Везде
Семантика в синтаксисе: упорядочение соподчиненных генитивных зависимых существительного в русском языке
Оглавление
Аннотация Оценить Содержание публикации
Библиография Комментарии
Поделиться
QR
Метрика
Семантика в синтаксисе: упорядочение соподчиненных генитивных зависимых существительного в русском языке
Аннотация
Код статьи
S0373658X0005705-4-1
DOI
10.31857/S0373658X0005705-4
Тип публикации
Статья
Статус публикации
Опубликовано
Авторы
Иорданская Лидия Николаевна 
Аффилиация: Монреальский университет
Адрес: Канада, Монреаль
Мельчук Игорь Александрович
Аффилиация: Монреальский университет
Адрес: Канада, Монреаль
Выпуск
Номер 4
Страницы
33-46
Аннотация

В настоящей статье предлагаются формальные правила линейного упорядочения соподчиненных приименных генитивных зависимых в русском языке. Зависимые NGEN-i взаимно упорядочиваются в первую очередь в соответствии с поверхностно-синтаксическим отношением, подчиняющим каждый данный NGEN-i (таких отношений шесть). Кроме того, в ряде случаев на размещение NGEN-i влияет его собственный смысл; так, если в конструкции N→NGEN-i существительное NGEN выражает тип референта существительного N, то этот NGEN предшествует всем остальным NGEN-i. Упорядочение соподчиненных генитивов (в основном синтаксическое) сравнивается с упорядочением соподчиненных прилагательных, порядок которых определяется иерархией их семантических классов (то есть семантически).

Ключевые слова
генитив, зависимости, именная группа, порядок слов, приименной генитив, русский язык, синтаксис, теория «Смысл-Текст»
Классификатор
Получено
02.09.2019
Дата публикации
02.09.2019
Всего подписок
89
Всего просмотров
793
Оценка читателей
0.0 (0 голосов)
Цитировать   Скачать pdf
1 To Anna Wierzbicka, a closest friend for 55 years
2

Przyjaźń jest rzeczą diabelnie trudną ‘Friendship is a devilishly difficult thing’ [Wierzbicka 1971: 83].

Yes, Anna, generally speaking, this is so; but with you friendship is the easiest thing!
3

1. The problem stated
4 This paper constitutes a natural continuation of [Mel’čuk 2018], where six surface-syntactic relations necessary for the description of N→NGEN phrases in Russian were proposed. Here we will consider the linear ordering of genitive nouns NGEN-1, NGEN-2, NGEN-3, … cosubordinated to the same noun N in Russian. (In fact what is being ordered are the whole phrases headed by these NGENs.)
5

Example (1) shows that this order is not free:

6 The subsequent discussion is framed in terms of the Meaning-Text approach: it is strictly synthetic (from meaning to text) and uses a dependency representation of the syntactic structures of sentences and phrases. The following three points must be taken into account in order to avoid misunderstandings.
  • Our examples illustrate the surface implementation of the given surface-syntactic relations [SSyntRels] (i.e., “with these SSyntRels the linear arrangement of the given cosubordinated NGENs is so and so”); if the resulting expression is ambiguous — in that it can express something else as well, this should not be paid attention to. The only thing that is important is the correct expression of the starting meaning.
  • Our examples are based on our own linguistic intuition, which on several occasions can diverge from other speakers’ judgments. However, our main thrust is not establishing facts of Contemporary Russian, but formulating implications of the form “If the given linguistic expression X is correct / incorrect, then the order of NGENs is so and so.”
  • Once again, there can be disagreement between speakers concerning our evaluation of a given phrase: good, bad (*), hardly acceptable (??), or questionable (?). But what really matters is the difference between two arrangements of NGENs: one is worse than the other, and this is sufficient for our statements.
7 NB: The relevant notions and formalisms cannot be explained here, and the reader is invited to consult [Mel’čuk 2012–2015]. All glosses in the examples are literal; two English words that correspond to one Russian form are united by a dot: Rus. boli ‘of.pain’.
8 Schematically, we are interested in correspondence (2):
9

10 In prose, we propose some surface-syntactic [SSynt-]rules that establish the correspondence between an SSynt-subtree and the deep-morphological [DMorph-]string implementing it. The SSynt-subtree under consideration has three properties:
11 1) It is headed by a noun N on which several genitive nouns NGEN-1, NGEN-2, NGEN-3, … syntactically depend (each with its own dependents, if any).
12 2) The SSynt-relations ri that subordinate these NGENs to N impose the genitive case on them (in the DMorph-string). These SSynt-relations are six in number [Mel’čuk 2018]:
13 N–subjective-adnominal→NGEN-subj
14 priezd–subj-adnom→otca ‘coming of.father’, stakan–subj-adnom→vody ‘glass of.water’
15 NGEN-subj expresses N’s deep-syntactic [DSynt-]actant I.
16 N–objective-adnominal→NGEN-obj
17 osvoboždenie–obj-adnom→otca ‘liberation of.father’
18 portret–obj-adnom→rebënka ‘portrait of.child’
19 NGEN-obj expresses N’s DSynt-actant II.
20 N–qualificative-adnominal→NGEN-qual
21 balka–[nedostatočnoj]–qual-adnom→dliny ‘beam [of.insufficient] length’
22 NGEN-qual denotes a predicate whose Sem-actant 1 or 2 is expressed by N (‘dlina / length–1→balka / beam’: balka dvuxmetrovoj dliny ‘beam of.two.meter length’; ‘mečta / dream–2→devuška / girl’: devuška moej mečty ‘girl of.my dream’). In Russian, an NGEN-qual must necessarily have a syntactic dependent, normally an adjective, which expresses the other Semactant.
23 N–attributive-adnominal→NGEN-attr
24 krik–attr-adnom→boli ‘scream of.pain’
25 živopisʹ–attr-adnom→Vozroždenija ‘painting of.Renaissance’
26 NGEN-attr and N are semantically related not as a predicate and its argument, but by means of an “additional” predicate ‘σ’, which is not explicitly expressed in the sentence: ‘krik, vyražajuščij bolʹ / scream expressing pain’ or ‘živopisʹ vo.vremja Vozroždenija / painting during Renaissance’.
27 N–genitive-possessive→NGEN-poss
28 stadion–gen-poss→universiteta ‘stadium of.University’
29 NGEN-poss and N are semantically related by means of the predicate ‘σ’ = ‘belong’: ‘stadion,
30 prinadležaščij universitetu / stadium belonging to.University’.
31 N–metaphorical→NGEN-metaph
32 lenta–metaph→dorogi ‘ribbon of.road’
33 NGEN-metaph is the lexeme whose metaphor is N: lentaN ‘ribbon’ is the metaphor of doro gaNGEN-metaph ‘road’.
34

3) These SSynt-relations require the postposition of their dependent NGENs with respect to the modified N, with one exception: the qual-adnom SSyntRel allows the anteposition of its NGEN-qual, if this NGEN-qual 1) corresponds to Sem-actant 1 of N, 2) has itself no depending noun phrase and 3) is lexically marked as allowing for anteposition;1 for instance, pojas golubogo cveta ‘belt of.light.blue color’ ~ golubogo cveta pojas. The anteposition of NGEN-qual is left out of consideration in this paper.

1. See the Appendix.
35 The basic order of postposed cosubordinated NGENs is determined syntactically — by the above SSyntRels: for each pair of these SSyntRels we indicate the mutual order of the corresponding NGENs. As a result, we obtain a general six-position template (Figure 1 in Section 2) that specifies the correct position for each type of NGEN.
36

Suchatemplateispossiblebecauseofthefollowingessentialfact:generallyspeaking,adependentNGEN canoccupydifferent linearpositionswithrespecttoitsgoverningNasafunction of the SSyntRel ri in the N–ri→NGEN phrase.Thus:
37

