Paata Badrievich Dzhikidze “Numbers in Russian are also not simple. There were three of them in Old Church Slavonic: -single -dual (it is also small) - example: years - this is few -plural (truly plural) - example: years - this is a lot. Years will pass, and maybe even years... Everything is clear with the only one. The dual was characteristically used to designate paired objects (sleeves, eyes...). It is very noticeable in declension: 1 eye, 2 eyes, 3 eyes, 4 eyes, 5 eyes ... - 1 city, 2 cities, 3 cities, 4 cities, 5 cities ... Under one of the reforms of the language (Petrine, as far as I remember ) reduced the number of numbers (damn!) to the European standard. The cap is clear, a lot of non-obvious rules immediately appeared. By the way, that's why four coconuts are not a bunch! Hello, Martyshka! Western European logic is binary, while Russian logic is ternary. Yes, no, maybe all that. Therefore, in order to expel redundant interpretations, it is convenient to conduct negotiations in European languages, and to interpret “for life” in Russian. Question to linguists: what about Asia on this topic? With Africa? Thanks to all,

paata.moikrug.ru. P.S. I heard once that in Chinese there is only one time. I think they're running. And if formally and so, then somewhere this complexity will come out. Not in grammar, but in phonetics. There is a suspicion that any language has an invariant level of complexity. Though as you describe - you will not simplify. It's like crushing a "hernia" on a basketball - everything is one somewhere and it will come out ... ".

It would be more correct to say "up to the European standard". I note that the reform did not concern the language, but linguistics, that is, the rules of registration spoken language on a letter. So far, unfortunately, the oral language (that is, the original language, the language of the people) passes in linguistics as a "spoken language", that is, as if special variety language, and the later and more standardized written language- as "the language itself".

As for the trinity of the PR - this is worth thinking about!

Recapitulator. “As for the vocative case, I just feel sorry for him, because at least he really was a case in his time, which is noted in the old use of “Lord”, “God”, etc. The funny thing is that this single case, preserved in Bulgarian, and applies to any object: not only “lady” (from “lady”), “master” (from gentleman), “choveche” (from “chovek”), but also “planino” (from “planin”), and even "Balgariyo" (from "Bulgaria"). Sometimes it is very lacking ... ".

Weird! If oral language is primary, then why not use the appropriate forms?

Seeker. "Very interesting! Should greatly help foreigners in learning the language. Because sometimes it sounds very funny how they speak strictly according to the rules, but it doesn’t sound Russian at all. But the simplification of the rules was originally done to simplify language learning, which in itself is a very positive moment - than easier language, topics more people will speak it. But the language itself turned out to be against it, not wanting to obey the new rules. By the way, there is such an effect (regarding workshops, for example) when the use of a word was formed at one glance at it, and when the word changed, the use remained. Here, for example, "coffee" - its use should coincide, for example, with the word "field". But it remained a noun, since it originally had the form "coffee" by analogy with the word "tea". Therefore, the words “tea” and “coffee” are formed in the same way, and not “field” and “coffee”. - It is clear that the word "tea" had the imperative form "tea!" from the verb "tea". But the verb “kofit” with the imperative form “coffee!” was not in the Russian language, so this form of the noun turned out to be alien to the Russian ear.

wiz. "Just 73 more cases and we'll catch up with Ithkuil..." Yosha. “Somehow, while working in one office, I pestered one of the linguists about the archaisms of the Russian language. In addition to phonetics, he named the presence of 2 cases: local and vocative. The vocative case is similar to Russian (eg Ukrainian) and cousins ​​(eg Latvian). The local case remained degenerate: on the bridge, on the snow, in Ukraine (so that the brothers would not speak there).

While wide famous studies on the topic of local case no.

Yosha. "Seeker:" But the simplification of the rules was originally done to simplify the study of the language. - I don’t think that for simplification, rather for use. Living language evolves towards simplification. Searching the Internet, I found a mathematical description of the cases of Kolmogorov-Zaliznyak. In addition to the local and vocative, there are also waiting, counting, deprivative, and inclusive cases. Website address: http://www.kolmogorov.pms.ru/uspensky-k_opredeleniyu_padezha_po_kolmogorovu.html”.

Ilya Birman. “Very funny, but I mentioned them.”

T Sugar. “Yes, insignificant, but in a linguistic sense it can be important. A light note on one of the examples. "Weekend on the nose" as well as "hack on the nose" have nothing to do with the nose being on the face. A nose (from the word “wear”) was a wooden tablet that was worn in ancient times around the neck, tied with a rope, and on which notches were made for marking when collecting taxes, or, for example, when counting soldiers in the army. The phrase "hack on the nose" refers to the literal process of putting a notch on a wooden plank. Weekends that we keep in the plan can equally be marked there. By at least, it seems to me more likely than the figurative definition of proximity. After all, when we point out a missed, but obvious detail, we say "it was right in front of my nose." Or "I did it right under his nose." Here, the indication of the nose as part of the face is more likely.

KGH. “You forget about the double case. for example, we say “we are already in porridge” or “he is in shit in the morning” or “I’m just in feces” instead of “we are in porridge”, “he is in shit” and “I am in feces” without meaning the scene. this new form for the language is the best proof of the constant development of the language.

This KHG deliberately gives hooligan examples. He doesn't like RA.

Ilya Birman. This case is called accusative. Seeker. "KGH, bravo! Worth adding to the list." - And this is already a hint of a new intellectual game: the search for new cases.

Paat Badrievich Dzhikidze. "one. case, about the case - it is not a case, but a case. In this way, you can generate random jokes. For example: - name the verbal (!) adjective from the noun (!) owl! - ADVISORY!!! With exclamation points bust came out. Only one and a half times less than in the general military charters of the built forces of the USSR there are nine, all in the anthem; 2. In the trash, in rags, etc. - this is not a case, but reduced form. that is, part of the words fell out of the phrase. some a long time ago, some recently. like: I [eat] [[drunk]] in rags. because the most hit forms of the dictionary are reduced, probably. so it looks like the adjective "drunk" competed with the verb "to be." Sakatochny Russian carcass...3. inspired. and which is correct - in a slurp or in a slurp? and why ... a linguistic question.

Note that the discussion from the linguistic one turns into a humorous chat.

Oleg. “Regarding the vocative case. This is just quite a case, especially in terms of proper names. So, for example, in the Ukrainian language, which is very close to Russian, the “oklichny” (oklychny) case is included in the group of main cases (accordingly, the main ones are 7) and is mandatory for use. For example: Oleg - Olezh. But in Russian, he did not take root. But anyway, this is not another noun, but still a case.

Ilya Birman. “I have nothing against addresses, against the fact that they differ from just names. I say that this word is not a noun, and, therefore, the use of the word case is not entirely correct.

Discussion. In my opinion, when discussing the problem, the distinction between oral and written language was lost. Therefore, I will give a note "Oral, written language" from the "encyclopedic dictionary of a philologist" dated May 28, 2008 (http://slovarfilologa.ru/227/).

"The sound is the most natural form the existence of the language for a long time was the only one. The language was only spoken. But such speech is momentary, it sounds only “here” and “now”. The need to transmit speech at a distance and store it on long time led to the invention of writing - written speech appeared. At first, the written language was only a recording of sounding speech, "stopped by a moment." Then it turned out that the difference - to sound and to be written - is so huge, its consequences were such that it became possible to talk about two languages ​​- predominantly sounding, oral, and predominantly written. Written language is more capacious for intellectual information, oral - for expressing emotions, moods, relationships. Proper linguistic differences between written and oral speech First of all, these are syntactic differences. Oral language does not tolerate difficulties, but it cultivates innuendo. Written, on the contrary, requires complete utterance and, moreover, coherence, therefore, it allows a variety of inclusions, attachments, explanations. But most importantly, the written language required the establishment of rules for writing and reading. Thanks to him, grammatical arts arose in the names we are used to - spelling, punctuation. An indispensable property of a written language is the obligatoryness of norms prescribing how to write and read.

In my opinion, the author exaggerates the opposition too much. There are also rules on how to speak. But both those and other norms are invented by the people, while linguists only identify and describe them. True, in recent times linguists began to take on the role of judges and even legislators. But I will continue quoting. “The very laws of oral and written communication are different. Therefore, even in the same situation, it is almost impossible to say and write the same way. This is how it is played out in a letter from the playwright A. N. Ostrovsky to his friend N. A. Dubrovsky: “Nikolka! Why don't you lead Vetlitsky, and where the hell are you yourself? Will you listen to me? Well, you wait! You can’t write like that, I just thought that, but you need to write like this:

“Dear sir Nikolai Alexandrovich, would you like to welcome me today directly from the office to the dining table, which will greatly oblige A. Ostrovsky, who deeply respects you and devoted.”

Here, however, it is not so much the difference between written and oral speech that is played up, but different ethical situations: the difference between the ordinary form of address and the official one. After all, in the end, both of these appeals were drawn up in writing by Ostrovsky!

“The distribution of spheres between oral and written language is essential not only for communication, but also for culture. Oral language skills - folklore, propaganda, rumors. Everything else - politics, science and learning, fiction in all its genre richness - is served by the written language. So, in the very simple case the relationship between oral and written language is similar to the relationship between an object and its reflection. In more complex situations, the symmetry of these relationships is broken. At the same time, there may be “objects without reflection” - dialects, vernacular, non-written languages. There are also "reflections without an object" - these are Sanskrit, ancient Greek, Latin and other dead languages.

In my opinion, there is a certain simplification here. Dead languages ​​exist in writing, while dialects, some socialects, slang, vernacular, unwritten languages ​​exist in oral form. Let us note, however, that Latin may well develop even today in the writings of Catholic theologians.

Simply, we are accustomed to the fact that, according to social requirements, the written language has become preferable, and when we say the word "language", we mean its written variety. Observations of linguists are directed primarily here. In oral speech, many prohibitions of linguists do not have much force, and it does not matter to a person how to write: HEAR, HEAR or even HEAR, since the last vowel in this word is pronounced reduced. But phonetic spelling exists in a small number of Slavic languages, for example, in Belarusian and Serbian. Simplifying writing, this spelling (i.e., specific way translation of spoken language into written language) complicates understanding.

Note that language borrowings from foreign languages ​​in our time are mostly carried out in writing, so that the task of creating secondary oral speech arises - through reading. From here arose special science(a specific way of translating written speech into oral speech) - orthoepy.

As for the vocative case, as a result of discussions, Ilya Birman himself came to the conclusion that we have one of the forms of address before us. Is the form "KOL! MASH! Vasya! noun? One of the features of nouns is the ability to match them with an adjective. Is it possible to say DEAR KOL or DEAR MASH? - Not today. Therefore, these forms can hardly be considered nouns. And if so, then the concept of case does not apply to them.

Wikipedia has devoted a special article to address, “Forms of address”: “The form of address is a word or combination of words that names the person to whom the speech is addressed. It is in the nominative case and can be placed anywhere in the sentence. AT various languages th and social cultures exist various forms appeals. In organizations engaged in any professional activity, the form of address is determined by law, charter or corporate policy, which may be unique to a particular organization.

Further, the forms of appeal to “You” and “You” are traced. “The most common distinction is between formal and informal. Officially, formal address in modern Russian is made with the use of the second person plural pronoun "You", addressed to the respondent in sole person. In written speech, the pronoun "You", addressed to a specific interlocutor, is capitalized. Addressing using the pronoun "you" is considered informal. For brevity, a formal appeal is often called “an appeal to you”, an informal one, respectively, “an appeal to you”, although this is not entirely correct and does not always correspond to reality.

There is another, more formal form of address, for example, "Comrade Colonel" or "Your Honor" (appeal to the judge). For some reason, it is not marked in this Wikipedia article and, apparently, has not been fully explored by linguists.

