VP-Pfv.Inf, as in Teper’ ne grex nam i otdoxnut’ “Now there is no harm in taking a rest [lit. not sin us and rest].”
Regarding the Importance/Power family, see discussion in section “Assessment in Relation to Norms/Expectations.”
A family of five constructions expresses aesthetic assessment of someone’s Appearance. Some constructions evaluate whether a piece of clothing fits the outfit and overall look of a person, and thus conceptually connects the Appearance family to the Appropriateness family discussed above. We encounter both predicative phrases as anchors of constructions NP-Nom Cop NP-Dat k licu (as in Sinee plat’je bylo ej k licu “The dark blue dress was becoming to her [lit. to face]”) and NP-Nom Cop (NP-Dat/dlja NP-Gen) v samyj raz (as in Dlja kukly èta šapka v samyj raz “The hat is the right fit for the doll [lit. in same one time]”), and certain anchor verbs of motion like podxodit’ “approach by walking” and idti “walk”: e.g., NP-Dat idti XP (as in Ej idet èta pričeska “This hairdo looks good on her [lit. to her goes hairdo]”).
Emotion/Psychological state is a family of constructions that assess psychological properties or an emotional state of a person. Such constructions tend to indicate those properties that stand outside of the norm. This concerns both temporary characteristics like emotional states (e.g., NP-Nom Cop sam ne svoj (as in Papa segodnja sam ne svoj “Dad is not himself today [lit. oneself not one’s own]”) and constant characteristics like personality type or temper (e.g., NP-Nom Cop sebe na ume, as in Vasja sebe na ume, nikogda ne govorit vsej pravdy “Vasya has his own agenda [lit. to oneself on mind], he never tells the whole/full truth”).
Assessment in Relation to Quantification
The cluster of Assessment in relation to Quantification constructions serves to relate the Assessment network to other constructions that encode quantification and degree of intensity. This cluster includes several families distinguished on the basis of different degrees, or quantities, of a certain property. The relevant degrees form a scale and include: None, Little, Some/Enough, A lot, and Beyond the limit. A prominent group of constructions includes various Expressions of Surprisal. Overall, constructions in this cluster show that qualitative evaluation (positive vs. negative) is motivated by quantitative assessment.
In the context of the conceptual metaphor MORE IS BETTER (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980), the zero level of a property (“none”) is associated with negative evaluation: compare constructions like NP na nule (as in Immunitet na nule “Immunity is absent/does not function/is at the zero level” [lit. on zero], NP-Ins (tut/tam) i ne paxnut’ (as in Naukoj tut i ne paxnet “Science is nowhere near here” [lit. with science here and not smells], and nikakoj PronPers Cop ne XP (as in Nikakoj on ne genij “He is not a genius at all” [lit. none he not genius].
A small degree of a property (“little”) is encoded in patterns like ne takoj už i Adj (as in ne takoj už i strašnyj “not so frightening”).
A larger amount of a property (“some”) is often positively evaluated, if it is enough for performing an activity: NP-Nom Cop dostatočno Adj, čtoby VP-Inf, as in On dostatočno vzroslyj, čtoby ponjat’ èto “He is old enough to understand this.”
Denoting a high degree of a property (“a lot”) often comes along with positive evaluation: čertovski Adj/Adv (as in On čertovski umen “He is drop-dead smart [lit. devilishly smart],” vo vsex otnošenijax XP (as in Novyj spektakl’ byl vo vsex otnošenijax udačnym “The new performance was successful in all respects”). However, intensifiers are compatible with both positive and negative evaluations. A highly prominent strategy of encoding high degree of a property in evaluative constructions is to use an interrogative pronoun in exclamative function11, as in kakov Cop NP-Nom! (as in Kakov podlec! “What a rascal! [lit. which rascal]”). Often, a pronoun is combined with additional intensifiers: (možno) s uma sojti kakoj Adj (as in Sumka u nee s uma sojti kakaja dorogaja! “Her bag is crazy expensive! [lit. bag by her from-mind-depart what expensive]”). Such exclamatory clauses with pronouns tend to imply surprisal due to a greater amount of the property than expected, and in this regard such constructions are transitional to the cluster Assessment in relation to norms/expectations. This connection is even more evident in the Beyond the limit family, in constructions like VP/Adj sverx mery (as in On odaren sverx mery “He is talented above measure”).
Some evaluative constructions that encode high degree of a property contain both a pronoun and an interjection that accompany the evaluative statement. Whereas the pronoun takes the role of intensifier, the interjection often clearly specifies whether the construction carries positive or negative evaluation. For example, the patterns iš’, kakoj Adj-Nom Cop (as in Iš’, kakoj veselyj! “How inappropriately glad he is!”) and fu, kakoj NP-Nom Cop! (as in Fu, kakaja gadost’! “Yuck, what a disgusting thing!”) always carry negative assessment, whereas the constructions ux ty, kakoj/kak XP! (as in Ux ty, kakuju rybu pojmali! “Wow, what a fish we have caught!”) and aj da NP-Nom! (as in Aj da geroj! “What a hero!”) obligatorily encode positive evaluation. This family of constructions can be considered transitional between the cluster Assessment in relation to quantification and the cluster of General assessment, as it equally belongs to both clusters. Also, because interjections encode specific emotions (e.g., ux ty expresses surprise, aj da encodes admiration and praise, fu stands for disgust, etc.), one can argue that these constructions are additionally motivated by the cluster Assessment specific to people that contains the family Emotion/Psychological state.
Assessment in Relation to Knowledge
A distinct family of six constructions stands outside of the clusters discussed above and encodes Assessment in relation to knowledge. These constructions can evaluate an object, a situation participant, time, or space depending on whether it is known or unknown information. All constructions in this family convey negative evaluation arguably motivated by the fact that something is unknown and unspecified. Representative examples come from the constructions like bog vest’ PronInt (as in Oni prinesli v pakete bog vest’ čto “They brought who knows what in the bag” [lit. God knows what]), neznamo PronInt (as in Neznamo kak ja vernulsja domoj “I came home without knowing how” [lit. not-known how]), ne NP kakoj-nibud’ (as in My ne bomži kakie-nibud’! “We are not some homeless people!”), etc.
