Content area
While linguistics traditionally keeps lexicon separate from grammar, Construction Grammar takes the grammatical construction as the basic unit of language. A grammatical construction integrates the roles of lexemes with their typical grammatical contexts, suggesting the advantages of a comprehensive approach. Furthermore, according to Construction Grammar, grammatical constructions comprise a system in which constructions mutually reinforce each other. We reveal the complex connections among Russian grammatical constructions that emerge from the Russian Constructicon, a resource with over 2200 annotated constructions. We achieve this by focusing on a single semantic subclass of 110 constructions labeled Sets and elements. Our analysis follows the connections among constructions through two domains: semantics and syntax. We find that all constructions fit into groupings at various levels of semantic schematicity, as well as presenting various syntactic dimensions. A given construction has affinities both to constructions with similar meanings and with similar form, and any given construction may have multiple affinities in either or both of these domains. Through our focus on multiword grammatical constructions, we reach beyond traditional approaches that separate words from grammar, instead viewing words in their grammatical context and grammar in its lexical context.
Introduction
In this article we demonstrate the intensity of interconnections among multiword grammatical constructions in Russian at the levels of both semantics and syntax. This demonstration is carried out on the material of a group of over one hundred constructions that express the semantics of Sets and elements, plus their connections to other constructions in Russian. The picture that emerges from our data is of a complex system where no construction is an island: every construction is related to others through similarities of meaning and form. In essence, we see the grammar of Russian (and any language) as something like a complex neural network, where every item resonates with other items both in its immediate vicinity and across larger portions of the system.
Languages have traditionally been represented as consisting of words on the one hand and rules for combining these words on the other hand. This representation of languages is embodied in the publication of dictionaries and grammars. Both types of reference works are in essence simply lists that present their contents in a format dictated more by convenience than by the structure of the language. In a dictionary, words are arranged according to an alphabetical order that is an arbitrary historical artifact. Grammars tend to follow whatever order the authors devise, typically working up from smaller units (word formation and inflectional morphology) to gradually larger ones (simple clauses and complex sentences), thus representing a continuum of formal complexity. If phonology is represented, it is usually an add-on, as annotations of recommended pronunciation in a dictionary and/or as an extra chapter tacked on to a reference grammar. In neither case does the structure of such reference works reflect the meaningful structure of a language.
Thus, we traditionally describe language as a list of rules that are applied to a list of lexemes, on the assumption that these two groups of items are largely distinct. At its extreme, this assumption entails that the grammatical rules provide semantically empty formal scaffolding, while all meaning resides in the words that are freely inserted into this scaffolding. This is of course a caricature, since both descriptive and theoretical linguistic works recognize relationships between lexicon and grammar. For example, Švedova et al. (1980 v. I: 9) mention that “в грамматике необычайно велика роль слова как такой единицы языка, которая несет в себе разнообразные грамматические возможности” [in grammar the word plays an unusually large role as a unit of language that bears a variety of grammatical possibilities (emphasis theirs)]. Linguists from a variety of theoretical frameworks do at times identify groups of words that prefer given grammatical constructions and vice versa. For example, Levin (1993) and Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2005) connect semantic classes of English verbs to specific constructions from the perspective of generative syntax, and similar connections are made by Filip (2000) from the perspective of logical semantics, and by Haspelmath (1993) from the perspective of typology. However, such indications that the lexicon and grammar influence each other are for the most part notes in the margins of a representation in which these two subsystems of language are largely held distinct.
Construction Grammar (Fried & Östman, 2004; Goldberg, 2006) departs from the prevailing tradition by treating the interaction of lexemes with grammatical structures as the main focus of linguistic theory and description. It is at this intersection of lexicon and grammar that we find constructions. From the perspective of Construction Grammar, all lexemes invoke syntax since each lexeme is associated with preferences for certain constructions, and conversely each bit of syntax has a characteristic pattern of lexemes that it attracts. Furthermore, all constructions invoke meaning, and for many constructions these meanings are not derivable as a composition of the meanings of the lexemes they are comprised of (for an illustration, see example (1) in Sect. 2). Construction Grammar foregrounds constructions as the units that structure the entire grammar of a language. Already in 1960, Švedova used the term построение which very literally means ‘construction’, and suggested конструкция as its synonym (Švedova, 1960: 15). Her definition of this term follows very closely with the understanding of construction used in Construction Grammar: “лексические ограничения являются как бы элементом формы такой конструкции, наряду с лежащей в ее основе абстрактной схемой соединения словесных элементов и со свойственной данной конструкции интонацией” [lexical restrictions are an element of the form of a construction, along with an abstract pattern of combination of lexical elements and a characteristic intonation for a given construction] (Švedova, 1960: 9). Scholars from the Moscow Semantic School have expressed a similar idea regarding the connection between grammar and the lexicon (see Ju. Apresjan, 1986). In particular, the concept of a dictionary by Ju. Apresjan (2002) encompasses various aspects of word description, including constructions, morphological and syntactic characteristics, among others.
Constructions are not primitive units; they are composites of form and function. Construction Grammar posits that an entire language can be described in terms of constructions at varying levels of abstraction and complexity. The entire system of constructions of a language is termed a “constructicon”. The limiting case of a construction at the most concrete and elementary end of the spectrum is a single morpheme or lexeme. Such minimal constructions consist only of a fixed part, also known as an “anchor”, with no variable parts, also known as “slots”. The Russian word только ‘only’ is an example of a minimal construction consisting of the form of this word and its meaning. At the extreme of abstraction are schematic constructions that consist only of slots with no fixed elements. These are the constructions that make up the core syntax of a language, such as the transitive construction, which we can represent in Russian as NP-Nom VP NP-Acc ‘a subject in Nominative case, a verb, and a direct object in Accusative case’, where a great variety of noun phrases and verbs can be combined. At the extreme of complexity are entire discourse structures, such as the structure of a debate, in which multitudes of constructions are combined to produce introductions, arguments, rebuttals, and closing statements.
Therefore, a Construction Grammar approach encompasses within a single system both the contents of traditional dictionaries and that of reference grammars, and furthermore can represent higher order structures pertaining to genre and style. However, these items – the morphemes and lexemes, core syntax, and discourse structures – are merely the edges of the constructicon at large. In addition there is a trove of multiword constructions, each containing both anchors and slots, such as the только и NP-Gen.Pl Cop, что Cl construction used to indicate an unpleasant exclusive behavior. This construction is described in more detail below in example (1) in Sect. 2. It is these multiword constructions with both anchors and slots that bring into relief the non-arbitrary relationships between lexemes and syntax alluded to in the quote from Švedova et al. (1980) above.