Further, the emergence of forms on "you" and "you" is considered. By default, it is assumed that the form on "you" was the original one. “It is assumed that the appeal to you first began to be applied in relation to the Roman emperors, in connection with the presence of several persons in power at the same time (see Tetrarchs). Sometimes the plural is considered a very ancient metaphor for power and authority. In Russian, the appeal “to you” gradually came into use from the 18th century due to strong influence French and culture, especially in the circles of the aristocracy. There are theories that originally "You" was an appeal to the enemy. Prior to that, traditional Russian speech etiquette was used with its own system of familiar and formal addresses. Thus, the pronoun "you" could be addressed even to the king: "you, king-father ...". The "Petition" (Petition of workers and residents of St. Petersburg to submit to Nicholas II) also uses "you" addressed to Tsar Nicholas II.

In this passage, there is no fairy-tale material, where it was usually said: "You, the king-father." On the other hand, children addressed their parents and spouses addressed each other with “you”, probably before the 18th century, but this layer has not been studied by linguists (or the author of the Wikipedia article).

"AT English language, starting from the 15th century, the appeal “on you” (English you) was adopted almost everywhere. As a result, the normative forms of pronouns of the second number ceased to differ, thus, the appeal "to you" disappeared from English as an independent form. The exception is archaic or poetic speech: religious texts, prayers (when referring to God), poems where the pronoun “you” (English thou) is used.

Wikipedia also highlights a special “related” form of address: “The form of address associated with family relations, implies a mention marital status(father, mother, grandmother, grandfather, uncle, aunt). However, there is no correlation of these forms with the forms for “you” and “you”. Meanwhile, the younger ones addressed the elders with “you”, while the older ones addressed the younger ones with “you”. But this was until the twentieth century, when gradually the appeal to “you” between relatives disappeared. And in some European countries, for example, in Spain, recently strangers they ask to address them as “you”, because then they seem to rejuvenate, become peers of the young participants in the conversation.

In addition, the form of address of parents to children is not shown, where diminutive variants of the name or words of kinship prevail: son, docha, Gosh, Masha, Mashulya, Natulya, Irisha, Vanechka, etc.

The “Emphatically familiar” form of address is also distinguished: “The form of address associated with the degree of friendly relations implies a simplification or stylized mutation of names (Mikhail - Misha, Mikhon; Pavel - Pasha, Pashok, Pashka; Natalia - Natasha, Natusya, Tusya, etc. . p.), the formation of derivatives from the name, surname or patronymic (Pavlovich - Palych, Aleksandrovich - Sanych, etc.) There are also - as a rule, on the basis of friendly relations - humorous options, in which the formation is also made from the name, surname or patronymic (Arthur - Arturishche, Tsapkin - Tsap-tsarapkin, Stepanovich - Stepanych - Stakanych (mentioned in the movie "Parade of the Planets"), etc.). The underlined-familiar form of address is common mainly among the older generation, who use it when referring to their closest acquaintances and friends. Among the younger generation, it is often considered rude and incorrect, sometimes "gopnicheskoy"; in such groups, rude, emphatically simplified and “mundane” addresses, akin to nicknames (Khripunov - Khriply or Khripaty, etc.) are considered acceptable.

The term "emphatically familiar" is, in my opinion, inaccurate. After all, familiarity refers to unmotivated friendly relations. And in this case it is the friendly component of relations that is emphasized, therefore it would be better to call these relations “emphatically friendly”. Even with outwardly "mundane" nicknames from surnames.

And it is precisely in this category of “emphatically friendly” forms of address that truncation of the name can be included, so that a kind of paradigm is formed: Mikhail Ivanovich-Mikhail-Misha-Mish!, Pavel Petrovich-Pavel-Pasha-Pash! etc. Hence, instead of the “vocative form of the case”, it makes sense to speak of the “vocative form of address”.

It goes on to say " social form» appeals. “A form of address associated with civil, social, political or professional status or rank (citizen, comrade, sir, mister, colleague, doctor, soldier, warrior, etc.) with possible combinations (for example: comrade major).” There is no detail of this form of address, associated with the forms of address of the elder on the social ladder to the younger, which existed before the 20th century: “man!” (to the sex in the tavern), "dearest!" (to the driver), "Vanka, Masha!" (to the serfs), etc.

The “inflated” form of address is not distinguished, for example, “doctor!” to any physician, even a paramedic, as if he were a doctor of medical sciences, “chief! commander!" to a taxi driver who is not a commander for the client, “chief!” to any Russian worker from the side of a worker-guest worker, “father!” or "mother!" when referring to any cleric, "sister" or "brother" when referring to nurses, "girl!" when contacting an elderly saleswoman, etc. In German, a waiter called Kellner is called Herr Ober!, "Mr. Senior!", implying that he is the "head waiter" (Oberkellner).

But the “gender form” stands out: “The form of address associated with gender (man, woman, girl, young man, citizen, citizen, etc.)”. Here one could add the appeals “boy” and “girl”, as well as “mother”, “father” when referring to older people. In the same category, I would include the “anti-gender form” of address allocated by the author of the Wikipedia article: “A form of address emphatically unrelated to gender (buddy, comrade, etc.).” This also includes the appeals “Stakhanovite”, “party member ”, “front-line soldier” and a number of others.

The subsection “In Russia” stands out in particular: “In formal address, the name and patronymic (Elena Sergeevna) are used, in informal - only the name, often his diminutive forms(Elena or Lena). In a formal address, a surname or position or rank can also be used in combination with one of the address words (mister, comrade, etc.): Mr. Ivanov, Mr. President, Comrade Major. AT Russian army the appeal comrade has been preserved since Soviet times.

There is also an addendum: “After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Russian organizations chose to address by name as a form of address, as is customary in many English speaking countries. However, according to the rules of modern business language, formal address is considered correct. That is, by name and patronymic.

From the discussion of this article on Wikipedia, it can be seen that address is a special form of a sentence. A close understanding is given by the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms (website http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lingvistic/appeal), which notes: “Appeal is a word or combination of words that names a person (less often an object) to whom speech is addressed. Appeals are proper names people, names of persons by degree of kinship, by position in society, by profession, occupation, position, rank, national or age sign, according to the relationship of people, etc .; names or nicknames of animals; names of objects or phenomena of inanimate nature, usually personified in this case; geographical names etc. Do not sing, mower, about the wide steppe (Koltsov). A young mare, an honor of the Caucasian brand, why are you rushing, daring? (Pushkin). O first lily of the valley, from under the snow you ask sun rays(Fet). Sing, people, cities and rivers. Sing, mountains, steppes and seas (Surkov). Appeals are expressed by nouns in the form of the nominative case or by substantivized words. Sleeping in a coffin, sleep peacefully, enjoy life, living (Zhukovsky). Hello, in a white sundress made of silver brocade! (Vyazemsky). Well, you, move, otherwise I’ll hit you with a butt (N. Ostrovsky).

In particular, here is a form with a special pretext of addressing "O": "O first lily of the valley!" You also often see the forms “Oh heaven!”, “Oh my God!”, “Oh my God!” etc. With a purely formal approach, one might think that we are talking about a prepositional case, but in it the examples given will look different: “about the first lily of the valley”, “about the sky”, “about a deity”, “about the Lord”. The Wikipedia article, as well as the arguments of Ilya Birman, do not consider the preposition “O” as a preposition of address. Otherwise, one more case would have to be singled out, “Reverse”, with the characterizing question “About who?” or "About what?".

Moreover, the entry “address” from the dictionary notes the presence of different intonations: “Application is characterized by different types intonation: a) vocative intonation (pronunciation of the appeal with increased stress and a higher tone, with a pause after the appeal). Guys! Forward on a sortie, for me! (Pushkin); b) exclamatory intonation (for example, in a rhetorical address). Fly away, memories! (Pushkin); c) introductory intonation (decrease in voice, accelerated pronunciation rate). Me, comrades. once (Panova)."

It follows from this that if the latter type of invocation is applicable to declarative sentence(with a water word, appeal), and the middle type - to an exclamatory sentence, then the authors of the article (Rozental D. E., Telenkova M. A.) call the first type “vocative”. So the investigation of the problem, whether there is vocative, led us to the assumption of the existence of a vocative type of sentence, which is characterized by the absence of a verb.

In this case, the vocative sentence may consist of complex shape of the appeal “Dear and dear, beloved by all the employees of our department, Pavel Nikolaevich, wit and heartthrob”, the simple form “Pavel Nikolaevich”, the friendly form “Pasha” and the truncated form “Pash”. In this case, the proper name should be considered as special kind noun with an extended and somewhat peculiar paradigm.

The remaining cases of nouns exist, but are more often used in oral speech, so they should be considered, most likely, in the course of Russian ethnolinguistics.

Conclusion. The Russian language, as one of the most complex languages ​​in the world, still has many "white spots", which, on the one hand, distinguishes it from many European languages on the level of complexity, and, on the other hand, testifies to the weakness of the academic position, trying to fit it to the features of Greco-Roman grammar.

How to remember cases

case	Auxiliary word	Question
Nominative		Who? What?
Genitive	No	cog about? Cheg about?
Dative	to give	Kom at? How at?
Accusative	see	cog about? What?
Instrumental	proud	By whom? How?
Prepositional	think	OK about m? About h yo m?

Case sequence:
Ivan gave birth to a girl orders to drag the diaper

Do not confuse!

• Questions WHERE? WHERE? WHERE? are not case questions. On these questions it is impossible to determine the case.
• The prepositions PO and K indicate the DATIVE case. Question FOR WHAT? Does not exist. The only question is WHY? I go (for what?) along the path
• Prepositions В, ON with questions of WHOM? WHAT? (genitive case) are not used. These prepositions can only be used with the questions WHO? WHAT? ( accusative) or IN WHAT? In COM? ON WHAT? ON WHOM? (prepositional)
• If you doubt that the question belongs to WHO ?, substitute Magic word MOM and look at the end of this word: MOM - genitive; MAMU - accusative case.

Cases and prepositions

• The prepositions FROM, FOR, WITHOUT, FROM, are used only in the genitive case - FROM WHAT? FOR WHOM? WITHOUT WHOM? OF WHAT?
• The prepositions UNDER and OVER are used only in the instrumental case - UNDER WHAT? ABOVE WHAT?
• The preposition O is used only in the prepositional case - ABOUT WHOM?
• Prepositions IN, ON are used as with the accusative - TO WHOM? IN WHAT? ON WHOM? FOR WHAT ?, and with prepositional cases - IN WHOM? IN WHAT? ON WHOM? ON WHAT?

Cases and questions

Write a case question in brackets and determine the case.

Sample: Write (in what?) In a notebook (with what?) With a pen.

1. Sailing (_____________) along the river (________________) in a boat.
Grow (_______________) at the edge (________________) of the forest.
Prick (_______________) finger (_______________) with a needle.
Go (_______________) along the path (_______________) to the forest.
Cook (_______________) compote (_______________) from apples.
Work (_______________) as a teacher (_______________) at a school.
To come (_______________) to the village (_______________) to my grandmother.
Play (_______________) with a friend (_______________) in the yard.

2. Sled (_____________) on a sled (_____________) from the mountain.
Build a (_____________) fortress (_____________) out of snow.
Hit (_____________) with a snowball (_____________) through the window.
Skiing (_____________) through the forest (_____________) on skis.
Congratulate (_____________) friend (_____________) on the holiday.
Run (_____________) on ice (_____________) on skates.

Cases and questions in riddles

Write a case question in brackets, determine and sign the case of nouns, highlight the endings and, of course, try to guess riddles.

1) Here (______________) walks in the sky
Painter (______________) without brushes,
And (______________) brown paint
Colors (______________) people.

2) (______________) Above the house (______________) by the path
A piece (______________) of cakes hangs.

3) (______________) falls from the sky (______________) with tears,
(______________) Runs on the ground (______________) in streams.

4) In winter (______________) lay in the field,
And in the spring (______________) he ran into the river.

5) The grain crumbled (______________) by night,
Looked in the morning - there is nothing.

6) (______________) Crosses the river,
And (______________) does not leave the place.

7) Climbed (______________) under the ceiling,
Crawled (______________) into a corner.
(______________) Without arms and spindle
Natkal (______________) canvases

8) (______________) I visited the hut
I painted all (______________) windows.
(______________) Stayed by the river -
He paved the entire (______________) river.

9) (______________) grew in the field,
(______________) Under the millstone was,
(______________) And from the stove (______________) to the table
(______________) Loaf came.

