Change search
Refine search result
1 - 31 of 31
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij O.
    et al.
    Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federation.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Constructions to-to i N, v tom-to i N, v tom-to i ves' < ves' i> N: a corpus-based study2016In: Science for Education Today, ISSN 2658-6762, Vol. 6, no 2, p. 61-72Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The present study is aims to verify a hypothesis on the nature of lexical cooccurency. We are going to show that fixedness of word combinations is not necessarily connected with non-compositionality. Many constructions formed in accordance with the rules governing the cooccurrence of their elements can nevertheless be retained in memory as separate units. Using large text corpora for the empirical data we are going to analyze the types of construction то-то и N (that’s the N), в том-то и N (that’s the N) and в том-то и весь<весь и> N (that’s /just the whole N) with similar semantics which are realized in a wide variety of tokens. We will demonstrate that some tokens of the constructions can be so frequent that they can be considered to be cognitively entrenched units and are preserved in memory as separate units of the language. Such units should be described as separate items of the lexicon. We are also going to identify some regularities of distribution of fillers of the slot N in these constructions and formulate corresponding rules for such distribution.

  • 2.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Constructions in Parallel Corpora: A Quantitative Approach2017In: Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology: Proceedings / [ed] Ruslan Mitkov, Springer, 2017, p. 41-53Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The primary goal of the present study is to find an adequate methodfor the quantitative analysis of empirical data obtained from parallel corpora.Such a task is particularly important in the case of fixed constructions possessingsome degree of idiomaticity and language specificity. Our data consist of theRussian construction дeлo в тoм, чтo and its parallels in English, German andSwedish. This construction, which appears to present no difficulty for translationinto other languages, is in fact, language-specific when compared with otherlanguages. It displays a large number of different parallels (translation equivalents)in other languages, and possesses a complex semantic structure. Theconfiguration of semantic elements comprising the content plane of this constructionis unique. The empirical data have been collected from the corpusquery system Sketch Engine, subcorpus OPUS2 Russian, and the RussianNational Corpus (RNC). We propose to use the Herfindahl index as a tool forquantitative analysis in order to measure the degree of uniformity in the frequencydistribution of the various translations of the construction under investigation.This tool is not universal and does not enable us to answer all thequestions that arise in connection with determining the specificity of languageunits. However, it clearly helps to obtain more objective results and to refine thequantitative analysis of idiomatic constructions on the basis of corpus data.

  • 3.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Corpus perspectives on Russian discursive units: Semantics, pragmatics, and contrastive analysis2015In: Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015: Current Approaches to Discourse and Translation Studies / [ed] Jesús Romero-Trillo, Springer, 2015, p. 223-241Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The present study analyzes a group of Russian discursive units withfocus-sensitive semantics such as imenno (just/precisely) , kak raz (just/precisely) ,to-to i ono (that’s just it/the point/problem) , to-to i est’ (that’s just it/the point/problem)and to-to i delo (that’s just it/the point/problem). They are important elementsof communication but have not yet been adequately described. Some of the analyzedlexical units – for example, imenno and kak raz or to-to i ono, to-to i est’ andto-to i delo – are near synonyms. Others, such as kak raz and to-to i ono , are not nearsynonyms, but they nevertheless belong to the semantic class of focus-sensitive elements.Thus they can all be put into a single group according to the principle offamily resemblance. The material itself suggests the logic of the analysis – on thebasis of pairs or groups of the semantically closest near synonyms: (1) imenno vs.kak raz ; (2) imenno vs. to-to i ono, (3) to-to i ono vs. to-to i est’ vs. to-to i delo.Near-synonyms within these groups can be distinguished from each other on thebasis of semantics, pragmatics, and usage preferences. Identifying differences ofvarious types requires a good corpus with numerous examples, for they can be presentsimultaneously on several levels: semantic and pragmatic, pragmatic and usual,etc. Often, although not always, pragmatic and/or usual differences are semanticallymotivated. Syntactic distinctions among near-synonyms, including those in certainsyntactic patterns, are also generally motivated by differences in their semantics. Ina number of cases the problem is solved through the use of translational equivalents,that is, not on the level of individual lexical units (words and phrasemes) but on thatof the entire utterance. Using relevant lexicographic information, text corpora,including parallel corpora, and works of fi ction, we shall: (a) clarify semantic and pragmatic properties as well as usage peculiarities of thefocus sensitive discursive units imenno, kak raz, to-to i ono, to-to i est’ andto-to i delo; (b) analyze their systemic and translational equivalents in English and Swedish.

