Semantic roles of dative case in Russian and ways of expressing them in Persian

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Persian literature and foreign languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran

2 PhD student in linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Persian literature and foreign languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran

Abstract

Grammatical case in the agglutinative and inflected languages is described as a tool that has two functions: 1. determining the syntactic roles of a structure in a sentence, such as subject, direct object, indirect object, and so on. 2. defining the semantic roles of a structure in a sentence such as agent, patient, beneficiary, recipient, etc. In Russian, the grammatical case is also considered as a way to show the syntactic relationship between the elements of a sentence or syntactic group. At the level of the sentence and the syntactic group, the verb or other word that act as head of the group government on its obligatory and optional arguments or complements with the help of grammatical cases. Russian language defines six grammatical cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, prepositional. The dative case has a particular importance among the six grammatical cases because it has its own meaning. In Russian, with the help of dative case, five semantic roles are expressed: recipient, addressee, experiencer, beneficiary/malefactive and second member of the relationship. Since Persian does not have the category of »case«, it uses other syntactic tools to express the concepts that are expressed in Russian by the grammatical cases: simple and compound prepositions, postposition «را», ezafe, word order and conjunctions. In Russian, the dative case has four main semantic roles: recipient, addressee, experiencer, beneficiary/malefactive, and a secondary semantic role, i.e., the second member of the relationship. Since Persian language does not have a category »case«, the structures of Russian language that are used in the dative case are expressed in Persian language in different ways. In the present article, we examined each of these roles and identified the methods of expressing them in Persian.

