러시아어 “что за 구문”의 통시적 발전
The Diachronic Development of the Russian čto za Construction
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper examines diachronic developments of the so-called čto za construction, which has not been accorded a due attention as compared to the equivalent expressions in Germanic languages. First of all, I propose that the čto za phrase started out as a small clause, where a predication relationship among its members are established by a preposition-based predicator za. Under this assumption, one can account for the peculiar syntax(case-inertness of za) and non-compositional semantics(‘what kind of…’ reading out of {what, for, NP}) of the construction in a principled manner. In the course of discussion, I challenge Danylenko’s(2001) proposal to find an analogue of this preposition-like element in the expression vyjti zamuž ‘get married’, with a claim that za in zamuž is not a predicator, but a preposition with its inherent directional semantics. Another claim that follows from the first one is that čto za construction arose through language-internal mechanism. This language-internal development hypothesis is supported by a passage from Novgorod birch bark documents that supposedly predates a Germanic equivalent by one and a half century. Last, but not the least, while reconstructing the development of the construction along the time axis, I make crucial observation that the development advanced in a step-wise manner. This is not merely a piece of observation but an important tool for at the same time explaining the previous developments and predicting how this construction will evolve in the future.
Abstract
This paper examines diachronic developments of the so-called čto za construction, which has not been accorded a due attention as compared to the equivalent expressions in Germanic languages. First of all, I propose that the čto za phrase started out as a small clause, where a predication relationship among its members are established by a preposition-based predicator za. Under this assumption, one can account for the peculiar syntax(case-inertness of za) and non-compositional semantics(‘what kind of…’ reading out of {what, for, NP}) of the construction in a principled manner. In the course of discussion, I challenge Danylenko’s(2001) proposal to find an analogue of this preposition-like element in the expression vyjti zamuž ‘get married’, with a claim that za in zamuž is not a predicator, but a preposition with its inherent directional semantics. Another claim that follows from the first one is that čto za construction arose through language-internal mechanism. This language-internal development hypothesis is supported by a passage from Novgorod birch bark documents that supposedly predates a Germanic equivalent by one and a half century. Last, but not the least, while reconstructing the development of the construction along the time axis, I make crucial observation that the development advanced in a step-wise manner. This is not merely a piece of observation but an important tool for at the same time explaining the previous developments and predicting how this construction will evolve in the future.
참고문헌 (20)
- ПСРЛ, "Полное собрание русских летописей", Ипатьевская летопись, 2 (1908)
- "рамматика современного русского литератур-ного языка" (1970), Наука
- "Материалы Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка, Т. 1" (1893)
- Русская грамматика, "Русская грамматика" (1982), Шведова
- Зализняк А., "Древненовгородский диалект, 2-е изд" (2004), Языки сла-вянской культуры
- Многозначность конструкции <что за плюс именная группа> в свете данных Национального Корпуса Русского Языка что же это за конструкция, "Подлесская В.", Russia, ~, pp.Paper read at Диалог 2007 (2006)
- Попов А., "Оборот "что за..." и сродные с ним", Филологические запи-ски(Воронеж), (2), pp.1~12 (1879)
- Aronoff M., "Word Formation in Generative Grammar" (1976), MIT
- Bailyn J., "Overt predicators", Journal of Slavic Linguistics, (10), pp.23~52 (2002)
- Bowers J., "The syntax of predication", Linguistic Inquiry, (24), pp.591~656 (1993)
- Danylenko A., "Russian čto za, Ukrainian ščo za, Polish co za, ‘was für ein’: A case of contact-induced or parallel change?", Diachronica, 18(2), pp.241~265 (2001)
- Kwon K., "The Small Clause in Russian: Structure and History", 박사, pp.2010
- What for diachronically, "Kwon K.", MIT, ~, pp.FASL 20 (2011)
- Leu T., "What for internally", Syntax, 11(1), pp.1~25 (2008)
- McCarthy J., "Prosodic structure and expletive infixation", Language, 58(3), pp.574~590 (1982)
- Moser M., "Der prädikative Instrumental: aus der historischen Syntax des Nordostslavischen von den Anfängen bis zur petrinischen Epoche" (1994), Peter Lang
- Progovac L., "The syntax of nonsententials. Small clauses and phrases at the root, In The Syntax of Nonsententials", pp.33~71 (2006), John Benjamins
- Vaillant A., "Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, In T. 5: La syntaxe" (1977), Klincksieck
- Wenger N., "“Me a sentence type?!” ― English Adult Root Infinitives reconsidered in a minimalist syntax framework", 석사, pp.2008
- Zwicky A., "Plain morphology and expressive morphology", BLS, (13), pp.330~340 (1987)