Voprosy Jazykoznanija

The article examines the semantics and derivational history of reduplicated idioms vot-vot (lit. ‘here-here’), ni-ni (lit. ‘no-no’) and t’fu-t’fu (lit. ‘fie-fie’). In spite of the formal transparency of reduplicated idioms, their semantics is unpredictable and specific for every unit. In addition, their origin cannot be reduced to a single algorithm. The semantics of the idiom vot-vot is based on the reduplication of the deictic gesture, which, in the process of semantic evolution, has moved from spatial to temporal domain. In the next step of semantic development, the idiom vot-vot obtained the function of agreement. In contrast, the reduplicated idiom ni-ni inherited the idea of negation from the single ni, and is not related to deixis. The idiom t’fu-t’fu appears to go back to the gesture of folk magic to protect from evil, which differs significantly in function from the gesture of discontent, contempt, or indifference that accompanies the interjection t’fu. The specific features of the genesis of reduplicated idioms have a direct impact on their actual meanings.

The article offers an analysis of the polysemy structure of the Russian syntactic phraseme vsё ravno. I propose to distinguish two classes of this unit’s uses — the predicative use, in which it has two valencies (a dative subject and an object complement clause) and expresses “absence of difference”, and the connective use, in which vsё ravno marks the logical relation between two situations established by the speaker. Depending on the nature of this relation in the connective use, two meanings are distinguished: “contrary to expectation” and “an argument”. The phrasemes vsё odno and vsё edino, which are quasi-synonymous with vsё ravno, are also considered. The typological significance of the semantic shifts that underlie the polysemy of the linguistic units in question is confirmed based on the Database of semantic shifts in the languages of the world (DatSemShift).

This article, based on representative corpus data, examines the non-trivial morphosyntactic properties of the experiential predicative vsë ravno (which, as we argue, emerged under Polish influence) in the Russian language from the 17th to the 21st centuries. While the semantic structure of this locution has been described in detail by Leonid Iomdin, its diachronic evolution and the morphosynthetic status of its components have rarely been addressed by linguists. It is shown that originally the elements vsë ‘everything’ and ravno ‘equal’ exhibited a high degree of morphosyntactic and prosodic autonomy (in particular, the set of linguistic units that could be inserted between them was remarkably broad), forming at the same time a semantically idiomatic complex. The contradiction between semantic cohesion and morphological autonomy was resolved in the history of Russian through the reduction of the morphosynthetic status of these elements and an increase in the morphological cohesion of the phrase vsë ravno. This process can be considered complete in the modern language for the construction P vsë ravno [čto/kak] Q meaning ‘P is equivalent/equal to Q’ and for the adverbial vsë ravno meaning ‘in any case; anyway’. However, in its original meaning (‘does not matter; no matter’), this unit shows signs of a secondary wordform with incomplete morphologization, especially under negation. In these latter contexts, it is still possible to insert a limited set of other units between vsë and ravno (primarily, the enclitic li and the subject dative forms of personal pronouns). Nevertheless, the tendency towards full morphological integration is clearly manifested even in negative contexts through the gradual “externalization” of these units into postposition: for example, the sequence ne vsë ravno li (+ dative) is particularly frequent in Russian poetry.

The article deals with Russian adjectives which can characterize both the subject and the object of an emotional attitude. This phenomenon in the verbal domain is usually described as lability. This type of metonymy is rarely attested in adjectives. However, it is very typical of adjectives denoting emotional attitude. Usually the senses ‘the one who is the subject of the feeling’ and ‘the one who is the object of the feeling’ are expressed by different words: ljubjaščij ‘loving’, vljublënnyj ‘in love’, nežnyj ‘tender’, laskovyj ‘affectionate’ characterize the one who loves, or their gestures, looks, voice, etc., whereas ljubimyj ‘beloved’, vozljublennyj ‘beloved’, dorogoj ‘dear’ describe the object of the feeling. However, there are cases when both meanings are expressed by one lexical unit. For example, the word ljubeznyj ‘amiable’ has the meaning ‘friendly’ (ljubeznaja sekretarsa ‘an amiable secretary’, on byl ko mne ljubezen ‘he was amiable to me’) or ‘dear’ (ljubeznyj drug ‘dear friend’), though the second meaning has become obsolete. The word milyj is freely used in contexts like mil mne ‘I like (somebody)’ and mil ko mne ‘(somebody) is friendly to me’. Often the adjective is ambiguous between two meanings: Eē mama očen‘ milaja ‘Her mom is very nice’, that is, rather cute or friendly; milaja ulybka ‘a nice smile’ is attractive or favorable. The adjective ljubovnyj ‘amorous’ used to have similar polysemy, but the passive meaning has been completely lost. I conclude that such polysemy is widespread and grounded in the language system. The described semantic shift also has typological parallels.

The study outlines the primary nomenclature of so-called universal extenders in the Russian language; systematizes their semantic, pragmatic, and structural properties; and demonstrates that universal extenders cover a semantic domain similar to that expressed by grammatical markers of representative plurality in other languages. Two main types of constructions with universal extenders are identified. Type 1 are coordinative constructions such as Egor Bulyčёv i drugie (‘Egor Bulychov and others’), where the first conjunct is the focal element X — the central member representing a set — and the second conjunct is a pronominal/adjectival phrase referring to a set of elements similar to or associated with X: i tak dalee (‘and so on’), i tomu podobnoe (‘and the like’), i vsё takoe pročee (‘and all that stuff’), i vsё v tom že duhe / v takom rode (‘and in the same vein/style’), etc. Type 2 are constructions like Operacija ‘Y’ i drugie priključenija Šurika (‘Operation ‘Y’ and Shurik’s Other Adventures’). These are coordinative structures where the first conjunct is the focal element and the second conjunct is a general term for the set to which the focal element belongs, with a compulsory modifier meaning “the remaining part” (drugie, inye ‘other’, ostal’nye ‘remaining’, pročie ‘the rest’) and an optional additional modifier expressing plurality, diversity, and variability (vsjakie, vsjačeskie, vsevozmožnye ‘all kinds of’, raznoobraznye ‘various, diverse’, raznye, različnye ‘different’). The study also shows that Russian has specific prosodic means functioning as universal extenders — both independently and in combination with lexical devices. The research is based on data from the main and multimedia corpora of the Russian National Corpus; for prosodic analysis, data from the pilot version of the prosodically annotated corpus of oral personal narratives What I Saw are also used.