Combinations of coordinating conjunctions in modern Russian speech

Full Text

Introduction

In Russian linguistics, combinations of subordinate conjunctions are well known and described, arising primarily when one subordinate clause is embedded within another one (reported that, if…, then…; will come, if, although this is unlikely, they call). Such constructions are described in monographic studies (Gavrilova, 1979) and articles (Gantsovskaya, 1974; Ivkova, 2017; Volkova, Korotun, 2023). Attention is also paid to combinations of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions (Bednarskaya, 2020). Combinations of coordinating conjunctions with concretizers (и поэтому ‘and therefore’; но зато ‘but on the other hand’) and qualifiers are examined; the idea of distinguishing between concretizers and qualifiers belongs to M.I. Cheremisina and T.A. Kolosova (Gavrilova, 2015: 76).

Less attention is paid to combinations of coordinating conjunctions а + то ‘but + then’, но + и ‘but + and’, etc. For example, the solid work (Logacheva, 2012) does not provide a single example of such combinations, although our material shows that this phenomenon is not so rare in 19th–20th-century poetry. Studies on conjunctive relations tend to recognize such combinations as separate derived (compound) conjunctions. Thus, Apresyan & Pekelis (Apresyan, Pekelis, 2012) include то… то… а то; то… то… а то и; либо… либо… то ли; либо… либо… или; то ли… то ли… или, etc. only in the list of recurring conjunctions, not combinations of conjunctions. Some of these compound conjunctions are characterized in specific studies (Uryson, 2010; 2011).

The aim of this study is to analyze four cases of combining coordinating conjunctions within a single clause. These are cases when there is a combination of coordinating conjunctions, but we cannot treat it as a single compound conjunction.

Methods and materials

We focus on four combinations: 1) ни… ни… и ни…; 2) ни… ни… да и ни; 3) ни… ни… но и ни; 4) то ли… то ли… а то ли. These combinations are very important in the modern Russian language. According to Russian National Corpus (RNC), some of them have been recorded only since the mid-20th century, and others were recorded earlier. However, there are few examples from the 18th–19th centuries. Most examples retrieved from the RNC^[1] via relevant queries are dated to the second half of the 20th and 21st centuries.

The RNC served as the source of the material; in some cases, materials from the author’s personal card index were used. All utterances analyzed belong to written language, and most of them have been edited. Oral speech was not analyzed.

In addition to observation and description, the methods employed include a simple syntactic experiment and elements of semantic analysis.

Results

Analysis of the material revealed that an expletive always performs additional functions: phrase rhythmic alignment (и ‘and’), emphasizing the closed series (in all cases), expressing the speaker’s hesitation (да и ‘and’), adding a concessive or adversative-identificatory meaning (но и ‘but+and’), and emphasizing the highest point on the gradation scale (а ‘but’). Thus, the initial hypothesis that the expletive conjunction arises as a result of antinomy of redundancy and economy, a simple unconscious desire to duplicate meaning, the principle of “more is more”, has not been confirmed.

The combinations described vary in frequency, but all are particularly relevant to the current state of the Russian language.

These results are new since combinations of coordinating conjunctions have not yet been specifically studied.

Discussion

Ни… ни… и ни ‘neither+nor+and nor’

The additional conjunction и ‘and’ before a component, usually the last one, of a homogeneous series with repeated ни… ни is not a new phenomenon. There are few examples of such usages in the 18th–19th centuries in the RNC (main corpus), but there has been a significant increase in usage since the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. This may happen because of the well-known phrase from the song “The Internationale” (…neither God, nor tsar, and + nor a hero)^[2], which has been quoted repeatedly in later texts. However, the influence of this ideological example should not be overstated since the combination appears in texts by authors who do not support the ideology, cf.:

(1) Here it is, familiar by heart

Soft lapping, bathed in silver...

— Nothing... And I pray to it

For nothing.

Neither in the sky and + nor on the water,

nor in the distant line of fire —

Nothing spread everywhere,

Nothing entering me.

