1. Attenuating Agency in Russian
Dagmar Divjak
Laura Janda

2. News headline, July 2, 2009 Putinu xočetsja počuvstvovat’ Obamu
[Putin-Dat, wants-REFL feel-Inf Obama-Acc.]
Dative noun phrase + finite impersonal verb + infinitive
‘Putin feels like getting a feel for Obama’

3. Where did the subject go?
Impersonal constructions that attenuate or eliminate the role of the agent
 Russian has a particularly rich assortment of such patterns: are they all created equal?
How do impersonal constructions relate to prototypical personal & transitive sentences?
How can this relation be accounted for, theoretically?

4. Networks of constructions
(Radical) Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995 & 2006; Croft 2001)
analyze the use of non-canonical subjects in Russian
Emphasis: organization of constructions in larger networks of related (personal and impersonal) constructions
impersonal constructions as peripheral members of the system
Case study: the role of the dative case in impersonal [Vfin Vinf] constructions
there are two such constructions
implications for the concepts of main verb-hood and agentivity

5. Theoretical framework (i)?
A radical construction grammar approach
= non-reductionist
the “primitive construct” = the construction, a complex entity
constructions contain categories and relations, and these are defined by the constructions they appear in
= categories and relations are not theoretical primitives
constructions are not derived from their parts
the parts are derived from the constructions they appear in
the parts of a construction do not have an independent existence outside of the whole construction

6. Theoretical framework (ii)
Cognitive Grammar
Meaning: all linguistic units and categories have meaning in all contexts
No distinction between grammatical and semantic case
Options: construal
Different ways of arranging elements
Organization: radial category
Centre-periphery structure

7. The plan Personal vs impersonal constructions in Russian
Construction grammar
A network of constructions
Relationships among constructions
Impersonal constructions with Dative in Russian
Radical construction grammar
What is an impersonal construction?
Ways to attenuate agentivity
Contrasting Russian with English
An experiment

8. Construction grammar
Goldberg 1995, 2006; Croft 2001; Langacker 1991; Fillmore 1985
A construction is
a combination of form and meaning
a unit, not just an aggregate of components
the unit that is most relevant for linguistic analysis

9. What construction grammar has not achieved
Construction grammar analyses
are typically based on English; an analysis of a case language is likely to be very different
usually cover only small portions of a language (e.g., the radial category of Subject-Auxiliary Inversion in Goldberg 2006)
neglect transitions between related constructions
do not research relationships among the meanings of neighboring constructions

10. Main points
Grammatical models, e.g. Construction grammar, are seldom used to describe the entire grammar of a language
Radial categories are seldom used to show the relationships among syntactic constructions
 Construction grammar can describe a radial network of constructions and the relationships that hold among them
 Syntax is a continuum, the differences between constructions are continuous and neighboring constructions give (semantic) support to each other

11. Case in Russian Case is always obligatory in Russian
Russian has six cases, and the most important ones for this study are:
Nominative = Subject
Accusative = Direct Object
Dative = Indirect Object, Experiencer
Instrumental = Instrument, Means

12. Network of constructions
The most important constructions and their network
The transitions between constructions
addition or removal of a participant
transformation of a participant
The prototypical construction
N+V+A: personal, transitive
Peripheral constructions are
intransitive
impersonal

13. V+A+I
N+V+A+I
V+A
D+V+A
N+V+I
N+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+G
N+V+D
N+V+PP
N+V

14. V+A+I
N+V+A+I
V+A
D+V+A
N+V+I
N+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+G
N+V+D
N+V+PP
N+V

15. V+A+I
N+V+A+I
V+A
D+V+A
N+V+I
N+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+G
N+V+D
N+V+PP
N+V

16. Transitive constructions Intransitive constructions V+A+I N+V+A+I V+A
D+V+A
N+V+I
N+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+G
N+V+D
N+V+PP
N+V
Transitive
constructions
Intransitive
constructions