Furthermore, and most crucially, a constructicon is emphatically not a mere inventory after the fashion of a dictionary or reference grammar (contra Haspelmath, 2023). No construction is an isolated unit. The constructions of a language are intricately linked to each other through relationships based on semantics, syntax, and anchor words. Examination of these relationships reveals an emergent system that reflects the structure of the language itself rather than an arbitrary structure imposed by scholars. The discovery and representation of this inherent structure is an essential goal of Construction Grammar.
In sum, Construction Grammar accounts for both parts of language traditionally represented in dictionaries and grammars, but goes beyond these approaches in two dimensions, namely scope and organization. In terms of scope, Construction Grammar includes focus on the thousands of multiword expressions largely overlooked in traditional approaches. In terms of organization, Construction Grammar reveals the inherent structure of language rather than imposing arbitrary orders.
Our source material is drawn from the Russian Constructicon, described in detail in Sect. 2. The semantic classification that emerges from the Russian Constructicon is presented through the example of the semantic subclass of Sets and elements constructions in Sect. 3. Our attention turns to form in Sect. 4, where we investigate the syntactic dimensions of multiword constructions, also with a focus on the Sets and elements subclass. Section 4 connects directly to Sect. 3 by providing information about the semantic affinities of the syntactic types. The findings of Sects. 3 and 4 are visualized in Table 2 in Sect. 5, and conclusions are offered in Sect. 6.
The Russian Constructicon
The Russian Constructicon (https://constructicon.github.io/russian/) is an electronic resource designed to represent the structure of Russian in terms of its grammatical constructions. Since dictionaries and reference grammars already exist to represent words and basic syntactic structures, this project focuses primarily on multiword constructions that tend to “fall between the cracks” of these two types of reference works. To illustrate, (1) is an example of a construction entry in the Russian Constructicon. Each entry in the Russian Constructicon consists of an ID number (here 336), a “Name” that presents the morphosyntactic structure in terms of anchor words (fixed parts of the construction) and slots (variable parts of the construction) given in Leipzig glossing, and an “Illustration” that presents an example of typical use. All examples in this article are cited directly from the Russian Constructicon; interested readers may consult that resource for further explanations of conventions and abbreviations. The Russian Constructicon is the result of many joint efforts; among the major contributors are Anna Endresen, Olga Lyashevskaya, Daria Mordashova, Ekaterina Rakhilina, as well as over 40 students from both UiT The Arctic University of Norway and HSE University in Moscow.
This construction consists of three anchor words: только, и, что, and three slots: one for a noun phrase in the Genitive Plural, one for a copular verb form (in the past or future, or a null form for the present), and a clause. If we look up the anchor words in a dictionary, we will not find this construction there, nor enough information to guess that such a structure might exist. If we search through a reference grammar, we might find some indication that relative clauses can be introduced by что, but we will not find this more complex structure, nor will we get any indication that this structure expresses a specific meaning. This construction indicates that in a domain specified in the NP-Gen.Pl slot, there is something specified in the clause slot that occurs to the exclusion of everything else. In the Illustration, the domain is conversations, and the clause indicates that these conversations revolve only around the topic of the house. So we know that we are dealing with people who don’t talk about anything except their house.
ID 336 только и NP-Gen.Pl Cop, что Cl - Только и разговоров, что о доме.
‘All they ever talk about is their house.’
At present, the Russian Constructicon contains over 2200 multiword constructions. However, the Russian Constructicon is not just a list. All of the constructions have been deeply annotated for a variety of semantic and syntactic features. Construction (1) bears the semantic tag Exclusive which indicates that this construction belongs to the semantic type Exclusive. Further details about the semantic annotation are provided in Sect. 3. As shown in Table 1 and illustrated in more detail in Sect. 4, syntactic annotation includes four layers that reflect syntactic or other structural properties of the construction: the construction as a whole, the syntactic function of the anchor, the structure of the anchor, and the part of speech of the anchor. Construction (1) as a whole is a Matrix and Sentential Complement Construction because this construction contains a matrix predicate (только и NP-Gen.Pl) with a valency for a sentential complement attached to the main clause by a complementizer что.1 Since it is possible to attribute particular functions to the anchor words, только и is tagged as Matrix Predicate and что is tagged as Subordinator. The three anchor words of this construction comprise a complex entity that together form a conjunction. Therefore, this construction is tagged as including a Multiword Conjunction. This multiword conjunction consists of two conjunctions (и and что) and a particle только, which is reflected in the annotation category Part of Speech of Anchor.
Table 1. The four types of syntactic classification in the Russian Constructicon, with annotation for the construction given in example (1)
Syntactic type of construction | Syntactic function of anchor | Syntactic structure of anchor | Part of speech of anchor |
|---|---|---|---|
Matrix and Sentential Complement Construction | • Matrix Predicate • Subordinator | Multiword Conjunction | • Particle • Conjunction |
From the annotation of a large dataset of Russian constructions, there emerges a system of relationships that reveal essential structures of Russian as a language. In this system, there are various levels in which constructions group together. These groupings have been discovered through the data-driven process of annotation, starting from the lowest level where we find families of constructions that share nearly synonymous meanings. Within families there may also be some shared syntactic features as well as anchor words. For example, construction 336 in (1) belongs to the Exclusive family, with sister constructions such as 335 in (2) and 564 in (3), which share the anchor words as well as the structural feature of a following clause. However, within the same family we also find more distant relatives that share only the Exclusive meaning, but not the structure or anchor words, such as 483 in (4).
ID 335 NP-Nom только и знать, что Cl - Он только и знает, что болтать лишнее.
‘All he can do is blabber.’
ID 564 NP-Nom только и делать, что Cl - Он только и делает, что ходит в кино.
‘He just goes to the movies all the time.’
ID 483 (NP-Dat) ничего (другого) не оставаться (делать), (кроме) как VP-Inf - Ему ничего не остаётся, как уехать из страны.
‘He has no other choice than leaving the country.’
The meanings and structures of constructions tend to be complex, making it impossible to pigeonhole individual constructions into single classifications. In the Russian Constructicon, any given construction can have a multitude of tags showing semantic and syntactic features, thus it is possible for a given construction to belong to more than one family. At the same time, the semantic types of constructions are not characteristics of particular elements within the construction but characterize the entire construction. A construction is a whole and behaves semantically as a single unit. The meaning of a specific construction is usually distributed across the entire construction, and it is rarely straightforward which of the elements accounts for the individual nuances of this meaning. Certain aspects of meaning may be more associated with an anchor part of the construction, a slot, or both. Additionally, this meaning can change depending on the fillers of the slot. Thus, the semantic classification of constructions in the Russian Constructicon takes a holistic approach to constructions and aims to capture all semantic nuances regardless of the elements of the construction bearing this meaning. A more detailed discussion of the interaction between several semantic types within one construction is available in Zhukova (2023).
