Umeå University's logo

The present investigation explores the contexts that trigger purposive interpretations of Russian converbs. The contrastive method is used to elicit purposive converb usages from Swedish corresponding constructions, namely, [för att ‘in order to’ + infinitive] constructions. Two main structural types are observed. One analytic construction, in which imperfective converbs specify mental acts of wishing, trying, or intending [converb + infinitive], e.g., želaja najti ‘wishing to find’. The second construction is synthetic, comprising of imperfective converbs without infinitives [converb]: otyskivaja ‘trying to find’. Both constructions involve mental acts of intending, wishing, or trying, which are explicit in the analytic constructions and implicit in the synthetic constructions. In the synthetic constructions, a concrete eventuality denoted by a finite matrix verb serves as a means of fulfilling an intended outcome, denoted by an abstract manner-neutral converb form. In this sense, the purposive meaning that is expressed hinges on a means:purpose (means:end) complementarity as an effect of manner:result complementarity. Differing degrees of the Subject’s involvement in the progression of the attainment of the intended outcomes can be observed, ranging from preparatory steps to achieved results. An important observation is that purposive converb constructions (either synthetic or analytic) may occur with markers of assumed evidentiality, such as slovno ‘like’, kak by ‘as if’, and vidimo ‘apparently’.

The present parallel corpus investigation shows that the Russian correspondences to Swedish bipartite comitatives — med- ‘with’-constructions with the structure [med + NP + PP] — can largely be predicted from the presence and positions of NPs referring to inalienable body parts in the constructions. When a Swedish bipartite med-construction contains an inalienable in the first (subject) part of the bipartite med-construction: [med + NPinalienable + P + NP], perfective converb constructions constitute the most frequent Russian correspondence. When there is an alienable NP in the first part and an inalienable NP in the PP part: [med + NPalienable + P + NPinalienable], by contrast, the Swedish bipartite med-constructions frequently correspond to Russian comitative (s+instrumental) constructions. The study shows two more important correspondence types: bare instrumental constructions expressing manner and finite constructions expressing condition or temporal condition. These four Russian correspondence types (converb constructions, s+instrumental constructions, bare instrumental constructions and finite constructions) represent four different ontological types, as they mark relations between the matrix and eventualities (states/temporary properties) entities, manners, and states of affairs, respectively.