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.
References (60)
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.
Baayen, Harald R. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Barðdal, Jóhanna (2006). Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 39–106. 

Barðdal, Jóhanna, & Eythórsson, Thórhallur (2003). Icelandic vs. German: Oblique subjects, agreement and expletives. Chicago Linguistic Society, 39(1), 755–773.
Bhaskararao, Peri, & Subbarao, Venkata Karumuri (Eds.). (2004). Non-nominative subject (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Bock, Kathryn, Loebell, Helga, & Morey, Randal (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150–171. 

Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on goverment and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Croft, William (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In M.B.W. Geuder (Ed.), The projection of arguments (pp. 21–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Croft, William (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Croft, William, & Cruse, Alan D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

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.
Divjak, Dagmar (2009). Mapping between domains. The aspect-modality interaction in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 33(3), 249–269. 

Divjak, Dagmar, & Janda, Laura A. (2008). Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 138–179. 

Dowty, David (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. 

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.
Eythórsson, Thórhallur, & Barðdal, Jóhanna (2005). Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language, 81(4), 824–881. 

Fillmore, Charles J. (1985). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguisitc Society, 12, 163–182.
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.
Fortuin, Egbert (2006). On the use of dative subjects in the construction of anteriority in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 30(3), 321–357. 

Fortuin, Egbert (2007). Modality and aspect: Interaction of constructional meaning and aspectual meaning in the dative-infinitive construction in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 31(3), 201–230. 

Fortuin, Egbert (2010). Explicit second-person subjects in Russian imperatives: Semantics, word order, and a comparison with English. Linguistics, 48(2), 431–486. 

Geniušienė, Emma (1987). The typology of reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Gerritsen, Nelleke (1990). Russian reflexive verbs. In search of unity in diversity. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. 

Halizeva, V.S. (1969). Semantičeskij analiz sojuzov predšestvovanija. Russkij jazyk za rubežom, 2, 77–82.
Haspelmath, Martin (1989). From purpose to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica, 10(1–2), 287–310.
Hopper, Paul J., & Thompson, Sandra A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. 

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.
Kaufman, Leonard, & Rousseeuw, Peter J. (2005) [1990]. Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New Jersey: John Wiley & sons Inc.
Kay, Paul, & Fillmore, Charles J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. 

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.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Mauer, Gail, & Bienvenue, Breton (2003). Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89(2), 67–103. 

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.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1995). Raising and transparency. Language, 71(1), 1–62. 

Langacker, Ronald W. (2009a). A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 627–640. 

Langacker, Ronald W. (2009b). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Leinonen, Marja (1985). Impersonal sentences in Finnish and Russian: Syntactic and semantic properties. Helsinki: Slavica Helsingiensia.
Moore, John, & Perlmutter, David M. (2000). What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 18(2), 373–416. 

Osherson, Daniel N., Wilkie, Ormond, Smith, Edward E., Lopez, Alejandro, & Shafir, Eldar (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97(2), 185–200. 

Paducheva, Elena (2010). Subject-predicate inversion and its cognitive sources. Russian Linguistics, 34(2), 113–121. 

Paradis, Emmanuel, Claude, Julien, & Strimmer, Korbinian (2004). APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Biostatistics, 20(2), 289–290.
Perlmutter, David, & Moore, John (2002).Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language, 78(4), 619–649. 

Primus, Beatrice (1999). Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 

Rubinstein, George (1986). Subjective dative in Russian infinitival clauses of purpose. The Slavic and East European Journal, 30(3), 367–379. 

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. 

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.
Sirotinina, O.B. (2006) [1965]. Porjadok slov v russkom jazyke. Moskva: KomKniga.
Švedova, N. Ju. (Ed.). (1982a). Russkaja grammatika. Tom 1. Moskva: Nauka.
Švedova, N. Ju. (Ed.). (1982b). Russkaja grammatika. Tom 2. Moskva: Nauka.
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.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1980). Lingua mentalis: The semantics of natural language. New York: Academic Press.
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.
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.
Zolotova, G.A. (2000). Ponjatie ličnosti/bezličnosti i ego intepretacii. Russian Linguistics, 24(2), 103–115. 