From the book: Uzorova O., Nefedova E. The big Book riddles. - M .: Planet of childhood, 2004

Write the cases of all nouns.

1) I dressed myself in a coat
And he touched his nose with his sleeve.
Decided to coat I punish
And without a coat went for a walk.

2) I took paper and pen.
I drew an iron.
I tore a leaf, threw it into a bucket -
There was a knock in the bucket.

3) The village was driving past a peasant
Suddenly a gate barks from under the dog.
Jumped out a stick with a woman in his hand
And let's beat the horse on the man.
The horse ate lard, and the man oats,
The horse sat in the sleigh, and the man drove.

4) "Don't make noise!" But did they make noise
We? Andryusha barely knocked
Hammer on an iron pipe.
I played softly on my lip
Bend it down with your finger.
Tanya slammed the barn door.
Sasha ran a stone across the glass.
Kolya hit the pan in the corner
Brick, but quietly and rarely.
"Don't make noise!" the neighbor said.

Cases and prepositions

Open the brackets by putting the nouns in the case form and inserting prepositions where necessary.

O, OB (OBO), K (KO) and V (VO).

Hit (corner of the table) ______________________________.
Tell (trip) ______________________________.
Walk (jacket) (yard) ______________________________.
See (window) ______________________________.
Think (trip) (parents) and (gift) (birthday) ______________________________.

Interactive tests online

We will watch again today
Draw conclusions and reason.
And for the lesson to go to each for the future,
Get active, my friend!

Read and explain the meaning of proverbs and sayings.

He's got things out of his hands.
To live without work is only to smoke the sky.
Business time, fun hour.
Stand up for the right cause.
For business and the day will fly by unnoticed.
It's time to talk about business.

- What did you pay attention to? ( In each sentence there is a form of the same word "case".)

- Why did you decide that this is a form of the same word, and not related words? (In words, only the ending changes.)
- Write down the word "case" with questions. Select endings.

What? cases about
Without which? idle a
What? cases at
For what? for cases about
What for? for cases ohm
About what? about affairs e

– How many questions are posed to the forms of the word “case”? ( Six.)
What type of work did we do? ( We changed the word “case” for questions.)
- What conclusion can be drawn? ... True, and nouns may change. What is the name of such an inflection you will learn from the text:

Changing nouns

In order for a noun to be able to connect correctly with other words in a conversation (or in writing), forming sentences, it has the ability to change its endings. AT different occasions, answering different questions, the noun uses different endings.

This change in nouns is called a change by cases .

Word case derived from Latin case(the fall). Even Greek scientists noticed that the noun has a direct (main) form and an indirect one, that is, as it were deviant from a straight line. Hence the famous term declension - changing the word by case.

The word has six cases
Six faithful little pages.
They pass in succession
For a word, anyone is ready to fight!
Entrust the endings
Fate and life
And about my calling
They sing in their ear.

In russian language 6 cases. AT different languages different amount cases (from 2 in English, Hindi to 46 in Tabasaran).

Nominative case

There is nominative case,
And there are no other people's clothes on him.
Everyone can easily recognize him
And in subject name.
Prepositions since childhood I do not like ,
I can't stand being around me.
My questions - who? and what?
Nobody messes with anything.

Who? What?

When they say "say the noun in its initial form", imply Nominative case (With ancient Greek"naming, calling the name." Nominative - one that calls by name, names.) The noun in this case is just straight form the words. Answers the questions who? what?

All other cases give us indirect form the words.

Remember! In the nominative case THERE ARE NO PREPOSITIONS !

Genitive

And I - genitive case.
My character is sociable.
Whom? What?Not – here I am!
Prepositions are often my friends:
And With, and before, and y, and from -
Up to the sky and down from the sky.
I look like accusative
I am sometimes
But in the text you can tell
Always two cases.

The name means "received from birth". Its main function is to designate the genus, belonging, origin. He points to the parent, owner (Peter's son, sister's book, resident of the city). The words in this case answer questions whom? what?

Dative

I- call I am dative,
I work diligently.
To whom to give? What to call for?
Only I can say.
I sometimes make friends with the preposition "to".
But I also go for walks.

Literal translation dative case from Greek: dotike in Greek "dative". Its connection with the verb "give, give" is quite clearly traced. The main meaning of the dative case is the name of the addressee, the name of the person to whom they give (a gift to a brother, hello to a friend). Nouns in this case answer questions to whom? what?

Accusative

And I - accusative
And I blame it allignorant
But I love excellent students
For them, "five" I catch.
Whom call? In what play,
Ready for advice guys.
Do not mind making friends with suggestions,
But I can live without them.

Accusative With Greek word aitiatike means "causal" (in Old Russian and Old Church Slavonic it meant "guilt"). The main meaning of the accusative, "causal" case is to name the object of the action, which is the reason that causes the action itself (love your mother, write a letter). Questions in this case: whom? what?

Instrumental case

And I - instrumental case,
Full of every hope.
I admire! - How?
Create! - With whom?
I'll tell you - no problem!
Prepositions before, under and above
At any moment I am very happy.

Instrumental case associated with the verb "to create" - to do something with the help of some tool, means. Hence the main meaning of the instrumental case (to write with a pen, to draw with paints). And his questions by whom? how?

Prepositional

I - prepositional case.
My case is complicated.
The world is not nice to me without pretexts.
About whom? About what I told?
Oh yes, suggestions!
Without them, I have no way.
Let it be about, and in, and at –
You don't accidentally erase them:
Then I can tell
What to dream about and what to walk in?

And gave the name prepositional case famous Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov, reflecting its sign - the obligatory use of a preposition (to study at school, to visit the city). Questions in this case: about whom? about what? Although instead of a suggestion about can be substituted either in, or on the.

Do you know that... Old Russian there was another fall vocative. It served to express the appeal.

Tricky advice: To remember the order of cases, you need to learn a rhyme:

And van R killed Drov, V arvara T heats the Furnace.

According to the task
There is a mouse, a cat and cheese.
And her decision will be
Learn the case to the holes.
***
Who? Of course the cat is in ambush.
What? Great cheese and fresh.
It applies, of course,
Nominative case.

No one? Of course mice.
There is nothing? And the cheese is gone!
Applies of course here
Genitive.

If I gave it to someone? Little mouse
That piece of Vaska cheese,
Dative then
Would be friendly and wonderful!

If the cat shared
With whom and what???
With mouse cheese
That instrumental case
Finished with a delicious feast.

And who is to blame now?
Mouse? Or what?
Piece of cheese?
Not! Accusative
Will not end the matter peacefully!

And now, where to go,
In the prepositional case, cat
Thinking about what? Oh cheese!
And empty tummy growls...

To determine the case of a noun in the proposal, you need:

1. find the word to which the given noun refers;
2. put a question from this word to the noun.

Strengthening exercises...

1. Read the text. Fill in the gaps with a word river in the right form.

Almost every ………… begins with a spring. Small streams merge into ………………. . The beginning of ……………… is called the source.

The place where ……………. flows into the sea, lake or other ……………., is called the mouth.

Reference words: river, river, river, river, river

Determine the case in the phrase

It is generally believed that in modern Russian there are 6 cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, prepositional), however, some linguists (Zaliznyak) distinguish at least seven more with limited distribution and functions. The six main cases are determined by means of grammatical questions that can be put in place of the word (who ?, what ?, whom ?, what? Etc.), the remaining cases can only be distinguished by indirect semantic features(so, the explanatory and local cases are determined by one question: about / on / in whom, what?)

The nominative case - who ?, what ?, is the only direct case in Russian, used as the main part of the sentence.
The genitive case - no one ?, what ?, determines belonging, kinship and some other relationships.
The dative case - to give to whom ?, to what ?, determines the end point of the action.
Accusative case - I see who ?, what ?, denotes the immediate object of the action;
Instrumental case - I create by whom ?, with what ?, determines the instrument, some types of temporal belonging (at night);
Prepositional case - to think about whom, about what
The second prepositional case, or local case - the original (non-prepositional) form of the local case is almost completely lost and passed into the prepositional and instrumental forms, however, some nouns have a grammatically different form prepositional: in the forest, in the shade. The unprepositional forms doʹma and domʹ are, apparently, adverbs.
The vocative case is identical in form to the nominative case, but forms an independent turn of speech, similar in function to an interjection. The original vocative case has been completely lost, the forms of the Old Russian language - human, doctor, etc. However, a new vocative can be distinguished, including colloquial forms some names: Sing, Sash, Tan, etc. and several nouns.
The quantitative-separative case is a kind of genitive and is in many ways similar to it, but it has some different forms: a cup of tea (together with tea), set heat (not heat), add a move (not a move).
The deprivative case is a kind of accusative case, but is used exclusively with a negative in the verb: not to know the truth (not the truth), not to have the right (not the right).
The expectant case actually coincides with the genitive, but stands out due to the fact that some words with the same grammatical form are declined in accusative form. Wed wait for (whom? what?) letters, but wait (whom? what?) for mom. Also: wait by the sea for the weather.
The transformative case or the inclusive case - answers questions similar to the accusative case (to whom? to what?), but is used exclusively in turns like go to welders, run for president, take in-laws, etc.
The counting case is a somewhat different form from the genitive used when counting: three hours (not hours), two steps.

G. I. Kustova, 2011

case- grammatical inflectional category of a noun expressing different types syntactic relations noun to another word, to other elements syntactic construction or to the proposal as a whole.

The term "case" also denotes any of the grammes of the category of case (for example, "dative case": table at , table am , countries e , countries am etc.) and a separate case form of the name (for example: country- dative case of a noun country).

The syntactic relations expressed by the case usually have a semantic, and sometimes also a communicative content. However, there are cases of semantically degenerate syntactic relations, when the case cannot be assigned any content and it expresses only the very fact of the syntactic connection of the case form with another element (elements) of the syntactic structure of the sentence.

The category of case for substantive and adjective words is arranged differently. The case of adjectival words - adjectives, pronouns-adjectives, ordinal numbers, participles, as well as the case of cardinal numbers, except for the nominative and accusative inanimate - is consistent and depends on the case of the noun being defined.

The main object of description in grammatical theory is the case of nouns (and other substantive words - noun pronouns, cardinal numbers in the nominative and accusative case), which has complex system functions and values. Unlike others grammatical categories, which are binomial ( number (see), view (see)) or trinomial ( face(cm.), time(cm.), mood(see)), the case in Russian is a polynomial category and combines at least six opposed series of forms - nominative(cm.), genitive(cm.), dative(cm.), accusative(cm.), instrumental(cm.), prepositional(cm.). The question of the presence in the Russian language of a partitive (genitive quantitative) and a locative (local case), due to which the case paradigm would become eight-term, is debatable (see. 1.2 Composition of cases).

Nominative case(see) occupies a special place in the case paradigm. First of all, it is used in the naming function. In addition, in traditional grammar, it is believed that the nominative case of the subject is not controlled by the verb-predicate, but is in a special syntactic relationship of coordination with it. This is the basis of the traditional division of cases into direct (nominative) and indirect (all others).

1 Morphology

1.1 Case means

The meaning of the case is expressed by inflection cumulatively with the meaning of the number. Noun declension(cm.)

Declension of pronouns(cm.)

Declension of numerals(cm.)

Adjective declension of nouns(cm.)

1.2 Composition of cases: expansion possibilities

The Russian case system includes six main cases:

• nominative(cm.);
• genitive(cm.);
• dative(cm.);
• accusative(cm.);
• instrumental(cm.);
• prepositional(cm.).

Along with the six main cases in Russian, there are a number of forms with a disputed status that are close to the case: the second genitive case, the second prepositional case, the second accusative case, two countable forms and the vocative form. Each of these forms is characteristic of a limited circle of words and occurs in special contextual conditions (for more details on the status of each of these forms, see [Zaliznyak 1967:43–52])

Second genitive(other names: partitive, quantitative-separative) have some words male 2nd declension in singular: spoon sugar at ; cup of tea Yu ; People at ran up!; Noise at It was!(cf. "first" genitive: weight sugar a , cha taste I , voice of the people a , can't hear the noise a ). The genitive partitive ending is common in colloquial speech, but is not required (permissible eat cheese a and eat cheese at ; bag of sugar a and bag of sugar at ), except in some cases ( not once at ; let's have a cup of tea at ; also in phraseological units: without a year at a week; our regiment at arrived; with the world at on a string; my hut with Yu ; rage with fat at and etc.). Many masculine nouns, not only borrowed, but also Russian ones, are not used in the partitive form: * glass sprite at , *kilo rosehip at , *ice cube at , *charcoal bag Yu , *piece of bread at .