And without a word, without end, without sleep,

with a heart like a house dissolved,

I pray, like a silent pine tree,

About nothing (Zinaida Mirkina^[3] ).

The conjunctions и ‘and’ and ни … ни ‘neither… nor’ are connective and closely related; the second is a repeated negative variant of the first. It is reasonable to ask whether there are rational explanations for the insertion of an additional conjunction that duplicates meanings already expressed.

1. The first explanation is evident from (1); the expletive и ‘and’ rhythmically balances the phrase. This is underscored by the fact that и ‘and’ does not occupy the position before the final conjunction and therefore cannot emphasize the closure of the series. The same is the function of the additional conjunction и ‘and’ in the line from the Russian translation of “The Internationale.”

Here is a similar example:

(2) My interaction and training sessions with our Olympians, world champions, and winners of international competitions, enriched my sports vocabulary with such “catchy” expressions as “neither kefir and+nor sour cream can replace ‘methandrostenolone^*’ for us,” “if you want to be as healthy as an elephant, eat methandrostenolone^*!” (A. Feskov. Olympic Mafia or Culture? “Ogonyok.” No. 5, 1991).

The free variation of the additional и ‘and’ gives the reason for considering the resulting structure not a compound conjunction but a combination of conjunctions.

The poetic form itself is not essential for the function of rhythmic alignment:

(3) Neither Avvakum’s wife, nor his children, nor love, and + nor tenderness of heart stand in his way (N.S. Leskov. Bozhedomy. 1868).

In (3), the last two components, nor love, and + nor tenderness of heart, are read as a three-foot anapaest with a dactylic ending. Considering that N. S. Leskov’s work, though written in prose, bears noticeable stylistic features, this verse-like final part does not seem unexpected.

A similar alignment, but without any reference to high-style verse, can also be observed in contemporary prose and journalism (4–7):

(4) But of course, no one, neither Grandma, nor Mom, nor Uncle Grisha, nor Dad, nor Gorik, and + nor Zhenka, showed that Seryozha was not Grandma’s biological son (Y.V. Trifonov. The Disappearance. 1981).

(5) I hardly ever go to stores; I have neither the money and + nor the desire (N. Varsegov. Confessions of a Russian Woman (unabridged). Komsomolskaya Pravda, Dec. 5, 2007).

(6) Shipulin pays Anzhela with neither sugar and + nor butter (N. Ko. Kushchevskaya farmers fear the revenge of Tsapok’s wife. Komsomolskaya Pravda, 03/14/2012).

(7) Because, as far as I know, there isn’t a single visa center for any European country in neither Astrakhan and + nor Chita (ATOR: Tour Operators Are Prepared for the Transition to Biometrics. Vesti.ru, September 14, 2015).

In (4), the six-component line is organized in pairs, and each pair has the stressed syllable of the even-numbered component preceded by three unstressed syllables; in the third pair, this pattern is maintained by the expletive “and.”

In (7), the part of the sentence up to the first ни ‘neither’ reads as a three-foot anapaest with an incomplete fourth foot, while the homogeneous sequence reads almost like a three-foot amphibrach. Judging by the fact that there is an extra syllable, this occurred unintentionally, but it is all the more telling that the expletive и ‘and’ is used nonetheless: when read without recitation, in a neutral conversational tone, the extra syllable (the vowel at the end of the name “Astrakhan”) is reduced, and the author compensates for this by inserting и ‘and’.

The function of rhythmic alignment is performed in many examples below, but we will not dwell on this further.

2. The second function of the expletive conjunction и ‘and’ is to close a series. According to O.E. Pekelis (Pekelis, 2013) with references to (Sannikov, 2008; Uryson, 2011), “The main semantic difference between an asyndetic enumeration and an enumeration with и ‘and’ is that и ‘and’ always expresses the completeness of the enumeration”. The conjunction neither… nor forms an open coordinate series and at the same time is a sufficiently strong means of expressing the completeness of the enumeration, especially if the components form an opposition. The conjunction и ‘and’ emphasizes the completeness of the enumeration:

(8) Some people even tried to smell them, prompting CEC member Elena Dubrovina to issue a public statement that “the balls do not differ neither in shape, nor in color, and + nor in smell” (A. Karpov. “Don’t Give More Than One Ball to a Single Person”. Trud-7, 11/01/2007);

(9) I still can’t tear myself away from the wall and already feel that being forced to I won’t be able to hide away, to wash myself clean, neither yes nor no, neither truth and + nor lie, of that indefinable jelly born of fear and the desire to remain “honest” this time won’t work out (A. Bitov. Notes from Around the Corner. 1964).