  • 4.
    Dobrovolskij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Language Institute, Russia.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German.
    Discursive Constructions in the Russian-Swedish Dictionary Database: A Case Study of v tom-to i N2016In: Proceedings of the XVII EURALEX International Congress: Lexicography and Linguistic Diversity / [ed] Tinatin Margalitadze, George Meladze, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi University Press , 2016, p. 668-677Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The primary goal of the present study is to develop a new way for description of discursive units in a Russian-Swedish dictionary database which is currently under construction. Discursive units are important elements of communication but have not been fully described as yet. Using large text corpora for the empirical data we are going to analyze the type of construction v tom-to i N/ втом-тои N (that’s [just] the N) which is realized in a wide variety of tokens and demonstrate that some tokens of the construction can be so frequent that they can be considered to be cognitively entrenched units and are preserved in memory as separate units of the language, i.e. phrasemes. Such units should be described as separate items of the lexicon. The task of the investigation is to refine our notions about the structural properties of v tom-to i N/втом-тои N (that’s [just] the N) and identify additional distinctive features of the construction which should be included in its lexicographic description.

  • 5.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Discursive units and bilingual dictionaries: именно and как раз2014In: Med blicken österut: Hyllningsskrift till Per-Arne Bodin / [ed] Per Ambrosiani, Elisabeth Löfstrand, Ewa Teodorowicz-Hellman, Skellefteå: Artos & Norma bokförlag, 2014, p. 57-66Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The semantic structure of discursive units is so intricate that it is often impossible to find appropriate equivalents in other languages. While translating utterances containing such words and constructions, contexts have to be taken into account to a large extent. However, while compiling bilingual dictionaries, a lexicographer has to find equivalents on the lexical level. At present we are working on a Swedish-Russian and Russian-Swedish dictionary which is small in size and therefore will include only frequent discursive units in present-day Russian. Such units as именно and как раз are very important for communication; nevertheless present-day Russian-Swedish dictionaries do not explain the difference between the Swedish near-equivalents to these Russian focus constructions (cf. именно and как раз). The starting point of our investigation is previous research of two German focus particles eben and gerade and their Russian near-equivalents именно and как раз (Dobrovol’skij, Levontina 2012; Dobrovol’skij, Šarandin 2013). Unlike как раз, именно may be used as a separate utterance; this ability goes back to different semantic properties. Using relevant lexicographic information and text corpora, among them parallel corpora, as well as works of fiction, we are going to: clarify the use of именно and как раз; discuss their near-equivalents in English and Swedish which will enable us to compile dictionary entries which will be included into our Swedish-Russian and Russian-Swedish dictionary.

  • 6. Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Entrenched lexical patterns: the Russian construction2015In: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, ISSN 1877-0428, E-ISSN 1877-0428, Vol. 206, p. 18-23Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The primary theoretical goal of the present study is to verify a hypothesis that fixedness of word combinations is notnecessarily connected with non-compositionality. Many constructions formed in accordance with the rules governing the cooccurrenceof their elements can nevertheless be retained in memory as separate units. Using large text corpora for theempirical data we are going to analyze the type of construction в том-то и весь N (that’s /just the whole N) which is realizedin a wide variety of tokens and demonstrate that some tokens of the construction can be so frequent that they can beconsidered to be cognitively entrenched units and are preserved in memory as separate units of the language. Such unitsshould be described as separate items of the lexicon. The practical task of the investigation is to refine our notions about thestructural peculiarities of в том-то и весь N (that’s /just/ the whole N) and its variant в том-то весь и N (that’s /just/ thewhole N).a We are also going to identify some regularities of distribution of fillers of the slot N in both variants of theconstruction and formulate corresponding rules for such distribution.