Second prepositional case(other names - local, locative) is characterized by special endings in a group of masculine nouns in the singular and the transfer of stress to the ending in some nouns female 3rd declension in the singular: into the cupboard at , in the forest at , on beach at , into the nose at , on the forehead at , in bo Yu ; in the oven, in hush, in blood, in the shadow, dire straits, on ointment (cf. "first" prepositional case: about the closet, about the forest, about blood, about the shadow). The degree of obligatory use of the form of the local case in different cases is different. For some masculine nouns, the use of the ending -y in the prepositional case after prepositions in and on the in a prepositional group with a spatial meaning is obligatory ( to the side at , in the mouth at , captured at , in ra Yu , on the forehead at , on the floor at , by the look at , cf. also phraseological units go for a reason at who; once in year at ), for some - variable ( in a haystack at – in a haystack e , to the barn at- in the barn e , to the ball at – to the ball e ; on vacation e- in vacation at ), for some it is impossible ( dock – to the dock e , not * at the dock; yard – to the yard e , not * to the yard at ; Hall – to the hall e , not * in the hall). For more information about the second prepositional case, see [Plungyan 2002], , .

Second accusative case(other names - inclusive, transformative, collective) occurs after the preposition in with a small number of verbs, and its endings coincide with the endings of the nominative plural (another interpretation is fluctuations in animation(cm.)): [ go, enroll, get out, prepare, ask, mark, accept, choose etc. in] soldiers, pilots, generals, commanders. This form has the least right to special case status.

There are also isolated phenomena such as the so-called expectant case(case series with the verb wait and some others). They are on the periphery case system.

At the words row, track, hour, step, ball, as well as substantivized adjectives type duty, canteen there is a special counting form, implemented in combination with the nominative and accusative case of numerals two (two), three, four, both (both), one and a half (one and a half): two o'clock á (with emphasis on the ending, cf. genitive case: about an hour a - with an accent on the basis), three tables s/ tables s (cf. genitive case: three rooms, three tables). Another counting form stands out for some names of units of measurement: ten volts, ampere(not volts, amps).

vocative form (see Vocative) (vocative) is used in colloquial speech in the function of addressing some names of persons to unstressed -and I: mom, aunt, Mash, Wan(this is new form, which should be distinguished from the old vocative form God, God, Father, older preserved in only a few words).

The listed forms, primarily the partitive and locative, are sometimes interpreted as separate cases, but the six-case interpretation of the case system is predominant, in which the partitive and other additional cases are considered variants of the main cases.

"Six case" The approach assumes that some words, within one of the six main cases, have, along with the main one, an additional form with special semantics. In favor of the six-case approach is evidenced by the fact that these special forms("additional cases") are not equivalent to the main cases - first of all, in terms of vocabulary coverage and semantics. If all words have main cases, then additional ones are tied to certain semantic classes of lexemes: the partitive occurs mainly in real nouns (although not all of them, cf. * piece of bread at ) and some abstract ones ( a lot of noise at ; suffered fear at ); the locative occurs mainly in words with the meaning of place (space) and some abstract nouns, but never occurs, for example, in animate nouns. In addition, additional cases do not occur at all in plural. As for the semantics of the cases themselves, the main cases have a wide semantics - each case expresses a whole set of semantic roles (see p. 2.2.1.2 ): cf. genitive: No thunderstorms (subject of existence) - fears thunderstorms (situation-stimulus) - I want to rest (desire content); prepositional: hide in a ravine (place), dream about the trip (content), cf. also attributive and adverbial uses - come in May (time), the male in costume (characteristic), and additional cases have a specific and narrow semantics: the partitive is quantitative, the locative is spatial (i.e. they are unambiguous).

"Octal" approach (including the partitive and locative in the main cases) assumes that in the "paired" cases (first and second genitive, first and second prepositional) only some words have endings that differ ( a glass of tea Yu – cha taste I ), and most words have the same endings: partitive ( glass of water s ) and the "regular" genitive ( the taste of the waters s ) will always have the same shape not only for all feminine and neuter words, but also for most masculine words: bag coal I – charcoal color I ; as well as for all words in the plural.

NOTE. The eight-case approach creates difficulties not only in teaching, but also in theory. For example, how to prove that in combination with feminine and neuter nouns - like a glass of water / milk - the idea of ​​a part / amount of a substance is expressed not only by “measuring” vocabulary like a glass, but also by a special case if this case coincides with the “usual” genitive (cf. taste of water/milk)?

2 Usage: syntax and semantics

2.1 General characteristics

The complexity of describing the category of case is due to the fact that there is no single basis on which the classification of cases could be built. AT existing descriptions case systems to characterize cases are usually used several different signs. For example, in [Grammar 1980(2) §§1727–1730] the relation of a case form to another word or to an entire syntactic construction is described in terms of a conditional and non-verbal connection ( congratulate Happy anniversary vs. father anniversary), strong and weak connection (elect deputy vs. house father ), non-variable and variant connection ( dream about rest vs. worry about children / worry for the children ) (for details, see p. 3 Case in grammatical descriptions(cm.)).

We distinguish three types of use in the sentence case forms- depending on the mechanism of including the case form in the sentence: controlled, constructively conditioned (abbreviated - constructive) and freely attached (abbreviated - free).

A. Controlled (dictionary, lexically conditioned) cases(see clause 2.2.):

score nail ; admire painting ; management department ; satisfied result , few time . Such case spreaders are attached to a word on the basis of its lexical (semantic) valency and in this sense are its dictionary characteristic - i.e. characterization of the word as a vocabulary unit. Such case forms can be called controlled, as well as valence or vocabulary. In the academic grammar of 1980, they are considered conditional (see [Grammar 1980 (2): §§1720–1721] and also [Shvedova 1978]) and refer to management.

b. Structurally determined cases(see clause 2.3)

Structurally stipulated cases are not a dictionary characteristic of any word, but are used as part of a sentence - they appear in the process of constructing a sentence as a syntactic structure and its substructures (separate syntactic constructions). Structurally conditioned cases are used:

• at certain form words (in this case they are conditioned by the gramme): infinitive(see Infinitive sentences) suggests expressing the subject in the dative case ( to me be on duty); comparative(cm. comparative form) implies the expression of the object of comparison in the genitive case ( above tree );
• in a certain syntactic function (position): subject, predicate;
• as part of a syntactic construction: transitional(see Transitivity) ( workers are building house ), passive(see pledge) ( House under construction workers ); constructions also include types of sentences, for example, infinitive ( To you go out); impersonal(see Impersonality) ( To him can't sleep).

In the academic grammar of 1980, such case forms are qualified as non-verbal and are distinguished at the sentence level (see [Grammar 1980 (2): §§2006–2011]).

A special case of constructively conditioned attachment is 24 (see clause 2.4); "determinant" - the term N.Yu. Shvedova (see, for example, [Shvedova 1964], [Shvedova 1968]), adopted by many Russian authors. Determinants are attached to the whole sentence, entering into a relationship with its predicative center: boy he became interested in chess; In the evenings everyone gathered in the living room. For them, the initial (left) position in the sentence and the communicative function of the topic are typical.

C. Freely attachable cases(see clause 2.5)

These cases are neither valence nor constructive and are attached to the word as free propagators with an adverbial or attributive meaning: village Manilova ; hut in the forest ; build this year . Being neither structurally nor semantically necessary, they introduce into the sentence Additional information. In the academic grammar of 1980, this type of use of case and prepositional forms is called case adjunction ([Grammar 1980 (2): §§ 1728, 1834–1849]).

Finally, case forms can be used outside the sentence(see clause 2.6): as a heading of the text or outside the text (more precisely, as independent texts) - in signboards, signs, etc.

The main types of use of cases are controlled and constructive. They are building elements, supporting structures of the sentence structure. Free (attributive-adverbial) cases are case analogues of adjectives and adverbs. "Heading" cases are generally outside the sentence and constitute the farthest periphery of the functioning of case forms.

Within each group there is a core (prototypical uses) and a periphery - a zone of rapprochement (or even intersection) with other groups.

Case forms can spread the words of all significant parts speech - verb ( cook soup), noun ( manufacturing toys), adjective ( loyal word), adverb ( out of spite enemies), comparative(see Comparative degree) - the form of the comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs in - about (above tree), numeral ( two table), predicative(cm.) ( heard music).

The case form may depend on the preposition (cf. Pretext). At the same time, it is usually considered that the preposition and the case form constitute a single whole both in syntactic and semantic terms (E. Kurilovich even suggested considering the grammatical indicator of the prepositional group (cf. to table- at ) as a kind of complex morpheme, consisting of a preposition and case ending; however, an adjective can usually be inserted between the preposition and the case form, see [Kurilovich 1962]). In any case, in the semantic interpretation of the case in the prepositional construction big role plays the meaning of a preposition, as well as the meaning of the noun itself, cf .: [move away] from the edge – starting point; [tremble] out of fear- reason (the interpretation of a controlled prepositional group, as well as a controlled non-prepositional one, depends primarily on the semantics of the control word: refuse from the voucher ).

Prepositional case forms have the same semantic and syntactic properties, as the non-prepositional case forms. They can be:

• lexically conditioned, expressing the valency of the predicate word: pursuit to knowledge ; meet with friends ;
• constructively determined: brother with sister (comitative construction); any of us (elective construction), each got a candy (distributive construction);
• attached to the whole sentence as a determinant: By the evening everyone gathered in the living room; From the noise headache;
• freely attached to the word: sauce to the fish ; keys from the basement ;
• isolated ( independent text- headline, signboard, slogan): About weather; To the stadium.

Below we will consider mainly non-prepositional cases. The exception is the prepositional case, which does not have an unprepositional use. In addition, individual prepositional constructions will be given as an illustration. general provisions case theory (see, for example, clause 2.5, clause 2.6).

2.2 Controlled cases (valence addition of cases)

Control is a type of connection in which the control word predicts not only the presence of a subordinate name (s), but also its (their) case form; in traditional grammars, it is usually said that the control word “requires” a certain case with itself, in other terminology, it has a valence expressed by this case.

2.2.1 Verb control

2.2.1.1 Semantic structure of the control word: actants, valencies, cases

From a semantic point of view, all controlled cases are valence. The control word can be any part of speech, but the prototypical valence word is the verb, which, together with its case environment, forms the syntactic model of the sentence.

A verb (or other predicate word) denotes a situation with a certain number of participants and has a corresponding number of semantic actants. Actants correspond to valency. In the valency clause of the verb, they are “filled in” (“saturated”, expressed) with noun phrases in a certain case without a preposition or with a preposition (in typical case; some valencies can also be expressed by adverbs, adjectives, infinitives, subordinate clauses), see [Apresyan 1967], [Apresyan 1974], [Cheif 1975], [Fillmore 1981], , [Paducheva 2004], [Apresyan 2010], [Plungyan 2011].

At the level semantic structure(meaning) semantic valences are obligatory: they are part of the semantics of the predicate as lexical item. At the level of syntactic structure (in a sentence), valence may not be syntactically expressed, but the corresponding participant (actant) is implied by the speaker and semantically reconstructed by the addressee (without this it is impossible to understand the meaning of the sentence with this predicate): for example, in the verb come in initial value(‘movement’) is the valency of the agent (subject-person), and if it is not expressed in a material form - for example, in incomplete sentence Came[answer to question Brother came?] or in an indefinite personal sentence They came to you, - the personal subject is still “recovered” and is part of the meaning of the sentence. See articles for more details Semantic roles(mass media Syntactic roles (cm.).

Information about a case or a set of cases is called a case frame, or control model. The control model characterizes the word as a whole, as a vocabulary unit, and refers to any form included in its paradigm (cf. wipe dust rag; wipe dust rag; wiping dust rag; wiping dust rag).

