Russian converb constructions corresponding to Swedish purposive för att ‘in order to’ + infinitive constructions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7557/6.7494Keywords:
Contrastive linguistics, Russian, Swedish, Converbs, Purpose meaning, Semantics, ConstructionsAbstract
The present investigation explores the contexts that trigger purposive interpretations of Russian converbs. The contrastive method is used to elicit purposive converb usages from Swedish corresponding constructions, namely, [för att ‘in order to’ + infinitive] constructions. Two main structural types are observed. One analytic construction, in which imperfective converbs specify mental acts of wishing, trying, or intending [converb + infinitive], e.g., želaja najti ‘wishing to find’. The second construction is synthetic, comprising of imperfective converbs without infinitives [converb]: otyskivaja ‘trying to find’. Both constructions involve mental acts of intending, wishing, or trying, which are explicit in the analytic constructions and implicit in the synthetic constructions. In the synthetic constructions, a concrete eventuality denoted by a finite matrix verb serves as a means of fulfilling an intended outcome, denoted by an abstract manner-neutral converb form. In this sense, the purposive meaning that is expressed hinges on a means:purpose (means:end) complementarity as an effect of manner:result complementarity. Differing degrees of the Subject’s involvement in the progression of the attainment of the intended outcomes can be observed, ranging from preparatory steps to achieved results. An important observation is that purposive converb constructions (either synthetic or analytic) may occur with markers of assumed evidentiality, such as slovno ‘like’, kak by ‘as if’, and vidimo ‘apparently’.
References
Akimova T.G., and Kozynceva N.A. (1987). Aspektual′no-taksisnye situacii. Zavisimyj taksis (na materiale deepričastnyx konstrukcij). In V.A. Bondarko, (ed.). Teorija funkcional′noj grammatiki Vvedenie Aspektual′nost′ Vremennaja lokalizovannost′ Taksis. 256–74. Leningrad: Nauka.
Andersson, M., and Spenader, J. (2014). Result and Purpose relations with and without ‘so’. Lingua 148. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.001
Anscombe, G.E.M. (2000 [1957]). Intention. Second edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press.
Apresjan, Ju.D. (1980). Tipy informacii dlja poverxnostno-semantičeskogo komponenta modeli smysl – tekst. (Wiener slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband I). Vienna: University of Vienna. https://doi.org/10.3726/b12934 .
Apresjan, Ju.D. (1983). O strukture značenij jazykovyx edinic. In: T. Dobryńska and E. Janus, (eds.). Tekst i zdanie. 313–339. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.
Babenko, L.G. (ed.). (1999). Tolʹkovyj slovarʹ russkix glagolov: Ideografičeskoe opisanie. Anglijskie ėkvivalenti. Sinonimy. Antonimy. Moscow: AST-PRESS.
Birzer, S. (2010). Russkoe deepričastie: processy grammatikalizacii i leksikalizacii. (Slavolinguistica 11). München Berlin: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Botting, D. (2010). Three theses on acts. Philosophical Explorations, 13(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869790903324803
Cristofaro, S. (2005). Subordination. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282005.001.0001
Croft, W. (2010). The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001
Diessel, H. (2013). Adverbial subordination. In S. Lurighi and C. Parodi (eds.) Bloomsbury companion to syntax. London, New York: Bloomsbury. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472542090
Dowty, D.R. (1991) Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7
Gisborne, N. (2010). The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577798.001.0001
Glovinskaja, M.Ja. (1982). Semantičeskie tipy vidovyx protivopostavlenij russkogo glagola. Moscow: Nauka.
Goldman, A.I. (1970). A theory of human action. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Grano, T. (2011). Mental action and event structure in the semantics of try. In Ashton, N., A. Chereches and D. Lutz (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 21:426-443.https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2607/2354
Hamburger, H. (1983). Conation and aspect in Russian. Dutch contributions to the ninth international congress of slavists. Linguistics, 109–134.
