Papers by Alexander Letuchiy
Rhema 4. 101-116. 2022., 2022
The article focuses on a specific restriction on the use of Russian past passive forms with an au... more The article focuses on a specific restriction on the use of Russian past passive forms with an auxiliary (byl postroen 'was built', byla svarena 'was cooked') in embedded clauses. These forms are known to differ from forms without an auxiliary (postroen 'is/was built', svarena 'is/was cooked') by the absence of resultative meaning component. However, it turns out that other restrictions exist: forms with byt' in embedded clauses disfavor irreality and repeatedness contexts. I explain this saying that in general, forms with an explicit for of byt' prefer to be used when the situation has taken place in reality (this generalization also excludes repeated action contexts, because they do not refer to a specific realized situation). I make a preliminary conclusion that this generalization also manifests itself in independent clauses. No reality-based restrictions are valid for passive forms without auxiliary.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Rhema, 4, 2022. 101-116., 2022
The article focuses on a specific restriction on the use of Russian past passive forms with an au... more The article focuses on a specific restriction on the use of Russian past passive forms with an auxiliary (byl postroen 'was built', byla svarena 'was cooked') in embedded clauses. These forms are known to differ from forms without an auxiliary (postroen 'is/was built', svarena 'is/was cooked') by the absence of resultative meaning component. However, it turns out that other restrictions exist: forms with byt' in embedded clauses disfavor irreality and repeatedness contexts. I explain this saying that in general, forms with an explicit for of byt' prefer to be used when the situation has taken place in reality (this generalization also excludes repeated action contexts, because they do not refer to a specific realized situation). I make a preliminary conclusion that this generalization also manifests itself in independent clauses. No reality-based restrictions are valid for passive forms without auxiliary.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Linguistics, 2013
ABSTRACT
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2022. № 76. С. 105–147., 2022
Рассматривается роль в русской системе частей речи предикативов (слов категории состояния), таких... more Рассматривается роль в русской системе частей речи предикативов (слов категории состояния), таких как «уютно» («Мне здесь уютно»), «холодно» («На улице стоять холодно»), «неприятно» («Неприятно, что никто меня не поздравил!») и т.д. В итоге сделан вывод, что предикативы в языковой системе выступают во многом как аналог наречий в предикатной позиции. Однако предикативы сильно различаются и по функции, и по синтаксическим свойствам: часть из них имеют сентенциальное подлежащее, часть безличны.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Russkaja rech. 2021. Vol. 2. Pp. 20-34., 2021
The article focuses on non-standard constructions with Russian reflexive
verbs like "myt’sja" ‘w... more The article focuses on non-standard constructions with Russian reflexive
verbs like "myt’sja" ‘wash (oneself)’, "brit’sja" ‘shave (oneself)’, "pričesyvat’sja"
‘comb (oneself)’, and so on. In colloquial and internet speech, Russian reflexive verbs are sometimes used in a way impossible in literary speech. While the behavior of modifiers like "ves’" does not conflict with the literary norm, it is not the case with constructions with prepositions "krome" ‘except’ and "vključaja" ‘including’ and, in particular, accusative NPs — they represent highly colloquial phenomena.
The constructions under analysis shed light both on the grammatical properties of reflexives and their functioning in speech. From the discourse perspective, our data shows that sometimes native speakers are not satisfied with the lack of the explicit patient (e.g., a body part) and find a way to mark them (either with an accusative NP or, less explicitly, with a construction with "krome and "vključaja"). Even when this explicit marking contradicts the argument structure of reflexives, they are incorporated into the clause structure. Syntactically and semantically, our data shows that the subject argument of reflexives combines the properties of an agent and a patient. It combines two participants of the base transitive verb, e.g., "Vasja moet čašku" ‘Vasja is washing the cup.’
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Komp'juternaja lingvistika i intellektual'nye texnologii
The talk focuses on syntactic and semantico-syntactic properties of imperative forms in Russian, ... more The talk focuses on syntactic and semantico-syntactic properties of imperative forms in Russian, used as a main predicate in the complex clause. The main question is whether the special discourse and semantic properties interact with their syntax. Another problem, related to the first one, is whether the nonstandard imperative properties are inherited not only by the whole clause headed by the imperative, but also by the embedded clause. The answer proposed in the article is positive, but the relations between imperative and the properties of the embedded clause are not uniform and not always direct.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Russian Grammar: System – Usus – Variation. Vladislava Warditz (ed.). Berlin: Peter Lang, 2021. 399-411., 2021
This article focuses on the problem of 'non-canonical coordination' in Russian: coordinate constr... more This article focuses on the problem of 'non-canonical coordination' in Russian: coordinate constructions where the two conjuncts differ in their grammatical properties or parts of speech, namely, coordination of a positive degree form of adjective in one part, and a comparative form in the other part. The paper demonstrates that non-structural factors must be considered. Several factors were distinguished: relative weight of conjuncts, grammatical conflict, the type of modifier (standard adverbial vs. the marker bolee), etc. The factor of grammatical conflict is the most important: it turned out that constructions with one-word parts are judged the worst by native speakers. The reason is that when each conjunct contains only one word, the native speaker notes the conflict of degree forms. Constructions where one conjunct contains an adjective and the other one an adverbial or a PP are often better than coordination of different degree forms. The reason is that PPs and adverbials do not have the category of case at all, and no conflict occurs.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Proceedings of the International Conference “Dialogue 2020”, 2020
The paper adresses parallels between tense, aspect and modality marking in Russian embedded claus... more The paper adresses parallels between tense, aspect and modality marking in Russian embedded clauses. It is widely known that tense forms
of embedded verbs can be interpreted relatively or absolutely, and in some
cases, the relative and absolute use seem to be in free variation. It turns out
that the interpretation of modality and aspect can be described along the
same lines and classified into the relative and absolute uses. For instance,
subjunctive mood—one of the main instruments of irreality marking—can
be interpreted as less real than the main event (relative interpretation)
or less real than the moment of speech (and to the same degree as the main
event; absolute interpretation). Similarly, aspect forms, depending on their
interpretation, can describe the structure of the situation compared to the
speech act or to the main event. I show that the parallelism between the
three categories is not full: for instance, relative modality is mainly observed
in triclausal constructions. Modality interpretation is sensitive to the opposition of clausal adjuncts vs. relative clauses. For the aspect interpretation,
the contrast between finite forms and infinitive is relevant: infinitive allows
for relative use of perfective aspect use much easier than finite forms. Finally, interpretations of the three categories are related to each other. For
example, in complement clauses, the relative interpretation is perfectly acceptable for all the three categories.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Clausal complements of certain nominalizations in Bulgarian: Relevant parameters. In B. Wiemer, B. Sonnenhauser (eds.). Complementation in South Slavic. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 160-210., 2021
In this paper, the distribution of complement clauses with some nominalizations (deverbal and dea... more In this paper, the distribution of complement clauses with some nominalizations (deverbal and deadjectival nouns) in Bulgarian is considered. The central question is which factors influence the (in)ability of the derived noun to host a complement clause with which the base verb was compatible. Although the behavior of complement clauses is predicted by some semantic parameters, their distribution cannot be reduced to syntactic or actional classes, as in Grimshaw's (1990) account. In fact, the distribution of complement clauses with nouns in Bulgarian is regulated by several features: (i) real (non-prospective) vs. irreal (prospective) semantics of the embedded clause; (ii) the modifier / argument status of the 'complement' clause; (iii) semantic role characteristics; (iv) the opposition of generalized names of situations (generic situations) vs. names of single occurrences; (v) Grimshaw's nominalization types (actional classes). The main parameter seems to be the opposition of generic situation vs. occurrence, which takes into account both actional classes and semantic roles. I also consider two other parameters that can also be relevant for the (im)possibility of complement clauses but are not elaborated on in detail, since their relevance is questionable: namely, (vi) the syntactic position of the complement clause and (vii) the opposition of the complementizers da vs. če. An additional problem considered in the article is the distribution of the indefinite vs. definite forms of head nouns in constructions with complement clauses. The general conclusion is that the distribution of noun complement clauses is highly affected by semantic and lexical factors and that it cannot be accounted for by a single factor.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
SSRN Electronic Journal
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Труды Института русского языка (Proceedings of Russian Language Institute), 2019
