Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 15:1 (2023) ► pp.1–58

From data to theory

An emergent semantic classification based on the large-scale Russian constructicon

| UiT The Arctic University of Norway
| UiT The Arctic University of Norway
| UiT The Arctic University of Norway
| Lomonosov Moscow State University | Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
| National Research University Higher School of Economics
The semantic classification of over 2,200 constructions in the Russian Constructicon has emerged objectively from empirical analysis. The resulting semantic classification comports with and goes beyond frame semantics, revealing complex patterns of related constructions verified against corpus data and by a panel of native speakers. Our model of a constructicon can inform and complement existing approaches with additional findings. We detail our discovery procedure and the semantic relationships that link constructions. While our methods and findings are based on a single language, they can serve as a basis for cross-linguistic comparison in the field of Construction Grammar and constructicography research.
Keywords: Construction Grammar, constructicon, Russian, semantics, corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The data: The Russian Constructicon resource
  • 3.The methodology: Behind-the-scenes of semantic annotation of constructions
    • 3.1Collecting constructions
    • 3.2Semantic classification informed by various approaches and at various levels
    • 3.3Semantic annotation as a team effort
  • 4.The system of semantic types
    • 4.1The superordinate class “Qualia”
    • 4.2The superordinate class “Modality and its neighborhood”
    • 4.3The superordinate class “Subjectivity”
    • 4.4The superordinate class “Discourse”
    • 4.5The superordinate class “Parameters”
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00066.jan
References (65)
References
Aijmer, K. (2004). The semantic path from modality to aspect: Be able to in a cross-linguistic perspective. In H. Lindquist & C. Mair (Eds.). Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 57–78). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16 1, 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, Ju. D. (1974/1995). Leksičeskaja semantika [Lexical semantics]. Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Apresjan, V. Ju. (1999). Ustupitel’nost’ v jazyke i slova so značeniem ustupki [Concession in language and the words that designate concession]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 5 1, 24–44.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smithermana, T., Bjarnadóttir, V., Danesia, S., Jenset, G. B. & McGillivray, B. (2012). Reconstructing constructional semantics: The Dative Subject Construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language, 36 (3), 511–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baydina, E. (2016). The Russian apprehensive construction: Syntactic status reassessed, negation vindicated. MA Thesis, Leiden University. [URL]
Boas, H. C., Dux, R. & Ziem, A. (2016). Frames and constructions in an online learner’s dictionary of German. In S. De Knop & G. Guilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 303–326). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree words. Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondarko, V. A. (1984). Funkcional’naja grammatika [Functional grammar]. Nauka.Google Scholar
Boye, K. (2016). The expression of epistemic modality. In J. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 117–140). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chvany, C. V. (1998). Vid kak čast’ universal’nogo nabora semantičeskix priznakov [Aspect as part of universal set of semantic features]. In M. Ju. Čertkova (Ed.), Tipologija vida: problemy, poiski, rešenija [Typology of aspect: problems, investigations, solutions] (pp. 490–497). Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M., Bickel, B. (2008). The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Max Planck Institute for Evolutional Anthropology. [URL]
Croft, William. (2016). Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology, 20 1, 377–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1 1, 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1989). The theory of functional grammar. Part I: The structure of the clause. Foris.Google Scholar
Dobrushina, N. R. (2006). Grammatičeskie formy i konstrukcii so značeniem opasenija i preodstereženija [Grammatical forms and constructions with the meaning of fear and caution]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 2 1, 28–67.Google Scholar
Ehrlemark, A., Johansson, R., Lyngfelt, B. (2016). Retrieving occurrences of grammatical constructions. Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers. Osaka, Japan, 2016, 815–824.Google Scholar
Endresen, A. & Janda, L. A. (2020). Taking Construction Grammar one step further: Families, clusters, and networks of evaluative constructions in Russian. In M. Putnam, M. Carlson, A. Fábregas & E. Wittenberg (Eds.), Defining Construction: Insights into the emergence and generation of linguistic representations [special issue of Frontiers in Psychology, 11 ] (pp. 1–22). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endresen, A., Janda, L. A., Zhukova, V., Mordashova, D. & Rakhilina, E. (forthcoming). Turning a list into a network via family-based expansion of the Russian Constructicon. In A. Ziem, A. Willich, S. Michel (Eds.), Constructing Constructicons. John Benjamins.
Fillmore, Ch. J. (1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J. & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrast: New essays in semantics and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64 (3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J., Lee-Goldman, R. & Rhodes, R. (2012). The FrameNet constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Herbst, T. (2021). The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics, 59 (1), 285–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1957). Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., Endresen, A., Zhukova, V., Mordashova, D., & Rakhilina, E. (2020). How to build a constructicon in five years: The Russian example. In F. Brisard, T. Colleman, A. De Wit, R. Enghels, N. Koutsoukos, T. Mortelmans & M. Sol Sansiñena (Eds.), The wealth and breadth of construction-based research [special issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 ] (pp. 162–175).Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. & Clancy, S. J. (2002). The case book for Russian. Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. Allen and Unwin. Reprinted in 2010 by Routledge.Google Scholar
Khrakovski, V. S. (2003). Kategorija taksisa (Obščaja xarakteristika) [The category of taxis (General characteristics)]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 2 1, 33–54.Google Scholar
(2009). Taksis: Semantika, sintaksis, tipologija [Taxis: semantics, syntax, typology]. In V. S. Khrakovski (Ed.). Tipologija taksisnyx konstrukcij [The typology of taxis constructions] (pp. 11–113). Znak.Google Scholar
Kibisova, E. (2020). How do we measure “measure”? Measure constructions and metaphor. Poljarnyj vestnik, 23 1, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klavan, J. & Veismann, A. (2017). Are corpus-based predictions mirrored in the preferential choices and ratings of native speakers? Predicting the alternation between the Estonian adessive case and the adposition peal ‘on’. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 8 (2), 59–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladygina, A. S. & Rakhilina, E. V. (2016). Russkie konstrukcii so značeniem čeredovanija situacij [Russian constructions encoding the meaning of alternating situations]. In M. V. Ljapon (Ed.), Jazyk: poiski, fakty, gipotezy [Language: investigations, facts, hypotheses] (pp. 320–336). Leksrus.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Letuchiy, A. B. (2007). Russkij “ugrozativ” i ego rodstvenniki [Russian construction of threat and its relatives]. Komp’juternaja lingvistika i intellektual’nye texnologii [Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies], 375–381. [URL]
Lyngfelt, B. (2018). Introduction: Constructicons and constructicography. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 1–18). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. A. (1998). Kurs obščej morfologii. T. II. Part 2: Morfologičeskie značenija [A course in general morphology, Vol. 2, Part 2: Morphological meanings]. Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury; Wiener Slavistischer Almanach.Google Scholar
Mitrofanova, N. (2016). Paths and places: Aspects of grammar and acquisition. PhD dissertation, The Arctic University of Norway. [URL]
Newman, P. (1980). Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1949). Morphology: The descriptive analysis of words. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 1–26). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Analyses of modal meanings. In J. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 31–49). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ohara & K. H. (2018). Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet constructicon. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 141–164). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oskol’skaja, S. A., Zaika, N. M., Klimenko, S. B. & Fedotov, M. L. (2020). Opredelenie karitiva kak sravnitel’nogo ponjatija [Defining caritive as a comparative concept]. Voprosy jazykoznanija (3), 7–25.Google Scholar
Paperno, D. (2012). Quantification in Standard Russian. In E. L. Keenan & D. Paperno (Eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language (pp. 729–780). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plungian, V. A. (1999). A typology of phasal meanings. In W. Abraham & L. Kulikov, L. (Eds.), Tense-aspect, transitivity, and causativity: Essays in honor of Vladimir Nedjalkov (pp. 311–321). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Antirezul’tativ: do i posle rezul’tata [Antiresultative: before and after the result]. In V. A. Plungian (Ed.), Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki [Studies in theoretical grammar], Vol. 11: Grammatičeskie kategorii [Grammatical categories] (pp. 50–88). Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
(2011). Vvedenie v grammatičeskuju semantiku: Grammatičeskie značenija i grammatičeskie sistemy jazykov mira [An introduction to grammatical semantics: Grammatical meanings and grammatical systems in the languages of the world]. Russian State University for the Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V. (2013). Konduktor, nažmi na tormoza… [Conductor, press the brakes…]. Komp’juternaja lingvistika i intellektual’nye texnologii [Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies], 12 (19), 665–673.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2010). Lingvistika konstrukcij [Linguistics of constructions]. Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V. & Li, S. H. (2009). Semantika leksičeskoj množestvennosti v russkom jazyjke [Semantics of lexical plurality in Russian]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 4 1. 13–40.Google Scholar
Shluinsky, A. B. (2005). Tipologija predikatnoj množestvennosti: količestvennye aspektual’nye značenija [A typology of pluractionality: quantitative aspectual meanings]. PhD dissertation, Moscow State University. [URL]
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 36–149). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Lexicalization patterns, Surveying lexicalization patterns. In L. Talmy (Ed.), Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring (pp. 21–212). MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., Tavares, T. S. & Matos, E. E. (2014). Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 6 1, 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treis, Y. (2018). Comparative constructions: An introduction. Linguistic Discovery, 16 (1), i–xxvi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. (1998). Modality’s Semantic Map. Linguistic Typology, 2 1, 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. & Šmelev, A. D. (2000). Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju [Introduction to the Russian aspectology]. Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Zhukova, V. (2020). Intensifying constructions in Russian based on data from Russian Constructicon. MA Thesis, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zhukova, Valentina & Laura A. Janda
2024. Russian grammar as a constructicon: beyond a list. Russian Linguistics 48:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 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.