English and Russian Genitive Alternations: A Study in Construction Typology

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

English and Russian Genitive Alternations: A Study in Construction Typology

Sergei Monakhov

Friedrich Schiller University Jena Jena, Germany

Abstract

There is little doubt that one of the most important areas of future research within the framework of Construction Grammar will be the comparative study of constructions in different languages of the world. One significant gain that modern Construction Grammar can make thanks to the cross-linguistic perspective is finding a clue to some contradictory cases of construction alternation. The aim of the present paper is to communicate the results of a case study of two pairs of alternating constructions in English and Russian: s-genitive (SG) and of-genitive (OG) in English and noun + noun in genitive case (NNG) and relative adjective derived from noun + noun (ANG) in Russian. It is evident that the long years of elaborate scientific analysis have not yielded any universally accepted view on the problem of English genitive alternation. There are at least five different accounts of this problem: the hypotheses of the animacy hierarchy, given-new hierarchy, topic-focus hierarchy, end- weight principle, and two semantically distinct constructions. We hypothesised that in this case the comparison of the distribution of two English and two Russian genitives could be insightful. The analysis presupposed two consecutive steps. First, we established an inter-language comparability of two pairs of constructions in English and Russian. Second, we tested the similarity of intra-language distribution of each pair of constructions from the perspective of the animacy hierarchy. For these two purposes, two types of corpora were used: (1) a translation corpus consisting of original texts in one language and their translations into one or more languages; and (2) national corpora consisting of original texts in two respective languages. It was established that in both languages, the choice between members of an alternating pair is governed by the rules of animacyhierarchisa- tion. Additionally, it was possible to disprove the idea that the animacy hierarchy is necessarily based on the linearisation hierarchy. Two Russian constructions are typologically aligned with their English counterparts, not on the grounds of the linear order of head and modifier but on the grounds of structural similarity. The English SG and Russian NNG construction are diametrically opposed in terms of word order. However, they reveal the same underlying structure of the inflectional genitive as contrasted with the analytical genitive of the Russian ANG and the English OG. These findings speak strongly in favour of the animacy hierarchy account of English genitive alternation.

Keywords: construction grammar, genitive alternation, contrastive linguistics, s-genitive, of-geni- tive, construction typology, corpus linguistics

Аннотация

Генитивные обороты в английском и русском языках: опыт типологии конструкций

Сергей Монахов

Йенский университет имени Фридриха Шиллера Йена, Германия

Нет сомнений в том, что одним из важнейших направлений будущих исследований в рамках грамматики конструкций станет сравнительное изучение конструкций в разных языках мира. Существенным вкладом в лингвистику, который грамматика конструкций может сделать в рамках типологических исследований, является разрешение некоторых противоречивых случаев чередования конструкций. Цель настоящей работы заключается в представлении результатов исследования дистрибуции и функционирования двух пар конструкций в английском и русском языках: s-genitive (SG) и of-genitive (OG) в английском языке и существительное + существительное в родительном падеже(NNG) и относительное прилагательное, производное от существительного + существительное(ANG) в русском языке. К сожалению, долгие годы научных поисков не сформировали единого общепринятого взгляда на проблему чередования двух генитивных оборотов английского языка. Существует как минимум пять различных гипотез на этот счет, каждая из которых принимает в расчет один из следующих признаков: одушевленность, информационная структура, актуальное членение, синтаксическое устройство и семантические различия. Мы предположили, что в этом сложном случае сравнение двух английских и двух русских генитивных оборотов поможет найти решающие доводы в пользу одной из этих гипотез. Анализ предполагал два последовательных этапа. Во- первых, мы установили правомерность межъязыкового сравнения этих парных конструкций в английском и русском языках; во-вторых, проанализировали внутриязыковое распределение каждой пары конструкций с точки зрения иерархии одушевленности. Для этих двух целей были использованы два типа корпусов: (1) переводческий корпус, состоящий из оригинальных текстов на одном языке и их переводов на один или несколько языков; и (2) национальные корпусы, состоящие из оригинальных текстов на двух соответствующих языках. Мы установили, что в обоих языках выбор между членами чередующейся пары конструкций регулируется правилами иерархии одушевленности. Кроме того, нам удалось опровергнуть идею о том, что иерархия одушевленности обязательно основана на иерархии линеаризации. Две русские конструкции типологически подобны своим английским аналогам не на основании сходства линейного порядка определения и определяемого слова, а на основании структурного сходства. Английская конструкция SG и русская конструкция NNG диаметрально противоположны по порядку слов, однако они выявляют одну и ту же глубинную структуру флективного генитива, противоположного аналитическому генитиву русской ANG и английской OG. Эти данные убедительно свидетельствуют в пользу иерархии одушевленности как основного фактора чередования двух генитивных оборотов английского языка.