The article focuses on Russian constructions where the case of an NP is not acquired from the syn... more The article focuses on Russian constructions where the case of an NP is not acquired from the syntactic head. This phenomenon is characteristic, first of all, for comparative constructions with kak (Mozhet, mne, kak Vase, uexat’ v derevnju? ‘Maybe, I, like Vasja, should go to the village?’) and for constructiosn with comparative degree and the marker čem (Mne nado est’ bol’še, čem drugim). The experiment described in the work shows that mainly dative forms are copied, but genitive doubling is also possible. In dative constructions, the dative expresses PRO of the infinitive clause and / or an argument of the modal predicate. The possibility of this non-structural marking results from several reasons: the nature of comparatives, which are intermediate between coordination and subordination; the possibility of avoid a non-canonical linear position of the standard of comparison (for constructions with the marker kak i). Constructions where non-finite verb forms are copied are organized similarly to case copying constructions. Finally, Russian has constructions outside the comparison domain where the form of two constituents must be identical, though only one of them acquires this form by means of canonical head-dependent relations. We also argue that the non-structural case assignment does not result from coordinate properties of comparative constructions. it is motivated by a rule not related to the head-dependent relations, the rule that can be called ‘syntactic doubling / copying’ and can be explained by the semantic symmetry between the object and the standard of comparison.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In the article, I describe cases of special behavior of Russian phrases with quantifiers like nes... more In the article, I describe cases of special behavior of Russian phrases with quantifiers like neskol'ko 'some', mnogo 'many, much' and small numerals like dva 'two'. I show that they can occur in the subject position in contexts that usually do not contain a canonical DP/NP subject (constructions with the verb xvatat' 'be enough', negation contexts with the verb byt' 'be' and its habitual / iterative correlate byvat'), and for neskol'ko-like quantifiers, the direct object position with intransitive predicates like na-…-sja circumfixed verbs is also available. The reason of non-canonical subject behavior is the possibility to be subjects without controlling plural verbal agreement, while the non-canonical direct object behavior is possible because neskol'ko-like quantifiers lack the category of case.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
В настоящей статье рассматривается вопрос о подъеме аргумента (англ. argument
raising) в русском ... more В настоящей статье рассматривается вопрос о подъеме аргумента (англ. argument
raising) в русском языке. Хотя русский язык не относится к типичным «языкам с подъемом», как,
например, английский, есть явления, по ряду признаков напоминающие подъем. Это конструкции, где некоторый элемент, на поверхности принадлежащий к главному предложению, получает разумную интерпретацию (например, в терминах сферы действия или семантической роли)
лишь в том случае, если мы считаем, что порождается он в придаточном предложении. Наш анализ во многом использует методы и данные предыдущих работ, посвященных той или иной конкретной конструкции. Однако отличие нашей работы заключается в первую очередь в том, что
для нас центральным критерием подъема будет критерий поведения местоимений: сферы действия неопределенных и отрицательных местоимений в главной клаузе и возможности прономинализации подчиненной клаузы с помощью местоимения это.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Typology of Morphosyntactic parameters, 2018
The article focuses on complement clauses of nominalizations (deverbal
and deadjectival nouns) in... more The article focuses on complement clauses of nominalizations (deverbal
and deadjectival nouns) in Russian. It is proposed that several parameters,
such as semantic role, the opposition of proper argument vs. modifier, the
opposition of complex event vs. result nominals are necessary to account for
the distribution of nouns that take vs. do not take complement clauses, and
neither of them accounts for the whole distribution. In the end I propose a
new parameter, namely, the opposition of situation proper vs. occurrence
that, perhaps, can cover the widest range of nouns and their properties.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In the article, asymmetries between the use of the 'inanimate' interrogative pronoun "chto" 'what... more In the article, asymmetries between the use of the 'inanimate' interrogative pronoun "chto" 'what' and the 'animate' "kto" 'who' are addressed. I show that in some constructions, e.g., in questions about the antecedent of the anaphoric pronouns, such as "kogo ego" 'who "him?"', the pronoun "chto" fails to be used for an inanimate antecedent. The reason is that "chto" is grammatically inanimate (its accusative form is the same as in the nominative), while the anaphoric pronoun "on" is grammatically animate (its accusative is distinct from the nominative). The conclusion is that a sort of animacy agreement shows up in constructions like this.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Under revision to "Voprosy jazykoznanija"
Our paper focuses on Russian constructions like "Mne pokazalos’ strannym, čto Fedja ne priexal" ‘... more Our paper focuses on Russian constructions like "Mne pokazalos’ strannym, čto Fedja ne priexal" ‘It seemed me strange that Fedja did not come’. More precisely, we consider syntactic properties of the instrumental case form stranny, analyze its argument structure and address the question of its part of speech characteristics. As shown below, this unit combines properties of predicatives like "stranno" (it is compatible with an argument clause, which is not characteristic of full forms of adjectives) and those of adjectives like "strannyj" (it is marked for instrumental case, while predicatives are usually considered to lack case distinctions). I claim that a possible solution that allows to explain these mixed properties is to describe a semi-auxiliary like "pokazat’sja" ‘seem’ + an instrumental case form as a single syntactic unit (the fact that the instrumental form disfavors separation from the matrix verb and contexts where the verb is elided seem to confirm this analysis). At the same time, alternative ways of analysis are also considered.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Katarzyna Janic & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Antipassive: Typology, Diachrony, and Related Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 130]. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2021, pp. 483–514.