In (9), there are two binary oppositions; in the second, the exhaustiveness of the list is emphasized by the expletive и ‘and’, yet the latter paradoxically underscores the simultaneity and coexistence of mutually exclusive characteristics of the character’s anticipated speech. In (10–11), there is no meaning of coexistence, but the opposition of the series is evident, and the expletive и ‘and’ emphasizes its closedness:

(10) <…> the place is so wild that neither praise and + nor blame can be heard… (A. Voznesensky. Oza. 1964).

(11) Warhol himself suffered from absolutely neither anti-Americanism and + nor anti-Sovietism (Father and Children. An exhibition in Moscow summed up the results of Russian pop art. RIA Novosti, 11/07/2005).

However, the oppositional nature of a series is not a prerequisite for the closing function. There is a free combination of oppositional and non-oppositional series with different functions in a fragment of an ancient Cossack prayer-incantation reproduced by Sholokhov:

(12) Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki, protect me, a servant of God, and my comrades on all four sides: let no wicked people shoot, nor stab with a sling and + nor strike with a dagger, nor beat and + nor strike with a club, nor chop with an axe, nor cut with sabers, nor beat, nor stab with a knife and + nor cut—neither the old and + nor the young, and + nor the swarthy, and + nor the black; neither heretics, nor sorcerers, and + nor any kind of magicians (M.A. Sholokhov. And Quiet Flows the Don. Vol. 1. 1928–1940).

This example vividly demonstrates all the functions of the expletive и ‘and’ inherited by the language from its historical periods and in modern Russian speech.

The function of closing a series with the expletive и ‘and’ in (12) is evident. It is particularly important that this function is performed in all six instances of its use, although the opposition itself occurs in only one micro series, and even that is merely a special case of shm-added repeat (Kruchinina, 1988: 21): neither the old and + nor the young. In the other cases, the list is apparently implied to be exhaustive; for example, stabbing and cutting demonstrate all the possible uses of a knife as a weapon.

However, the function of closing a series does not cancel the basic function of a coordinating conjunction; it always opens a position for a new conjunction, as any conjunction does (“After all, every conjunction ‘connects’,” wrote Peshkovsky (1956: 448)), and paradoxically, these two functions are realized simultaneously.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the function of closing a series may simply be attributed to the conjunction by our perception. The only means that absolutely and unquestionably performs this function is the intonation of completion, regardless of the conjunction. However, given that the function of expressing the enumeration completeness has been discussed only recently by V.Z. Sannikov, E.V. Uryson, and O.E. Pekelis, we assume that expletive и ‘and’ does perform the function of closing a series. It seems unquestionable in clear examples:

(13) As a result of Russian diplomatic activity, we can expect that neither the U.S., nor France, nor Saudi Arabia, nor Turkey, and + nor Israel will oppose the offensive by the coalition formed by Russia against ISIS^** (The Great Cooperation of Continents? Izvestia, Oct. 1, 2015).

The function of closing the series is relevant in a situation where the list is taken to the point of absurdity:

(14) Neither the metametaphorists who were all the rage in those days, nor the constructivists, nor the Lianozovites, nor the “Brodskiysts,” nor the courtly mannerists, nor the Mitkas, nor the Petkas, and + nor the Fedkas in any way distorted the writing style of the “translator from outer space language,” which had been recognizable for years (S. Shabalin. A Word on Translatability. Ex Libris NG, 10/28/1999).

