Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T03:22:03.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word-order variation in a contact setting: A corpus-based investigation of Russian spoken in Daghestan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Chiara Naccarato ,
Anastasia Panova  and
Natalia Stoynova
Chiara Naccarato*
Affiliation:
Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics
Anastasia Panova
Affiliation:
Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics
Natalia Stoynova
Affiliation:
V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences / Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: ch1naccarato@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper deals with word-order variation in a situation of language contact. We present a corpus-based investigation of word order in the variety of Russian spoken in Daghestan, focusing specifically on noun phrases with a genitive modifier. In Daghestanian Russian, the nonstandard word order GEN+N (prepositive or left genitive) often occurs. At first glance, this phenomenon might be easily explained in terms of syntactic calquing from the speakers’ left-branching L1s. However, the order GEN+N does not occur with the same frequency in all types of genitive noun phrases but is affected by several lexicosemantic and formal features of both the head and the genitive modifier. Therefore, we are not dealing with simple pattern borrowing. Rather, L1 influence strengthens certain universal tendencies that are not motivated by contact. The comparison with monolinguals’ Russian, in which prepositive genitives sporadically occur too, supports this hypothesis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , October 2021 , pp. 387 - 411
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2007). Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (Eds.), Grammars in Contact. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–66.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Dixon, Robert M. W. (Eds.). (2007). Grammars in Contact. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. (2017). Areas and Universals. In Hickey, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. (1997). Typological and areal issues in reconstruction. In Fisiak, J. (Ed.), Linguistic reconstruction and typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 45–72.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2004). Dynamic typology and vernacular universals. In Kortmann, B. (Ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 127–45.Google Scholar
Croft, William. (2003). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. (2001). Principles of areal typology. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., & Raible, W. (Ed.), Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook. Volume 2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 1456–71.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael & Dobrushina, Nina. (2010). Novye russkie [New Russians]. Voprosy russkogo jazykoznanija 13:141–58.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael & Dobrushina, Nina. (2013). Russkij jazyk v Dagestane: problemy jazykovoj interferencii [Russian in Daghestan: problems of language interference]. In Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue” (2013). Issue 12. Moscow: RSUH. 186–99.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael, Dobrushina, Nina, & Knyazev, Sergey. (2010). Highlander's Russian: Case Study in Bilingualism and Language Interference in Central Daghestan. Instrumentarium of Linguistics: Sociolinguistic Approach to Non-Standard Russian. Slavica Helsingiensia 40:65–93.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57:626–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina. (2008). Tradicii i innovacii v kul'ture gornogo Dagestana: iz istorii sovetskoj školy [Traditions and innovations in the culture of highland Daghestan: from the history of the Soviet school]. Voprosy obrazovanija 3:119–44.Google Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina, Daniel, Michael, von Waldenfels, Ruprecht, Maisak, Timur, & Panova, Anastasia. (2018). Corpus of Russian spoken in Daghestan. Moscow: Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, NRU HSE. (Available online at http://www.parasolcorpus.org/dagrus/, accessed on 21.08.2018.)Google Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina, Kozhukhar, Aleksandra, & Moroz, George. (2019). Gendered Multilingualism in highland Daghestan: story of a loss. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40(2):115–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina & Kultepina, Olga. (2021). The rise of a lingua franca: The case of Russian in Dagestan. International Journal of Bilingualism 25(1):338–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. (2005). The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9:77–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani, & Paulasto, Heli (Eds.). (2009). Vernacular universals and language contacts: Evidence from varieties of English and beyond. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. (2003). Turkish in Macedonia and Beyond: Studies in Contact, Typology and other Phenomena in the Balkans and the Caucasus. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Graščenkov, Pavel V. (2016). Sintaksičeskaja i semantičeskaja tipologija genitiva: genitiv kačestva kak nositel’ ad’’ektivnogo priznaka (na materiale russkogo jazyka) [Syntactic and semantic typology of the genitive: the genitive of quality as carrier of adjectival features (based on Russian material)]. In Ljutikova, E. A. & Zimmerling, A. V. (Eds.), Arxitektura klauzy v parametričeskix modeljax [Clause architecture in parametric models]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul'tur. 444–67.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. (2016). Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics 54(4):433–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. (1991). On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of linguistics 27(2):405–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. (2008). Contact-induced word order change without word order change. In Siemund, P. & Kintana, N. (Eds.), Language Contact and Contact Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Nomachi, Motoki. (2013). Contact-induced replication. Some diagnostics. In Robbeets, M. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), Shared Grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (Ed.). (2017). The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56:251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin. 1996. Word order in noun phrase. In Kibrik, A. E., Tatevosov, S. G., & Eulenberg, A. (Eds.), Godoberi. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa. 148–54.Google Scholar
