Regarding the issue of the long and short forms of adjectives in the Russian language and the challenges of learning this aspect
Author: Irina Aliyeva, University of Siena
Abstract
The study of long and short forms of adjectives in the Russian language by scholars like Babby, Borik, Geist, Bikina, and Martin addresses the complexities in their perception of contemporary Russian. It expands on traditional questions about the role of adjectives in the Russian language and their forms, drawing on foundational works by Yu. Shvedova and Vinogradov. Babby's analysis highlights differences through syntactic connections, while Borik explores the syntactic and semantic properties of these forms to better understand their behavior in sentence structures. Meanwhile, Geist and Bikina with Martin delve deep into syntax and semantics, revealing the complex nature of adjectives and their interplay with context. These studies uncover the intricacies of adjectives in the Russian language, raising more questions about their nature and functioning. The article consists of the three parts, which iclude the methodological problem of teaching short and long forms of adjectives, theoretical aspect of the linguistical issue, and conclusion with possible direction of further research.
Introduction to long and short form adjectives in language learning
At the TRKI-1, at the B1 level (Andryushina et al.), it is assumed that students studying the Russian language are already familiar with an extensive list of both long- and short-form of adjectives. At this stage of learning, it is assumed that students have an understanding of how adjectives function and what their role is in a sentence, including their use as determiners or predicates. It is expected that they can correctly coordinate the long and short forms of adjectives with nouns (Arzamastseva).
Traditionally, when studying the grammatical topic of long and short forms of adjectives, it is considered important for foreigners to pay attention to the differences between these forms, which can be significant. Chukhanova (Chukhanova, 2021) highlights the following aspects influencing the differentiation of adjective forms:
Semantic aspect:
“Rebënok očenʹ živoj(LF)” (active, full of energy) and “Sosed eščë živ (SF)” (still alive).
The character of the denoted feature (temporality):
“Ego podruga bolʹnaja (LF)” (permanent feature) and “Ego podruga bolʹna (SF)” (temporary feature).
The tonality of the feature (categoricity):
“On smelyj (LF)” (LF) (non-categorical) – “On smel (SF)” (categorical).
Functional-stylistic fixation:
Short adjectives are usually used in written style, while long-forms are used in spoken style (Chukhanova, 2021).
In the "Practical Course of Russian for Foreign Students at Advanced Levels" (Lariokhina, 1997), the following "rules" or "recommendations" on using short forms of adjectives can be found:
In the presence of a grammatical subject expressed by pronouns such as “èto” (this), “vsë” (all) and “odno” (one) as in the example: “Vsë zdesʹ krasivo (SF)” (Everything is beautiful here).
In situations where the subject is accompanied by dependent words or when expressing the degree of the feature with adverbs such as "absoljutno" (absolutely), "črezvyčajno" (extremely), "krajne" (extremely) "soveršenno" (completely) and others.
In expressing wishes, especially if addressed to the second person and expressed in a polite form, for example: "Budʹte zdorovy (SF) i sčastlivy (SF)" (Be healthy and happy).
When the adjective is at the beginning of a sentence to add expressiveness to the statement, as in the phrase: "Raznoobrazen (SF) mir ego interesov!" (The world of his interests is diverse!).
When using intensifying particles "tak" (so) or "kak" (as) in combination with an adjective, as in the sentence: "Reka tak široka (SF), čto drugogo berega ne vidno" (The river is so wide that you can't see the other bank) (Lariokhina, 1997).
Despite existing recommendations on using short forms of adjectives, students often face difficulty in correlating the long and short forms. As Mkrtchyan (Mkrtchyan, 2018) notes, the question of using short and long forms of adjectives, which has a long history, remains open. Native Russian speakers, for the most part, choose between the short and long forms without thinking or consider these forms as interchangeable synonyms (Mkrtchyan, 2018).
Linguists approach the solution to this problem from different perspectives. For example, in the classic work by Shvedova (Shvedova, 1980) on adjectives, a key observation is made that the lexical meaning of adjectives, expressing a feature constantly inherent to the object, can be perceived without a rigid grammatical and semantic parallel between long forms and temporary features. This observation opened up prospects for a more flexible understanding of temporality in the predicative use of long forms of adjectives in the Russian language.
In the work "Russian Language: Grammatical Study of the Word", Vinogradov (Vinogradov, 1986) analyzes situations in which the short form of an adjective is separated from the long form, giving as an example case where the lexical integrity of the adjective is violated, which previously united both forms: on bolʹnoj (LF) (he is permanently sick) — on bolen (SF) (he is temporary sick); on živoj (LF) (he is energetic) — on živ (SF) (he is alive). Kotov continues this thought in his work: in some adjectives, the semantic component of "constancy - inconstancy of the feature" is absent, and various explicators (nouns to which the adjective relates or context) influence the meaning of the adjective (Kotov, 2014).
