Uva-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Polysemy or monosemy: Interpretation of the imperative and the dative-infinitive construction in Russian Fortuin, E.L.J. Publication date 2001 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Fortuin, E. L. J. (2001). Polysemy or monosemy: Interpretation of the imperative and the dative-infinitive construction in Russian. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:10 Oct 2021 CHAPTERR IV Meaningg and interpretation off the dative-infintive construction 4.11 Introduction Inn this chapter I will present an analysis of the Russian construction with an infinitival predicate,, a so-called 'dative subject', and in some specific cases impersonal use of the verbb byt'(fbe*). Note that in Russian the verb byt'is usually not expressed in the present. Inn cases where there is an opposition with the past tense or the future tense of byt\ somee scholars therefore speak of a zero form of byt'. In the construction under discussionn the past or future tense of byt'is expressed under specific circumstances. Thee construction expresses that the participant in the dative is the recipient of the situationn expressed by the infinitive, or put differently, the participant expressed in the dativee is the potential agent of the situation expressed by the infinitive, which is assigned too him by a force. The verb byt* (cbt) can, under particular conditions, be used to relate thiss scene to a time before, or after the moment of speaking. Some examples of this constructionn are given below: (1)) Mne eshche reshat' zadachu. (Maurice, 1995: 115) I-DATT still solve-INF-IMPERF problem 'II still have to solve the problem.' (2)) Tebe zavtra ne vstavat* rano. (Maurice, 1995:152) you-DATT tomorrow not getup-INF-IMPERF early *Youu don't have to get up early tomorrow.' 236 6 MeaningMeaning and interpretation of the Dl-construction (3)) Byt* graze! (Bricyn, 1990: 219/A. Vetrov) be-INF-IMPERFF thunder-DAT Theree will be thunder.' (4)) Ne byt* mini i porjadku, poka Imperija ne raskinetsja, kak ran'she (...).1 (A. Koul, VozyracksktnieVozyracksktnie imperatora) nott be-INF peace-DAT and order-DAT, as.long empire not spreads.out, as before Theree won't be peace and order, as long as the empire doesn't extend, as before.' (5)) Emu ne razobrat'sja samomu. (Russkqja Grammatika, 1980, II: 373) he-DATT not understand-INF-PERF self-DAT Hee can't understand it by himself.' (6)) Pete zalezt' na derevo, a Mishe net. (Mets, 1985: 205) TT climb-INF-PERF on tree, but Misha-DAT not Petjaa can climb the tree, but Misha can't' (7)) Polez Zhilin v dyru, chtob i Kostylinu prolczt'. (Garde, 1963: 291 /L. Tolstoj) climbedd Zhilin in hole, in-order and Kostylin-DAT gettfirough-INF-PERF 'Zhilinn climbed into the hole, so mat Kostylin could also get through.' Inn the literature this construction is treated as part of the class of so-called 'infinitive sentences*,, that is, the class of constructions where the infinitive can be seen as the predicatepredicate of the sentence (e.g. Russkq/a Grammatika, 1980). Since the cktive-infinitive constructionn is the main construction in Russian that constitutes the class of infinitive sentences,, some authors use this term to refer specifically to the construction under discussionn (e.g. Bricyn, 1990). Another name that occurs in the literature is 'modal infinitive'' (Maurice, 1996). This term is used because the dative-infinitive construction has aa modal character, and expresses notions such as (absence of) necessity, (impossibility, cfaectivity,, and wish. In my analysis I will use the term dative-infinitive construction, or DI- construction,construction, for this construction. The choice of this term is motivated by the formal structuree of the sentences given above, namely the occurrence of the dative and the infinitive.. It must be remarked, however, that some constructions with an infinitive predicatee where no dative is expressed, share important semantic and syntactic features withh the Dl-construction. The absence of a dative in such sentences can in some cases bee motivated by the generic status of the agent of the infinitive situation. In such cases http://www.atlanLru:8070/library/koul/ComeBack/116.htm m 237 7 ChapterChapter IV itt is possible to insert the sentence into the paradigm of the DI-construction. In other sentencess the dative is not expressed because the nature of the potential agent is given contextually,, and therefore not formally expressed; in such sentences a dative noun mayy be inserted in the sentence. Although