Ни… ни… да и ни
‘Neither… nor… and + also + nor’

A.F. Priyatkina noted more than half a century ago that a “chain of homogeneous units” is one of the syntactic conditions “facilitating connection” (Priyatkina, 2007 (1962): 205). We agree to this but consider that the presence of this condition does not necessarily entails connection. This applies precisely to the combination under consideration. The conjunction да и ‘and also’ is not frequent even within the coordinative series linked by the repeated ни…ни ‘neither…nor’. A corresponding query in the RNC (main and newspaper subcorpora) returns a sample of 15 valid examples (accessed on 03/13/2026); The General Internet Corpus of the Russian Language (GICRL) returns 1 valid example for the same query. Six of the 16 examples date from the 21st century; this can be interpreted as a slow increase in usage, considering that 6 examples were recorded over 25 years, while the remaining 12 were recorded over 300 years. Examples without any complications are represented below:

(15) I will speak the truth: I have done neither good and also + nor evil to anyone without cause; it’s true… (V.F. Odoevsky. The Living Dead. 1844).

(16) Matrena: I’ll become a bourgeois and live in prosperity: what’s mine is mine, not the other way around: yours is mine, and mine isn’t yours. Now I could open some little shop for fifteen hundred roubles, but now… neither for me (waves her hand), and also + nor for you, old folks… (N.G. Garin-Mikhailovsky. Village Drama. 1903).

(17) “Neither the board of directors nor the shareholders, neither by law and also + nor in practice <…> have any influence on the content (of the radio station broadcasts. — M. D.) <…>,” Berger commented on the situation (http://ria.ru/media/20120214/565476017.html. Example from GICRL).

The conjunctive да и ‘and also’^[4] appear before the final conjunction and introduce an additional meaning of connection, and to some extent of the spontaneous component. However, in a two-component series (cf. (15–17)) this meaning contradicts the fact that the repeated conjunction ни…ни ‘neither…nor’  has already opened the coordinative series, since it means that the second conjunction is planned simultaneously with the first; otherwise, the first ни, which must be followed by the second, would not have appeared before the first conjunction.

We should note that there are constructions with a single ни used for secondary negation: There was not a single cloud in the sky; He has solved not a single problem. However, when an actant or circumstant is negated, the quantifier “one” must be used or implied, since the plurality of the negated actants is implied. The phrase “I have read not a single page yet” implies, first, not a single page, and second, the plurality of pages to be read. In (15), the quantification of the actants “good” and “evil” is excluded by the lexical meaning of the abstract nouns; in (16), by the fact that the actants are denoted by personal pronouns; and in (17), by the singularity of the board of directors, the group of shareholders, the legislation, and the abstract meaning of the noun “practice.” In other words, a single particle ни in (15–17) cannot be used.

Let us return to the aforementioned contradiction. Indeed, when using the set antonymic pair good — evil (15), the speaker hardly needs to think over the second component; by saying “neither good,” he has already set the continuation “nor evil.” This is driven not by lexical choice, but by moral considerations: the speaker’s statement, if true at all, is subject to significant caveats. The expression “without need” implies that the character did evil, and it soon becomes clear that it was not always a minor offense, nor was he by any means compelled to do so.

Hesitation can also be seen in (16): not only in the remark “waves his hand,” but also in the choice of potential beneficiaries. It is precisely hesitation that is expressed in the meaning of associative relations in the conjunctive series.

Finally, (17) links hesitation to the dubious claim that the company’s management does not interfere with the radio station’s broadcast content.

Thus, the contradiction between the planned nature of the two-component coordinative series and the additional meaning of affiliation in the actualized connective relations is resolved by a specific meaning of the speaker’s hesitation. It is the reason to combine conjunctions in this case.

However, more frequent are the usages where the final component is expressed by a negative pronoun and serves as the generalizing component of a homogeneous series. “The conjunction ‘neither… nor’ always combines a connective function with that of an intensifying particle” (Russian Grammar, 1980: 618), which substantiates the generalizing component. In such cases, the final ни is both an element of the conjunction and the separable prefix of the negative pronoun:

(18) And this does not mean that they are less worthy or talented; no, she was simply different, similar to neither them and + nor anyone else [Madame Chesterton in the Context of Her Era and Close Circle of Friends. Vedomosti, June 24, 2010];

(19) “People capable of such actions cannot be accepted neither by the president, nor the prime minister, and + nor anyone else,” stated Mr. Shuvalov (I. Shlygin. The recipe remains the same: privatization and pension reform. RBC Daily, April 19, 2013).

