Towards a Semantic Analysis of Russian Discourse Markers: pozhaluj, nikak, vsjo-taki

Cover Page

Cite item


Investigation of discourse markers has been an actively developing trend of linguistic research in the recent decades. The paper presents an analysis of three Russian discourse markers ( pozhaluj , nikak and vsjo-taki , all untranslatable into English). It applies an approach which integrates the experience of explicating meaning of a lexical unit of different frameworks of semantic analysis. The research is based on the National Corpus of Russian ( It demonstrates that the discourse marker pozhaluj introduces the opinion formed by the speaker as the result of a personal choice between two or several alternatives: the opinion is accompanied by doubts that do not lose relevance even after the decision is made. In the speech register the speaker is the subject of evaluation; in the narrative pozhaluj , as well as vsjo-taki , may undergo hypotactic or narrative projection. The discourse marker nikak expresses an assumption made on the basis of a directly perceivable situation accompanied by astonishment; it is used mainly in interrogative sentences, in particular in those that do not necessarily require an answer; it can also be used in affirmative sentences. Nikak is primarily egocentrical: it can only have the speaker as its assumed subject and it allows neither hypotactic nor narrative projection. The semantics of vsjo-taki includes five components: opinion W; opinion not-W; an argument in favor of the opinion W; an argument in favor of the opinion not-W; the fact confirming opinion W. In an affirmative sentence three classes of uses are distinguished depending on which of the components is prominent: opinion W, the fact substantiating opinion W or the argument in favor of W. In interrogative and imperative sentences vsjo-taki acts upon the illocutionary constituent of the utterance. Such discourse markers as skoree vsego , navernoe , neuzheli , nebos’ , chto , chto li , taki are taken into consideration because under certain conditions they are quasi-synonymous to pozhaluj , nikak and vsjo-taki . Our study offers the prospect of an integral research of discourse words that allows the researcher to combine methods of classical semantic analysis, contextual-semantic method, conceptual analysis and narratology. The obtained results contribute to further development of the semantic theory; they can be used in lexicography and in practice of teaching the Russian language.

About the authors

Anna A Zalizniak

Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Doctor of Philology, a Chief Researcher at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a Leading Researcher at the Federal Research Centre of Computer Science and Control of the Russian Academy of Sciences. She has taught Russian linguistics at the universities of Paris, Aix-en-Provence, Florence and Munich. The sphere of her scientific interests includes general and Russian semantics, semantic typology, aspectology, word formation, conceptualization, pragmatics, intercultural communication. The main results of her research are reflected in more than 200 publications. She is the author of the conception of semantic typology as the typology of semantic shifts; this conception gave rise to “Database of semantic shifts in languages of the world” ( 1 B. Kislovskij Ln., Moscow, 125009, Russia

Elena V Paducheva

Institute of Informatics Problems of the Federal Research Center ‘Computer Science and Control’ of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Doctor of Philology, Professor, a Foreign Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; a member of the Academia Europaea; a Chief Researcher at the Federal Research Centre of Computer Science and Control of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the author of a series of publications. The book “On the semantics of syntax” (1974) concerns the problem of contribution of the syntactic structure to the semantics of a sentence. The book “Utterance and its reference to reality” (1985) deals with the theory of reference and pragmatic aspects of language. The book “Semantic explorations” (1996) develops the approach to semantics of narrative within the traditions of Moscow-Tartu semiotic school and pioneer ideas of R. Jakobson and E. Benvenist on the narrative register of interpretation of discourse. 44-2 Vavilova St., Mosсow, 119333, Russia


