The Semantics and Syntax of Russian Pronominal Structure: a feature breakdown 
C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD 
Janua Lingu~ Foundation 
Ancienne maison Million 
Vozerier-Amancy, 74800 par La Roche-sur-Foron 
(Haute-Savoie) Prance 
Abstract 
Elaborating one of the points of his Coling ~onn 
1986 paper, the author discusses prononfn~lity, 
which is due to a special semantic stratum, singula- 
tire identifieational deixis. Personal, reflexive 
and interrogative pronouns have additional trans- 
n\[issional deictic markings, but singulative identi- 
ficational pronominality alone has a direct anaphorie 
effect and tends to reinforce syntactically. This 
,explains, for instance, German sich selbst. 
i. In several publications of mine /van Schoo- 
ncveld 1982/, /idem forthcoming-A/, /idem forth- 
c~ning-C/ \]i have had occasion to mention in passing 
the specia\] nature of pronouns. Pronouns have their 
own type of deixis. 
2. Deixis is traditionally used for the type of 
meaning which results from the once-occurring speech 
act, Sauss~e' s parole, being recodified, that is, 
being incorporated back into the langue. In adverbs 
lJJ<e here \[~nd now the code refers to actual applica- 
tions o--o-f--J±self-?- We cannot identify the referent of 
here and now without taking recourse to our having 
T~-~tifie~-~he given speech act. 11~e speech act 
becomes a part of the narrated situation /Bru~nann 
1904/, /Lyons 1977, pp.638 sqq./. 
3. It is an empirical fact, however, that lan- 
guage can also indicate an identification act which 
takes place during the narrated situation. Thus we 
have to do in the preposition out with a space which 
l~s been identified (an in-spa~ and subsequent\].y 
discarded as irrelevant ~ the next identification, 
so that "out" is the resulting meaning. What is ira- 
portent he~. is that all identifications, subsequent 
ones as well as the first, may take place in the 
~m~ated situation, not necessarily during the speech 
(the transmission) act. 
Do we have to do with deixis in the case of 
identification in the narrated situation? l~%at de- 
pends on how we use the word deixis. If we under- 
stand by deixis the reincorporation of an identifi- 
cation, act into the code, that is, the prerogation, 
by the first identifier, of the identification of the 
referent, then we can speak of deixis also in the 
second case~ when the entire identification procedure 
takes place Jn the narrated situation alone. But 
that is not the way the term deixis has been used 
traditJo~\[\].ly by linguists. In the traditional con- 
ceptualiza'i:ion, deixis is of a tranmnissional nature. 
If~ however, we are. to use the term deixis for 
any recodJfication of the initial identification of 
the refer(u~t, including identifiuation in the narra- 
ted situation, "then we must distinguish between mere 
identificational deixis (in the narrated situation), 
and the traditional type of deixis, which I call 
tran~nissional deixis. In pronouns we have to do 
with a deixis of the identificational variety. 
4. Of both types of deixis, transmissional and 
identificational~ there exist two varieties: m\] 
uTmh~rked type and a singulative tqfpe /van Schoone- 
veld forth;oming-A/. In the singulative type~ all 
identifications take place at the same moment. Pro- 
nominal deixis is singulatively identificational. 
Singultative transmissional delxis gives rise to 
references to the process of the transmission, that 
is, the pzx~ess of pronunciation itself. It regu- 
lates~ for i\[~stance, the relation between grammatical 
morphemes (endings) and lexical morphemes. In singu- 
lative identificational deixis all identifications 
in the narrated situation must take place simultane- 
ously with the first one. 
5. It is obvious that singulative ~ansn\[issional 
deixis is the type of deixis which is at the basis of 
demonstrative pronouns. In "the framework of the de- 
mons±~ative pronouns our vantage point is that of an 
identifier operating within the narrated situation; 
in the personal pronom~s the speech si'ttmtion is 
involved at the same time. 
In the personal pronom%s, we have to do with a 
semm~tie mechanism more complex than that of the de- 
monstrative pronouns. The personal pronouns set up 
objects as being on a par with speaker and receiver, 
since they define these objects (referents) further 
in terms of the speech situation. In using the first 
person the speaker looks at his own image in the nfir- 
ror of the singulative r~rrated situation. Mutatis 
mutandis "the same happens in the second and third 
person. 
8. Pronouns in general are n~rked by singulative 
identificational plurality (plur"'). Singulative 
identificational plurality means that there is multi- 
ple synchronized identifiability of the referent. A 
singu\]ative (mini-)narrated situation is created. The 
referent of the demonstrative pronoun 'that' equals a 
(mini-)narrated situation. 
Personal pronouns are, being pronouns, marked by 
plur"' , but a further specification (subclassifica- 
tion) is done by transmissional semantic tea hines. 
7. At this point, I should mention t\]~t I have 
empirically concluded that Russian semantic values can 
be expressed in terms of six Semantic features which 
occur on each of the four deictic levels mentioned; 
i.~., by 24 semantic features. These features con- 
stitute an ordered set in that each succeeding teatime 
incorporates the information given by its predecessor 
/van Schooneveld 1983/, /idem forthcoming-C/. 
.P!urality, the first feat\[~e, instructs the 
recelver to perform more tl~nn one identification on 
one object or to identify more than one object. 
DimensJ~nality singles out from a plurality of identi- 
fications a subset which is distinct from its peers. 
Preidentity indicates that the first identification 
must be assumed to have been performed earlier than 
other identifications in the narrated or speech situ- 
ation. Extension reidentifies an identified element 
and impl~elative unaffectedness by the identi- 
fication situation; cancellation signalizes the com- 
plement of an originally identified set, and objec~ 
tiveness indicates that the referent can be at any 
frcm the element initially identified. 
• II! 8. The third person is, additlonally to plur , 
marked by transmissional plurality (plu~"). In the 
pronouns, plur" creates a reference in the speech 
situation which must not necessarily be identified 
with the speaker or the receiver but can be repeatedly 
(i.e. a multiple of times) identified. 
The second' person is, additionally to plur"' , 
n~rked by (non-singul~tive) transmissionS, dimension- 
ality (dim"). Dim" says that there is a subset of 
elements in the speech situation which have a property 
in common. What else constitutes a more conspicuous 
subset of actants in the speech situation than those 
who actively participate in it? The second person 
indicates the direct participant in the speech situa- 
705 
tion. 
