Case Variation In Contemporary Standard Russian PDF Download

Abstract: In traditional English grammar, a "transitive" verb was simply one that could take a direct object; thus, a verb was either transitive or intransitive. Traditional grammars of Russian have likewise considered as transitive only those verbs capable of taking an object in the accusative case. This traditional view ignores those nouns that have direct object-like qualities but are found in other grammatical cases--such as the dative, genitive, or instrumental--which arguably reflect a lower degree of transitivity. Hopper and Thompson (1980) proposed parameters according to which the transitivity of a clause could be judged. Those parameters included the affectedness of the (grammatical) object, the volitionality of the subject, the aspect (telic vs. atelic) of the verb, and the individuation of the object (its "distinctness ... from the [subject] and ... from its own background"). Hopper and Thompson further proposed a Transitivity Hypothesis, according to which opposing features of transitivity could not be obligatorily combined. The present study applies Hopper and Thompson's parameters of transitivity to the choice of case of objects in Czech and Russian. For instance, the Russian verb dvigat' 'move' will take an object in the instrumental case (generally a sign of lower transitivity) if a person is moving one's own leg (low in terms of distinctness or individuation): dvigat' nogoj; but if a person moves someone else's leg (higher in individuation), the object will appear in the accusative, indicating higher transitivity: dvigat' nogu. For this study, I have gathered examples of this sort of case variation in Czech and Russian from dictionaries, Google searches, online corpora, and native speaker intuitions. The vast majority confirm the predictions of Hopper and Thompson. The relatively rare examples that contradict the Transitivity Hypothesis are also considered, but these usually turn out to be only apparent contradictions. The present study also seeks to resolve the more exceptional cases or paradoxes by reference to subtleties and complications by-and-large overlooked by Hopper and Thompson. It finds that their criteria are overwhelmingly valid and applicable, but that human language is, overall, a phenomenon of such immense complexity that one could hardly expect 100-percent conformity.