  • 7.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Pragmatic potential of Russian discursive units: a constructional approach2015In: Zeitschrift für Slawistik, ISSN 0044-3506, E-ISSN 2196-7016, Vol. 60, no 4, p. 613-628Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Because different languages often lack semantic equivalents, translation may require looking for other cross-linguistic correlations on the level of the utterance. To find a functional equivalent that is adequate to the translation of a given context, the search should focus on pragmatic correspondences rather than semantic equivalents. The present article examines this phenomenon on the basis of the Russian near-synonymous discursive units with focus-sensitive semantics imenno (just/precisely) and kak raz (just/precisely). They are important elements of communication but have far not been fully described. Using relevant lexicographic information, text corpora, including parallel corpora, and works of fiction, we are going to show that synonymy of these discursive units is not as complete as it appears at first glance. We will analyze their semantic and pragmatic properties, usage peculiarities as well as systemic and translational equivalents in English, German and Swedish.

  • 8. Dobrovolskij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German.
    The discursive construction дело в том, что and its parallels in other languages: A contrastive corpus study2016In: Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Proceedings of the International Conference "Dialogue" (2016) / [ed] V. P. Selegey, A. V. Baytin, V. I. Belikov, I. M. Boguslavsky, B. V. Dobrov, D. O. Dobrovol’skij, L. L. Iomdin, E. Hovy, I. M. Kobozeva, E. B. Kozerenko, M. A. Krongauz, N. I. Laufer, N. V. Loukachevich, D. McCarthy, P. Nakov, J. Nivre, G. S. Osipov, A. Ch. Piperski, V. Raskin, S.A. Sharoff, T. E. Yanko, L. M. Zakharov, Moscow: RSUH , 2016, p. 134-145Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The primary goal of the present study is to improve methods for contras-tive corpus investigations. Our data is the Russian construction дело в том, что and its parallels in English, German and Swedish. This construction, which appears to present no difficulty for translation into other languages, is in fact language-specific with respect to at least one parameter. It dis-plays a large number of different parallels (translation equivalents) in other languages, and possesses a complex semantic structure. The configura-tion of semantic elements comprising the content plane of this construction is unique. The empirical data have been collected from the corpus query system Sketch Engine, subcorpus OPUS2 Russian, and the Russian Na-tional Corpus (RNC). The analysis shows that the construction дело в том, что has more than 50 parallels in English, over 30 in German, and about 30 in Swedish. In all three languages the most common means of translat-ing the construction is to omit it. Also frequent are the English equivalents the fact/thing/point/truth is (that); (it’s/this/that is) because; the German expressions nämlich; die Sache ist, die; denn; and the Swedish construc-tions saken är den att; problemet/faktum är att. The semantic structure of дело в том, что includes the following components: 1) substantiation of something stated previously; 2) indication of the reason something has happened; 3) emphasis on the significance of what has been stated. The different translations of the construction are motivated by the fact that each specific context focuses on one of these meanings.

  • 9.
    Dobrovolskij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    The semantic field of POWER and political propaganda: революция(revolution) vs. переворот (coup) and восстание (uprising) vs. мятеж (revolt)2012In: Totalitarian Political Discourse? Tolerance and Intolerance in Eastern and East Central European Countries Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects / [ed] Beatrix Kreß, Peter Lang Publishing Group, 2012, p. 71-88Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 10.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Дискурсивная конструкция N в том, что и ее параллели в других языках [The discursive construction N v tom, čto and its parallels in other languages]: контрастивное корпусное исследование [a contrastive corpus study]2016In: Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, ISSN 2226-3365, no 6, p. 164-175Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The present investigation deals with parallel corpus data in Russian, English, German and Swedish. On the basis of an analysis of our findings we attempt to identify operational criteria that can be used to classify discursive constructions. The goal is to find a means for contrasting fixed, idiomatic phrases, on the one hand, and compositional constructions that are close to free word groups, on the other. The research is based on the example of the Russian construction N v tom, čto and its parallels in English, German and Swedish. Parallel corpora are usually used to find ways of translating linguistic structures into other languages, to identify the language-specific features of linguistic units, or to improve their lexicographical description. The present investigation is the first study to employ parallel corpus data to identify different types of Russian discursive constructions, and for that reason it can be viewed as a contribution to the development of the methodology of corpus studies. The pattern N v tom, čto in Russian is represented by the following vatiants delo v tom, čto; problema v tom, čto; beda v tom, čto; sut’ v tom, čto; pravda v tom, čto; ideja v tom, čto, etc. Here we address three of them delo v tom, čto; problema v tom, čto and pravda v tom, čto. Of these three, only delo v tom, čto is lexicalized, i.e. can be regarded as a unit of the Russian lexicon. This is proved by the fact that translations of the expression into other languages primarily involve not its word-for-word correlates, but instead functional equivalents that formally have nothing in common with it. Two other constructions are most frequently translated word-for-word, which suggests that these can be regarded as free word groups. The empirical data were drawn from Sketch Engine and the RNC.