When a construction belongs to multiple semantic types, we recognize this as overlap. Overlap of constructions across families and higher orders of organization makes it possible to discern the systematic structures in the Russian Constructicon. Families of constructions are linked by semantic (and to a lesser extent syntactic) relationships to form clusters, clusters are organized into networks, and ultimately the entire constructicon shows an interconnected system of superordinate semantic classes. The family is the smallest grouping of constructions (typically up to ten) held together by horizontal links. The constructions in a family are closely related to each other and often feature nearly synonymous meanings. A cluster is a grouping of several families, each distinguished by a semantic shift or a structural resemblance. A network is a structure comprised of several clusters. The whole language is comprised of related networks.
A family, a cluster, and a network often resemble a radial category structure featuring more prototypical members and a less prototypical semantic periphery. A cluster typically corresponds to a semantic subtype and a network usually corresponds to a semantic type in the semantic classification in the Russian Constructicon. Thus, semantic type, subtype, class, and subclass are the structural units of the semantic classification, while family, cluster, and network are the groupings of actual constructions that share common properties. A thorough explanation of the internal structure of semantic networks exceeds the limits of this article. The analysis of two networks of evaluative constructions (Assessment and Attitude) is available in Endresen and Janda (2020), while the network of Prohibitive constructions consisting of two clusters and eleven families is described in Janda et al. (2020).
The semantic classification of constructions results from a bottom-up process of semantic annotation of constructions. A panel of three native speakers of Russian assigned one or several tags that would represent the meaning of a particular construction. Once several constructions were identified with a similar meaning that could be captured with the same tag, this tag was recognized as a semantic type or subtype in the classification. The annotation of constructions was also an iterative process, where the annotators would revisit the same constructions several times whenever prominent patterns emerged. The process of semantic and syntactic annotation is described in more detail in Janda et al. (2020) and Janda et al. (2023).
Whereas relationships among constructions have been discovered through a bottom-up process, we will describe them in the next section in the opposite order so as to highlight the overall structure of the Russian Constructicon.
Semantic classification
Here we present the structure of the Russian Constructicon from the macroscopic level, gradually working our way down to the example presented in (1) above. The path from top to bottom that we follow for example (1) is: superordinate class Qualia > semantic subclass Sets and Elements > semantic type Exclusive. In this article we therefore merely tunnel through a small portion of the semantic structure of the entire constructicon; for details on the overall semantic structure see Janda et al. (2023).
Qualia and the other superordinate classes
The semantic classification in the Russian Constructicon reveals a hierarchical system. The upper level of this system consists of five superordinate classes: Qualia, Modality and its neighborhood, Subjectivity, Discourse, and Parameters, as visualized in Fig. 1. While all combinations of semantic classes are attested in the overlaps observed among constructions, overlap with Parameters is most prominent, such that 78% of constructions identified within Parameters have an additional affiliation with another semantic class, motivating the special position of Parameters in Fig. 1.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
The five superordinate semantic classes found in the Russian Constructicon (Color figure online, reproduced from Janda et al., 2023)
The lines in Fig. 1 represent the relationships that hold among the superordinate classes. Qualia is an umbrella term for the large class of constructions that describe the properties of the objective physical world, such as spatial, temporal, and other characteristics. The presence of individual constructions that bear semantic tags for two or more of the superordinate semantic classes reveal the relationships at this level. For example, (5) belongs to three of the superordinate semantic classes: in terms of Qualia, this construction expresses Universal Quantification; in terms of Parameters, this construction expresses the Maximizer Degree of intensity; and in terms of Discourse, this construction expresses Emphasis.
ID 84 (VP) все NumCrd NP-Gen - Он купил детям не пять книг, а все десять.
‘He bought the children not just five books, but even ten.’
Figure 2 displays the relationships forged across types and classes by example (5). In the figure, vertical height represents the level of schematicity, with the most schematic and highest level of classification at the top, showing the three superordinate classes: Qualia, Parameters, and Discourse. Below this come the two relevant subclasses of Sets and elements and Discourse organization. Three semantic types are relevant: Quantification, Degree of intensity, and Discourse structure. And finally the three subtypes are Universal, Maximizer, and Emphasis, respectively. The dotted lines indicate the connections of the construction to its various semantic types and classes.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 2
Visualization of the multiple semantic affiliations of example (5)
Subclass Sets and elements
The semantic classes Qualia, Modality and its neighborhood, and Discourse have more granular subclasses. If we zoom into the semantic class Qualia, we find seven subclasses termed Situation Structure, Major Roles, Situation Modifiers, Logical Relations, Properties, Sets and elements, and Magnitude, visualized in Fig. 2.
The semantic subclasses shown in Fig. 3 are groups of semantic types of constructions that are closely related to each other. For example, (6) is a construction at the intersection of both the Caritive semantic type in the Major roles subclass and the Exceptive semantic type in the Sets and elements subclass. Each semantic subclass is populated by three or more semantic types comprising an intermediate level of semantic classification. Figure 4 visualizes the semantic overlaps present in example (6), with a structure analogous to that found in Fig. 2.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 3
The seven subclasses of the superordinate semantic class Qualia, with types for each subclass; numbers in parentheses indicate numbers of constructions in the Russian Constructicon (reproduced from Janda et al., 2023)
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 4
Visualization of the multiple semantic affiliations of example (6)
ID 1905 за исключением NP-Gen, Cl - Я прочитал всё, за исключением последней главы.
‘I read everything except for the last chapter.’
We proceed now to the Sets and elements subclass. This subclass contains 110 constructions across seven semantic types, and each of these types are related to each other, as visualized in Fig. 5. The constructions of this subclass contain information on the relationship between an element and a set. Within this subclass, there are various kinds of Quantification, as well as operators that define modification of a set of elements, such as Additive, Inclusive, Subset, and Exceptive.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 5
Sets and elements semantic subclass, showing internal structure; numbers in parentheses indicate numbers of constructions in the Russian Constructicon; blue dotted lines indicate relationships to semantic types within other superordinate semantic classes (Color figure online, reproduced from Janda et al., 2023)
Quantification is the conceptual center of gravity for the Sets and elements subclass, and it is the only type that has semantic subtypes: Universal and Existential, each of which is further comprised of families of subsubtypes, representing the micro level of semantic classification in the Russian Constructicon. The Quantification type and its subtypes have been identified in conformity with previous research by Tatevosov (2002), Paperno (2012), and Paducheva (2018). Here we focus only on the Universal subtype illustrated in (7) and on the Universal: Free Choice subsubtype illustrated in (8).