  1. Апресян В.Ю. Уступительность: механизмы образования и взаимодействия сложных значений в языке. Москва: Языки славянских культур, 2015. Moscow: [Apresjan, V.Ju. (2015). Concessivity: mechanisms of formation and interaction of complex meanings in the language. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures. (In Russ.)]
  2. Апресян Ю.Д. Интегральное описание языка и системная лексикография. М., 1995. [Apresjan, Ju.D. (1995) Integral description of language and systematic lexicography. Moscow. (In Russ.)].
  3. Апресян Ю.Д. Лингвистическая терминология словаря // Новый объяснительный словарь синонимов русского языка. 3-е изд. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2003. [Apresjan Ju.D. (2003). Linguistic terminology of the dictionary. Apresjan Ju.D. e.a. New explanatory dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. The third edition. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury, XVIII—XLIX. (In Russ.)]
  4. Баранов А.Н. (1986) ‘Предположение’ vs. ‘факт’: «неужели» vs. «разве» // Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 1986, № 1. [Baranov, A.N. (1986). ‘Supposition’ vs. ‘fact’: “razve” and “neuzheli”. Zeitschrift für Slavistik, 1986, 1. (In Russ.)]
  5. Баранов А.Н., Пайар Д. (1998) НЕУЖЕЛИ, или Фома неверующий // Киселева К., Пайар Д. (ред.) Дискурсивные слова русского языка: опыт контекстно-семантического описания. М., 1998. С. 300—306. [Baranov, A.N., Pajar, D. (1998). NEUZHELI, or doubting Thomas. Kiseleva, K., Pajar, D. (eds.) Russian discourse markers: contextual-sematic description. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  6. Бенвенист Э. Общая лингвистика. М., 1974. [Benvenist E. (1974). General linguistics. Moscow, Progress. (In Russ.)]
  7. Булыгина Т.В., Шмелев АД. Языковая концептаулизация мира (на материале русской грамматики). М.: Языки руссской культуры, 1997. [Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. (1997). Linguistic conceptualization of the world (on the basis of Russian grammar). Moscow, Jazyki russkoj kultury. (In Russ.)]
  8. Гатинская Н.В. Лексико-грамматическая история лексемы пожалуй // Русский язык в научном освещении. № 2 (28). 2014. С. 126—152. [Gatinskaja, N.V. (2014). Lexico-grammatical history of the lexeme pozhaluj. Russkij jazyk v nauchnom osveschenii, 2 (28), 126—152. (In Russ.)]
  9. Жукова О.В. НИКАК, НЕ ИНАЧЕ КАК: сравнительный анализ двух дискурсивных слов // К. Киселева, Д. Пайар (ред.) Дискурсивные слова русского языка: контекстное варьирование и семантичекое единство. М., 2003. С. 131—143. [Zhukova O.V. (2003). NIKAK/NE INACHE KAK: a comparative analysis of the two discursive words In D. Palliard (ed.) Discursive words of Russian: contextual variation and semantic unity. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  10. Зализняк Анна А. Считать и думать: два вида мнения // Логический анализ языка. Культурные концепты. М., 1991. С. 187—194. [Zaliznjak, Anna A. (1991). Schitat’ and dumat’: two types of opinion. Logicheskiy analiz yazyka. Cultural concepts. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  11. Зализняк Анна А. Многозначность в языке и способы ее представления. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2006. [Zaliznjak, Anna A. (2006). Linguistic polysemy and the ways of its description. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures (In Russ.)]
  12. Левонтина И.Б. Дискурсивные слова в вопросительных предложениях // Die Welt der Slaven, LIX, 2014, p. 201—218. [Levontina I.B. (2014). Discourse markers in the interrogative sentences. Die Welt der Slaven, LIX. (In Russ.)]
  13. Падучева Е.В. Семантика вида и точка отсчета // Известия АН СССР, сер. лит. и яз., 1986, т. 45,
  14. № 5, с. 413—424. [Paducheva, E.V. (1986). The semantics of aspect and the point of reference. Izvestiya AN SSSR. Series literature and language. Vol. 45. (In Russ.)]
  15. Падучева Е.В. Семантические исследования. М.: Языки русской культуры. 1996. (Изд-е 2-е, 2010). [Paducheva, E.V. (1996). Semantic investigations. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture (In Russ.)]
  16. Падучева Е.В. Модальность сквозь призму дейксиса // Традиционное и новое в русской грамматике. Сб. статей памяти В.А. Белошапковой. М.: Индрик, 2001. C. 184—197. [Paducheva, E.V. (2001). Modality in the prism of deixis. Traditional and new in Russian grammar. In memoriam V.A. Beloshapkova. Moscow: Indrik, 184—197. (In Russ.)]
  17. Падучева Е.В. Динамические модели в семантике лексики. М., 2004. [Paducheva, E.V. (2004). Dynamic models in lexical semantics. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture (In Russ.)]
  18. Падучева Е.В. Эгоцентрические валентности и деконструкция говорящего. Вопросы языкознания, 2011, № 3, 3—18. [Paducheva, E.V. (2011). Egocentric valencies and the deconstruction of the speaker. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 3. (In Russ.)]