Theoretical approaches to long and short form adjectives
Linguists pay close attention to each aspect of the language when considering the short and long forms of adjectives. For example, Babby in his work (Babby, 2010) examines the phenomenon of long and short forms through the perspective of syntactic relationships in a sentence. The author notes that long forms of adjectives are used in attributive positions, agreeing with the noun, while short adjectives are used in predicative positions, thus serving as a separate predicative group. This position stems from the previous works of linguists, and the study adds novelty by emphasizing a fundamental difference in the properties of argument structure (Babby, Leonard H., 2010). The difference between long and short forms is that short forms choose their argument (acting as a predicative group), while long forms do not.
Continuing the line of thought set by predecessors, Borik (Borik, 2014) focuses on the structure of adjective arguments. The analysis of corpus data leads Borik to assert that short and long forms of adjectives demonstrate different argument structures. Being a full adjective, the long form has several features such as declension for case, number, and gender (endings), and it typically appears in a prenominal position. The short form of the adjective, used only in the verbal group, does not decline. The short form of the adjective resembles a verb in certain respects but does not inherently carry grammatical features such as the «absolute» tense (present, future, past tenses such as verbs do). The short form of the adjective is compared to stative verbs. All short forms are formed by combining a particular verbal structure with the SF head. However, unlike verbs, they do not possess the essential temporal features required for them to shift to TP and indicate absolute tense (Borik, 2014).
Geist (Geist, 2010), in addition to analyzing syntactic structures, conducts a semantic analysis of short and long forms of adjectives. She notes that the assumption of temporality (permanent feature / temporary feature) holds only for a certain group of adjectives and cannot explain the overall difference between the two forms (Geist, 2010). According to Geist, short adjectives in the Russian language have a structure similar to stative verbs (Geist, 2010). This structure includes a referential argument (part of the sentence that points to a specific object or state) and provides the basis for the primary assertion. In contrast, the long form does not include a referential argument and is used in secondary predication (describing a property) (Geist, 2010). This leads to the researcher's conclusion: the semantic nature of long and short adjectives differs significantly, as short adjectives describe states (which, in ontological terms, equates to events characteristic of predicates), while long forms of adjectives define properties. Long forms of adjectives are similar to nouns in many respects, but they differ from nouns in one crucial aspect: long forms of adjectives are semantically restrictive modifiers. Thus, they cannot occur in argument positions, according to Geist (Geist, 2010).
In one of the latest studies on adjectives, in the presentation by Bikina and Martin (Martin, Bikina, 2021), dedicated to the complex nature of adjectives in the Russian language, the analysis is also conducted at both syntactic and semantic levels. The authors propose the idea of the so-called complex ambiguity (indefiniteness) of adjectives, regardless of their form and syntactic environment (Martin, Bikina, 2021). Let's focus on one example provided in the study. In the phrase "Sonja — krasivaja (LF) tancovščica" (Sonya is a beautiful dancer), according to the authors, three interpretations can be found:
1. Sonya is a dancer and is physically beautiful. (Universal picture)
2. Sonya dances beautifully. (Evaluation of the event, action)
3. Sonya is physically beautiful for a dancer. (Related to the evaluation scale)
Analyzing this sentence, the authors provide probabilistic interpretations of the same form. The adjective 'beautiful' can have different readings. In the first case, it is understood as an intersective modifier (Sonya is a dancer and Sonya is beautiful). It can also be interpreted as a non-intersective modifier, where 'beautiful' refers to the dance (i.e., Sonya's dance is beautiful). Here is also second interpretation appears: among others dancers, Sonya is physically beautiful.
Having indicated the breadth of interpretation, the authors move on to the experimental part of their study. Martin and Bikina give as an example the adjective “good”, which, depending on whether the form of the adjective is short or long, has a different reading. In their study, the authors present two different scenarios and then ask respondents to choose one or another form of the adjective (the experience is summarized below, translation is author-provided) (Martin, Bikina, 2021):
Non-intersecting scenario is based on the high thiefing experience of the person, who is morally terrible.
Second scenario does not include any specific crime experience, but highlights the idea of morality of the person who uses stolen money for the good purposes.
(Martin, Bikina, 2021).
