The Russian vsë ravno: paradoxes of an incomplete morphologization

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Acesso aberto Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado Acesso é pago ou somente para assinantes

Resumo

This article, based on representative corpus data, examines the non-trivial morphosyntactic properties of the experiential predicative vsë ravno (which, as we argue, emerged under Polish influence) in the Russian language from the 17th to the 21st centuries. While the semantic structure of this locution has been described in detail by Leonid Iomdin, its diachronic evolution and the morphosynthetic status of its components have rarely been addressed by linguists. It is shown that originally the elements vsë ‘everything’ and ravno ‘equal’ exhibited a high degree of morphosyntactic and prosodic autonomy (in particular, the set of linguistic units that could be inserted between them was remarkably broad), forming at the same time a semantically idiomatic complex. The contradiction between semantic cohesion and morphological autonomy was resolved in the history of Russian through the reduction of the morphosynthetic status of these elements and an increase in the morphological cohesion of the phrase vsë ravno. This process can be considered complete in the modern language for the construction P vsë ravno [čto/kak] Q meaning ‘P is equivalent/equal to Q’ and for the adverbial vsë ravno meaning ‘in any case; anyway’. However, in its original meaning (‘does not matter; no matter’), this unit shows signs of a secondary wordform with incomplete morphologization, especially under negation. In these latter contexts, it is still possible to insert a limited set of other units between vsë and ravno (primarily, the enclitic li and the subject dative forms of personal pronouns). Nevertheless, the tendency towards full morphological integration is clearly manifested even in negative contexts through the gradual “externalization” of these units into postposition: for example, the sequence ne vsë ravno li (+ dative) is particularly frequent in Russian poetry.