Ключевые слова: грамматика конструкций, генитивное чередование, s-genitive, of-genitive, типология конструкций, корпусная лингвистика

genitive turnover english russian

Introduction

Construction Grammar is the study of symbolic pairings of form and meaning that are characterised by structural or semantic and pragmatic idiosyncrasies as well as a high level of entrenchment in language [Croft 2001; Goldberg 2006; Langacker 2009]. Recently, Construction Grammar has become one of the most prominent frameworks in linguistics research. The theory's emergence was foreshadowed in the 1980s, when Pawley and Syder proposed `lexicalized sentence stems', an analogous term that has not become popular [Pawley and Syder 1983], and Filmore et al. described `minor constructions' or `familiar pieces unfamiliarly arranged' [Filmore et al. 1988]. Since 1995, when Goldberg's seminal book outlined the theoretical underpinnings of Construction Grammar, linguists have performed extensive research. They first compiled an inventory of the possible types of constructions and then charted an entire network of constructions that is arguably capable of embracing the entire language domain and explaining every phenomenon within it, from morpheme to discourse, i.e. from more substantive constructions to more schematic ones [see Hilpert 2014 and Diessel 2019 for review]. The so-called `dictionaries of constructions' or `constructions' are currently being developed for several languages, e.g. German, Swedish, Russian and English (cf. Lyngfelt et al. 2018).

There is little doubt that one of the most important areas of future research within the framework of Construction Grammar will be the comparative study of constructions in different languages of the world. By that we do not mean some kind of item-specific corpus-based contrastive analysis that is enjoying considerable popularity right now [Gast 2015], but rather a whole new area of study that can be called Construction Typology. Linguistic typology examines the worldwide variations of linguistic structures, classifies them into types, and tries to make generalisations about which types are universally preferred and why. Similarly, Construction Typology will explore global variations in types of constructions and associate them with certain construction universals. In other words, the language-specific constructions will be analysed and compared to gain insights into Universal Construction Grammar.

One significant gain that modern Construction Grammar can make thanks to the cross-linguistic perspective is finding a clue to some contradictory cases of construction alternation. In such cases, competing motivations sometimes make it impossible to explain which factors trigger the alternation or, even worse, determine whether it is an alternation or the coexistence of two largely independent constructions. A theory of alternation that can account for the distribution of a pair of competing constructions in one language and of a pair of related constructions that did not result from a loan translation in other language should be regarded as more insightful because it provides typological evidence.

To the best of our knowledge, little research has been conducted in this area. The aim of the present paper is to communicate the results of a case study of two pairs of alternating constructions in English and in Russian.

1. English genitive alternation

The English genitive alternation has been studied extensively. It is one of the most famous alternating pairs in English and is on par with dative alternation, active and passive alternation, verb-particle constructions alternation, will versus going to alternation, and some others.

Researchers have focused on the distribution or partial paraphrase relationship [Goldberg 2002] of the s-genitive (or Saxon genitive) and the of-genitive (or of- construction):

(1) [NP modifier s Nhead]

heart's heart

(2) [Nhead of NPmodifier] heart of heart

The investigation of the semantics and the distribution of two constructions has resulted in the five most prominent hypotheses [see Stefanowitsch 1998 for review]:

(a) The hypothesis of the animacy hierarchy predicts that the s-genitive is used where the referent of the modifier is higher up in the hierarchy than the head. In contrast, the of-genitive is used where the referent of the head is higher up in the hierarchy than the modifier [Jespersen 1949, Hawkins 1981, Deane 1992].

(b) The hypothesis of the given-new hierarchy predicts that the s-genitive is used where the referent of the modifier is given and the referent of the head is in focus. On the other hand, the of-genitive is used where the referent of the head is given and that of the modifier is new [Altenberg 1980, Standwell 1982].

(c) The hypothesis of the topic-focus hierarchy predicts that the s-genitive is used where the modifier is more topical and the head is in focus. In contrast, the of- genitive is used where the head is more topical and the modifier is in focus [Osselton 1988, J0rgensen 1984].

(d) The hypothesis of the end-weight principle predicts that s-genitive is used where the modifier is shorter than the head. On the other hand, the of-genitive is used where the head is shorter than the modifier [Altenberg 1980, Hawkins 1994].

The aforementioned approaches are all based on the notion of a linearisation hierarchy [Siewierska 1988] and presuppose that semantical relations encoded by both constructions can be treated as identical. Stefanowitsch [1998] provides the fifth semantic-based account of the problem:

e) The s-genitive and of-genitive are two semantically distinct constructions. The former encodes kinship and social relations as well as possession while the latter encodes taxonomic and meronymic relations [see also Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004, Stefanowitsch 2003].

It is evident that the long years of elaborate scientific analysis have not yielded any universally accepted view of the problem of English genitive alternation. Many competing motivations are at work at the same time, and this situation makes any predictions about the actual choice between the two constructions troublesome. As Swan explains, `[u]nfortunately the exact differences between the three structures [the third one is noun + noun--S.M.] are complicated and difficult to analyse--this is one of the most difficult areas of English grammar. <.. .> In order to be certain which structure is used to express a particular idea, it is necessary to consult a good dictionary' [Swan 1995: 379].

2. Russian genitive alternation

No mention of this topic was found in literature, but in the Russian language a pair of constructions exists that is very similar to English genitive alternation in terms of function, structure, and semantics. These constructions are noun + noun in genitive case and relative adjective derived from noun + noun:

(3) ruk-amam-y

hand-NOM mother-GEN `mother's hand' / `hand of mother'

(4) mam-in-aruk-a

mother-ADJ-NOM hand-NOM `mother's hand' / `hand of mother'

To the best of our knowledge, the distribution of this pair has not been studied previously. The present paper attempts to support two following hypotheses:

(a) The higher up the referent of the modifier is in the animacy hierarchy, the more likely it is that the noun + noun in genitive case construction will be used.

