All
 
|
 
 


Some remarks on the language of Leo Tolstoy and small-scale diachronic shifts
 
PIIS0373658X0001396-4-1
DOI10.31857/S0373658X0001396-4
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Elena V. Paducheva 
Affiliation:
Federal Research Center Computer Science and Control of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Pushkin State Russian Language Institute
Address: Moscow, Russia
Journal nameVoprosy Jazykoznanija
EditionIssue 5
Pages49-63
Abstract

The opposition of synchrony vs. diachrony introduced by Saussure doesn’t lose its relevance: in modern research, synchronous description is often complemented by diachronic material. The interest is attracted to the diachronic evolution on a small scale — within two or three centuries. The notion of a small-scale diachronic shift comes into being. In this paper, small-scale diachronic shifts are studied on the basis of the text of the novel “Anna Karenina” by Leo Tolstoy (from time to time other texts are taken into account). Words, word forms, and constructions are considered that do not fit into the modern norm: they are substituted by something else, which means that a diachronic shift took place. For example, Tolstoy uses a short passive participle in the dative where the modern language has a full passive participle in the instrumental: Legko byt’ vvedenu v zabluzhdenie. Clearly, a shift took place, the old construction fell out of use. Several dozens of examples of this kind are presented. Each example could be the object of a devoted historical study, but the paper simply attracts the readers’ attention to this kind of phenomena.

Keywordsconstruction, diachrony, small-scale diachronic shift, synchrony
Received07.10.2018
Publication date08.10.2018
Number of characters1100
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 2074

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. AS — Aktivnyi slovar’ russkogo yazyka [The active dictionary of Russian]. Vol. 1. Acad. Apresjan Yu. D. (ed.). Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2014.
2. BAS — Slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo yazyka [A dictionary of modern standard Russian]. Vol. 1—17. Moscow, 1948—1965.
3. Apresjan 2005 — Apresjan Yu. D. On the Moscow Semantic School. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2005. No. 1. Pp. 3–30.
4. Apresjan 2012 — Apresjan Yu. D. Grammar of verbs in the active dictionary of Russian. Smysly, teksty i drugie zakhvatyvayushchie syuzhety: Sb. st. v chest’ 80-letiya I. A. Mel’chuka. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2012. Pp. 42–59.
5. Bocharov S. G. Roman L. Tolstogo «Voina i mir» [L. Tolstoy’s novel «War and Peace». Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1987.
6. Bulakhovskii L. A. Russkii literaturnyi yazyk pervoi poloviny XIX veka [The Russian literary language of the first half of the 19th century]. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1954.
7. Vinogradov V. V. On Tolstoy’s language (1850s–1860s). Literaturnoe nasledstvo. L. N. Tolstoy: Book 1. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR Publ., 1939.
8. Guiraud-Veber M., Mikaelyan I. In defense of the verb imet’. Sokrovennye smysly. Slovo. Tekst. Kul’tura. Sbornik statei v chest’ N. D. Arutyunovoi. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2004. Pp. 54–68.
9. Dobrovol’skij D. O. On the dynamics of usage (Pushkin’s language and modern usage). Russkii yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii. 2001. No. 1. Pp. 161–178.
10. Dobrovol’skij D. O. Lexical co-occurrence in diachrony (towards the dynamics of usual norms). Russkii yazyk segodnya. 2. Aktivnye yazykovye protsessy kontsa XX v. Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2003. Pp. 125–138.
11. Dobrushina E. R. Videv and uvidya: Life and death of participles formed according to non-productive patterns. Korpusnye issledovaniya po morfemnoi, grammaticheskoi, leksicheskoi semantike russkogo yazyka. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Univ. Publ., 2014. Pp. 96–119.
12. Es’kova N. A. Khorosho li my znaem Pushkina? [Do we know Pushkin well?]. Moscow: Russkie Slovari, 1999.
13. Zaliznyak A. A. On plural markers in the Russian declension. Zaliznyak A. A. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie s prilozheniem izbrannykh rabot po russkomu yazyku i obshchemu yazykoznaniyu. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2002. Pp. 545–549.
14. Zaliznyak Anna A. On the evolution of the concept otdykhat’ in Russian. «Slovo — chistoe vesel’e...». Sbornik statei v chest’ A. B. Pen’kovskogo. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2009. Pp. 63–76.
15. Zaliznyak Anna A. On the effect of small-scale semantic evolution. PHILOLOGICA. Dvuyazychnyi zhurnal po russkoi i teoreticheskoi filologii. 2012. Vol. 9. No. 21/23. Pp. 11–22.
16. Zaliznyak A. A., Paducheva E. V. Syntactic characteristics of the pronoun kotoryi. Kategoriya opredelennosti-neopredelennosti v slavyanskikh yazykakh. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. Pp. 289–329.
17. Itskovich V. A. Essays on syntactic norm. Sintaksis i norma. Moscow: Nauka, 1974. Pp. 43–106.
18. Letuchii A. B. Reflexivity. Materialy k korpusnoi grammatike russkogo yazyka. Glagol. Part 1. Plungian V. A. (ed.). St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 2016. Pp. 268–340.
19. Lyutikova E. A. Relative clauses with the connective word «kotoryi»: General characteristic and movement properties. Korpusnye issle dovaniya po russkoi grammatike. M.: Probel-2000, 2009. Pp. 436–511.
20. MAS — Slovar’ russkogo yazyka [The dictionary of the Russian language]. Evgen’eva A. P. (ed.). Vol. 1–4. Moscow, 1957–1960.
21. Mel’čuk I. A. Opyt teorii lingvisticheskikh modelei «Smysl ⇔ Tekst». Ch. 1: Semantika, sintaksis [An attempt of the theory of «Meaning–Text» linguistic models. Part 1: Semantics, syntax]. Moscow: Nauka, 1974.
22. NKRYa — Natsional’nyi korpus russkogo yazyka [Russian National Corpus]. Available at: http://www.ruscorpora.ru. 
23. Paducheva E. V. The Russian literary language before and after Pushkin. A. S. Pushkin und die kulturelle Identität Russlands. Ressel G. (Hrsg.). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001. Pp. 97–108]. Available at: http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf2/beforeandafterpushkin.pdf. 
24. Paducheva E. V. Dinamicheskie modeli v semantike leksiki [Dynamic models in the semantics of lexicon]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2004. Available at: http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/PaduDinamMod2004.pdf 
25. Paducheva E. V. Genitive of negation: Morphology, syntax, semantics. An afterword. Ob’’ektnyi genitiv pri otritsanii v russkom yazyke. Issledovaniya po teorii grammatiki. No. 5. Moscow: Probel-2000, 2008. Pp. 123–147.
26. Paducheva E. V. Tozhe and takzhe: The relationship of thematic—rematic articulation and associative links. Paducheva E. V. Stat’i raznykh let. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2009. Pp. 250–258.
27. Paducheva E. V. Nereferentnye mestoimeniya (na -nibud’). Materialy dlya proekta korpusnogo opisaniya russkoi grammatiki [Non-referential pronouns (ending in -nibud’). Materials for the project of corpusbased description of the Russian grammar] // http://rusgram.ru  (as manuscript). Moscow, 2014.
28. Paducheva E. V., Uspenskii V. A. Subject or predicate? (Semantic criteria for distinguishing between subject and predicate in binominative sentences). Izvestiya AN SSSR. Seriya literatury i yazyka. 1979. Vol. 38. No. 4. Pp. 349–360.
29. Paducheva E. V., Uspenskii V. A. Binominative sentence: The problem of copula agreement. Oblik slova. Sbornik statei pamyati D. N. Shmeleva. Krysin L. P. (ed.). Moscow: Indrik, 1997. Pp. 170–182.
30. Paillard D. OPYAT’. Diskursivnye slova russkogo yazyka: opyt kontekstno-semanticheskogo opisaniya. Moscow: Metatekst, 1998. Pp. 115–120.
31. Pen’kovskii A. B. Ocherki po russkoi semantike [Essays on Russian semantics]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2004.
32. Pen’kovskii A. B. Zagadki pushkinskogo teksta i slovarya. Opyt filologicheskoi germenevtiki [Mysteries of Pushkin’s text and vocabulary. An attempt of philological hermeneutics]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2005.
33. Rakhilina E. V. I say, Carl. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii. Po materialam mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog’2017». No. 16 (23). Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2017. Pp. 361–369.
34. Testelets Ya. G. Vvedenie v obshchii sintaksis [An introduction to general syntax]. Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2001.
35. Mikaelian 2005 — Mikaelian I. To have and to be in Russian. An apology of the verb imet’. Die Welt der /Slaven. 2005. Vol L. No. 2. Pp. 215–224.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up