Writing and Speaking / Word Order and Intonation

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

I have been trying to ken this for ages now and I don't care how much already-published information there is-- I need an answer from a "real, living" native Russian speaker who also knows English/linguistics/whatever:

I have learnt (as probably have most students of Russian) that word order in Russian plays a role in indicating the topic of a sentence and the focus-- i.e. the focus of the sentence is usually at the end of the sentence in Russian (whereas to compare with a sentence in English with "neutral" intonation, the focus is often at the front [but not always])

E.g. (very minimally):
В сад влетели птицы. - Birds flew into the garden.
Птицы влетели в сад. - Into the garden, there flew some birds. / Birds flew into the garden. / etc
Птицы в сад влетели. - The birds flew into the garden. / The birds entered the garden flying. / etc

However, I have also learnt that intonation (in Russian) also plays a role in indicating the "critical" information in a sentence (as contradictory as this will seem):

E.g. (with intonation marked somewhat graphically):
--------------------^_____
В сад влетели птицы. - Birds flew into the garden.
---------------^________
В сад влетели птицы. - Birds flew into the garden.
----^_______________
В сад влетели птицы. - Birds flew into the garden.
----' `______________
В сад влетели птицы? - Did the birds fly into the garden?
------------------------' `_
В сад влетели птицы? - Did the birds fly into the garden?

So, the first question would be: is it possible to indicate the critical information of an interrogative phrase using word order? e.g.:

В сад влетели птицы? - Did birds fly into the garden?
В сад птицы влетели? - Did the birds fly into the garden?

If so, how would the intonation pattern of these phrases be?

What's the difference in using intonation v. word order, or a even a combination of the above? Why is it that no matter which manner I utilise, people understand what exact information I'm requesting less than 50% of the time?

Finally, perhaps in relation to this: is the syntax/style of spoken Russian significantly different than written Russian?-- possibly partially for the fact that it is difficult to deduce the implied "intonation" of a written phrase? Does reading literary Russian (even non-artistic works such as newspaper articles) seem stilted or at least markedly literary even when spoken? If so, what are the exact differences between the two?

- Благодаря Бога Интернет

Comments

[oryx_and_crake]

In the interrogative phrase the stress is always on the critical information. I would say that the intonation is more important than the word order. As to explaining what the intonation should be and what is wrong with your rendition - I am afraid you need a native speaker who would listen and tell you what's wrong.

[oryx_and_crake]

I mean, you need a native speaker face-to-face. Or you can send someone a record of you pronouncing these words so they can listen and say what's wrong.

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

From my personal experience: unless you actually make parts of your written sentences bold or italicized, there is no absolute certainty about what is emphasized.
When there are no specific signs, the end of the written sentence is usually the more important part, but with a difference quite little. Intonation can be level and will be considered level by default.

And you can emphasize any part by intonation, when speaking. I'm positive on this one. I've even heard a radio broadcast not so long ago. People have been given the task to read a phrase: "Ткет ткач ткани на платки Тане" — in such a manner as to answer a certain question.
Что делает ткач с тканями на платки Тане?
Кто ткёт ткани на платки Тане?
Что ткёт ткач на платки Тане?
На что ткёт ткач ткани Тане?
Кому ткёт ткач ткани на платки?

Not all people, which called the radio, could successfully grasp the correct intonation and display it. :) The answers have been, respectively:
Ткет ткач ткани на платки Тане.
Ткет ткач ткани на платки Тане.
Ткет ткач ткани на платки Тане.
and so on...



I'd also note a rather funny thing :). Out of your examples:
When standing alone, "Birds flew into the garden" would be with almost 100% probability translated into "Птицы влетели в сад" by any russian translator. In order to mimic the word order.


I wouldn't count on just word order to suggest the importance of certain aspects and parts. But one can make use of context or put in some additional words.

Do you want to really make sure that it is the garden and not an airport building?
Say something like this: "Птицы влетели именно в сад". "Птицы влетели в сад, и никуда иначе". "Птицы влетели как раз в сад".
Or weave a tale so that it looks obvious. "Он мне стал рассказывать, что его случайно оставил клетку открытой и его канарейки сбежали. Мы спросили маленькую девочку, игравшую неподалёку. Она ответила, что как раз видела двух маленьких жёлтеньких птичек. Они чирикали и играли, а затем они влетели в сад".