(b) The lower down the referent of the modifier is in the animacy hierarchy, the more likely it is that the relative adjective derived from noun + noun construction will be used.

In other words, the paper attempts to support the animacy hierarchy account for both the English and Russian languages.

3. Data and methodology

The present analysis presupposes two consecutive steps. First, we want to establish an inter-language comparability of two pairs of constructions in English and in Russian. Second, we will test the similarity of intra-language distribution of each pair of constructions from the perspective of the animacy hierarchy.

For these two purposes, two types of corpora are needed:

(a) A translation corpus consisting of original texts in one language and their translations into one or more languages [see Granger et al. 2003]; and

(b) A national corpora consisting of original texts in two respective languages.

Contrastive linguists generally deal with comparable corpora, that is, corpora consisting of original texts, matched by criteria such as the time of composition, text category, and intended audience [Johansson and Hasselgard 1999, Granger et al. 2003], but since we are in search of typological evidence, there is no need to use comparable corpora for our purposes.

For a translation corpus, the current study used the OpenSubtitles2016 containing 2.8 million subtitle files in 60 languages for a total of over 17 billion tokens in 2.6 billion sentences [Lison and Tiedemann 2016]. For two national corpora, British National Corpus and Russian National Corpus were used for English and Russian respectively.

4. Comparability of constructions

The oretically speaking, only three variants of association can exist between English and Russian genitive alternations (see Table 1):

Table 1Three variants of association between English and Russian genitive alternations

	English	Russian
A	S-genitive	Noun + noun in genitive case
	0/-genitive	Relative adjective derived from noun + noun
B	S-genitive	Relative adjective derived from noun + noun
	0/-genitive	Noun + noun in genitive case
C	No association

(a) This variant predicts that English s-genitives will be translated into Russian mostly by means of the noun + noun in genitive case construction while of- genitives will be translated mostly with the relative adjective derived from noun + noun construction.

(b) This variant foreshadows the reverse situation, predicting that English s- genitives will be translated into Russian mostly by means of the relative adjective derived from noun + noun construction while of-genitives will be translated mostly with the noun + noun in genitive case construction.

(c) This variant predicts that no association will be found between the English s-genitives and of-genitives and the Russian noun + noun in genitive case and relative adjective derived from noun + noun constructions (null hypothesis).

To test these hypotheses, two English words were chosen that Gries and Stefanowitsch list among the most distinctive collexemes of two constructions (the present study is concerned only with modifiers, not heads): women for s-genitive (distinctiveness score = 0.0003) and life for of-genitive (distinctiveness score = 1.58E-21) [Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004: 116]. The first 100 unique s-genitive and of-genitive examples that included these words were then extracted from the Open- Subtitles2016 corpus, and their Russian translations were analysed. Each Russian sentence was coded as a noun + noun in genitive case construction, relative adjective derived from noun + noun construction, or paraphrase (that is, translated sentence in which neither of the aforementioned constructions is used). The summary is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 English genitive constructions and their Russian translations

	Noun + noun in genitive case	Relative adjective derived from noun + noun	Paraphrase
Women's + noun	39	95	32
Noun + of + women	70	18	43
Life's + noun	72	33	97
Noun + of + life	125	5	83

Separate Pearson's Chi-squared tests were conducted for the constructions with women and life}These tests yielded the following results: x2 = 459.602, df = 2, p = 1.142e-13 and x2 = 35.713, df = 2, p = 1.758e-08 respectively. The p-value is highly significant in both cases; the null hypothesis of no association between the English ^-genitives and of-genitives on the one hand and the Russian noun + noun in genitive case and relative adjective derived from noun + noun constructions on the other hand can be rejected.

Although the effect size of the second test is weaker than that of the first one (Cramer's V of 0.293 compared to Cramer's V of 0.448 respectively), standardised Pearson's residuals obtained for each cell in the data frame indicate that the same individual deviations are statistically significant in both cases. S-genitives are commonly translated into Russian by means of the relative adjective derived from noun + noun construction, while of-genitives are associated with the noun + noun in genitive case construction.

To visualise the results, the assoc function from the vcd library in R Studio [R Core Team 2013] was used. In Figures 1 and 2, pink shading indicates that individual residuals are significantly underrepresented; blue shading indicates that individual residuals are significantly overrepresented; and grey shading indicates that individual residuals do not differ significantly from their expected values.

Figure 1. Associationplotfortheconstructionswithwomen

Figure 2. Association plot for the constructions with life

Considering these results, hypothesis (b) appears to be true. In a sense, this finding is counterintuitive. Instead, it would be expected that the English s-genitive would be more similar to the Russian true genitive (noun + noun in genitive case) because this construction is the authentic genitive from a historical perspective. However, the word order, namely the linear precedence of a modifier or head in respective constructions, appears to be a powerful factor. The alignment of English and Russian phrases that the present case study has revealed is likely explained by translators' desire to preserve the initial order of constituents (see Table 3).