The article focuses on antipassive formation in Adyghe and Kabardian (Circassian < West Caucasian... more The article focuses on antipassive formation in Adyghe and Kabardian (Circassian < West Caucasian), polysynthetic languages with ergative alignment of basic morphosyntax. The Circassian antipassive is typologically unusual in that it is derived not only from transitive, but also from intransitive verbs: in these cases, it eliminates the indirect object. Thus, antipassive in Circassian targets an object argument, but not necessarily the direct object, contradicting the general ergative patterning. Second, the Circassian antipassive is expressed by the change of the root-final vowel, which complicates the determination of the direction of the valency change. Third, although the Circassian antipassive mainly fulfils the semantic functions typologically associated with antipassives, sometimes the syntactic type of the argument (i.e. nominal vs. clause) is relevant for the choice of the valency frame as well.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In this article, I consider Russian triclausal constructions (complex sentences including three c... more In this article, I consider Russian triclausal constructions (complex sentences including three clauses, one main and two dependent). More specifically, I analyze constructions where C1 (the main clause) embeds C2 (an embedded clause), while C2 in turn embeds C3. In the paper, I mainly concentrate on sentences where C2 is a clause with an unreal meaning, for instance, an argument clause hosted by the verb xotet' 'want', and C3 is an adjunct (temporal) clause. I pose the following questions: 1. How is tense assignment in C3 organized? Is it fully described by the rules of tense assignment that apply to biclausal structures? The answer is that tense assignment in C3 varies significantly from one sentence to another: for instance, in C3 the tense can be interpreted with respect to the event in C2, which is atypical for Russian adjunct clauses. Moreover, in many cases all three of the existing variants (tense marking anchored to the moment of speech, to the event in C1, or to the event in C2) can be used. 2. Are there any syntactic phenomena that are typical for triclausal structures? I claim that there is a special phenomenon, which can be called " syntactic doubling " or " copying, " whereby the verb form in C2 influences the form in C3. Importantly, the situation cannot be described in terms of classical form assignment, where the verb in C2 requires a particular form in C3: rather, the syntactic pattern of the verb in C2 allows different forms to be used in C3, the only requirement being that the forms in C3 and C2 are identical. Sometimes a version of doubling is also observed in biclausal structures, but only one of the types of doubling described here (doubling in argument clauses) can be found in biclausal constructions. Another phenomenon specific to triclausal structures is represented by structures where C3 cannot be definitively assigned a structural position: in such cases it is unclear whether C3 is embedded under C1 or C2. In summary, I conclude that triclausal constructions are not reducible to a combination of two biclausal constructions: C1 + C2 and C2 + C3. For the properties of C3, the properties of both C2 and C1 are relevant.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Verb Valency Changes: Theoretical and typological perspectives. Edited by Albert Álvarez González and Ia Navarro. 257-284.
