<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Russian Journal of Linguistics</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Russian Journal of Linguistics</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Russian Journal of Linguistics</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2687-0088</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2686-8024</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">23251</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-1-96-116</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Статьи</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="zh"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">English and Russian Genitive Alternations: A Study in Construction Typology</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Генитивные обороты в английском и русском языках: опыт типологии конструкций</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Monakhov</surname><given-names>Sergei</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Монахов</surname><given-names>Сергей</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="en"><p>PhD student</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>аспирант</p></bio><email>sergei.monakhov@uni-jena.de</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Friedrich Schiller University Jena</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Йенский университет имени Фридриха Шиллера</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2020-12-15" publication-format="electronic"><day>15</day><month>12</month><year>2020</year></pub-date><volume>24</volume><issue>1</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">VOL 24, NO1 (2020)</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">ТОМ 24, №1 (2020)</issue-title><fpage>96</fpage><lpage>116</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2020-03-24"><day>24</day><month>03</month><year>2020</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2020, Monakhov S.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2020, Монахов С.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="zh">Copyright ©; 2020, Monakhov S.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2020</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Monakhov S.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Монахов С.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="zh">Monakhov S.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/23251">https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/23251</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>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 animacy hierarchisation. 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.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>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 о тносительное 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.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>construction grammar</kwd><kwd>genitive alternation</kwd><kwd>contrastive linguistics</kwd><kwd>s-genitive</kwd><kwd>of-genitive</kwd><kwd>construction typology</kwd><kwd>corpus linguistics</kwd><kwd>s-genitive</kwd><kwd>of-genitive</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>грамматика конструкций</kwd><kwd>генитивное чередование</kwd><kwd>типология конструкций</kwd><kwd>корпусная лингвистика</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Altenberg, Bengt. 1980. Binominal NPs in a thematic perspective: Genitive vs. of-constructions in 17th century English. In S. Jacobson (ed.), Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation. Stockholm Studies in English 52, 149-172. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Bickel, Balthasar &amp; Johanna Nichols, J. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 169-240 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Deane, Paul D. 1992. Grammar in Mind and Brain. Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55. 59-138.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay &amp; Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64 (3). 501-538.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Gast, Volker. 2015. On the use of translation corpora in contrastive linguistics. A case study of impersonalization in English and German. Languages in Contrast 15 (1). 4-33.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Goldberg, Adele. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13 (3). 327-356.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Goldberg, Adele. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Granger, Sylviane, Jacques Lerot &amp; Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds). 2003. Corpus-Based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Gries, Stefan Th. 2007. Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Gries, Stefan Th. &amp; Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on ‘Alternations.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1). 97-129.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Haude, Katharina &amp; Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2016. Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics 54(3). 433-441.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Hawkins, Roger. 1981. Towards an account of the possessive constructions: NP’s N and the N of NP. Journal of Linguistics 17. 247-269.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Vol. 7: Syntax. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Johansson, Stig &amp; Hilde Hasselgård. 1999. Corpora and cross-linguistic research in the Nordic countries. Le Langage et l’Homme. Special issue: Contrastive linguistics and translation. 34 (1). 145-162.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Jørgensen, Erik. 1984. ‘Of + personal pronoun’ used as possessive and subjective genitives about persons. English Studies 65. 52-58.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Kuno, Susumu and Etsuko Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4). 627-672.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20/1. 167-176.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Lison, Pierre &amp; Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. OpenSubtitles2016: Extracting Large Parallel Corpora from Movie and TV Subtitles. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), 923-929. Paris: European Language Resources Association</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Borin, Lars, Ohara, Kyoko, &amp; Timponi Torrent, Tiago. (eds). 2018. Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>McArthur, Roshan &amp; Thomas Burns McArthur. 2005. Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>Osselton, Noel E. 1988. Thematic genitives. In G. Nixon and J. Honey (eds.), An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang, 138-144. London: Routledge.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>Pawley, Andrew &amp; Syder, Frances Hodgetts. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Jack C. Richards, R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication, 191-226. London: Routledge.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>R Core Team. 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at http://www.R-project.org/ [last accessed December 2019].</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation>Siewierska, Anna. 1988. Word Order Rules. London, New York, Sydney: Croom Helm.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation>Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112-171. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33.</label><mixed-citation>Standwell, Graham. 1982. Genitive constructions and Functional Sentence Perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics 20. 257-261.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><label>34.</label><mixed-citation>Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2003. Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives in English. In G. Rohdenburg &amp; B. Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 413-444. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><label>35.</label><mixed-citation>Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 1998. Possession and partition: The two genitives of English. Cognitive Linguistics: Explorations, Applications, Research. Working Papers of the English Department at Hamburg University 23. 1-30</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B36"><label>36.</label><mixed-citation>Swan, Michael. 1995. Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