17. Impersonal constructions
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
V+A
D+V+A
N+V+I
N+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+G
N+V+D
N+V+PP
N+V
Impersonal constructions

18. Relationships between constructions
Transitions tend to be continuous
An example of addition/removal
An example of transformation
What neighboring constructions contribute to a given construction
An example of a peculiar construction
Fully vs. mildly impersonal constructions

19. Continuous transition with addition/removal of a participant
See examples 1 (intransitive) and 9 (transitive) and examples 14-18

20. V+A+I
N+V+A+I
V+A
D+V+A
N+V+I
N+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+G
N+V+D
N+V+PP
N+V

21. transitive and intransitive
N+V+A
Ženščina šila kostjum.
The woman sewed a suit.
Transition between
transitive and intransitive
N+V+A
Ženščina šila vsju noč’.
The woman sewed all night.
N+V+A
Ženščina spala vsju noč’.
The woman slept all night.
N+V
Ženščina šila.
The woman sewed.
N+V
Ženščina spala.
The woman slept.

22. Continuous transition with transformation of a participant
In the N+V+D construction, Dative can have five meanings:
recipient of something
experiencer of something good or bad
participant in a relationship of equality/opposition
participant in a relationship of submission
See examples 19-28

23. V+A+I
N+V+A+I
V+A
D+V+A
N+V+I
N+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+G
N+V+D
N+V+PP
N+V

24. What neighboring constructions contribute to a given construction
A peculiar construction: V+A+I
See examples 29-32
A mystery: Why can’t the instrumental express agent in this construction?
See example 33
Neighboring constructions:
V+A (See examples 34-37)
N+V+A+I (See examples 38-41)

25. V+A+I
N+V+A+I
V+A
D+V+A
N+V+I
N+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+G
N+V+D
N+V+PP
N+V

26. Impersonal constructions
Mildly
impersonal
Fully
impersonal
V+A+I
N+V+A+I
V+A
D+V+A
N+V+I
N+V+A
N+V+A+D
D+V
N+V+G
N+V+D
N+V+PP
The remainder
of the talk will
focus on these
N+V
Impersonal constructions

27. What neighboring constructions contribute to V+A+I
V+A contributes a situation that involves an unnamed force that has negative results in an impersonal construction
N+V+A+I contributes a situation that involves use of the Instrumental to express an instrument or means (agent is impossible because N fills this role)

28. Summing up personal and impersonal constructions
Construction grammar can describe syntax (or a large portion of it) as a radial category
The ordinary transitive construction (= Langacker’s 1991: “canonical event model”) is prototypical; intransitive and impersonal constructions are peripheral
Transitions between constructions involve the addition/removal or transformation of a participant and are continuous
Neighboring constructions contribute to a given construction’s meaning

29. MIC: Mildly ill/impersonal constructions

30. Some examples
See examples (42) through (45) on handout

31. Impersonal Constructions =
finite verb is “impersonal”
“every verb without an acting person or thing [canonically in the nominative] can be considered impersonal” OR all “3rd (n) sg verb forms and infinitives are impersonal forms” (KG 1990: , §285)
lack a subject with nominative case marking
accusative or dative required or possible
[with infinitive]

32. Disparity of Views in 3 Areas
Disagreement on the structure of impersonal constructions and function of their components
The construction as a whole: monopartite or bipartite?
The status of the infinitive: grammatical subject or not?
The function of the (accusative or) dative: semantic subject or not?
In the literature, there is sharp disagreement about the structure of this type of construction and the function of its components. The disparity of views concerns :

33. Monopartite or Bipartite?
Sentence structure: subject - predicate
Monopartite: infinitive does not dominate the predicate, i.e. does not initiate morphological subject-verb agreement  1 part missing
Bipartite: sentence consists of 2 parts, yet …
Infinitive = “main member” of bipartite sentence?
Sentence structure is, within Russian Grammar, typically described in terms of subject-predicate relations.