Keywords


  1. Ahmadi M., Mohammadi M.R., & Nazary F. (2019). The Case in Persian and Russian and Its difficulties for Persian Speakers. Journal of Language Related Research. 10 (1), 251-266 [In Persian].
  2. Apresyan Yu.D. (2010). Theoretical problems of Russian syntax. The interaction of grammar and vocabulary. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture [In Russian].
  3. Bonch-Osmolovskaya A. A. (2003). Constructions with a dative subject in the Russian language (PhD Dissertation). Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia [In Russian].
  4. Dremov A.F. (2015). Systemic theory of page and preposition in the practice of teaching Russian as a foreign language. Retrieved from <http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/mrs/28_241> [In Russian].
  5. Dunaeva V.V. and Koposov D.R. (2010). Dynamics of case classification in Russian. Almanac of Modern Science and Education. 12, 205-208 [In Russian].
  6. Dunaeva V.V., & Koposov D.R. (2010). Dynamics of case classification in Russian. Almanac of Modern Science and Education. 12, 205-208 [In Russian].
  7. Gholam Alizadeh Kh. (2011). Construction of Persian Language. Tehran: Ehya-ye Ketab [In Persian].
  8. Grilborzer C. (2019). Syntax of constructions with the first dative actant in Russian. USA: Washington: Peter Lang [In Russian].
  9. Kustova G.I. (2011). Grammatical case. Materials for the project of corpus-based Russian grammar.  Retrieved from <http://rusgram.ru> [In Russian].
  10. Kustova G.I. (2012). Dative case. Materials for the project of corpus-based Russian grammar. Retrieved from <http://rusgram.ru> [In Russian].
  11. Lavrentiev A.M. (1999). Typological analysis of the category of case in the Russian language, PhD Dissertation. Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia [In Russian].
  12. Lesani H. (2007). Dative case of the beneficiary and the addressee in Russian and its expression in Persian. Journal of Foreign Languages Research, 37, 89- 101[In Persian].
  13. Norman B. Y. (2018). «Optional dative case» of the Russian verb. Vesnik of Tomsk State University. Philology 53, 61-74 [In Russian].
  14. Panova G.I. (2016). The case of Russian nouns in a comparative aspect. Scientific Review of Sayano-Altai. 3 (15), 59-67 [In Russian].
  15. Rubinchik Y.A. (2001). A grammar of the modern Persian literary language. Moscow: Eastern Literature RAN [In Russian].
  16. Rubinchik Y.A. (Edit.) (1985). Persian-Russian dictionary. Moscow: Russian language [In Russian].
  17. Tabibzadeh O. (2006). Verb Valency and Basic Constructions of Sentences in Modern Persian, a Survey based on Dependency Grammar Theory. Tehran: Markaz [In Persian].
  18. Tabibzadeh O. (2012). Persian grammar based on the theory of autonomous groups in dependency grammar. Tehran: Markaz [In Persian].
  19. Testelets Ya.G. (2001). Introduction to general syntax. Moscow: RSHU
  20. Velichko A.V. (2008). What case? What preposition? Verb and nominal control. Moscow: Rus.yaz.Kurs [In Russian].
  21. Voskanyan G. (2002). Russian Persian dictionary. Tehran: Kuhsar [In Persian].
  22. Zahraii H. (2004). Case and the meaning of case in Russian. Journal of Foreign Languages Research. 18, 51-64 [In Persian].
  23. Zahraii H. (2018). Educational grammar of Russian language. Tehran: The Organization for Researching and Composing University textbooks in the Humanities (SAMT) [In Persian].
  24. Zimmerling A. V. (2009). Two types of dative sentences in Russian. In A. M. Moldovan (ed.), Collection of articles in honor of A.B. Penkovsky (pp. 471-492). Moscow: Penkovsky [In Russian].
  25. Zimmerling A. V. (2010). Nominal Predicatives and Dative Sentences in European Languages: Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Technologies. Proceedings of the International Conference "Dialogue-2010". 8 (15), 549-558 [In Russian].
  26. Zimmerling A. V. (2012). Non-canonical subjects in Russian: From meaning to form, from form to meaning.  In A.V. Bondarko (Ed.), Collection of articles in honor of the 80th anniversary of corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Science (pp. 568-590). Moscow [In Russian].
  27. Апресян Ю.Д. (2010). Теоретические проблемы русского синтаксиса. Взаимодействие грамматики и словаря. Москва: Языки славянской культуры
  28. Бонч-Осмоловская А.А. (2003). Конструкции с дативным субъектом в русском языке (Дис.кандидата филологических наук). Россия: Московский государственный университет им. Ломоносова.
  29. Величко А.В. (2008). Какой падеж? Какой прелог? Глагольное и именное управление. Москва: Рус.яз.Курсы
  30. Грильборцер К. (2019). Синтаксис конструкций с первым дативным актантом в русском языке. США: Вашингтон: Питерленг
  31. Дремов А.Ф. (2015). Системная теория падежа и предлога в практике преподавания русского языка как иностранного. Retrieved from<http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/mrs/28_241>
  32. Дунаева В.В и Копосов Д.Р. (2010). Динамика падежной классификации в русском языке. Альманах современной науки и образования. 12, 205-208
  33. Кустова Г.И. (2011). Падеж. Материалы для проекта корпусного описания русской грамматики. Retrieved from <http://rusgram.ru>.
  34. Кустова Г.И. (2012). Дательный падеж. Материалы для проекта корпусного описания русской грамматики. Retrieved from <http://rusgram.ru>.
  35. Лаврентьев А.М. (1999). Типологический анализ категории падежа в русском языке (Дис.кандидата филологических наук). Россия, Новосибирск: Институт истории, филологии и философии СО РАН.
  36. Норман Б.Ю. (2018). «Необязательный дательный падеж» при русском глаголе. Весник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 53, 61-74.
  37. Панова Г.И. (2016). Падеж русских существительных в сопоставительном аспекте. Научное обозрение Саяно-Алтая. 3 (15), 59-67.
  38. Рубинчик, Ю.А. (2001) Грамматика современного персидского литературного языка. Москва: Издательская фирма «Восточная литература» РАН
  39. Рубинчика, Ю.А. (1985). Персидско-русский словарь. Москва: Русский язык.
  40. Тестелец Я.Г. (2010). Введение в общий синтаксис. Москва: Издательство РГГУ
  41. Циммерлинг А. В. (2009). Два типа дативны предложений в русском языке. А. М. МолдованСб. статей в честь А.Б. С. 471-492. Москва: Пеньковского.
  42. Циммерлинг А. В. (2010). Именные предикативы и дативные предложения в европейских языках: Компьютерная лингвистика и интелектуальные технологии. Труды международной конференции «Диалог-2010». 8 (15), 549-558).
  43.  Циммерлинг А. В. (2012). Неканонические подлежащие в русском языке: От значения к форме, от формы к значению. РАН А.В. Бондарко.Сб. статей в честь 80-летия чл.-корр. (С. 568-590). Москвa