CC BY
77
УДК 81.Ш.Г36: 81.16Г37: 81.161.142
D.S. Savchenko Saint Petersburg, Russia
ON POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF XIND VRODE/TIPA/NAPODOBIE ‘LIKE’ Y IN RUSSIAN COLLOQUIAL SPEECH
The present paper deals with a construction Xind vrode/tipa/napodobie Y ‘X like Y’, where Xind is an indefinite pronoun (chto-to, chto-nibud’, nechto); differences between the three synonymous prepositions are considered irrelevant for the goal of this paper. The functions this construction performs in the Russian spoken language are shown. The first one is vague reference marker that replaces a direct name for an object when such a name either doesn’t exist or is unknown for a speaker, or is considered inappropriate for some reason. The second one is approximation marker that is used in order to indicate that a piece of information is unreliable. Several minor functions (hesitation marker, reported speech marker, etc.) are incorporated under the third sub-title discourse marker; another reason for such association is that these functions often overlap. The last part is dedicated to a complex preposition chto-to (Xind) vrode togo (Y) chto that formally fits our pattern. Additional remarks on the marker’s pragmatics and discourse setting are made.
Key words: colloquial speech, vague reference, hedging, preposition.
0. The object of research of this paper is Russian colloquial speech; the subject under discussion is a construction Xind vrode/tipa/napodobie Y‘X like Y’, where:
Xind is an indefinite pronoun (cho-to, nechto or cho-nibud')
vrode/tipa/napodobie are prepositions and
Y is any word unit (usually a noun in genitive case].
The paper will present a list of functions for this construction.
1. Preliminary remarks
1.1. The word vrode emerged in the Russian language in the first half of the XIX century and was originally a bureaucratic word, or, to be precise, a noun and a preposition (vrode = v ‘in’ + rod ‘kind, sort’]. As noted by O. Lapteva, it doesn’t appear in The Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by Vladimir Dahl published in the middle of the XIX century, which means it wasn’t widespread at that time, but it had become so common that it had already lost it’s classifying meaning by the time of 1980s and was perceived just as a means of comparison and approximation, and was suffering a
© D.S. Savchenko, 2015
currency decline. The word tipa is claimed by O. Lapteva to be vrode’s successor, ironically similar in meaning (tipa = 'of a type') and origin (from technical language]; still it is reported as having a slang nuance about it. Nevertheless, in colloquial speech it is a widespread and very succinct word with a great compositional ability and potential [Lapteva 1983: 42]. It is true for both vrode and tipa, which can operate as prepositions, particles and discourse markers of the same kind and are interchangeable in many contexts. Napodobie (na ‘on’ + po-dobie ‘likeness’] is less popular than the two (vrode has a frequency of 63.0 instances per million (ipm) as a preposition and 491.4 ipm as a particle; tipa has
15.1 ipm as a preposition and 95.8 ipm as a particle; napodobie isn’t even on the frequency wordlist due to its scarce representation in the National corpus; the data for colloquial speech were taken from [Lyashevskaya, Sharov]] and hence we can suppose that napodobie is more limitary. However, in this paper these three words are regarded as functional synonyms. The most recent examination of tipa showed that it has more than ten different functions in colloquial speech, with only two of them correspondent to its noun “background”; the functions include reported speech marker (i sprosil/ nu tipa umeesh voobshche katatsya ili net?sidela za rulem?], hesitation marker, a part of the complex conjunction tipa togo chto, discourse final marker, etc. [Zvukovoj korpus... 2013]. Vrode is likely to have a set of functions in colloquial speech as well. The present paper aims to show a part of them, limited to the scheme Xind vrode Y.
1.2. Words of the sort (vrode, tipa, kak by, napodobie in Russian, kind of, sort of, like in English] belong to the realm of vagueness in a language. This phenomenon has got several linguistic interpretations (note Lakoff’s term hedge [Lakoff 1972], or hedging, as it broadly used, for example in [Hyland 1994; Gries, David 2007]; Channell’s idea of vague language, vague reference [Channel 1994]; loose talk in [Speber, Wilson 1985]]. In our study I use a term vague reference marker, that I borrowed from a general research of this phenomenon in the Russian spoken language made by V. Podlesskaya [Podlesskaya 2013]. She states that a speaker’s need in vague reference is aroused when a speaker has a problem finding a proper word for his object, or he doesn’t have the name for it in his/her lexicon, or a direct nomination of an object appears unacceptable for some reason. In this case the speaker by means of a vague reference marker (chto-to vrode, ili eshchyo kak, thick type] informs the hearer that s/he takes the responsibility for exactitude of the phrase off himself and seeks for help if it’s possible: Po vtoromu ehtazhu bylo sooruzheno chto-to vrode verand, antre-solej ili eshchyo kak (V. Astafev. Prolyotnyj gus; an example by V. Podlesskaya]. 2
2. The analysis
The study focuses on the construction Xind vrode/tipa/napodobie Yin the Russian colloquial speech. The goal is to define pragmatic functions and (in one case] the grammatical status of this construction. The functions are as follows: a vague reference marker, an approximation marker, a discourse marker (in
fact it is a group of functions, but every unit in this category appears multifunctional] and a complex conjunction Xind vrode/tipa/napodobie togo chto. These functions will be discussed in detail below.
