No abstract

No abstract

This paper is an attempt to unify the polysemous verbal prefixes and prepositions in Russian. At first glance, the variety of possible denotations of a given prefix might appear a chaotic set of idiomatic meanings, e.g., the prefix za-may refer to beginning of an action, movement to a position behind an object, a brief deviation from a path, completion of an action, while the corresponding preposition za can mean 'behind,' 'after,' 'for,' 'in' (like in 'in an hour'), 'at' (like in 'at the table').I will propose a unified analysis, where the differences in meaning are claimed to arise from different syntactic positions, while the lexical entry of a prefix remains the same. The main focus is on the verbs of motion due to the consistent duality displayed by the prefix meanings when added to directional and non-directional motion verbs. It will turn out that many prefixes appear to modify path when added onto a directional motion verb and to refer to movement in time with non-directional motion verbs. This semantic distinction corresponds to distinct sets of syntactic properties, specific for each set of prefixes. These two classes of prefixes correspond to the lexical versus superlexical distinction. However, a tripartite division will emerge in each set, corresponding to source, path, and goal of motion (FROM, VIA and TO) for lexical prefixes and to initiation, process and result for superlexical prefixes. This leads to the suggestion that the syntactic representation of a VP contains at least six distinct nodes for the Russian verbal prefixes, each characterized by predictable semantic and syntactic properties. The same prefix with a consistent meaning, shared with the corresponding preposition, will receive part of its denotation from the syntactic head it attaches to, thus allowing the polysemy to arise from position, rather than from arbitrary homophony. Thus, conceptual structure will be unified with syntax.

The issue of migrant integration in host communities is of major importance, because its effectiveness can influence employment opportunities, social cohesion, and economic welfare, creating equal opportunities among citizens. One of the greatest challenges towards this goal is the limited knowledge of the language of the host community, which can create miscommunication and additional difficulties to migrants. Basic language training is important, but it is of little help when migrants are confronted with the language used in complex procedures that are required for their inclusion in the new country of residence. This paper, which is descriptive and explorative in nature, focuses on the targeted digital solutions offered by the EU-funded easyRights research project that can help migrants effectively communicate and receive guidance, in order to handle the demands of various inclusion-related procedures that may differ from one country to the other. One of the digital tools presented in the paper aims at facilitating familiarization with the required domain-specific vocabulary, while the second one intends to offer pronunciation training, including training for the domain-specific words, in order to equip migrants with the knowledge and skills they need to communicate effectively. The two digital tools, which could act synergistically, employ advanced technology and are part of a technological pathway, whose aim is to assist migrants exercise their rights in the process of their integration in a new country. Implications are also discussed.

This chapter addresses the problem of widespread polysemy of Russian verbal prefixes and argues that multiple instantiations of a single prefix share a core conceptual meaning and receive the specific denotations as a function of its syntactic position. A link is demonstrated between the inner structure of a prefix and the PP complement of the prefixed verb, illustrated by five polysemous prefixes that demonstrate an asymmetry in admitting PP complements. Although goal prefixes allow only a goal PP, the more complex source prefixes are compatible with both source and goal, and even more route prefixes are compatible with both source and goal, in addition to route complements. Although the source–goal asymmetry has been pointed out for spatial prefixes before, the fact that the same asymmetry holds for nonspatial use is new and exciting and points to a structural identity of the spatial and nonspatial uses of a prefix.