The article discusses labile (also known as ambitransitive) verbs in literary Arabic. I show that... more The article discusses labile (also known as ambitransitive) verbs in literary Arabic. I show that, though Arabic does not have a rich system of labile verbs, some existing cases of lability (labile verbs of form III) are particularly interesting from the typological point of view. Their unusual property is that the opposition between semantically causative vs. non-causative uses (and number of syntactic arguments) do not always correlate with syntactic (in)transitivity. Verbs of form III have both possible types of non-standard uses: transitive non-causative and intransitive causative uses, as well as the two standard uses (transitive causative and intransitive non-causative uses). I link this non-standard type of lability to some general features of voice and transitivity in Arabic. At the end of the article, some cases of lability outside form III are discussed.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Alexander Letuchiy
verbs like "myt’sja" ‘wash (oneself)’, "brit’sja" ‘shave (oneself)’, "pričesyvat’sja"
‘comb (oneself)’, and so on. In colloquial and internet speech, Russian reflexive verbs are sometimes used in a way impossible in literary speech. While the behavior of modifiers like "ves’" does not conflict with the literary norm, it is not the case with constructions with prepositions "krome" ‘except’ and "vključaja" ‘including’ and, in particular, accusative NPs — they represent highly colloquial phenomena.
The constructions under analysis shed light both on the grammatical properties of reflexives and their functioning in speech. From the discourse perspective, our data shows that sometimes native speakers are not satisfied with the lack of the explicit patient (e.g., a body part) and find a way to mark them (either with an accusative NP or, less explicitly, with a construction with "krome and "vključaja"). Even when this explicit marking contradicts the argument structure of reflexives, they are incorporated into the clause structure. Syntactically and semantically, our data shows that the subject argument of reflexives combines the properties of an agent and a patient. It combines two participants of the base transitive verb, e.g., "Vasja moet čašku" ‘Vasja is washing the cup.’
of embedded verbs can be interpreted relatively or absolutely, and in some
cases, the relative and absolute use seem to be in free variation. It turns out
that the interpretation of modality and aspect can be described along the
same lines and classified into the relative and absolute uses. For instance,
subjunctive mood—one of the main instruments of irreality marking—can
be interpreted as less real than the main event (relative interpretation)
or less real than the moment of speech (and to the same degree as the main
event; absolute interpretation). Similarly, aspect forms, depending on their
interpretation, can describe the structure of the situation compared to the
speech act or to the main event. I show that the parallelism between the
three categories is not full: for instance, relative modality is mainly observed
in triclausal constructions. Modality interpretation is sensitive to the opposition of clausal adjuncts vs. relative clauses. For the aspect interpretation,
the contrast between finite forms and infinitive is relevant: infinitive allows
for relative use of perfective aspect use much easier than finite forms. Finally, interpretations of the three categories are related to each other. For
example, in complement clauses, the relative interpretation is perfectly acceptable for all the three categories.
raising) в русском языке. Хотя русский язык не относится к типичным «языкам с подъемом», как,
например, английский, есть явления, по ряду признаков напоминающие подъем. Это конструкции, где некоторый элемент, на поверхности принадлежащий к главному предложению, получает разумную интерпретацию (например, в терминах сферы действия или семантической роли)
лишь в том случае, если мы считаем, что порождается он в придаточном предложении. Наш анализ во многом использует методы и данные предыдущих работ, посвященных той или иной конкретной конструкции. Однако отличие нашей работы заключается в первую очередь в том, что
для нас центральным критерием подъема будет критерий поведения местоимений: сферы действия неопределенных и отрицательных местоимений в главной клаузе и возможности прономинализации подчиненной клаузы с помощью местоимения это.
and deadjectival nouns) in Russian. It is proposed that several parameters,
such as semantic role, the opposition of proper argument vs. modifier, the
opposition of complex event vs. result nominals are necessary to account for
the distribution of nouns that take vs. do not take complement clauses, and
neither of them accounts for the whole distribution. In the end I propose a
new parameter, namely, the opposition of situation proper vs. occurrence
that, perhaps, can cover the widest range of nouns and their properties.
verbs like "myt’sja" ‘wash (oneself)’, "brit’sja" ‘shave (oneself)’, "pričesyvat’sja"
‘comb (oneself)’, and so on. In colloquial and internet speech, Russian reflexive verbs are sometimes used in a way impossible in literary speech. While the behavior of modifiers like "ves’" does not conflict with the literary norm, it is not the case with constructions with prepositions "krome" ‘except’ and "vključaja" ‘including’ and, in particular, accusative NPs — they represent highly colloquial phenomena.