The control model is an individual (vocabulary) characteristic of a predicate word, both from a semantic and formal point of view: the number and nature of actants are individual, because follow from the semantics of the word; case registration of actants is also individual for a predicate lexeme, because each such lexeme requires certain case forms: for example, some verbs govern the accusative case ( listen music ; be in love nature ), others - instrumental case ( be proud son ; lead department ), still others - in the genitive case ( afraid rain ; avoid meetings ) etc.

The expression of the first actant - the subject - is subject to special syntactic rules. These rules are outside the scope of governance in narrow sense and belong to the sphere of constructive cases. special rules the case formulation of the subject and object in the passive construction also obeys (see. p. 2.3 Structurally determined cases).

Although the set and content of semantic valences are individual for each predicate, nevertheless, predicates belonging to the same semantic class have a similar set of valences (roles) and similar ways of expressing them. Yes, for verbs physical action there are valences of agent and patient, and sometimes also of instrument and means; verbs of perception have the valency of the experiencer (subject of perception) and stimulus (object of perception), verbs of information transmission have the valence of the addressee, verbs of speech and thought have the valency of the content, etc. (see examples below, p. 2.2.1.2 (cm.)).

The semantics of the predicate determines not only the number of valences, but also the very possibility of their semantic interpretation. For specific predicates denoting situations physical world, the content of valences is most obvious. With a shift towards abstract semantics, predicate valences are difficult or not amenable to semantic interpretation at all (cf. concrete come to the river and abstract come to conclusion ), and in this case no meaningful role is attributed to them, and valence is characterized in syntactic terms ("subject"; "object").

2.2.1.2 Semantic roles (valencies) expressed by case forms

Although there is no generally accepted list of types of predicate valences and semantic roles of participants in situations, there are valences (roles) that are distinguished by many researchers and are found in large groups of predicates (see Fig. Semantic roles):

• agent- the subject of action, spending his own energy to achieve the goal: Painter painted the wall; Sportsman jumped off a trampoline;
• effector- an elemental force that produces an impact and change: Wind tore off roof; Flow swept the boat; This role is characterized by the so-called a spontaneous construction, when the effector is expressed in instrumental case with an impersonal verb: Roof ripped off by the wind ; The boat was blown away flow ;
• property carrier subject: metal has good conductivity; sewage water characterized high content oil products;
• patient- an object that undergoes changes in the course of a situation under the influence of an agent or some uncontrolled (and sometimes unnamed) force: Boy broke pencil ; The wind blew roof ; The boy threw ball ; Ball fell.

NOTE. A participant that does not undergo changes (is not created, does not deform, does not collapse, etc.), but only moves ( throw the ball; move a chair), in typological and syntactic studies, primarily foreign (cf., for example,), is sometimes called a theme. In Russian linguistic literature, this term has not received wide distribution - firstly, because in Russian the patient and the topic have the same case design, and secondly, because this term is inconvenient due to the coincidence with the name of another role - "Message subject"(see below) - and with "theme" as an element actual articulation suggestions;

• result(created object) is another role, which, like the patient, is expressed in the accusative case, but semantically differs from the patient (cf., in particular, [Paducheva 2004:43–44]): to knit mittens ; cook soup . A noun phrase with a result role is characterized by a beneficiary context ( Knit mittens for grandson), but not the possessor ( ? Knit mittens grandson), which is valid for the patient, (cf.: Break / throw away/dirty grandson's mittens). The situation of creation is characterized by one more participant - the material: knit mittens wool ; cook soup from vegetables ;
• tool– participant of the situation, which is used by the agent to achieve the goal: chop with an ax , paint brush , sew on a typewriter , sift through a sieve ; consider binoculars ; fire from a gun ;
• means- a participant in the situation, which, unlike the instrument, is consumed or connected by the agent in the process of use: paint the wall paint ; set the table tablecloth ;
• recipient– recipient in a transfer situation (the result of a transfer situation is possession, so the recipient can also be called a dynamic possessor): hand over / give / bequeath a collection grandchildren ;
• destination- the recipient of information (expressed not only verbally, but also by signs or signals): to report, make a promise, flatter, wave, wink friend ;
• beneficiary, or beneficiary, – participant whose interests are affected by the situation and who benefits from it: to help brother , promote progress ; accordingly, a malefactive is a participant who is negatively affected by the situation: interfere grandmother , take revenge enemy , harm health ;
• experimenter- the subject of sensation, perception, feeling, experience: Patient unwell; Sailor saw the earth; Boy scared of the dog;
• stimulus- the object or situation that the experiencer perceives or reacts to: The sailor saw earth ; The boy got scared noise ; the stimulus is included in a wider class of causators, it can be considered a kind of cause, which is especially obvious when the stimulus is a situation: rejoice victory ;
• possessor- the subject of possession: landowner owns the land; The earth belongs landowner ;
• message subject and content: talk about the trip , think about the trip ; sometimes the prepositional group " about+ suggestion" or " about+ vin.p. " expresses theme and content syncretically, however, there are cases where these roles differ: told about Petya [topic] all sorts of nonsense [content];
• counterparty- one of the participants in the "symmetrical" (mutual) action: be friends with a classmate ; hug with brother ; counterparties are also seen in situations of interaction that are not symmetrical (reciprocal) actions, for example, in [Apresyan 2010:373], the role of the verb buy: buy a cottage at the neighbor's ; indeed, in the interaction phase, the seller is the counterparty of the buyer, from another point of view, he is the possessor;
• second member of the relation: equal / match what ; surpass whom / what ; differ from whom / what (this role is typical for static predicates, among which there are many adjectives: equals what ; similar on whom ; married on whom );
• place(locative, essive): run in forest ;
• starting point(elative, ablative, source): go out from the city ;
• end point(lative, directive, goal): go in town ;
• trajectory(route, path): go through the forest / along the shore / through the wasteland ;
• time: start at five o'clock ;
• term: rent for a month (the term, generally speaking, is a kind of time, but in [Apresyan 2010:376] this role is distinguished as a special one);
• aspect: surpass by quality ; differ color ;
• goal: pursuit to success ;
• motivation: reward for bravery .

NOTE. As a rule, such participants in the situation as place, time, purpose, reason, etc., are circumstantial, and the noun phrases expressing them are circumstances (cf.: talking in the corridor is a circumstance of a place; going on a business trip in June is a circumstance of time ; to invite an employee to talk is a circumstance of purpose), but some predicates, due to their lexical semantics, place, time, purpose, etc. are semantic actants. Special place Cause occupies both in the list of actants and in the list of circonstants. The meaning of ‘reason’ is very important for natural language and widely represented in lexical meanings with a causative component, and in causative grammatical constructions. The meaning of the reason is expressed not only in different types of circumstances (I entered by mistake / by mistake; I was late due to traffic jams; I left because of necessity; I canceled as unnecessary, etc.), there is a whole group of semantic roles that can be considered varieties of the reason ( causator): agent, effector, stimulus, motivation. Sometimes the lists of roles include the terms “cause” (cf. [Apresyan 1974]) and “causator” (cf. [Paducheva 2004]).

The semantic content of the case could be considered the semantic role that the corresponding participant in the situation performs, if the case always expressed some kind of role (preferably the same one). However, in Russian, the case is not a direct expression of the semantic role: firstly, the case form may not have a semantic content (cf. finish work); secondly, the same case form in different cases can have different content(to express different roles, cf. boy running[agent] and the boy is afraid[experiencer]). We can only talk about some correspondence between the role of the actant and its case: some cases "specialize" in the expression certain roles, and vice versa, certain cases are typical for some roles: the nominative case is typical for the agent, the accusative case for the patient, the dative case for the addressee, recipient and beneficiary, and the instrumental case for the instrument and means.

The semantic role is not always expressed in the most typical case for it. Correspondence role ↔ case can be violated under the influence of various "perturbing" factors - semantic or syntactic. Sometimes the role of a participant is complicated by additional meanings: sew on the sewing typewriter - a participant in the situation with the role of an instrument (a typewriter) receives a case design typical for the place, because a machine is, unlike conventional tools like a hammer, scissors, a shovel, etc., a fixed, non-manipulable tool; persuade sister [do something] - the addressee is expressed not in the dative, but in the accusative case, because is not just a recipient of information, but also an object whose state the speaker wants to change (cf. the situation of weaker impact advise sister ).

Another source of violation of the correspondence between the semantic role of the participant in the situation and its typical case expression are “secondary” syntactic constructions that can be considered the result of a transformation of some original construction: for example, in a passive construction, the agent is expressed not in the nominative, but in the instrumental case, and the patient is expressed in the nominative: Wall painted painter ; in the infinitive construction, the agent is expressed in the dative case (with additional modal semantics): painter paint the wall today(cm. clause 2.3).

2.2.1.3 Syntactic and communicative properties of verbal cases

From a syntactical point of view, cases express the syntactic relationship between a predicate and its associated names (nominal groups). Syntactic relations - analogue traditional concept proposal members. Syntactic relations can be represented as a hierarchy (see [Kibrik 2003:121]):

subject (im.p.) > direct object (vin.p.) > indirect object (dat.p.) > indirect object (other indirect cases without prepositions or with prepositions)

Each successive member of the hierarchy has more low rank than the previous one, which means a more limited set of features.

In Russian, as in many others, there are mechanisms for changing the syntactic rank, "promotion" of the nominal group from a lower position to a higher (more "prestigious") with a corresponding change in case design: The teacher checks work (win.p.) - Work (im.p.) checked by the teacher; smear bread oil painting (tv.p.) - smear oil (win.p.) for bread(See [Kholodovich 1974]; [Paducheva 2002].

The increase in the syntactic rank of a noun phrase can have a communicative aspect: getting into a higher position, the noun phrase thus falls into the focus of the addressee.

A change in the communicative rank of a noun phrase can be not only “upgrading”, but also “downgrading”. An example is the lowering of the rank of the subject (in the original construction - the subject) in negative existential sentences ( Lanterns [genus] did not burn), corresponding to existential two-part ( burned lanterns [im.p.]), or in passive constructions ( Approved superiors [tv.p.]), corresponding to active ( superiors [im.p.] approved).

The grammaticalized expression of the communicative top of the sentence is the nominative case of the subject - the noun phrase falling into this position becomes the subject of the message (cf. school definition subject: "what is said in the sentence"). However, the formation of the communicative structure of a sentence is influenced not only by the syntactic hierarchy, but also by the semantic hierarchy of animation (as well as other factors), see [Kibrik 2003]. If there are noun phrases in a sentence with a lower syntactic rank than the subject, but a higher rank in other hierarchies, they can compete with the nominative case, moving into the position of the topic.

So, for example, the position of the topic is typical for the experimenter in the dative case (due to which, in particular, such forms are sometimes considered a non-canonical subject, cf. [Testelets 2001]): Brother there was a noise; Gentlemen I like blondes. In general, the removal of a noun phrase into the position of the topic, especially with the meaning of a person, is a common communicative technique: sister summoned to the dean's office / calls the dean. Wed also the position of the determinant, which has an obvious communicative aspect: neighbor the summons came; Fool seven miles is not a detour; Editorial we were denied.

A special place among the determinants is occupied by the prepositional group y + genus.p. (Neighbors guests), which in colloquial speech can be used for "multiple thematization": I have a daughter chief it's my birthday today.

“Removing” the case form to the left (initial) position in the sentence (i.e., to the position of the topic) as a mechanism for increasing the communicative status can be applied not only to denotations of a person, but also to nominal groups denoting objects, for example: boxes two or three left; TV free time you won't fill.

A similar function can be performed by the so-called nominative topics: Television- you won’t fill their free time.

Unlike the nominative case of the subject, which specializes in the function of expressing the top of the communicative hierarchy (although not always being such), other case forms do not have a communicative meaning in themselves, but are only used to express communicative relations.

2.2.2 Management of other parts of speech

The main provisions of the syntactic theory concerning the case (the relationship between the semantic role of the actant and the case; the principles of ordering and changing the rank of nominal groups, etc.) relate primarily to verbal cases and verbal syntactic constructions. The rest of the valence words are usually described with a verb orientation as a prototypical predicate word.