34. Infinitive = Grammatical Subject?
No: function grammatical subject reserved for nouns and pronouns
e.g. RG (1970, 1980), KG (1990); Šachmatov (1941), Zolotova (1973), Belošapkova (1978), Šmeleva (1978)
Yes: infinitive can substitute (pro)nominal grammatical subject
e.g. RG (1960, 1970); Protogenova (1955), Metlina (1953), Ermakova (1974), Kokorina (1979), Barsov (1981), Guiraud-Weber (1984)
! cannot express exactly the same meaning (≠ forms) e.g. Peškovskij (1956), Bricyn (1990)
The grammatical subject of a sentence has traditionally been described as the main member of a bipartite or two-compound sentence that dominates the predicate. It is markes nominative and controls the subject-verb agreement in the predicate.
On the one hand researchers claim that
On the other hand scholars contend that

35. Function of the Dative = ?
Semantic subject?
What is a “semantic subject”?
intuitive
no criteria given (cf. Zaiceva 1990, which element qualifies as a semantic subject, under which conditions etc.)
only reformulations (non-nominative or oblique subject, subject of the action/state, logical subject)
Finally, there is the seamntic subject problem; Zaitseva has pointed out that accusatives and especailly datives in impersonal constructions have often been described on the basis of intuitive semantic criteria alone.

36. Radical construction grammar (i)
A radical construction grammar approach
= non-reductionist
the “primitive construct” = the construction, a complex entity
constructions contain categories and relations, and these are defined by the constructions they appear in
= categories and relations are not theoretical primitives
constructions are not derived from their parts
the parts are derived from the constructions they appear in
the parts of a construction do not have an independent existence outside of the whole construction

37. Radical construction grammar (ii)
This is reminiscent of the Gestalt paradigm: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts
“difference of form entails difference in categorization, identity of form does not entail identity of categorization” (Croft 2001: 76)
A family of constructions that share the same form, but have distinct properties
Elements filling up constructional slots that do not always relate to each other in the same way

38. A Radical Construction-based Proposal
Status of infinitive and dative depends on the type of finite verb
= Bipartite structure possible
Infinitive can be subject of construction
Dative can take on subject-like function
different ways of encoding signal different sorts of relationships between the participants
analysis reconciles different insights put forward in literature [Guiraud-Weber (1984) or Bricyn (1990)]
Surprisingly, despite the abundance of literature on this topic, the finite verb has never been at the center of attention. I will argue that looking at timpersonal constructions from the point of view of the finite verb and its argument structure makes it possible to present an analysis that reconciles the many different insights that have been put forward in the literature.
My proposal starts from a bipartite sentence structure in which under certain circumstances or the infinitive can be the subject of the construction or the dative can take on a subject-like function.

39. A scale of agentivity
Nom > Dat > Instr > Acc > Gen > Loc (Janda & Clancy 2002)
// Langacker’s (1991) role archetypes and their agentivity
See examples on handout:
9. Nominative is prototypical subject
8. Dative is logical subject of further action
5. Accusative is logical subject

40. Further examples along the scale of agentivity
Instrumental is agent of passive:
Kostjum byl sšit ženščinoj.
[Suit-N was sewn woman-I.]
‘The suit was sewn by the woman.’
Genitive is logical agent of HAVE via BE:
U ženščiny est’ kostjum.
[By woman-G is suit-N.]
‘The woman has a suit.’
Locative has no agentive or subject-like function

41. Two non-prototypical types of agents
Non-nominal entities occupying the NOM slot
Ex 46 a/b/c: noun, that-clause, infinitive
Ex 47 a/b: pronoun, infinitive
Absence of a NOM slot
Ex 48 vs 49
Ex 50

42. Assigning subject-status
Brown (1987: 166)
“those noun phrases with which the verb agrees in person and number (in gender too, for some verb forms). Then we observe that an infinitive construction or a subordinate clause can play the same role as a noun phrase and is mutually exclusive with it; therefore we extend the term “subject” to these infinitive constructions or clauses, and mention in our description the special verb-agreement which they are associated with (3rd singular neuter)”.