Same with the questions. It can be hard for the person to follow your intonation vibes, or he might even purposefully be trying to avoid the poorly formulated question.
Птицы влетели в сад или куда-то ещё?
Влетели в сад именно птицы?
Птицы в сад влетели и были там жестоко застрелены или их туда принесли уже мёртвыми? >:)

Здесь безжизненная пустыня на сотни тысяч километров вокруг. Вы уверены, что к вам в сад влетели птицы?


Hopefully, this rant was at least a bit helpful.

[zespri.livejournal.com]

Good explanation, I like it very much. One small nitpick: "Он мне стал рассказывать, что он случайно оставил клетку открытой и его канарейки сбежали" or just to do away with the pronoun altogether: "Он мне стал рассказывать, что случайно оставил клетку открытой и его канарейки сбежали"

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

Heh, yes, that was a typo. I have to be more careful.

[zespri.livejournal.com]

I pointed this out more for the original poster benefit, than yours, because you obviously must have known that this is a typo =) Thank you.

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

Yet, on the other hand, you could've been wrong, and in abscence of my reaction (modesty is a virtue :] ) the original poster might have become unsure, whether to believe one or the other.

[zespri.livejournal.com]

And now we can all live happily ever after! =)))

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

...or I just might know more about Russian than either of you would want to believe and know what doesn't look right

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

Then let it be a clarification for potential lurkers :) .
Don't get offended.

[merry1978.livejournal.com]

>is the syntax/style of spoken Russian significantly different than written Russian?

Yes, of course. I'm working on my diss about these things, by the way.

The difference is much like between written English and spoken English. Spoken Russian is less grammatically strict, less formal, more depending on intonation and gestes. There are some forms that almost never appear in spoken language, being quite popular in written one.

Maybe I could better help you if I could answer specific questions :)

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

The difference is much like between written English and spoken English. Spoken Russian is less grammatically strict, less formal, more depending on intonation and gestes. There are some forms that almost never appear in spoken language, being quite popular in written one.

Yes, but such exclusive literary style is often isolated in only the higher registers of written language. In fact, the standards are changing so much now that personally at 23 years of age my writing style looks generations more conservative than even major newspapers. The only problem (for me at least) in reciting written English is trying to deduce what intonation pattern, tone and rhythm the original author intended.

Russian, on the other hand, lacks such conveniences as being able to rely on things like wh-inversion or predictable rules of topicalisation...

[cassandraclue.livejournal.com]

if people really can't understand what you're saying, perhaps try looking for a coursebook on intonation constructions. i can't remember which one i used at the moment, but it was on the system of ИК created by E. A. Bryzgunovoy, which covers the seven different intonation constructions of russian. this is the standard system for teaching/classifying russian intonation.

Literacy is an asset

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

I have been trying to ken this for ages now and I don't care how much already-published information there is-- I need an answer from a "real, living" native Russian speaker who also knows English/linguistics/whatever

I've read a book on string theory and didn't understand a thing about it until I had it explained to me using empty beer bottles, string cheese and a drunk scientist who consumed both in the process

Re: Literacy is an asset

[cassandraclue.livejournal.com]

....?


regardless, if you're at a point where people can't understand what you're saying, a couple of answers from a "real live russian speaker" on an internet message board will not fix your problem, especially if they're not hearing you speak :) and there might be other people who have your problem reading this as well who can learn without the aid of alcohol and snacks.

Re: Literacy is an asset

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

Whether or not a bunch of people on an online forum can help, maybe if reading a bloody 30-year-old book with abstract explanations of a completely relative vocal pitch pattern didn't help me, maybe it wouldn't help them either

understand the whole sodding question or don't respond for fuck's sake

Re: Literacy is an asset

[cassandraclue.livejournal.com]

well, it helped me. please stop being so hostile. this is a russian learning community, not a battle royale. i really don't think being so rude is merited.

Re: Literacy is an asset

[cassandraclue.livejournal.com]

and by the way if you ever take an advanced course in russian phonetics in russia, which is perhaps what you should do, this is what you will learn. so if you have a problem with it, take it up with teachers of РКИ. i am sure they will be glad to explain everything to you.)))

Re: Literacy is an asset

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

I have already learnt it. Would I be able to write this post without doing so? I am now an expert in the theory of Russian intonation and cannot speak to save my life. Hence my request for extra-literary explanation.

Another thing we've studied is reading comprehension. Maybe you could do with some more English lessons.)))

