{"title":"俄语结构chto x, chto y在语法和语义上存在问题","authors":"D. Tiskin","doi":"10.21638/11701/9785288063183.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Russian coordinative construction chto X, chto Y ‘whether X or Y; both X and Y’ merits attention for several reasons: first, due to the absence of systematic corpus-based studies of its use; second, due to the lack of clarity as to the composition of its meaning from those of its parts, including chto itself, which has a multitude of uses in Russian; and finally, due to the complexity of the relations between the multiple uses of chto. This paper undertakes a quantitative study of the construction in the main corpus of the Russian National Corpus, establishing the emergence of purely conjunctive uses on a par with pre-existing free choice uses and embedded alternative question uses, which appear to be going out of use. Further, I interpret free choice uses as an instance of the unconditional (concessive conditional) construction known from the literature to be segmented into two clausal parts and to involve no overt conditional complementiser, just as Russian uses in question behave. Basing on this observation, I suggest that the three kinds of uses share the same semantics of the construction, i. e. the alternative set {X, Y}, and show how the meanings of three requisite types can be derived from it. Finally, the connection between chto and alternative set formation calls for a new look on the relation between pronominal and complementiser uses of chto where the emergence of the latter is mediated by a stage at which the pronominal chto occupies a projection associated with clausal polarity. Refs 20.","PeriodicalId":438261,"journal":{"name":"St. Petersburg University Studies in Social Sciences & Humanities","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE RUSSIAN CONSTRUCTION CHTO X, CHTO Y: ISSUES IN ITS SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS\",\"authors\":\"D. Tiskin\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/11701/9785288063183.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Russian coordinative construction chto X, chto Y ‘whether X or Y; both X and Y’ merits attention for several reasons: first, due to the absence of systematic corpus-based studies of its use; second, due to the lack of clarity as to the composition of its meaning from those of its parts, including chto itself, which has a multitude of uses in Russian; and finally, due to the complexity of the relations between the multiple uses of chto. This paper undertakes a quantitative study of the construction in the main corpus of the Russian National Corpus, establishing the emergence of purely conjunctive uses on a par with pre-existing free choice uses and embedded alternative question uses, which appear to be going out of use. Further, I interpret free choice uses as an instance of the unconditional (concessive conditional) construction known from the literature to be segmented into two clausal parts and to involve no overt conditional complementiser, just as Russian uses in question behave. Basing on this observation, I suggest that the three kinds of uses share the same semantics of the construction, i. e. the alternative set {X, Y}, and show how the meanings of three requisite types can be derived from it. Finally, the connection between chto and alternative set formation calls for a new look on the relation between pronominal and complementiser uses of chto where the emergence of the latter is mediated by a stage at which the pronominal chto occupies a projection associated with clausal polarity. Refs 20.\",\"PeriodicalId\":438261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"St. Petersburg University Studies in Social Sciences & Humanities\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"St. Petersburg University Studies in Social Sciences & Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/9785288063183.18\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"St. Petersburg University Studies in Social Sciences & Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/9785288063183.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
俄式坐标结构chto X, chto Y ',无论X还是Y;由于以下几个原因,X和Y都值得关注:首先,由于缺乏系统的基于语料库的使用研究;其次,由于从它的各个部分(包括chto本身)来看,它的意义构成不清晰,而chto在俄语中有多种用法;最后,由于chto的多重用途之间关系的复杂性。本文对俄罗斯国家语料库主语料库的结构进行了定量研究,确定了纯连词用法的出现,与先前存在的自由选择用法和嵌入的替代问题用法相当,这些用法似乎已经不再使用。此外,我将自由选择用法解释为从文献中已知的无条件(让步条件)结构的实例,分为两个小句部分,并且不涉及明显的条件补语,就像俄语中使用的问题行为一样。基于这一观察,我建议这三种用法共享结构的相同语义,即可选集合{X, Y},并说明如何从中派生出三种必要类型的含义。最后,chto和替代集形成之间的联系要求我们重新审视chto的代词和补语使用之间的关系,后者的出现是由代词chto占据与小句极性相关的投射的阶段所介导的。参考文献20。
THE RUSSIAN CONSTRUCTION CHTO X, CHTO Y: ISSUES IN ITS SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS
The Russian coordinative construction chto X, chto Y ‘whether X or Y; both X and Y’ merits attention for several reasons: first, due to the absence of systematic corpus-based studies of its use; second, due to the lack of clarity as to the composition of its meaning from those of its parts, including chto itself, which has a multitude of uses in Russian; and finally, due to the complexity of the relations between the multiple uses of chto. This paper undertakes a quantitative study of the construction in the main corpus of the Russian National Corpus, establishing the emergence of purely conjunctive uses on a par with pre-existing free choice uses and embedded alternative question uses, which appear to be going out of use. Further, I interpret free choice uses as an instance of the unconditional (concessive conditional) construction known from the literature to be segmented into two clausal parts and to involve no overt conditional complementiser, just as Russian uses in question behave. Basing on this observation, I suggest that the three kinds of uses share the same semantics of the construction, i. e. the alternative set {X, Y}, and show how the meanings of three requisite types can be derived from it. Finally, the connection between chto and alternative set formation calls for a new look on the relation between pronominal and complementiser uses of chto where the emergence of the latter is mediated by a stage at which the pronominal chto occupies a projection associated with clausal polarity. Refs 20.