Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:18:42.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Russian prefix pod- from the viewpoint of lexical concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2014

JOHANNA VIIMARANTA
JOHANNA VIIMARANTA*
Affiliation:
University of Turku, Finland
*
*Address for correspondence: Johanna Viimaranta, Department of Russian Studies, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Russian prefix pod- has several meanings, both concrete ones having to do with approaching or being under or down, and a series of seemingly unrelated abstract meanings such as imitating, ingratiating, or doing in secret. This paper approaches the polysemy of pod- from the viewpoint of the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Conceptual Models (LCCM) that sees word meaning not as a permanent property of words, but as a dynamic process in which context and accessed non-linguistic knowledge representation play an important role. This approach uses the notion of lexical concepts to describe the mediating unit between concrete linguistic examples and cognitive models that these examples are connected to. The 505 verbs analyzed bring up the lexical concepts [UNDER], [VERTICAL MOVEMENT], [CLOSE], and [CONTACT]. The connection of these lexical concepts with certain metaphorical and metonymical models is also discussed. Twelve of the 505 verbs are examined more closely in different contexts with the help of twenty-nine illustrative examples from the spoken corpus of the Russian National Corpus.

Keywords

RussianprefixationpolysemyLCCM theorymetaphormetonymyRussian National Corpus
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 462 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Comrie, Bernard (1976). Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, Dirven, René, & Taylor, John R. (Eds.) (2003). Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dobrušina, E.R., Mellina, E.A., & Paillard, Denis (2001). Russkie pristavki: mnogoznačnost’ i semantičeskoe edinstvo [Russian prefixes: polysemy and semantic unity]. Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan (2004). The structure of time: language, meaning, and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (4), 491–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan (2009). How words mean: lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan (2010). Figurative language understanding in LCCM theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 21 (4), 601−662.Google Scholar
Flier, Michael S. (1975). Remarks on Russian verbal prefixation. Slavic and East European Journal, 19 (2), 218−229.Google Scholar
Flier, Michael S. (1985). Syntagmatic constraints on the Russian prefix pere-. In Flier, Michael S. & Brecht, Richard D. (Eds.), Issues in Russian morphosyntax (pp. 138−154). Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Gallant, James (1979). Russian verbal prefixation and semantic features: an analysis of the prefix vz-. München: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit (2008). Goals and sources are aspectually equal: evidence from Czech and Russian prefixes. Lingua, 118, 1664−1689.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. (1986). A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and ot-. Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. (1988). The mapping of elements of cognitive space onto grammatical relations: an example from Russian verbal prefixation. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 327−343). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Endresen, Anna, Kuznetsova, Julia, Lyashvskaya, Olga, Makarova, Anastasia, Nesset, Tore, & Sokolova, Svetlana (2013). Why Russian verbal prefixes are not empty: prefixes as verb classifiers. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Krongauz, M. A. (1998). Pristavki i glagoly v russkom jazyke: Semantičeskaja grammatika [Prefixes and verbs in Russian: semantic grammar]. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Krongauz, M. A., & Paillard, Denis (Eds.) (1997). Glagol’naja prefiksacija v russkom jazyke. Sbornik statej [Verbal prefixation in Russian. Collection of articles]. Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Kuznecov, S. A. (1998). Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Comprehensive dictionary of Russian]. St Petersburg: Norint.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nordlyd (2004). University of Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics, 32(2).Google Scholar
Plungjan, V. A. (2001). Pristavka pod- v russkom jazyke: k opisaniju semantičeskoj seti [Prefix pod- in Russian: description of a semantic net]. Moskovskij lingvističeskij žurnal, 5, 95−124.Google Scholar
Plungjan, V. A., & Rahilina, E.V. (2000). Po povodu ‘lokalistkoj’ koncepcii značenija: predlog pod [On ‘localistic’ conception of meaning: preposition pod]. In Paillard, Denis & Seliverstova, Olga N. (Eds.), Issledovanija po semantike predlogov. Sbornik statej [Investigations on semantics of prepositions. Collection of articles] (pp. 115−133). Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Rakova, Marina (2003). The extent of the literal: metaphor, polysemy and theories of concepts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rakova, Marina, Pethő, Gergely, & Rákosi, Csilla (Eds.) (2007). The cognitive basis of polysemy. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sokolova, Svetlana, Lyashevskaya, Olga, & Janda, Laura A. (2010). The locative alternation and the Russian ‘empty’ prefixes: a case study of the verb gruzit’ ‘load’. In Divjak, Dagmar & Gries, Stefan Th. (Eds.), Frequency effects in language representation (pp. 51−85). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, & Evans, Vyvyan (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Viimaranta, Johanna (2012a). The metaphors and metonymies of domination: explaining the different meanings of the Russian prefix pod-. Russian Linguistics, 36 (2), 157−174.Google Scholar
Viimaranta, Johanna (2012b). Analogy or conceptual metaphor? Coming concretely and abstractly close in uses of the Russian prefix pod-. SKY Journal of Linguistics 25, 205−232.Google Scholar
Volohina, G. A., & Popova, Z. D. (1993). Russkie glagol’nye pristavki: semantičeskoe ustrojstvo, sistemnye otnošenija [Russian verbal prefixes: semantic structure, systematic relations]. Voronež: Izdatel’stvo VGU.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatol’evič (1977). Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka: slovoizmenenie [Grammatical dictionary of Russian: inflection]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar