Laboratory seminars

It is generally believed that Russian has no sequence of tenses (SoT) in complement clauses, and the choice of absolute tense over relative is considered to be a typical error in the interlanguage of non-standard speakers of Russian as a foreign language whose native language features SoT, e.g. English. However, all uses of absolute tense in Learner Russian cannot qualify as errors, since Standard Russian shows a great deal of variation in tense assignment in complement clauses. One of the factors that is said to govern tense choice is the semantics of the matrix verb (Barentsen, 1996; Гиро-Вебер, 1975, Schlenker, 2003, inter alia). Specifically, speech and mental verbs are said to strictly require the relative tense, whereas sensory, emotion, and existential matrix verbs allow for both absolute and relative tense patterns. Despite the acknowledged variation, the precise distributional patterns of tenses in complement clauses have been understudied. This paper is a systematic corpus-based study of the variation in tense choice across the semantic classes of the matrix verbs in two language varieties: (i) Standard Russian as represented in the Russian National Corpus and (ii) Learner Russian of anglophone speakers as represented in the Russian Learner Corpus. I examine those clausal complexes where the matrix verb in the past tense and the verb of the complement clause denote simultaneous actions.

The analysis identified a likelihood hierarchy of verbal semantic classes ranging from the least likely to tolerate past tense in the complement clauses to the most likely ones: speech<mental<sensory≈emotion

In Modern Standard Russian, the prefix/preposition pair u-/u is peculiar with respect to other similar pairs, due to the meaning mismatch between the two. While the prefix u- has an ablative meaning, as shown when it is prefixed to motion verbs, the prepositional phrase u+gen occurs in locative constructions, and other related constructions, such as predicative possession that is expressed via the cross-linguistically common Locative Schema. Etymological considerations show that the meaning preserved by the prefix is older. The only type of occurrence which, according to the literature, preserves the ablative meaning for the u+gen construction preposition is found with verbs of requesting, removing, and buying. Notably, however, in other Slavic languages putative ablative contexts are limited to verbs of requesting. Data from MSR, OCS, Polish and Czech lead to the conclusion that the extension of the u+gen construction to verbs of removing in MSR is based on its use for the encoding of predicative possession. Extension to verbs of buying is better explained through the locative meaning of the construction. As a result of different developments, the u+gen construction has become part of the argument structure of a group of verbs including verbs of asking and requesting, verbs of removing and verbs of buying, which are characterized by the common feature of taking human non-recipient third arguments.

In this talk we introduce our first pilot database for the DagLoans project. The database contains translations of 160 concepts collected in the field in Daghestan (and Northern Azerbaijan). At present, this includes a total of 24.785 entries from 23 different languages. The database can be used to find the translation of a concept in one or more languages. The most important feature is “Set”: all entries are grouped in sets with other similar words, which allows us to plot the spread of lexical items on the map. The database can be used for conducting quantitative research on lexical convergence as well as for creating geographical maps showing the areas and the intensity of foreign influence.

The particle =OK, originally Turkic, is attested in all the core members of the Volga-Kama Sprachbund: Chuvash =aχ/ =eχ, Tatar and Bashkir =uk/ =ük, Meadow Mari =ak, Hill Mari =ok and Udmurt =ik. Meadow Mari, Hill Mari and Udmurt have arguably borrowed the particle from Turkic (Bulgar).

=OK is used in contexts many of which may be characterized as emphatic identity contexts: the argument marked by =OK is the same as an argument of a different proposition (≈ Russian že: Masha rabotajet v pole, Masha že sidit s det'mi 'Mary works in the field and it is also she who sits with the children').

However, in different languages =OK exhibits different morphosyntactic restrictions on the constituent to which it may attach, i.e. in Tatar it attaches to demonstratives (šul uk keše 'the same person') but not to proper names (*Märijäm ük 'it is also Mary who...'). In Chuvash, Meadow and Hill Mari and Udmurt the particle can attach to proper names. =OK can also attach to the verb, with different interpretations and again with different morphosyntactic restrictions.

There are similar constructions and lexicalizations with =OK in some of the languages (e.g. reduplication construction of the type V-converb=OK V).

I would like to discuss whether -- and how -- we can approach these similar patterns in terms of contact. From the literature we know what were the strongest bonds in the area (Chuvash-Mari, Tatar-Meadow Mari, Tatar-Bashkir). The question is whether greater and weaker similarity of =OK morphosyntactic, construction and lexicalization patterns between languages corresponds to areal affinity and how to demonstrate it.

In this paper, I consider several Lezgic languages suffixes (possibly, but not definitely related) that cover a rather wide range of contexts. Some contexts of their use may be qualified as denoting unrealized state-of-affairs (such as conditional clauses, polar questions, and, to a certain extent, indefinite pronouns). Some others fall short of this definition, including indirect questions and other subordinate clauses with WH-words. The set of contexts covered by the markers in question is one and the same in at least three Lezgic languages (Lezgian, Aghul, Tabassaran), and also in Azerbaijani, which raises a question of possible contact origin of this pattern. Some other Lezgic languages employ, in these contexts, several different markers. Kina dialect of Rutul presents an especially interesting case, combining in one morpheme (-jden) the meanings which are unlikely to be associated. In this talk, I will present the case of Kina Rutul in details, discuss possible interpretation and origins of the marker -jden, and compare Kina Rutul with other Lezgic languages.

In this talk, we will discuss modifying participial constructions which is a predominant type of relative clauses in East Caucasian languages. One of the key properties of participles in East Caucasian languages is the lack of syntactic orientation. There is little to no syntactic restrictions on what can be relativized: the gap in the relative clause can correspond to a core argument, a peripheral participant or even a participant that is not part of the verb’s argument structure. Languages also share some common patterns of constructionalization of specififc relative construction (such as name-constructions). On the other hand, there is variation across languages, e.g. more or less strongly articulated preference for S relativization; or more or less widespread use of the resumptives; and language-particular features, e.g. a very high ratio of addresse relativization (in name-constructions) in Agul. After a general overview of the problems related to the study of relativization targets, we concentrate on language-particular case studies and discuss the counts of relativization targets in the corpora of two East Caucasian languages (Agul and Archi). As a comparative background, West Circassian corpus data will be presented. In this language relativization is syntactically oriented, the strategy cannot be classified as participial, and special reflexivizers may be interpreted as obligatorified resumptive pronouns. Finally, we discuss the comparison of corpus counts on the relativized syntactic role in the three languages, and the problems connected to such comparison.

West Circassian and Kabardian languages represent a dialectal continuum spread in Krasnodar district, republics of Adygea, Karachai-Circassia and Kabardino-Balkaria. During the presentation, we are going to talk about phonetic and sociolinguistic features of different Circassian idioms, present a project of an atlas of Circassian isoglosses and show first maps, which the atlas will include. In addition, we will describe the process of creating a phonetic and grammatical questionnaire and the difficulties associated with that.

The corpus of regional variants of Russian spoken in Daghestan is based on transcribed sociolinguistic interviews in Russian with speakers of various Daghestanian languages ​​who live in rural areas. Technically, the corpus is built using the platform and annotation principles developed for the dialectal corpus of Ustja River Basin. The aims of the project include both its maintenance and adding new texts, as well as the use of the corpus for systematic study of morphosyntactic characteristics of Daghestanian Russian. In the talk, we plan to discuss the current state of the corpus, the possibilities of corpus-based research, as well as the problems we met and the perspectives of the project.