38 There are 15 logically possible pairs of NGENs (the number of combinations from 6 by 2 without repetitions): NGEN-subj – NGEN-obj, NGEN-subj – NGEN-qual, etc. Three of these pairs are semantically impossible: NGEN-metaph does not combine with NGEN-obj, NGEN-subj and NGEN-poss (it is difficult to imagine a metaphorically used noun that has a subject / object actant or a possessor). As a result, we have 12 SSyntRel pairs. On the other hand, the qual-adnom and attr-adnom SSyntRels are repeatable, so that we end up with 14 SSyntRel pairs to consider.
39 However, the use of SSyntRels alone for the linear ordering of cosubordinated NGENs is not sufficient: for some SSyntRel pairs, the order of NGENs depends also on the meaning of N and/ or on that of NGENs. Thus, in the phrase krik boliNGEN-attr PetiNGEN-subj ‘scream of.pain of.Pete’ the NGEN-attr can only precede the NGEN-subj (*krik Peti boli), but in proizvedenija vosʹmidesjatyx godovNGEN-attr Lʹva TolstogoNGEN-subj ‘works of.1880s of.Leo Tolstoy’ ~ proizvedenija Lʹva Tolstogo vosʹmidesjatyx godov the NGEN-attr can both precede or follow the NGEN-subj — if the NGEN-attr denotes the temporal coordinate of the fact denoted by the governor N. As a consequence, our rules have to account for semantic factors as well.
40 Before we proceed to the formulation of NGEN-ordering rules, the following principle has to be stated:
41 Each of our rules is valid only everything else being equal.
42 This means that the two cosubordinated NGENs being compared and ordered are of the same “weight” (the corresponding phrases contain the same number of syllables and are of the same syntactic complexity) and there are no discourse factors intervening.
43 The expression “discourse factors” should be understood very broadly. It covers communicative and referential phenomena that can lead to violations of the word order observed in discourse-neutral contexts. In the following discussion, we ignore:
44 • The impact of the Communicative Structure. For instance, contrastive emphasis on one of cosubordinated NGENs can change their habitual linear order. Thus, the neutral order is N + NGEN«MATERIAL» + NGEN«COLOR»:2 stol krasnogo dereva bolʹšogo razmera ‘table of.mahogany of.big size’ ~ ?stol bolʹšogo razmera krasnogo dereva; however, under emphasis, the dispreferred order is quite normal:
2. Here and below, an expression in small caps in « » quotes stands for a semantic label, whose formal status is left vague.
45

46 • The impact of the Referential Structure.
47 — A modifier either specifies a subclass of possible referents of the modified lexeme L (a restrictive modifier), or characterizes L’s referents without specifying a subclass of these (a qualifying modifier). In what follows we consider only restrictive modifiers. Thus, we exclude from our consideration the situation where one of the cosubordinated NGENs is used as a qualifying modifier (in dashes):
48

49

— A restrictive modifier specifies a subclass of possible referents of the modified lexeme L; cosubordinated modifiers specify subsequent subclasses of L’s referent. In a discourse-neutral context, the order of isolating these subclasses is irrelevant for the Speaker; different characteris- tics of the L’s referents are, so to speak, informationally equal for him. In this case, the linear or- der of cosubordinated modifiers is determined by their own properties — syntactic and/or semantic. This is the situation studied in the present paper. Therefore, we exclude the situation where the Speaker first selects a particular subclass of L’s referents and then introduces a subclass of this subclass. For instance, the dispreferred order ?stol bolʹšogo razmera krasnogo dereva is quite OK if one speaks about tables of big size and specifies a subclass of these in terms of their material; sentence (6) is absolutely correct because of the referential and communicative effects:
50

51

2. Rules for ordering cosubordinated NGENs
52 The linear order of cosubordinated NGENs postposed with respect to their common governor N is described by the rules of three types:
53 1) Rule for the standard linear order of different-type NGENs, represented by their maximal template (Figure 1 below).
54 By “standard linear order” we mean the order conditioned exclusively by surface-syntactic relations that subordinate NGENs to their governor N, without recourse to semantic properties of the nouns involved. These properties are taken into account by Rules 2.
55 2) Rules specifying semantic factors that affect standard linear order of different-type NGENs.
56 Rules 2 are, in a sense, stronger than Rule 1: they impose deviations from the standard order of NGENs determined by Rule 1.
57 3) Rule for the linear order of same-type NGENs, represented by their semantically-conditioned hierarchy (Figure 2).
58 Rules 1–3 are part of word order, or linearization, rules for Russian [Mel’čuk 2011]; more precisely, they are a subset of the quasi-local word order rules.
59 1) Standard linear order of different-type NGENs
60

Figure 1. Linear order of different-type postposed cosubordinated NGENs in Russian

61 2) Semantic factors of the linear ordering of different-type cosubordinated NGENs
62 Semantic properties of NGEN
63 1. If NGEN denotes a kind of N (rather than characterizing an individual N),
64 then this NGEN precedes all other cosubordinated NGENs.3
3. Fairly often, N’s kind is expressed by an actant of N: zavod boepripasov ‘ammunition plant’, škola tancev ‘dancing school’, detskaja bolʹnica ‘children’s hospital’; see Section 3, (9b).
65 2. If NGEN denotes the material of which N is made,
66 then this NGEN precedes all other cosubordinated NGENs except for NGEN denoting kind.
67 3. If NGEN-attr denotes the time of N,
68 then NGEN-attr precedes or follows another NGEN-attr, NGEN-subj, NGEN-obj and NGEN-poss.
69 4. If NGEN-attr denotes the causer of N,
70 then this NGEN-attr precedes or follows NGEN-poss.
71 Semantic properties of N
72 5. If N denotes the quantity of NGEN or a set of NGENs,
73 then this NGEN precedes all other cosubordinated NGENs.
74 3) Linear order of the same-type cosubordinated NGENs
75 Several same-type cosubordinated NGENs are possible only for two repeatable SSyntRels: qual-adnom and attr-adnom. The mutual order of same-type NGENs is determined by the following semantic hierarchy:
76

Figure 2. Semantic hierarchy of same-type NGENs

77 This hierarchy, based on [Vendler 1968: 128],4 is underlain by the Inherence Principle:
4. Vendler’s study [1968], based, as he indicates, on [Ziff 1960], considers English anteposed cosubordinated adjectives with respect to their mutual linear ordering.
78 The modifiers of an N cosubordinated to N by the same SSyntRel are linearly arranged according to the degree of their semantic “inherence” with respect to N: a more inherent characterization stands closer to N.
79 We cannot formally define “degree of semantic inherence” of modifiers, but we think that the proposed hierarchy reflects this property well enough. Thus, the “objective” characteristics are more inherent than the “subjective” ones, the internal properties are more inherent than the external ones, and «KIND» is the most inherent characteristic.
80 Let it be emphasized that, although this hierarchy is introduced for the same-type NGENs, it is also partially valid for the different-type NGENs. More precisely, Rules 2 are based on the same Inherence Principle: thus, the NGEN expressing «KIND» precedes all other NGENs, etc.
81

3. Illustrations of NGEN ordering rules
82 We will illustrate the above rules, proceeding as follows.
  • The SSyntRels are considered pairwise, one after another, from left to right (in conformity with the template in Figure 1).
  • Each pair of SSyntRels is illustrated by phrases featuring the standard order of the two NGEN nouns.
  • Each deviation from this standard order is explicitly indicated.
  • Each of the two repeatable SSyntRels — that is, qual-adnom and attr-adnom — is also considered in combination with itself.
  • More than three cosubordinated NGENs are practically unacceptable.
83 The rules in question specify the best ordering possible. Deviations from it can be characterized by different degrees of ill-formedness, of which we distinguish three: ungrammatical (*), hardly acceptable (??), and jarring (?). We are aware that our judgments of grammaticality can be challenged; however, for our purposes here it is sufficient if a difference in the degree of correctness is perceived — as we have indicated at the beginning of Section 1.
84

85 This SSyntRel is repeatable.
86 With –qual-adnom→N:
87

88 The order of NGEN-quals in (7) corresponds to the semantic hierarchy in Figure 2.
89 With –metaph→N; NGEN-qual precedes NGEN-metaph:
90