43. Methodology 52 Russian verbs [dat + impersonal verb + inf]
Small n-design:
5 native speakers studied intensively (25-50 yr)
10 control judgments gathered
Elicitation test for argument structure based on substitution with pro-nouns & pronoun schemes (relevant in language acquisition)
does infinitive fit in an argument structure slot?
His parents decided to buy him a Mercedes.
What did his parents decide? To buy him a Mercedes.
To buy him a Mercedes, that’s what they decided.
The results I present are based on elicited data on the 81 Russian verbs that are used in this construction. The experiment was set up as a small number design in which I worked with 5 native speakers of Russian, beteen the ages of 25 and 50. They judged the constructional possibilities of these verbs on a three-point scale. Several measures were taken to minimize the obvious negative effects of this set-up. Native speakers were asked both to judge ready made sentences and to form sentences using particular constructional devices; these sentences were on a later occasion presented to the participant who had constructed them as well as to other participants. The consistency in their answers was surprising, however. To guard against lexical effects, the tests were carried using pro-nouns and other pro-forms, which ensures that the mutual effect of lexical items in a construction is minimized. Moreover, to check for repetition effects in judgments of grammaticality 10 control judgments were collected for every verb from an ever varying pool of native speakers. In this case, the trigger questions were mixed with other, non-related questions about aspects of Russian syntax and semantics.
Talk about extended design with 300 native speakers, large n elicitation experiment, applying objective methods to sentence judgments.
With the native speakers I checked whether any argument structure slot that is opened up by the finite verb can incorporate the infinitive. Practically speaking, native speakers were asked whether a sentence with infinitive such as His parents decided to buy him a Mercedes would answer a question in which the potentially correspnding argument structure slot was filled up with an interrogative pronoun, such as what.

44. Infinitive as Grammatical Subject
Morphologically complete verb
Rebenku nadoelo čitat’.
Kid it bored to read
dat m sg pf ind past 3sg n impf inf
Reading bored the kid.
Čto rebenku nadoelo?
What kid it bored
Nom n sg dat m sg pf ind past 3sg n
What bored the kid?
Čitat’. Or Čtenie/bljudo/moloko/selo.
Impf inf Nom n sg
To read/Reading. Reading/dish/milk/village
In this second example, the infinitive event, i.e. read, can be reduced to a what, that is within the argument structure of the finite verb bore.

45. An Interpretation: Reification
Level of argument structure:
nominative slot
infinitive read fits in nominative slot occupied by čto or what (neuter singular)
infinitive = subject, although not prototypical subject, initiates finite verb event
dative slot: occupied by person = typical experiencer
Level of event structure:
~ “reification” (Langacker 1987): infinitive event reduced to, treated like any other “thing” [~ n sg (cf. Smith 1994)] that can be subject of finite verb event and bring it about
Give some example verbs

47. Infinitive ≠ Argument Structure
Morphologically defective verb-sense
Bol’nomu ponadobitsja pokazat’sja vraču.
Ill person it is necessary to show himself doctor
dat m sg pf ind fut 3sg n pf inf dat m sg
The ill person will need/have to go and see a doctor.
Čto bol’nomu ponadobitsja?
What ill person it is necessary
Nom n sg dat m sg pf ind fut 3sg
What will the ill person need?
*Pokazat’sja vraču. Vs Lekarstvo.
pf ind fut 3sg nom n sg
To go and see a doctor. Medicine.
So far, we’ve covered a bit more than half of the verbs that are known to occur in an impersonal pattern. What about the other half? In the example with to be necessary the components of the construction are linked together by means of another type of relations. In this example, the infinitive is not within the reach of the finite verb: to be necessary does not tolerate the infinitive event go and see a doctor into its subject slot. This position is reserved for nouns, as the possiblilty of inserting medicine in that psition shows. In this case, both constructions are often said to instantiate two different senses of one polysemous verb.