Table 3. Alignment of English and Russian genitive constructions

	Modifier + head	Head + modifier
English	S-genitive	Of-genitive
Russian	Relative adjective derived from noun + noun	Noun + noun in genitive case

Overall, the most important finding is the comparability of English and Russian pairs of alternating constructions. This discovery made it possible to proceed with the comparative analysis of their intra-language distribution from the perspective of the animacy hierarchy.

5. Distribution of constructions

The animacy hierarchy [Comrie 1981] is `a scalar representation of types of referents or referring expressions that are ranked according to their deictic, semantic, and/or discourse-pragmatic properties' [Haude and Witzlack-Makarevich 2016: 433]. It is also referred to in the literature as the referential hierarchy [Haude and Witzlack-Makarevich 2016], empathy hierarchy [Kuno and Kaburaki 1977], nominal hierarchy [Dixon 1979], indexability hierarchy [Bickel and Nichols 2007], and `hierarchy of inherent lexical content' [Silverstein 1976].

This hierarchy can be presented in different ways, but the present paper adopted (with the exclusion of all pronouns) the following version provided in [Dixon 1979]:

(5) Proper nouns > human common nouns > animate common nouns > inanimate common nouns

The hypothesis is that both in English and Russian, the closer a modifier is to the left extremity of the scale (5), the more likely it is to be used with the s-genitive and relative adjective derivedfrom noun + noun constructions respectively. In contrast, the closer a modifier is to the right extremity of the scale (5), the more likely it is to be used with the of-genitive and noun + noun in genitive case constructions respectively.

To test this hypothesis, four groups of English words were chosen: proper nouns, human common nouns, animate common nouns, and inanimate common nouns. Each group comprised ten different lexemes that are most frequently used as modifiers in s-genitive construction, according to the British National Corpus. These lexemes had to satisfy certain criteria in addition to frequency of use:

(a) They had to be used at least once within the English of-genitive construction.

(b) For the group of inanimate common nouns, only concrete nouns were qualified.

(c) Their Russian counterparts had to be used at least once within both therelative adjective derivedfrom noun + noun and noun + noun in genitive case constructions. The only exception to this rule was proper nouns that were chosen for each language separately due to reasons of cultural specificity.

(d) The adjectives derived from their Russian counterparts had to retain their literal meaning as the main one. All English candidates leading to metaphorical Russian adjectives and adjectives that are part of terminologised lexical units were excluded.

After that, the raw frequencies of each word were calculated within four respective constructions in the British National Corpus and Russian National Corpus.Sincewearenotmakinganyintra-corpuscomparisons, thereisnoneedtousenormalisedfrequencies.The entire dataset is presented in appendices 1 and 2; the summary is provided in Table 4.

Separate Pearson's Chi-squared tests were conducted for all consecutive pairings of groups of nouns in English and Russian moving from the left extremity of the scale (5) to the right. The standardised Pearson's residuals for each cell are presented in Tables 5 to 7.

Table 4.Raw frequencies of English and Russian genitive constructions

	English	Russian
	5-genitive	0/-genitive	Noun + noun in genitive case	Relative adjective derived from noun + noun
Proper nouns	1,084	262	23,031	8,576
Human common nouns	3,615	1,128	44,774	19,756
Animate common nouns	1,369	1,056	25,674	12,870
Inanimate common nouns	773	2,002	52,887	55,151

Table 5. Proper nouns and human common nouns in genitive alternation

	English	Russian
	5-genitive	0/-genitive	Noun + noun in genitive case	Relative adjective derived from noun + noun
Proper nouns	3.33064	-3.33064	11.12437	-11.12437
Human common nouns	-3.33064	3.33064	-11.12437	11.12437
Pearson's Chi- squared test	X2 = 10.849, df = 1, p= < 0.001	X2 = 123.58, df = 1, p= < 2.2e-16

Table 6. Human common nouns and animate common nouns in genitive alternation

	English	Russian
	5-genitive	0/-genitive	Noun + noun in genitive case	Relative adjective derived from noun + noun
Human common nouns	17.20047	-17.20047	9.268528	-9.268528
Animate common nouns	-17.20047	17.20047	-9.268528	9.268528
Pearson's Chi- squared test	X2 = 294.92, df = 1, p= < 2.2e-16	X2 = 85.777, df = 1, p= < 2.2e-16

Table 7. Animate common nouns and inanimate common nouns in genitive alternation

	English	Russian
	5-genitive	0/-genitive	Noun + noun in genitive case	Relative adjective derived from noun + noun
Animate common nouns	20.90222	-20.90222	59.67713	-59.67713
Inanimate common nouns	-20.90222	20.90222	-59.67713	59.67713
Pearson's Chi- squared test	X2 = 435.72, df = 1, p= < 2.2e-16	X2 = 3560.7, df = 1, p= < 2.2e-16

The same picture is evident across Tables 5 to 7: the first lines indicate overrepresentation of s-genitives in English and noun + noun in genitive case constructions in Russian (positive values of standardised Pearson's residuals). These lines also indicate the underrepresentation of of-genitives in English and relative adjective derived from noun + noun constructions in Russian (negative values of standardised Pearson's residuals). In the second lines, the picture is reversed: s- genitives and noun + noun in genitive case constructions are underrepresented in English and Russian respectively. Of-genitives and relative adjective derived from noun + noun constructions are overrepresented in English and Russian respectively.