91 With –obj-adnom→N; NGEN-qual precedes NGEN-obj:
92

93 The NGEN raspredelenija [toka] is an NGEN-obj (being DSynt-actant II of the noun SISTEMA); according to the standard template (Figure 1), it should follow an NGEN-qual — as in (9a). However, a semantic factor perturbs the standard order: this NGEN-obj identifies a kind of system (≈ a particular device), not an individual system, so that in conformity with Rule 2.1 it must precede the NGEN-qual.
94 With –attr-adnom→N; NGEN-qual precedes NGEN-attr:
95

96 In (10b), we see again the impact of a semantic factor: according to Rule 2.2, the NGEN denoting material precedes all other NGENs (except the one denoting kind).
97 With –subj-adnom→N; NGEN-qual precedes NGEN-subj:
98

99 *rjumka pričudlivoj formy krasnogo vina5.
5. This is an interesting case, since it represents a “superposition” of two lexemes: RJUMKA1a ‘tall glass with a thin stem…’ (rjumka strannoj formy ‘wine glass of bizarre shape’) and RJUMKA1b ‘quantity of liquid…’ (rjumka vina ‘glass of wine’): Xozjajka postavila peredo mnoj rjumku krasnogo vina pričudlivoj formy ‘The hostess put in front of me a glass of red wine of a bizarre shape’. However, this superposition is not possible in all contexts: *On vypil rjumku krasnogo vina pričudlivoj formy ‘He drank a glass of wine of bizarre shape’.
100 The deviation from the standard order in (11b–с) is imposed by Rule 2.5.
101 With –gen-poss→N; NGEN-qual precedes NGEN-poss:
102

103 This SSyntRel is non-repeatable and combines only with an NGEN-qual (see above) and with an NGEN-attr.
104

105 This SSyntRel is non-repeatable.
106 With –attr-adnom→N; NGEN-obj precedes NGEN-attr:
107

108 The variation of the placement of the NGEN-attr denoting time is allowed by Rule 2.3.
109 With –subj-adnom→N; NGEN-obj precedes NGEN-subj:
110

111 NB: The violation of the standard order in (15b) is worse than that in (15a) because of Rule 2.1: NGEN-obj in (15b) denotes a kind of talent. In other words, if (15a) violates only a syntactic rule, (15b) violates both a syntactic rule and a semantic constraint.
112 With –gen-poss→N; NGEN-obj precedes NGEN-poss:
113

114 This SSyntRel is repeatable.
115 With –attr-adnom→N:
116

117 The freedom of the placement of the NGEN-attr denoting time is ensured by Rule 2.3.
118

119 The impossibility of the last phrase is also determined by semantic hierarchy: the NGEN-attr denoting «MATERIAL» should precede other NGENs (except «KIND»). With –subj-adnom→N; NGEN-attr precedes NGEN-subj:
120

121 The freedom of placement of the NGEN-attr denoting time corresponds to Rule 2.3.
122 With –gen-poss→N; NGEN-attr precedes NGEN-poss:
123

124 The freedom of placement of the NGEN-attr denoting time (20b) or the causer (20c) corresponds, respectively, to Rules 2.3 and 2.4.
125

126 This SSyntRel is non-repeatable.
127 With –gen-poss→N; NGEN-subj precedes NGEN-poss:
128

129 To demonstrate how the rules proposed can be applied, let us return to example (1), repeated here as (22):
130

131

• First, the mutual arrangement of cosubordinated NGENs is specified by the standard template (Figure 1) for different-type NGENs: NGEN-qual precedes NGEN-subj. The phrase russkogo jazyka ‘of. Russian language’ is an NGEN-subj that expresses DSyntA I of glagoly ‘verbs’, which are elements of the set ‘Russian language’; according to the NGEN order template, it must follow the phrase soveršennogo vida ‘of.perfective aspect’ (an NGEN-qual).