Summary of Assessment Constructions
Assessment motivates a highly complex network of constructions in Russian organized both hierarchically and horizontally. Hierarchically we observe over two dozen families of constructions which are internally relatively homogenous, sharing semantics and often syntactic patterns as well. Most of these families can be grouped into clusters which in turn give structure to the overall network. Horizontally we see relationships between families and between clusters motivated both by constructions with allegiances to multiple families, and via conceptual similarity. For example, three families connect these two clusters: General Assessment and Assessment in relation to norms/expectations. Conceptual similarity is observed among constructions that focus on usefulness, importance/worth, intellectual capacity, and appropriateness. Examination of a large number of constructions makes it possible to spot trends and confirm claims of previous scholars, for example about the tendency for General Assessment to be expressed in a biclausal construction, and the skewed polarity of assessment. The latter tendency toward negative polarity is even more pronounced in the network of Attitude constructions which is the topic of the section “A Network of Attitude Constructions: 4 Clusters and 18 Families.”
A Network of Attitude Constructions: 4 Clusters and 18 Families
Overview
Whereas Assessment constructions evaluate an item external to the speaker, Attitude constructions, by contrast, refer to evaluation of the speaker’s internal state of mind or internal emotional approach taken toward a situation. In other words, Attitude constructions express how the speaker feels about something, what standpoint he or she takes, what the speaker’s personal perspective on a subject or a situation is.
As in the case of Assessment constructions, we analyze Attitude patterns both in terms of semantic types and in terms of polarity values (positive vs. negative Attitude).
In terms of semantic types, we found that Attitude constructions are highly diverse but can still be grouped under general and specific domains. For example, we distinguish between clusters such as Emotional Attitude and Mental Attitude, and at a more granular level we recognize families of constructions encoding Skepticism, Perplexity, Confidence, etc. (see subsection “A Radial Category Model” for details).
In terms of polarity values, we found that the vast majority of Attitude constructions in our dataset carry negative evaluation. Over 72% (159 out of 222 items) of constructions in this network are used to encode negative Attitude, whereas only 18% (40 items) of constructions refer to positive Attitude. The remaining 10% of Attitude constructions are neutral for polarity, which is determined instead by other factors (see below). For example, the construction Cl, ne vopros (as in Ja vse sdelaju, ne vopros “I will do everything, this is not a problem [lit. not question]”) can only express positive attitude and willingness to perform an activity, whereas the construction NP-Dat Cop ne do NP-Gen (as in Mne ne do uborki “I am not going to tidy up now (assuming that I have a lot of other things on my plate or I have no time for it right now) [lit. to me not to tidying]”) is restricted to imply only negative attitude and lack of willingness to perform an activity.
The observed distribution (72% negative vs. 18% positive) might suggest that a large part of the network of Attitude constructions serves the need to express a range of subtle differences of speaker’s attitudes and/or express approximately the same type of attitude in a variety of different ways, ranging in terms of politeness vs. strictness, transparency vs. opacity, etc. Comparing the distribution of positive vs. negative values in Attitude and Assessment networks, we observe that the relative proportion of constructions encoding negative Attitude is higher than that of negative Assessment constructions (compare 72% Attitude vs. 49% Assessment, respectively). However, the difference in positive value rates is not that dramatic: positive Attitude in 18% vs. positive Assessment in 25% of each of the two relevant datasets, respectively. This finding suggests that Attitude constructions as a network are even more negative than Assessment constructions that specify all possible nuances of deviations from the norm, expectations, and standards. Negative attitude constructions clearly predominate in our dataset.
We observe that only 10% (22 items) of Attitude constructions (as opposed to 26% of Assessment constructions yielding 58 individual items) can carry either positive or negative evaluation depending on the fillers, possibility of negation, or a broader context. For example, the same construction kak NP-Nom Cop Adj-Short, čto Cl! can be used to express both positive and negative Attitude, depending on the filler of the slot: compare Kak ja rad, čto ty vernulas’! “I am so glad that you came back!” vs. Kak ja zol, čto svjazalsja s ètoj firmoj! “I am so angry that I got involved with this agency!” In a similar way, a negated version of a construction can express the opposite polarity value, as in (NP-Dat) oxota/neoxota Cop VP-Inf: e.g., Mne spat’ oxota “I want to sleep” vs. Mne rabotat’ neoxota “I do not want to work.” In some cases, interpretation of the attitude value expressed by a construction is only possible in a broader context or might even be not entirely appropriate, as in the case of kak že NP-Dat Cop ne VP-Inf? (e.g., Kak že mne ne pomnit’? “How could I fail to remember (given this situation) [lit. how well me not remember]?”) that refers to the lack of choice and can be seen as a type of attitude associated with neither of the two polarity values.
Attitude constructions are very diverse in terms of semantic and syntactic types and complex in terms of their relationships and multiple overlaps with each other, as we show in the next section.
A Radial Category Model
We model the network of Attitude constructions as a radial category visualized in Figure 4. This model accounts for the major semantic types of Attitude constructions as well as minor relevant distinctions and their relations with one another. We adopt the same manner of representation of the radial category structure as in the section “A Radial Category Model.”
Figure 4. A radial category model of the network of Attitude constructions.
Figure 4 shows that Attitude constructions form a complex network that consists of four large clusters and eighteen families. Large boxes visualize clusters of constructions termed Acceptance, Dissatisfaction, Emotional Attitude, and Mental Attitude. Smaller boxes represent families inside these clusters as well as one family that does not belong to any of these clusters, namely Capacity/Preferences. Solid lines connect those units that overlap (contain constructions that belong to more than one family), and dashed lines indicate conceptual connections. Shading highlights the Acceptance cluster as the most prototypical in this network. We observe that this cluster is conceptually the most general one and it provides motivation links to all remaining clusters. The Dissatisfaction cluster, although more numerous, is a specific case, a “negated” version of Acceptance. Numbers in parentheses indicate type frequencies for each unit of this network. Note that the total is larger than 222 constructions because some constructions belong to more than one family. This concerns only 12 constructions (5% of the Attitude dataset), showing that the amount of overlap between the families of this network is smaller than that of the Assessment network, estimated at 32% (cf. the section “A Radial Category Model”).