All results are highly significant, and the English part of the hypothesis can be considered true. The closer a modifier is to the left extremity of the scale (5), the more likely it is to be used with s-genitive. On the other hand, the closer a modifier is to the right extremity of the scale (5), the more likely it is to be used with of- genitive. This is not surprising; the present analysis has merely replicated the findings of other numerous studies.

It is interesting that in Russian, the same animacy hierarchy governs the distribution of a similar alternating pair of constructions. Surprisingly, the expectations about the alignment of English and Russian pairs were not met. The linear order of modifier and head that we considered a strong predictor was abandoned in favour of the notion of true, or inflectional, `genetiveness' on the one hand and periphrastic, or analytical, `genetiveness' on the other. For this reason, it was necessary to rearrange Table 8 as follows:

Table 8Rearranged alignment of English and Russian genitive constructions

	Inflectional 'genetiveness'	Analytical 'genetiveness'
English	S-genitive	0/-genitive
Russian	Noun + noun in genitive case	Relative adjective derived from noun + noun

7. Animacy continuum

When the significance of the association between the English and Russian pairs of constructions is measured along the whole animacy continuum and not pairwise, it is clear that the two languages, though similar in their general adherence to the hierarchical principle, have different cut-off points on this scale.

The results are visualised in Figures 3 and 4: the pink shading indicates that individual residuals are significantly underrepresented; the blue shading indicates that individual residuals are significantly overrepresented; and the grey shading indicates that individual residuals do not differ significantly from their expected values.

In English (Figure 3), the differential attribute is `humanness'. The borderline is drawn between groups of proper nouns and human common nouns on the one hand (preferably used with s-genitives) and animate common nouns and inanimate common nouns on the other (preferably used with of-genitives). In Russian (Figure 4) the differential attribute is `animateness'. The borderline is drawn between groups of proper nouns, human common nouns, and animate common nouns on the one hand (preferably used with the noun + noun in genitive case construction), and inanimate common nouns, on the other (preferably used with the relative adjective derivedfrom noun + noun construction).

8. CoMostructional strength

Figure 3. English genitive alternation along the animacy continuum (Cramer's V = 0.41)

Since our analysis of English and Russian genitive alternations is essentially an examination of alternating pairs of constructions and relative preferences for words that can occur in them, a collostructional analysis of the data was also conducted. The constructional analysis, also referred to as distinctive-collexeme analysis, is a method proposed in [Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004] for identifying words that appear in particular slots of constructions rather than any words within a given span.

Figure 4. Russian genitive alternation along the animacy continuum (Cramer's V = 0.21)

The coll.analysis package for R Studio was used to calculate the constructional strengths of 40 English and 40 Russian words in the data [Gries 2007]; the log-likelihood ratio was chosen as an index of association strength (other measures accessible in the coll.analysis package yield comparable results). The output for the English data is presented in Figure 5 and the output for the Russian data is displayed in Figure 6. In both cases, the lines for each construction are sorted from the highest index of constructional strengths to the lowest. The higher index, the stronger preference a given lexeme reveals for a particular construction. The red lines in both figures divide the output into four equal parts consisting of 10 lines each.

