Replication data for: Prefix variation in Russian путать

This thesis explores the prefix variation in путать and consists of three case studies: Case study 1 “The choice of prefix under prefix variation”: Is it possible to predict the choice of prefix when there is prefix variation? And if yes, how? The analysis is based on 630 sentences of спутать, перепутать, запутать and впутать from the Russian National Corpus (RNC) and takes two factors into consideration: type of construction and semantic category of the internal argument. Since these questions are relevant for second-language learners, the author also discusses how the present study and similar ones, can be used to make second language learning of Russian more effective. Case study 2 “Aspectual strength and the aspectual relations of путать” What does it mean that a simplex verb uses more than one prefix to form Natural Perfectives? Are all of the Natural Perfectives Natural Perfectives to the same degree? If not, why are they different? These and related questions are discussed in this analysis, which is based on 768 sentences of путать and its four Natural Perfectives from the RNC. The author also discusses the choice of granularity level when using constructions to measure aspectual strength. Case study 3 “Путать and aspectual triplets” What is the relationship between the Primary and Secondary Imperfectives in an aspectual triplet? This case study gives a detailed analysis of the relationship between the Primary and Secondary Imperfectives in the triplets involving путать. The analysis is based on 638 examples of путать and the four relevant Secondary Imperfectives from the RNC and considers three hypotheses: (1) The Primary and Secondary Imperfectives in a triplet are used in different constructions (“The Semantic Differentiation Hypothesis”), (2) The Primary Imperfective is preferred in atelic contexts, while the Secondary Imperfective is preferred in telic contexts (“The Telicity Hypothesis”), and (3) The distribution between the Primary and Secondary Imperfectives in a triplet is motivated by the aspectual strength of the Primary Imperfective and Natural Perfective (“The Aspectual Strength Hypothesis”). On the basis of her findings, the author also discusses the question of synonymy: Does complete synonymy exist? Do the two imperfective verbs in a triplet display the exact same meaning?本论文围绕动词путать的前缀变异展开研究，共包含三项案例分析： 案例一“前缀变异下的前缀选择问题”：当存在前缀变异时，能否预测前缀的选择？若可以，具体应如何预测？本分析基于俄罗斯国家语料库（Russian National Corpus, RNC）中收录的спутать、перепутать、запутать及впутать共630个例句，重点考量两大影响因素：句式类型（type of construction）与内部论元（internal argument）的语义范畴。鉴于该研究结论对第二语言学习者具有参考价值，作者还探讨了本研究及同类研究如何应用于俄语第二语言教学，以提升教学实效性。 案例二“путать的体貌强度与体貌关系”：单一动词通过添加多个前缀构成自然完成体（Natural Perfectives）意味着什么？所有自然完成体的体貌强度（aspectual strength）是否完全一致？若存在差异，其成因是什么？本分析以俄罗斯国家语料库中收录的путать及其四类自然完成体的768个例句为基础，对上述及相关问题展开讨论。作者还探讨了在利用句式衡量体貌强度时，粒度层级（granularity level）的选择问题。 案例三“путать与体貌三元组（aspectual triplet）”：体貌三元组中的主要未完成体（Primary Imperfectives）与次要未完成体（Secondary Imperfectives）之间存在何种关联？本案例针对包含путать的体貌三元组中两类未完成体的关系展开细致分析。本次分析以俄罗斯国家语料库中收录的путать及四类相关次要未完成体的638个例句为基础，对三大假说展开验证：（1）三元组内的主要未完成体与次要未完成体使用场景存在差异，即“语义分化假说（The Semantic Differentiation Hypothesis）”；（2）主要未完成体更适配无界语境（atelic contexts），而次要未完成体更适配有界语境（telic contexts），即“有界性假说（The Telicity Hypothesis）”；（3）三元组内两类未完成体的分布差异，由主要未完成体与自然完成体的体貌强度所决定，即“体貌强度假说（The Aspectual Strength Hypothesis）”。基于研究发现，作者还探讨了同义性问题：是否存在完全同义的动词？三元组内的两类未完成体是否表达完全一致的语义？