The material numbers 181 items collected from the spoken language sub-corpus of The Russian National Corpus (RNC) and the One Speaker’s Day corpus (OSD], which is being collected in the Department of Philology in the Saint Petersburg State University. The ratio between the prepositions is: 1. vrode (116 items, 64 %); 2. tipa (58 items, 32 %); 3. napodobie (7 items, 4 %).
2.1 As a vague reference marker
Vague reference is the most widespread case (124 out of 180 contexts, 69%]. It may be used when it is hard for a speaker to find a term for the object he or she is talking about, or the term they are going to use seems not appropriate enough. In this case the construction stands for the non-existing word:
(1] [fem, 15] U nas bylo chto-to vrode smotra stroya i pesni / na kotoryh my peli pesni voennyh i dovoennyh let (RNC, 2002].
(2] A eto u vas bylo chto-to tipa masterskoj/da? (RNC, 1998].
Vague reference often makes a separate phrase. At this rate it follows what have just been said, specifying and clarifying its meaning:
(3] [fem, 1889] A ona pishet / znachit / tak: «Odnazhdy Mandelshtama zazval k sebe Abram Efros (ya byla s nim) i predlozhil soyuz / nechto vrode neoklassikov [RNC, 1980].
(4] [male, 41, 1938] Vot... Sharapov / moya domashnyaya odezhda / nechto vrode pizhamy (Mesto vstrechi izmenit nelzya. 1979].
However, in (5] the construction predicates the phrase than just specifies it The comparison between the two salads («Granatovyj braslet» 'garnet bracelet' and «shuba», brief for «seld pod shuboj», 'herring under fur coat'] is what gives the primary notion to the interlocutor, with the recipe alternation additionally specifying it:
(5] [С., fem] Lena mne togda tozhe salat skazala kak / ih lyubimyj / [V., fem] Kakoj? [S., fem] «Granatovyj braslet» // Da / chto-to napodobie «shuby» / tolko bez ryby a/ tam kuritsa i/sverhu granat (RNC, 2002].
Vague reference is often accompanied by search and hesitation markers of different kinds (nu in the beginning of the phrase and the approximation marker chto li in the end of (6], kakoe-to tam in (7], nu sho-to takoe in (8], pauses, stumbles, e-e-e v obshchem eto kak by in (9]]. Vague references are apparently involved into search acts. There are 19 such cases in our data (10.5 %].
(6] [male, 71, 1932] Vnizu vy vidite vot ogranichennoe takoj izvilistoj granitsej nu chto-to vrodepruda/ozera chto li (RNC, 2003].
(7] [male] Nizhegorodskij / izvestnyj nizhegorodskij aktivist Evgenij Tumanov i ego na tot moment vnov priobretennaya zhena Galina Tumanova / byv-shaya Eltsova / organizuyut kakoe-to tam / chto-to tipa shkoly dlya molodyh pankov (RNC, 2002].
(8) [fern, 45] Potom / ee eto ne rentgen a/prosto/ kak nazyvaetsya / kogda prislonyayut /kgrudi nusho-to takoe sho-to napodobie rentgena (RNC, 2008].
(9) [S02] ya v obshchem vyyasnil edinstvennoe () iz etoj knizhki chto Mark Tven *P eto ego nu psevdonim literaturnyj // da *P e-e-e v obshchem eto kak by *P nechto vrode tam () vtoroj otmetki *P mark tven // (OSD).
The usage of vague reference itself is a sign of a problem in speech processing; therefore difficulties in finding a medium-referent are no marvel. Moreover, different hedges are often used in blocks. In addition to “conspicuous” hesitation markers there are ways of doing the same thing without ruining volubility, such as in (10):
(10) [male] Nauku mozhno sravnit s chem-to vrode dereva s gigantskoj kronoj/stvolom i ogromnymi kornyami (RNC, 2004).
Using the idiomatic expression Х-а mozhno sravnit s Y-om 'X can be compared to Y along with a vague reference construction with the preposition vrode is tautological and unnecessary, the same as in the case of the lines of approximation markers in (6, 7, 8).
The pause may be located between the preposition and Y; the speaker has already decided on using vague reference, but still needs to win some time to search out an appropriate referent (10):
(11) [fem, 29, 1948] Ya uzhe davno stala dlya tebya chem-to vrode... predmeta domashnego obihoda (RNC, 1977).
2.2 As an approximation marker
The construction under investigation can also indicate the approximate nature of the data the speaker is delivering (42 out of 180, 23.3 %). For the speaker it's a means to express his doubt in correctness of the phrase and to partly decline responsibility for it. In general there are three kinds of such ‘problematic’ data: numbers (11), quotes (12) and wording (13):
(12) ...strana /poluchayushchaya / nu /po ofitsialnym dannym / chto-to vrode 50 mlrd dollarov / da /polozhitelnogo saldo vneshnetorgovogo balansa... (RNC, 2001).
(13) Tam bylo kakoe-to ochen strannoe obrashchenie / chto-to vrode "madmuazeli i dzhentlmeny" (RNC, 2002).
(14) Ya / pravda / ne znayu / kak oni rasshifrovyvayutsya... s loparskogo yazyka... no ya dumayu / chto... skoree vsego... eto chto-to vrode krasivyh gor / potomu chto oni ochen krasivy... (RNC, 1982).
Vague reference in these examples is used in pre-position to the referent, stating its looseness beforehand. But there is another option, when the speaker first pronounces Y and then realizes that what just has been said fails to meet his initial intention and adds Х vrode/tipa/napodobie (e)togo in the postposition to Y to mark it. In [Bogdanova-Beglaryan 2013] such post-positioned constructions are called reflexes.
(15) [male, 24] Hotya by u nih tam proverit/zapolnit deklaratsiyu. Chto-to vrode etogo (RNC, 2001).
(16] [fem, 19] «Globalizatsiya budushchego»... nastoyashchego Hi budu-shchego... nu/chto-to tipa takogo/ tipa (RNC, 2006].
(17] [fem] Pod konets sorok pyat chelovek byli pod moej / ya ne znayu chem / vo vsyakom sluchae / ne vlastyu. No chto-to vrode. I stal otvratitelnyj period (RNC, 2007].
In (16] and (17] the reflex construction is involved into a long range of hesitation and search. In (17] the speaker can't manage finding an appropriate word but paradoxically knows the closest to that vlast' that has occurred to her is surely inappropriate (maybe for the reason of connotations]. She finds her way out by placing a search phrase idiom phrase ya ne znayu chem with a negative before the word, and an approximating construction showing the limited but existent similarity of the two notions.
In dialogs approximating hedges of the kind can freely refer to the interlocutor's speech as well as the speaker's and mean partial agreement in those cases:
(18] [male, 44, 1960] Ponyatno /apokrif. [fem, 37, 1967] Nu da/ chto-to tipa togo (Nastrojshchik. 2004].
2.3 As a discourse marker
There are cases when the construction acts as a discourse marker. This term is used in the sense proposed by N.V. Bogdanova-Beglaryan in [Bogda-nova-Beglaryan 2014]: discourse markers are a type of pragmatemes (dese-mantisized words and word units] whose role is to structure the discourse (mark the start and the end of a phrase and regulate it in the course of speech: dalee / [pause] znachit my (eh...eh) [pause] (eh...eh) spis... beryom / trista vtoroj schyot/ [pause] trista vtoroj dvadtsat' dva sootvetstvenno materialy //]; discourse markers are usually polyfunctional. In (18] it is a hesitation pause filler used alongside a non-verbal аа. It is apparent it is not the word kartoshka what troubles the speaker, but he is rather hesitant about the actual content of her utterance. In (19] the construction signals the end of the phrase and fills a pause at the same time.
(19] [fem, 18] Nado bylo snachala naverno postavit razogrevat chto-to tipa aa kartoshki... (RNC, 2008].
(20] [fem, 18] Ya te svoyu rabotu prislala na [e-mail address] / chto-to tipa togo... (RNC, 2006].
In (21] the construction simultaneously accomplishes several functions: fills a hesitation pause, acts as an approximation marker and marks the reported information as hearsay. The last function is one of the most common side-ones for hesitation markers [Bogdanova-Beglaryan 2014]. It allows the speaker to send two signals at the same time, the first of the reported character of the information and the second that he refuses to take full responsibility for it.
(21] [fem, 20] Nu chto-to tipa /ya gde-to slyshala / chto eto slovo upot-reblyaetsya eshchyo v znachenii/nu kak vesna v zhizni/priliv sil... (RNC, 2005].
However it's worth noting that indicating reported speech appears typical for the word tipa in its own right [Zvukovoj korpus... 2013: 48].
2.4 As a complex conjunction
The conjunction chto-to vrode togo chto, placed on record in the “New Dictionary Of Russian Language” [Efremova] and in [Russkaya grammatika], was found twice in our data and the similar chto-to tipa togo chto just once [Efremova]. It is interpreted as a conjunction introducing a clause in which some else’s utterance or opinion is reported. Our examples fit this interpretation.
(22] Tolkom oni voprosy osobenno nikogda ne osveshchayut... nu / chto-to vrode togo/ chto chut li ne vse dannye ego /sostoyanie/ kak prozhivayut/ i prochee (RNC, 2001].
(23] [S42] ya zadaval sotrudnikam /fonogrammarhiva / *P kogda-to ta-koj vopros // *P vot odin iz nih sprosil takim / *P tak / eto prosto so strannym nemnozhko... otnosheniem i vzglyadom / *P a zachem? *P nu vrode togo chto ih interesuet tolko zhivaya/ (...) muzyka//zhivoj folklor// (OSD).
(24] [fem] A... «chestno govorya / ya ne stol’ trevozhen /skol’ pravil tre-vogoj» mne kazhetsya / chto on vyrazhaet ne sootnesenie stepeni a... t-trevogi v ukazannoj trevoge / a oboznachaet chto-to tipa / chto ya voobshche ne trevo-zhilsya/a prosto delal vid (RNC, 2009].
As we see, it is possible to omit both the indefinite pronoun in the beginning (23] and the demonstrative pronoun in the end (24]. One could guess that the conjunction can be reduced even further (this supposition is supported by written corpus data, see example (25] from a blog].
(25] Moe "besplatno" bylo, v nekotorom rode otvetom na Vashe "mne za dengi vse sdelayut". Nechto vrode - a esli deneg ne budet? (RNC].
Conclusion
The construction Xind vrode/tipa/napodobie 'like' Y are a case of hedging or vague reference. In colloquial speech this construction can be used as:
• a vague reference marker (chto-to vrode stabil'nosti, chto-to tipa muz-
hika];
• a search marker (nu sho-to takoe sho-to napodobie rentgena];
• an approximation marker, sometimes used as a reflex («Globalizatsiya budushchego»... nastoyashchego ili budushchego... nu/chto-to tipa takogo/ tipa];
• a discourse regulator (hesitation marker, end-signaling marker] (Ya te svoyu rabotu prislala na [e-mail address] / chto-to tipa togo.];
• a reported speech marker;
• a conjunction (chto-to vrode/tipa/napodobie togo chto],
Though these three words can be used as synonyms is this particular construction, it should be interesting to see what similarities in semantics and pragmatics they have as particles and what influences a speaker’s choice of the word in this and other constructions.
References
1. Bogdanova-Beglaryan N.V. On specific constructions in unprepared speech (language grammar vs. speech grammar) [O spetsificheskikh konstruktsiyakh ustnoj spontannoj rechi (grammatika yazyka vs. grammatika rechi)]. Pervyj mezhdunarodnyj virtualnyj forum v Yaponii po rusistike, kulture, pedagogike [The First International Virtual Forum on Russian Studies, Culture, Pedagogics in Japan]. Kioto, 2014, pp. 102107.
2. Bogdanova-Beglarian N.V. Pragmatems is colloquial speech (definitions of the term and general typology) [Pragmatemy v ustnoj povsednevnoj rechi (opredeleniya ponyatiya i obshchaya tipologiya)]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossijskaya i za-rubezhnaya filologiya - Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology, 2013, no. 4, pp. 7-20.
3. Channell J. Vague Language. Oxford University Press, 1994.
4. Efremova - Tolkovyj slovar Efremovoj [Explanatory dictionary by Efremova], available at: http://www.efremova.info.
5. Gries S.T., David C. This is kind of / sort of interesting: variation in hedging in English. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Vol. 2. Towards Multimedia in Corpus Studies. 2007, available at: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/ series/volumes/02/gries_david/.
6. Hyland K. Hedging in Academic Writing and EAF Textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 1994, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 239-256.
7. Lakoff G. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, 1972, no. 8, pp. 183-228.
8. Lapteva O.A. Tipa or Vrode (Kind of)? [Tipa ili vrode?]. Voprosy yazyko-znaniya - Issues of Linguistics, 1983, no. 1, pp. 39-51.
9. Lyashevskaya O.N., Sharov S.A. Chastotnyj slovar sovremennogo russkogo yazyka (na materiale Natsionalnogo korpusa russkogo yazyka) [Modern Russian frequency dictionary (on The National Russian Corpus data)], available at: http://dict. ruslang.ru/freq.php.
10. Podlesskaya V.I. Vague reference in Russian: evidence from spoken corpora [Nechyotkaya nominatsiya v russkoj razgovornoj rechi: opyt korpusnogo issledo-vaniya]. Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies - Kompyuternaya ling-vistika i intellektualnye tekhnologii, 2013, no. 12 (19), pp. 619-632.
11. Russkaya grammatika [Russian Grammar], available at: http://www.rusgram. narod.ru/index1.html.
12. Sperber D., Wilson D. Loose Talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1986, vol. 86, iss. 2, pp. 153-171.
13. Zvukovoj korpus kak material dlya analiza russkoj rechi [Speaking corpus as a base for Russian spoken language analysis], Monograph, pt. 2, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, SPbGU, 2013. 396 p.
Список литературы
1. Богданова-Бегларян Н.В. О специфических конструкциях устной спонтанной речи (грамматика языка vs. грамматика речи) // Первый международный виртуальный форум в Японии по русистике, культуре, педагогике. Киото, 2014. С. 102-107.
2. Богданова-Бегларян Н.В. Прагматемы в устной повседневной речи (определения понятия и общая типология) // Вестник Пермского университета. Российская и зарубежная филология. 2013. Вып. 4. С. 7-20.
3. Channell J. Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
4. Толковый словарь Ефремовой. URL: http://www.efremova.info.
5. Gries S.T., David C. This is kind of / sort of interesting: variation in hedging in English // Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Vol. 2. Towards Multimedia in Corpus Studies. 2007. URL: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/02/ gries_david/.
6. Hyland K. Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks // English for Specific Purposes. 1994. Vol. 13. № 3. P. 239-256.
7. Lakoff G. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts // Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting. 1972. № 8. P. 183-228.
8. Лаптева О.А. Типа или вроде? // Вопросы языкознания. 1983. Вып. 1. С. 39-51.
9. Ляшевская О.Н., Шаров С.А. Частотный словарь современного русского языка (на материале Национального корпуса русского языка). URL: http://dict.rus-lang.ru/freq.php.
10. Подлесская В.И. Нечёткая номинация в русской разговорной речи: опыт корпусного исследования // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии. 2013. Вып. 12 (19). С. 619-632.
11. Русская грамматика. URL: http://www.rusgram.narod.ru/index1.html.
12. Sperber D., Wilson D. Loose talk // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 1985. Vol. 86. Is. 2. P. 153-171.
13. Звуковой корпус как материал для анализа русской речи: монография / отв. ред. Н.В. Богданова-Бегларян. СПб.: СПбГУ, 2013. Ч. 2: Теоретические и практические аспекты анализа. Т. 1: О некоторых особенностях устной спонтанной речи разного типа. Звуковой корпус как материал для преподавания русского языка в иностранной аудитории. 396 с.
Д.С. Савченко Санкт-Петербург, Россия
О ВОЗМОЖНЫХ ФУНКЦИЯХ КОНСТРУКЦИИ XIND ВРОДЕ/ТИПА/НАПОДОБИЕ Y В РУССКОЙ УСТНОЙ РЕЧИ
Рассматривается конструкция Xind вроде/типа/наподобие Y, где Xind - неопределенное местоимение (что-то, что-нибудь, нечто). Различия между тремя синонимичными предлогами не принимаются во внимание. Демонстрируются функции, которые выполняет данная конструкция в русской устной речи: функция маркера нечёткой номинации, который называет объект, если у него нет своего названия или оно не известно говорящему, или если он считает, что его нельзя произносить по какой-то причине; аппроксимативная, когда маркер указывает на приблизительность информации; несколько менее распространенных функций (маркер
хезитации, маркер чужой речи, или ксенопоказатель, и др.) объединены в группу дискурсивных маркеров, которые часто полифункциональны. Отдельно рассмотрен составной союз что-то (Xird) вроде того (Y) что. Также комментируются некоторые особенности прагматики и дискурсивного употребления данных маркеров.
Ключевые слова: устная речь, разговорная речь, нечёткая номинация, предлог.
Сведения об авторе:
Савченко Дарья Сергеевна,
бакалавр филологии
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет 199034, Россия, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 11 E-mail: gilea777@gmail.com
About the author:
Savchenko Darya Sergeevna, Bachelor of Philology
St. Petersburg State University 11 Universitetskaya nab., Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russia E-mail: gilea777@gmail.com
Дата поступления статьи 05.12.2015