these constructions cannot strictly be seen ass instances of the DI-construction, I will discuss them as well, since they share importantt semantic-syntactic features with the DI-construction. Severall scholars have given overviews of the different uses of the DI-construction (e.g.. Timofeev, 1950; Veyrenc, 1979; Bricyn 1990, and Maurice, 1996). Besides these overviews,, the DI-construction has also received attention from scholars addressing moree theoretical issues. The main discussion about the DI-construction centers on the questionn how the different uses or interpretations of the construction can be accountedd for (e.g. Maurice, 1995, 1996), and what the semantic-syntactic status is of thee different constituents in the construction. More specifical questions that have been addressedd concern which constituent the modal nature of the construction can be attributedd to (e.g. Wierzbicka, 1966; Veyrenc, 1979; Zolotova, 1982; Ebeling, 1984; Bricyn,, 1990; Schoorlemmer, 1995), and whether all instances of the construction have aa modal meaning (e.g. Schoorlemmer, 1995; Rubinstein, 1986). Before going into the researchh question of this chapter, I will briefly discuss the different uses of the DI- construction. Thee DI-construction is used, in both interrogative and assertive sentences, to expresss different shades of necessity\ or in the case of negation, absence of necessity exampless of such uses are given in (1)—(4). In such sentences the infinitive proo to typically has the imperfective aspect. As I will argue below, the necessity of the DI-constructionn has a typical 'ontic' character, expressing the Svay things are/go', and differss as such from other forms that express necessity. In the context of negation, and prototypicallyy the perfective aspect, the DI-construction is used to express different shadess of impossibility an example of such use is given in (5). The possibility interpretation,, and notions close to possibility, occurs in specific contexts only. These are interrogativee contexts, and non-interrogative contexts with the operators tol'ko ('only'), edvaedva eharcuy) and vrjad li ('it is doubtful whether'), sentences with the subordinators chtoby ('inn order5) as in (7) above, sentences with the particle xot' ('even5), and contrastive sentences,, as in (6) above. The contexts for the possibility interpretation can partly be identifiedd with contexts that can be reduced in some way or another to negation, and that aree contexts for so-called negative polarity items. This the case for example with the operatorss toi'ko ('only'), edva ^hardly5), vrjad /i ('it is doubtful whether'), which are all contextss for negative polarity items across languages, and can be reduced to negation in a 238 8 MeaningMeaning and interpretation of the Dl-construction straightforwardd way (see Van der Wouden, 1994; Giannakidou, 1997). A reduction to negationn is, however, more problematic in other contexts, for example in the case of the subordinatorr chtoby ('in order3) as in (7) above. Operators like chtoby ('in order^ are not listedd in the literature as constituting negative contexts. Thee Dl-construction also occurs with the particle by, the function of this particle is to indicatee that the realization of the infinitive action takes place in a hypothetical world or mentall space only. Uses of the Dl-construction with by can express different modal notions,, such as wish or direction, e.g.: (8)) Otdoxnut* by mne. (Mets, 1985: 358) Rest-INF-PERFF IRRI-DAT Iff only I could rest' Mostt uses of the Dl-construction have a clear modal character, hence the name 'modal infinitive'' for this construction (Maurice, 1995,1996). Uses that do not have a clear modal interpretation,, and which are sometimes erroneously treated as altogether non-modal (e.g. Schoorlemmer,, 1995: 64), occur in specific contexts only, namely with the subordinators esliesli ^\P),peredtem kak ('before'), and chtoby ('in order to7): (9)) Gru2ovik i kombajn tozhe bezvredny, esli itn ne perebegat' dorogu. (Bricyn, 1990: 285/V.. Panova) truckk and harvester also harmless, if they-DAT not cross-INF-PERF road Thee truck and the combine-harvester are also harmless, if they do not cross the road.' (10)) A nedavno, pered tem kak vzojti lune, po nebu letala bol'shushchaja ptica. (Comrie, 1974:133/GorTdj) ) butt recendy before rise-INF-PERF moon-DAT, about sky flew huge bird *Recendy,, before the moon rose, a huge bird was flying about the sky.' (11)) Oni zhdut poezda, kotoryj ix povezet, chtoby im ne opozdat' kuda-to.