Verbal prefixes in Russian: Conceptual structure versus syntax

Tolskaya, Inna

doi:10.1017/s0022226714000206

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The general ability of certain Slavic prefixes to stack has been shown to have crucial consequences for the understanding of the prefixation mechanism in Russian, resulting in the distinction of two kinds of prefixes: lexical and superlexical (Svenonius 2004). 32 The issue has been widely discussed for Russian in particular and Slavic languages in general, sometimes with terminological variation (e.g., Babko-Malaya 1999; Ramchand 2004; Rojina 2004; Romanova 2004, 2007; Svenonius 2004, 2008b; Slabakova 2005; Tatevosov 2009a, 2013; Žaucer 2009, Tolskaya 2015). Lexical prefixes contribute “directional or idiosyncratic lexical meanings” (Svenonius 2008b: 527), the latter sometimes argued to be metaphorical extensions of their primary spatial meaning.…”

Section: Incorporating Prefixes 28mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Superlexical prefixes “are like adverbs or auxiliary verbs” and contribute “aspectual or quantificational meanings” (Svenonius 2004: 205). Thus, when scalarity of meaning is emphasized (e.g., Kagan 2012 and references there; Tolskaya 2015), 33 the need to distinguish between lexical and superlexical prefixes is called into question, given their phonological equivalence. Since in Baltic languages the structural distinctions between prefixes are much clearer and since, if relevant, scalarity will remain the property holding within either class of prefixes, but never both classes at the same time, I will not pursue this issue further 34…”

Section: Incorporating Prefixes 28mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On binding, lexical and superlexical prefixes, andsiin the Baltic verb

Korostenskienė

2017

Can. J. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper is concerned with a historical puzzle: the changing position of the markersiin the extant Baltic languages, Lithuanian and Latvian.Siappears before the root in prefixed verbs and verb-finally in prefixless verbs in Lithuanian and dialectal Latvian, as opposed to a consistently verb-final position in standard Latvian and in Slavic languages, specifically Russian. This ordering is examined within a larger picture of morpheme linearization – focusing primarily on Lithuanian, but also bringing in Latvian and Latgalian data – to account for the Baltic paradigm. Historically a pronoun,siis argued to have incorporated into the verbal structure, and to maintain nowadays a binding relation with the subject of the sentence. The placement ofsiwithin the verb is shown to depend on two factors: the type of the antecedent and the morphosyntactic composition of the verb. The findings presented here also provide new evidence against the Lexicalist Hypothesis.

show abstract

Section: Incorporating Prefixes 28mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Incorporating Prefixes 28mentioning

confidence: 99%

On binding, lexical and superlexical prefixes, andsiin the Baltic verb

Korostenskienė

2017

Can. J. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two processes are under-researched to different degrees. The studies that investigate comparative out-(e.g., Kotowski 2021, Ahn 2022, Kotowski and Schäfer 2023, Tolskaya 2014, Irube 1984, McIntyre 2003, Talmy 2000 propose highly divergent analyses, and no satisfactory formal account is available as of yet. In contrast, the by far less productive locative out-verbs are recognized by major reference works (see Bauer et al 2013:ch.16, Marchand 1969; on the productivity of out-verbs, see Schröder 2011), but have, to the best of my knowledge, not been investigated in any depth thus far.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some authors speculate on a metaphorical shift from path semantics to scalar semantics (see e.g. Talmy 2000, Tolskaya 2014), the question of synchronic polysemy of out-verbs has not yet been addressed, and is summed up by Bauer et al (2013:347) as follows:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling locative prefix semantics. A formal account of the English verbal prefix out-

Kotowski¹

2023

Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The English verbal prefix out- gives rise to at least two semantic categories: comparative forms as in to outplay someone and locative forms as in to outstream from somewhere. While most available studies on the comparative sense rely on insufficient databases, systematic studies on the actual behavior of locative verbal out-forms are lacking altogether. Building on a set of more than 1,500 tokens culled from corpora, this study is the first to systematically analyze, formalize, and contrast the two senses. The formal analysis will be couched in frame semantics and model both individual attested examples as well as lexeme-formation rules based on generalizations. Formalizations of the two prefixes, and their implications, are shown to speak against an analysis of one underlying, underspecified prefix. Locative out- essentially functions as a morphologically bound, and highly restricted, version of out- as a particle, while comparative out- is a highly specialized, idiosynchratic construction.

show abstract

“…There is a lack of proper investigation of the semantics of negative prefixing in a rather general way. Tolskaya (2015) Investigates the Russian verbal prefixes and their conceptual and syntactic structure, suggesting that the same prefix with a consistent conceptual meaning receives part of the denotation from the syntactic structure. Peeters and czapinski (1990) investigate the notion of negativity and positivity in language, the asymmetry involved, which is called the negativity effect.…”

Section: Introduction To the Semantics Of Negative Adjective Prefixingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Russian and Negative Prefixing: A Cognitive-Semantic Approach to the Negative Adjective Prefixing in Russian, Spanish, Persian, and English

Singh¹

2018

ELR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative prefixing has always been an important and intriguing morphological process, through which adjectives are formed in many different languages. However, there are limits to negative prefixing. In this study, we introduce the novel concept of Polarity Flexibility, through which the limitations for the negative prefixing are accounted for. Furthermore, we conducted an experiment to investigate whether the PF is an active cognitive process. The results of the experiment confirm our hypothesis and the fact that Polarity Flexibility does indeed influence the cognitive processing. In our study, we introduce the notion of the syntactic arrangement which influences the negative prefixing. Therefore, we compare Russian, Persian, Spanish and English in negative prefixing to show how much the cognitive processes are influenced by the syntactic formations. Russian as a representative of Slavic languages brings an important insight into the way syntax plays role in the semantic-cognitive context.

show abstract

Verbal prefixes in Russian: Conceptual structure versus syntax

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

On binding, lexical and superlexical prefixes, andsiin the Baltic verb

On binding, lexical and superlexical prefixes, andsiin the Baltic verb

Modeling locative prefix semantics. A formal account of the English verbal prefix out-

Russian and Negative Prefixing: A Cognitive-Semantic Approach to the Negative Adjective Prefixing in Russian, Spanish, Persian, and English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About