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)
References
Apresjan, Jurij Derenikovič (1967). Eksperimental’noe issledovanie russkogo glagola. [An experimental investigation into the semantics of the Russian verb]. Moskva: Nauka.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butler, I.G. (1967). Sočetanie infinitiva s modal’nymi i bezličnymi glagolami. Učenye zapiski MOPI, 167(3), 41–53.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William (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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William, & Cruse, Alan D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Divjak, Dagmar, & Janda, Laura A. (2008). Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106, 138–179. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feldman, Jerome A. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Geeraerts, Dirk (1995). Representational formats in cognitive semantics. Folia Linguistica, 29, 21–41. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Janda, Laura A., & Clancy, Steven J. (2002). The case book for Russian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and throught (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George, & Turner, Mark (1989). More than cool reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: SUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levin, Beth (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Smith, Michael B. (1994). Agreement and iconicity in Russian impersonal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 5–56. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Turner, Mark (1996). The literary mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two 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
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 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.