Presentation on theme: "English [N[N]] compounds in Russian: Constructional borrowing Vsevolod Kapatsinski University of Oregon Department of Linguistics Part of a collaborative."— Presentation transcript:
English [N[N]] compounds in Russian: Constructional borrowing Vsevolod Kapatsinski University of Oregon Department of Linguistics Part of a collaborative project on [N[N]] with Cynthia Vakareliyska
Issues in constructional borrowing How abstract are borrowed constructions? – Fully schematic: [N[N]] Can compound two nouns, head is on the left – Partially lexically specific (Langacker 1987, Goldberg 1995, 2003) [N [N]] available only for certain nouns If so, what triggers the availability of a structure? The head or the modifier or either? Are some languages more predisposed to borrow a construction? – [N [N]] is being borrowed into several Slavic languages (Bulgarian, Polish, Slovene, Russian) but appear to not be productively used in Baltic languages (Cynthia Vakareliyska). Why? – Friends and/or foes in the constructicon? (related constructions already in the language)
English [N [N]] compounds [N [N]] compounding is productive in English with a wide variety of relations Constructional interpretation of compounding supported by the possibility of long-term priming of compound relations (Gagné & colleagues) – Cat people, cat food, cat pack
English [N [N]] compounds in Slavic From my Russian corpus: – Выборг БарVyborg Bar – Кочубей ПаласKochubej Palace – Дворец князя КочубеяDvorec knjaz’-Gen Kochubej-Gen Why constructional borrowing? – Partial lexical specificity: A given head noun can appear with a wide variety of modifier nouns, even Russian ones, which are nonetheless left uninflected Some modifiers also appear to co-occur with a much wider variety of heads, e.g., арт-чайхана, арт-крыша
The corpus Restaurant/bar/café names from allcafe.info Mostly St. Petersburg (N=6710) and Moscow (N=5152) Variable context: – [N[N]] or [[N] PP] or [[[N]A] N]] – The head noun must be a kind of building/place Restaurant, bar, club, cafe, palace, hall, garden, yard – The head noun is part of the name (is in quotes) – The whole [N[N]] could not have been borrowed – The whole Adj N is not a placename – The first part is not a possible clipped adjective or prefix Seks, aero, super – Neither part is a number – The [N [N]] is not based on word play Азия КафеЛобби бар Абхазский дворДжаз холл Врунгель-барРок клуб Пельмени-барАэроклуб Охотничий клубХантер-хаус Домик Петра ПервогоБар 1 Дом кукераСамоБар Арахис-барБелый Бар
Results St. Petersburg & Moscow барклубкафедвордомхаусхоллзалтрактир N+N6539400081500 other132123703800711 p=.02 p=.01 p<.000000001p<.00001 p<.0000000000000001 Even if the modifier for a Russian head noun is foreign, [N[N]] is outlawed but [N[N]] is allowed even with Russian modifiers when the head noun is foreign ?Джаз двор, Джаз дом, Рок зал *Кукер дом*Хауз Деда Мороза Дом кукера Дед Мороз Хауз
What is borrowed? [N [бар]] [N [клуб]] [N [кафе]] (cf. DuGruöz and Backus 2007, 2009) Note: the head nouns themselves have long existed in Russian; it is the association with [N [N]] that is recent Influx of borrowed [N [N]] names? Associations with foreign as opposed to Soviet clubs and café’s? – Signs used to just say “café”, today’s clubs are not the same kind of entity as Soviet clubs
[N[N]] and impression consistency A name of a restaurant must convey a certain impression Homey/old-fashioned vs. urban/cosmopolitan – ДворикТрактирБар – Adj NN PP[N[N]] Mixing the construction and head noun does not achieve a consistent impression
Precursor constructions in Slavic Clipped adjectives – Горсовет, Военторг, Госзаказ, авторучка – Cf. Авторадиоклуб [[N]-Gen] with null genitives – Чашка кофе – Cf. the wordplay name Часть суши [[N] N] Сompounds (esp. with null Nom. Sg. Inflection on the head) – Диван-кровать, ковер-самолет The native [N [N]]’s (restricted to some modifiers) – `чудо-N, Жарптица, бой-баба, cf. Чудо бар Did these open the gates to this English invader?
Future work Do the same head nouns favor [N[N]] across Slavic? What is the role of the modifier vs. the head? – Some modifiers appear with a much wider variety of heads than others, e.g., art, rock, and may be developing into prefixes like super or sverx but head identity is important as well – It appears either the head or the modifier needs to be one that is known to license [N[N]] – Ability to licence [N[N]] may be determined by appearance in compounds that are borrowed wholesale from English – However, head identity seems more important (unlike for the native construction with zhar and chudo): some head nouns seem to require [N[N]] (e.g., hall appears with it 15/15 times). Some appear to outlaw it. This does not seem to happen with modifiers. How do listeners judge these constructions? Are they perceived as having a flavor of foreignness or are they perceived as fully Russian? Other languages, [N[N]] in other domains. Any corpora you would recommend?