The first person is, in addition to plur"' , 
marked by (non-singulative) transmissional preiden- 
tity (preid"). The identity of the referent (the 
speaker or the central actant in the speech situa- 
tion) has been established befomehand by an aetant 
(participant) in the speech situation: the speaker 
himself. 
The next feature in the hierarchy of semantic 
features is extension. Extension signifies that the 
referent has already been identified and hence is 
minimally independently characterized by this 
(repeat) identification. It is obvious that the 
reflexive pronoun is nothing else but the variety 
of personal pronoun that is marked by (non-singula- 
tive) ±~ansmissional extension (ext"). Its referent 
has already made an appearance in the speech situ- 
ation. 
Is there a personal pronoun marked by (non- 
singulative) tr~smissional cancellation? It would 
signify an object which in the speech situation 
would not be immediately identifiable. It is evident 
that the indefinite/interrogative pronoun kto 'who' 
~to 'what' is the personal pronou/~ marked b--y--cane". 
-- 9. SJ~gulative identifieational 
(plur"') means a multiple synchronized identifiability 
which is valid only during the synchronized identi- 
fications. The demonstrative pronoun that is marked 
by plur"' . One of its eombinatory varl~-~n-~s is 
anaphora. As Lyons has eoncluded~ anaphora is but 
a eombinatory variant of the ostensive signification 
of pronominality /Lyons 1977, pp.657 sqq./. Anaphora 
is per definitionem contextually conditioned. 
Pronominal dimensionalit\[ (singulative identifi- 
cational dJ~ensionality \[dim" '3) will mean that the 
anaphor is seen as distinct frcm its background. One 
might say the full extend of the referent up to its 
outlines becomes crucial. The pronominal adjective 
all conveys this meaning. 
-- Pronominal preidentity will mean that with 
regard to a given narrated situation and its compo- 
nents the referent will be once-oecuringly unexpected; 
evidently it is the pronominal adjective other that 
carries singulative identificational prei~6~-~ty 
(preid"'). 
Singulative identificational extension (ext"') 
will mean that the referent has alr~n identi- 
fied and is, in synchronization with this original 
identification, reidentifiable an indefinite number 
of times. The referent is indefinitely reidentifi- 
able. The pronominal self (Russian sam \[long form 
s~--~S' German selbst)~-i~ marked bye"' . 
ingu lat iv e i--- l"-~6-nt if teat tonal cancellation 
(cane"') will mean that at a moment preceding a once- 
occurring nax~ative situation, there has been an iden- 
tification of a referent but this referent is in the 
time period synchronized with this identification no 
longer available for identification. In English, the 
pronominal which, Russian ~, indicating the 
identifier'~apability of identifying the referent 
directly, is used either in appeals for elucidation 
(that is, in questions, as an interrogative pronoun), 
or anaphorically, that is, as a relative pronoun. In 
German~ the eorresponding welch can in addition be 
used as an indefinite pronoun. ~ which and 
Welch Work off the naxe~ted situation, w~s the 
pe~nal) interrogative/indefinite pronouns kto/~to, 
which/what and wer/was work off the speech Situatl-~0-n. 
bb-~tivene--s~ ~-dicates a referent which is 
identifiable at random. In the pronominal category~ 
the pronoun any is marked by obj"' . 
i0. In conclusion, a few words on the interre- 
lation between semantic structure and syntax. 
The interrogative pronominal ~, whieh~ 
welch (marking: cane"") that is a contextua vv~iant 
of the relative pronoun refers to an already identi- 
fied narrated situation, as it should do given the 
general properties of the eaneellation feature. This 
pronominal is essentially coreferential. Thus 
Russian kotor~ 'which' means 'which member(s) of an 
already ~ven set' and ~hglish which itself also im- 
plies membership in a set alread-~-i~entified; the 
claim of some granmars That which implies a choice 
between two items is obviously based on the most 
frequent Jnstantiation of its interrogative usage. 
German welch used as indefinite pronoun also is core- 
ferentia-~. In Ich babe kein Geld. Has du welches? 
'I have no money. Do you have some?' welches can 
refer only to money~ whereas w~_~s 'whatm--Crs--omething ' ) 
is inappropriate. In contrast to the singulatively 
identificational pronominals discussed in section 9, 
personal pronouns (see under 8) are not coreferential. 
For instance, in Russian, the specifically interroga- 
tive (personal) pronouns kto 'who' and ~to 'what' 
(plur"' + cane") are not c--6~eferential e-x~ept in a 
few explainable cases (e.g. vse kto 'all who'). 
Coreferentiality also occurs mn the (singula- 
tively identificational) pronominal expression marked 
by ext"', in Russian the short foz~n adjective sam, 
long (adjectival) form s~f~ in English self ~-d in 
German selbst. The Russ--lan--reflexive (p~-{o~ml) 
pronoun s-~, latin se, German sieh is merely the 
personal-~-noun mark~ by plu~"~--i--ext '' (see above 
under 8). It is the pronoun with minimal referenti- 
ality and hence maximal coreferentiality, seen direct-. 
ly from the speech situation as orientation point. 
The reflexive (personal) pronoun reminds the audience 
of the existence of a person in an exclusive narrated 
situation (plur"') and says that this referent is no- 
thing new in the speech situation -- it is not a 
person mentioned for the first time. The reflexive 
pronominal adjective discussed in 9: Russian sam, 
English self, latin i_2s_e, G~rman selbst~ on the other 
hand, whle~h--is marked by singulatlve ld~----~entificational 
extension (ext"'), does not create the illusion of an 
individual, but merely signalizes the quality of 
introvertivity. It signalizes coreferentiality limi- 
ting its range of reference strictly to stay within 
the confines of the given narrated situation. Ob- 
viously the referent of the reflexive pronoun is the 
likely carrier of this introvertivity. Thus arise 
in various languages expressions which are emphatic 
parallels to the reflexive pronoun: Russian 
~ German sieh selbst. Singulative identifiea- 
tlonal deixis ~ ~econd layer of anaphora. 
Incidentally, singulative identificational deixis can 
be shown also to provide the struetural basis of the 
system of number words ~ like two, three and so on~ 
which are, again, typically ~-~ho~ /van Schoone- 
veld for%hccming-B/. 
The conclusion suggests itself that for a des- 
cription of syntactic relations involving pronouns 
singulatively identifieational features are a crucial 
and effective tool. 
706 
Russ. Engl. 
The cardinal structure of Russian told English pronouns and p~oncminals 
adjec- substan- 
tive tire plur"' dim"' preid'" ext"' eanc"' obj'" plur" dim" preid" ext" cane" (obj") 
tot t~mi: + + 
yes ' all + 
inoj other + 
s~n(yj ) self + 
kot o~ which + 
any + + 
on he + + 
ty you + + 
ja I + + 
sebja Ge~mm + + 
sieh 
\]<to who + + 
+ 
+ 

References 

Brugmann, K. (1904) In: Abhandlungen der s~chsischen 
Gesellsohlft der Wissenschaften 22, 

Lyons~ J. (i\[977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge 
Univel~si t y Press. 

van Schooneveld C. H. 
(1982) 'The Extension Feature in Russian. ' In: 
'Slavic Linguistics and Poetics: Studies for 
Edward St,m-~Liewicz on his 60th Birthday 17 November 
1080', International Journal of Slavic Linguistics 
and Poetics XXV/XXVI. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 
pp.445-457. 

van Schooneveld C. H. 
(1983) 'Contribution to the Systematic Comparison 
of Morphological and Lexical Semantic Structures 
in the Slavic Languages.' In: American Contribu- 
tions to the Ninth International Congress of 
Slavists, Kiev, September 1983 I. Columbus, Ohio: 
Slaviea, pp.327-332. 

van Schooneveld C. H. 
(forthcoming-A) tPraguean S tr~eture and Auto- 
poiesis: Deixis as Individuation.' In: New Vistas 
in Grarm~c: Proceedings of the First International 
Roman Jakobson Confemenee~ section 10, New York, 
October 11985. To be published with Benjamins~ 
Amsterd~n. 

van Schooneveld C. H. 
(forthcoming-B) 'On the Semantic Structure of 
Numerals in Modern Russian.' 

van Schooneveld C. H. 
(forthcoming-C) 'A Sign-theoretical Model of 
Semantic Structure in Language.' COLTNG 1986. 
