Implicit And Explicit Norm In Contemporary Russian Verbal Stress (studia Slavica Upsaliensia, 40)

Cover......Page 1 Title page......Page 4 Abstract ......Page 5 Contents ......Page 6 Acknowledgements......Page 12 1.1 Preliminaries......Page 13 1.2.1 Scope and definitions......Page 14 1.2.2 Aim and method......Page 15 1.2.3 Disposition......Page 16 1.3.1 Early 20thcentury stress handbooks......Page 17 1.3.2 Works on norms and linguistic change in Russian......Page 18 1.3.3 Works on Russian stress proper......Page 22 1.3.4 Stress surveys......Page 25 1.3.5 Conclusion on research background......Page 29 1.4.1 General characteristics......Page 30 1.4.2 Stress types......Page 32 1.4.3 Variation existing......Page 33 1.4.4.1 Analogy......Page 35 1.4.4.3 Frequency, pragmatic factors......Page 36 1.4.4.4 Moscow speech as the standard and influence from territorial dialects......Page 37 1.5 Statement of aims......Page 38 2.1.1 Polysemy of norm......Page 39 2.1.2 The Russian definition of norm......Page 41 2.1.2.1 Three recurring criteria for normativity......Page 42 2.1.2.2 Subjectivity as a consequence of these criteria......Page 43 2.1.3 Norm = correspondence to the system?......Page 44 2.1.4.1 Different viewpoints regarding the relation between usage and norm......Page 45 2.1.4.2 Causality between usage and (codified) norm......Page 47 2.1.5 Norm = authority/tradition/necessity?......Page 48 2.1.6 Conclusion......Page 49 2.2.2 The relation between codified norms and standard language......Page 50 2.2.3 The modern/contemporary Russian standard language......Page 51 2.2.4 Standard language speakers......Page 52 2.3 Variation and variants......Page 53 2.3.1 Standard language norms and norms of razgovornaja reč', prostorečie and territorial dialects......Page 54 2.3.2.1 Types of stress variation......Page 56 2.3.3 Violation of or deviation from the norm......Page 57 2.3.3.3 Overt and covert norms......Page 58 2.3.3.4 Gaps between the codification and actual norms......Page 59 2.3.3.5 Loss of authority......Page 60 2.3.4 Changes in language norms......Page 61 2.3.4.1 Reasons for language change......Page 63 2.4.1 Terminology......Page 64 2.4.2 Definition of cultivation of speech......Page 66 2.4.3.2 Orthoepic dictionaries......Page 67 2.4.4.1 The situation before 1917......Page 68 2.4.4.2 The situation after 1917......Page 69 2.4.4.4 Recent language policy activities......Page 70 2.4.4.6 The role of dictionaries......Page 72 2.4.5 Normativisation and cultivation of speech – can and should language be planned?......Page 73 2.5 Conclusion: norm and normativisation......Page 75 3.1.1 The first modern orthoepic dictionaries and their successors......Page 77 3.1.2 The orthoepic heritage......Page 78 3.2 Main sources for the study......Page 79 3.2.1.1 General principles......Page 80 3.2.1.3 Nonnorm in OS......Page 82 3.2.2.1 General principles......Page 83 3.2.2.2 Norm in RPP......Page 84 3.2.3 Comparison of the set of labels used......Page 85 3.3 Other sources......Page 86 3.4.1 Categories of verbs and verb forms with stress variation......Page 88 3.4.2 Comparison of notation in the sources......Page 90 3.5 Conclusion regarding the normative notation......Page 93 4.1 Method used for the survey......Page 94 4.1.1.1 Actual norm......Page 95 4.1.1.2 Actual usage......Page 96 4.1.2.1 Pilot study......Page 98 4.1.2.2 Written judgement test (attitude)......Page 99 4.1.3.1 Target population......Page 100 4.1.3.2 Sampling......Page 101 4.1.3.3 Number of informants......Page 102 4.1.3.4 Characteristics of the informants......Page 104 4.1.4.1 Preparations and instructions......Page 106 4.1.4.5 Test conditions......Page 107 4.1.4.6 Coding and principles for working with the data......Page 108 4.1.5.1 Relevance, validity and reliability......Page 109 4.1.5.2 Standard language speakers......Page 111 4.1.6 Principles for the presentation of dictionary data and survey results......Page 112 4.2.1.1 Dictionary data......Page 