48. Infinitive ≠ Argument Structure
Morphologically defective verb
Vam nadležit javit’sja v ukazannyj srok
You it is required to appear at time indicated
dat pl impf ind pres 3sg pf inf
You are to present yourself at the time indicated.
*Čto vam nadležit?
What you it is required
Nom n sg dat pl impf ind pres 3sg
Čto vam nadležit sdelat’?
What you it is required to do
What are you to do?
A similar situation is found with verbs like be required that do not open up a nominative argument slot at all. These are morphologically truly defective finite verbs.

49. Interpretation: Complex Events
Level of argument structure:
infinitive go and see a doctor or appear at the time indicated do not fit in nominative slot occupied by čto or what (neuter singular) or in prepositional slot
finite verb (defective paradigm!) ≠ construction kernel [cf. Butler 1967]
Level of event structure:
no “reification” (Langacker 1987) = infinitive event go and see a doctor or appear at the time indicated cannot be reduced to, treated like any other “thing” that can be subject of finite verb event need or have to, infinitive event does not initiate finite verb event
 infinitive = ?
Give some example verbs
Although 37 may seem a large number, in the overall perspective this type of verbs still forms a minority: of all Russian verbs (and there are at least ) only 375 combine with an infinitive (that’s less than 2%), and about one third of those 375 verbs displays this divergent behavior.

50. Interpretation: Complex Events
Finite verb cannot pull infinitive into its argument structure: infinitive is stronger than usual, finite verb needs infinitive to carry load of construction
~ auxiliary-like behavior
Finite verb event modifies infinite verb event
together finite verb and infinitive form a complex event
// status claimed for modal verbs in general

51. Some Complex Event Examples
Modality-verbs
Volition: e.g. chočetsja, ne terpitsja, chvatit etc.
Suitability: e.g. (ne) goditsja, nadležit, polagaetsja etc.
Necessity: e.g. trebuetsja, predstoit, ostalos’ etc.
Result-verbs:
Success only e.g. udalos’
Success + Associated (mis)fortune, e.g. (+) povezlo, posčastlivilos’, (-) podfartilo etc.
Success + Reason for acting (circumstances, chance, higher forces), e.g. dovelos’, slučilos’, dostalos’ etc.
Let’s take a look at what the finite verbs that fit into this pattern express. They’re all listed on your handouts, so I will only outline the six major categories here. There seem to be two major groups: a group of non-implicative verbs that expresses modal-like concepts, and a group of implicative verbs that stresses the result obtained. These groups can be further divided into

53. Zaliznjak & Levontina (1996: 253)
Russian has invested heavily in lexical items that express an intermediate degree of subject responsibility for the final result

54. Russian and Middle-English (i)
Allen 1997
“[t]he disappearance of the impersonal constructions with a preposed non-nominative Experiencer (…) was largely due to the decline of the case-marking system of English, which often made the preposed Experiencer ambiguous as to case marking and liable to reanalysis as the subject”

55. Russian and Middle-English (ii)
! some verbs, such as bihoven, began to be used impersonally in Early Middle English, i.e. by the time cases had disappeared
“this increase in the use of a non-nominative Experiencer was semantically motivated. […] verbs of emotions so frequently had non-nominative Experiencers […] a useful way of showing that the Experiencer was not in control of the situation, i.e. not agentive. […] Thus we get non-nominative subjects with modal verbs (…) which talk about necessity over which the human argument had no control. ”

56. An Interpretation: De-agentivization
Finite verb does not open up nominative slot
Bol’nomu [dat] ponadobitsja [Vfin] pokazat’sja [Vinf] vraču
The ill person will need/have to go and see a doctor.
Infinitive event opens up nominative slot
Bol’noj pokazalsja vraču.
Nom m sg pf past m sg dat m sg
The ill person went to see a doctor.
Morphologically defective finite verb that modifies infinitive blocks nominative subject
 appears as dative = “discontinuous (syntactic) subject”
Here, we seem to be dealing with a stronger infinitive that takes over part of the construction-kernel’s function; moreover, the event expressed by the infinitive does select a nominative subject in constructions without morphologically defective finite verb, as is illustrated in the example. Therefore, I will argue that the dative in sentences like these can be considered as a (discontinuous) subject.