The valencies of adjectives as predicate words are similar to those of verbs, cf. full plans , familiar everyone , poor resources , and sometimes expressed in the same cases: proud success (be proud success ); equal perimeter (dress perimeter ); like the sun (become like the sun ); worthy praise (merit praise ); ready to work (get ready for the exam ); I agree for all (agree for all terms ).

The valences are arranged in a similar way. predicatives(cm.): ashamed for a friend ; it's a pity birdie .

comparative(cm.) - comparative adjective or adverb - has a valence of the second member of the relation (object of comparison): above tree , as well as the valency of the aspect: more in length and measures: above by 3 meters .

Nouns derived from verbs (cf. examination, treatment) or semantically related to verbs (cf. audit, doctor), retain all or part of the verbal valencies, although they are usually (not always) expressed in other cases: home construction brigade [agent] (cf. team building a house), answer critics [addressee] (cf. reply critics ), grandma gift grandson [recipient] (cf. grandmother[something] gave grandson ), story about the trip (tell about the trip ); medicine from the flu (be treated from the flu ); cf. also: service population , the threat rights, discussion travel , passenger bus (cf. drive by bus ), Chief department , teacher dancing .

Nouns not formed from verbs can also have semantic valences:

• relational nouns(i.e. expressing relationships - related, social, etc.) have a valence of the second member of the relationship: brother Masha ; classmate Masha ; peer Masha ;
• parametric nouns have the valency of the parameter value: length one hundred meters – and valency of the parameter carrier: goal research , cause disease , way cooking , meaning the words , well dollar , color eye , length ropes ;
• words with the meaning of quantity, totality, multitude have the valency of "measured": lots of townspeople , majority gathered , Group comrades ; herd sheep , flock birds ; bouquet colors, bundle keys .

NOTE. It can be assumed that in quantitative constructions, the names of containers and receptacles also acquire the valency of the measured ( cup water ; plate soup ; bag grain ), which initially do not have it ( broke a glass- not * glass of water; dropped a bowl of soup not * bowl of soup); poured the grain out of the bag - not * bag of grain).

• words denoting spatial and temporal division and orientation, as well as part, have a valence to an integer: top closet , edge cliff , the end movie ; leg chair , door closet ;
• valence, i.e. conditioned by lexical semantics, we can also consider the connections words with the meaning of images, texts and other semiotic and informational objects: image Onegin ; portrait Chaliapin ; ghost queens ; plan capture ; list visitors ; results of the year ; story Russia and etc.

Adverbs with valency are few: out of spite to whom ; akin what ; together, threesome etc. with whom ; alone with whom ; on a par with whom ; for the familiar with whom ; furtively, slowly, secretly from whom ; long until what ; contrary with what ; across to whom / what ; beside With by whom / how ;

Adverbs with spatial semantics have disputed status, since in the Russian grammatical tradition an adverb with realized valency is often interpreted as a preposition (see [Grammatika 1980(1): §1654, §1658]), cf. Passed past (adverb) vs. Passed past us(pretext).

2.3 Structurally conditioned (constructive) cases (use of cases as part of constructions)

It is difficult to give such a meaningful or formal definition of a structure that would cover all types of structures (in the literature, structures are studied with different points vision, cf. [Shvedova 2003], [Rakhilina (ed.) 2010]). Words with certain semantics, grammatical forms, prepositions, particles, repetitions, the order of elements can participate in the formation of a construction (compare a construction with an approximate number value: five pieces). An important part of many constructions are prepositional and prepositional-case forms. The case is not only determined by the construction, but also determines it, forms it together with other elements - words, word forms, prepositions, particles.

The “constructive” case differs from the controlled one in that it is not predicted by any word included in the construction, but is due to the construction itself or the syntactic function (position) of this case form in the sentence. From a semantic point of view, the constructive case can be both non-valent and valence. For example, in a construct with an age value − To him twenty years- in a quantitative group twenty years there is no valency for the dative case, but in the infinitive construction you decide at the verb decide there is a semantic valence of the subject, but the case form of this actant is not a dictionary characteristic of the verb, but is regulated by syntactic rules.

The first actant of the verb (subject) is valence from a semantic point of view, but from a syntactic point of view it cannot be equated with other actants.

If other actants have same expression with any form of the verb and in any type of syntactic construction ( performed mazurka , perform mazurka , performing mazurka , performing mazurka ), then the way of expressing the first actant is not predicted by the lexeme. syntax expression This valency is not a constant dictionary characteristic of the verb, but depends on the form and construction in which the verb is used (some constructions also affect the way the object of the transitive verb is expressed, see below):

• at personal form active voice in a two-part sentence, the first actant is expressed in the nominative case and is the subject (requires verb agreement): Artist performs [mazurka];
• with an independent infinitive in an infinitive sentence, the first actant is expressed in the dative case: Artist perform [mazurka], but may not be expressed: To Moscow still go and go; Be silent!(cf. Everyone shut up!); to sleep;
• with a dependent (subjective, objective, target) infinitive, gerund and active participle, the first actant is not expressed, but is calculated according to certain rules. For the subject and target infinitive and gerund, it coincides with the subject of the personal verb:

(1) The artist began to perform the mazurka.= ‘the artist has started and the artist is performing’

(2) The artist came out to perform a mazurka. = ‘the artist has come out and the artist is performing’

(3) Performing the mazurka, the artist sighed.= ‘the artist performed and the artist sighed’

At The first actant of the object infinitive is also not expressed, but coincides with the object of the personal verb:

(4) The king asked the artist to perform a mazurka.= ‘the king asked, the artist will perform’

In the active participle, the first actant coincides with the noun being defined:

(5) The artist who performed the mazurka sighed.= ‘the artist sighed; the artist performed

• in the passive form of the verb and passive communion the first actant is expressed in instrumental case (which, as a rule, is not syntactically obligatory): Mazurka is performed artist ; mazurka performed artist .

Thus, the case form of the first actant (subject) is constructively conditioned, although the subject is one of the valences of the verb.

In Russian (as well as in many other syntactically accusative languages ​​(see, for example, [Kibrik 2003:171–172])), the way of expressing the object of a transitive verb is also in a special position, which in a passive construction takes the position of the subject and is expressed in the nominative case ( artist performs mazurka – mazurka performed by an artist).

From a formal-syntactic point of view, the constructive case is like the valence ( To him be on duty), and not valence ( To him twenty years) - looks more like a controlled than a freely attachable one.

First of all, the constructive case is similar to the controlled case and differs from the freely attached case by constructive obligation: the free case, in general case, can be omitted (cf.: bought a suit striped → bought a suit) - with loss of information, but without damage to the syntactic structure (why it can be called free); the constructive case is obligatory element constructions in the sense that without this case form the construction itself does not exist:

• in some cases, when the constructive case is omitted, the construction simply disappears, cf. elective construction: Many of us agreed with this – Many agreed with this.;
• in other cases the meaning of the sentence changes, cf. construction with an external possessor: anoint to him wound iodine - anoint the wound iodine[‘self’];
• in third cases the entire syntactic structure is destroyed, cf. construction with "dative age": To him twenty years – ? twenty years.

Similarly, the strongly controlled case is included in the structural minimum of the sentence and cannot be omitted - this makes the sentence incomplete.

In addition, the constructive case is similar to the one controlled by its predetermination, non-variability. Like a verb promise requires the dative case of the addressee ( promise someone), and not genitive or instrumental, so the construction of age requires precisely the dative case of the subject and no other.

As already mentioned above (cf. clause 2.1), the constructive case can be attached to the grammatical form - for example, the genitive comparative ( whiter than snow ). However, the verbal constructive cases are not just used in the form of the verb (for example, dative with the infinitive; instrumental with the passive), but are part of the syntactic structure of the sentence - and will be discussed below in the section 2.3.1 Structural cases in sentences(cm.).

Structurally determined case forms occur as a) at the level of the sentence (cf. clause 2.3.1) and b) at the phrase level (see clause 2.3.2).

2.3.1 Structural cases in a sentence

• Subject

Canonical subject(see) expressed nominative case(cm.). In the Russian grammatical tradition, the subject, unlike additions, does not belong to the sphere of control, and its connection with the predicate is called coordination. In some syntactic theories the nominative case of the subject is considered controlled: just as the subject requires the agreement of the verb-predicate, personal verb in finite form (as opposed to impersonal verb (see Impersonality) or infinitive) requires the nominative case of the subject (or object - in passive design(see Voice)) (in the theory "Meaning ⇔ Text" the nominative case of the subject is included in the control model of the predicate word along with other cases, cf. [Mel'chuk 1999:134–139]).

However, the nominative case of the subject still cannot be considered as lexically specified and controlled as indirect cases, since the subject is expressed nominatively in a two-part sentence with any predicate, not only verbal ( Brother is a teacher; Kind brother; Sister is married; village under fire etc.), but neither names, adverbs or prepositional groups, nor a lexically empty linking verb that agrees with the subject, have the valence of the subject (and therefore, the control). In this sense, the nominative case of the subject is not controlled, but constructively conditioned.

• Nominal predicate and co-predicative

The nominal predicate is expressed in the nominative case ( He still child ) and creative predicative(see instrumental case) ( He was completely child ). The co-predicative also has a predicative nature (usually expressed in instrumental, less often in other cases), which has double bond- with an object and with a verb (cf. the term "duplex"): We remember his boy (cf. also with the adjective: We remember its young / young ).

• Genitive case in negative constructions

Negative constructions with particles can be considered as a special type of constructions. not and neither dictating certain rules the use of the genitive in place of the accusative or nominative (cf. Negation). The genitive case is used:

a. at transitive verbs with negation: He reads newspapers→ He doesn't read newspapers ;

b. in negative existential sentences: News were → Izvestia did not have;

c. in negative-genitive sentences with the meaning of absence: Clouds → Ni cloudlet ; (cf. also genitive sentences with the meaning of a large number: Water something!; To the people!(see below );

d. in elliptical sentences: Neither the words! (cf. Your word!); Neither step back!(cf. Step to the right, step to the left - execution).

• Cases in constructions constituted by verb forms

Syntactic constructions can be formed on the basis of the form of the verb, which determines the sentence model with the participation of certain cases:

a. in the passive construction associated with the passive (passive) form of the verb, the subject is expressed in instrumental case: decided assembly ; The stamp is placed operator (Verbs decide, put do not have a dictionary-defined control of the instrumental case, the instrumental case is due to a passive construction);

b. in impersonal construction With impersonally passive(see Reflexivity) the form of the verb (one of the types of an impersonal sentence is associated with it) the subject is expressed in the dative case: To him can't sleep He not sleeping).

c. in the infinitive construction (which forms infinitive sentences), the subject is expressed in the dative case: To him be on duty(cf. the nominative case with the same verb in the personal form: He on duty);

NOTE. The source of the dative case with an independent infinitive is, apparently, not only the gramme of the infinitive, but also modal semantics (the modality of the infinitive sentence is the possibility, impossibility, necessity, etc., see below). Modality (see)), i.e. not only the form (as in the case of the passive), but also the construction, the type of the sentence. If the dative were predetermined only by the gramme of the infinitive, it would be possible with any infinitive. However, other types of infinitives do not allow the dative case - for example, the subject infinitive ( started shooting himself- not * himself; With a gnashing of teeth, Tchertop-hanov tore them out of the hands of the dumbfounded Perfishka, and began to make fire. myself. [AND. C. Turgenev. End of Chertophanov (1872)]), target infinitive in simple sentence (Once sat down to milk a cow myself, with my own hands. [AT. I. Belov. Bays Vologda zaviralnye (1969)]; The brigadier moved to wake Mishka myself . [AT. Belov. Habitual business (1967)]; Me and now everyone New Year I rush to decorate the Christmas tree herself [not * most], often depriving their children of this pleasure. [FROM. Spivakov. Not everything (2002)]; - A terrible bouquet, I will not carry such a bouquet. Then Anatoly went to hand over the bouquet myself [not * himself)]. [FROM. Spivakov. Not everything (2002)].

At the same time, in sentences with modal meaning dative with a dependent infinitive is possible: Everything has to be done himself (impersonal offer); Donka shouldn't have unlocked the door himself . [L. M. Leonov. Thief (1927)]; came to sort it out himself (the target turnover, unlike the target infinitive, has its own modality, different from the modality of the main sentence).