ID 443 (NP) все до единый-Gen Cl - Они все до единого присутствовали на собрании.
‘Every single one of them was present at the meeting.’
ID 618 PronInt угодно - Вася попросил купить что угодно.
‘Vasja asked us to just buy something.’
As concerns modification of a set, we find the following semantic types: Subset, Options, Additive, Inclusive, Exceptive (cf. Apresjan, 2004 and Oskol’skaja, 2011), and Exclusive. The Subset type denotes the relationship of a subset to its set, often referring to a hyperonym vs. hyponym relationship, as in (9).
ID 1329 NP из круга NP-Gen - Знакомые из круга писателей
‘(My) acquaintances (are) from among the writers’
Options presents elements of a set as equally available options in a situation, as in (10).
ID 351 хоть NP, хоть NP - Покупай хоть мотоцикл, хоть машину.
‘Buy either a motorcycle or a car.’
The Additive type indicates that elements are added to a set, as in (11). Note that this type is related to the Discourse additive subtype of the Discourse structure type in the Discourse superordinate class. Unlike Additive in Qualia, Discourse additive expresses the addition of information to an ongoing discourse, as in (12).
ID 800 VP в придачу (к NP-Dat) - В придачу к медали он получил премию.
‘In addition to the medal, he received a cash prize.’
ID 1092 к слову (сказать), Cl - К слову, он тоже окончил этот факультет.
‘By the way, he also graduated from this department.’
The Inclusive type emphasizes the presence of an element in a set, as in (13).
ID 441 NP, в том числе (и) NP - Живые существа, в том числе и растения, пьют воду.
‘Living beings, including plants, consume water.’
By contrast, an element is specified as excluded from a set in the Exceptive type, as in (14), which is the same example as (6), repeated here for convenience.
ID 1905 за исключением NP-Gen, Cl - Я прочитал всё, за исключением последней главы.
‘I read everything except for the last chapter.’
This brings us to the Exclusive type introduced above with example (1), which motivates the thread of our presentation in this section. The Exclusive type conveys the idea that an entity, a participant or action is viewed as exceptional and the only one of its kind. Thus an element is distinguished from the set but is not excluded from the set. Within the Sets and elements subclass, the Exclusive semantic type illustrated in (1)–(4) is semantically opposed to the Inclusive type and closely related to the Exceptive type. Further examples within the Exclusive type are illustrated in examples (15)–(16):
ID 14 Cl, разве что/только XP/Cl - Не буду пить, разве что пригублю.
‘I’m not going to drink, maybe only a sip.’
ID 314 сплошной Noun - На полях сражений царил сплошной ужас.
‘There was utter horror on the battlefield.’
In example (15), we see the Exclusive combined with Concession, which belongs to the Logical relations subclass of Qualia. By contrast, example (16) shows overlap of Exclusive with the Degree of intensity type from the superordinate class of Parameters.
This section has demonstrated the highly interconnected emergent hierarchical system of semantic groupings that we find in the Russian Constructicon. Individual constructions may belong to various groups both within and across semantic classes and types. We see these interconnections with the Exclusive type, where affinities join constructions within the Sets and elements semantic subclass and beyond that between the Qualia and Parameters semantic classes. There are furthermore entire semantic types that are related across the semantic classes. An example of such an affinity at a higher level is between the Discourse additive type in the Discourse semantic class and the Additive type within Qualia. Further evidence of systematic interconnections that both hold within Sets and elements and bind that semantic class to others within and beyond Qualia is presented in the examples in Sects. 4.1.2–4.1.4.
Syntactic structure of constructicon
The semantic treatment of constructions is based on relationships of meaning, informed by typological studies, whereas syntactic treatment is based on the syntactic elements and structures found in constructions. Syntactic types are identified by means of traditional terms. In both cases, our classification conforms to typological traditions. Together semantics and syntax constitute the meaning and form of constructions. However, in accord with cognitive linguistics and Construction Grammar, we recognize that syntax also conveys meaning, and we find that semantic relationships predominate in the system of constructions.
The system of syntactic classification is briefly sketched out alongside the presentation of example (1) in Table 1 of Sect. 2. The overall syntactic system is presented in more detail in this section. There are four dimensions for syntactic classification. The first dimension describes the syntactic type of the construction as a whole. The following three dimensions focus on the anchor part of the construction, namely the syntactic function of the anchor, the anchor’s internal structure, and the part(s) of speech that the anchor consists of. Each dimension is illustrated in more detail in the following subsections. In order to continue focus on the Sets and elements semantic subclass presented in Sect. 3, where possible the examples cited in this section also illustrate that subclass. In effect, this means that all the examples in Sects. 4.1.2–4.1.4, as well as all examples in Sects. 4.2–4.4 illustrate Sets and elements.
Syntactic type of construction
In comparison with the system of semantic relationships in the Russian Constructicon, the network of syntactic relationships among constructions is less complex, with only twelve types. However, like the semantic relationships, syntax also reveals overlapping affinities: some constructions share elements of more than one syntactic type. While the syntactic types could potentially be organized in a variety of ways, we will present them here in groupings that progress from the smallest syntactic structures that feature single morphemes as their anchors, through clause-level constructions, and then constructions that combine clauses or even larger discourse units.
Morphological constructions
There are eight Morphological constructions represented in the Russian Constructicon, and in all cases these involve a specific derivational affix as the anchor part of the construction, as we see for example in (17), which expresses two semantic types and subtypes, namely Actionality: Attenuative and Degree of intensity: Diminisher (cf. Makarova, 2014):
ID 1798 при-Verb - Катя приоткрыла окно.
‘Katja opened the window a little bit.’
There are also Morphological constructions that can be cross-classified with other syntactic types. In (18) we see a construction where the obligatory part of the anchor is a morphological affix, but in addition there is a non-obligatory part of the anchor that is an adverb, making this also a Head and Modifier construction. This construction likewise demonstrates an overlap between two semantic types and subtypes: Phase of action: Continuative and Temporal expression: Time period.
ID 1368 (пока) по-Verb - Мы его пока понаблюдаем.
‘In the meantime we will keep him under observation.’
Note that there can be morphological anchor elements in more complex constructions. Example (19) illustrates the Clause syntactic type since the construction constitutes an entire clause, but also contains the reduplicated prefix по- in its delimitative function, indicating Phase of action: Continuative.
ID 28 NP-Nom по-Verb-по-∼Verb и VP - Поспит-поспит и проснётся.
‘S/he’ll sleep for a while and then wake up.’
Head and modifier
The Head and Modifier construction is exactly what its name suggests: a modifier, which is usually the anchor, and a head, which is usually a noun phrase, as illustrated in example (20) or a verb phrase, as illustrated in example (21). This is by far the most numerous syntactic type, represented by 859 constructions or nearly 38% of the entire inventory of the Russian Constructicon. This construction type is found within a clause, usually constituting part of a clause.
ID 1982 NP (и) в их числе NP - Многие остались за рубежом, в их числе Таня.
‘Many people remained abroad, among them also Tanja.’
In terms of semantic classification, example (20) identifies a set, here the people that remained abroad, and directs special focus to the importance of the inclusion of a certain item, here Tanja, as a subset. This construction thus belongs to both the Inclusive and the Subset groups within Sets and elements (see Fig. 3).
ID 769 VP в любой момент - Он в любой момент готов помочь.
‘He is ready to help out at any moment.’
Example (21) likewise exhibits membership in multiple semantic groupings. Within Sets and elements, this construction belongs to the Quantification type, and to the Universal subtype, since it indicates a situation that is always true. At a higher level of semantic organization within Qualia, this construction belongs to the Situation structure subclass (see Fig. 2), where it instantiates the Pluractionality type and Habitual subtype.
Clause-level constructions
Five syntactic types of constructions operate at the level of the clause, and all of these are fairly numerous types, especially the Clause type, with 339 constructions registered in the Russian Constructicon. Taken together, 1064 clause-level constructions have been identified, comprising 47% of the inventory of the Russian Constructicon. The syntactic subtypes in this section are presented in decreasing order of frequency in the Russian Constructicon.
Clause
The Clause construction type is comprised of constructions that constitute an independent clause, as in example (22).
ID 879 вот бы (NP-Dat) (никогда не/всегда) VP-Inf! - Вот бы никогда не работать!
‘Wouldn’t it be great if one never had to work!’
This construction expresses the desire of an individual to realize a hypothetical situation, often one that is unrealistic. Semantically, this construction instantiates both the Universal and the Existential subtypes of Quantification within Sets and elements, as well as the Volition type in the semantic class of Modality and its neighborhood (see Fig. 1).
Copula construction
As its name suggests, the Copula construction contains a copular verb, as illustrated in example (23). Note that the verb is overtly expressed only in the past and future tense.
ID 1809 Как вариант, можно Cop VP-Inf / (NP-Nom) мочь VP-Inf – Как вариант, можно отдать ребенка в частную школу.
‘An alternative would be to send the child to a private school.’
Within Sets and elements, this construction instantiates the Options subtype, and it further instantiates the Root modality type and Possibility subtype in the Modality and its neighborhood semantic class, again showing that semantic relationships bridge even the most superordinate levels of organization.
Predicate argument construction
The anchor of the Predicate Argument construction is always a specific verb or other predicate type, as illustrated in example (24).
ID 1372 NP-Nom включать в себя NP-Acc - Этот учебник включает в себя все необходимые для экзамена темы.
‘This textbook covers all the required topics for the exam.’
This construction makes reference to some elements, here the required topics for the exam, that are contained in a larger set, here the contents of the textbook. Within Sets and elements, this construction instantiates both the Inclusive and the Subset types, and under the Properties subclass of Qualia, this construction instantiates the Property assignment subtype of the Salient property type (see Fig. 2).
If a specific verb in the Predicate Argument construction type features an infinitival complement, we recognize this as a syntactic subtype named the Matrix and Infinitival Complement construction. This syntactic type is illustrated in example (25).
ID 1366 NP-Nom (никогда) не переставать VP-Inf - Никогда не переставайте учиться!
‘Never stop learning!’
In terms of semantics, this construction binds together three subclasses of the Qualia class: Sets and elements via the Existential subtype of the Quantification type, Situation modifiers via the Time period subtype of the Temporal expression type, and Situation structure via the Continuative subtype of the Phase of action type.
Clause and modifier construction
In the Clause and Modifier construction, a clause is elaborated by an adverbial. Unlike Head and modifier, in this construction the adverbial modifies an entire clause. This syntactic type is illustrated in example (26), which repeats example (6), where the adverbial за исключением NP-Gen ‘with the exception of’ modifies the adjacent clause.
ID 1905 за исключением NP-Gen, Cl - Я прочитал всё, за исключением последней главы.
‘I read everything except for the last chapter.’
Semantically, this construction describes a situation, here reading, where a certain piece of information usually holds for an entire set, in this case the chapters, but there is one or more element for which that information is not true, in this case the last chapter. This construction instantiates two semantic types, one within Sets and elements, namely Exceptive, as well as the Caritive type within the Major roles subclass of Qualia (see Fig. 2).
Clause/XP with parentheticals
This construction type involves a parenthetical expression, usually set off by commas, that has been dropped into a clause but is not syntactically part of that clause, as is the case with the phrase в крайнем случае ‘in the worst case’ in example (27).
ID 765 в крайнем случае, Cl - В крайнем случае, он позвонит.
‘In the worst case, he will call.’
Semantically, the construction in example (27) belongs to both the Options subtype of Sets and elements and the Logical relations subclass, where it is in the Concession type and the Other subtype. Both Sets and elements and Logical relations belong to the Qualia class (see Fig. 2).
Constructions that combine more than one clause
Multi-clause constructions involve coordination and subordination. While constructions that are built from more than one clause are less frequent than clause-level constructions, these constructions are still fairly numerous: in sum 358 constructions are tagged as one of the three types in this section, comprising 16% of constructions in the Russian Constructicon. As in Sect. 4.1.3, the syntactic subtypes in this section are presented in decreasing order of frequency in the Russian Constructicon.
Biclausal construction
This type of multiclause construction combines two adjacent clauses without the use of any connecting words such as conjunctions or relativizers. For some constructions it is obligatory for both clauses to be overtly expressed, as in example (28), while for others one clause can be omitted when there is sufficient context, as in example (29). Biclausal constructions with connecting words as well as biclausal constructions with matrix predicates are annotated with separate tags.
ID 356 чем бы VP-Inf, VP (бы) - Чем бы учиться, он гуляет.
‘He’s wandering around instead of studying.’
ID 139 каждый/всякий раз VP, (когда Cl) - Каждый раз улыбаюсь, когда вижу её.
‘I smile every time I see her.’
In terms of its semantic properties, example (28) demonstrates connections across the semantic classes Qualia and Subjectivity. Within the Sets and elements subclass of Qualia this construction illustrates the Options type (here referring to two alternative actions), while within the Subjectivity class this construction belongs to both Assessment (subtype Assessment specific to people: Ethics/Behavior) and Attitude (subtype Dissatisfaction: Disapproval) types conveying the speaker’s disapproval of someone’s behavior. All Assessment and Attitude constructions are additionally tagged for their Polarity value (here: Negative as this construction is typically not used for positive evaluation). Example (29) has an optional second clause naming one situation (here: seeing her) that conditions another situation in the first clause (here: smiling). Example (29) illustrates the Universal subtype of Quantification (since this happens every time), and additionally the Habitual subtype of Pluractionality within Qualia as well as the Condition type which is also within Qualia.