Haug, D., Fabricius-Hansen, C., Behrens, B., and Helland, H.P. (2012). Open adjuncts: Degrees of event integration. In C. Fabricius-Hansen and D. Haug (eds.). (2012). Big events, small clauses: The grammar of elaboration. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 131–178. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110285864
Kearns K. (2003). Durative achievements and individual-level predicates on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(5), 595–635. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025803912153
Kortmann, B. (1991). Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: Problems of control and interpretation. London, New York: Routledge.
Kuznecov, S.A. (ed.). (2000). Bolʹšoj tolkovyj slovarʹ russkogo jazyka. Saint Petersburg: Norint
König E. (1995). The meaning of converb constructions. In E. König, M. Haspelmath, (eds.). Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms - adverbial participles, gerunds. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884463
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lane, A. (2014). “You Tryna Grammaticalize?”: An analysis of ‘tryna’ as a grammaticalized semi-auxiliary. The Eagle Feather Volume 11, issue 2014. https://doi.org/10.12794/tef.2014.305
Lavrov, B.V. (1941). Uslovnye i ustupitelʹnye predloženija v drevnerusskom jazyke. Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo akademii nauk SSSR.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. London, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B., and Rappaport Hovav, M. (2013). Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke, and R. Marín (eds.). Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy Volume 93. 49–70. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_3
Maslov, Ju.S. (2004) Izbrannye trudy. Aspektologija. Obščee jazykoznanija. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury.
Mixeev, A.F. (1974). Deepričastnyj oborot kak osobaja forma vyraženija sledstvennyx otnošenij v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke. In E.Ja. Bolgova (ed.) Teoretičeskie i metodičeskie problemy grammatiki i stilistiki russkogo jazyka: Doklady i soobšenija mežvuzovskaja seminara kafedr russkogo jazyka vysšix učebnyx zavedenij Zapadnoj Sibiri. Barnaul. 108–128.
Mustajoki, A, (2005). “Pobeditelʹnaja a tema”, ili novyj vzgljad na konativnye predikaty v sisteme aspektualʹnyx značenij. In V. N. Toporov (ed.) Jazyk, ličnostʹ tekst, Sbornik statej k 70-letiju T. M. Nikolaevoj. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kultur, Studia Philologia. 224–236.
Padučeva, E.V (1992) Glagoly dejstvija: tolkovanie i sočetaemostʹ. Logičeskij analiz jazyka. Modeli dejstvija. Institut jazykoznanija RAN. Moscow: Nauka.
Padučeva, E.V. (1994) Tipy kauzal'nyx otnosenij v semantičeskoj strukture leksemy. Russian Linguistics, 18(1), 1–16.
Padučeva, E.V. (2001). Aspektualʹnaja specifika glagolov s aktantom Rezultʹat: paradoks imperfektiva. Glossos 1, 1–19. https://slaviccenters.duke.edu/sites/slaviccenters.duke.edu/files/media_items_files/paducheva.original.pdf
Padučeva, E.V. (2004). Dinamičeskie modeli v semantike leksiki. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury.
Padučeva, E.V. (2008). Imperfektiv otricanija v russkom jazyke. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 3. 1–20.
Padučeva, E.V., and Rozina, R.I. (1993). Semantičeskij klass glagolov polnogo oxvata: tolkovanie i leksiko-sintaksičeskie svojstva. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. No 6, 5–16.
Plungian, V.A. (2001). Antirezulʹtativ: do i posle rezulʹtata, In V. A. Plungian (ed.). Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki, 1 ed. Glagolʹnye kategorii. Moscow: Russkie slovary. 50–88.
Poljanskij, S.M. (1987). Odnovremennostʹ, raznovremennostʹ i drugie tipy taksisnyx otnošenij. In V.A. Bondarko, (ed.). Teorija funkcional′noj grammatiki Vvedenie Aspektual′nost′ Vremennaja lokalizovannost′ Taksis, pp. 243–250. Leningrad: Nauka.
Pusch, L. (1980). Kontrastive Untersuchungen zum italienischen‚ gerundio’: Instrumental- und Modalsätze und das Problem der Individuierung von Ereignissen. (Linguistische Arbeiten 69). Berlin, New York: Niemeyer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111355245
Rachilina, E.V., Kustova, G.I., Ljaševskaja, O.N., Reznikova, T.I., and Šemanajeva, O.Ju. (2009). Zadači i principy semantičeskoj rаzmetki leksiki. In V.A. Plungian (ed.) NKRJa Nacionalʹnyj korpus russkogo jazyka: 2006–2008. Novye rezulʹtaty i perspektivy. 215–239. Saint Petersburg: Nestor Istorija.