In the following subsections we present each cluster and characterize each family of the Attitude network.
Acceptance
Constructions of the Acceptance cluster convey the meaning that the speaker more or less accepts the situation. This cluster includes the families Support, Willingness, Concern, Reconciliation, and Remorse. Each of these families suggests additional semantic nuances to the general meaning of Acceptance and has certain tendencies in selecting syntactic structures and anchor lexemes.
Constructions that form the Support family express whether the speaker takes someone’s side, shares someone’s opinion, or promotes a certain idea that aligns with his or her own interests or views. For example, the constructions NP-Nom Cop (ne) protiv NP-Gen (as in Ja protiv škol’noj formy! “I do not support having a school uniform [lit. against uniform]”) and NP-Nom Cop za NP-Acc (as in Ja za revoljuciju “I support the idea of revolution [lit. for revolution]” usually encode the speaker’s attitude to abstract concepts, institutions, regulations, and situations. By contrast, the construction NP-Nom Cop na PronPoss-Loc storone (as in V ètom spore ja na vašej storone “In this argument I am on your side”) encodes a positive attitude toward someone’s opinion or executed strategy. Syntactically, these constructions usually employ predicative prepositional phrases and nominal patterns.
The Willingness family of Attitude constructions carries the meaning that the speaker is willing or unwilling to perform an activity. Some constructions in this group encode this meaning transparently by means of the anchor word xotet’ “want”: e.g., NP-Nom i slyšat’ ne xotet’ o NP-Loc (as in On i slyšat’ ne xočet o poezdke! “He does not want to even hear about the trip [lit. and hear not want about trip]”). Other constructions employ derivatives of the verb xotet’ “want,” namely the nouns oxota “willingness” and neoxota “reluctance,” as well as a synonymous noun len’ “laziness.” These nouns perform a predicative function and govern an infinitive denoting an activity in the constructions (NP-Dat) oxota/neoxota Cop VP-Inf (as in Mne spat’ oxota “I want to sleep [lit. to me willingness sleep]”) and (NP-Dat) len’ Cop VP-Inf (as in Mne len’ gotovit’ “I do not want to cook [lit. to me laziness cook]”). Less semantically transparent are the structures that convey the semantics of unwillingness via predicative prepositional phrases like v lom “a bummer” (consider the construction NP-Dat Cop v lom VP-Inf, as in Maše idti v magazin bylo v lom “Maria did not want to go to the store [lit. to Maria walk in store was in bummer]”) and ne do NP-Gen “not to X” (NP-Dat Cop ne do NP-Gen, as in Mne ne do uborki “I am not going to tidy up now [lit. to me not to tidying]”). Infinitival constructions encode the (un)willing subject in the dative case, thus morphologically suggesting that an unenthusiastic attitude is rather a state that “happens” to the subject and this lack of agentivity and control arguably implies lack of responsibility that the speaker is willing to take for the attitude in question (see Divjak and Janda, 2015 for detailed discussion). An interesting case in this regard is the construction (u NP-Gen) ruki ne doxodit’ VP-Inf that does not openly claim the unwillingness to perform an activity and instead transfers the responsibility for the speaker’s failure to achieve a result to the lack of the right circumstances: e.g., Ruki ne doxodjat kryšu počinit’ “I did not get around to fixing the roof [lit. arms not arrive roof fix].”
In contrast to an entire armory of means to express a lack of enthusiasm about an activity, a smaller subgroup of constructions denotes the speaker’s readiness for active participation and positive attitude toward it. This type can be illustrated with constructions like VP-Inf Cop (da/voobšče/da voobšče) ne vopros (as in Postroit’ dom – ne vopros “Building a house – sure! [lit. to build house not question]”) and Cl, bez problem/voprosov (as in Ja vse sdelaju, bez problem! “I will do everything, no problem! [lit. without problems]”).
Concern is a large family of twenty-six Attitude constructions that encode the speaker’s indifference or concern about the situation. Most constructions refer to unconcern and express negative attitude: e.g., malo (li) PronInt VP (as in Malo li čto on poprosit! “Whatever he asks for, it does not matter [lit. little what he will ask].” Many constructions contain the anchor word delo “business” or vnimanie “attention”: compare komu kakoe delo Cop do NP-Gen (as in Komu kakoe delo do tvoej problemy “No one cares about your problem [lit. whom what business to your problem]”) and Cl, a NP-Nom ne obraščat’ vnimanija (as in Oni tam derutsja, a ona ne obraščaet vnimanija “They are fighting, but she does not pay attention [lit. not turn attention]”). Syntactically, this family is a diverse and non-homogeneous group that includes adverbial patterns like VP-Imp postol’ku-poskol’ku (as in Ego interesuet èto postol’ku-poskol’ku “He is mostly uninterested in this issue [lit. insomuch in-how-much]”), predicative patterns like NP-Dat Cop vse ravno (as in Mne vse ravno “It is all the same to me [lit. me everything same]”), with the majority of clausal constructions like čto PronPers-Dat NP-Nom (e.g., čto mne dožd’ “It does not matter to me whether it rains [lit. what to me rain]”), and biclausal syntactic structures like nu i čto, čto XP (as in Nu i čto, čto xolodno “What’s the big deal if it is cold [lit. well and what, that cold]”). Often, constructions of this family blend together, producing structures like èkzameny ne èkzameny, emu vse ravno “Exams or not, it does not matter to him [lit. exams not exams, to him all same],” where we encounter a combination of the construction XP ne ∼XP, Cl and the construction NP-Dat Cop vse ravno.