Connection construction
This type of construction always includes a conjunction or a combination of words that performs the function of a conjunction. The conjunction or conjunction-like phrase may either combine two clauses as in example (30) or two elements within a clause, as in example (31). Furthermore, some constructions can connect both elements within a clause and whole clauses, as in (32), where the XP/Cl slots can be filled either with noun phrases (as in the example), or with full clauses, as in: то лия его узнаю, то лион меня ‘it’s not clear whether I will recognize him or he will recognize me’.
ID 888 Cl, вот только Cl - Всё бы сделал, вот только времени не хватает.
‘I would do everything, but there just isn’t time.’
ID 2225 XP, а то и XP - Я люблю кофе с двумя, а то и с тремя ложками сахара.
‘I love coffee with two and even with three spoonfuls of sugar.’
ID 328 то ли XP/Cl, то ли XP/Cl - Сегодня идет то ли дождь, то ли снег.
‘Today it is not clear whether it is raining or snowing.’
Semantically, the construction in (30) belongs to the Exclusive type of Sets and elements, and has two further affiliations within Qualia, namely to the Contrast subtype of Comparison and to the Limitation subtype of Concession. Within Sets and elements, example (31) illustrates the Options subtype, and simultaneously also the Emphasis subtype of Discourse structure in the semantic class of Discourse. Also illustrating options is example (32), with a further affiliation to the Low degree of certainty within the Epistemic modality type of the class called Modality and its neighborhood.
Matrix and sentential complement construction
This syntactic construction type contains a matrix predicate with a valency for a sentential complement that can be either a finite or infinitival subordinate clause. Typically the subordinate clause is attached to the main clause by a complementizer, such as что ‘that’ as in example (1), reproduced here as (33) for the reader’s convenience, or как ‘how’ as in example (4), reproduced here as (34).
ID 336 только и NP-Gen.Pl Cop, что Cl - Только и разговоров, что о доме.
‘All they ever talk about is their house.’
ID 483 (NP-Dat) ничего (другого) не оставаться (делать), (кроме) как VP-Inf - Ему ничего не остаётся, как уехать из страны.
‘He has no choice but to leave the country.’
While example (33) has only one semantic affiliation with the Exclusive subtype of Sets and elements, example (34) shares that affiliation with four others: 1) the Necessity subtype of Root modality within Modality and its neighborhood, 2–3) the Acceptance and Dissatisfaction subtypes of Attitude within the Subjectivity class, and 4) the Negative subtype of Polarity value, also within Subjectivity.
Discourse “echo” construction
Up to this point, this section has examined constructions that operate within a word, then within a phrase, and then within a clause, and then across two clauses. Discourse “Echo” Constructions operate beyond the level of a single sentence, often combining the utterances from more than one speaker. Characteristic of this syntactic type is a word, phrase, or clause that appears in one sentence and is then repeated with some commentary in a subsequent sentence, as in example (35). For more on this syntactic type, see Janda et al. (2024).
ID 1926 Скажешь тоже – XP - – Он такой хороший! – Скажешь тоже – “хороший”!
‘He’s so nice!’ ‘Ha, sure he’s “nice”!’
This syntactic type is not attested within the Sets and elements subclass of Qualia, but shows affinities to three semantic types: 1) the Disagreement subtype of the Reaction to the previous discourse type within Discourse, 2) the Mental attitude subtype of Attitude within Subjectivity, and 3) the Negative subtype of Polarity value also within Subjectivity.
Syntactic function of anchor
This dimension of syntactic classification focuses entirely upon the anchor to the exclusion of the slot. In other words, this classification answers the question: What is the syntactic function of the anchor in the construction. In the Russian Constructicon, we have found fourteen different possible syntactic functions of the anchor, eleven of which are attested among constructions belonging to the Sets and elements subclass. In this section, we focus on the five syntactic functions of the anchor that are most numerous for constructions in the Sets and elements subclass. Less frequently attested syntactic functions of the anchor for this subclass include: Nominal quantifier, Verb predicate, Parenthetical, Matrix predicate, Praedicative expression, and Subject. Note that some constructions lack a lexical anchor part and are thus annotated as “Not applicable” for this classification.
Modifier
There are seventy Sets and elements constructions in which the anchor serves to modify a verbal or a nominal phrase. In effect, the anchor is thus either an adjectival or adverbial unit, as in example (21) reproduced here as (36), where the anchor phrase в любой момент ‘at any moment’ modifies the verb phrase.
ID 769 VP в любой момент - Он в любой момент готов помочь.
‘He can help at any moment.’
All semantic classifications for this construction are within Qualia. Within Sets and elements, this construction instantiates the Universal subtype of Quantification. This quantification is applicable to the frequency of the situation, yielding the Habitual subtype of Pluractionality, itself found within the Situation structure subclass of Qualia.
Coordinator
In ten constructions, the anchor serves as a coordinating conjunction, as in example (37).
ID 1585 иногда XP, иногда XP - Иногда дождь, иногда снег.
‘Sometimes it rains, and sometimes it snows.’
This construction has three affiliations, all within Qualia: 1) the Existential subtype of Quantification in Sets and elements; 2) the Alternation subtype of Pluractionality in the Situation structure subclass; and 3) the Contrast subtype of Comparison in the Properties subclass.
Subordinator
Nine of the Sets and elements constructions contain anchors that serve as subordinating conjunctions, as in example (38).
ID 14 Cl, разве что/только XP/Cl - Не буду пить, разве что пригублю.
‘I’m not going to drink, maybe only a sip.’
Example (38) is the same as example (15), and its semantic classification is elucidated in Sect. 3.
Argument
There are eight Sets and elements constructions in which the anchor can fill a variety of argument roles, as in example (39), where, depending upon the content of the Clause, the anchor ничто иное/никто иной ‘nothing/no one except’ can appear as a subject (as in this illustration), direct object, indirect object, etc.
ID 245 ничто иное/никто иной, (кроме NP-Gen,) Cl - Ничто иное, кроме экзаменов, меня не интересует.
‘I’m not interested in anything except the exams.’
This construction belongs exclusively to the Exclusive type within Sets and elements.
Discourse particle
There are also eight Sets and elements constructions with an anchor that serves a discourse function, as in (40), which repeats example (8).
ID 618 PronInt угодно - Вася попросил купить что угодно.
‘Vasja asked me/us to just buy something.’