Rappaport G.C. (1984). Grammatical function and syntactic structure: The adverbial participle of Russian. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.
Rjabova, A.I. (1992). Russkoe deepričastie v funkcionalʹnom aspekte. In M.V. Vsevolodova (ed.) Strukturnye i semantičeskie tipy osložnenija russkogo predloženija. 6–78. Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.
Růžička, R. (1980). Studien zum Verhältnis von Syntax und Semantik im modernen Russischen. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112533925
Ryle, G. (2009). The concept of mind. Oxford, New York. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875858
Šatunovskij, I.B. (2015). Glagoly popytki v russkom jazyke: Pytatʹsja, staratʹsja i probovatʹ. Russian Language, Literature and Culture Studies, No 4 2015, Serial No 50, 1–4.
Savčuk, S.O., Arxangelskij, T.A., Bonč-Osmolovskaja, A.A., Dolina, O.V., Kuznecova, Ju.N., Ljaševskaja, O.N., Orexov, B.V., Podrjadčikova, M.V. (2024). Nacionalʹnyj korpus russkogo jazyka 2.0: Novye vozmožnosti i perspektivy razvitija. Voprosy jazykoznaija, 2024, 2, 7–34.
Sbisà, Marina. (2009). Uptake and Conventionality in Illocution. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, vol. 5, no. 1, 2009, 33–52. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0
Schmidtke-Bode, K. 2009. A typology of purpose clauses. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.88
Sharvit, Y. (2003) Trying to be progressive: the extensionality of try. Journal of Semantics 20(4), November 2003, 403–445, https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/20.4.403
Sonnenhauser, B. (2017). Aspects of conativity in Russian: Towards a linguistics of attempt and success. In O. Mueller-Reichau, and M. Guhl (eds.), Aspects of Slavic linguistics: formal grammar, lexicon and communication. 310–332. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110517873
Sæbø K. (2008). The structure of criterion predicates. In J. Dölling, M. Schäfer, and T. Heyde-Zybatow, (eds.). Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925449
Sæbø, K. (2016). “How” questions and the manner–method distinction. Synthese, 193(10), 3169–3194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0924-9
Sæbø, K. (2018). ‘By’: A vindication of the Anscombe thesis. Unpublished manuscript. Available: https://kjelljs.github.io/pdf/by.pdf
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
Thompson, S. (1985). Grammar and written discourse. Initial vs. final purpose clauses in English. Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 5(1–2), 55–84. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1985.5.1-2.55
Townsend, C.E. (1989). Conative verbs in Russian. Russian Language Journal, 43(145/146), 13–20.
Van der Auwera, J., Plungian, V.A. (1998) Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, vol. 2, no. 1, 1998, 79-124. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371
Verstraete, J.-C. (2008). The status of purpose, reason, and intended endpoint in the typology of complex sentences: Implications for layered models of clause structure. Linguistics, 46(4), 757–788. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.025
Vincent, N. (2013). Conative. Linguistic Typology, 17(2), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2013-0012
Weiss, D. (1995). Russian converbs: A typological outline. In M. Haspelmath and E. König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms, Adverbial participles, Gerunds, 239–282. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884463.
Wheeler, M., Unbegaun, B., Falla, P.S., and Thompson, D. (2020). Oxford Russian Dictionary (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Zaliznjak A.A., and Mikaėljan, I.L. (2016). K voprosu ob aspektualʹnom statuse konativnyx par v russkom jazyke: počemu iskatʹ ne možet označatʹ ‘najti’? In Kompʹjuternaja lingvistika i intellektualʹnye texnologii: Po materialam meždunarodnoj konferencii “Dialog’ 2016”. Moscow. 776–785.
Zaliznjak, A.A., and Šmelëv, A.D. (2012). Lekcii po russkoj aspektologii. München, Berlin,Washington D.C: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Simone Mellquist
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