57. An Interpretation: De-agentivization
Nominative: agent, typical initiator of the finite verb event
Dative: typical experiencer of the finite verb event
Dative in absence of Nominative: “experiencing agent” or “agentive experiencer”
However, it has to be borne in mind that the nominative case typically encodes the initiator of the finite verb event whereas the dative case prototypically conveys the meaning of “experiencer” (Janda & Clancy 2002). Thus, if we put the initiator of the event in the jacket of the experiencer we get sth like an agentive experiencer.

58. A Cline of De-agentivization
True Agent
Bol’noj pokazalsja vraču.
Ill person showed himself doctor
nom m sg pf past m sg dat m sg
The ill person went to see a doctor.
Agentive experiencer
Bol’nomu ponadobitsja pokazat’sja vraču.
Ill person it is necessary to show himself doctor
dat m sg pf ind fut 3sg pf inf dat m sg
The ill person will have to go and see a doctor.
True experiencer
Rebenku nadoelo čitat’.
Kid it bored to read
dat m sg pf ind past 3sg n impf inf
Reading bored the kid.
For this reason, I propose a scale of deactivization that leads from the typical nominative agent over a dative “agentive experiencer” to a true experiencer.
1. In constructions with true agents there is a finite verb that is the construction kernel and an animate nominative subject that s the agent
2. In constructions with finite verbs that modify the infinitive more than anything else, the subject of the infinitive event cannot appear in the nominative because the finite verb is morphologically defective. Therefore it appears in the dative and because it combines nominative and dative semantics it is termed agentive experiencer
3. At the other end of the extreme we have a construction with a finite verb that is the construction kernel, an infinitive that occupies the nominative, agentive slot and triggers the finite verb event, and a dative that encodes the experiencer of the finite verb action

59. Analysis of dative in infinitive constructions
Dative in such constructions typically analyzed as syntactic subject because the infinitive action needs a subject to initiate it.
Mne  zakančivat’ stat’ju
Dat sg impf inf acc f sg
Me finish article
I need to finish this article.
Mne bylo/budet zakančivat’ stat’ju
past/pres 3sg impf inf acc f sg
Me was/will be finish article
I needed/will need to finish this article.

60. Inequality matters!
≠ constructional patterns, ≠ semantic possibly ≠ conceptual structure
not all ‘impersonal’ verbs are equal: there are finite verbs that function as construction kernel and finite verbs that merely modify the infinitive
not all infinitives are equal: some fulfil the syntactic subject or [prepositional] object requirements, others act as (part of the) construction kernel
not all datives are equal: a certain group has to be classified as discontinuous syntactic subject, another as indirect object
Within cognitive linguistics different constructions are seen as different ways of encoding different sorts of relationships among the different elements a construction is made up of. So, ≠ in constructional patterns can reveal ≠ in semantic structure, and possibly also in conceptual structure. For impersonal constructions there are three major differences in the ways parts of the construction are linked up to each other

61. A Constructional Conclusion
Analysis takes into account case semantics and relationships among constructions in assessing how agency is assigned or avoided in Russian impersonal constructions,
making it possible to tease apart the differences between two impersonal constructions that appear identical in structure.
Everyone is ‘right’ … as long as they select the ‘right’ finite verb!

62. Lining up semantics and concepts: Is Russian a Non-Egotistical Language?

63. A striking difference
Russian
No modal verbs (except мочь ‘be able’)
Many impersonal constructions: мне холодно/48 лет
English
Lots of modal verbs
Personal subject-headed constructions : I’m cold/48 yrs old
Often Russian Dative Experiencer + Impersonal verb constructions correspond to English Nominative Agent + Personal verb constructions
e.g. Мне хочется спать = I feel like sleeping

64. How to be impersonal in English

65. Some theoretical background
Do these grammatical differences influence thought?
Thinking for speaking (Dan Slobin)
Is the organization of thought influenced by specific organizational properties of an individual language?
Speaking a language requires paying attention to those properties that are grammaticalized in that language, e.g. number, gender, tense, aspect ...
 Speakers of different languages might be thinking differently to this extent.

