Prepositions: a Corpus-Based Study Dissertation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Semantics of Russian 'About' Prepositions: A Corpus-Based Study Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Andrew James Kier, B.M., M.A., M.A. Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Daniel Collins, Advisor Charles Gribble Brian Joseph Copyright by Andrew James Kier 2013 Abstract This study examines, for the purpose of comparison, the semantic content of several important prepositions in modern Russian which translate ‘about, concerning’. It focuses primarily on the two primary prepositions o+LOC and pro, and includes the two secondary prepositions nasčet and po povodu, which also translate ‘about, concerning’. Historically, several scholars have acknowledged that o+LOC and pro express slightly different nuances, although the exact nature of these nuances has become less clear over time (Peškovskij 1928/2001, Vinogradov 1947/2001). How has pro survived and remained productive, if the distinction between it and o+LOC has been fading for so long? Vinogradov predicted its demise in the 1940’s, yet it still enjoys a robust presence in both the spoken and written language of the present day. Furthermore, pro in the ‘about’ sense is historically neither rare nor limited to the recent past. Likewise, nasčet and po povodu (both fairly recent additions to the stable of Russian prepositions), which have both undergone subtle lexical shifts of their own in the past few ii centuries (Čerkasova 1967), are also in need of a more articulated semantic description. In this study, which consists of both a qualitative and a quantitative study, I have identified several selectional restrictions—the types of verbs and nouns (and features within them) with which these prepositions occur—associated with the four ‘aboutness’ prepositions, in sample texts written between 1890 and 2009, from the Russian National Corpus. The quantitative study consists of Fisher’s Exact tests performed on approximately 7,000 tokens (which consist of argument phrases with the ‘aboutness’ prepositions). Results indicate that in many instances, pro is associated with nouns which are animate, proper, unmodified, and non-deverbal. A qualitative analysis of the types of verbs associated with ‘aboutness’ PP’s as complements reveals that pro is mostly limited to verbs whose ‘aboutness’ object referent codes the semantic role of Topic. In contrast, with verbs that depict an emotional state (bespokoit’sja ‘be worried’, etc.), the object referent codes the semantic role of Cause; with verbs that depict requesting or supplication (prosit’ ‘ask (for), request’, umoljat’ ‘beseech’, etc.) the object referent codes the role of Proposition. Object referents of pro, however, rarely iii occur in these semantic roles, being generally limited to the semantic role of Topic; the verbs with which such a referent is associated depict one or more parts of the signal path of a message—speaking, writing, reading, inquiring, hearing (about), or cognitive activity. The performing of activities associated with a Topic object referent do not entail a change of state in any of the participants in the discourse, as is the case with emotional states and requests. I have also examined ‘co-occurrence’ examples, in which o+LOC and pro PP’s occur in the same syntagma or sentence, both subordinate to the same verb. Close readings of these co-occurrences show that in many of them, the semantic/pragmatic opposition between the o+LOC and pro object referents is such that the former are presented as being larger in scope, and more analyzed than the pro entities. iv Dedication To Bella: Always in our hearts, always in our memory. v Acknowledgments I wish to thank my advisor, Professor Daniel E. Collins for his generous support, advice, encouragement, and enthusiasm for this project. I would also like to thank my wife Alla for her constant encouragement, support, and patience. vi Vita July 27, 1965............................................Born—Columbus, Ohio 1990.........................................................Bachelor of Music, Virginia Commonwealth University 1995.........................................................Master of Arts, Library Science, University of Arizona 1998—present..........................................Cataloger/Metadata Specialist OCLC, Inc., Dublin, Ohio 2006.........................................................Master of Arts, Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University Publications Kier, Andrew J. (2006) “On The Origins of the Glagolitic Alphabet.” Ohio Slavic Papers: 6, Proceedings of the Second Graduate Colloquium in Slavic Linguistics. Columbus, OH: OSU Dept. of Slavic and E. European Languages and Literatures, pp. 177-189. --- (2012) “Instruments of the Old Faith: Three Medieval South Slavic Healing Rites for Snakebite.” Poznanskie Studia Slawistyczne: 3. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University. Fields of Study Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures vii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... vi Vita ................................................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xiii List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xv Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 What this Study is about and What Prompted it (with a Preliminary Definition of ‘Aboutness’) ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Goals of this Study .............................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Why this Study is Important, and its Transferability to Other Contexts ................................ 9 1.5 Overview of Chapters in this Study ................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: Scholarly Literature on the ‘Aboutness’ Prepositions ................................................. 12 2.1 Scholarly Literature on the Prepositions o+LOC, pro, nasčet, and po povodu ................... 12 2.1.2 O+LOC ........................................................................................................................ 12 2.1.3 Pro (+ACC) .................................................................................................................. 19 2.1.4 Nasčet and Po povodu ................................................................................................ 26 2.1.5 The Question of Style/Register.................................................................................... 33 viii Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 37 3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 37 3.2 Quantitative Corpus Analysis and the Russian National Corpus ....................................... 38 3.3 Criteria for Data Collection ................................................................................................ 48 3.4 The Search Strings............................................................................................................. 50 3.5 The Search Results ........................................................................................................... 55 3.6 Criteria for the Datasets .................................................................................................... 57 3.7 Parameters for the Statistical Analysis of the Datasets ..................................................... 59 3.7.1 The Structure of Datasets in the Quantitative Study .................................................... 59 3.7.2 The Nature and Structure of the Quantitative Analysis ................................................ 61 3.7.3 Issues Pertaining to the Quantitative Study ................................................................. 63 3.7.4 Specific Factors ........................................................................................................... 64 3.7.5 Explanation of Factor Groups and Factors .................................................................. 65 3.7.6 Statistical Modelling in the Study ................................................................................. 70 3.7.7 General Limitations of Corpus Data ............................................................................ 71 Chapter 4: The Semantics of Prepositions ..................................................................................