• Constructions with predicate ellipsis

Elliptical constructions of this type are formed by a variety of case and prepositional-case forms. What they have in common is that the predicate is formally absent in them, but the meaning is reconstructed up to the semantic class (usually based on case forms). Many case forms in such elliptic constructions can be regarded as actants of this reconstructible predicate, cf. Not a word to father→ ‘don’t say a word to your father’:

(6) Silence!(‘be quiet’); Fire!('shoot'); Air!; Car!('carefully'); Water something!; To the people!(‘a lot has gathered’); I need two tickets please.; Carriage for me!(‘give’, ‘need’); Water!('give'); More tea?; Happiness to you!; Who do you want?; Three rubles from you; You should see a doctor; I'm in the buffet(‘I’m going’) . Are you with me?; Letter for you; To each according to work; All the best for children; You and the cards in hand; Business - time, fun - hour; And why does he need so much money?; Head of the shop to me!; Make way for the young!; Glory to Labor!; Where are you okay?; Here I am for you!; For your health!; For victory!(toast); Fight!; What are you talking about?('speak'); Are you talking to me?; And about the weather.

• Pseudovalent (imitation) cases

Pseudovalent cases only occur in a sentence, although they are not associated with specific types of sentences. Pseudovalent (imitative) cases formally refer to the verb-predicate, but they are not actants realizing any of its valency, since this verb does not have a corresponding dictionary valence. At the same time, pseudovalent cases express the meaning inherent in "valence" cases - possessor, benefactive, experiencer (which is why they can be called pseudovalent). It can be conditionally considered that pseudovalent cases appear in a sentence (a) as a result of a syntactic process that transforms some original structure, or (b) as a result of “drawing” another (adjacent) situation into the participant’s sentence.

a) Transformation of the original structure

One of the sources of pseudovalent cases is the transformation of some original structure. A typical example The pseudovalent case of this origin is the so-called "external possessor".

The external possessor (see, in particular, [Kibrik et al. 2006], [Rakhilina 2010]) is expressed in the dative case of the verb. At the same time, semantically, it is associated with a name that depends on the verb: burned yourself finger (mine finger); Look to him in the eyes (his eyes); anoint brother wound iodine (wound brother ); How gave pete on the back (back petit ); Mote hit to me into the eye (my eye); Came and messed up us mood (our mood). An adjective possessor expressed in the genitive form or possessive pronoun, has a lower rank, because depends on the complement of the verb. Moving into the position with the verb, the possessor increases its syntactic (and hence communicative) rank. At the same time, the verb has neither the possessor valence, nor any valence in general, expressed by the dative case.

Similar nature (origin) have some types determinants(see 2.4) with the difference that they do not refer to the verb, but to the whole sentence ( At your place bad mood – your mood).

b) “Expanding” the situation by including additional participants

Another source of pseudo-valent cases in a sentence is the "expansion" of the situation by including additional participants.

The verb as a vocabulary unit denotes a situation with a certain number of participants. However, the situation denoted by the whole sentence may have a broader (more complex) meaning, not exhausted by the semantics of the verbal predicate and its own actants. Examples of such an expansion of the situation are the inclusion of “free” cases in the sentence: dative benefit (interest) and dative ethical (for more details, see below). Dative(cm.)).

• Dative of benefit (of interest)

The dative case with benefactive semantics (the so-called dative of purpose, or dative of benefit, or dative of interest) is used with verbs that do not have a dictionary-defined benefactive valency if they denote an action in the interests of another person: Grandma knits mittens grandson ; Buy to me milk; pour to me tea; Sew on to me button etc. Thus, some situation (creation, impact on an object, acquisitions) is interpreted as beneficial, although the sentence does not contain a benefactive verb (i.e., a verb with a benefactive valency of the type help[to whom], serve[to whom], provide[to whom] etc.).

• Dative ethical

The so-called dative ethical (or dative of the interested person), which would be more correctly called dative expressive, occurs in a large class of colloquial constructions, is optional and is used to enhance expressiveness:

(7) I them not a sentry to guard this technique; Yes he you in ten minutes any poem will learn; Like me you Will I get a job without education?; it you not to play Chopin; Will he you ride a Zhiguli; talk to me more!; Look to me!

Such a dative introduces a designation of a person into the sentence: these can be participants speech act- speaking ( These to me gossips!), destination ( Like me you Can I climb onto the roof without a ladder?) – or a third party ( I will them guard the technique, how!), which is not involved in the situation described by the verb.

If the dative of benefit expands the denotative situation, including the future possessor in it as a beneficiary, then the dative expressive includes an outsider in the situation (usually a participant in a communicative situation - a speaker or a listener), establishing (or rather, artificially creating) a connection between him and the denotative situation, a participant which he is not.

2.3.2 Structural cases in a phrase

Along with constructions that appear only as part of sentences, there are a large number of more "local" constructions (some with a very idiomatic meaning), which are different types of phrases (the term is used in a non-strict sense) and are associated with certain case or prepositional forms:

a. comitative(with the value of compatibility): mother and father(cf. mother and father);

b. elective(with selectivity value): one of us;

c. distributive(with distribution value): received three rubles; parted in the corners; get together on Fridays;

NOTE. Although the distributive construction looks like a phrase, some of its types, strictly speaking, can only occur in a sentence, because impose restrictions on the expression of the subject. For example, in a sentence The kids got candy noun and verb are plural; if the verb is in the singular, the sentence must contain special quantifier words (* The boy got candy → Each got a candy; Boy every day / always got candy).

d. with approximate value: found a dozen mushrooms;

NOTE. The meaning of approximateness can also be expressed by a predicative noun phrase, i.e. as part of the proposal: He is in his thirties / under forties, as well as word order: weigh me three hundred grams of sweets.

e. with size value: the size of a horse;

f. with limit value(spatial or otherwise): children under 12, up to 100 tons;

g. with level value: [stand] waist-deep/knee-deep in water;

h. with degree value: do your best [try], with all legs [to run], loudly / loudly [shout]; eerily, eerily [pale];

i. with comparative: a few kilometers closer, the day before; brighter every day (*light every day);

j. with purpose value: go for mushrooms (*by bread; *by suit); went with a ladle(E. Zamyatin); come for your soul(cf. saying Who is in the forest, who is for firewood);

k. large group naming constructs:

o name / memory / in honor of someone / what;

o by name / by last name / by nickname X;

o under the name / under the surname / under the pseudonym X;

l. different types of two-case constructions(largely phraseological): cloud cloud; step by step; minute to minute; from day to day; day by day; from the first to the eighth (wagon); from May to October; at any moment; from Thursday to Friday; from heel to toe; from dawn to dusk; from morning to evening.

Numerous introductory constructions: Luckily, unfortunately; In my opinion, eyewitnesses; at first sight etc. They are not always phrases in the proper sense (cf. Luckily) and are not included in the syntactic structure of the sentence, being elements of the metatext, but outwardly similar to phrases frozen in one form.

Constructions can also include the so-called adverbial use of cases: genitive dates ( come fifth ), creative places ( go shore ), creative time ( admire hours ), creative comparisons ( howl wolf ) and etc.

In the grammar of constructions, the point of view is expressed that all non-valent uses of cases (cf. plaid skirt, get to know each other in the summer etc. – as well as valence) can be described in terms of structures (cf., for example, [Rakhilina (ed.) 2010].

2.4 Determinants

In academic grammars of 1970 and 1980. stands out special type the use of case and prepositional-case forms, which are considered non-verbal distributors attached to the whole sentence - the so-called 24 (see [Grammar 1970: 624–633], [Grammar 1980 (2): § 2022], as well as [Shvedova 1964 ], [Shvedova 1968]):

(8) Fool seven miles is not a detour. Neighbors it is a holiday today. We have guests. For him there are no barriers. Among the delegates a discussion broke out. From the directorate congratulation read Ivanov. By the evening the storm subsided. In the shadow it was cold.

Although 24 are considered freely attached forms, they have a number of significant differences from free conditional cases (case adjunction) and, in many ways, are close to constructively determined cases:

• 24 stand out at the supply level(non-verbal connection, in terms of academic grammars);
• determinants have distinct communicative component: many 24 are the result communication process raising the status of the case form by moving it to the left position:

(9) They played chess in the evenings. - circumstance of time (free accession, case adjunction - adverbial position)

(10) In the evenings they played chess. - determinant

• 24 may be structurally binding(the predicted components of the sentence, in terms of G.A. Zolotova [Zolotova 1988:3–16], are included in the structural minimum of the sentence and are considered as analogs of the subject): Petya flu; Neighbors trouble; With her fainting. Offers Flu; Trouble; Fainting are not complete messages either structurally or semantically;
• many 24 only outwardly look like free distributors of a “ready-made” offer, - semantically they are related to the material of the sentence(are part of the original semantic structure), and their final design in the form of an "independent" case form can be considered the result of a process similar to the removal of a noun phrase in starting position to increase its communicative significance: Neighbors son returned from the army – son of neighbors returned from the army(cf. Two left boxes – boxes two left; cf. also dative of external possessor(see section 2.3 Transformation of the original structure)).

Therefore, it is logical to correlate 24 not with freely attached, but with constructively determined cases, considering them to be a special kind of constructions.

2.5 Free cases (free attachment of cases to a word)

Freely attached (lexically unconditioned) case forms perform a characterizing function and express attributive or adverbial meanings: notebook Masha ; products for kids ; take until Saturday ; have lunch at University .

The principles of interpreting phrases with valence-conditioned and freely attached case distributors are similar in many respects, there is no impassable boundary between them. If the interpretation of valence combinations is directly based on the semantics of the control predicate, then the interpretation of “free” combinations also often involves referring to a predicate that is mentally reconstructed: cough medicine– ‘a potion that helps get rid of a cough’, suit material– ‘material that is intended for sewing a suit’; stairs to the attic- stairway leading to the attic.

2.6 Use of cases at the text level and outside the text

Outside of a sentence, cases can be used at the level of the whole text, for example in headings, cf. " Oblomov», « To the muse”, as well as the names of various objects, in signs, signs, labels, etc. (i.e. as a special kind of message), for example: " At a lake"- movie; " About communication» - radio broadcast; " At Palych" - score; " Spartacus" - cinema; " To the stadium' is a pointer.

3 Case in grammatical descriptions

In traditional grammar, there were mainly two issues discussed in connection with cases: the status of "additional" cases (partitive, locative, etc.) and the meaning of each case. Traditional descriptions have set themselves the task of highlighting as many differentiated meanings of individual cases as possible. Creative and genitive. Thus, for example, the instrumental case had the meanings of an object, a tool, time, place, comparison, mode of action, etc. (see [Potebnya 1958]).

In the second third of the twentieth century. appeared classical works R.O. Yakobson [Yakobson 1985] and E. Kurilovich [Kurilovich 1962], in which an attempt was made to highlight the common meanings of cases. The theory of Jacobson, who tried to formulate the invariant meaning of each case based on the combination of three differential signs(orientation, volume, peripherality), did not receive further development, although the signs proposed by Jacobson are used by some researchers in case descriptions. As for Kurilovich's ideas, they are taken into account in one way or another by most modern case theories. Kurilovich distinguishes grammatical (syntactic) cases and specific (adverbial) cases. In the syntactic function, the case ending "does not have any semantic significance, but is a purely syntactic indicator of the subordination of the name to the verb." The specific, or adverbial, case has its own semantic content (place, time, purpose, reason) and is associated both with the semantics of the noun (cf.: forest- place, in the evening- time), and with the semantics of the verb. Kurilovich considers the core of the case system grammatical cases- nominative, accusative, genitive (in Russian, the dative should also be included in them); for them syntactic function- expression subjective- object relations- is primary, and the "adverbial" function is an expression of adverbial, or adverbial, meanings (cf. passed five kilometers ; rode a whole day - accusative spatial or temporal extent; I arrived fifth of May - genitive dates) - secondary. For the instrumental case, the adverbial, adverbial function is primary: embroider cross stitch - creative way howl wolf - instrumental comparison (the prepositional in the meaning of place adjoins the instrumental), and the secondary is the function of expressing object relations with individual verbs, for example, be proud son (cf. the objective meaning of the prepositional case: take care about children ).