  • 11.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Корпусное исследование квазисинонимичных конструкций возьми и Vimp. vs. взял и V3pers2018In: Anuari de Filologia. Llengües i Literatures Modernes, E-ISSN 2014-1394, no 8, p. 115-131Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [ru]

    В статье рассматриваются квазисинонимичные конструкции возьми и Vimp vs. взял и V3pers и их варианты. В основе этих конструкций лежит общий паттерн [взять CONJco V], то есть «глагол взять в разных грамматических формах + сочинительный союз + основной глагол вразных грамматических формах». Заполнение слота CONJco допускает лишь три варианта:и, да и да и, в то время как слот V кажется на первый взгляд практически свободным. Задача исследования – выявить семантические предпочтения в выборе глагола, заполняющего свободный слот каждой из сопоставляемых конструкций. В частности, показано, что различие между этими конструкциями связано с семантическим признаком ‘контролируемости действия’.

  • 12. Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    et al.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Революция, восстание, переворот: семантика и прагматика2012In: Scando-Slavica, ISSN 0080-6765, E-ISSN 1600-082X, Vol. 58, no 1, p. 77-100Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Revoljucija, vosstanie, perevorot: Semantics and Pragmatics

    The purpose of this paper is to clarify semantic differences between the words революция, восстание and переворот in present-day usage. Being members of the same semantic field, they nevertheless display some intuitively obvious disparate semantic features. However, these features are only partly attested in dictionaries. We study the meaning of the words революция, переворот and восстание in present-day Russian using typical contexts from the Russian National Corpus (RNC) and the Internet. Further, we identify distinctive features that should be included in the definitions of these words and compare our findings with descriptions of their meanings in several well-known dictionaries..

    The analysis of the present-day usage of the three words will demonstrate a number of semantic differences between these words that were not characteristic of their usage at the beginning of the the twentieth century. These semantic and pragmatic shifts are not, however, attested in dictionaries. It is therefore important, in the near future, to focus on diachronic shifts in the course of the last hundred years as well as on formulating new definitions that reflect the present-day usage of these words.

  • 13.
    Dobrovolskiy, Dmitriy
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia.
    Kopotev, Mikhail
    Pöppel, Lyudmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German.
    Group of constructions nu and X: semantics, pragmatics, compatibility2019In: Scando-Slavica, ISSN 0080-6765, E-ISSN 1600-082X, Vol. 65, no 1, p. 5-25Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [ru]

    The aim of the present article is to verify one of the fundamental principles of Construction Grammar: the absence of a clear boundary between free expressions and phrasemes. Proceeding from this postulate, properties of linguistic expressions such as idiomaticity, fixedness and non-compositionality should be viewed as a matter of degree. The data for the investigation are Russian expressions based on the pattern nu i X. The focus is on both idioms (nu i nu 'well, now!') and on compositional collocations introducing a special question (Nu i kak tebe eta stat ' ja? 'Well, so what do you think of this article?'). Located between these poles are many items that are not fully compositional but also do not belong to the field of traditional phraseology (nu i ladno 'well and good', nu i pust ' 'so be it'). Using statistical analysis, the article identifies the most stable items following the pattern nu i X. Semantic analysis permits us to identify two groups of constructions: 'surprise', and 'indifference'. Occurring within each group are constructions with different degrees of idiomaticity. Thus we are dealing with a continuum, that is, a gradual transition from free co-occurrences to idiomatic ones.

