Article published in:
Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical
Edited by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Tuomas Huumo
[Constructional Approaches to Language 16] 2015
► pp. 253–291

From canon to monolith to clusters

A constructionist model of subjecthood in Russian

The status of oblique subjects is a contested topic. Subjecthood is typically defined relative to syntactic tests in formal approaches and different tests have been proposed in the literature. However, they have not been applied systematically to cover a wide range of constructions such as oblique subjects in Russian. This study presents a clustered model of subjecthood building on ten construction types and twenty features of subjecthood in Russian based on construction grammar and Keenan’s (1976) study. The structure of the model indicates that Russian has two clustered subject constructions: the nominative and the dative. These types motivate the deviations displayed by the other constructions. Hence, subjecthood is defined as a fully motivated network structure.
Published online: 14 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.10kyr
References
Ackerman, Farrell & Moore, John
(2009) Proto-properties and obliqueness. Paper given at the conference Case in and across Languages. Helsinki 27–29.8.
Arutjunova, N.D
(2003) Jazyk celi. In N.D. Arutjunova (Ed.), Logičeskij analiz jazyka. Izbrannoe 1988–1995 (pp. 386–396). Moskva: INDRIK.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
(2006) Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 39–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, & Eythórsson, Thórhallur
(2003) Icelandic vs. German: Oblique subjects, agreement and expletives. Chicago Linguistic Society, 39(1), 755–773.Google Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri, & Subbarao, Venkata Karumuri
(Eds.) (2004) Non-nominative subject (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, Loebell, Helga, & Morey, Randal
(1992) From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
(1981) Lectures on goverment and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Croft, William
(1998) Event structure in argument linking. In M.B.W. Geuder (Ed.), The projection of arguments (pp. 21–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, & Cruse, Alan D
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Czeczulin, Annalisa
(2007) The Russian reflexive in second-language acquisition: Binding preferences and L1 transfer. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Daum, Edmund, & Schenk, Werner
(1992) Die Russische Verben. Leipzig: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar
(2009) Mapping between domains. The aspect-modality interaction in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 33(3), 249–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, & Janda, Laura A
(2008) Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 138–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew
(2005) Expression of pronominal subjects. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structure (pp. 410–413). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur, & Barðdal, Jóhanna
(2005) Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language, 81(4), 824–881. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J
(1985) Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguisitc Society, 12, 163–182.Google Scholar
Fortuin, Egbert
(2005) From necessity to possibility: The modal sprectum of the dative-infinitive construction in Russian. In B. Hansen & P. Karlík (Eds.), Modality in Slavonic languages: New perspectives (pp. 39–60). München: Sagner.Google Scholar
(2006) On the use of dative subjects in the construction of anteriority in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 30(3), 321–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Modality and aspect: Interaction of constructional meaning and aspectual meaning in the dative-infinitive construction in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 31(3), 201–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Explicit second-person subjects in Russian imperatives: Semantics, word order, and a comparison with English. Linguistics, 48(2), 431–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma
(1987) The typology of reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerritsen, Nelleke
(1990) Russian reflexive verbs. In search of unity in diversity. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Gerald R., & Franks, Steven
(1991) A parametric approach to dative subjects and the second dative in Slavic. Slavic and East European Journal, 35(1), 71–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halizeva, V.S
(1969) Semantičeskij analiz sojuzov predšestvovanija. Russkij jazyk za rubežom, 2, 77–82.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
(1989) From purpose to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica, 10(1–2), 287–310.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., & Thompson, Sandra A
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A
(2008) Transitivity in Russian from a cognitive perspective. In G. Kustova (Ed.), Dinamičeskie modeli: Slovo. Predloženie. Tekst. Sbornik statej v čest’ E. V. Padučevoj (pp. 970–988). Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Leonard, & Rousseeuw, Peter J
(2005) [1990] Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New Jersey: John Wiley & sons Inc.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, & Fillmore, Charles J
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L
(1976) Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Mauer, Gail, & Bienvenue, Breton
(2003) Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89(2), 67–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani
(2008) Low-frequency constructions and salience: A case study on Russian verbs of motion of dative impersonal construction type. In A. Mustajoki, M.V. Kopotev, L.A. Birjulin, & E.J. Protasova (Eds.), Instrumentarij rusistiki: korpusnye podhody (pp. 176–197). Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1995) Raising and transparency. Language, 71(1), 1–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009a) A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 627–640. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leinonen, Marja
(1985) Impersonal sentences in Finnish and Russian: Syntactic and semantic properties. Helsinki: Slavica Helsingiensia.Google Scholar
Moore, John, & Perlmutter, David M
(2000) What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 18(2), 373–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osherson, Daniel N., Wilkie, Ormond, Smith, Edward E., Lopez, Alejandro, & Shafir, Eldar
(1990) Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97(2), 185–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paducheva, Elena
(2010) Subject-predicate inversion and its cognitive sources. Russian Linguistics, 34(2), 113–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Emmanuel, Claude, Julien, & Strimmer, Korbinian
(2004) APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Biostatistics, 20(2), 289–290.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David, & Moore, John
(2002).Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language, 78(4), 619–649. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
(1999) Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, George
(1986) Subjective dative in Russian infinitival clauses of purpose. The Slavic and East European Journal, 30(3), 367–379. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seo, Seunghyun
(2001) The frequency of null subject in Russian, Polish, Czech, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian: An analysis according to morphosyntactic environments. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
(2002) To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20(4), 691–724. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
(1976) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon, (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sirotinina, O.B
(2006) [1965] Porjadok slov v russkom jazyke. Moskva: KomKniga.Google Scholar
Švedova, N. Ju
(Ed.) (1982a) Russkaja grammatika. Tom 1. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (1982b) Russkaja grammatika. Tom 2. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
(1980) Oblique control of Russian reflexivization. In C.V. Chvany, & R.D. Brecht (Eds.), Morphosyntax in Slavic (pp. 235–259). Columbus Ohio: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
(1980) Lingua mentalis: The semantics of natural language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zdorenko, Tatiana
(2010) Subject omission in Russian: A study of the Russian national corpus. In S.T. Gries, S. Wulff, & M. Davies (Eds.), Corpus-linguistic applications: Current studies, new directions (pp. 119–133). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Zimmerling, Anton
(2009) Dative subjects and semi-expletive pronouns in Russian. In G. Zybatow, U. Junghanns, D. Lenertová, & P. Biskup, (Eds.), Studies in formal Slavic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure. Proceedings of FDS 7, Leipzig 2007 (pp. 253–265). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zolotova, G.A
(2000) Ponjatie ličnosti/bezličnosti i ego intepretacii. Russian Linguistics, 24(2), 103–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar