1. “Radial categories of constructions”
Laura A. Janda
University of Tromsø
University of North Carolina

2. The purpose of this talk is to illustrate:
Construction grammar for a language with case marking (Russian)
How constructions are related to each other within a language
How impersonal constructions are integrated into the network of constructions
Should I pursue this further,
write an article about the radial category of
constructions in a case language?

3. Overview 1. Construction grammar 2. Case meaning in Russian
3. Radial category of constructions
4. Three types of impersonal constructions
5. How constructions are related to each other
6. How relationships influence meaning of constructions

4. 1. Construction Grammar Goldberg 2006:
“All levels of grammatical analysis involve constructions: learned pairings of form with semantic or discourse function” (5)
A construction can imply meaning unspecified by any particular word or morpheme in the construction (8)
“Both generalizations and instances are stored” (55)
“our knowledge of linguistic constructions … forms an integrated and motivated network” (227)
Essentially compatible with Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar and Croft’s (2001) Radical Construction Grammar

5. What this talk contributes to Construction Grammar
Shows how constructions (and their near-relatives) can contribute meaning that is not “in the words”
Shows how constructions are related to each other in radial category
Shows how impersonal “idioms” are integrated into system of constructions

6. 2. Case meaning in Russian
Six cases:
Nominative (N)
Accusative (A)
Dative (D)
Instrumental (I)
Genitive (G)
Locative (L)
Relatively free word order
If N is present, the verb (V) agrees with it
If N is presumed to exist but not expressed, it has 3pl agreement (‘they’)
If N is absent, V has default (neuter 3sg, ‘it’) agreement
Case meaning provides
much of the structure for
constructions in a
case language like Russian

7. “Bare case” meanings for the four cases we will focus on:
PPs can use all six cases
(these four, plus
Nominative and Locative)
Accusative:
a destination
Dative:
a receiver, an experiencer, a competitor
Instrumental:
a means, a label
Genitive:
a source, a goal
Verbs can govern all four
of these cases
Often the same verb or
one verb and a near-synonym
can govern both the Accusative
and another case
(Dative, Instrumental,
or Genitive)

8. 3. Radial category of constructions
Prototypical construction is Langacker’s (1991: 286) canonical event
Network contains only salient active indicative non-copular constructions
Blends of these constructions are often possible
Lines mark transitions, which are minimal syntactic differences (addition, removal or change in syntactic components)
Not all transitions between constructions are marked
Impersonal constructions are possible in all parts of the network; strongest impersonals are marked with dotted boxes

9. Russian active indicative constructions
V + I
A syntactic combination may
represent 1 or more constructions
N+V+A
V+A
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
N+V+I
D+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+D
N+V
N+V+PP
N+V+G
See examples
on handout

10. 4. Three types of impersonal constructions
Strong Impersonals – 3sg default agr
Dative modal constructions
Raw force constructions
Mild Impersonals – 3pl agr for elided ‘they’
3. All personal constructions can be converted to mild impersonals

11. Strong Impersonal constructions
V + I
N+V+A
V+A
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
N+V+I
D+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+D
N+V
N+V+PP
N+V+G
Verbs are 3sg neuter
(default)
Raw force
impersonals
Dative modal
constructions

12. “Mild” impersonal constructions N assumed but not expressed
V + I
(N) +V+A
V+A
V+A+I
(N)+V+A+I
(N)+V+I
D+V+A
(N)+V+A+D
D+V
(N)+V+D
(N)+V
(N)+V+PP
(N)+V+G
Verbs are 3pl
See examples
on handout
(N) =
‘they’ or ‘people’

13. 5. How constructions are related to each other
Minimal syntactic differences in adjacent constructions
Minimal differences in case marking for same argument in adjacent constructions
Same or similar verb possible in adjacent constructions
All three types of relationships follow
the same network of transitions marked by
lines in the radial category (diagram insuff)
A given transition in the radial category may have
one, two or all three types of relationships
Transitions closer to the prototype
tend to show more relationships

14. Minimal differences in case marking for same argument in adjacent constructions
Object: A or PP or G or D or I
Temporal Adverbial: A or PP or I
(Logical) Subject: N or D
Experiencer: A or D

15. Object: A or PP or G or D or I
V + I
N+V+A
V+A
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
N+V+I
D+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+D
N+V
N+V+PP
N+V+G

16. Temporal Adverbial: A or PP or I
V + I
N+V+A
V+A
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
N+V+I
D+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+D
N+V
N+V+PP
N+V+G

17. (Logical) Subject: N or D
V + I
N+V+A
V+A
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
N+V+I
D+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+D
N+V
N+V+PP
N+V+G

18. Experiencer: A or D V + I N+V+A V+A V+A+I N+V+A+I N+V+I D+V+A N+V+A+D
N+V+D
N+V
N+V+PP
N+V+G

19. Same or similar verb possible in adjacent constructions
Involves all of the minimal differences in
case marking, plus the following
N+V+A – N+V+A+D
N+V+A+D – N+V+D
N+V+PP – N+V
N+V+A – V+A
V+A – V+A+I
N+V+A+I – V+A+I
N+V+A – N+V+A+I
N+V+I – N+V+A+I
N+V+I – V+I
N+V+A – D+V+A
N+V – N+V+I

20. Same or similar verb in adjacent constructions
V + I
N+V+A
V+A
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
N+V+I
D+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+D
N+V
N+V+PP
N+V+G

21. 6. How relationships influence meaning of constructions
What’s the difference between:
Devušku ubilo [Girl-A killed] ‘A/the girl was killed’
Devušku ubili [Girl-A killed] ‘A/the girl was killed’
Why can’t you say:
*Devušku ubilo soldatami [Girl-A killed soldiers-I]
*‘A/the girl was killed by the soldiers’

22. V+A+I is surrounded by constructions in which
I is an instrument; has no relationship to
constructions where I is an agent
V + I
(N)+V+A
V+A
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
N+V+I
D+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+D
N+V
N+V+PP
N+V+G
N+Vpass+I

23. So what do you think? Should I pursue this?
V + I
N+V+A
V+A
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
N+V+I
D+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+D
N+V
N+V+PP
N+V+G