Figure 5. Distinctive-collexeme analysis of the English data

	words	obs.freq.l	obs.freq.2	exp.freq.l	exp.freq.2	pref.occur	delta.p.constr.to.word	delta.p.word.to.constr	coll, strength
3«	fish	86	662	453.279121	294.720879	OF.GENITIVE	-0.13625%737	-0.52585778	839.7431043
36	gross	1	361	219.367703	142.632297	OF.GENITIVE	-0.0810138945	-0.62320993	678.0646337
36	computer	133	570	426.009655	276.990345	OF.GENITIVE	-0.1087058799	-0.44447792	547.2987481
31	stone	74	393	282.996457	184.003543	OF.GENITIVE	-0.0775371845	-0.46684207	414.9432904
4«	cigorette	1	57	35.147312	22.852688	OF.GENITIVE	-0.0126685707	-0.59178720	97.5101351
35	opple	5	58	38.177252	24.822748	OF.GENITIVE	-0.0123086810	-0.52957844	78.5301760
39	tree	28	88	70.294623	45.705377	OF.GENITIVE	-0.0156912038	-0.36839425	64.4250906
33	cor	251	279	321.173709	208.826291	OF.GENITIVE	-0.0260342778	-0.13892555	39.8206666
12	president	570	531	667.192931	433.807069	OF.GENITIVE	-0.0360583445	-0.09781690	39.1058925
34	pin	6	21	16.361680	10.638320	OF.GENITIVE	-0.0038441583	-0.38468596	16.5642604
37	book	191	173	220.57% 79	143.420321	OF.GENITIVE	-0.0109739901	-0.08397038	10.2123513
11	driver	435	25	278.754540	181.245460	S.GENITIVE	0.0579666913	0.35409247	297.5167810
15	reoder	335	23	216.943751	141.056249	S.GENITIVE	0.0437985856	0.34056619	213.0048427
13	doctor	623	124	452.673133	294.326867	S.GENITIVE	0.0631908594	0.24417153	195.0423541
17	monager	428	65	298.752148	194.247852	S.GENITIVE	0.0479506433	0.27413786	171.8807539
14	former	238	11	150.891044	98.108956	S.GENITIVE	0.0323172138	0.35772547	171.6512286
9	Wordsworth	210	24	141.801222	92.198778	S.GENITIVE	0.0253015830	0.29761681	102.0821780
23	horse	385	107	298.146160	193.853840	S.GENITIVE	0.0322225665	0.18457645	72.6022002
32	doll	83	2	51.508991	33.491009	S.GENITIVE	0.0116830888	0.37329315	68.2938607
19	soldier	109	11	72.718576	47.281424	S.GENITIVE	0.0134603215	0.30559361	56.647%97
1	Shokespeore	374	121	299.964124	195.035876	S.GENITIVE	0.0274671324	0.15642641	51.5969760
21	cow	153	29	110.289840	71.710160	S.GENITIVE	0.0158453671	0.23851655	48.3393408
16	master	325	103	259.362920	168.637080	S.GENITIVE	0.0243511995	0.15940104	46.7342576
3	Tolkien	99	12	67.264682	43.735318	S.GENITIVE	0.0117737268	0.28874285	45.8629922
5	Kipling	51	2	32.117371	20.882629	S.GENITIVE	0.0070054101	0.35795657	37.9174739
28	cot	203	58	158.162902	102.837098	S.GENITIVE	0.0166344559	0.17585540	35.6586822
18	teacher	549	234	474.488706	308.511294	S. GENITIVE	0.0276435116	0.10225356	32.9910048
10	Spenser	S3	4	34.541323	22.458677	S.GENITIVE	0.0068481248	0.32547983	31.7062918
25	snail	52	5	34.541323	22.458677	S.GENITIVE	0.0064771272	0.30784694	27.6362952
26	goat	77	14	55.144920	35.855080	S.GENITIVE	0.0081081824	8.242U741	25.2589«28
8	Wilde	46	8	32.723359	21.276641	S.GENITIVE	0.0049256020	0.24704544	15.7457999
4	Chaucer	62	14	46.055098	29.944902	S.GENITIVE	0.0059155205	0.21122335	15.6711671
22	spider	67	17	50.903003	33.096997	S.GENITIVE	0.0059719473	0.19306751	14.2642908
29	pig	104	35	84.232350	54.767650	S.GENITIVE	0.0073337507	0.14398619	12.6529517
27	boar	40	8	29.087430	18.912570	S.GENITIVE	0.0040485372	0.22831S99	11.7640582
6	Tennyson	38	8	27.875454	18.124546	S.GENITIVE	0.0037561823	0.22099935	10.5007782
7	Byron	44	13	34.541323	22.458677	S.GENITIVE	0.0035091463	0.16678381	7.1173584
2	Milton	107	56	98.776065	64.223935	S.GENITIVE	0.0030S10601	0.05119275	1.7930679
24	bird	202	121	195.734166	127.265834	S.GENITIVE	0.0023246094	0.01997025	0.5271517
20	traitor	3	1	2.423953	1.576047	S.GENITIVE	0.0002137122	0.14406292	0.3695598

Though it is necessary to allow for the idiosyncratic behaviour of different words in the two languages, the results of the distinctive-collexeme analysis largely support our previous findings. Inanimate common nouns constitute the majority of words that display the strongest preference for analytical genitives (the of-genitive in English and the relative adjective derivedfrom noun + noun construction in Russian). Human common nouns constitute the majority of words that demonstrate the strongest preference for inflectional genitives (the s-genitive in English and the noun + noun in genitive case construction in Russian).

There are, however, discrepancies suggesting that at least some levels of the animacy hierarchy form a continuum. Words with referents that are conceived of as more prototypically animate demonstrate a stronger preference for inflectional genitives than words from the same group with referents that are less prototypically animate. This tendency is most observable with animate common nouns that occupy the intermediate position between undoubtedly animate human beings and undoubtedly inanimate physical objects.

wordsobs.freq.l obs.freq.2 exp.freq.l exp.freq.2 pref.occurdelta.p.constr.to.worddelta.p.word.to.constrcoll.strength

31	kanen.komennyj	3903	19431	14071.02140	9262.97860	AOJECTIVE	-0.1749986831	-0.482107738	2.077895e*04
39	derevo.de revonny j	9626	19641	17648.77790	11618.22210	AOJECTIVE	-0.1380775581	-0.311709549	1.022901e*04
38	kompjuter.kompjuternyj	1306	4033	3219.55872	2119.44128	ADJECTIVE	-0.0329336695	-0.366472611	2.897173e*03
29	svinja.svlnoj	1243	1624	1728.87710	1138.12290	AOJECTIVE	-0.0083622811	-0.171498044	3.385752e*02
20	predatel .predotelskij	445	750	720.61672	474.38328	AOJECTIVE	-0.0047435545	-0.231782765	2.593912e*02
32	kukla.kukolnyj	731	922	996.80288	656.19712	AOJECTIVE	-0.0045746514	-0.161902904	1.749155e*02
14	ferreer.ferwersklj	295	499	478.80308	315.19692	AOJECTIVE	-0.0031633781	-0.232249773	1.733279e*02
28	koshka_koshachij	1460	1440	1748.77698	1151.22302	AOJECTIVE	-0.0049700516	-0.100782415	1.190473e*02
34	Pulavka.bulavochnyj	172	177	210.45626	138.54374	AOJECTIVE	-0.0006618589	-0.110348536	1.73291Se«01
21	korovo.korovlj	1908	1312	1941.74548	1278.25452	AOJECTIVE	-0.0005807830	-0.010620862	1.492882e*00
33	moshinojnoshinnyj	14289	1840	9726.21515	6402.78485	GENITIVE	0.0785286841	0.303029971	6.785843e*03
23	loshod.loshodinyj	8631	2488	6705.05215	4413.94785	GENITIVE	0.0331468949	0.181528162	1.572695e*03
12	presldent.presldentsklj	11683	4016	9466.91373	6232.08627	GENITIVE	0.0381403779	0.150922617	1.475275e*03
18	uchitel.uchltelskij	5797	1419	4351.43955	2864.56045	GENITIVE	0.0248790955	0.206465296	1.36896Se«03
37	knlga.knlzhnyj	17458	7165	14848.32262	9774.67738	GENITIVE	0.0449143532	0.117951082	1.332588e+03
13	doktor.doktorsklj	5237	1402	4003.49323	2635.50677	GENITIVE	0.0212295049	0.191022025	1.070190e*03
IS	chitatel_chitatelskij	4298	1118	3265.99177	2150.00823	GENITIVE	0.0177615757	0.194896954	9.168812e*02
6	Lomonosov.lononosovsklj	1591	169	1061.32672	698.67328	GENITIVE	0.0091160436	0.303148916	8.133530e-»02
8	Chehov.chehovskij	4605	1550	3711.62839	2443.37161	GENITIVE	0.0153755436	0.148922120	5.895329e^02
7	Posternok_posteronkovskli	1275	162	866.54915	570.45085	GENITIVE	0.0070297218	0.285931427	5,797916e*02
36	trava.travanoj	2620	788	2055.11447	1352.88553	GENITIVE	0.0097220709	0.168113264	4.262393e*02
17	menedzherjaenedzherski j	70 3	72	467.34557	307.65443	GENITIVE	0.0040557757	0.305044233	3.658786e*02
40	slgareta.slgoretnyj	1475	357	1104.74463	727.25537	GENITIVE	0.0063723511	0.203641509	3.470145e*02
3	Bulgakov.bulgakovsklj	1119	220	807.45254	531.54746	GENITIVE	0.0053619473	0.233962430	3.438004e*02
2	Nekrasov.nekrasovsklj	1169	245	852.67953	561.32047	GENITIVE	0.0054440941	0.225017002	3.331911e*02
10	Gogol.gogolevsklj	3801	1520	3208.70425	2112.29575	GENITIVE	0.0101938197	0.113807813	2.935669e*02
9	Turgenev.turgenevsklj	1569	523	1261.53153	830.46847	GENITIVE	0.0052917450	0.1482S1235	2.023967e>02
30	ryba.ryblj	4035	1834	3539.16279	2329.83721	GENITIVE	0.0085337014	0.086577569	1.846917e*02
5	Derzhavln.derzhavlnsklj	577	121	420.91253	277.08747	GENITIVE	0.0026863734	0.224265953	1.639046e*02
26	kozel.kozllnyj	1361	483	1111.98095	732.01905	GENITIVE	0.0042857901	0.136076679	1.494747e*02
25	ulltka.ulltkln	157	1	95.27819	62.72181	GENITIVE	0.0010622750	0.390898800	1.486139e*02
24	ptlca_ptlchlj	6202	3363	5767.94890	3797.05110	GENITIVE	0.0074703197	0.047240750	8.687149e*01
4	Pelevin_pelevlnsklj	7...

Подобные документы

• The comparative typology of English, Russian and Uzbek languages

  Investigating grammar of the English language in comparison with the Uzbek phonetics in comparison English with Uzbek. Analyzing the speech of the English and the Uzbek languages. Typological analysis of the phonological systems of English and Uzbek.
  
  курсовая работа [60,3 K], добавлен 21.07.2009
  

• Intercultural communication of Russian and English languages

  Loan-words of English origin in Russian Language. Original Russian vocabulary. Borrowings in Russian language, assimilation of new words, stresses in loan-words. Loan words in English language. Periods of Russian words penetration into English language.
  
  курсовая работа [55,4 K], добавлен 16.04.2011
  

• Comparison of nouns in English and Russian languages

  The case of the combination of a preposition with a noun in the initial form and description of cases in the English language: nominative, genitive, dative and accusative. Morphological and semantic features of nouns in English and Russian languages.
  
  курсовая работа [80,1 K], добавлен 05.05.2011
  

• Equivalents of gerund are in Russian translation

  General characteristics of the gerund. Predicative constructions with the gerund. The use of the gerund and the function of the gerund in the sentence. The gerund and the other verbals. Comparison of the English gerund and its equivalents in Russian.
  