Like example (39), this construction has only one semantic affiliation, in this case the Universal subtype of the Quantification type.
Note that it is possible for a single construction to have an anchor that presents multiple syntactic functions, as in example (41), where various parts of the anchor function as Argument (единственное ‘the one thing’), Subordinator (что ‘that’), and Discourse Particle (так это).
ID 10 (единственное) (Prep) что (не) VP, так это (не) XP/Cl - Чего дочь не сделала, так это не убралась.
‘The one thing that (our) daughter didn’t do is clean the house.’
In addition to the Exclusive type within Sets and elements, this construction belongs to the Emphasis subtype of the Discourse structure type of the Discourse class.
Syntactic structure of anchor
If the anchor displays internal syntactic structure, this is recognized as a syntactic dimension in the classification system. Fourteen types of syntactic structure of anchor are recognized, ten of which can be illustrated from constructions belonging to Sets and elements. Again, we confine our presentation to the five most common types, this time the types of syntactic structure of anchor. Within this dimension, a construction can instantiate multiple types.
Prepositional phrase
In Sets and elements there are twenty-four constructions in which the anchor has the syntactic structure of a prepositional phrase as in example (42).
ID 863 NP вкупе с NP-Ins - Сижу изучаю расписание электричек вкупе с картой Подмосковья.
‘I am sitting here studying the timetable for commuter trains along with a map of the Moscow region.’
Semantically, this construction belongs only to the Additive type of the Sets and elements subclass.
Nominal pattern
Twenty-three of the Sets and elements constructions instantiate the Nominal Pattern type. Constructions in this type contain two nominal elements, where one is the head and the other is its dependent with a specific case marking. As in example (43), this structure can apply to both anchors (here: куча ‘pile’) and slots (here: NP-Gen) as its elements.
ID 1484 куча NP-Gen - У меня всегда куча дел.
‘I always have a lot to do.’
This construction bridges three types across two semantic classes: 1) Existential subtype of Quantification within Sets and elements, 2) Unrestricted domain subtype of Measure within the Magnitude subclass of Qualia; and 3) Booster subtype of Degree of intensity within the Parameters class.
Multiword conjunction
There are sixteen Sets and elements constructions that contain a conjunction that consists of two or more elements which may or may not be contiguous, but behave as a unit (cf. Švedova et al., 1980. V. 1, §1676), as in example (44).
ID 153 как XP, так и XP - Его сказки про животных любят как взрослые, так и дети.
‘Both adults and children love his fairy tales about animals.’
This construction is limited to the Options type within Sets and elements.
Negation
Eleven Sets and elements constructions contain a negation marker, as in example (45).
ID 1902 не считая NP-Gen Cl - Трое в лодке, не считая собаки.
‘There are three in the boat, not counting the dog.’
This construction is an example of the intersection between two types within Sets and elements: Additive and Exceptive.
Reduplication
A construction that reduplicates part or all of either an anchor or slot or both is recognized as a reduplication type, and there are six such constructions within Sets and elements. Here we repeat example (37) as (46). Note that this construction also instantiates the Multiword Conjunction type immediately above.
ID 1585 иногда XP, иногда XP - Иногда дождь, иногда снег.
‘Sometimes it rains, and sometimes it snows.’
Part of speech of anchor
This classification simply reflects what part of speech is present in the anchor part of a construction. The anchor of a given construction may present a single part of speech, or, if the anchor is more complex, several parts of speech may be identified. Here we reproduce three of the examples provided above. In example (47 = 43) the anchor куча ‘pile’ is a Noun. In example (48 = 35), the anchor contains two words: the Verb form Скажешь ‘you say’ and the Particle тоже ‘also’. The anchor in example (49 = 7) presents three parts of speech: the Pronoun все ‘all’, the Preposition до ‘til’, and the Adjective единый ‘single’.
ID 1484 куча NP-Gen - У меня всегда куча дел.
‘I always have a lot to do.’
ID 1926 Скажешь тоже – XP - – Он такой хороший! – Скажешь тоже – “хороший”!
‘He’s so nice!’ ‘Ha, sure he’s “nice”!’
ID 443 (NP) все до единый-Gen Cl - Они все до единого присутствовали на собрании.
‘Every single one of them was present at the meeting.’
Semantic interconnections revealed by sets and elements
In both Sects. 3 and 4, we find that most constructions belong to more than one semantic (sub)type. These joint affiliations bind the system of constructions together at all possible levels of the semantic classification: subtypes are joined within types, types are joined within subclasses, subclasses are joined within classes, and the classes are held together at the highest level. All of these types of overlaps are observed within the subclass of Sets and elements. Table 2 visualizes these interconnections through the examples presented in this article.
Table 2. Overview of the semantic affiliations of the examples presented in this article
[See PDF for image]
[See PDF for image]
[See PDF for image]
The majority of examples presented in this article illustrate types within Sets and elements; items from other semantic classes and subclasses are given in shaded boxes in Table 2. The first column of Table 2 presents the number of each example, along with its ID number as cited in the Russian Constructicon. If an example has been repeated with another number in this article, this is also indicated in the first column. The second column shows the semantic type of each example within Sets and elements (this column is left empty for the shaded rows with examples from other classes and subclasses). If an example belongs to a second type within Sets and elements, that information is given in the third column. If an example belongs to other types within the semantic class of Qualia, that is indicated in the fourth column, and the fifth column shows any other additional types beyond Qualia. To show how to read Table 2, we explain the indications for two examples: (24) and (43). Example (24) presents the construction with ID 1366 in the Russian Constructicon, and within Sets and elements, this construction belongs to both the Inclusive type (column 2) and the Subset type (column 3). Beyond Sets and elements, but still within Qualia, this construction also illustrates the Property assignment subtype of the Salient property type. Example (43) cites the construction with ID 1484 in the Russian Constructicon, and this example is also repeated as number (47). Within Sets and elements, this construction belongs to the Existential subtype of the Quantification type. Within Qualia but beyond Sets and elements, this construction belongs to the Unrestricted domain subtype of the Measure type. And beyond Qualia, in the class of Parameters, this construction belongs to the Booster subtype of the Degree of intensity type.
While Table 2 presents all of the relevant information, this format is extremely limited in its powers to capture the true dimensions of the relationships. A fuller picture cannot be rendered in the space of this article, but readers may access a more insightful diagram at https://lajanda.github.io/mypubs/interconnections%20figure.pdf.
The semantic connections tracked in Table 2 display the remarkable interconnectedness of constructions in Russian. Many constructions belong to multiple semantic types, revealing local connections as well as bridges across more macroscopic levels of semantic organization. What emerges is a system in which constructions mutually reinforce each other. Yet this display of relationships is only in the domain of semantics, and, as we have seen, there are also relationships of form that could be taken into account.
Conclusion
Through the prism of constructions expressing the properties of Sets and elements, we reveal the intensely interconnected system of multiword grammatical constructions that characterizes the Russian Constructicon and Russian grammar as a whole. This picture emerges from focus on the meanings and forms of constructions, where we see that all constructions bear relationships to other constructions. Here we focus only on two domains, namely semantic and syntactic, although overlap can be observed in additional domains. For example, the Russian Constructicon resource facilitates also searches according to Morphology, making it possible to find constructions that share a case marking such as Dative or a verbal category such as Imperative, as well as searches according to the Semantic role of the slot, making it possible to find constructions that refer to categories like Agent or Goal. Furthermore, one could find connections among constructions that share common anchor lexemes like время ‘time’ and common fillers like деньги ‘money’. Other possible domains currently available in the Russian Constructicon that could reveal connections include Usage Label (such as Colloquial, Formal, and Obsolete) and Communicative Type (such as Declarative, Interrogative, Exclamatory). We envision future extensions of the Russian Constructicon to represent further characteristics of constructions, such as intonation and gesture, which also bind constructions together in groups.
The perspective of Construction Grammar facilitates a view of the Russian language as a coherent whole in which lexicon and grammar are fully integrated. From this perspective, the unit of interest is the construction, ranging from atomic monomorphemic units to complex discourse structures. Between these two extremes lie thousands of multiword constructions that have heretofore largely been absent in traditional descriptions, but play an essential role in the system of the language. These multiword constructions are the primary focus of Construction Grammar and of the Russian Constructicon.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Anna Endresen and Daria Mordashova for their work on semantic annotation of the Russian Constructicon, and to Anna Endresen, Daria Mordashova, Natalia Logvinova, Anna Aksenova, and Ekaterina Voloshina for their work on syntactic annotation of the Russian Constructicon.
Funding
Open access funding provided by UiT The Arctic University of Norway (incl University Hospital of North Norway). This work was supported by the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (HK-Dir, https://hkdir.no/, Grant number: UTF-2020/1010129 ConLab).
Declarations
Permission to reproduce the figures
Permission to reproduce our own diagrams 1, 3, and 5 from our previous article has been granted by the journal Constructions and Frames.
Competing Interests
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Many of the multi-word constructions included in the Russian Constructicon are difficult to describe by means of traditional syntax. We acknowledge that some constructions, such as ID 336, ID 335, and ID 564, while formally resembling a matrix and sentential complement construction, cannot be considered prototypical matrix and sentential complement constructions.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Apresjan, Ju. D. Integral’noe opisanie jazyka i tolkovyj slovar’. Voprosy jazykoznanija; 1986; 2, pp. 57-70.
Apresjan, Ju. D. Vzaimodejstvie leksiki i grammatiki: leksikografičeskij aspekt. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii; 2002; 3, pp. 10-29.
Apresjan, V. Ju. Kvantory so značeniem isključenija, vključenija i dobavlenija. Komp’juternaja lingvistika i intellektual’nye texnologii. Trudy meždunarodnogo seminara Dialog 2004 po komp’juternoj lingvistike i ee priloženijam; 2004; pp. 14-20.
Endresen, A.; Janda, L. A. Putnam, M.; Carlson, M.; Fábregas, A.; Wittenberg, E. Taking construction grammar one step further: Families, clusters, and networks of evaluative constructions in Russian. Defining construction: Insights into the emergence and generation of linguistic representations; 2020; pp. 1-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574353] (special issue of Frontiers in Psychology, 11)
Filip, H. Pustejovsky, J.; Tenny, C. The quantization puzzle. Events as grammatical objects, from the combined perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax; 2000; pp. 3-60. CSLI Press
Fried, M.; Östman, J.-O. Fried, M.; Östman, J.-O. Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective; 2004; pp. 11-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri] John Benjamins
Goldberg, A. E. Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language; 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001] Oxford University Press
Haspelmath, M. Comrie, B.; Polinsky, M. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. Causatives and transitivity; 1993; pp. 87-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/slcs.23.05has] John Benjamins
Haspelmath, M. On what a construction is. Constructions; 2023; 15,
Janda, L. A.; Endresen, A.; Zhukova, V.; Mordashova, D.; Rakhilina, E. Brisard, F.; Colleman, T.; De Wit, A.; Enghels, R.; Koutsoukos, N.; Mortelmans, T.; Sol Sansiñena, M. How to build a constructicon in five years: The Russian example. The wealth and breadth of construction-based research; 2020; pp. 162-175. [special issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34]
Janda, L. A.; Endresen, A.; Rakhilina, E.; Zhukova, V.; Mordashova, D. From data to theory: An emergent semantic classification based on a large-scale constructicon. Constructions and Frames; 2023; 15, pp. 1-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cf.00066.jan]
Janda, L. A.; Zhukova, V.; Endresen, A. Kopotev, M.; Kwon, K. Typology of reduplication in Russian: Constructions within and beyond a single clause. Constructions with lexical repetitions in East Slavic languages; 2024; pp. 71-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783111165806-003] De Gruyter Mouton
Levin, B. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation; 1993; University of Chicago Press
Makarova, A. (2014). Rethinking diminutives: A case study of Russian verbs. Doctoral Dissertation, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway.
Oskol’skaja, S. A. Upotreblenie edinic so značeniem isključenija v russkom jazyke. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Trudy instituta lingvističeskix issledovanij; 2011; VII,
Paducheva, E. Russkie mestoimenija svobodnogo vybora. Russian Linguistics; 2018; 42,
Paperno, D. Keenan, E. L.; Paperno, D. Quantification in standard Russian. Handbook of quantifiers in natural language; 2012; pp. 729-780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9_14] Springer
Rappaport Hovav, M.; Levin, B. Erteschik-Shir, N.; Rapoport, T. Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection. The syntax of aspect; 2005; pp. 274-286. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0013] Oxford University Press
Švedova, N. Ju. Očerki po sintaksisu russkoj razgovornoj reči; 1960; Izd-Vo Akademii Nauk SSSR
Švedova, N. Ju.; Arutjunova, N. D.; Bondarko, A. V.; Ivanov, V. V.; Lopatin, V. V.; Uluxanov, I. S.; Filin, F. P. Russkaja grammatika. Akademija nauk SSSR; 1980; Nauka
Tatevosov, S. G. Semantika sostavljajuščix imennoj gruppy: kvantornye slova; 2002; IMLI RAN
Zhukova, V. How to threaten in Russian: A constructionist approach. Russian Linguistics; 2023; 47, pp. 141-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11185-023-09274-z]
© The Author(s) 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.