The Reconciliation family of constructions suggests that the speaker accepts the situation even though it is not desirable and often appears to be out of the speaker’s control. We observe this semantics in many biclausal constructions, where one clause names the situation, whereas the other clause indicates the speaker’s attitude. By means of example consider the construction Cl (i/no) (tut) (už) ničego (s ètim) (NP-Dat/NP-Nom) ne podelat’ (as in On uezžaet, i tut ničego ne podelaeš’ “He leaves, there is nothing to do about it [lit. and here nothing not do]”) and the construction čto už tam, Cl (as in čto už tam, moja vina “What shall I say [lit. what there], it is my fault”). By using the former construction, the speaker suggests that nothing can be done to change the situation, whereas the latter construction states that nothing can be said to argue against the truth. Most constructions in the Reconciliation family express positive attitude of the speaker (e.g., čto s PronPers-Ins (budeš’) delat’!12 (e.g., Opjat’ ty ves’ grjaznyj! Čto s toboj delat’! “You are all dirty again! It can’t be helped! [lit. what with you do!]”), or/and lack of choice, as we see in the expressions like nekuda devat’sja, Cl13 (as in Nekuda devat’sja, nužno emu pomoč’ “There is no way out [lit. nowhere get], we have to help him”). It is implied that, having no choice, the speaker adopts a strategy that is the only one acceptable in the given situation or in the speaker’s view, as illustrated with a similar construction (NP-Dat) nel’zja Cop ne VP-Inf (as in Nel’zja bylo ne soglasit’sja s nim togda “It was impossible to disagree [lit. impossible was not agree] with him in that moment.”
Additionally, the Reconciliation family includes a notable structural type of various reduplicative patterns, where the same lexeme is repeatedly used in the same or a different morphological form. A good example comes from the construction XP tak ∼XP (as in Sup tak sup “If I should eat the soup, I will do so [lit. soup then soup]”) and a synonymous pattern XP značit ∼XP (as in Dieta – značit dieta! “If I should go on a diet then I will do so! [lit. diet means diet]”). Even less semantically transparent is a similar reduplicative construction (nu) XP i ∼XP (as in Včera ja poterjal kol’co. Nu poterjal i poterjal, ne nado dumat’ o ploxom “Yesterday I lost a ring. It happened, whatever [lit. well lost and lost], no need to think about bad things”).
The Remorse family of constructions provides the speaker with various ways to express sadness and regret about what the speaker (or another participant) has done or about the state of affairs in general. An example of the former comes from the construction in čert (PronPers-Acc) dernul VP-Inf (as in čert menja dernul pošutit’ “I don’t know what got into me that I made that joke [lit. demon pulled me joke]”), whereas the latter can be illustrated with the construction žal’ Cop, Cl, as in Žal’, nogi promokli “It is a pity that [someone’s] feet got drenched.” Remorse constructions are used in situations when the speaker has to report on something unpleasant or undesired for him- or herself and/or their interlocutor. Therefore the role of such constructions is often to mitigate the negative effect of the upcoming information by expressing the speaker’s sympathy and compassion with the interlocutor. Syntactically, many of these constructions contain a parenthetical expression that introduces a clause [e.g., k (PronPoss/Adj) sožaleniju, Cl, as in K sožaleniju, my ne možem vam pomoč’ “Unfortunately [lit. to regret], we cannot help you”] or a matrix predicate (e.g., beda Cop, čto Cl, as in Beda, čto on ne prišel “It is a disaster that he did not come”), or an interjection (e.g., uvy, Cl!, as in Uvy, koncert otmenili “Too bad, the concert is canceled”). By expressing regret, the speaker arguably takes partial responsibility for the negative information he/she reports on, and therefore the attitude encoded in these constructions is best captured by the term Remorse.
The Acceptance cluster thus gathers constructions that represent conceptually related nuances. Support is something that is offered when someone is willing to act, and willingness is related to a show of concern. Reconciliation and remorse are two types of acceptance in the face of difficulties.
Dissatisfaction
The largest group of Attitude constructions expresses various kinds of Dissatisfaction. All constructions of this cluster carry negative evaluation and constitute four distinct families that form a rising scale of negativity: Discontent > Disapproval > Swearing > Curse.
The thirty-seven constructions that form the Discontent family share the semantics of relatively mild dissatisfaction on the part of the speaker regarding the entire situation: e.g., Cl, a NP-Nom VP-Imp! (as in On ušel domoj, a ja opjat’ peredelyvaj vse posle nego “He went home, and I again have to redo [lit. I redo] everything after him.” By using Discontent constructions, the speaker fulfills the need to complain about an unsatisfactory state of affairs, often claiming that there are so many problems that having one more additional problem is even worse. Therefore, many constructions in this family contain anchor words that denote “shortage” or “enough”: compare (NP-Dat) tol’ko NP-Gen (ešče) ne xvatalo! (as in Tol’ko doždja ne xvatalo! “Rain is the last thing I needed! [lit. only rain not was enough]”).
The Disapproval family comprises 43 constructions that encode both the speaker’s strong negative Attitude and negative Assessment of someone’s behavior. This group of constructions is the home of the above-mentioned construction najti-Pst NP-Acc! “found X!” (as in Našli razvlečenie! “What a bad way to amuse yourself! [lit. found amusement!]”) and constitutes a large zone of overlap connecting the two networks, as described in section “Assessment Specific to People” (family Ethics/Behavior of Assessment constructions).
Swearing constructions form a family of 11 constructions that mark an even more negative Attitude of the speaker toward the situation. Swearing constructions included in the Russian Constructicon contain anchor swear words like čert “demon” or its derivatives: e.g., kakogo čerta Cl! (as in Kakogo čerta zdes’ tak grjazno! “Why the devil is it so dirty here?”).
Curse constructions form a distinct family of nine constructions that denote the highest degree of negative Attitude. Curse constructions do not necessarily contain swear words but obligatorily carry the intention of harming someone or something: Cl, bud’ PronPers-Nom prokljatyj-Short! (as in Opjat’ èti komary, bud’ oni prokljaty! “Again these mosquitos, damn them [lit. be they damned]!”).
Mental Attitude
The Cluster termed Mental Attitude is formed by constructions denoting Attitude motivated by the speaker’s knowledge or expectations. This cluster comprises four families: Skepticism, Confidence, Perplexity, and Mirativity.