Re: Literacy is an asset

[cassandraclue.livejournal.com]

As I recall from your post about Estonia, you are currently in Russia. Perhaps if you took lessons in human relations and being nice to people, you would not need to draw on the internet to find native speakers of Russian and could, as I did when I lived in Russia and in fact continue to do so even though I have returned to the US, ask your Russian native speaker friends in real life to help you with your Russian language problems. Perhaps you should consider your attitude and take a good, long hard look at how you relate with people and then your intonation problems would, in fact, solve themselves.

Perhaps I did not read your post thoroughly enough as I would a serious work of literature, but I certainly do not need English comprehension classes. There are currently about 2500 other people in this community, and many of them would find information about learning intonation helpful-even if you, personally, don't. That is why I posted what I did, as many others who are having trouble with their intonation would naturally read this post and the subsequent comments.

Re: Literacy is an asset

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

because i have little patience for american quick-shot prats has no bearing on how my relations with normal people are.

thank you anyway, doctor. i'll keep that in mind when i have loads of people with nothing in common with me wanting to be my friend ONLY "because i speak english and [they] need help with their english". as (un)flattering as that is, I can only assume a similar stance to becoming a linguistic vampire on just any russian who may or MAY NOT be able to answer my question. not every russian is a treasure trove of linguistic expertise on russian, as i am not one of english.

i'm not sure about america, but where i come from, friendship doesn't automatically spawn from you being able to supply me with something. that's called business.

Re: Literacy is an asset

[cassandraclue.livejournal.com]

i simply meant that after someone was already my friend, they were eager to help learn russian better, just as i was always willing to help them with their english if they wanted me to. I never implied that someone because my friend just because they wanted to learn english or that i became someone's friend just because I wanted to learn russian. i was just wondering why you had no such friends who cared about you and wanted to help you. if a friend offered to help you would you say, "no, no, that's BUSINESS; we are FRIENDS and therefore you cannot help me?" or perhaps does no one care enough to help you? in the end it all comes down to respect, which everyone deserves, even americans.

[whitest-owl.livejournal.com]

One more point. Verb "влетели" can be translated as "flew into", but usually it is translated as "flew inside". For example:
Птица влетела в клетку - cage is a small room
Птица влетела в оранжерею - greenhouse is a big room, but still it has walls and roof.
But in case of a garden you should use "прилетела" or "залетела".

[oryx_and_crake]

One more small note
By Благодаря Бога Интернет, did you mean "Thank God for Internet"? Then it should be "Слава Богу за Интернет" or "Cлава Богу, что есть Интернет".

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

My God is the Internet

[oryx_and_crake]

Then I don't know how to translate it exactly, but your version does not sound right anyway. Maybe Интернет - мой Бог, or Хвала Богу-Интернету. Anyway Интернет in this case has probably to be declined together with Бог.

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

Well why is it then that for example even place-names don't agree with the noun they complement: e.g.

"...едем на станцию 'Южная'"

One could say that because it's in inverted commas it doesn't change, but it sounds almost exactly like the phrase: "...едем на южную станцию"

When to proper names change and when do they not?

[oryx_and_crake]

It is a complicated issue; maybe I will write something on it late when I have time.

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

Let oryx_and_crake correct me, if I'm wrong, and formulate it better.

When there is something else, some supportive noun (the detailizing one) besides the proper noun, that proper noun stays as it is unchanged, that supportive noun gets to change. If proper noun's alone, it still has to change.

— Вы куда едете?
— На "Южная", а вы?
— О, мы тоже на "Южную".

Нас привезли к архитектуры "Мавзолей В.И. Ленина". Мы сфотографировались на фоне "Мавзолея" и затем сходили внутрь посмотреть на вождя СССР.

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

I suck at english -_- sorry for spamming. I'll rephrase.

"When there is something else, some supportive noun (the "detailizing" one) besides the proper noun, the proper noun stays as it is unchanged, and that supportive noun gets to change. If proper noun's alone, then it has to change."

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

But I'm pretty much sure that "internet" has ceased to be a proper noun in russian, anyways.

[cassandraclue.livejournal.com]

it is still a proper noun in english, although no one regards it as such. it is probably the same in russian... still technically a proper noun, but colloquially is no longer treated as such.

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

I think that it's still well-known as a proper noun. When people say: "the Internet" others never ask: "Which internet?"

In fact I think only George Bush II does not recognise a proper internet₁.



I wonder: does it follow the same semantic shift in Russian?

[cassandraclue.livejournal.com]

people don't say "which Internet?" but it is rarely written with a capital letter outside of formal settings.

