An Experimental Study of the Distribution of the Complementizer To Čto in Non-Standard Variants of Russian

Affiliation:
Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Journal name

Voprosy Jazykoznanija

Edition

Issue 5

Pages

7-40

Abstract

In non-standard variants of Russian, the complementizer čto can be replaced by the combination to čto, as in Ivan dumaet, to čto… ‘Ivan thinks that…’, including in cases associated with the correlative pronoun, as in Problema sostoit v tom, to čto… ‘The problem is that…’ Despite its strong non-normative character, to čto can be viewed as a grammatical phenomenon in its own right, as was suggested by previous researchers dubbing it a “new declarative complementizer”. This paper deals with the distributional properties of to čto, in particular its preference for certain syntactic positions as opposed to others (e.g., direct vs. oblique position, the position with vs. without a correlative, the position associated with an optional vs. obligatory correlative), as identified in previous research, which was taken to reflect the diachronic development of to čto. In this contribution, these observations are tested in an acceptability judgment study contrasting the distributional profile of to čto with that of the standard complementizer čto. The experiment revealed some distributional preferences that are specific to to čto, i.e. its preference for the position associated with a correlative, suggesting that the new complementizer has first emerged in this syntactic position.

Keywords

complement clauses, conjunctions, experiment, language change, language norm, Russian, syntax

Acknowledgment

The study is supported by the RSF (Russian Science Foundation) project 16-18- 02003 “Structure of meaning and its mapping into lexical and functional categories of Russian” at MSPU (Moscow State University of Education).

Received

10.10.2019

Publication date

10.10.2019

Number of characters

84463

Cite

GOST	Knyazev M. An Experimental Study of the Distribution of the Complementizer To Čto in Non-Standard Variants of Russian // Voprosy Jazykoznanija – 2019. – Issue 5 C. 7-40 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/vopjaz/s0373658x0006284-1-1-en (circulation date: 25.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0006284-1
MLA	Knyazev, Mikhail "An Experimental Study of the Distribution of the Complementizer To Čto in Non-Standard Variants of Russian." Voprosy Jazykoznanija 5 (2019):7-40. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0006284-1
APA	Knyazev M. (2019). An Experimental Study of the Distribution of the Complementizer To Čto in Non-Standard Variants of Russian. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (5), pp.7-40 DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0006284-1

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 1, views: 1541

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Bogdanova-Beglaryan 2015 — Bogdanova-Beglaryan N. V. Agressivnyj uzus — ili ehvolyutsiya yazykovoj normy? Verkhnevolzhskij filologicheskij sbornik, 2015, 1: 25–30. [Bogdanova-Belgaryan N. V. Aggressive usage — or evolution of language standards? Verkhnevolzhskii fi lologicheskii sbornik, 2015, 1: 25–30.]

2. GIKRYa — General'nyj internet-korpus russkogo yazyka. [General’nyi internet-korpus russkogo yazyka [General Internet-Corpus of Russian].] URL: http://webcorpora.ru

3. Dymarskij 2008 — Dymarskij M. Ya. Funktsionirovanie sootnositel'nykh slov v iz'yasnitel'nykh konstruktsiyakh. Slozhnopodchinennoe predlozhenie v leksikograficheskom aspekte: Kollektivnaya monografiya. SPb.: RGPU im. A. I. Gertsena, 2008, 84–117. [Dymarskii M. Ya. Fuctioning of correlatives in constructions with complement clauses. Slozhnopodchinennoe predlozhenie v leksikografi cheskom aspekte: Kollektivnaya monografi ya. St. Petersburg: Herzen State Pedagogical Univ. of Russia, 2008, 84–117.]

4. Egorova 2018 — Egorova A. D. Funktsionirovanie novogo komplementajzera to chto v russkoj spontannoj rechi. Diplomnaya rabota. M.: MGU, 2018. [Egorova A. D. Funktsionirovanie novogo komplementaizera to chto v russkoi spontannoi rechi [Functioning of new complementizer to čto in spontaneous Russian speech]. MA thesis. Moscow: Moscow State Univ., 2018.]

5. Kibrik, Podlesskaya 2009 — Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I. (red.). Rasskazy o snovideniyakh: korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa. M.: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur, 2009, 288–308. [Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I. (eds.). Rasskazy o snovideniyakh: korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa [Night Dream Stories: A corpus study of spoken Russian discourse]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2009, 288–308].

6. Knyazev 2017 — Knyazev M. Yu. Issledovanie «slabogo» grammaticheskogo ogranicheniya metodami ehksperimental'nogo sintaksisa: primer pridatochnykh s soyuzom chto v funktsii sententsial'nogo aktanta suschestvitel'nogo. Rema, 2017, 1: 22–40. [Knyazev M. Yu. Studying a weak grammatical restriction through experimental syntax: The case of sentential complements of nouns with the complementizer čto. Rhema, 2017, 1: 22–40.]

7. Knyazev 2018 — Knyazev M. Yu. Ob ogranichenii na sententsial'nyj aktant s soyuzom chto pri deagentivnykh upotrebleniyakh glagolov rechi. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2018, 3: 3–37. [Knyazev M. Yu. On the restriction on complement clauses with the complementizer čto with non-agentive uses of speech act verbs in Russian. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2018, 3: 3–37.]

8. Knyazev, Rudaleva (v pechati) — Knyazev M. Yu., Rudaleva E. A. Korpusnoe issledovanie vliyaniya registra na vybor sposoba oformleniya sententsial'nogo aktanta v russkom yazyke. Russkij yazyk v nauchnom osveschenii. V pechati. [Knyazev M. Yu., Rudaleva E. A. Speech register affecting the choice of complement clause marking in Russian: A corpus study. Russkij yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii. In print.]