The constructions under analysis shed light both on the grammatical properties of reflexives and their functioning in speech. From the discourse perspective, our data shows that sometimes native speakers are not satisfied with the lack of the explicit patient (e.g., a body part) and find a way to mark them (either with an accusative NP or, less explicitly, with a construction with "krome and "vključaja"). Even when this explicit marking contradicts the argument structure of reflexives, they are incorporated into the clause structure. Syntactically and semantically, our data shows that the subject argument of reflexives combines the properties of an agent and a patient. It combines two participants of the base transitive verb, e.g., "Vasja moet čašku" ‘Vasja is washing the cup.’
of embedded verbs can be interpreted relatively or absolutely, and in some
cases, the relative and absolute use seem to be in free variation. It turns out
that the interpretation of modality and aspect can be described along the
same lines and classified into the relative and absolute uses. For instance,
subjunctive mood—one of the main instruments of irreality marking—can
be interpreted as less real than the main event (relative interpretation)
or less real than the moment of speech (and to the same degree as the main
event; absolute interpretation). Similarly, aspect forms, depending on their
interpretation, can describe the structure of the situation compared to the
speech act or to the main event. I show that the parallelism between the
three categories is not full: for instance, relative modality is mainly observed
in triclausal constructions. Modality interpretation is sensitive to the opposition of clausal adjuncts vs. relative clauses. For the aspect interpretation,
the contrast between finite forms and infinitive is relevant: infinitive allows
for relative use of perfective aspect use much easier than finite forms. Finally, interpretations of the three categories are related to each other. For
example, in complement clauses, the relative interpretation is perfectly acceptable for all the three categories.
raising) в русском языке. Хотя русский язык не относится к типичным «языкам с подъемом», как,
например, английский, есть явления, по ряду признаков напоминающие подъем. Это конструкции, где некоторый элемент, на поверхности принадлежащий к главному предложению, получает разумную интерпретацию (например, в терминах сферы действия или семантической роли)
лишь в том случае, если мы считаем, что порождается он в придаточном предложении. Наш анализ во многом использует методы и данные предыдущих работ, посвященных той или иной конкретной конструкции. Однако отличие нашей работы заключается в первую очередь в том, что
для нас центральным критерием подъема будет критерий поведения местоимений: сферы действия неопределенных и отрицательных местоимений в главной клаузе и возможности прономинализации подчиненной клаузы с помощью местоимения это.
and deadjectival nouns) in Russian. It is proposed that several parameters,
such as semantic role, the opposition of proper argument vs. modifier, the
opposition of complex event vs. result nominals are necessary to account for
the distribution of nouns that take vs. do not take complement clauses, and
neither of them accounts for the whole distribution. In the end I propose a
new parameter, namely, the opposition of situation proper vs. occurrence
that, perhaps, can cover the widest range of nouns and their properties.
The data show that two techniques used in Russian 'unreal' complement clauses (infinitive and finite clauses with "chtoby", their distribution being based on co-reference vs. non-co-reference of arguments of the two clauses) differ in their meaning, "chtoby" being more sensitive to modal components.
Мы уточняем существующие описания типов подчинительных конструкций со что ("Я знаю, что он приехал"), инфинитивом ("Я забыл закрыть дверь") и др. Однако главная задача книги — поставить новые вопросы и описать новые явления: среди них — конструкции с дублированием в придаточном формы главного глагола ("Начать надо с того, что всех обзвонить"). Обсуждается вопрос о том, можно ли для актантных придаточных различать позиции подлежащего, прямого и непрямого дополнения, как это делается для именных актантов. Определяются факторы маркирования в придаточном не только времени (это отчасти сделано и в более ранних работах), но и вида и модальности / наклонения. Рассматривается применимость в инфинитивных конструкциях русского языка (типа "Спортсмену нужно быть худым") понятия подъёма аргумента, разработанного в наибольшей мере для английского.
В конце монографии предложена типологическая анкета для описания сентенциальных актантов в языках мира, которая может помочь при полевых исследованиях и составлении грамматических описаний.