  курсовая работа [50,5 K], добавлен 07.11.2010
  

• English football lexis and its influence on Russian

  The history of football. Specific features of English football lexis and its influence on Russian: the peculiarities of Russian loan-words. The origin of the Russian football positions’ names. The formation of the English football clubs’ nicknames.
  
  курсовая работа [31,8 K], добавлен 18.12.2011
  

• English proverbs and sayings with a component "Pets and other animals" and their Russian equivalents

  The functions of proverbs and sayings. English proverbs and sayings that have been translated into the Russian language the same way, when the option is fully consistent with the English to Russian. Most popular proverbs with animals and other animals.
  
  презентация [3,5 M], добавлен 07.05.2015
  

• Bases of English grammar

  Features of the use of various forms of a verb in English language. The characteristics of construction of questions. Features of nouns using in English language. Translating texts about Problems of preservation of the environment and Brands in Russian.
  
  контрольная работа [20,1 K], добавлен 11.12.2009
  

• History of the English language expansion in the world

  History of the English language, its causes and global distribution. His role in global communication between peoples and as a major business. Comparison of British and American dialects. Proof of the importance of their various teaching for pupils.
  
  курсовая работа [119,7 K], добавлен 26.06.2015
  

• Translation of english proverbs and sayings about love, wearing and work from English into Russian

  Proverbs and sayings are popular genre of English culture. Translation of sayings and proverbs about Work, Love and Wearing from English into Russian. Definition of proverbs and saying. Difference between proverbs and saying. Methods of their translating.
  
  курсовая работа [49,1 K], добавлен 27.04.2013
  

• Idiom in English vocabulary

  Comparison of understanding phraseology in English, American and post-Soviet vocabulary. Features classification idiomatic expressions in different languages. The analysis of idiomatic expressions denoting human appearance in the English language.
  
  курсовая работа [30,9 K], добавлен 01.03.2015
  

• Animal and part of body idioms and their russian equivalent

  English idioms and their Russian equivalents. Semantic, Stylistic Identity of Translating. The Difficulties of Translation. Pedagogical implications idiomatic tasks in classes. Phraseological fusions, phraseological unities, phraseological collocations.
  
  презентация [911,6 K], добавлен 03.01.2013
  

• History of the English language. Chronological division in the history of English

  Traditional periodization of historical stages of progress of English language. Old and middle English, the modern period. The Vocabulary of the old English language. Old English Manuscripts, Poetry and Alphabets. Borrowings in the Old English language.
  
  презентация [281,2 K], добавлен 27.03.2014
  

• Inversion and the means of its translation

  Characteristic of inversion in the English from the point of view of its translation into Russian. The opportunity to transmit the meaning of the inversion in Russian. Subject-auxiliary, subject-verb. Local, negative, heavy inversion. inversion "there".
  
  курсовая работа [51,9 K], добавлен 19.07.2015
  

• The history of grammatical study of the English language

  A critical knowledge of the English language is a subject worthy of the attention of all who have the genius and the opportunity to attain it. A settled orthography is of great importance, as a means of preserving the etymology and identity of words.
  
  курсовая работа [28,1 K], добавлен 14.02.2010
  

• Gender discourse in modern English and Russian belles-letters

  Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies. Belles-letters style as one of the functional styles of literary standard of the English language. Gender discourse in the tales of the three languages.
  
  дипломная работа [3,6 M], добавлен 05.12.2013
  

• Regularities of proper name from English into Russian

  Analyze the term "proper name". The problem of defining a proper name of television and his role in our life. The approaches to the translation of this phenomenon. Classification of proper names. English titles of films and their translation into Russian.
  
  курсовая работа [31,9 K], добавлен 27.06.2011
  

• Контрольная работа ВЭГУ 2008 г.

  Контрольная по английскому языку, состоит из заданий по переводу текстов и вопросов. Тема – бухгалтерский учет. Например - translate the text "Money and its functions.", translate the following words, phrases and statements from Russian into English.
  
  контрольная работа [18,0 K], добавлен 26.12.2008
  

• English Predicate and its Translation Properties into Uzbek

  Constituent analyses of the sentence. Complication of predicate and types of complications. The link-verbs in English and their translation into Uzbek and Russian. Transitivity of verbs and the problems of translating them into Uzbek, Russian languages.
  
  дипломная работа [295,6 K], добавлен 21.07.2009
  

• Australian English

  Analysis and description of polynational options of English. Different the concepts "version" and "option" of English. Studying of the main problems of loans of a foreign-language element. consideration of a territorial variation of English in Australia.
  
  курсовая работа [52,5 K], добавлен 08.04.2016
  

• Some issues on french borrowings in the english language

  The history of the English language. Three main types of difference in any language: geographical, social and temporal. Comprehensive analysis of the current state of the lexical system. Etymological layers of English: Latin, Scandinavian and French.
  
  реферат [18,7 K], добавлен 09.02.2014
  

• главная
• рубрики
• по алфавиту
• вернуться в начало страницы
• вернуться к началу текста
• вернуться к подобным работам