Kitajgorodskaja, Margarita V. & Rozanova, Nina N. (1999). Reč’ moskvičej. Kommunikativno-kul'turologičeskij aspekt [The speech of Muscovites. Communicative and cultural aspects]. Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. (2002). Adnominal possession in the European languages: form and function. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55:141–72.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. (Ed.). (2004). Dialectology Meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Kaburaki, Etsuko. (1977). Empathy and Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4):627–72.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lander, Yury A. (2010). Dialectics of adnominal modifiers: On concord and incorporation in nominal phrases. In Floricic, F. (Ed.), Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale. Mélanges offerts à Denis Creissels. Lyon: ENS éditions. 247–70.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1):1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leisiö, Larisa. (2000). The word order in genitive constructions in a diaspora Russian. International Journal of Bilingualism 4(3):301–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leisiö, Larisa. (2001). Morphosyntactic Convergence and Integration in Finland Russian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. (2015). How to do Linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April & Nigel, Vincent. (Eds.). (2006). Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. (1978). On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45:233–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moroz, George. (2017). _lingtypology: easy mapping for Linguistic Typology_. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lingtypology.Google Scholar
Mougeon, Raymond, Nadasdi, Terry, & Rehner, Katherine. (2005). Contact-induced linguistic innovations on the continuum of language use: The case of French in Ontario. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8(2):99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. (2008). From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naccarato, Chiara, Panova, Anastasia, & Stoynova, Natalia. (2020). Nestandartnyj porjadok slov v dagestanskom russkom: imennye gruppy s genitivom [Non-standard word order in Daghestanian Russian: noun phrases with the genitive]. In Jazyki narodov Rossii v kontakte s russkim jazykom. Trudy Instituta russkogo jazyka im. V. V. Vinogradova 4:146–67.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. (1985). Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost’ s dejstvitel'nost’ju: Referencial'nye aspekty semantiki mestoimenij [The utterance and its relationship to reality: Referential aspects of the semantics of pronouns]. Moscow: LKI.Google Scholar
Panova, Anastasia. (2020). Corpus of Russian spoken in Zvenigorod. Moscow: Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, HSE University. (Available online at http://lingconlab.ru/zvenigorod/, accessed on 02.03.2021.)Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. (2021). A variationist perspective on language contact. In Adamou, E. & Matras, Y. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Contact. London/New York: Routledge. 46–62.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Levey, Stephen. (2010). Contact-induced grammatical change: A cautionary tale. In Auer, P. & Schmidt, J. E. (Eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation. Volume 1: Theories and Methods. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 391–419.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Zentz, Lauren, & Dion, Nathalie. (2012). Phrase-final prepositions in Quebec French: An empirical study of contact, code-switching and resistance to convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(2):203–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2019). Dialect typology: Recent advances. In Brunn, S. & Kehrein, R. (Eds.), The Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Cham: Springer. 1–26.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. (1993). On the interplay of factors in the determination of word order. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., & Vennemann, T. (Eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 826–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R.M.W. (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. New Jersey: Humanities Press. 112–71.Google Scholar
Suleymanov, Murad. (2016). Baku Russian: Colonial heritage in a post-colonial era. In Schmidt-Brücken, D., Schuster, S., & Wienberg, M. (Eds.), Aspects of (Post)Colonial Linguistics: Current Perspectives and New Approaches. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Lander, Yury A. 2014. Darginskij govor selenija Tanty: grammatičeskij očerk, voprosy sintaksisa [The Dargwa dialect of Tanty: A grammatical sketch, syntactic issues]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul'tur.Google Scholar
Sussex, Ronald. (1993). Slavonic languages in emigration. In Comrie, B. & Corbett, G. G. (Eds.), The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. 999–1035.Google Scholar
Švedova, Natalija Ju. (1980). Russkaja Grammatika. Tom II [Russian Grammar. Volume II]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2013). The great regression. Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts. In Börjars, K., Denison, D., & Scott, A. K. (Eds.), Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse, & Franco, Karlien. (2016). Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change 28(1):1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Baayen, Harald R. (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2):135–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testelec, Yakov G. (1998). Word order in Daghestanian languages. In Siewierska, A. (Ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 257–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. (2001). Language Contact. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. (2009). Why universals versus contact-induced change. In Filppula, M., Klemola, J., & Paulasto, H. (Eds.), Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. London: Routledge. 349–64.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Kaufman, Terrence. (1988). Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. (2008). Genitive word order in Ancient Greek: A functional analysis of word order freedom in the noun phrase. Glossa 84:203–38.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9(1):81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zemskaja, Elena A. (1987). Russkaja razgovornaja reč’: lingvističeskij analiz i problemy obučenija [Colloquial Russian: linguistic analysis and learning problems]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar