Short term morphosyntactic change

Dončeva (1962) - STMC bibliography

Reference

Dončeva, Lljudmila. 1962. Njakoi sposobi na izrazjavane kategorijata opredelenost/neopredelenost v ruskite otricatelni izrečenija v sravnitelen plan s bălgarski ezik, Ezik i literatura 17(2). 25-40.


Summary

This article considers two problems: (i) the use of the genitive and accusative with direct objects of negated transitive verbs in Russian, and (ii) the use in Bulgarian, under similar conditions, of direct objects with and without the definite article.

Constructions under consideration:

Russian      Bulgarian
ja  rukavic ne nošu     az  răkavic-i ne nosja
I mitten[PL.GEN]  not  wear   I mitten-PL.INDEF  not  wear
‘I do not wear mittens’   ‘I do not wear mittens’
                 
…ne  ljubila učitel´nic-u   …ne   običaše učitelka-ta
  not liked teacher-SG.ACC     not liked teacher-SG.DEF
‘…did not like the teacher’   ‘…did not like the teacher’

The author examines a widely accepted assumption that Bulgarian definite forms in the construction under consideration correspond to accusative forms in Russian, while Bulgarian indefinite forms correspond to Russian genitive forms. Using two parallel corpora (original Russian texts with Bulgarian translations and original Bulgarian texts with Russian translations) Dončeva concludes that this correspondence does obtain in the vast majority of cases, but that some genitive objects in Russian may be semantically definite (for example, if they have postposed modifiers). In such cases, Russian genitive objects will be translated into Bulgarian by definite forms. Consideration is given to conditions which trigger competing case forms in Russian and definite/indefinite forms in Bulgarian.

A significant part of the article is dedicated to historical change in case assignment in Russian. Dončeva analyzes the use of genitive and accusative objects in three sets of Russian literary texts from three time periods (see below), and shows that the frequency of the accusative in the 20th century increased significantly compared to the 19th century. The author also examines genitive/accusative variation from a synchronic perspective and considers factors that condition morphosyntactic choices. She does not however provide statistical data in support of this argument.


Texts investigated

Fiction 1830 – 1958 ( split into 3 parts as follows):

1.

  • Puškin A. S. Egipetskie noči, Povesti Belkina, Kapitanskaja dočka (1830 – 1836)
  • Lermotov M. Ju. Geroj našego vremeni (1841)
  • Gogol´ N.V. Mertvye duši (1842)
  • Turgenev I.A. Zapiski oxotnika (1847-74)
  • Tolstoj L.N. Anna Karenina (1877), Voskresenie (1899)
  • Dostoevskij F.M. Djadjuškin son (1859)
  • Leskov N. S. Rasskazy i povesti (period not specified)
  • Korolenko V.G. V durnom obščestve (1885)
  • Čexov A.P. Rasskazy (year not given)
  • Bunin I.A. Izbrannye proizvedenija (year not given)

2.

  • Gor´kij A. M. Foma Gordeev (1899), Skazki ob Italii (1913), V ljudjax (1916), Delo Artamonovyx (1925), Žizn´ Klima Samgina (1936), Mat´ (1907), Detstvo (1914).

3.

  • Ostrovskij N. Kak zakaljalas´ stal´ (1934)
  • Paustovskij K. Izbrannye proizvedenija (period is not specified)
  • Mal´cev N. Ot vsego serdca (1948)
  • Polevoj B. Povest´o nastojaščem čeloveke (1946)
  • Izjumskij B. Prizvanie (1952)
  • Nekljudova O. Povest' o škol´nom gode
  • Polockaja S. Učenica 10 A
  • Ažaev V. Daleko ot Moskvy (1948)
  • Ketlinskaja V. V osade (1947)
  • Koptjaeva A. Derzanie (1958)

Statistics

Statistics (raw numbers as well as the ratio of genitive to accusative) are provided for each individual author and recalculated with respect to each time period.


Which data from the source were used

Statistics from the source are presented in the database in their entirety.

Project members

Prof Greville G. Corbett
Dr Matthew Baerman
Dr Dunstan Brown
Dr Alexander Krasovitsky
Dr Alison Long

Period of award:

September 2004 - May 2008

Funder

Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) - RG/AN4375/APN18306

TOP
close