Asyndetic complement clauses with the Russian verb dumat’ ‘think’

The paper is focused on asyndetic complement clauses with the Russian verb dumat’ ‘think’. This verb can occur as a head of a complement or a parenthetic clause. I propose in this paper the criteria to distinguish between these two types of constructions (the presence of a noun as a subject of thinking, adverbials, particles, appositions, main clause phenomena, as well as prosodic pattern, etc.) and consider the semantics of complement clauses with dumat’. The data is taken from the Russian National Corpus, S. Sharoff’s corpora and from the Internet.

Keywords

asyndetic complements, complement clauses, complementation, mental verbs, parentheticals, verbs of opinion

Received

16.10.2017

Publication date

16.10.2017

Number of characters

625

Cite Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

GOST	Serdobolskaya N. Asyndetic complement clauses with the Russian verb dumat’ ‘think’ // Voprosy Jazykoznanija – 2017. – Issue 5 C. 7-35 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/vopjaz/s0373658x0001028-9-2-en (circulation date: 20.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0001028-9
MLA	Serdobolskaya, Natalia "Asyndetic complement clauses with the Russian verb dumat’ ‘think’." Voprosy Jazykoznanija 5 (2017):7-35. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0001028-9
APA	Serdobolskaya N. (2017). Asyndetic complement clauses with the Russian verb dumat’ ‘think’. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (5), pp.7-35 DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0001028-9


1	….

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1352

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Apresjan 1995 — Apresjan Yu. D. Language anomaly and logical contradiction. Izbrannye trudy. Vol. 2. Moscow: Yazyki Russkoi Kul’tury, 1995.

2. Apresjan 2009 — Apresjan Yu. D. Issledovaniya po semantike i leksikografii. T. I: Paradigmatika [Studies in semantics and lexicography. Vol. I. Paradigmatics. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2009.

3. Apresjan 2015 — Apresjan Yu. D. Syntactic information for the Active dictionary of the Russian language. LingVaria. 2015. X. Kraków. Pp. 13—27.

4. Arutyunova 1988 — Arutyunova N. D. Tipy yazykovykh znachenii: Otsenka. Sobytie. Fakt [Types of linguistic meanings: Evaluation. Event. Fact. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.

5. Arutyunova 1989 — Arutyunova N. D. “Believe” and “see” (towards the problem of mixed propositional intentions). Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Problemy intensional’nykh i pragmaticheskikh kontekstov. Arutyunova N. D. (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Pp. 7—31.

6. Bulygina, Shmelev 1989 — Bulygina T. V., Shmelev A. D. Mental predicates in the context of aspectology. Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Problemy intensional’nykh i pragmaticheskikh kontekstov. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Pp. 31—55.

7. Gavrilenko 2005 — Gavrilenko I. I. Dopolnitel’naya informatsiya v nauchnykh tekstakh: semanticheskie, sintaksicheskie i prosodicheskie osobennosti. Kand. diss. [Additional information in scientific texts: Semantic, syntactic, and prosodic characteristics. Cand. diss.]. Moscow: Moscow State Univ., 2005.

8. Zaliznyak 1992 — Zaliznyak Anna A. Issledovaniya po semantike predikatov vnutrennego sostoyaniya [Studies in semantics of internal state predicates]. München: Otto Sagner, 1992.

9. Zemskaya et al. 1981 — Zemskaya E. A., Kitaigorodskaya M. V., Shiryaev E. N. Russkaya razgovornaya rech’. Obshchie voprosy. Slovoobrazovanie. Sintaksis [Russian spoken language. General problems. Word formation. Syntax]. Moscow: Nauka, 1981.

10. Kibrik, Podlesskaya 2009 — Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I. «Rasskazy o snovideniyakh»: korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa [“Night dream stories”: A corpus-based study of spoken Russian discourse]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2009.

11. Kobozeva 1999a — Kobozeva I. M. On two types of parenthetical structures with a parenthetical verb. Tipologiya i teoriya yazyka: ot opisaniya k ob’’asneniyu. K 60-letiyu A. E. Kibrika. Rakhilina E. V., Testelets Ya. G. (eds.). Moscow: Yazyki Russkoi Kul’tury, 1999. Pp. 539—543.

12. Kobozeva 1999b — Kobozeva I. M. Problema identifikatsii i sintaksicheskoi reprezentatsii slozhnopodchinennykh predlozhenii russkogo yazyka s illokutivno samostoyatel’noi pridatochnoi chast’yu. Doklad na 3-й Evropeiskoi konferentsii on “Formal Description of Slavic Languages”, g. Leiptsig, 2 dekabrya 1999 [The problem of identification and syntactic representation of Russian complex sentences with illocutionarily independent subordinate part. A report at the Third European Conference “Formal Description of Slavic Languages”, Leipzig, December 2, 1999. Available at: www.philol.msu.ru%2F~otipl%2Fnew%2Fmain%2Farticles%2Fkobozeva%2Fimk-2000-FDSL_NEU.doc.

13. Kreidlin 1983 — Kreidlin G. E. On some characteristics of syntactic behavior of predicates with sentential actants. Semiotika i informatika. Vol. 21. Moscow: All-Union Institute of Scientific and Technical Information, 1983.

