Preview

Russian language at school

Advanced search
Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Specific features of Russian coordinating conjunctions from the activity approach perspective

https://doi.org/10.30515/0131-6141-2024-85-4-79-89

Abstract

The article examines the specific features of Russian coordinating conjunctions, first and foremost primary i (English and), a (English while, and), no (English but), da (English but, and). The prepositions are examined from the standpoint of the activity approach to the description of linguistic units, i. e., considering the actions of the speaker using these conjunctions, as well as the listener who, thanks to them, receives the information necessary to understand a coherent text. Particular attention is given to the primary conjunctions due to their key role in text organisation. Numerous compound conjunctions and prepositions only develop some of the subtleties of connection against the background of text organisation. Data from several foreign languages are also used to expand the picture since the system of simple coordinating conjunctions in Russian is unique and finds no exact correspondence in other languages. The conjunctions are semantically described taking into account their general meanings and functions. A new interpretation is proposed for the conjunction da. The functions of the conjunctions are associated with the communicators’ activity. During interaction, the speaker partially prompts what kind of information the listener will get. In particular, the conjunction i and its analogues in many other languages indicate that something similar to the previous message will be communicated. The conjunction no shows a violation of the addressee’s expectation, and this function is also very common in the world’s languages. In a few languages there are more subtle indications of the subsequent message content. For example, one can use the conjunction a in Russian to warn that something new, but not necessarily contradictory to the previous information, will be communicated. Finally, it remains possible to signal the addition of information suggesting its exhaustiveness, which is expressed with the conjunction da in a few of its meanings. Marking precisely such semantic relations enables one to draw a conclusion about possible connections between sentences in the text and the presupposition in it regarding the course of the narration.

About the Authors

E. V. Biryukova
Moscow City University
Russian Federation

Evgeniya V. Biryukova, Doctor of Sciences (Philology), Professor

Moscow 



E. G. Borisova
Moscow City University
Russian Federation

Elena G. Borisova, Doctor of Sciences (Philology), Professor

Moscow 



I. S. Kalyatin
Moscow City University
Russian Federation

Igor S. Kalyatin, Candidate of Sciences (Philology), Associate Professor

Moscow 



References

1. Borisova E. G. Understanding management: language units as indicators of message comprehension. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 9. Filologiya = Moscow University Bulletin. Series 9. Philology. 2018;(6):34–50. (In Russ.)

2. Borisova E. G. An interactive approach to describing vocabulary and grammar. Moscow: Flinta, 2021. 196 p. (In Russ.)

3. Zaliznyak A. A. Linguospecific units of the Russian language in the light of contrastive corpus analysis. Kompyuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii: materialy ezhegodnoi Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog 2015» = Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Proceedings of the Annual International Conference «Dialogue» (2015). 2015. Iss. 14. Vol. 1. P. 683–695. (In Russ.)

4. Implicitness in language and speech: a monograph. Ed. by E. G. Borisova and Y. S. Martemyanov. Moscow: Yazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1999. 200 p. (In Russ.). [Borisova, Martemyanov 1999].

5. Inkova O. Yu. Linguospecificity of connectors: methods and parameters of description. Semantika konnektorov: kontrastivnoe issledovanie: monografiya; pod. nauch. red. O. Yu. Inkovoi = Semantics of connectors: contrastive study. Ed. by O. Yu. Inkova. Moscow: TORUS PRESS, 2018. P. 5–23. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30826/SEMANTICS18-01

6. Kruchinina I. N. The structure and functions of the cohesive relation in the Russian language. 2nd ed., revised. Moscow: URSS, 2009. 216 p. (In Russ.)

7. Kustova G. I. Types of derived meanings and mechanisms of linguistic expansion. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2004. 472 p. (In Russ.)

8. Nikolaeva T. M. Conjunctions a, but, and: history, similarities and differences. Verbal’naya i neverbal’naya opory prostranstva mezhfrazovykh svyazei. Otv. red. T. M. Nikolaeva = Verbal and nonverbal supports of the space of interphrase relations. Ed. by T. M. Nikolaeva. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, 2004. P. 13–46. (In Russ.)

9. Paducheva E. V., Kreydlin G. I. Meaning and syntactic properties of the conjunction A. Paducheva E. V. Stat’i raznykh let = Articles of different years. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2009. P. 427–441. (In Russ.)

10. Sannikov V. Z. Russian compositional constructions: semantics, pragmatics, syntax. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. 266 p. (In Russ.)

11. Uryson E. V. Experience in describing the semantics of unions: linguistic data on the activity of consciousness. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, 2011. 336 p. (In Russ.)

12. Fuzheron I. I. Once again to the issue of conjunctions. Verbal’naya i neverbal’naya opory prostranstva mezhfrazovykh svyazei. Otv. red. T. M. Nikolaeva = Verbal and nonverbal supports of the space of interphrase relations. Ed. by T. M. Nikolaeva. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, 2004. P. 57–70. (In Russ.)

13. Fetzer A. The encoding and signaling of discourse relations in argumentative discourse: Evidence across production formats. The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction. Ed.by M. de los Á. Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie. John Benjamins Publ., 2018. P. 13–44. (In Engl.) https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.02fet.

14. Kapatsinski V. Adversative conjunction choice in Russian (no, da, odnako): Semantic and syntactic influences on lexical selection. Language Variation and Change. 2009;21(2):157–173. (In Engl.) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509990068.

15. Malchukov A. L. Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrast marking. Journal of Semantics. 2004;21(2):177–198. (In Engl.) https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.2.177

16. Speyer A., Fetzer A. The coding of discourse relations in English and German argumentative. The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence: Theories and applications Ed. by H. Gruber, G. Redeker. John Benjamins Publ., 2014. P. 87–119. (In Engl.) https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.254.04spe.


Review

For citations:


Biryukova E.V., Borisova E.G., Kalyatin I.S. Specific features of Russian coordinating conjunctions from the activity approach perspective. Russian language at school. 2024;85(4):79-89. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30515/0131-6141-2024-85-4-79-89

Views: 207


ISSN 0131-6141 (Print)
ISSN 2619-0966 (Online)