114 4.2.1.2 Results......Page 115 4.2.2.1 Dictionary data......Page 116 4.2.2.2 Results......Page 117 4.2.3 Verbs with infinitive on ировать......Page 118 4.2.3.2 Results......Page 120 4.2.4 Verbs with infinitive on ить......Page 123 4.2.4.1 Dictionary data......Page 124 4.2.4.2 Results......Page 125 4.2.5.1 Dictionary data......Page 128 4.2.6.1 Dictionary data......Page 129 4.2.6.2 Results......Page 130 4.3 Verbs with variation in the presentfuture form......Page 131 4.3.2.1 Dictionary data......Page 132 4.3.3.1 Stress patterns......Page 133 4.3.3.2 Historical background and dialects......Page 134 4.3.3.3 Current tendencies......Page 135 4.3.3.4 Dictionary data......Page 136 4.3.3.5 Results......Page 141 4.3.4.2 Results......Page 155 4.3.5.2 Results......Page 156 4.3.6.1 Dictionary data......Page 157 4.3.6.2 Results......Page 158 4.3.9.1 Dictionary data......Page 159 4.4.1.1 Dictionary data......Page 160 4.4.1.2 Results......Page 161 4.5.1 Types of variation......Page 162 4.5.1.2 Differences in stress placement and course of development for different types of stems......Page 164 4.5.2 Masculine non-reflexive verb forms with and withou prefix......Page 165 4.5.2.1 Dictionary data......Page 167 4.5.2.2 Results......Page 168 4.5.3 Feminine non-reflexive verb forms with and without prefix......Page 177 4.5.3.1 Dictionary data......Page 178 4.5.3.2 Results......Page 180 4.5.4 Neuter non-reflexive verb forms with and without prefix......Page 185 4.5.4.1 Dictionary data......Page 186 4.5.4.2 Results......Page 188 4.5.5.1 Dictionary data......Page 191 4.5.5.2 Results......Page 194 4.5.6 Masculine reflexive verb forms with and without prefix......Page 199 4.5.6.1 Dictionary data......Page 200 4.5.6.2 Results......Page 201 4.5.7.1 Dictionary data......Page 204 4.5.7.2 Results......Page 206 4.5.8.1 Dictionary data......Page 209 4.5.8.2 Results......Page 210 4.5.9.1 Dictionary data......Page 212 4.5.9.2 Results......Page 213 4.6 Several instances of one form in the written questionnaire......Page 217 4.6.1 One implicit norm is equal to the explicit norm......Page 218 4.6.3 Two or several stresses are the implicit norm......Page 219 4.6.4 The importance of distance in the questionnaire......Page 220 4.7 Comparison of the results of the oral performance test (usage) and the written judgement test (attitude)......Page 221 4.7.2 Results......Page 222 4.7.2.1 Analysis of the non-coincidence of answers......Page 223 4.7.3 Conclusion......Page 224 5 Adherence to the codified norm for particular groups of informants......Page 225 5.1 The whole informant group......Page 226 5.3 Age......Page 227 5.4 Sex......Page 228 5.5 Native language......Page 229 5.6 Geographical origin: childhood residence......Page 230 5.7 Geographical origin: place of longest residence......Page 231 5.9 Educational level......Page 232 5.11 Informants with the ten lowest scores......Page 233 6.1.1 The codified norms......Page 234 6.1.2.2 Normative in RPP, other notation in OS......Page 236 6.1.5 Not recommended/vulgar or low colloquial variants......Page 237 6.1.6 Incorrect/vulgar or low colloquial variants......Page 238 6.1.9 Non-normative forms not included in the sources......Page 239 6.2.1 Comparison of notation in the sources......Page 240 6.3.1 Stress variants with low usage codified as norms......Page 243 6.3.2 Stress variants with high usage not codified as norms......Page 245 6.3.3 Conclusion......Page 246 7 Discussion and conclusion......Page 248 Key to abbreviations......Page 253 References......Page 254 Appendices ......Page 266 Appendix 1. Form: Oral performance test (usage) ......Page 267 Appendix 2. Form: Written judgement test (attitude)......Page 273 Appendix 3. Form: Information pertaining to the informant......Page 281 Appendix 4. Reported usage (%) of stresses codified as normative (1).......Page 282 Appendix 5. Reported usage (%) of stresses codified as normative (2).......Page 283 Appendix 6. Reported usage (%) of