Dari dalam buku. Second Predicate Modifiers.
Neidle Pratonton terhad - Neidle Paparan coretan - Neidle Pratonton tidak tersedia - Polish subjects Katarzyna Dziwirek Paparan coretan - Maklumat bibliografi. There are 8 genitive prepositions indicating closeness or nearness in various forms. Some of them have other functions, as well. Here are the ways in which each is used. If, however, the noun is animate, the meaning can also be "at someone's". It is also possible for this preposition to simply imply possession, e. However, like the English preposition "around", it has taken on the metaphoric meanings of 1 "near" and 2 "approximately".
Sentence Structure in Russian
Today it means "among" if its object is plural but also retains the original meaning of the phrase it is derived from, "in the middle of", with either singular or plural objects. Today, however, it is used only in the physical sense of the English preposition "around". In its drive for simplicity, Russian has avoided a single preposition meaning simply "from" in favor of three other more specific prepositions already in the language.
That is, the first three prepositions in this list may mean either "from" in general or, specifically, "out of", "away from", and "down from", respectively. Clever, huh? This strategy reduces the number of Russian words needed to speak clearly.
- The Accusative Case - Russian Grammar.
- Machinability of Powder Metallurgy Steels!
- Shes No Princess (Guilty, Book 4).
- Top Authors.
For more about how they pair with prepositions referring to the direction toward something, go here. First, notice that they have a fleeting vowel. Second, all these prepositions may also be used to refer to time. That use will not be discussed here but on a separate page on Time Expressions in Russian. Finally , these three prepositions form a class with the prepositions indicating where an object is at and where it it moving to.
This class is best explained with the following important table, which you may have seen elsewhere in the grammar. This table shows that Russian lacks prepositions meaning specifically "from", "at", and "to". Rather it uses ambiguously the prepositions meaning specifically "out of", "off of", "away from" and "in", "on", "by", and "into", "onto", "up to" , for expressing "from", "at", and "to". Which set of 3 is used depends on the animacy of the noun serving as object of the preposition and whether it is a flat place or an object with an interior.
The important point to remember is that if a noun uses any one of these prepositions because it is flat, has an interior, or is animate, it uses all three in the set. The sets cannot under any circumstances be mixed.
Grammatical Case: Morphology, Syntax, and Word Order
There are a couple of exceptions. Both of these prepositions have alternative meanings. It is used everywhere and only where English after is used and so requires no comment. Here are two examples. In addition to the more or less semantically ordered prepositions governing the genitive case, there are six which do not fit the large semantic categories. Their usage today pretty much follows that of English inside and outside.
It is common for prepositional phrases and participles to develop into prepositions, however, since their meanings are often similar. Prepositions Governing the Genitive Case There are more prepositions associated with the Genitive case than any other case. The Genitive case historically has been associated with three core meanings: non-existence negation closeness the origin direction "from somewhere" These three core meanings and a few others are associated with the use of the genitive without prepositions and so it comes as no surprise that they are associated with prepositions which govern the genitive.
Genitive Prepositions Indicating Non-Existence The genitive case is associated with non-existence and negation. She did that without difficulty. He went out without his cap. Without a doubt he will get it done. Each experimental trial was presented as three lines of text. The first line break always occurred immediately before the relative pronoun. In the argument conditions, the second line break always occurred immediately after the end of the RC; in the adjunct conditions with one or two interveners, the second line break always appeared after the accusative RC-internal NP object.
Procedures were otherwise identical to the preceding three experiments. Table 6 shows question—answering accuracy in each of the five conditions As with Experiment 2a, neither effect of adjunct nor of argument manipulation was statistically significant. The numeric trend of Experiment 2a for questions to be answered most accurately the maximally local condition has reversed here, suggesting that there may be no true between-condition differences in accuracy. Question—answering accuracy in Experiment 2b.
In the argument manipulation, results look generally similar to those found in Experiment 2a: we see numerical patterns in which reading times at the RC verb complex and the final region of the RC increase monotonically with number of verbal dependents intervening between the relative pronoun and the RC verb. The estimated slope in the finite-verb model is Consistent with the results of Experiment 2a, these analyses revealed a robust effect for the AccMod region Also as with Experiment 2a, we conducted a spillover analysis, reported in Appendix B.
Crucially, none of the qualitative RT patterns changed in this analysis; both the effects at the finite verb and the AccMod region remained significant. Although with only 25 participants this experiment had less statistical power than Experiment 2a, the results largely corroborate those of the previous experiment. The main difference is that there is less evidence for differences in reading times at the finite verb of the RC in the present experiment than in Experiment 2a, though the numerical patterns at this region matched those of Experiment 2a with the exception of the two-intervener condition in the adjunct manipulation.
At accusative object NPs the reading-time penalty in preverbally realized conditions is qualitatively the same as in Experiment 2a, but is significant only in the AccMod region, whereas in Experiment 2a it was significant in both the Acc and AccMod regions. The overall pattern of results in this experiment can thus be summarized as qualitatively similar to that found in Experiment 2a, except that effects here tend to emerge as reliable one region further downstream.
The key results of Experiment 2 can be summarized as follows: in ditransitive subject-extracted RCs in Russian where both RC-internal NPs are full, processing difficulty increases monotonically with the number of interveners between the relative pronoun and the RC verb, and the RC verb complex is a locus of the inflated reading times corresponding to that processing difficulty.
These inflated reading times were significant at the finite RC verb in Experiment 2b, and in both the non-finite verb and the immediately preceding finite verb in Experiment 2a. These results are predicted by retrieval-based accounts but not by expectation-based accounts. Although disentangling this effect from possible spillover effects is rather delicate see also Appendix B , the results in the two-intervener argument manipulation seem to indicate that the RC verb complex is itself a genuine locus of processing difficulty.
One effect reliably observed in Experiment 2 is, however, more consistent with the predictions of expectation-based theories than with those of memory-based theories: the reading-time penalty paid at an RC-initial accusative object NP. We saw similar evidence for such an effect in Experiment 1.
This effect is reminiscent of the result reported by Staub , who compared eye movement behavior in reading of English ORCs with superficially similar complement clauses:. Staub found an increase in first-pass regression rate and go-past reading times on the RC-initial determiner the in 14a in comparison with 14b.
As noted by Staub, this result specifically confirmed a long-outstanding prediction of surprisal, according to which there should be some processing cost associated with ruling out the possibility that what is extracted from the embedded clause is the subject—a possibility absent in 14b. Thus our results strengthen the case that, at least in some situations, encountering an NP at the beginning of an RC where it is unexpected can induce immediate processing difficulty. Across four experiments with two different designs, we find two consistent patterns in reading time within Russian relative clauses varying in extraction type and word order.
First, reading times at RC verbs increase monotonically with the number of dependents of the RC verb intervening between it and the relative pronoun. In Experiment 2, the pattern was seen as a monotonic increase in reading times at RC verb complexes as the number of preverbal dependents intervening between the relative pronoun and the verb complex is increased, regardless for the most part of what type of preverbal dependent intervened. Although it was not clear from Experiment 1 whether this effect originates at the RC verb independently of processing difficulty associated with the onset of the RC, the results of Experiment 2 provide some degree of evidence that the RC verb is indeed an independent locus of comprehension difficulty.
These results are broadly supportive of memory-based theories. Second, in three out of four experiments there is evidence that an RC-initial accusative NP induces immediate comprehension difficulty. The exception is Experiment 1a, where the accusative NP was read numerically though not significantly faster RC-initially than postverbally; but even here, the interaction between word order and RC extraction type indicates that there is a processing penalty associated with RC-initial placement for accusative NPs relative to the cost of RC-initial placement of nominative NPs.
This processing cost associated with RC-initial accusative object NPs is directly predicted by surprisal and possibly by other expectation-based theories. The predictions on this front are unclear for memory-based theories: under these theories a postverbal NP is integrated with its governing verb but a preverbal NP cannot be, so the integration cost would be greater for preverbal NPs.
However, the preverbal NP could be more taxing in terms of the overall representation of syntactic structure in memory: for DLT, this would be manifested in storage cost, and for activation and cue-based retrieval theories, in which incremental syntactic structure is always fully connected, it would be manifested in greater time spent structure-building to accommodate the preverbal NP than to accomodate the postverbal NP Vasishth, p. The direct support from this result for surprisal is not confounded by spillover, since it seems clear under all theories that the difficulty of immediately preceding word is consistently greater in the RC-initial conditions a relative pronoun than in the postverbal conditions, and since Experiment 1 suggests that this fronting penalty occurs only for accusative NPs in SRCs, not for nominative NPs in ORCs.
How the results of these experiments bear on a wide variety of prominent theories is summarized in Table 7. In Experiment 1, the lack of clearly greater processing difficulty for ORCs than for SRCs overall is damaging to perspective-shift and structural-subject-preference theories, but not to memory-based theories in which it is word order rather than grammatical function that predicts processing difficulty, or to expectation-based theories in which relative frequency of a structure determines its difficulty word-order theories and surprisal , since the frequency ratio between ORCs and SRCs is far less skewed in Russian than in English see the corpus study in Experiment 1.
The strong bias for interpreting the case-syncretized relative pronoun chto as a cue indicating subject-extraction of the upcoming RC is predicted clearly by word-order theories and by surprisal, on the hypothesis that comprehenders track fine-grained co-occurrence frequencies. This pattern is what was predicted by perspective-shift and structural-subject-preference theories, but these theories do not account for why the pattern disappears when the relative pronoun is case-marked.
About This Item
Memory-based theories are silent on the matter, and it is not clear what prediction would be made by the ERH. The effect of number of interveners on RC verb processing times specifically is clearly predicted by memory-based theories, but contravenes the predictions of expectation-based theories.
- Lesson on Russian Sentence Structure.
- Account Options.
- Account Options.
- Business Cycle Theory: A Survey of Methods and Concepts;
- Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World.
Finally, only surprisal clearly predicts the consistent processing-time penalty observed at accusative NPs placed at the beginning of SRCs the low-frequency, non-default position. Overall our results thus provide support for both memory-based and expectation-based theories, and by the same token are thus damaging to extant unitary accounts of processing difficulty.
These results support ideas explored by researchers such as Boston et al. Based on our present results in Russian, we can reasonably conclude that morphological richness on its own is not a key factor. Given that Vasishth and Lewis demonstrated expectation-based processing patterns in relative clauses for verb-final Hindi, it seems reasonable to suspect that the dominant word order of a language plays a key role in determining the syntactic complexity of relative clauses in that language. One generalization that might profitably be pursued is that the verb-medial languages tend to exhibit the general patterns predicted by memory-based theories, whereas verb-final languages tend to exhibit the general patterns predicted by expectation-based theories.
Vasishth, Suckow, Lewis, and Kern provide collateral evidence for this generalization, finding that native German speakers maintain more accurate expectations for upcoming sentence structure through multiple center-embeddings in German than native English speakers do in English.
The Role of Case in Russian Syntax - ovsaanfopme.gq
This generalization is not exceptionless— Vasishth and Drenhaus have recently found evidence for integration cost effects in German when memory load is made extremely high, and Jaeger et al. A corollary of this discussion is that empirical research on RC comprehension in verb-initial languages is sorely lacking and could be of considerable theoretical value. Overall, these experiments underscore the value of cross-linguistic empirical breadth in advancing our understanding of both the syntactic complexity of relative clauses—a topic of theoretical interest in its own right—and more generally the interplay between memory and expectations in online sentence comprehension.
When study is restricted to a single language, however, it is impossible to discern which of these patterns are universal and which are language-contingent. Although no single theory yet explains why we see precisely the memory-based and expectation-based patterns in the circumstances we do, expanding the scope of inquiry across languages raises prospects for clarifying this picture and thereby advancing our fundamental understanding of online language comprehension. With the present studies we hope to contribute to similar advances in our understanding of syntactic complexity.