Email this article Cognitive Motivation of the Dative Case in Russian: The Possessor as an Affected Participant
- Authors: Zhang Z.1
-
Affiliations:
- Peking University
- Issue: No 89 (2025)
- Pages: 141-150
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2222-5064/article/view/367280
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.25807/22225064_2025_89_141
- ID: 367280
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The Russian dative case exhibits a wide range of semantic functions, including recipient, benefi ciary, experiencer, and possessor. These meanings are not isolated but are interconnected through a common cognitive schema. Historically, the dative case encoded a spatial meaning, denoting the endpoint of directed motion. Other meanings metaphorically derive from this initial spatial sense. The use of the dative in predicative and external
possessive constructions represents the result of such semantic extension. Physical motion is metaphorically mapped onto the transfer of energy or impact, while the endpoint of motion
corresponds to the possessor who becomes the target of this impact. In these constructions, the key factors motivating the dative are the close relationship between the possessor and
the possessed entity, as well as the affectedness of the possessor.
possessive constructions represents the result of such semantic extension. Physical motion is metaphorically mapped onto the transfer of energy or impact, while the endpoint of motion
corresponds to the possessor who becomes the target of this impact. In these constructions, the key factors motivating the dative are the close relationship between the possessor and
the possessed entity, as well as the affectedness of the possessor.
References
Landau Idan. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge: MIT press, 2009. 178 p. АН СССР. Русская грамматика Т. II. [под редакцией Н. Ю. Шведовой]. М.: Наука, 1980. 717 с. Попова З. Д. Из семантической истории дательного падежа // Сравнительно-исторические исследования русского языка. Воронеж: Изд-во Воронежского университета, 1980. С. 48–53. Попова З. Д. Просторечное употребление падежных форм и литературная норма // Золотова Г. А. Синтаксис и норма. М.: Наука, 1974. С. 176–186. Langacker R. W. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 562 p. Правдин А. Б. Дательный приглагольный в старославянском и древнерусском языках // Ученые записки Института славяноведения под ред. С. Б. Бернштейна. M.: Издательство АН СССР, 1956. С. 3–120. Правдин А. Б. К вопросу о праславянских значениях дательного падежа // Вопросы языкознания, 1957. No 6. С. 80–83. Мразек Р. Дательный падеж в старославянском языке//Исследования по синтаксису старославянского языка под ред. Иосифа Курца. Прага, 1963. С. 225–261. Chvany Catherine. V. On the Syntax of Be-sentences in Russian. Cambridge, MA: Slavica, 1975. 311 p. Tsedryk E. The modal side of the dative: From predicative possession to possessive modality// In Pineda A. & Mateu J. Dative constructions in Romance and beyond. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2020. P. 195–219. Langacker R. W. Reference-point constructions // Cognitive Linguistics 1993. Vol. 4. No 1. P. 1–38. Langacker R. W. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. 410 p. Иванов В. В., Потиха З. А. Исторический комментарий к занятиям по русскому языку в средней школе: Пособие для учителя.- 2-е изд. М.: Просвещение, 1985. 160 с. Падучева Е. В. Динамические модели в семантике лексики. М.: Языки Славянской Культуры, 2004. 608 с. Кибрик А. Е., Брыкина М. М., Леонтьев А. П., Хитров А. Н. Русские посессивные конструкции в свете корпусно-статистического исследования // Вопросы языкознания, 2006. No1. С. 16–45. Malchukov A., Haspelmath M. & Comrie B. Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview // Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2010, P. 1–64. Кибрик А. Е. Внешний посессор в русском языке // Кибрик А. Е. Константы и переменные языка. СПб.: Алетейя, 2003. С. 307–319. Levine J. S. On the dative of possession in contemporary Russian//Slavic and East European Journal, 1984, No 28. P. 493–501. Cienki A. Experiencers, possessors, and overlap between Russian dative and u+ genitive // Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, 1993. P. 76–89. Cienki A. The semantics of possessive and spatial constructions in Russian and Bulgarian: a comparative analysis in cognitive grammar//Slavic and East European Journal, 1995. No 39. P. 73–114. Levine J. S. Pragmatic implicatures and case: The Russian dative revisited // Russian Language Journal, 1990. No 44. P. 9–27. НКРЯ Национальный корпус русского языка. URL: http://ruscorpora.ru (дата обращения: 15.10.2025). Норман Б. Ю. Когнитивный синтаксис русского языка. М.: Флинта, 2013. 254 с. Dąbrowska E. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997. 240 p. Норман Б. Ю. «Необязательный» дательный падеж при русском глаголе // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология, 2018. No 53. С. 61–74. Shibatani M. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives//Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 1994. Vol. 20. 461–486.
Supplementary files