  • 14.
    Hedin, Tora
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Vad skrattar ni åt?: Tjeckiska och ryska politiska anekdoter2010In: Humour in Language: Textual and Linguistic Aspects / [ed] Bengtsson, Anders & Victorine Hancock, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell , 2010, p. 99-130Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 15.
    Pöppel, Ljudmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Две статъи о лингвистических сказках Людмила Петрушевской ; Dve stat'i o lingvističeskich skazkach Ljudmily Petruševskoj1997Book (Other academic)
  • 16.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    A. N. Baranov and D. O. Dobrovol'skij. Osnovy frazeologii (kratkij kurs): Učeb. Posobie2015In: Journal of the Slavic Linguistics Society, ISSN 1068-2090, Vol. 23, no 1, p. 153-160Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 17.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Delimitation of synonyms within the semantic field POWER: смута (turmoil), беспорядки (disorders), волнения (tumult)2014In: Figurative Sprache = Figurative language = Langage figuré: Festgabe für Dmitrij O. Dobrovol’skij / [ed] Martine Dalmas, Elisabeth Piirainen, Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, 2014, p. 233-242Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The purpose of this paper is to investigate distinctive semantic features and distinguishing combinatorial properties of the three near-synonyms belonging to the semantic field POWER – смута (turmoil), беспорядки (disorders) and волнения (tumult). The starting point is the constructive peculiarities of these near-synonyms as investigated from extensive corpus data – the Russian National Corpus (RNC) and Google Books (GB). I will demonstrate what combi-natorial properties were discovered, and show how combinatorics allows us to identify both semantic distinctions among near-synonyms and differences in conceptual categorization.

  • 18.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Frazeologija meždu dvuch revoljucij: slovarʹ idiomatiki gazety "Pravda" 1917 g.2012Book (Refereed)
    Abstract [ru]

    Целью исследования является описание идиоматики, используемой в газете «Правда» 1917 г. в период между Февральской и Октябрьской революциями. Основным источником является база данных «Правда». Электронный архив (DA-PRA) (http://online.eastview.com/index.jsp). Выбор источника и эмпирических данных обусловлен тем, что в газете «Правда» 1917 г. зарождались основы советского политического языка. Момент зарождения этого языка еще не был описан в лингвистике. Поскольку идиоматика является ярким маркером особенностей определенного типа дискурса, тщательное изучение идиоматики данного периода может способствовать выявлению его лингвистической специфики.

    Материал словаря «Фразеология между двух революций» структурирован по семантическим полям и представлен в лексикографическом формате тезауруса. Структура словаря следует принципам, разработанным в «Словаре-тезаурусе современной русской идиоматики» (2007). Сохранение данной структуры в словаре «Фразеология между двух революций» позволяет выявить сходства и различия между современной русской идиоматикой и спецификой употребления идиом в газете определенного политического направления конкретного периода. Материал настоящего словаря может быть также использован для изучения семантической эволюции идиоматики и особенностей русского политического дискурса, включая его диахронические изменения.

  • 19.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finish, Dutch and German.
    Förändringar i sovjetisk politisk diskurs: revolutionens språk kontra totalitärt språk2008In: Terminal Øst / [ed] Ingunn Lunde, Susanna Witt, Oslo: Spartacus, 2008, p. 136-149Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 20.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finish, Dutch and German.
    Ironija v političeskom diskurse2009In: Swedish Contributions to the Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid, September 2008 / [ed] Per Ambrosiani, Umeå: Umeå universitet , 2009, p. 93-104Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 21.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    The Rhetoric of Pravda Editorials: A Diachronic Study of a Political Genre2007Doctoral thesis, monograph (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The present study considers the diachronic changes that took place in Soviet political discourse as reflected in six selections of Pravda editorials from the 1920s through the 1950s, as well as slogans and headlines in that newspaper from 1917 through 1933.

