In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 2 The Noun: Lexis and Grammar 2.0. Introduction The present chapter introduces the semantic distinctions that are grammaticalized in the Russian noun and sets up a corresponding noun classification. Chapters 3-6 show how these distinctions are reflected in declensional classes and the grammatical categories, animacy , gender, and number. The presentation proceeds from the typological theory, proposed by Durst-Andersen (1995, 2011), that Russian should be characterized as a reality-based language, i.e., a language in which grammatical and lexical distinctions tend to reflect features of reality directly, as opposed to speaker-based and hearer-based languages, in which grammatical and lexical patterns tend to present reality through the point of view of the speaker or the hearer respectively. Refraining from a general discussion of the universal implications of this so-called supertype theory, I want to emphasize that the investigations of Russian nominals presented in this book confirm that it makes good sense when applied to this language. What does this typological view on the Russian language mean for the description of the nominals? First, it offers a natural explanation of the most striking differences between Russian and a hearer-based language like English. On the one hand, Russian-unlike English-has a case system which is based on various layers of reference, indicating -among other things-whether the items named by the nouns are thought of as present or not in the situation referred to (DurstAndersen 1996). On the other hand, in English-unlike in Russianone must draw a distinction between definite and indefinite descriptions . The choice between a definite and an indefinite description is based on the speaker's assumption about the information possessed by the hearer at the moment of speech, more precisely whether the speaker expects the hearer to be able to identify the item named by the 10 RUSSIAN N OMINAL SEMANTICS AN D M ORPHOLOGY noun phrase or not (Bache and Davidsen-Nielsen 1997: 368). This perspective on the assumed knowledge of the speaker is not relevant to the grammar of the Russian noun. As we shall see, the lexical classification and grammatical structure of the Russian noun can be shown to mirror that of the Russian verb (d. an outline of verb-noun isomorphy in Russian in Durst-Andersen 1996: 199-206). These two basic parts of speech represent intimately related subsystems of the grammar. 2.1. Individuals, Images, and Concepts It is a trivial fact that things in the world around us are named by nouns. What is meant by "things in the world around us" is specified in the following. For a beginning let us just accept the trivial formulation and consider what impact it has on the lexical meaning of Russian nouns. The view on Russian as a reality-based language will lead us to expect that a classification of Russian nouns would proceed from a description of the human perception of reality. If we assume that nouns are used to name things in the world around us, we should first investigate how human beings physically perceive these things. Thus, for a moment we shall ignore that we are specifically concerned with Russian and consider certain universal features of perception (compare the strategy pursued in Durst-Andersen 1992 to introduce verb classes and their denotation). Presupposing that the fundamental sense of perception is vision, we shall begin by looking into the structure of the pictures we visualize . Schematically, ordinary photos can be used for visualized pictures, d . Figure 1 on the following page. These illustrations are meant as examples of what a human being may catch sight of. The first thing that catches one's eye is a distinction between A and B on the one hand and C and D on the other. A and B are pictures where the viewer has focused on a figure. As well-known, it is a distinctive feature of human beings and certain animals that our eyes tend to focus on a dominant item with clear-cut limits. If there are several such items in the field of vision (as in the case of C), we can let the eyes move around and change the focus, but we can only focus on one item at a time. On the other hand, it is also possible not to focus on anything in particular. Finally, in D this latter option is the only one: there is simply no distinct individual item to focus on. [3.145.183.137] Project MUSE (2024...

Share