Authors of the study underline feasible patterns (perhaps, hypothetically) of choosing one or another form is determined by: only non-intersective (good at thieving); only intersective (morally good); only non-intersective (good at thieving) (Martin, Birina, 2021).
In addition to those given in this review, other adjectives were considered in the authors experiment (such as umnyj ‘intelligent’;bystryj ‘fast’; znamenityj ‘famous’).
The results reveal a broad variation across adjectives, which can be found in the cited research of Marin and Bikina. However, the interpretation of some adjectives is influenced by their syntactic position, while for others, the morphological aspect (short or long form) combined with syntactic position is crucial in determining their meaning. It cannot be said that in a specific case, the short or long form alone (without any additional factors) would be decisive for the further interpretation of the sentence (Martin, Bikina, 2021).
We can only speculate that the phenomenon presented and described here is not purely syntactic or semantic but represents a complex set of factors influencing the choice of long or short forms by native speakers.
Conclusion and future research directions
The proposed interpretations of the source of this linguistic problem turn out to be difficult to access for students of the Russian language. A comparative method is expected, with multiple examples of the use of the short or long form so that the student can understand the pattern that determines the use of the long or short form. In the practice of teaching Russian, it seems best to concentrate on the most commonly used forms (for example, in sentences such as “He is sick” or “He is sick”, which was given earlier in this work). Despite the criticism of the traditional distinction between the long and short form, it is still the most accessible from the point of view of the methodology of presenting the material (there is specificity in the method of choosing the form: for example, temporality or permanence of the attribute; specificity or generality). It also seems that the position of the adjective in a sentence plays a larger role in reading than simply its form, but this is only an early guess that requires a deeper and more thoughtful dive into the problem.
In further study of the problem, a diachronic method of analysis is assumed, a comparative analysis with other Slavic languages, where long and short forms are also present (South Slavic languages). This direction is pushed by the statement of Plungyan: “The complexity of the situation in the modern Russian language is due to the fact that in the predicative position in most cases long forms are freely used, but the subtle semantic opposition that arises is still difficult to describe” (Plungyanб 2011). Thus, it seems that stopping only at the description of the phenomenon at the present stage will be one-sided.
References:
· Andryushina, N. P., et al. (2009). Requirements for Russian as a foreign language: First level. General proficiency (2nd ed.). Zlatoust.
· Arzamastseva, N. Yu. (n.d.). Title of the article. Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/imya-prilagatelnoe-v-sisteme-obucheniya-russkomu-yazyku-kak-inostrannomu/viewer
· Babby, L. H. (2010). The syntactic differences between long and short forms of Russian adjectives. In P. Cabredo-Hofherr & O. Matushansky (Eds.), Adjectives: Formal analyses in syntax and semantics (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 153, pp. 53-84). John Benjamins.
· Borik, O. (2014). The argument structure of long and short-form adjectives and participles in Russian. Lingua, 149, 139-165.
· Chukhanova, A. V. (2021). Adjectives in the system of linguistic training of foreign philology students: linguistic and methodological aspect. Vestsi BSDPU. Series 1, 2, 87–91. Retrieved from https://elib.bspu.by/bitstream/doc/52351/1/2021_1_2_0087-0091.pdf
· Geist, L. (2010). The argument structure of predicate adjectives in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 34(3), 239–260. doi:10.1007/s11185-010-9064-5
· Kotov, A. A. (2014). Semantic contrast of full and short predicative adjectives in the Russian language. Scientific notes of Orel State University, 5(61), 235-242.
· Lariokhina, N. M. (1997). Practical course of the Russian language for foreign students. Philological Faculty of Moscow State University.
· Martin, J., & Bikina, D. (2021, May 15). Intersectivity at the interface: the syntax and semantics of Russian adjectives. Presentation at FASL 30, MIT. Retrieved from https://dariabikina.github.io/files/MartinBikina_2021_RussianAdjectives.pdf
· Mkrtchyan, S. V. (2018). Semantics of long and short forms of adjectives in the predicative function. Vestnik Tver State University. Series "Philology," 2, 111–117. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/162003976.pdf
· Plungyan, V. A. (2011). Vvedenie v grammaticheskuyu semantiku: grammaticheskie znacheniya i grammaticheskie sistemy yazykov mira. Moscow: RGGU.
· Shvedova, N. Yu. (Ed.). (1980). Russian Grammar: Vol. 2. Syntax (E. A. Bryzgunova, K. V. Gabuchan, V. A. Tsikovich, et al.). Nauka.
· Vinogradov, V. V. (1986). Russian language: Grammatical study of the word (3rd ed.). Higher School.