In (19), the series has three components; here the generalizing component is indeed a prototypical conjunction. In (18), the series has two components, so the judgments expressed above regarding examples (15–17) apply to this case. It is curious that when the last component is expressed by a negative pronoun with a generalizing function, the connective or coordinating conjunction и transforms from an optional to an almost obligatory element of the construction. Variants without да и or и are highly questionable:

(19.1) *Such people cannot be accepted neither by the president, nor the prime minister, nor anyone else.

The function of the intensifying particle of the conjunction neither…nor, creates a meaning of ascending gradation in the series with this conjunction. This explains the additional coordinating conjunction before the last component, indicating the highest point on a certain scale and thereby closing the series.

Ни… ни… но и ни
(Neither…nor … but also nor)

The combination но и ‘but also’ is sometimes also classified as connecting conjunction. E.R. Ioanesyan considers this combination a “specific compound conjunction”, a variant of the adversative conjunction но ‘but’ (Ioanesyan, 2010: 25–26). “Russian Grammar” characterizes the combination of the conjunction но ‘but’ with the specifier и ‘and’, which “does not directly support the adversative semantics of the conjunction но ‘but’” and gives the second component a “distinctive” function. Another similar combination is но даже ‘but + even’ (Russian Grammar, 1980: 625).

The conjunction но и ‘but also’ is mentioned in “Russian Grammar” only in the aspect of compound-complex sentences, although it can also be used in simple sentences which A.F. Priyatkin refers to as sentences with a secondary conjunctive relationship:

(20) The comments were very kind, but also serious and profound [The author’s example].

The combination но и ‘but also’ is viewed as 1) a derived compound conjunction, 2) a combination of a conjunction with a particle, or 3) a combination of two conjunctions. This could be the subject of a separate study. We merely note that even a cursory examination of the corpus sample obtained from a simple search for но и “but also” in the main corpus of the RNC shows that this combination has various meanings. In some cases, the second component of the combination is synonymous with words having a conjunctive-identificatory semantics, such as тоже / также ‘too / also’. Examples include (20) and the following:

(21) I have deputies, but they also must be supervised (Forum: 12 hours a day? I cannot agree with M. Prokhorov. 2010–2011) (…but they must be supervised, too).

(22) Finally, to my endless joy, but also to my deep shame, I have only just now watched this movie [Forum: 17 Moments of Spring (2005–2010)] (…but also to my shame).

An example of this kind is also given in “Russian Grammar”:

(23) I currently have only one plan, but this plan is also written by forks on water (S. Rachmaninoff).

In such usages, the only thing preventing the recognition of и ‘and’ as a coordinating conjunction is its position not between the components. The possibility of its synonymous replacement indicates that it retains a certain degree of independence; it does not merge into a single conjunction with но “but.”

The argument that it is not positioned between the components can be contested. In three of the four examples given, single conjunctions could function just as well: friendly, but / and serious; there are deputies, but / and they must be monitored; there is a plan, but / and it is written in water. This means that и ‘and’ in such usages retains its conjunctive function and a certain degree of independence. That is why in (20, 21, 23) we see a combination of two conjunctions.

In the case of (22), a single conjunction и ‘and’ is possible (to my joy and to my shame), but a single но “but” cannot be used (*to my joy, but to my shame). Consequently, it is more appropriate here to speak of a compound conjunction.

In other usages, the meaning is close to “at the same time”:

(24) You will be welcomed with open arms in non-educational institutions where this (especially the language) is required. Certainly not for the position of general director, but also a certain career growth, in my opinion, is possible soon (Forum: Have you been to the country where the language is taught? 2008–2011).