14. Lapteva 1976 — Lapteva O. A. Russkii razgovornyi sintaksis [Russian colloquial syntax]. Moscow: Nauka, 1976.

15. Matveeva 2006 — Matveeva N. S. Mental’nye predikaty i vvodnye oboroty v russkom yazyke. Diplomnaya rabota [Mental predicates and parenthetical phrases in Russian. Undergraduate thesis]. Manuscript. Moscow, 2006.

16. Matveeva, Serdobol’skaya 2006 — Matveeva N. S., Serdobol’skaya N. V. Syntactic features of constructions with mental predicates in Russian. Tret’ya konferentsiya po tipologii i grammatike dlya molodykh issledovatelei. Tezisy dokladov. Sankt-Peterburg, 2—4 noyabrya 2006 g. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 2006. Pp. 120—125.

17. NKRYa — Natsional’nyi korpus russkogo yazyka [Russian National Corpus]. Available at: http://www.ruscorpora.ru.

18. Paducheva 1981 — Paducheva E. V. Presuppositions and other types of non-explicit information in the sentence. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya. Avtomatizatsiya obrabotki teksta. 1981. Ser. 2. No. 11. Pp. 23—30.

19. Paducheva 1990 — Paducheva E. V. Between sentence and utterance: Subjective modality and syntactic non-subordinativity. Revue des études slaves. 1990. Vol. 62. Fascicule 1—2. L’énonciation dans les langues slaves. En hommage à René L’Hermitte. Sémon J.-P., Włodarczyk H. (eds.). Pp. 303—320.

20. Paducheva 1996 — Paducheva E. V. Communicative status of parenthetic clauses. Paducheva E. V. Semanticheskie issledovaniya. Semantika vremeni i vida v russkom yazyke. Semantika narrativa. Moscow: Yazyki Russkoi Kul’tury, 1996.

21. RG 1980 — Russkaya grammatika [Russian grammar]: In 2 vols. Vol. II. Shvedova N. Yu. (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, 1980.

22. Serdobol’skaya 2016 — Serdobol’skaya N. V. Syntactic non-subordinativity in actant sentences with the verb dumat’. Trudy Instituta russkogo yazyka im. V. V. Vinogradova. No. 10. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii «Grammaticheskie protsessy i sistemy v sinkhronii i diakhronii» (30 maya — 1 iyunya 2016 g.). Moscow: Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2016. Pp. 275—295.

23. Yanko 2001 — Yanko T. E. Kommunikativnye strategii russkoi rechi [Communicative strategies in spoken Russian]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2001.

24. Aelbrecht at al. 2012 — Aelbrecht L., Haegeman L. M. V., Nye R. Main clause phenomena: New horizons. (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 190.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012.

25. Aijmer 1972 — Aijmer K. Some aspects of psychological predicates in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1972.

26. Dehé, Kavalova 2007 — Dehé N., Kavalova Y. Parentheticals. (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 106.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007.

27. Dehé, Wichmann 2010 — Dehé N., Wichmann A. Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that). Prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language. 2010. Vol. 34. No. 1. Pp. 36—74.

28. Diessel, Tomasello 2001 — Diessel H., Tomasello M. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics. 2001. Vol. 12. No. 2. Pp. 97—144.

29. Doherty 2000 — Doherty C. Clauses without that. The case for bare sentential complementation in English. New York: Garland publ., 2000.

30. Emonds 1970 — Emonds J. Root and structure-preserving transformations. Ph. D. diss. Cambridge (MA): MIT, 1970.

31. Hooper, Thompson 1973 — Hooper J. B., Thompson S. A. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry. 1973. Vol. 4. No. 4. Pp. 465—497.

32. Huddleston, Pullum 2002 — Huddleston R., Pullum G. K. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002.

33. Kaltenböck 2007 — Kaltenböck G. Position, prosody, and scope: The case of English comment clauses. VIEWS. 2007. Vol. 16. No. 1. Pp. 1—96.

34. Kaltenböck 2011 — Kaltenböck G. Linguistic structure and use: Explaining diverging evidence. The case of clause-initial I think. Converging evidence — discussing and extending the methodological tool-kit of the linguist. Schönefeld D. (ed.). London: Equinox, 2011.

35. Kaltenböck 2013 — Kaltenböck G. The development of comment clauses. Aarts B., Close J., Leech G., Wallis S. The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013. Pp. 286—317.

36. Lehmann 1988 — Lehmann C. Typology of clause linkage. Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Haiman J., Thomson S. A. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988. Pp. 181—225.

37. Noonan 1985 — Noonan M. Complementation. Language typology and syntactic description 2: Complex constructions. Shopen T. (ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985. Pp. 42—140.

38. Palmer 2001 — Palmer F. R. Mood and Modality. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001.

39. Stalnaker 1999 — Stalnaker R. Assertion. Context and content. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999. Pp. 78—95.

40. Thompson 2002 — Thompson S. A. Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language. 2002. Vol. 26. No. 1. Pp. 125—164.

41. Thompson, Mulac 1991 — Thompson S. A., Mulac A. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics. 1991. Vol. 15. Pp. 237—251.

42. Urmson 1963 — Urmson J. O. Parenthetical verbs. Philosophy and ordinary language. Caton Ch. E. (ed.). Chicago: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1963. Pp. 220—240.