• Second, the mutual arrangement of NGEN-attr and NGEN-qual is specified by Rule 2.1: in the standard case (= according to the template), NGEN-qual precedes; but if NGEN-attr denotes the kind of N, then NGEN-qual follows. And in (22), the phrase napravlennogo dviženija denotes a particular kind of verbs.
132

4. Ordering of cosubordinated NGENs vs. ordering of cosubordinated ADJs
133 It is interesting to compare the ordering of Russian postposed cosubordinated NGENs with the ordering of Russian anteposed cosubordinated adjectives. As is to be expected, NGENs and adjectives, both being noun modifiers and on multiple occasions synonymous, show significant parallelism in their ordering. We will first present the rules for the ordering of cosubordinated adjectives (see Section 4.1) and then compare them with the corresponding rules for NGENs (see Section 4.2).
134

4.1. Ordering of cosubordinated ADJs
135 The papers [Iordanskaja 2000; 2003] propose a hierarchical semantic classification of Russian adjectives that determines their mutual linear ordering — more precisely, their relative closeness to the modified noun. Figure 3 below presents this classification. The higher in the table an adjective semantic class is (i.e., the higher its rank), the closer its instance must be to the modified noun. This is so since an adjective’s rank corresponds to the degree of inherence of the characteristic the adjective expresses: the more inherent the characteristic, the closer to the noun is the adjective.
136

Figure 3. Hierarchical semantic classification of adjectives [Iordanskaja 2003: 161–162]

137 Now let us give some examples.
138 ▪ Adjectives that express an objective characteristic are closer to the modified noun than adjectives expressing a subjective characteristic:
139

140 ▪ Adjectives that express a qualitative characteristic are closer to the modified noun than adjectives expressing a quantitative characteristic:
141

142 ▪ Adjectives that express a permanent characteristic are closer to the modified noun than adjectives expressing a temporary characteristic:
143

144 ▪ Adjectives that express an internal property are closer to the modified noun than adjectives expressing an external property:
145

146 ▪ Hierarchy of internal property adjectives: for instance, «material» adjectives are closer to the modified noun than «color» adjectives; «kind» adjectives are closer to the modified noun than any other adjectives; etc.:
147

148 To sum up: The linear ordering of cosubordinated adjectives is determined semantically — by their meaning — of course, everything else being equal, the same as with NGENs (see the end of Section 1): that is, the weight of genitive phrases being compared and discourse factors.
149 However, this is not true for Russian possessive adjectives, such as MAMIN ‘Mom’s’ or PETIN ‘Pete’s’: their mutual linear arrangement is determined by their syntactic role, cf.:
150

151 To account for this fact, in addition to the modificative SSyntRel, three more SSyntRels for possessive adjectives in Russian are needed: possessive-modificative, subjectival-modificative, and objectival-modificative. As can be seen from (28)–(29), the order of possessive adjectives with respect to the modified N is as follows:
152 ADJ←poss-modif– + ADJ←subj-modif– + ADJ←obj-modif– + N.
153 For instance, Petin repinskij mamin portret lit. ‘Pete’s Repin’s Mom’s portrait’ = ‘Mom’s portrait by Repin owned by Pete’.
154 NB: The cooccurrence of two or more possessive adjectives is rare, so that, generally speaking, it could be ignored. However, this case is interesting from a theoretical viewpoint.
155 The cooccurrence of possessive adjectives with “normal” ones is determined by two general rules:
156 1) The possessive-modificative ADJ precedes all “normal” ADJs
157

158 2) The subjectival-modificative and objectival-modificative ADJs follow all “normal” ADJs:
159