stresses codified as normative (3).......Page 284 Appendix 7. Reported usage (%) of stresses codified as normative (4).......Page 285 Appendix 8. Reported usage (%) of stresses codified as normative in OS having another label in RPP.......Page 286 Appendix 9. Reported usage (%) of stresses codified as normative in RPP having another label in OS.......Page 287 Appendix 10. Reported usage (%) of stresses with the label i ('and'; the second of two “equal” variants).......Page 288 Appendix 11. Reported usage (%) of stresses with the labels dop./razg. (admissible/colloquial).......Page 289 Appendix 12. Reported usage (%) of stresses with the labels ne rek./prostorech. (not recommended/vulgar or low colloquial).......Page 290 Appendix 13. Reported usage (%) of stresses with the labels neprav./prostorech. (incorrect/vulgar or low colloquial).......Page 291 Appendix 14. Reported usage (%) of stresses with the label grubo neprav./grubo prostorech. (grossly incorrect/flagrantly vulgar or low colloquial).......Page 292 Appendix 15. Reported usage (%) of stresses with the label dop. ustar./ne rek. ustar./ustar. (admissible, obsolescent/not recommended, obsolescent/obsolete). ......Page 293 Appendix 16. Reported usage (%) of stresses that are non-normative and not included in the sources.......Page 294 Appendix 17. Different norms in the main sources: comparison with other sources.......Page 295 Appendix 18. Comparison of stress notation for variants with low reported and/or actual usage codified as normative in (at least one of) the main sources.......Page 297 Appendix 19. Comparison of stress notation for variants with high reported and/or actual usage codified as non-normative in (at least one of) the main sources.......Page 300 The purpose of this thesis is to investigate norm in contemporary Russian verbal stress. In a first step the concept of norm is explored. It is shown that the criteria generally used in Russian for defining norm (correspondence to the language system, usage and authority/tradition/necessity) are not applied strictly. It is also concluded that any study of norms must take into account the distinction between the explicit norm , i.e. the codification, and the implicit norm , i.e. the usage and attitude of educated native speakers. In a second step the explicit norm is investigated. The analysis is based on the stress notation in two orthoepic dictionaries. This comparison shows that there is not, as is often suggested, one unanimous, "objectively existing", explicit stress norm. In a third step, the implicit norm is examined. This is done through a survey of reported and actual usage, carried out on 106 Russian speakers in Moscow. Subsequently, implicit norms are related to explicit norms. There is compliance between these in many cases, but the discrepancies are numerous. Furthermore, there is no direct or predictable relationship between the implicit stress norms and the labels these stresses are assigned in handbooks. A comparison with additional sources demonstrates that among the, in all, nine sources no two are perfectly alike in their notation. Sources that reflect the implicit norm better than others are identified. Finally, dictionary data and the survey results are compared with results from previous surveys (1956-1994). This shows that certain stress variants have apparently functioned as the implicit norm for several decades, but this has not yet been taken into account in codification. The general conclusions are that there is in theory an unclear definition of norm ; there is in practice disagreement in codification; there is no official codex, although some sources might be considered more reliable; there is in many cases a discrepancy between explicit and implicit norms, which is most likely a result of arbitrariness or subjectivism and of conservatism. It is possible that these conclusions are valid for areas of language normativisation other than verbal stress