In the works of A.A. Zaliznyak [Zaliznyak 1967]; [Zaliznyak 1973] were developed based on the ideas of A.N. Kolmogorov and V.A. Uspensky, formal methods for identifying cases and principles for describing the Russian case system as a whole.

In studies devoted to cases in the last third of the twentieth century. presented as a formal approach to the description of cases (when case forms are considered only as formal manifestations of syntactic relations), and a semantic approach (when they are considered as semantically loaded).

In the works of the formal-syntactic (and primarily generative) direction, case forms are attributed structural function, while the question is not discussed that the use of case forms is associated with the transfer of certain semantics (cf., for example,). It is the structural-syntactic component that is the main one in modern formal definitions of the case, cf. the most common of them, formulated by B. Blake, according to which the case conveys the relation of the dependent name to the verb, another name, preposition, or other part of speech.

In other works and linguistic dictionaries The authors mention the presence of both structural and semantic functions case forms, cf., for example. In the field of studying the role semantics of cases and “case frames” of predicate words, Ch. Fillmore’s theory of deep cases [Fillmore 1981] and the theory of valency of predicate words, formulated in the framework of the Meaning ⇔ Text model (Yu.D. Apresyan, A. K. Zholkovsky, I.A. Melchuk, see [Apresyan 1974], [Melchuk 1999]) and developed in the works of representatives of the Moscow Semantic School (Yu.D. Apresyan, I.M. Boguslavsky and others, see [Apresyan et al. 2010]).

A great contribution to understanding the semantics and functions of case forms was made by typological studies. In the works of A.E. Kibrik (for example, [Kibrik 2003]), the features of the Russian case system are revealed against the background of typologically different languages. In the works of representatives of the St. Petersburg typological school (A.A. Kholodovich, V.S. Khrakovsky, etc., see [Kholodovich 1974], [Khrakovsky 2004]), as well as in the works of E.V. Paducheva ([Paducheva 2002], [Paducheva 2004]), S.A. Krylov ([Krylov 2001], [Krylov 2008] and others) examines the role of case forms in the expression of voice and diathesis, in the communicative organization of the utterance.

In the concept of G.A. Zolotova [Zolotova 1988] considers the role of case forms in the semantic, syntactic and communicative organization of a sentence. Developing the ideas about verbal and freely attached cases, G.A. Zolotova developed a theory of the use of case forms (non-prepositional and prepositional), which, within the framework of this theory, are called syntaxemes. The function of a syntaxeme is its constructive role as a syntactic unit in the construction of a communicative unit.

There are three possible functions for the syntaxe:

I. isolated use(for example, as a header): For new settlers; At the forester; To a poet friend; hiking trails;

II. use as a component of a sentence– predicted component: to the city– 10 kilometers; Ivanovs it was cold; To you go out; predictive component: Bed - up to the ceiling ; I - from the front ; Money at Savelich ; This song - you ; Delivery to work transport enterprises; offer distributor: From window the forest is visible; In the rain huts do not cover; rainy in the evenings grandma held meetings;

III. conditional use as a component of a phrase: reach up to 40 degrees ; envy neighbor ; graze geese .

Depending on which set of functions out of the three possible ones the syntaxeme has, they differ:

• free syntaxemes (act in functions I, II, III);
• conditioned syntaxemes (functions II, III);
• related syntaxemes (function III).

In academic grammars of the Russian language of 1970 and 1980. ([Grammar 1970], [Grammar 1980]) the description of the meanings and functions of cases is based mainly on the concept of N.Yu. Shvedova, who distinguishes in the sphere of syntactic relations conditional(as part of a phrase) and unconditional(as part of a sentence and text) the use of cases (cf. [Shvedova 1978]). In the field of semantic relations, there are three common values cases - subjective, objective and attributive (including adverbial-attributive). Within this group are opposed abstract and specific values. The abstract values ​​are the values ​​of the object ( afraid thunderstorms , submit destiny , listen music , supply equipment ) and subject ( water not left, to him enough time, said ancient ), to which the meaning of the necessary informative completion (complementary) adjoins, when “the meaning of the case as a separate unit cannot be established”: the case form “does not lend itself to any separate semantic characteristic” [Grammar 1980(1):§1162] and must be interpreted together with the word which it informatively completes, cf. three comrade , above tree , pass for talker , fraught with worsening etc. The specific ones include particular types of definitive meaning, cf.: human affairs ; go shore ; wait three years ; buy[smth.] bags etc.

The main meanings of cases distinguished in grammatical descriptions (objective, subjective and attributive) are based on a generalization different types objects, different types of subjects and different types of attributive and adverbial relations. At the same time, each of the Russian cases has its own specifics, which makes it possible to distinguish it from other cases not only by the set of endings, but also by linguistic behavior. So, accusative - case direct complement with a verb, impossible with names; genitive, on the contrary, has predominant applicative functions. Dative (in certain constructions) detects whole line features characteristic of the subject. Instrumental - the most "adverbial" (in terms of E. Kurilovich) of the cases, having wide range adverbial meanings. At the same time, it is a case that formalizes nominal predicate(along with the nominative) and the subject of the passive construction, "displaced" from the position of the subject. A special place in the system of cases is occupied by the nominative, which, in addition to the naming function (due to which it represents the entire case paradigm), is the case of the subject and is not used after prepositions (except for the borrowed a la), and prepositional, which, on the contrary, is not used without prepositions.

4 Bibliography

• Apresyan Yu.D. Pilot study semantics of the Russian verb. M. 1967.
• Apresyan Yu.D., Boguslavsky I.M., Iomdin L.L., Sannikov V.Z. Theoretical problems Russian syntax: Interaction of grammar and vocabulary. M. 2010.
• Vezhbitska A. The case of the superficial case. Per. from English. // New in foreign linguistics, 15. M. 1985.
• Grammar 1970 - Shvedova N.Yu. (responsible ed.) Grammar of the modern Russian literary language. M.: Science. 1970.
• Grammar 1980 - Shvedova N.Yu. (editor-in-chief) Russian grammar. M.: Science. 1980.
• Zaliznyak A.A. On the understanding of the term "case" in linguistic descriptions. Part I // Problems of grammatical modeling. M. 1973.
• Zaliznyak A.A. Russian nominal inflection. M. 1967.
• Zolotova G.A. Syntax Dictionary. Repertoire elementary units Russian syntax. M. 1988.
• Kibrik A.E. Constants and variables of the language. SPb. 2003.
• Kibrik A.E., Brykina M.M., Leontiev A.P. Khitrov A.N. Russian Possessive Constructions in the Light of Corpus-Statistical Research // Questions of Linguistics, 1. 2006.
• Krylov S.A. Diathesis // Encyclopedia "Russia on-line". 2001. www.krugosvet.ru
• Krylov S.A. Multiple Provisions general theory collateral // Dynamic models: Word. Sentence. Text. Sat. articles in honor of E.V. Paducheva. M. 2008.
• Melchuk I.A. Experience of the theory of linguistic models "Meaning ⇔ Text". Semantics, syntax. 2nd ed. M. 1999.
• Mrazek R. Instrumental Syntax. M. 1967.
• Paducheva E.V. Diathesis and diathetic shift // Russian linguistics, 26(2). 2002.
• Paducheva E.V. Dynamic models in the semantics of vocabulary. M. 2004.
• Panov M.V. Positional 1 of the Russian language. M. 1999.
• Plungyan V.A. Introduction to grammatical semantics: Grammatical meanings and grammatical systems of the languages ​​of the world. M. 2011.
• Plungyan. V.A. On the semantics of the Russian locative (“second prepositional” case) // Semiotics and Informatics, 37. 2002. P. 229–254.
• Potebnya A.A. From notes on Russian grammar. Issue. 1–2. M. 1958.
• Rakhilina E.V. (ed.) Linguistics of constructions. M. 2010.
• Rakhilina E.V. Construction with dative possessive // ​​Rakhilina E.V. (ed.) Linguistics of constructions. M. 2010.
• Testelec Ya.G. Introduction to general syntax. M. 2001.
• Kholodovich A.A. (ed.) Typology passive structures: Diathesis and pledges. L. 1974.
• Khrakovsky V.S. The concept of diathesis and pledges (initial hypotheses - the test of time) // Khrakovsky V.S. et al. (ed.) 40th Anniversary of St. Petersburg Typological School. M. 2004.
• Chafe W.L. Meaning and structure of language. Per. from English. M. 1975.
• Shvedova N.Yu. Determining object and determining circumstance as independent distributors of the sentence // Questions of Linguistics, 6. 1964.
• Shvedova N.Yu. The dichotomy "conditional - non-verbal cases" in its relation to the categories of the semantic structure of the sentence // Slavic Linguistics. VIII International Congress of Slavists. Zagreb-Ljubljana, Sept. 1978. Reports of the Soviet delegation. M. 1978.
• Shvedova N.Yu. Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech. 2nd ed. M. 2003.
• Shvedova N.Yu. Do 24 still exist as independent distributors of the offer? // Questions of linguistics, 2. 1968.
• Jacobson R.O. To common doctrine about the fall. // Jacobson R.O. Selected works. Per. from English, German, French M. 1985.
• Babby L. Existential sentences and negation in Russian. Ann Arbor. 1980.
• Brown D. Peripheral Functions and Overdifferentiation: The Russian Second Locative // ​​Russian Linguistics, 31(1). 2007. P. 61–76.
• Dowty D.R. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection // Language, 67(3). 1991.
• Nesset T. Case assignment in Russian temporal adverbials: an image schematic approach. Studies in Language, 28(2). 2004. R. 285–319.
• Talmy L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. V. 2. Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge (Mass.)–L.: The MIT Press. 2000.
• Trask R.L. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London–New York: Routledge. 1995.
• Worth D.S. Russian gen 2 , loc 2 revisited // van Baak J.J.(ed.). Signs of friendship: to honor A.G.F. van Holk. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1984. P. 295–306.

5 Main literature on the topic

• Apresyan Yu.D. Lexical semantics. M. 1974.
• Apresyan Yu.D. Three-level control theory: lexicographic aspect // Apresyan Yu.D. and others. Theoretical problems of Russian syntax: Interaction of grammar and vocabulary. M. 2010.
• Bulygina T.V. Some questions of classification of private case values. // Issues of compiling descriptive grammars. M. 1961.
• Bulygina T.V., Krylov S.A. Case // Linguistic encyclopedic Dictionary. M. 1990.
• Vezhbitska A. The case of the superficial case. Per. from English. // New in foreign linguistics. 15. M. 1985.
• Vinogradov V.V. On the forms of the word // Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Studies in Russian grammar. M. 1975.
• Vinogradov V.V. Russian language. (Grammatical doctrine of the word). M.–L. 1947.
• Vsevolodova M.V. The theory of functional-communicative syntax. M.: MGU. 2000.
• The category of case in the structure and system of the language. materials scientific conference"Day of Artur Ozol 7". Riga. 1971.
• Eskova N.A. Selected Works in Russian Studies. M. 2011.
• Zaliznyak A.A. On the understanding of the term "case" in linguistic descriptions. I // Problems of grammatical modeling. M. 1973.
• Katsnelson S.D. Typology of language and speech thinking. L. 1972.
• Klobukov E.V. Semantics of case forms in modern Russian literary language. (Introduction to the methodology of positional analysis). M. 1986.
• Kurilovich E. The problem of classification of cases // Kurilovich E. Essays on linguistics. M. 1962.
• Leshka O. Case category // Russian Grammar. T. 1. Praha. 1979.
• Fillmore C. The Case of the Case. Per. from English. // New in foreign linguistics, 10. M. 1981.
• Shakhmatov A.A. The syntax of the Russian language. L. 1941.
• Jacobson R.O. To the general doctrine of the case // Yakobson R.O. Selected works. Per. from English, German, French M. 1985.
• Blake B.J. case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001.
• Janda L.A., Clancy S. The Case Book for Russian. Slavica. 2002.
• Malchukov A.L., Spencer A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009.