160

4.2. Comparison of the two orderings: Similarities and differences
161 Recall that cosubordinated NGENs follow the governing N, while cosubordinated ADJs precede it. Therefore, the order of NGENs is a mirror image of that of ADJs. This means that comparing these two orderings we actually speak of the degree of closeness of an NGEN or an ADJ to its governor N.
162 The ordering of cosubordinated NGENs and that of cosubordinated ADJs in Russian are similar in the following two respects:
  • The mutual ordering of Russian possessive ADJs (ADJ←poss-modif– + ADJ← subj-modif– + ADJ←obj-modif– + N) is the same (of course, mirror-wise) as the mutual ordering of the corresponding NGENs (that is, N + –obj-adnom→NGEN + –subj-adnom→NGEN + –poss-adnom→NGEN; Figure 1). The possessive adjectival modifier is the outermost, and the objectival adjectival modifier is closer to the modified noun than the subjectival one. This is natural, since possessive ADJs are simply adjectivalizations of NGENs.
  • The mutual ordering of repeatable NGENs (that is, qual-adnom and attr-adnom NGENs) is the same as the mutual ordering of non-possessive ADJs, since it is determined by the same hierarchical semantic classification of the corresponding lexical units. This is also natural, since the closeness of a modifier to its governor N is determined by the degree of semantic inherence of the characteristic expressed: a more inherent characterization stands closer to N.
163

The difference between the ordering of cosubordinated NGENs and that of cosubordinated ADJs in Russian is as follows. The cosubordinated NGENs are ordered syntactically — according to different SSyntRels that link them to the governor, with several semantic “corrections” imposed by their meaning. To put it differently, the linear arrangement of Russian NGENs is based on the relations between the governing N and the depending NGENs being ordered. The cosubordinated ADJs, however, are ordered semantically — according to their meaning, with several syntactic “corrections” concerning possessive ADJs, which are positioned in conformity with the governing SSyntRels.
164

The Appendix
165

Here are the examples illustrating the three cases of impossibility of NGEN-qual’santeposition:

  1. *moej mečty devuška ‘of.my dream girl’, where ‘girl’is Sem-actant 2 of ‘dream’;
  2. *cveta morskoj volny pojas ‘of.color of.sea wave belt’;
  3. *prošedšego vremeni glagol ‘of.past tense verb’.

Incases 1) and 2) the anteposition of an NGEN-qual  can be possible under additional communicative and/or syntactic conditions.

Библиография

1. Iordanskaja 2000 — Иорданская Л. Н. Соподчинение прилагательных в русском языке (по следам Вендлера). Слово в тексте и в словаре. Сб. статей к 70-летию академика Ю. Д. Апресяна. Иомдин Л. Л., Крысин Л. П. (ред.). М.: Языки русской культуры, 2000, 379–390. [Cosubordination of adjectives in Russian: Following Vendler. Slovo v tekste i v slovare. Sbornik statei k 70-letiyu akademika Yu. D. Apresyana. Iomdin L. L., Krysin L. P. (eds.). Moscow: Yazyki Russkoi Kul’tury, 2000, 379–390.]

2. Iordanskaja 2003 — Iordanskaja L. L’ordonnancement des adjectifs co-dépendants en russe. Proc. of the First International Conf. on Meaning-Text Theory. Kahane S., Nasr A. (eds.). Paris: École Normale Supérieure, 2003, 159–169.

3. Mel’čuk 2011 — Mel’čuk I. Word order in Russian. Слово и язык. Сб. статей к восьмидесятилетию академика Ю. Д. Апресяна. Богуславский И. М., Иомдин Л. Л., Крысин Л. П. (ред.). М.: Языки славянских культур, 2011, 499–525. [Mel’čuk I. Word order in Russian. Slovo i yazyk. Sbornik statei k vos’midesyatiletiyu akademika Yu. D. Apresyana. Boguslavskij I. M., Iomdin L. L., Krysin L. P. (eds.). Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2011, 499–525.]

4. Mel’čuk 2012–2015 — Mel’čuk I. Semantics: From meaning to text. Vols. 1–3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012–2015.

5. Mel’čuk 2018 — Mel’čuk I. Genitive adnominal dependents in Russian: Surface-syntactic relations in the N→NGEN phrase. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2018, 4: 25–46.

6. Vendler 1968 — Vendler Z. Adjectives and nominalizations. Paris: Mouton, 1968.

7. Wierzbicka 1971 — Wierzbicka A. Kocha, lubi, szanuje. Medytacje semantyczne. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna, 1971.

8. Ziff 1960 — Ziff P. Semantic analysis. Ithaca (NY): Cornell Univ. Press, 1960.

Комментарии

Сообщения не найдены

Написать отзыв
Перевести