Replacing и ‘and’ with тоже / также “also” in (24) does not seem relevant. Moreover, if replaced with при этом or в то же время ‘at the same time’, the element и “and” may be retained:

(24.1) …but at the same time +and, a certain career growth is possible soon.

In such usages, the concessive component is essential, one of the regular meanings of the conjunction но ‘but’ (cf. уж конечно ‘of course’ at the beginning of a sentence). In such cases, it may be appropriate to speak of но и ‘but + also’ as a variant of the adversative-concessive но ‘but’, that is, as a single compound conjunction, but of a different variety compared to (22). The possibility of a distant arrangement of components, as in (24.1), does not invalidate this hypothesis: precedents for the distant arrangement of components in a compound conjunction are well known; cf. He will scold you, humiliate you, and even drive you out perhaps → He will scold you, humiliate you, and perhaps even drive you out.

However, concessive semantics can also be discerned in (20), which allows for a paraphrase:

(20.1) The remarks were, though well-meaning, but serious.

Thus, the combination of conjunctions но и ‘but + and’ under different contextual conditions may get semantic nuances of opposition, concession, and identifying cohesion. In each case, one of them plays the leading role, but the others do not disappear and remain as a background.

As examples from the RNC show, in a series with the repeated “neither… nor,” the conjunction но и “but also” primarily carries meanings of opposition and identification:

(25) I had no private, personal life, and in the end, God knows for whom and for what I live. Neither for people — I do not love them — nor for God — I do not know Him — and + nor for myself. For whom, then? (S.I. Vavilov. Diaries. 1914–1916).

(26) The cabin was a wooden shack; inside there were bunks <…>, on the walls <…> hung a very modest number of leaders, so to speak, there was neither enthusiasm and + nor counter-revolution <…> (I.L. Solonevich. Russia in a Concentration Camp. 1935).

(27) There are no places where the city is so delicious… This city, not satisfying and utterly satiating, is neither heavenly but+ also+nor earthly… Where does it wander, and where is it located? (V. Volodin. Tale of Bygone Years. 2009).

In (25), a three-component opposition is realized: for people — for God — for oneself. The first and third members are horizontally opposed, and both are vertically opposed to the second. In (26–27), the oppositions are evident, given that by “enthusiasm” the author means revolutionary enthusiasm.

It seems that the main purpose of но и “but also” in the ready syntactic sequence is to emphasize the paradoxical nature of the coexistence of the phenomena in question. The second function is to close the sequence; the adversative conjunction closes the structure.

То ли… то ли… а то ли
Either… or… but + or

Like the repeated “neither… nor,” the repeated “either… or” forms an open structure, albeit with a different meaning — a list of options, the possibility of any of the named elements. The addition of а ‘but’ closes this structure:

(28) Something growled discontentedly in the bushes, either a dog but + or the forest’s master himself (M. Uspensky. Where We Are Not. 1995).

(29) No one in the crowd stirred, either because of fear, but + or because the drunks hadn’t arrived yet (Mitki. Grompopika. 1997).

In some cases, the conjunctions form a clear opposition, although, as can be seen from (28–29), opposition is not mandatory:

(30) “That’s right, old man,”— Tsakhilganov either just thought it but+or actually said it (V.G. Galaktionova. 5/4 on the Eve of Silence. 2004).

(31) “A gypsy woman put a spell on me,” he said, either jokingly but + or in earnest (K. Kozhevnikova. Rain on Thursdays. US Bulletin, 09/17/2003).

The opposition may be implicit, but it undoubtedly shapes the structure of the series:

(32) Here he died. On that sofa, / Before that, he whispered a saying / Incomprehensible: “I want to si…” / Either it was songs? But + or it was cookies? / Who knows what he wanted, / This old poet before his coffin! (D. Samoilov. House-Museum) — the heavenly / the earthly;

(33) Who knows, maybe he developed a nervous tic, but + or maybe he really winked (R. Solntsev. Demon. Ogonyok. No. 7. 1991) — intentionality / unintentionality.