9. Kobozeva 2013 — Kobozeva I. M. Usloviya upotrebleniya «to» pered pridatochnym iz'yasnitel'nym s soyuzom «chto». Du mot au texte. Études slavo-romanes. Inkova O. (éd.). Bern: Peter Lang, 2013, 129–148. [Kobozeva I. M. Conditions of use of to before the complement clause with conjunction čto. Du mot au texte. Études slavo-romanes. Inkova O. (éd.). Bern: Peter Lang, 2013, 129–148.]

10. Kozhemyakina 2016 — Kozhemyakina (Egorova) A. D. Konstruktsii s «to chto» v ustnoj spontannoj rechi. Problemy yazyka: Sbornik nauchnykh statej po materialam Chetvertoj konferentsii-shkoly «Problemy yazyka: vzglyad molodykh uchenykh». M.: Kantsler, 2016. [Kozhemyakina (Egorova) A. D. Constructions with to čto in spontaneous Russian speech. Problemy yazyka: Sbornik nauchnykh statei po materialam Chetvertoi konferentsii-shkoly «Problemy yazyka: vzglyad molodykh uchenykh». Moscow: Kantsler, 2016.]

11. Korotaev 2013 — Korotaev N. A. Polipredikativnye konstruktsii s to chto v nepublichnoj ustnoj rechi. Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual'nye tekhnologii: po materialam mezhdunarodnoj konferentsii «Dialog 2013». Vyp. 12(19). M.: Izd-vo RGGU, 2013, 324–331. [Korotaev N. A. Polypredicative constructions with to čto in non-public spoken Russian. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii: Po materialam ezhegodnoi Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog», Issue 12(19). Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities Publ., 2013, 324–331.]

12. Korotaev 2016 — Korotaev N. A. Soyuz to chto v ustnoj russkoj rechi. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Trudy Instituta lingvisticheskikh issledovanij, 2016, t. XII, ch. 1: 101–106. [Korotaev N. A. The conjunction to čto in spoken Russian. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Trudy Instituta lingvisticheskikh issledovanii, 2016, vol. XII, part 1: 101–106.]

13. Levontina 2016 — Levontina I. B. O chem rech'. M.: Corpus, 2016. [Levontina I. B. O chem rech [Speaking of which…]. Moscow: Corpus, 2016.]

14. NKRYa — Natsional'nyj korpus russkogo yazyka. [Natsional’nyi korpus russkogo yazyka [Russian National Corpus].] URL: http://www.ruscorpora.ru

15. RG-1980 — Shvedova N. Yu. (gl. red.). Russkaya grammatika. T. I. M.: Nauka, 1980. [Shvedova N. Yu. (ed.). Russkaya grammatika [The Russian grammar]. Vol. I. Moscow: Nauka, 1980.]

16. Serdobol'skaya, Egorova 2019 — Serdobol'skaya N. V. Egorova A. D. Morfosintaksicheskie svojstva nenormativnykh konstruktsij s to chto v russkoj razgovornoj rechi. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2019, 5: 41–72. [Serdobolskaya N. V., Egorova A. D. Morphosyntax of non-standard constructions with to čto in Colloquial Russian. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2019, 5: 41–72.]

17. Fedorova 2013 — Fedorova O. V. Ob ehksperimental'nom sintaksise i o sintaksicheskom ehksperimente v yazykoznanii. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2013, 1: 3–21. [Fedorova O. V. Experimental syntax and syntax experiment. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2013, 1: 3–21.]

18. Chetverikov 2015 — Chetverikov A. A. Linej nye modeli so smeshannymi ehffektami v kognitivnykh issledovaniyakh. Rossij skij zhurnal kognitivnoj nauki, 2015, 1(2): 41–51. [Chetverikov A. A. Linear models with mixed effects in cognitive research. Rossiiskii zhurnal kognitivnoi nauki, 2015, 1(2): 41–51.]

19. Barr et al. 2013 — Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H. J. Random effects structure for confi rmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 2013, 68(3): 255–278.

20. Bybee 2006 — Bybee J. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 2006, 4: 111–133.

21. Blanchette 2017 — Blanchette F. Micro-syntactic variation in American English negative concord. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2017, 1: 1–32.

22. Krapova, Cinque 2016 — Krapova I., Cinque G. On noun clausal ‘complements’ and their non-unitary nature. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale, 2016, 50: 77–107.

23. Kush et al. 2017 — Kush D., Lohndal T., Sprouse J. Investigating variation in island effects: A case study of Norwegian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2017, 1: 1–37.

24. Labov 1966 — Labov W. Social stratifi cation of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966.

25. Labov 1996 — Labov W. When intuitions fail. CLS 32: Papers from the parasession on theory and data in Linguistics. McNair L., Singer K., Dolbrin L., Aucon M. (eds.). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1996, 76–106.

26. Mann, Thompson 1988 — Mann W. C., Thompson S. A. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 1988, 8(3): 243–281.

27. Massam 2017 — Massam D. Extra be: The syntax of shared shell-noun constructions in English. Language, 2017, 1: 121–152.

28. Schütze, Sprouse 2014 — Schütze C., Sprouse J. Judgment data. Resarch methods in linguistics. Sharma D., Podesva R. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014.

29. Sprouse et al. 2016 — Sprouse J., Caponigro I., Greco C., Cecchetto C. Experimental syntax and the cross-linguistic variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2016, 34: 307–344.

30. Stowell 1981 — Stowell T. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. diss. Cambridge (MA): MIT, 1981.

31. Wiese 2009 — Wiese H. Grammatical innovation in multiethnic urban Europe: New linguistic practices among adolescents. Lingua, 2009, 5: 782–806.