Syntactic variation in Russian adversative conjunctions

1
Syntactic variation in Russian adversative
conjunctions
Vsevolod Kapatsinski Indiana University Linguistic
s and Cognitive Science Speech Research
Lab vkapatsi_at_indiana.edu

• Implications for sentence production

2
The problem

• Adversative conjunctions
• Da
• No
• Odnako
• ?? ????, ?? ????? ????????
• ?? ????, ?? ????? ????????
• ?? ????, ?????? ????? ????????
• He left but soon returned

3
The problem

• No contexts that categorically determine
  conjunction choice
• The aims
• First corpus-based multivariate study of the
  problem
• Implications for sentence production in general

4
Factors

• Register
• Discourse
• Semantic
• Syntax

5
What is adversative? (after Shvedova et al. 1980)

• Y prevents X from running to completion
• He would have left but they detained him.
• And everything would be fine but the guy
  complained.
• Conjoined events are independent but Y
  contradicts implications of X
• He left but soon returned.
• They were disliked but no-one looked good on
  their background.

6
The irrealis-realis construction

• X conditional or past/present
  imperfectiveinfinitive
• da or no or odnako
• Y perfective

7
Examples

• ? ??? ?? ????????, ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ????
  ? ????? ???????? ??????.
• And everything would be fine but one old man
  wrote to his son in the city a complaint.
• ?? ????? ????, ?? ??? ?????????.
• He wanted/was going to leave but they detained
  him.

8
Previous work

• No consensus on the effect of semantics
• Serebrjanaja (1976) da is favored when Y
  interrupts X
• Lekant et al (1982) da is less adversative than
  no and odnako
• Kruchinina (1988) in X da Y, speaker believes
  that the hearer believes X, Y contradicts X, da
  softens the contradiction

9
Factors Discourse

• Topicality of Y
• Koolemans Beynen (1976) odnako introduces
  non-topical information
• Register
• Krilova (1980), Shvedova et al (1980), Kruchinina
  (1988) da is unproductive, restricted to
  colloquial usage
• Lekant et al (1982) odnako is restricted to
  written discourse
• Here articles vs. interviews
• Following unit length relative to median length
  of such units
• Anaphoric linkage between X and Y

10
Factors syntactic

• Constituent type
• Types of X and Y
• A, NP or PP ? nominal
• V(P) or clause ? verbal
• asymmetric

11
Asymmetric constructions

• When X and Y are of the same type (e.g. A conj
  A), there is no way to know whether type of X,
  type of Y or both influence conjunction choice.
• However, there are cases when X and Y are of
  different types (e.g. NP conj A).

12
Examples

• Adj conj VP
• ? ?????? ?????-?????? ?????, ?? ????.
• While usually some wind but blows.
• Adj conj NP
• ? ?????? ???????, ???? ????? ??? ????????
  ??????, ?? ????????.
• On the other hand, the earth is still spinning
  weak but a reassurance.

13
Asymmetric constructions and sentence production

• If NP conj A has
• o A different effect than A conj A
• o And a different effect than NP conj NP
• ? both X type and Y type matter
• information about the types of both conjoined
  constituents is available at the time when the
  conjunction is chosen
• OR
• ?the type of the constituent preceding the
  conjunction and the type of concept following the
  conjunction

14
Asymmetric constructions and sentence production

• This would imply that either
• language production does not proceed in a
  strictly serial, constituent-by-constituent
  manner
• or
• syntax and semantics are not informationally
  encapsulated and can co-determine lexical item
  choice at a single processing stage.

15
Data

• 234 tokens of da, 247 tokens of no, and 246
  tokens of odnako from the 7,600,000 word Ogonek
  Corpus (Berger 2003)
• The Ogonek Corpus contains the full text of a
  Russian magazine by the same name including
  articles and interviews

16
Exclusions

• Non-unit-initial conjunctions
• may not be chosen at the same point in the
  language production process
• ?e, non-unit-initial uses of odnako
• Conjunction clusters
• might be a single choice
• there are too few tokens of each cluster type to
  enter them into the analysis
• no odnako
• Fixed Expressions

17
Analysis

• Varbrule
• Add factors one by one, see if the larger model
  explains more variation than the smaller model,
  keep factors whose addition increases
  predictiveness and whose deletion decreases it
• Output factor weights

18
Register
19
Results of multivariate analysis Length of Y
20
Results of multivariate analysis Register
21
Discourse
22
Results of multivariate analysis Topicality of Y
Odnako tends to introduce non-topical referents
23
Results of multivariate analysis Anaphoric
linkage
Da signals a larger break in coherence
24
Semantics
25
Results of multivariate analysis Irrealis-Realis
Da is semantically distinct from the other
adversative conjunctions
26
Syntax
27
Results of multivariate analysis Constituent type
28
Summary
29
Conclusion

• Da is semantically distinct from other
  adversative conjunctions and is used to signal
  that the event denoted by X is prevented from
  running to completion by the event denoted by Y
• Odnako is the most restricted conjunction. It is
  influenced by register more than the other
  conjunctions.
• Conjunction choice is gradient but systematic.
  Not free variation. Supports stochastic grammar.
• Demonstrates the value of corpus-based
  multivariate approaches to the description of
  linguistic phenomena.
• Semantic controversy resolved
• New factors discovered
• Constituent type the most important factor!
• Anaphoric linkage between X and Y

30
Processing implications

• Asymmetric constructions behave differently than
  symmetric constructions
• Types of both of the conjoined constituents must
  be available when the conjunction is chosen
• Sentence production does not proceed in strictly
  serial, constituent-by-constituent manner
• Or, syntax and semantics jointly determine
  conjunction choice at a single processing stage.

31
References

• Koolemans Beynen, G. (1976). Semantic differences
  between no and odnako. Slavic and East European
  Journal, 20 (2), 167-73.
• Krilova, G. (1980). Ruskijat sojuz da I negovite
  funkcionalni ekvivalenti v xudozhestveni prevodi
  na bolgarski ezik. Sopostavitelno Ezikoznanie, 5
  (3), 18-25.
• Kruchinina, I. N. (1988). Struktura i Funkcii
  Sochinitelnoj Svjazi v Russkom Jazyke. Moscow
  Nauka.
• Lekant, P. A. et al. (1982). Sovremennyj Russkij
  Literaturnyj Jazyk. Moscow Vysshaja Shkola.
• Rand, D., and D. Sankoff. (1990). GoldVarb
  Version 2 A Variable Rule Application for
  Macintosh. On-line Manual. http//www.crm.umontrea
  l.ca/sankoff/GoldVarbManual.Dir
• Serebrjanaja, F. I. (1976). Nekotorye
  nabljudenija nad upotrebleniem sojuza da. Russkij
  Jazyk v Shkole, 4.
• SFB 441, Project B1. Ogonek 1996-2002.
  http//heckel.sfb.uni-tuebingen.de/cgi-bin/cqp.pl?
  spracheentranslat
• Shvedova, N. Ju, N. D. Arutjunova, A. V.
  Bondarko, V. V. Ivanov, V. V. Lopatin, I. S.
  Uluxanov, F. Filin, and the Institute for the
  Russian Language, The Academy of Sciences of the
  USSR. (1980). Russkaja Grammatika. Vol. 2
  Sintaksis. Moscow Nauka.

32
Acknowledgements

• N.I.H. for funding
• Rena Torres-Cacoullos for teaching me VARBRULE
• Tessa Bent, Adam Buchwald, Susannah Levi, Rebecca
  Ronquest, and Rena Torres-Cacoullos for useful
  feedback