Common to all cases of this type is the actualization of gradational relations. The series with the repeated то ли … то ли ‘either … or’ is not intended to convey these relations. However, the above-quoted remark from “Russian Grammar” does apply to this conjunction; like the repeated ни…ни ‘neither…nor’, it “combines a connective function with that of an intensifying particle”, with the sole difference that the primary function in this case is not connective but separative. This property of series with the repeated то ли ‘either…or’ substantiates their frequent use in creating an ironic paradox.

A repeated conjunction always emphasizes that “each component participates in the coordination” and “each component is considered separately” (Apresyan, Pekelis, 2012; Haspelmath, 2007: 15). It emphasizes the grammatical equality of the components and expect their semantic homogeneity. However, when elements with sharply dissonant meanings are used as components in a compound series, a paradox inevitably arises. The repeated conjunction intensifies it; cf. apparently the most famous example:

(34) I lost consciousness; only feelings remained... Subtle... Barely discernible... Either I want music and flowers, or I want to kill someone (E. Shvarts. An Ordinary Miracle).

If we generalize the rather diverse relationships between components in the material (approximately 100 examples from the main and newspaper subcorpora of the RNC), we understand that their common denominator is a gradation of expectability. The latter component always denotes something least expected; this is demonstrated by all the examples cited above. See also these characteristic illustrations:

(35) To remember whether a hero or a mercenary, one must be a person with a name and a face, not “soldier number three” in a performance where the meaning is either hidden from the audience but + or lost by the directors (I. Davydov. Work for a Patriot. “Snob,” 02/16/2018).

(36) Now she doesn’t know what to do, whether to continue the romantic affair, or remain faithful to her cheerful husband, but + or simply bring them together as friends and spare herself the problem of choice (E. Gusyatinsky. Proof of Life. “Russian Reporter.” 2013);

(37) Yes, they saw a motorcycle, either blue, or black, but + or even orange (A. Yevtushenko. Why I Cleared the Man Accused of Murder. Komsomolskaya Pravda, April 25, 2002).

The least expected outcome is often deliberately emphasized by the particle вообще ‘even’; cf. (36–37). Particularly intriguing are instances where the least expected outcome is what is directly observed, yet the character is unwilling or afraid to believe it. In such cases, an additional marker of authenticity may emerge:

(38) His chest was squeezed by a new, previously untried pain, a mixture of revulsion and anger at the very idea that anyone could attempt to violate nature’s greatest miracle, its greatest and most vulnerable gift… either it was the lighting but + or that was truly the case, the infant appeared to Kamlaev as deathly pale (S.A. Samsonov. The Kamlaev Anomaly. 2008).

(39) And whether the fog parted, the windbreaks scattered, the trunks moved aside, but + or it was truly a blue beam from the sky, scattering into ice crystals, that served as a guide, but soon the forest thinned out like a shirt at the elbows, and in the distance, before the pale strip of the frozen Kolva, rose the black, jagged ridges of the settlement and the fort (A. Ivanov. The Heart of Parma. 2000).

A series of the type can have not only the alethic but also axiological modality, when the least expected is equated with the most undesirable; cf. (28):

(40) It turns out that, due to her busy tour schedule, the singer either did not have time but + or did not want to provide the original (K. Shcherbino. Aristocrats and the Stage. Theory of Fashion. No. 25. 2012).

The inclusion of the conjunction а ‘but’ in the series with the repeated то ли ‘either…or’ represents a relatively new phenomenon in the Russian language. The earliest example in the RNC dates to the second quarter of the 20th century:

(41) And quite beautiful. And suddenly, to his surprise, he noticed the priest’s frightened eyes and open mouth. The words froze on Father Yakov’s lips. Either it was a mistake, or a genuine nightmare, but + or she was really Sergei Pavlovich’s runaway daughter! (M.A. Osorgin. Witness to History. 1932).

Most examples were recorded in the last decade of the XX century and the first decade of the XXI, and there is a vivid quantitative increase in cases from decade to decade. As in the case of “neither God, nor tsar, and nor hero,” one can also assume here a certain role for the precedent text “either a girl, but + or a vision” (Maxim Leonidov’s song “The Girl-Vision” appeared in 1997), which has been repeatedly quoted and parodied. The very fact that this line has been quoted and parodied can be seen as evidence that the songwriter accurately captured a current linguistic trend.