    The principal goal of analyses conducted on various levels is to identify and investigate a number of tendencies demonstrating the gradual transformation of the language of revolution into totalitarian language.

    A quantitative analysis of the vocabulary of slogans and headlines in Chapter 2 focuses on chronological changes in words and addresses the contexts in which they were used. The same material is used in a review of the polarization of vocabulary in positive and negative contexts.

    Chapters 3-6 are devoted to a qualitative analysis of editorial texts on three levels: lexical rhetorical means (Chapter 3), semantically charged elements of argumentation (Chapter 4), and the overall composition of the text (Chapter 5). Chapter 6 concludes the study with an illustration of the devices considered in Chapters 3-5 based on two editorials, one each from the revolutionary and totalitarian periods.

    The analysis identifies a number of stable elements present throughout the period under study, such as the self – other opposition and references to the classics of Marxism-Leninism. At the same time, noted on all levels are changes illustrating the process by which the language of revolution was gradually transformed into totalitarian language. These include the disappearance from rhetoric of emotionality, imagery, and elements of logic, as well as stylistic leveling and an increase in the frequent repetition of the same conclusions and clichés.

  • 22.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    А. Н. Баранов, Д. О. Добровольский. 2013. Основы фразеологии (краткий курс)2015In: Russkij jazyk v naucnom osvescenii, ISSN 1681-1062, Vol. 1, no 29, p. 277-282Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 23.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Беспорядки (disturbances) vs.волнения (unrest): towards the delimitation of synonyms2016In: Da veselitsa Novʹgradʹ = Må Novgorod fröjda sig: Hyllningsskrift till Elisabeth Löfstrand / [ed] Per Ambrosiani, Per-Arne Bodin, Nadezjda Zorikhina Nilsson, Stockholm: Institutionen för slaviska och baltiska språk, finska, nederländska och tyska, Stockholms universitet , 2016, p. 167-178Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The purpose of this paper is to analyze the combinability of the near-synonyms беспорядки (disturbances) and волнения (unrest). Their combinatorial properties are investigated using extensive corpus data –Sketch Engine and the Russian National Corpus (RNC). Investigating combinatorial features through the use of text corpora can help identify semantic differences that are not intuitively obvious. I will demonstrate how combinatorial properties were discovered, since analysis of these materials has revealed a number of combinatorial preferences. In future studies my findings will serve as the basis for identifying semantic and pragmatic distinctions between these near-synonyms.

  • 24.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Д. О. Добровольский. 2013. Беседы о немецком слове. Москва: Языки славянской культуры, 752 с.2015In: Jezikoslovlje, ISSN 1331-7202, E-ISSN 1848-9001, Vol. 16, no 2-3, p. 357-378Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 25.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Дмитрий О. Добровольский: Беседы о немецком слове. Studien zur deutschen Lexik.2015In: Die Welt der Slaven, ISSN 0043-2520, Vol. 60, no 1, p. 193-196Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 26.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Конструкция возьми и + Vimp: корпусное исследование2017In: Slovo: Journal of Slavic Languages, Literatures and Cultures , E-ISSN 2001-7359, no 58, p. 50-62Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The construction возьми и + Vimp: a corpus investigation

    The subject of the study is the construction [возьми и + Vimp] and its variants in the functionof a narrative imperative. Purely semantically, this construction can be considered a partial realization of [взять и + V], which permits various grammatical forms. It is not described separately in dictionaries, but appears only in the zone of illustrative examples as a realization of the construction [взять и + V]. Formally, [возьми и + Vimp] in the meaning of a narrative imperative is homonymous with the genuine imperative and occupies an intermediate position between the construction [взять и + V] and an ordinary imperative, which cannot help but be reflected in its semantics. Studies and lexicographical sources have not treated questions concerning the filler of the Vimp slot, but note only that it requires a perfective verb. Using materials from the main RNC corpus and the subcorpus ruTenTen of Sketch Engine, the goal of the present investigation is to identify and empirically substantiate some usage preferences for filling this slot. The findings of the corpus analysis allow us to identify a number of preferences for filling the Vimp slot. The most frequent filler of the Vimp slot is verbs of speaking. In this group, the verb скажи is the clear leader. Another frequent filler of the Vimpslot is verbs meaning ‘death’.

