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. 293–317

The role of non-canonical subjects in the overall grammar of a language

A case study of Russian

| University of Tromsø
| University of Sheffield
We offer a model of Russian core syntax in terms of a radial category network of constructions. The prototype corresponds to Langacker’s “canonical event model”, namely a prototypical transitive event, and more peripheral constructions are related to it via metaphor and metonymy. From this perspective we focus on non-canonical subjects marked in the dative case, highlighting the complex interaction of lexical items (verbs) with constructions, and building on our previous work on case and infinitives. We hypothesize that a speaker’s perception of cause may be influenced by the use of non-canonical subjects (in Russian) rather than canonical subjects (in English) and present the results of an experiment. We are unable to prove any conclusive effect, but show the importance and need for further testing.
Published online: 14 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.11jan
References

References

Apresjan, Jurij Derenikovič
(1967). Eksperimental’noe issledovanie russkogo glagola. [An experimental investigation into the semantics of the Russian verb]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Browne, Wayles
(1987) Classification of subordinate clauses in a grammar of Serbo-Croatian for foreign users. The Zagreb English-Serbo-Croatian Contrastive Project. Contrastive Analysis of English and Serbo-Croatian, 3, 165–191.Google Scholar
Butler, I.G.
(1967) Sočetanie infinitiva s modal’nymi i bezličnymi glagolami. Učenye zapiski MOPI, 167(3), 41–53.Google Scholar
Croft, William
(1998). The structure of events and the structure of language. In Michael Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 67–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(1999) Some contributions of typology to cognitive linguistics. In Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology (pp. 61–93). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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
Divjak, Dagmar, & Janda, Laura A.
(2008) Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106, 138–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eggermont, Carmen, & Melis, Ludo
(Eds.) (1992) The pronominal approach: From verb to noun phrase. Texts of the final workshop PROTON I–II. Leuven: Linguistics Department, KUL.Google Scholar
Eynde, Karel van den
(1995) Methodological reflections on descriptive linguistics. Knud Togebys principles and the pronominal approach. In Lene Schösler & Mary Talbot (Eds.), Studies in Valency I. (pp. 111–131). Odense University Press. Rask supplement vol. 1.Google Scholar
Feldman, Jerome A.
(2006) From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
(1995) Representational formats in cognitive semantics. Folia Linguistica, 29, 21–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A.
(2008) Transitivity in Russian from a cognitive perspective. In Galina Kustova (Ed.), Dinamičeskie modeli: Slovo. Predloženie. Tekst. Sbornik statej v čest’ E. V. Padučevoj (pp. 970–988). Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A., & Clancy, Steven J.
(2002) The case book for Russian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and throught (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Turner, Mark
(1989) More than cool reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: SUP.Google Scholar
(1991) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara
(2007) Polysemy, prototypes and radial categories. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 139–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schøsler, Lene, & Van Durme, Karen
(1996) The Odense valency dictionary. An introduction. Odense working papers in language and communication 13. Odense: Institute of Language and Communication, OU.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I.
(1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J.J. Gumperz & S.C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B.
(1994) Agreement and iconicity in Russian impersonal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 5–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark
(1996) The literary mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Endresen, Anna & Laura A. Janda
2020. Taking Construction Grammar One Step Further: Families, Clusters, and Networks of Evaluative Constructions in Russian. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.