Conclusion

The observations presented allow us to draw some conclusions. These are preliminary in nature, since the study of the combination of compositional connectives without the emergence of new conjunctions is, as far as can be judged, still in its initial stage.

1. The combination of conjunctions can form new compound conjunctions, but not necessarily. The formation of new conjunctions is hindered by each component retaining its own meaning and by the compositional nature of the combination semantics. This applies equally to the insertion into a series with the repeated ни…ни ‘neither…nor’ the expletive conjunction и ‘and’, the conjunctive да и ‘and also’, and the adversative-identificatory combination но и ‘but + and’, which in some cases itself shows a tendency to form a new conjunction. The same applies to the insertion of the adversative a ‘but’ into a disjunctive series with the repeated то ли ‘either…or’.
2. Despite the apparent redundancy of the described inclusions of the coordinating conjunction in an already established compound series, additional functions and nuances of meaning are evident in all the cases examined, and these functions constitute the purpose of such inclusions. Thus, the expletive и ‘and’ placed alongside the repeated ни…ни ‘neither…nor’ can serve to rhythmically balance the phrase and indicate that the list is exhaustive. The function of rhythmic balancing is performed in the other combinations examined. The connective conjunction да и ‘and also’ in a similar position, by its very nature, contradicts the openness of the series, yet at the same time proves to be an effective means of indicating the speaker’s hesitation, which may be caused by various reasons, as well as anticipating a generalization; in the latter case, the additional conjunction even becomes mandatory. The combination но и ‘but also’ in the same position emphasizes the paradoxical coexistence of the phenomena in question. The adversative-comparative a ‘but’ before the final component of a disjunctive series with the repeated то ли ‘either…or’ emphasizes the completion of what is hidden behind the disjunctiveness of the gradational series, anticipates the designation in the final conjunction of the highest point of a certain scale, most often a scale of unpredictability. Finally, common to all the cases is the function of closing a series which is open by its very nature.
3. The phenomena under consideration are heterogeneous in terms of their relevance. While the examples cited in points 2 and 3 are relatively rare, the abundance of contemporary examples featuring the expletive и ‘and’ within a series with a repeated ни ‘neither…nor’, as well as the expletive a ‘but’ within a series with the repeated то ли ‘either…or’, shows that these are rapidly developing phenomena in the modern Russian language, and the latter began its development only a few decades ago.

^{1 Russian National Corpus. Retrieved 1–20 March 2026, from https://ruscorpora.ru/}

^{2 “The Internationale” written in 1871 was translated into Russian by A.Ya. Kots in 1902.}

^{3 Z. Mirkina’s (1926–2018) period of active poetic creativity spanned the second half of the 20th century. The sources available to me do not give the date when the poem was written. The fact that the poem is quoted in one of the 15 chapters of G.S. Pomerants’ „Notes of an Ugly Duckling“, written, as stated in the Preface to the second edition, “from the autumn of 1983 to January 1986” (Pomerants, 2013: 5), the poem was written no later than 1983.}

^{4 I.N. Kruchinina considers it not a conjunction but a combination of the conjunction да with the particle и (Kruchinina, 1988: 135–136). However, we follow the idea first proposed by V.A. Plotnikova (Robinson) in the 1954 academic grammar (Grammar…, 1954: 262–263).}

^{* Illegal consumption of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, potent substances, and their analogues causes harm to health; their illegal circulation is prohibited and entails liability as established by law.}

^{** The organization is recognized as extremist/terrorist, its activities are prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation.}

About the authors

Mikhail Ya. Dymarsky

Author for correspondence.
Email: dym2005@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1796-7686
SPIN-code: 8662-7550
Scopus Author ID: 57131173400
ResearcherId: M-8002-2016

Doctor of Philology, Professor, Professor of the Russian Language Department

References

Supplementary files