66. A grammatical difference
Russian
DAT + Vfin + Vinf + ACC expresses enjoyment, necessity, opportunity:
Мне хотелось бы порадовать моих девчонок.
English
NOM + Vfin + Vinf + Obj
for corresponding expressions:
I’d like to make my girls happy.
Do Russian and English speakers think differently when speaking about these experiences? If so, in which way(s)?

67. A typical interpretation
Wierzbicka (1988: 233): the unknown
Limitations of human reason/knowledge  dependence on fate, destiny
Uncontrollable passions govern lives of people
= some things are beyond human control
Israeli (1997: 21)
Some things come from outside the subject, are imposed upon him/her

69. Verbs used in the study
Nominative slot: infinitive = grammatical subject, dative = true experiencer:
(R) Грозило, идет, льстило, нравилось, опротивело, не светит
(E) Be in danger of, look good, be flattered to, enjoy, be sick of, be fated to
No nominative slot, dative takes on subject-like function, i.e. Agentive experiencer:
(R) Осталось, повезло, полагалось, пришлось, хотелось, удалось
(E) Have to, be lucky enough to, be supposed to, have to, feel like, manage to

70. An experiment: discourse cohesion
Trigger: Мне хотелось бы порадовать моих девчонок чем-нибудь необычным, сказочным. / I’d like to make my girls happy with something special, something fantastic.
3 “Instigator” types:
Subject …Я - хороший отец, люблю своих детей, люблю доставлять им удовольствие./ I am a good father, I love my children and I like giving them pleasure.
Object …В школе они получили только пятерки и заслуживали награду. / They got the best grades in school and deserved a reward.
Circumstance …Новый год был близок, и надо было отметить этот день./ New Year’s day was near and it was necessary to mark that day.

71. Experimental design 36 questionnaires per language
(E) college age, non-linguists, non-slavists, responded in class
(R) various ages, responded via , most live in US
6 benchmark sentences, 12 fillers, 6 triggers
Benchmark sentences: training, also test participant reliability (3 at beginning, 3 at end)
Filler sentences: to prevent participants from guessing what we were testing
Trigger sentences: contained the independent variables
! fillers and triggers presented in randomized order in every questionnaire to avoid order effects

72. Experimental design, cont’d.
Independent variables: 2 kinds
type of experiencer: 2 levels
True vs. Agentive Experiencer
type of instigator: 3 levels
Subject, Object, Circumstance
! 12 verbs, 3 different token sets per verb to avoid lexical effects
Dependent variable: discourse coherence, measured on 5-point Likert-scale (-2 to 2)

75. Statistical evaluation
Data:
36 judgments for every factor level combination
every subject judged all 6 factor level combinations once
every subject got only one example from each token set
Data analyzed using both the Means Model (models means) and the Multinomial Model (models proportions)
No statistically significant contrasts:
speakers of Russian do not significantly prefer situations in which the circumstances are held responsible for need, opportunity etc. to do sth.

76. Discussion
Is there a difference in expectation pattern that this design does not show?
Different type of task?
Different type of measure?
Is there no difference in expectation pattern?
 evidence from a corpus (BNC/RNC)

77. Many thanks to
Stef Grondelaers (K.U.Leuven, Belgium), Christina Hellman (SU, Sweden) and Stefan Gries (UCSB, USA) for discussing the experimental set-up;
Masja Koptjevskaja (SU, Sweden) and Eleonora Magomedova (UNC, USA) for scrutinizing the experimental items;
Our 72 participants for filling out the questionnaires;
Chris Wiesen (UNC, USA) for statistical analysis.