Part of
Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-CanonicalEdited by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Tuomas Huumo
[Constructional Approaches to Language 16] 2015
► pp. 293–317
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
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.
References (27)
Apresjan, Jurij Derenikovič (1967). Eksperimental’noe issledovanie russkogo glagola. [An experimental investigation into the semantics of the Russian verb]. Moskva: Nauka.
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.
Butler, I.G. (1967). Sočetanie infinitiva s modal’nymi i bezličnymi glagolami. Učenye zapiski MOPI, 167(3), 41–53.
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.
(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. 
(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.
Divjak, Dagmar, & Janda, Laura A. (2008). Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106, 138–179.
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.
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.
Feldman, Jerome A. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk (1995). Representational formats in cognitive semantics. Folia Linguistica, 29, 21–41.
Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Janda, Laura A., & Clancy, Steven J. (2002). The case book for Russian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and throught (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George, & Turner, Mark (1989). More than cool reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: SUP.
. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levin, Beth (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
Smith, Michael B. (1994). Agreement and iconicity in Russian impersonal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 5–56.
Turner, Mark (1996). The literary mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Becker, Israela
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 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 august 2024. 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.