Syntactic properties of the Russian enclitic že: Corpus-based and experimental approaches

Publication type Article
Status Published
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow, 101000
National Research University Higher School of Economics
St. Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow, 101000; St. Petersburg, 193231
Journal nameVoprosy Jazykoznanija
EditionIssue 2

In this paper, we analyze syntactic properties of the Russian enclitic particle že relying on corpus and experimental data. In Old Russian, the position of this enclitic obeyed Wackernagel’s law in its strict version, but subsequently some variation became possible. We aim to identify possible and preferable positions of že, various factors influencing them, and diachronic tendencies using the National Russian corpus and an experiment. Our goal is not only to examine a particular linguistic phenomenon, but also to show that corpus and experimental methods can be fruitfully combined.

Keywordsclitics, corpus approach, experimental approach, Russian, Wackernagel’s law, word order
Publication date06.03.2017
Number of characters751
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
1 ….

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1091

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Bonnot, Kodzasov 1998 — Bonnot K., Kodzasov S. V. Semantic variation of discourse words and its influence on linearization and intonation (as exemplified by the particles zhe and ved’. Diskursivnye slova russkogo yazyka: opyt kontekstno-semanticheskogo opisaniya. Kiseleva K., Paillard D. (eds.). Moscow: Metatekst, 1998. Pp. 382—446.

2. Valova 2014a — Valova E. A. Syntactic features of the enclitic particle zhe in diachronic aspect: A corpus-based study. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya. Ser. 2. Informatsionnye protsessy i sistemy. 2014. No. 10. Pp. 31—36.

3. Valova 2014b — Valova E. A. Syntactic features of the Russian enclitic particle zhe. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svyato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Ser. III. Filologiya. 2014. No. 4 (39). Pp. 16—33.

4. Zaliznyak 2008 — Zaliznyak A. A. Drevnerusskie enklitiki [Old Russian enclitics]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2008.

5. NKRYa — Natsional’nyi korpus russkogo yazyka [Russian National Corpus]. Available at:] (дата обращения 31.09.2012).

6. Ozhegov 1989 — Ozhegov S. I. Slovar’ russkogo yazyka [Dictionary of the Russian language]. Moscow: Russkii Yazyk, 1989.

7. RG1980 — Russkaya grammatika [Russian grammar]: in 2 vol. Vol. II. Shvedova N. Yu. (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, 1980.

8. Ushakov — Ushakov D. N. (ed.). Tolkovyi slovar’ russkogo yazyka [Dictionary of the Russian language]. Vol. 1. M.: Gos. Izd-vo Inostrannykh i Natsional’nykh Slovarei, 1935.

9. Cimmerling 2012 — Cimmerling A. V. Word-order systems in Slavic languages. Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2012. No. 5. Pp. 3—37.

10. Zimmerling 2013 — Zimmerling A. V. Issledovaniya po tipologii slavyanskikh, baltiiskikh i balkanskikh yazykov (preimushchestvenno v svete yazykovykh kontaktov). [Studies in the typology of Slavic, Baltic and Balkan languages (with primary reference to language contacts)]. St. Petersburg: Aleteiya, 2013.

11. Bošković 2001 — Bošković Ž. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001.

12. Chomsky 1957 — Chomsky N. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton, 1957.

13. Chomsky 1962 — Chomsky N. Explanatory models in linguistics. Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Nagel E., Suppes P., Tarski A. (eds.). Stanford (CA): Stanford Univ. Press, 1962. Pp. 528—550.

14. Chomsky 1965 — Chomsky N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. 1965.

15. Gilquin 2007 — Gilquin G. To err is not all. What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik. 2007. Vol. 55. No. 3. Pp. 273—291.

16. Granger 1998 — Granger S. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Cowie A. P. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. Pp. 145—160.

17. Halpern 1995 — Halpern A. On the placement and morphology of clitics. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford (CA): CSLI Publications, 1995.

18. Källkvist 1998 — Källkvist M. Lexical infelicity in English: The case of nouns and verbs. Perspectives on lexical acquisition in a second language. Haastrup K., Viberg A. (eds.). Lund: Lund Univ. Press, 1998. Pp. 149—174.

19. Long, De Ley 2000 — Long D. L., De Ley L. Implicit causality and discourse focus: The interaction of text and reader characteristics in pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 2000. Vol. 42. No. 4. Pp. 545—570.

20. Pander Maat, Sanders 2001 — Pander Maat H., Sanders T. Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics. 2001. Vol. 12. No. 3. Pp. 247—273.

21. Paducheva 1987 — Paducheva E. V. La particule že: Semantique, syntaxe et prosodie. Les particules énonciatives en Russe contemporain. 1987. Vol. 3. Pp. 11—44.

22. Progovać 1996 — Progovać L. Clitics in Serbian / Croatian: Comp as the second position. Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena. Halpern A., Zwicky A. (eds.). Stanford (CA): CSLI Publications, 1996. Pp. 411—428.

23. Schauer, Adolphs 2006 — Schauer G. A., Adolphs S. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System. 2006. Vol. 34. Pp. 119—134.

24. Siyanova, Schmitt 2008 — Siyanova A., Schmitt N. L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes. 2008. Vol 64. No. 3. Pp. 429—458.

25. Spencer, Luís 2012 — Spencer A., Luís A. R. Clitics: An introduction. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012.

26. Wackernagel 1892 — Wackernagel J. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen. 1892. Vol. 1. S. 333—436.

Система Orphus