Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics

447 Pages·1973·12.377 MB·Foundations of Language 18

by  V. P. Nedyalkov, G. G. Silnitsky (auth.), F. Kiefer (eds.)

TRENDS IN SOVIET THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
FOUNDATIONS OF LANGUAGE
SUPPLEMENT AR Y SERIES
Editors
MORRIS HALLE, MIT
PETER HARTMANN, Konstanz
K. KUN1UNNI RA1A, Madras
BENSON MA TES, Univ. of California
1. F. STAAL, Univ.ofCalifornia
PIETER A. VERBURG, Groningen
10HN W. M. VERHAAR (Secretary), Jakarta
VOLUME 18
TRENDS IN SOVIET
THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
Edited by
F. KIEFER
D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY
DORDRECHT-HOLLAND / BOSTON-U.S.A.
First printing: December 1973
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-95890
ISBN-13: 978-94-010-2538-6 c-ISBN-13: 978-94-010-2536-2
DOl: 10.1007/978-94-010-2536-2
Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company,
P.O. Box 17, Dordrecht, Holland
Sold and distributed in the U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico
by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Inc.
306 Dartmouth Street, Boston,
Mass. 02116, U.S.A.
All Rights Reserved
Copyright © 1973 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland
Softcover reprint of the hardcover I st edition 1973
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm,
or any other means, without written permission from the publisher
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION VII
V. P. NEDYALKOV and G. G. SILNITSKY / The Typology of Morpho-
logical and Lexical Causatives 1
1. A. MEL'CUK / Towards a Linguistic 'Meaning~Text' Model 33
v. s. KHRAKOVSKY / Passive Contructions. (Definition, Calculus, Ty-
pology, Meaning) 59
P. A. SOBOLEVA / Derivational Structure of the Russian Lexicon 77
H. RA TSEP / On Deep Situations and Sentence Patterns 105
HALDUR aIM / Presuppositions and the Ordering of Messages 123
MA TI ERELT / Some Remarks on Comparative and Superlative Sen-
tences in Estonian 135
E. v. PADUCEVA / On the Logical Analysis of Russian Quantifier Adjec
tives 149
JU. D. APRESJAN / Synonymy and Synonyms 173
A. GLAD KIJ / An Attempt at the Formal Definition of Case and Gender
of the Noun 201
YU. C. LECOMTSEY / On Models for a Syntax with Explicitly Differen-
tiated Elements (D-Syntax) 231
s. K. SAUMJAN / The Genotype Language and Formal Semantics 251
JU. s. MARTEM'JANOY / Valency-Iunction-Emphasis Relations as a
Language for Text Description 335
L. N. IORDANSKAJA / Tentative Lexicographic Definitions for a Group
of Russian Words Denoting Emotions 389
JU. D. APRESJAN, 1. A. MEL'CUK, and A. K. ZOLKOYSKIJ / Materials
for an Explanatory Combinatory Dictionary of Modern Russian 411
INTRODUCTION
o.
Theoretical linguistics is a term not very often used in Soviet Linguistics.
The terms 'structural linguistics', 'mathematical linguistics', 'applied lin
guistics' (which, incidentally, has another meaning here than in other parts
of the world) all may cover theoretical work in linguistics. In older days
serious theoretical work was done under the heading 'machine translation'.
Very often the need for a special term for theoretically oriented studies in
linguistics does not even arise.
Does this mean that there is no real theoretical linguistics in the Soviet
Union? This would be, of course, a completely false conclusion. Some lin
guists tend to identify theoretical linguistics with generative grammar.
Though it might be true - and I am myself very much inclined to subscribe
to this view - that generative grammar has been the most fruitful linguistic
theory up to now, this does not justify, however, the above identification.
Incidentally, as we shall see later on, generative grammar has not been left
unnoticed in the Soviet Union either. There are different trends within theo
retical linguistics, one of which is generative grammar. While generative
grammar (though one can worry about the content of this notion for many.
internal and external reasons) seems to be the mean theoretical trend in the
United States and in Western Europe, it represents only one of the main
trends in Soviet linguistics.
Soviet linguistics has often been criticized as being uninterested in theo
retical investigations. It must be admitted that in view of the immense output
of Soviet linguistics, theoretically oriented works constitute only a relatively
small portion of this output. However, two further points should be noted.
First, the boundaries between theoretical and non-theoretical work are not
always very clear. Second, much of the theoretical work requires appro
priate linguistic material to work with. This material is furnished by data
oriented linguists. (I am not quite sure if theoretically oriented vs data
oriented is the right opposition, it should be clear, however, what I mean
here.)
Terminological difficulties and methodological differences would very
often make works in Soviet linguistics hard to understand for an 'outsider'.
One would have the feeling that the theoretical background is unclear and
one would look in vain for the claims made in a paper. One would also feel
some uneasiness about the line of argumentation and about the haziness of
VIII INTRODUCTION
presentation. No doubt, our feelings are very often justified. We must not
forget, however, that Soviet linguistics has its own tradition (as has German
or French linguistics, for that matter; is it easy, for instance, for a linguist
used to the generative terminology and methodology to grasp a French or
a German study which makes use of 'traditional' terminology and method
ology?) and this tradition cannot be neglected, not even in theoretically
oriented works. This cannot be an excuse, of course, and it is not always
the reader who should be blamed if he fails to understand something. I am
sure that in the present volume, too, the reader will find quite a few real
puzzles to worry about.
The present book has come about due to chance and to choice factors.
Not all linguists whom I would very much have liked to be represented here
were able to contribute. That much about the chance part. As to the choice
part, my choice, as almost every choice, has been arbitrary. I have chosen
to include here roughly five 'trends' in Soviet theoretical linguistics :
(1) semantics (represented here by Apresjan, Iordanskaja, Martem'janov,
Mel'cuk, Paduceva and Zolkovskij),
(2) applicative generative grammar (represented here by Saumjan and
Soboleva),
(3) generative grammar (represented here by Erelt, Oim and Ratsep),
(4) structural typology (represented here by Nedyalkov, Silnitsky and
Khrakovsky),
(5) mathematical linguistics (represented here by Gladkij and Lecomtsev).
1. The papers on semantics show clearly that we would seek here in vain a
homogeneous trend, though it is often referred to as 'Moscow school of
semantics'. This term is misleading, however. Most of the Moscow seman
ticians follow their own conception as to the role of semantics in grammar,
as to the means of semantic description, and as to the relationship between
syntax and semantics. Very often they use different notational conventions.
To put all this together it is rather hard to find a common denominator in
the works by the members of the Moscow group. Let us consider the works
by PaduCeva and those by Mel'cuk, for example. What is at stake here is
much more than a difference in interest. PaduCeva, for instance, seems to
be more interested in the semantics of logical forms (quantified expressions,
negation, etc.) than Mel'cuk, while Mel'cuk's main interest seems to be - at
least for the time being - the dictionary part of an overall semantic descrip
tion. The methodological differences seem to be more important, however.
Paduceva follows a methodology which could be termed logical analysis.
What she says at the beginning of her paper (in this volume) about quan
tifiers may sound familiar to everybody: "Contemporary thinking has it that
INTRODUCTION IX
a description of the meaning of a sentence requires reference to its deep
structure" which "is close to its notation in one or another logical language.
Quantifiers in particular should be included among the lexemes of deep
structure language". The main concern of her paper is to show that "certain
transformations are applicable or inapplicable to a sentence depending on
what sort of quantifier appears in the deep structure". Mel'cuk, on the other
hand, puts forward a general linguistic model with an explicit formulation
of the methodology followed. The 'Meaning<=> Text' model is singled out by
the fact that "it does not seek to generate grammatically correct (or meaning
ful, etc.) texts, but merely to match, ideally, any given meaning with all
synonymous texts having this meaning, and conversely, to match any given
text with all the meanings this text can have". So far substantial work has
only been done with respect to the dictionary part of the model. The notion
of 'dictionary' is conceived rather broadly and has a dynamic character. We
find a formulation of this concept of a dictionary in a paper written jointly
by Apresjan, Mel'cuk, and Zolkovskij: "The dictionary is based on the
following principle: it must be fully sufficient for a smooth, idiomatic, and
flexible expression of a given meaning, that is to say, it must display in an
explicit and logical form whatever information may be necessary for the
correct choice and usage of words and phrases to convey a given idea in a
given speech context". (In F. Kiefer (ed.), 'Semantics and Lexicography:
Towards a New Type of Unilingual Dictionary', Studies in Syntax and Se
mantics, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, 1969, p. 1.) This view about the
role of the dictionary in linguistic description is rather pretentious, of course.
Nobody has written such a dictionary as yet but the authors do work in this
direction as is exemplified by the description of a set of dictionary entries in
the paper which is included in this volume.
Iordanskaja's article exhibits still another approach to semantics. In many
respects she comes rather close to the Apresjan-Mel'cuk-Zolkovskij ap
proach. In the descriptive definitions given for a set of Russian words de
noting emotions situational contexts as well as the speaker's attitudes and
beliefs are taken into consideration. That the methodology followed in this
paper seems to be a little bit outdated can be explained by the fact that the
paper was written several years ago (1969).
Apresjan's paper deals with one of his favorite topics: with questions of
synonymy, more precisely, with lexical synonymy. He advances a new the
ory of synonymy making use of a set of different criteria. The author, then,
investigates the differences which lexically synonymous lexemes may ex
hibit. This study is written more or less in the structural semantics vein
which, however, nobody working in semantics should neglect quite inde
pendently of the approach he is advocating.
x INTRODUCTION
Martem'janov's grammar consists of three systems. The first system, called
valency grammar is a sort of case-grammar where predicative words are
described in terms of valencies (roughly: cases). This grammar is conceived
in order to express the abstract relationship between lexical elements of a
(simple) sentence. The second system, called valency-junctive grammar, is
constructed in order to describe relations between word groups (including
sentences). The third system, called valency-junctive-emphasis grammar, is
to provide a means for the description of logical emphasis (and perhaps,
topicalization, in general). What is meant by grammar here can perhaps
better be termed logical syntax since Martem'janov's grammar takes only
into consideration abstract semantic relations. I think we come close to the
truth by saying that what we have here is a sort of three-level generative
semantics.
2. The two papers in applicative generative grammar extend the by now
well-known methodology to two new areas: to semantics (Saumjan) and to
word formation (Soboleva).
For Saumjan meaning description means to provide rules of translation.
More precisely, the author states that "The meaning of a linguistic unit is
the class of linguistic units which serve as its translations... To give the
meaning of a given linguistic unit is to give the rules for translating this
linguistic unit into other linguistic units". And then he goes on to say: "This
is obviously not the only possible solution of the problem of meaning but
it seems that only such a solution is fruitful for a semantic study of language
within the framework of generative grammar". In order to arrive at a se
mantic theory of natural language and not just of a particular natural lan
guage one has to base this theory - an evident conclusion in Saumjan's
model - on the genotype grammar which is an abstract (possibly universal)
grammar of natural language. As genotype grammar can be mapped into a
phenotype grammar by means of language specific rules, so can the semantic
description of a particular language be obtained by transforming genotype
semantics into phenotype semantics. Another aspect of the Saumjanian
method is its purely deductive character. As Saumjan puts it "The method
we will use to construct the genotype language (in semantics - F.K.) is a
particular instance of the hypothetico-deductive method used by the modern
theoretical sciences". The elements of the deductive system, referred to as
abstract objects, are not always interpretable in a given 'empirical' context.
But this derives from the nature of the discrepancies between formal and
'natural' systems and need not be - according to Saumjan - flaws in the
theory.
In Saumjan's genotype semantics we can spot, among other things, some
INTRODUCTION XI
of Fillmore's cases (agentive, instrumental, affective, locative, objective) and
a series of, by now, well-known operators which are built in into a modified
predicate calculus. Saumjan constructs his formal semantic theory in the
usual way: he starts out from elementary formulae (axioms) and then he
applies semantic rules (rules of inference, rules of derivation). The general
line of argumentation and the way this formal theory of semantics is con
structed is very similar to Saumjan's previous works.
The derivational structure of the Russian lexicon is treated in Soboleva's
paper. Soboleva thinks that there is at least one aspect of lexical struc
ture "that may lend itself to generative description (in terms of Saumjan's
model- F.K.). This aspect is the derivational structure of a lexicon". What
is really meant here by description is a genotype morphology applicable to
any natural language. In order to describe the derivational structure of
Russian, special correspondence rules are needed which interpret the ab
stract genotype objects in terms of actually occurring (phenotype) objects.
Apart from the morphological structure Soboleva provides a general se
mantic description of the derivational types. This description is given in
terms of such categories as 'process', 'substance', 'quality', etc. Due to the
methods chosen nothing is said here about idiosyncrasies in meaning and
in morphological structure, nor about the related problem of productivity.
Furthermore, derivation is considered as a purely lexical phenomenon.
3. Chomskyan type of generative grammar (where 'Chomskyan' should be
taken to mean not-Saumjanian and nothing else; it includes, therefore,
among other things, generative semantics as well as case grammar) has
gained ground principally in Estonia. A small group of linguists at the
Tartu University has been working in the generative framework for some
years. These linguists make use of this framework in tackling various prob
lems of Estonian grammar as well as in their inquiries into the semantics
of natural language. The present volume contains three papers written by
members of the Tartu group.
Mati Erelt tackles problems of the comparative and superlative sentences
in Estonian. His approach is mainly generative semantic: the structures in
question are described in purely semantic terms. Although the author con
siders only the simplest structures he arrives at some general conclusions
which might be of interest not only to linguists who are interested in Estonian
grammar but also to those who are interested in general theoretical questions.
Erelt argues, for instance, that "it seems more sensible to us at the present
moment to give up the rigid requirement of identity of semantic representa
tions for paraphrases and to replace it by a more general and at the same
time milder requirement of equivalence of semantic representations".