Sobre autores

N. Kireyev

Ecole Normale Superieure

Email: niyazkireyev@gmail.com
Paris, France; Moscow, Russia

V. Plungian

Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia; HSE University

Email: plungian@iling-ran.ru
Moscow, Russia; Moscow, Russia

Bibliografia

  1. Александров 1845 — Современные исторические труды в России. М. Т. Каченовского, М. П. Погодина, Н. Г. Устрялова, Н. А. Полевого, Ф. В. Булгарина, Ф. Л. Морошкина, М. Н. Макарова, А. Ф. Вельтмана, В. В. Игнатовича, П. Г. Буткова, Н. В. Савельева и А. Д. Черткова: Письма А. В. Александрова к издателю «Маяка». СПб.: Тип. Штаба Отдельного корпуса внутренней стражи, 1845.
  2. Безносикова (ред.) 2012 — Безносикова Л. М. (ред.). Коми сёрнисикас кывчукöр. Словарь диалектов коми языка. В 2-х т. Сыктывкар: Кола, 2012.
  3. Кириллова (ред.) 2008 — Кириллова Л. Е. (ред.). Удмурт-ӟуч кыллюкам. Удмуртско-русский словарь. Ижевск: УИИЯЛ УрО РАН, 2008.
  4. Ларин 1937 — Ларин Б. А. (ред.). Русская грамматика Лудольфа. Оксфорд 1696. Л.: Ленинградский научно-исследовательский институт языкознания, 1937.
  5. Любовь Мильтона 1987 — Любовь Мильтона. М.: Тип. Селивановского, 1837.
  6. Майков 1984 — Майков А. Н. Сочинения в двух томах. Т. 2. М.: Правда, 1984.
  7. НКРЯ — Национальный корпус русского языка. http://www.ruscorpora.ru.
  8. Нордстет 1782 — Нордстет И. И. Российский, с немецким и французским переводами, словарь, сочиненный Надворным Советником Иваном Нордстетом. Ч. 2: О до конца алфавита. СПб.: Тип. И. К. Шнора, 1782.
  9. Пушкин 1949 — Пушкин А. С. Полное собрание сочинений. Т. 2, кн. 2: Стихотворения, 1817– 1825. Лицейские стихотворения в позднейших редакциях. М.; Л.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1949.
  10. СРНГ — Словарь русских народных говоров. Вып. 1–52–. М.; Л.; СПб.: Наука, 1965–2021–.
  11. Euler 1749 — Eulero L. Scientia Navalis seu Tractatus de construendis ac dirigendis navibus: pars prior. Petropoli: Typis Academiae scientiarum, 1749.
  12. SP — Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku. www.spxvi.edu.pl.
  13. Apresjan V. Yu. Vsё ravno, vsё ravno čto. Aktivnyi slovar’ russkogo yazyka. Vol. 2. Apresjan Yu. D. (ed.). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, 2014, 316–317.
  14. Apresjan Yu. D., Iomdin L. L. Constructions of the type negde spat’ in Russian: Syntax, semantics, lexicography. Teoreticheskie problemy russkogo sintaksisa: Vzaimodeistvie grammatiki i slovarya. Apresjan Yu. D. Boguslavsky I. M., Iomdin L. L., Sannikov V. Z.; Apresjan Yu. D. (ed.). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2010, 59–113.
  15. Arkadiev P. M. On the endoclitics in Russian. Arkhitekrura klauzy v parametricheskikh modelyakh: suntaksis, informatsionnaya struktura, poryadok slov. Zimmerling A. V., Lyutikova E. A. (ed.). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, 2016, 325–331.
  16. Astakhova Ya. A. Formation of the construction vsё ravno na as a result of semantic and pragmatic contamination of the constructions vsё ravno and plevat’ na. Yazyki i kul’tury v tsifrovuyu epokhu: Collection of papers from the international scientific conference. Ratsiburskaya L. V. (ed.). Nizhny Novgorod: Lobachevsky Univ., 2022, 12–17.
  17. Bode M. “Vsё ravno na”: Is the preposition “na” redundant? Gzom. 18.08.2020. https://web.archive.org/web/ 20230304205911/https://gzom.ru/sukha-teoriya/vsyo-ravno-na-lishnij-li-predlog-na.
  18. Valova E. A., Slioussar N. Syntactic properties of the Russian enclitic že: Corpus-based and experimental approaches. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2017, 2: 33–48.
  19. Ventsov A. V., Riekhakaynen E. I., Slepokurova N. A. Qualitative reduction of vowels and the issue of secondary stress in Russian. Idei i metody eksperimental’nogo izucheniya rechi: Collection of papers in memory of Professor Lyudmila A. Chostovich and Professor Vladimir A. Kozhevnikov. Bondarko L. V., Lyublinskaya V. V. (ed.). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State Univ., 2008, 111–123.
  20. Dobrushina E. R. The diachrony of the prepositional control of the predicative vsё ravno, or ne vsё ravno na semantiku. Beginnings of the Russian world, 2024, 6: 59–72.
  21. Zaliznyak A. A. Ot praslavyanskoi aktsentuatsii k russkoi
  22. Zaliznyak A. A. Drevnenovgorodskii dialekt
  23. Zaliznyak A. A. Drevnerusskie enklitiki
  24. Zaliznyak A. A. Stress in the prosodical complexes in the history of the Russian language. Trudy po aktsentologii. Vol. 1. Zaliznyak A. A. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, 2010, 817–826.
  25. Zalizniak Anna A. The Russian vsё ravno revisited. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2025, 5: 61–75.
  26. Iomdin L. L. Polysemous syntactic phrasemes: Between the lexicon and the syntax. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii. Proceedings of the international conference «Dialogue 2006». Laufer N. I., Narin’yani A. S., Selegei V. P. (eds.). Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2006, 202–206.
  27. Iomdin L. L. The syntactic phraseme VSЁ RAVNO. Teoreticheskie problemy russkogo sintaksisa: Vzaimodeistvie grammatiki i slovarya. Apresjan Yu. D., Boguslavsky I. M., Iomdin L. L., Sannikov V. Z.; Apresjan Yu. D. (ed.). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2010, 156–162.
  28. Kalenchuk M. L., Kasatkina R. F. Features of the phonetic shape of Russian prefixes. Russian Linguistics, 1999, 23(1): 1–9.
  29. Kireyev N. I. Accentological history of the word ili during the 17th–20th centuries: Corpus evidence. Proceedings of the V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, 2022, 3(33): 162–180.
  30. Letuchiy A. B. The place of the predicative in the system of Russian attributive words (adverbials and adjectives). Tomsk State University Journal. Philology, 2022, 76: 105–147.
  31. Mel’čuk I. The psychological predicative PLEVAT’III.2b. Proceedings of the V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, 2025, 2(44): 189–202.
  32. Paducheva E. V. Russian free choice pronouns. Russian Linguistics, 2018, 42(3): 291–319.
  33. Plungian V. A. Obshchaya morfologiya: vvedenie v problematiku
  34. Plungian V. A. Vvečeru: On the word whose life was prolonged by poetry. Korpusnyi analiz russkogo stikha. Plungian V. A., Shestakova L. L. (ed.). Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2013, 68–80.
  35. Plungian V. A. On the notion of “secondary wordform”. Typology of morphosyntactic parameters, 2024, 7(2): 80–104.
  36. Shvedova N. Yu. (ed.). Russkaya grammatika
  37. Fedorova L. L. Russian word composition: Between lexis and grammar. Proceedings of the V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, 2019, 2(20): 276–285.
  38. Zimmerling A. V. Impersonal constructions and dative-predicative structures in Russian. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2018, 5: 7–33.
  39. Zimmerling A. V. Do they deserve it? ― Are endoclitics necessary for the description of Russian? Russkij jazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii, 2018, 2(36): 159–179.
  40. Zimmerling A. V. Enclitics. Istoricheskaya grammatika russkogo yazyka: An encyclopedic dictionary. Krys’ko V. B. (ed.). Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2020, 478–494.
  41. van der Auwera 2024 — van der Auwera J. Any and its ‘free choice’. Kalbotyra, 2024, 77: 7–46.
  42. Degano, Aloni 2021 — Degano M., Aloni M. Indefinites and free choice: When the past matters. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2021, 40(2): 447–484.
  43. Długosz-Kurczabowa 2009 — Długosz-Kurczabowa K. zajedno. Internetowa poradnia językowa Wydawnictwa Naukowego PWN. 30.10.2009. https://sjp.pwn.pl/poradnia/haslo/zajedno;10580.html.
  44. Harris 2002 — Harris A. C. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002.
  45. Haspelmath 1993 — Haspelmath M. The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics, 1993, 31(2): 279–309.
  46. Haug 2011 — Haug D. T. T. Tmesis. The Homer Encyclopedia. Finkelberg M. (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444350302.wbhe1467.
  47. Lehmann 2020 — Lehmann Ch. Univerbation. Folia Linguistica Historica, 2020, 41(1): 205–252.
  48. Luís, Spencer 2005 — Luís A. R., Spencer A. A paradigm function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. Yearbook of Morphology 2004. Booij G., van Marle J. (eds.). Dordrecht: Springer, 2005, 177–228.
  49. Mel’čuk 2023 — Mel’čuk I. General phraseology: Theory and practice. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2023.
  50. Say 2013 — Say S. On the nature of dative arguments in Russian constructions with “predicatives”. Current Studies in Slavic Linguistics. Kor Chahine I. (ed.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2013, 225–246.
  51. Turska 1983 — Turska H. Język polski na Wileńszczyźnie (1930). Studia nad polszczyzną kresową. T. II. Rieger J., Werenicz W. (red.). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1983, 15–23.

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML
Baixar

Declaração de direitos autorais © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2025