[oryx_and_crake]

The problem here is not with the word "internet" as such but with a double noun - Бог-Интернет ("Благодаря Бога Интернет" as ulvesang tried to put it). Станция "Южная" is quite a different case, I think. Anyway I want to see what Rosenthal says about that and I don't have time now.

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

Hmm, then perhaps my post above is right for inanimate nouns,
and for animate, proper nouns always get declined. =)

[oryx_and_crake]

No, I don't think this is the case either. Just a few examples:

Даже дедушке приснилось,
Что стоит он у доски
И не может он на карте
Отыскать Москвы-реки.

Пушкин, "История села Горюхина"

районы города Москвы

etc.

(Answer this at your own will)

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

I know you don't want to write about this in length, but one last comment to keep the subject fresh (for all maybe):

Well, my initial logic was that Бог changes in accusative case (a la благодарить) but интернет is inanimate-- which would be fine with слава + dative, but...

My further question was what sort of connection lies between the nouns to transfer "animacy" to the other noun? Is it because it's an (animate) proper noun? If so, do ALL (animate) proper nouns have the same influence?

Re: (Answer this at your own will)

[oryx_and_crake]

Even though интернет is inanimate, it still has to change in dative (чему? интернету, шкафу, автобусу)

Re: (Answer this at your own will)

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

...but it does NOT change in accusative to agree with благодарить like бог does

hence the start of the confusion

Re: (Answer this at your own will)

[oryx_and_crake]

Let us imagine for the sake of agreement that there was a cat and his name was Табурет. Then you would decline both parts (кота Табурета, о коте Табурете etc.) even though табурет as a standalone noun is not changed in accusative: увидел табурет, but увидел кота Табурета

Re: (Answer this at your own will)

[oryx_and_crake]

argument not agreement
anyway

Re: (Answer this at your own will)

[oryx_and_crake]

P.S. I think I know what the problem is. If the combination is like "в автобусе "Икарус"", the general part (автобус) changes and the name one (Икарус) is not. It has nothing to do with animate-inanimate. "Бог-Интернет" is totally different from "автобус "Икарус"". I am not sure I can explain why.

Re: (Answer this at your own will)

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

not necessarily animate, but it relates to definiteness?--

i.e. the semantic difference between: "I'm going to a/the southern station": and "I'm going to the Southern station"

Re: (Answer this at your own will)

[oryx_and_crake]

You see, бог is definitely animate and Интернет is like his name, so it should not change like "станция "Южная"", but rather like "мальчик Вася" (мальчику Васе, о мальчике Васе etc.)

Re: (Answer this at your own will)

[ulvesang.livejournal.com]

...but I thought that "Южная" was the name of the station?...

like маяковская

Re: (Answer this at your own will)

[oryx_and_crake]

Yes, but "на станцию "Южная"" is correct and "на мальчика Вася" is not

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

Perhaps that's a special case?.. I stumbled across such an article:

5. В сочетании Москва-река в к н и ж н о й речи склоняются обе части (на Москве-реке, за Москвой-рекой), в
р а з г о в о р н о й -- первая часть в косвенных падежах сохраняет начальную форму (на Москва-реке, за Москва-рекой). (http://www.spelling.spb.ru/rosenthal/alpha/r148.htm)

( ~~ In "Москва-река" combination both parts are declined in book speech (на Москве-реке, за Москвой-рекой), while in the case of colloquial speech first part retains the initial form in objective cases (на Москва-реке, за Москва-рекой). )

[zespri.livejournal.com]

Sorry, for the double post.
Just a couple of things that haven't been mentioned yet:

- You can use particle "ли" in your interrogatives.
В сад ли влетели птицы? (Or did they fly somewhere else?)
Влетели ли птицы в сад? (Or did they walk on foot?)
Влетели ли птицы в сад? (Have they or haven't they?)

Note that in the last two it's impossible to say which one is meant without a context.

- In real life speech, in my opinion the word order is used predominantly, and the intonation is only used if you were not understood for the first time and repeating your original phrase stressing out the focus. For example.

Где моя синяя чашка? Вот она. Нет, я спрашиваю, где моя синяя чашка. Эта - сине-жёлтая.

In this case they didn't realise you were asking about that particular cup. So you are making a clarification.

I'm not a language professional, and those can correct me, but I can't remember a situation, where I would use intonation to stress a part of a sentence, if it's not a clarification.