A Skeptical attitude on the part of the speaker is conveyed by constructions that are used in speaker’s responses to a statement made by the conversation partner. All of these constructions express different shades of disagreement with the previous discourse. Many of these constructions employ a peculiar syntactic pattern: they repeat the key part of the interlocutor’s statement and frame it with an Attitude construction. Consider such an “echo”-pattern in the construction skažeš’/skažete tože – XP (as in—On takoj xorošij! – Skažeš’ tože – “xorošij”! “– He is so nice! – Come on! How can you say that! [lit. you say too – “nice”].” The construction vot ešče, XP! (as in – Da ty vljublena v nego! – Vot ešče, vljublena! “– You seem to be in love with him! – In love? No way! [lit. here more, enamored]”) is organized in a similar way: it repeats the exact quote of the preceding problematic statement made by the interlocutor and argues against it. Another example comes from the construction rasskazyvaj/rasskazyvajte, Cl (as in – U nas ne bylo deneg. – Rasskazyvaj, ne bylo deneg! “– We had no money. – Tell me another, “had no money”! [lit. tell, not was money]”) that expresses the speaker’s doubts and distrust.
The Confidence family aggregates six constructions that express the speaker’s certainty about his or her knowledge. All constructions in this family contain the anchor words znat’ “know” or dumat’ “think”: PronPers-Nom PronPers-Acc znat’-Prs, Cl (as in – Ja tebja znaju, ty vse razboltaeš’! “I know you, you are going to blab it all”) and Tak PronPers-Nom i dumat’/znat’-Pst, (čto) Cl (as in – Tak ja i dumal, čto ty menja obmaneš’ “I knew [lit. so I and thought] that you were going to deceive me”).
The Perplexity family is represented by thirteen constructions that encode the speaker’s uncertainty about the cause of a situation or the actions of another participant. In terms of syntax, all these constructions are questions: e.g., da i PronInt VP? (as in Da i gde ego sejčas najdeš’? “And where can one find him now? [lit. and where find]”). Often Perplexity constructions can additionally signal the speaker’s discontent, and in this regard they are related to the Discontent family of the Dissatisfaction cluster: čto že NP-Nom VP? (as in čto že on sidit? “Why is he sitting (and not acting)? [lit. what well he sits]”).
The Mirativity family of seven Attitude constructions encodes the speaker’s surprise caused by new and unexpected information (see DeLancey, 1997; Aikhenvald, 2012 for discussion of the term). The construction vot tebe i raz/na: Cl can express both positive and negative attitude of the speaker (as in Vot tebe i na: u nee tri dočki i dvoe synovej! “There you are [lit. here to you take]! She has three daughters and two sons!”). Some mirative constructions encode surprise accompanied with frustration: compare negative evaluation in e.g., (NP-Nom VP, čto/kazalos’ by) Cl/XP, an net! (as in Ja nadejalas’, čto den’gi vernut, an net! “I hoped that I could get the money back, but nothing came out of it [lit. on the contrary no!]”). These constructions relate the Mirativity family to the Discontent family in the Dissatisfaction cluster. Syntactically, all constructions in this family contain a clause.
We observe that each family in the Mental Attitude cluster employs a characteristic syntactic pattern. Conceptually, we can establish connections between these groups: Skepticism is related to Confidence; Confidence is the opposite of Perplexity; and Perplexity is close to Mirativity.
Emotional Attitude
A cluster of constructions denoting Emotional attitude is related to other clusters through their families of Remorse, Discontent, and Mirativity constructions. The Emotional attitude cluster is highly diverse, but we can distinguish three major semantic subtypes that form families: constructions that name specific emotional attitudes, constructions that refer to strong uncontrolled emotions, and constructions that emphasize the depth or scope of the feeling. This cluster also contains a family of Constructions with interjections discussed in the section “Assessment in Relation to Quantification.”
Constructions expressing specific emotional attitudes (Specific emotions family) often include anchor words that name the emotion within a nominal pattern: e.g., VP na radost’ NP-Dat (as in Na radost’ detjam vypal sneg “Much to the children’s delight [lit. on gladness/joy to children], it snowed”) and k užasu/sčast’ju NP-Gen, Cl (as in k užasu mamy, vse moroženoe rastajalo “Much to mom’s horror, all the ice cream melted”). However, there are some constructions that specialize in expressing emotional attitude even without anchor words naming an emotional state. By means of example consider the reduplicative construction NP-Dat Noun-Nom Cop ne (v) ∼Noun-Acc (bez NP-Gen) (as in Devočkam radost’ ne v radost’ “For the girls their joy was not real rejoicing [lit. gladness not in gladness]”)14, that indicates impossibility to enjoy a certain emotional state because of some external interference.
Constructions that refer to strong uncontrolled emotions (the Uncontrolled emotions family) can be illustrated with such structures with light verbs as NP-Nom vyjti iz sebja (as in Načal’nik vyšel iz sebja “The boss lost his temper [lit. walked out from self]”) and NP-Nom poterjat’ golovu (ot NP-Gen) (as in On poterjal golovu ot sčast’ja “He went crazy for happiness [lit. lost head from happiness]”).
Constructions that emphasize the depth or scope of a feeling in the Wholehearted emotion family tend to have an adverbial modifier function: compare the synonymous constructions VP do glubiny duši (as in On obidelsja do glubiny duši “He took offense to the bottom of his heart [lit. to depth of soul]”) and VP vsem serdcem (as in Ja vsem serdcem perežival za nee “I was wholeheartedly [lit. by entire heart] distressed for her”), etc.
The Emotional attitude cluster serves to relate the Attitude network of constructions to the Assessment network. This cluster is conceptually similar to the Emotion/Psychological state family of the cluster Assessment specific to people (recall section “Assessment Specific to People”).
Capacity/Preferences
A family that does not belong to any of the Attitude clusters is formed by constructions that denote Capacity/Preferences: e.g., NP-Nom Cop s NP-Ins na “vy” (as in Ja s texnikoj na “vy” “I am not friends [lit. on ‘you’] with technical equipment”). Being capable to deal with something motivates the attitude of feeling comfortable or uncomfortable with a certain activity: XP èto Cop ne PronPers-Nom (as in Xodit’ po teatram – èto ne moe “Going to the theaters is not my strong point”).
Summary of Attitude Constructions
While the Attitude network is somewhat less complex than the Assessment network, the overall types of structure are the same. Attitude constructions comprise a multiply interconnected system, with both hierarchical relationships that join families into clusters and clusters into the network, as well as horizontal relations across families and clusters linked via shared constructions and similar concepts. And while both networks are biased toward negative evaluations, the Attitude network is even more strongly skewed in the negative direction.
Overlap of Assessment and Attitude Networks of Constructions
In addition to the horizontal relationships we have mapped out within both the Assessment and the Attitude networks, we find strong horizontal relationships across the two networks, which is not surprising given that one’s assessment of something or someone can influence one’s attitude to that something or someone. This conceptual proximity is realized also in a number of constructions that are multiply motivated by both networks. As diagrammed in Figure 5, there is overlap across the two networks in three families of constructions, namely constructions signaling assessment of an attitude toward the capacity of people, their negatively evaluated behavior, and emotional attitudes, as detailed below. The families in question are linked with solid blue lines. Conceptual closeness is indicated with the dashed blue line that connects the Emotional Attitude cluster of constructions with the Emotion/Psychological state family of Assessment constructions.
Figure 5. Overlap of Assessment and Attitude networks.
The largest portion of this overlap is contributed by forty-three constructions that simultaneously belong to the Ethics/Behavior family of Assessment and the Disapproval family of the Attitude network. We observe that negative evaluation of someone’s behavior mostly supports negative attitude to such behavior, as we observe in the construction najti-Pst NP-Acc!, literally “found X!” as in Našli razvlečenie! “What a bad way to amuse yourself! [lit. Found amusement!].”
Second, both networks contain a family of 12 constructions with interjections, where the NP conveys the Assessment, whereas the interjection expresses emotional attitude of the speaker: e.g., fu, kakoj NP-Nom Cop! (as in Fu, kakaja gadost’! “Yuck, what a disgusting thing!”).
Finally, three constructions simultaneously belong to Capacity/Intellect family of Assessment and Capacity/Preferences family of Attitude, including the construction NP-Nom Cop s NP-Ins na “vy” (as in Ja s texnikoj na “vy” “I am not friends [lit. on ‘you’] with technical equipment”). This example illustrates that depending on the filler of the NP-Nom slot the semantics of constructions can shift toward Assessment or Attitude: if the referent is the speaker, then the construction conveys his or her attitude to a certain type of activity (in this case: dealing with technical equipment), whereas, if the referent is another participant, the construction is rather used to encode Assessment of his or her abilities to deal with a certain object named by NP-Ins, as in this example from the Russian National Corpus:
(4) Nepravda, čto vse ženščiny s texnikoj na “vy.”
‘It is not true that all women are unable to deal well with [lit. on “you”] technical equipment’.
Overall, the overlap of the two networks amounts to 58 constructions (26% of each network).
Conclusion
Our case study of Assessment and Attitude constructions in Russian is part of the first large-scale study of the structure of a constructicon of any language and represents an advance in the mapping of semantic fields expressed by grammatical constructions. Whereas the semantics of lexemes that express evaluation has been subjected to classification (cf. Serdobol’skaja and Toldova, 2005Tixonova, 2016), this is the first study of a large number of constructions that serve this function. And whereas there have been numerous detailed studies of individual constructions and smaller groups of closely related constructions, the Russian Constructicon project reaches a new level by attempting a more comprehensive classification. Classification reveals the intricate structure that binds constructions together in the grammar of a language.
The analysis of large groups of constructions makes it possible to discover overall patterns. Relationships among constructions are observed both hierarchically within the Assessment and Attitude networks as realized by families and clusters, as well as horizontally across all three levels of organization. Families are related to other families motivating clusters, clusters are related to other clusters motivating networks, and networks are also related to each other. Relationships are formed through transitional constructions with multiple allegiances, as well as through near-synonymy of constructions and families.
Within families there is some tendency for syntactic similarities as well. Overall we find a propensity for clausal constructions and constructions with the anchor in the role of adverbial modifier. When semantic and syntactic patterns are recognized, they can serve as the basis for further expansion of the constructicon. In other words, once we know what to look for, it becomes easier to identify additional candidates for inclusion in the constructicon. Thus the process of classification has directly facilitated the process of collection.
The distribution of data can serve to test and flesh out hypotheses made in previous scholarship regarding constructions and semantics. For example, construction grammarians (Goldberg, 1995, 2005; Croft, 2001; Langacker, 2008) have hypothesized that the grammar of an entire language consists of an interconnected system of constructions, hence the term “constructicon.” Our study gives detailed concrete evidence of the internal structure of a constructicon. Our study likewise lends support to the hypothesis formulated in previous scholarship (e.g., Arutjunova, 1988) regarding a greater number and diversity of linguistic means employed for encoding negative evaluation, which is what we find in our data.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: https://site.uit.no/russian-constructicon.
Author Contributions
Both authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The reviewer SS declared a past collaboration with the author LJ to the handling editor.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Valentina Zhukova and Daria Mordashova for multiple fruitful discussions of the data presented in this article. We are also grateful to the two reviewers for comments which helped us improve the presentation of both the methodology and the data. We thank members of the CLEAR group at UiT The Arctic University of Norway for their feedback on an earlier version of this article. All remaining errors are ours alone. The study was supported by the grant CPRU-2017/10027 received from the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (Diku, https://diku.no/en) in 2017–2020.
Footnotes
- ^ For details about abbreviations and our system of naming constructions see the Appendix.
- ^ It should be noted, however, that this construction has a specific prosodic contour that combines overall exclamatory intonation with additional stress on the verb. However, it is not clear whether this suprasegmental characteristic is necessarily associated with expressing dissatisfaction (and indignation in this case) rather than emphasizing the verb and the construction as a whole. We leave this issue for future investigation.
- ^ Although morphemes are certainly “conventional, learned form-meaning pairings” (Goldberg, 2013, p. 17) and therefore can be treated as constructions, for some scholars it is debatable whether morphemes represent constructions on their own. The influential approach of construction morphology proposed by Booij (2010) treats morphemes not as constructions in their own right but rather as constituents of morphological constructions. For example, the English derivational suffix —able is analyzed as part of the construction [Vtr -able] (where Vtr stands for a transitive verb that attaches the suffix —able to produce a deverbal adjective).
- ^ In such cases, the name of the construction indicates the anchor verb in the infinitive form and restricts its variation to the past tense: najti-Pst. For more details on our system of naming constructions see the Appendix.
- ^ This is the reason why the name of this construction does not indicate the standard subject position NP-Nom, as opposed to verb argument constructions with specific anchor verbs like NP-Nom predstavljat’ iz sebja NP-Acc (illustrated in Table 1).
- ^ Coercion effects can be observed in morphological constructions. Booij (2016, p. 429) argues that in the English [un-V]V construction, the attachment of the prefix un— to stative verbs like see and have coerces these verbs to denote telic achievements, as observed in these examples from Bauer et al., 2013, p. 375, And once you’ve seen it, you can never unsee it; The other big difference is once you have AIDS, you can’t unhave it. Booij (2016, p. 429) points out that “it is the construction as a whole that imposes this interpretation of telic achievements on these un-verbs,” and this comports with his approach to morphemes as constituent parts of constructions.
- ^ See the Appendix for the list of abbreviations and explanation of how the names of constructions represent their morphosyntactic structure. Each slot and morphological specifications in the names of constructions are verified by data from the Russian National Corpus, supplemented by internet searches where data is sparse.
- ^ A detailed comparison of our radial category model of Assessment constructions with types proposed by von Wright (1963) and Arutjunova (1988) goes beyond the scope of this article.
- ^ We calculate this by adding the number of constructions from transitional families (3 + 5 + 9 + 12 + 18 = 47) and the number of constructions with multiple motivations inside the four clusters (26 + 53 + 88 + 28 + 6 + 47-224 = 24).
- ^ It seems unnatural to split the three Importance families of constructions depending on the animacy of the object they take. We can attribute thirteen constructions to Importance/Worth and fifteen constructions to Importance/Power, including nine constructions that can encode both.
- ^ These are classified as “interrogative/relative pronouns” (Wade, 1992, p. 126–133), the corresponding Russian term is “voprositel’no-otnositel’nye mestoimenija” (Padučeva, 2015, compare also “voprositel’nye/otnositel’nye mestoimenija” in the Russian National Corpus).
- ^ In this case, we treat budeš’ not as a form of the auxiliary verb byt’, which is part of the analytic future tense form budeš’ delat’ “will do,” but as an optional “frozen” element of this construction.
- ^ We suggest that nekuda devat’sja is a periphrastic element that can only be used in the present tense. Adding a copula verb in past or future tense shifts the semantics of this expression to its literal meaning.
- ^ This construction can refer to emotional states even without naming them, as supported by corpus examples like Emu bez morja i žizn’ ne v žizn’ “For him there is no joy in life without the sea [lit. life not in life]).”
References
Apresjan, V. J. (1999). Ustupitel’nost’ v jazyke i slova so značeniem ustupki. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 5, 24–44.
Google Scholar
Arutjunova, N. D. (1988). Tipy Jazykovyx Značenij. Ocenka. Sobytie. Fakt. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Nauka”.
Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2016). “Construction morphology,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, eds A. Hippisley and G. Stump (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 424–448. doi: 10.1017/9781139814720.016
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguist. Typol. 1, 33–52. doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). “Usage-based construction grammar,” in Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, eds E. Dąbrowska and D. S. Divjak (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton), 296–322 doi: 10.1515/9783110292022-015
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Divjak, D. S., and Janda, L. A. (2015). “The role of non-canonical subjects in the overall grammar of a language: a case study of Russian,” in Subjects in constructions: Canonical and non-canonical (Series: Constructional Approaches to Language 16), eds M.-L. Helasvuo and T. Huumo (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 293–317. doi: 10.1075/cal.16.11jan
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Dobrušina, N. R. (2006). Grammatičeskie formy i konstrukcii so značeniem opasenija i predostereženija. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2, 28–67.
Google Scholar
Ehrlemark, A., Johansson, R., and Lyngfelt, B. (2016). “Retrieving occurrences of grammatical constructions,” in Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, Osaka, 815–824.
Google Scholar
Endresen, A., Zhukova, V., Mordashova, D., Rakhilina, E., and Lyashevskaya, O. (2020). “Russkij konstruktikon: Novyj lingvističeskij resurs, ego ustrojstvo i specifika [The Russian Constructicon: A new linguistic resource, its design and key characteristics],” in Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue 2020”, 19. doi: 10.28995/2075-7182-2020-19-241-255
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental Spaces. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2008). “Border conflicts: framenet meets construction grammar,” in Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress, eds E. Bernal and J. DeCesaris (Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra), 49–68.
Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., and Rhodes, R. (2012). “The FrameNet constructicon,” in Sign-Based Construction Grammar, eds H. C. Boas and I. A. Sag (Stanford: CSLI Publications), 309–372.
Google Scholar
Fried, M., and Östman, J.-O. (2004). “Construction grammar: a thumbnail sketch,” in Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, eds M. Fried and J.-O. Östman (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 11–86. doi: 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2005). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). “Constructionist approaches,” in The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford), 15–31.
Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (2019). Quantitative perspectives in cognitive linguistics. Rev. Cogn. Linguist. 17, 7–28. doi: 10.1075/rcl.00024.jan
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., Kopotev, M., and Nesset, T. (2020). Constructions, their families and their neighborhoods: the case of durak durakom ‘a fool times two’. Russian Linguist. 44, 109–127. doi: 10.1007/s11185-020-09225-y
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., and Tyers, F. M. (2018). “A Constructicon for Russian: filling in the gaps,” in Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language 22], eds B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, and T. T. Torrent (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.), 165–181. doi: 10.1075/cal.22.06jan
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., Endresen, A., Zhukova, V., Mordashova, D., Rakhilina, E. (forthcoming). “How to build a constructicon in five years: the Russian example,” in Squibs in Construction Grammar [thematic issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34], eds F. Brisard, T. Colleman, A. De Wit, R. Enghels, N. Koutsoukos, T. Mortelmans, Sansiñena, and M. S.
Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar – A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2007). “Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories,” in The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, eds D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press), 139–169.
Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., and Torrent, T. T. (eds.). (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Google Scholar
Plungian, V. A. (2011). Vvedenie v Grammatičeskuju Semantiku: Grammatičeskie značenija i Grammatičeskie Sistemy Jazykov Mira [An introduction to grammatical semantics: Grammatical meanings and grammatical systems in the languages of the world]. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities.
Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V. (2013). “Konduktor, nažmi na tormoza,” in Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue” 12, 665–673.
Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973b). “On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories,” in Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, ed. T. E. Moore (New York, NY: Academic Press), 111–144.
Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1977). “Human categorization,” in Studies in Cross-cultural Psychology 1, ed. N. Warren (New York, NY: Academic Press), 1–49.
Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). “Principles of categorization,” in Cognition and Categorization, eds E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 27–48.
Google Scholar
Serdobol’skaja, N. V., and Toldova, S. J. (2005). Ocenočnye predikaty: tip ocenki i sintaksis konstrukcii. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue” 14, 436–443.
Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., and Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 8, 209–243. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Tixonova, M. A. (2016). “Aksiologija v kontekste leksikografii: model,” Slovarja Ocenočnoj Leksiki Russkogo Jazyka, (Moskva). Kandidatskaja dissertacija.
Google Scholar
von Wright, G. H. (1963). The Varieties of Goodness. New York, NY: Humanities Press.
Google Scholar
Wade, T. (1992). A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
In this study, we follow the representation of constructions in the Russian Constructicon. For each construction, we provide its name and a short illustration: e.g., najti-Pst NP-Acc! Našli razvlečenie! “What a bad way to amuse yourself! [lit. found amusement].”
The name of a construction is a short morphosyntactic formula that includes fixed lexical parts as well as grammatical slots indicated by means of common abbreviations: NP – noun phrase; VP – verb phrase; PP – prepositional phrase; XP – any phrasal unit (a slot that can be NP or VP or AP or PP); Adj – adjective; Adv – adverb; PronPers – personal pronoun; PronInt – interrogative/relative pronoun; PronPoss – possessive pronoun; Cl – clause; Short – short form. When necessary, we specify morphological characteristics of the fixed lexeme or a slot, where we use abbreviations according the Leipzig Glossing rules: Nom – Nominative case; Gen – Genitive case; Dat – Dative case; Acc – Accusative case; Loc – Locative case; Ins – Instrumental case; Sg – Singular; Pl – Plural; Pst – Past tense; Inf – Infinitive; Imp – Imperative; Ipfv – Imperfective verb; Pfv – Perfective verb; Cop – Copula; Pred – Predicative; ∼ – Reduplication. We combine these abbreviation systems, as in e.g., NP-Nom – Noun Phrase in the Nominative case. In our system of annotation, the symbol () indicates optional elements of a fixed part, and the symbol “/” is used to list alternative elements of construction. Each slot and morphological specifications are verified by the data from the Russian National Corpus, supplemented by internet searches where data is sparse.
In representing the syntactic structure of constructions, we adopt the following strategies. If a construction contains an NP that can be used not only in the predicative function marked with the nominative case but also in other roles (e.g., object, etc.) encoded with oblique cases, we do not specify the case in the construction name: e.g., NP na nule [lit. NP on zero], as in Immunitet na nule “Immunity is at the zero level” vs. Vypisali bol’nogo s immunitetom na nule “They released a patient with immunity at the zero level.”
If a construction contains an NP that is only used in the predicative function, we indicate its form as the default NP-Nom, as it appears with the present tense copula: e.g., NP-Nom Cop NP-Nom VP-Inf (as in On master gotovit’ “He is good at cooking [lit. expert cook]”). We assume that the instrumental case marking of the predicative NP that appears with the past and/or future tense copula is a general rule of Russian grammar and this is mentioned in the commentary field on the Russian Constructicon website: e.g., On byl masterom gotovit’ “He was good at cooking [lit. expert cook].” Note that we include the copula in the name of a construction only if the copula verb can be used in this construction not only in the present tense but also in other tense(s), as in this example.
Some constructions contain reduplicated nouns rather than NPs, and we represent this accordingly: e.g., NP-Nom Cop vsem Noun-Dat.Pl ∼Noun-Nom (as in Vsem borščam boršč “The best vegetable soup of all [lit. to all soups soup]).”
In verb argument constructions that contain a specific verb lexeme (the anchor verb) and slots for the verb’s arguments, we specify the subject slot even if it has a default nominative case marking: e.g., NP-Nom znat’ tolk v NP-Loc (as in On znaet tolk v nastol’nyx igrax “He is an expert in board-games [lit. He knows sense in board-games]”). Normally, the anchor verb is given in the infinitive to represent any inflectional form. For example, in the construction NP-Nom znat’ tolk v NP-Loc, the infinitive of the anchor verb znat’ “know” indicates that this verb can be used in this construction in other forms too.
If the anchor verb can be used in a construction only in a specific grammatical form, the construction name indicates this specific form (or forms, if there are very few options): e.g., s PronPers-Gen xvatit/xvatilo (NP-Gen), as in S menja xvatit “I’m fed up [lit. from me enough].” If the use of the anchor verb in the construction is restricted to a certain sub-paradigm, this is indicated accordingly. For example, in the construction najti-Pst NP-Acc! (as in Našli razvlečenie! “What a bad way to amuse yourself! [lit. found amusement]”), the anchor verb najti ‘find’ can appear only in the past tense.
For constructions that contain a VP, we do not include the subject slot NP-Nom in the name of the construction, because the case marking of the arguments (including the logical subject) depends on specific verb lexemes: compare večno VP in Večno mne ne vezet “I am always short on luck [lit. eternally to me not catch-luck]” (where the logical subject has an experiencer role and is marked with the dative case) vs. Večno Petr opazdyvaet “Peter is always late [lit. eternally Peter is late]” (where the logical subject has the agent role and is encoded with the nominative case).