  • 27.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Lexical semantics and official propaganda: революция, восстание, переворот2012In: Welt der Slaven, ISSN 0043-2520, E-ISSN 2193-5475, Vol. LVII, no 1, p. 134-145Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 28.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Dobrovolskij, Dmitrij
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Lexical synonymy within the semantic field POWER2013In: Current Studies in Slavic Linguistics / [ed] Irina Kor Chahine, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013, p. 281-296Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The purpose of our paper is to clarify semantic differences in present-day usage between the words революция ‘revolution’, and переворот ‘revolution’, on the one hand, and мятеж ‘revolt’ and восстание ‘uprising’, on the other. Although they are members of the same semantic field, they display some intuitively obvious disparate semantic features. However, these features are only partly registered in dictionaries. On the basis of present-day text corpora, we are going to describe the most relevant semantic differences between these words. We are also going to identify some possible diachronic shifts that have occurred over the last hundred years.An important element in present-day usage of the four words is evaluation, which is usage-biased towards the positive or negative pole. This leaves considerable room for manipulation. One and the same event can be presented as a positive or a negative change in the political world, as initiated by people or inspired and organised by a small group of politicians. The words революция ‘revolution’, переворот ‘coup’, мятеж ‘revolt’ and восстание ‘uprising’ are ideal instruments for achieving such purposes and are therefore an important means of manipulating public opinion. Revealing the semantic mechanisms behind this manipulation is a central issue in the linguistic investigation of Russian political discourse. 

  • 29.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Russian constructions то-то и N and в том-то и N and their English and Swedish equivalents: a corpus-based cross-linguistic analysis2015In: Trends in Slavic Studies / [ed] E. F. Quero Gervilla, B. Barros García, T. R. Kopylova, Moskva: URSS, 2015, p. 595-607Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The present study analyzes the phraseme constructions то-то и N and в том-то и N. Their basic structural feature is presence of open slots – the element N which can be filled only by words from a limited list, some basic, prototypical nomen. At the center of each group there is a prototypical construction, which is today perceived to be basic but may not at all have been such in the nineteenth century. To identify the specific contrastive features of thus far undescribed constructions requires a good corpus, for they can be present simultaneously on various levels: semantic and pragmatic, pragmatic and usual, etc. Using relevant lexicographic information, text corpora, including parallel corpora, and works of fiction, we shall: a) explain the functional principles of the phraseme constructions known as formal or lexically open idioms; b) clarify semantic and pragmatic properties as well as usage peculiarities of the constructions; c) analyze their systemic and translational equivalents in English and Swedish.

  • 30.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
    The constructional approach to lexical synonymy2012Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Synonyms are usually defined as words coinciding in their core meanings. The number of common semantic features should prevail over the number of distinctive features (cf. Apresjan 2009: 539). In this research tradition, synonyms proper are defined as lexical units revealing peripheral, insignificant distinctive features. Otherwise we are dealing with near-synonyms. One task of lexical semantics is to identify and describe semantic features that distinguish between synonymic words. Conventional dictionaries are rarely capable of fulfilling this task. Exceptions are special dictionaries of synonyms such as NOSS (2004) based on a solid semantic theory. All methods of synonymy research are based on the analysis of relevant contexts, although each method focuses on specific aspects of the contextual behavior of synonyms.

    Within the semantic theory developed by Apresjan (1995, 2000, 2009), contexts profiling semantic differences between synonyms play the central role. If a lexical unit cannot be replaced by its (near-)synonym in a given context it proves that the synonyms are not identical semantically. This approach makes it possible to single out all relevant distinctive semantic features of every lexeme in question by analyzing diagnostic contexts.

    The basic idea of Fillmore’s theory of frame semantics (1982, 1985) is that the meaning of a single word cannot be understood without access both to the essential knowledge that relates to the word and its combinatorial properties. In order to describe a word’s semantics and to distinguish between (near-)synonyms, one has to study the range of its semantic and syntactic valences, i.e. its combinatorial profile. This enables us to fill the slots of corresponding frames, i.e. to postulate all obligatory and facultative participants in the situation pointed to by the lexeme in question.

    The third method can be labeled the constructional approach. It has been developed since large text corpora became available. Its basic assumption is that (near-)synonyms are sensitive to specific constructions. The method is based on corpus evidence (cf. Janda & Solovyev 2009, Divjak 2010, Divjak & Gries 2008). Examples are the words революция ‘revolution’ and переворот ‘coup’. Both words are sensitive to constructions [во имя N] ‘for the sake of N’ and [на благо N] ‘for the benefit of N’. In the Russian National Corpus the construction во имя революции ‘for the sake of revolution’ occurs 35 times, and на благо революции ‘for the benefit of revolution’ 2 times, whereas there are no hits for на благо переворота ‘for the benefit of coup’, and only one hit for во имя переворота ‘for the sake of coup’ dated 1880, i.e. a context that obviously does not conform to the present-day usage norms. The difference in constructional embedding can be explained by the fact that революция is directed towards noble long-term objectives, which is not the case with переворот.

    In our talk we will develop this approach to lexical synonymy by analyzing the constructional behavior of the words восстание ‘uprising’, бунт ‘riot’ and мятеж ‘mutiny’.

  • 31.
    Pöppel, Ludmila
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Dobrovolskij, Dmitrij
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Sharandin, Artem
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies, Finnish, Dutch, and German, Slavic Languages.
    Russian constructions vot imenno and to-to i ono: corpus analysis and cross-linguistic perspective2012Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The purpose of our presentation is to clarify semantic differences between two Russian constructions vot imenno and to-to i ono and to find their functional equivalents in German and Swedish.

    The semantic structure of particles and constructions such as grammatical phrasemes and syntactic idioms is so intricate that it is often impossible to find appropriate equivalents in other languages. While translating utterances containing such constructions other means have to be used. However, while compiling bilingual dictionaries, a lexicographer has to find equivalents on the lexical level. At present we are engaged in a Russian-Swedish lexicographic project.

    Such phrases as vot imenno and to-to i ono are very important for communication; nevertheless present-day Russian-Swedish dictionaries do not explain the difference between the Swedish near-eqiuvalents to Russian vot imenno (just det and precis), while to-to i ono is not considered at all.

    The starting point of our investigation is previous research of two German focus particles eben and gerade and their Russian near-equivalents imenno and kak raz (Dobrovol‘skij, Levontina 2012). The analysis of the German particle eben used as an independent utterance (Satzäquivalent) has shown that it has two near-equivalents in Russian – to-to i ono and vot imenno which are not quite synonymous.

    In the present study, we suggest the following working hypothesis: to-to i ono and vot imenno have different meanings but in some contexts they coincide pragmatically. Contextual synonymy of these constructions is possible in contexts in which some relevant semantic features are neutralized.

    The construction vot imenno expresses full agreement with the interlocutor’s statement. The meaning of to-to i ono can be roughly paraphrased as following: ‘a certain aspect in a situation, often considered to be secondary or unimportant by the interlocutor, is the central element for understanding the situation as a whole’. The pragmatic consequence is that the speaker often expresses disagreement with the interlocutor. The German particle eben points out that the focused aspect of the situation is the most important, central for understanding the whole situation. The pragmatic consequence is that eben may be used by the speaker to express both agreement and disagreement.

    Both vot imenno and to-to i ono may be used as separate utterances, this ability goes back to different semantic properties. The meaning of imenno is based on the idea of confirmation, of agreement with the interlocutor, while the German particle eben points to the most important, central element of the situation. Using relevant lexicographic information and large text corpora, among them parallel corpora, we are going to:

    (a)    clarify the use of vot imenno and to-to i ono as independent utterances and matrix predicates (vot imenno, čto Р and to-to i ono, čto Р);

    (b)    discuss their near-equivalents in German and Swedish.

1 - 31 of 31
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf