Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2016, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 176–185
© Kustova G. I., 2016
UDC: 
81

Adjective constructions with component “for gen”

Kustova G. I. 1 (Moscow, Russian Federation)
1 Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Moscow State Pedagogical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 4340
Abstract: 

The article deals with two kinds of adjective constructions with the same structures (A for Gen S), but different semantics – argument construction and comparative construction. The meaning of comparative construction: feature is atypical for a given object or class of objects: zharkiy dlya oseni den’ (‘hot day for autumn’). Comparative construction has implication: the opposite feature is typical. In argument construction dlya Rod (‘for Gen’) is argument, i.e. participant of the situation, denoted by adjective: neozhidanny dlya nas rezul’tat (‘unexpected result for us’). Many adjectives have both constructions: neubeditelnye dlya nas dovody (‘unconvincing arguments for us’) – argument construction, dlya nas – participant of the situation; neubeditelnye dovody dlya takogo opytnogo advokata (‘unconvincing arguments for such an experienced lawyer’) – comparative construction. Dlya-construction is universal construction for adjectives (cf. Genitive for nouns). Dlya-construction expresses a wide set of meanings.

Keywords: 

adjective, valency, construction, comparative semantics

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85017639580&origin=...

For citation:
Kustova G. I. Adjective constructions with component “for gen”. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2016, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 176–185. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1606.14
References: 
  1. Grashchenkov P. V. Is adjectival category universal? Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. 2000, vol. 1, pp. 53–60. (In Russian)
  2. Givon T. On understanding grammar. New York, Publ., 1979, p.
  3. Hopper P. J., Thompson S. The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal grammar. Language. 1984, 60. 4, pp. 703–752.
  4. Wierzbicka A. What’s in a Noun (Or: How do nouns differ in meaning from adjectives?)  Studies in Language. , 10 (2), pp. 353–389.
  5. Boguslavsky I. M. Research on the syntactic semantics. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1985, p. (In Russian)
  6. Boguslavsky I. M. The Scope of lexical units. Moscow, Publ., 1996, p. (In Russian)
  7. Goldberg A. E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London, The Univ. of Chicago Press Publ., 1995, 271 p.
  8. Goldberg A. E. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, Oxford University Press Publ., 2006, 516 p.
  9. Goldberg A. E. Explanation and constructions. Mind and Language. 2013, vol. 28, no. 4, pp.  479–491.
  10. Croft W., Cruse D. A. Cognitivelinguistics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2004, 356 p.
  11. Langacker R. W. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press Publ., 1987, 280 p.
  12. Rakhilina E. V. Cognitive analysis of concrete nouns: semantics and compatibility. Moscow, Russian dictionaries Publ., 2000, p. (In Russian)
  13. Apresjan Yu. D. Lexical semantics. 2nd ed. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1995, p. (In Russian)
  14. Kustova G. I. Types of derived meanings and mechanisms of language extension. Moscow, Languages of Slavic Culture Publ., 2004, p. (In Russian)
  15. Kiefer F. Zur Rolle der Pragmatik in der linguistischen Beschreibung // Die Neueren Sprachen, Heft 3 / 4, Juli 1978, Verlag Moritz Diesterweg, Frankfurt am Main, S. 254–268.
Date of the publication 26.12.2016