  19. Пайар Д. ВСЕ-ТАКИ, или Барьер взят // К. Киселева, Д. Пайар (ред.) Дискурсивные слова русского языка: опыт контекстно-семантического описания. М., 1998. С. 217—226. [Pajar, D. (1998а). VSJO-TAKI, or the barrier is taken. In Kiseleva, K., Pajar, D. (eds.) Russian discourse markers: contextual-sematic description. Moscow, 217—226. (In Russ.)]
  20. Пайар Д. (1998b). ВСЕ ЖЕ, или мирное сосуществование // К. Киселева, Д. Пайар (ред.) Дискурсивные слова русского языка: опыт контекстно-семантического описания. М., 1998. С. 208—217. [Pajar, D. (1998b) VSJO ZHE, or peaceful coexistence. In Kiseleva, K., Pajar, D. (eds.) Russian discourse markers: contextual-sematic description. Moscow, 208—217. (In Russ.)]
  21. Пайар Д. (1998c) ТАКИ, или развязка // К. Киселева, Д. Пайар (ред.) Дискурсивные слова русского языка: опыт контекстно-семантического описания. М., 1998. С. 199—208. [Kiseleva, K., Pajar, D. (eds.) Russian discourse markers: contextual-sematic description. Moscow, 199—208. (In Russ.)]
  22. Разлогова Е.Э. ПОЖАЛУЙ, или раздвоенность // К. Киселева, Д. Пайар (ред.) Дискурсивные слова русского языка: опыт контекстно-семантического описания. М.: Метатекст, 1998, 1. 331—336. [Razlogova, E.E. (1998а). POZHALUJ, or bifurcation. In Kiseleva, K., Pajar, D. (eds.) Russian discourse markers: contextual-sematic description. Moscow, 331—336. (In Russ.)]
  23. Разлогова Е.Э. НЕБОСЬ, или вторжение // К. Киселева, Д. Пайар (ред.) Дискурсивные слова русского языка: опыт контекстно-семантического описания. Москва, C. 326—331. [Razlogova, E.E. (1998b). NEBOS’, or intrusion. In Kiseleva, K., Pajar, D. (eds.) Russian discourse markers: contextual-sematic description. Moscow, 326—331. (In Russ.)]
  24. Разлогова Е.Э. Логико-когнитивные и стилистические аспекты семантики модальных слов. M.: Изд-во МГУ, 2004. [Razlogova, Е. Е. (2004). Logical, cognitive and stylistic aspects of the semantic of the modal words. Moscow: MGU. (In Russ.)]
  25. Широкова Е.Г. Частица ТАКИ: семантика и условия употребления // Семиотика и информатика.
  26. № 8. М., 1982. [Shirokova, E.G. (1982). The particle TAKI: semantics and rules of use. Semiotika i informatika, 8, Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  27. Шмелев, А.Д. Жизненные установки и дискурсные слова // Aspekteja [= Slavica Tamperensia, V]. Tampere, 311—322. [Shmelev, A.D. (1996). Life attitudes and discourse words. Aspekteja [= Slavica Tamperensia, V]. Tampere. (In Russ.)]
  28. Шмелев А.Д. Некоторые тенденции семантического развития русских дискурсивных слов // Русский язык: пересекая границы. Дубна, 2001. С. 266—279. [Shmelev, A.D. (2001). Some tendencies of semantic evolution of the Russian discourse words. In: Russkij jazyk: peresekaja granitsy. Dubna, 266—279. (In Russ.)]
  29. Шмелев А.Д. Русские авось и небось revisited // Die Welt der Slaven. 2017. Jg 62. 2. S. 276—303 [Shmelev, A.D. (2017). Russian avos’ and nebos’ revisited. Die Welt der Slaven, Jg 62, 2. (In Russ.)]
  30. Ajimer K., Simon-Vanderbergen, A.M. (2006). Pragmatic markers in contrast. Amsterdam. Elsevier
  31. Bonola A. (2017). Il corpus parallelo italiano-russo-italiano come strumento per l'indagine contrastiva delle marche discorsive e testuali: il caso di comunque e i suoi traduttivi russi. In O. In'kova, 2. Mancheva (eds.) (2017). Sopostavitel'noe yazykoznanie. Sofiya, 99-116
  32. Bybee J.L., Perkins R., Pagliuca W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  33. Degand, L., Cornillie, B., Pietrandrea P. (eds.) (2013). Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam. John Benjamins
  34. Diewald, G. (2011). Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49-2, 365-390
  35. Fisher K. (ed.) (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Studies in pragmatics. Vol. 1. Elsevier
  36. Levin B., Rappaport H.M. (1998). Building verb meaning. In M. Butt, W. Geuder (eds). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. CSLI Publications, 1998. P. 97-134
  37. Traugott, E.C. (2007). Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of linguistics, 6, 139-157
  38. Traugott, E.C., Dasher, R.B. (2002). Regularities in semantic change. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002. Weiss, D. (2018). Imperatives as a source for the emergence of new particles in Russian. Pragmaticalization. Language Change between Text and Grammar. LMU, Munich 19-20 January 2018
  39. Wierzbicka, A. (1972). Semantic primitives. Linguistische Forschungen. Вd. 22. Frankfurt am Main, 1972
  40. Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Acad. Press, 1987
  41. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin; N. Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991
  42. Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in CultureSpecific Configurations. N. Y.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1992
  43. Активный словарь русского языка, т. 2. Отв. ред. Ю.Д. Апресян. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2014
  44. Словарь русского языка. В 4-х тт. / Ред. А.П. Евгеньева. М.: Рус. яз., 1981

Copyright (c) 2018 Zalizniak A.A., Paducheva E.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies