THE VACILLATION BETWEEN TWO FORMS OF CONVERB OF THE PERFECTIVE ASPECT IN RUSSIAN LITERARY WORKS OF THE XVIII – XIX CENTURIES

DOI: 10.24412/2470-1262-2021-2-14-27

Abstract:

In modern Russian grammar, the converb does not have tense, voice, mood, but aspect. The Russian converb of the perfective aspect formed from the present-tense stem (PSPR), which is now seldom made use of, prevailed in 18th – 19th century in parallel with converb of the perfective aspect formed from the past-tense stem (PSPA): Uvide-v (PSPA) / Uvid-ja (PSPR) mat’, Anton vstal. “Seeing his mother, Anton got up.”

Previous studies could not have elucidated the contextual difference between PSPR and PSPA. As a method for investigating this issue, we propose to look at frequency of use of two converbs in “change of situation”, focusing on the emotional impact of “change of situation”. We analyze 1479 converbs (229 PSPR and 1250 PSPA) in 23 Russian 19th – 20th century literary works. The result of our study indicates that PSPR is used more frequently in “change of situation” than PSPA. The change of situation occurs most prominently at the peak of narrative. An author is more interested in, or, pays more attention to, the change of situation. “Change of situation” is one of the important factors that embodies foregrounding. Previous studies have recognized the converb as material, which is always presented as background. But we show that PSPR is susceptible to the change of situation, which characterizes foregrounding.

PSPR was accepted as one of the literary expressions, when Gallicism became popular among the Russian intelligentsia. However, the style of nobility literature was gradually supplanted and transformed by the influence of the speech of the general public. The use of PSPR has correspondingly decreased.

Keywords: PSPA, PSPR, the change of situation, the emotional impact, foreground, Gallicism

References:

  1. Abdulkhakova L.R. (2007) «Razvitie kategorii deeprichastija v russkom jazyke». Avtoref. dis. …filol. nauk. Kazan.
  2. Aristotel. (1984) «Poetika». Sochinenija v 4-kh tt. Tom 4. perev. i red. A. I. Dovatura. Moskva: Mysl, s. 645-680.
  3. Bondarko A.V. (1933) «Glagolnyj vid v vyskazyvanii: priznak «vozniknovenije novoj situatsii»». // Russian Linguistics. No.16. c.239-259.
  4. Bondarko A.V. (1998) «Problemy invariantnosti / variantnosti i markirovannosti /nemarkirovannosti v sfere aspektologii». In: Chertkova, M.Ju. (red): Tipologija vida: problemy,poiski, reshenija. Moskva, s.64-80.
  5. Bulanin L. L.(1967) «Russkij glagol». Leningrad.
  6. Bulakhovskij L. A. (1954) «Russkij literaturnyj jazyk pervoj poloviny XIX v.». Moskva.
  7. Comrie B. (1985) “Tense”. London. pp.36-82.
  8. Chernukhina I. Ja. (1977) «Ocherk stilistiki khudozhestvjennogo prozaicheskogo teksta (factory tekstoobrazovanija)». Voronezh.
  9. Dobrushina Je.R. (2009) «Videv i uvidja: zhizn i smert nestandartnykh deeprichastij».
  10. Korpusnyje issledovanija po russkoj grammatike. Moskva, s.15-33.
  11. Forsyth J. (1970) “A grammar of aspect”. Cambridge. University Press. 1970.
  12. Giro-Veber M. (1990) «Vid i semantika russkogo glagola». Voprosy jazykaznanija № 2, s.102-112.
  13. «Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka». (1970) Moskva.
  14. Grech N. (1840) «Chtenija o russkom jazyke». Ch.2. Spb.
  15. Hopper P.J. (1979) “Some observation on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative
  16. language.” // Studies in Language 3.1. c. 37-64.
  17. Istrina Je.S. (1960) «Deeprichastie» v k.; Grammatika russkogo jazyka I. Moskva.
  18. Jakobson O. (1971) ‘Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russiann verb’ In Selected writings of Roman Jakobson Е. The Hague. Mouton. pp.140-141. (First published in 1957)
  19. Jakobson R.O. (1985) «Rechevaja kommunikatsija». // Jakobson R.O. Izbrannyje raboty. Moskva.
  20. Lotman Ju.M. (2000) «Ob iskusstve». Sankt-Peterburg.
  21. Martinet А. (1980) Éléments de linguistique générale, Paris, Armand Colin.
  22. Nedjalkov, V. P. (1995) Some typological parameters of converbs. In: Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard Konig (eds) Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, pp.97-136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  23. Nikiforov S.D. (1840) «Glagol, ego kategorii i formy v russkoj pismennosti vtoroj poloviny XVI veka». Moskva.
  24. Potebnja A.A. (1941) «Iz zapiskok po russkoj grammatike». T.4-2. Moskva. s.198-205.
  25. Prevratukhina R.K. (1949) «K istorii borby za natsionalno-demokratichjeskije osnovy
  26. Russkogo literaturnogo jazyka v XVIII v. (o jazyke komedii V. Lukina «Zadumchivoj»», kand.dissert., Kazan.
  27. Prikhodko V.A. (1953) «Formy i kategorii glagola v proizvedenijax A.D. Kantemira». kand. dissert., Lenigrad.
  28. Prokhorov Ju.Je. (2004) «Dejstvitelnost. Tekst. Diskurs». Moskva.
  29. Rappaport G.C. (1984) Grammatical function and syntactic structure: The adverbial participle of Russian. (UCLA Slavic Studies,9). Columbus.
  30. Rubin E. (1921) “Visuell Wahrgenommmmene Figuren”. Glydenalske Boghandel. Kobenhaven. с. 253-288.
  31. «Russkaja grammatika» (1980) ch. I. Moskva.
  32. Samarina G. N. (1962) «Deeprichastnyje konstruktsii v russkoj proze 2-oj poloviny XVIII
  33. veka». Avtorjef. dis. kand. filol. nauk. Krasnojarsk.
  34. Shvedova N.Ju. (1980) «Deeprichastnyje oboroty» v k.; Russkaja grammatika II. Moskva. s. 181-183.
  35. Shmelev. D. N. (1977) «Russkij jazyk v ego funktsionalnyx raznovidnostjakh». Moskva. s.811-947.
  36. Smotritskij M. (1979) «Grammatika. Pidgot». Nimchuka V. V. Kiiv.
  37. Trediakovskij V. K. (1865) «Pismo, v kotorom soderzhitsja rassuzhdenije ostikhotvorenii,
  38. ponyne izdannom na svet ot avtora dvux od, dvux tragedij i dvukh epistol, pisannoe ot pritelju». SPb.
  39. Uspenskij B.A. (1995) «Poetika kompozitsii. Struktura khudozhestvennogo teksta i tipologijakompozitsionnoj formy». Moskva.
  40. Valimovoj G. V. (1945) «Osobye sluchai upotreblenija deeprichastij». v kn.: Russkoje zykovedenie. I. Rostov-na-Donu.
  41. Velichuk A.P. (1958) «Deeprichastie v sovremennom russkom jazyke». // Russkij jazyk v
  42. nerusskoj shkole. Baku. c.22-33.
  43. Vinogradov V. V. (1982) «Ocherki po istorii russkogo literaturnogo jazyka XVII-XIX vekov». Moskva.
  44. Zelinskaja G. D. (1966) «Prichastie i deeprichastie v poeticheskikh proizvedenijakh G. R.
  45. Derzhavina». Avtoref. dis. kand. filol. nauk. Minsk.
  46. Zimmermann M. (1976) Neurophysiology of Nociception. In: Internationai Review of Physiology. Neurophysiology II. Poter, R. (ed.) University Park Press. Baltimore, Vol. X. pp.179-221.
  47. Zhukovskaja N. G. (1954) «Jazyk i stil basen I. A. Krylova (osobennosti sintaksisa)». kand.dissert., Lenigrad.

Information about the author:

Kitajo Mitsushi (Kyoto, Japan) – Ph.D. The owner of the Medal of Pushkin (Russian Federation National Award), professor, Head of the department of Russian language, Faculty of foreign studies, Kyoto Sangyo University.
e-mail: kitajo@cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp

For citation: Mitsushi Kitajo, (2021).

The Vacillation between Two forms of Converb of the Perfective Aspect in Russian Literary Works of the XVIII – XIX Centuries. Cross-Cultural Studies: Education and Science Vol.6, Issue 2 (2021), pp. 14-27 (in USA)