Research
Research
Syntax of 'bare' vs. nominalized complement clauses
In a number of languages, including Russian, Polish, Greek, Persian etc. argument clauses can be embedded in an overt nominal shell (e.g. to,čto-clauses in Russian). The distribution of such 'nominalized' clauses partly overlaps with that of 'bare' clauses but there are also differences. In my work (especially in my dissertation) I have argued that bare complement clauses are subject to a formal licensing requirement to account for their distributional restrictions (e.g. with non-agentive verbs and in noun complements). In my later work (e.g. this, this and this) I have been testing this hypothesis with the methods of experimental syntax and also investigating alternative semantic/pragmatic (e.g. (non-)presuppositionality) and processing (e.g. frequency) explanations. My most recent research interest is cross-linguistic variation in the expression of the clausal nominal shell, which I attempt to approach using Susi Wurmbrand and colleagues's implicational complementation hierarchy.
'Say'-based complementation
Many non-SAE languages have complementizers which are morphologically identical to non-finite forms of the verb of saying. Although such verbal complementizers have been usually analyzed in terms of grammaticalization their exact synchronic analysis is often unclear as they retain a number of morphosyntactic and distribitional properties specific to the corresponding non-finite forms. For example, the form of the 'say' complementizer may depend on the grammatical function of the clause. In my work on Chuvash (this and this) and also on Kalmyk (this and this), I have been highlighting the intermediate status of these forms (see also unpublished work on Buryat in Russian). I have also investigated the interaction between the form of the complementizer and its indexical shifting properties.
Syntax of 'need' and deontic modals
Constructions with deontic modals and 'need' pose interesting questions regarding the argument realization, i.e. the correspondence between the semantic arguments and parameters associated with their meaning (e.g. holder of obligation, judge, etc.) and the overtly (or covertly) expressed syntactic arguments. Why do we find the animacy restriction on the holder argument given that there are reasons to adopt a raising analysis? Is the judge parameter syntactically expressed and what the are interpretative options for it and how do they depend on the syntax of the construction? I have tackled these questions on the basis of Russian data in a number of papers, using both corpus and experimental methods (see this, this and this). Also, I have not written up or published a substantial part of this research so far (see this, this, and this).
Formal vs. functionalist approaches to language (and 'philosophy of linguistics')
As someone who was educated in a broadly functionalist framework (as most Russia-based linguists) and who later turned to generative linguistics, in my work I always tend to compare and evaluate (if only implicitly) different theoretical approaches to the same phenomenon. I have been particularly inspired by the debates on the reductionist/processing theories of islands (see, e.g. Jon Sprouse and colleagues' work on 'superadditivity effects') and also 'pragmatic' approaches that are now getting center stage. I have tried to apply the same logic to the study of the distribution of čto- and to,čto-clauses in Russian (see above). I have also co-taught (with Daniel Tiskin) a course specifically dedicated to the overview of theoretical approaches to language at HSE at St. Petersburg.
History of post-WWII linguistics (esp. in the USSR)
Although I have not published on this topic I have previously taught a few courses and seminars on it, which got me interested. Post-war period was characterized by the quick rise of structural linguistics in the USSR (following the 1950 debate on Marrism) and of generative linguistics in the West. Even though there were some broad similarities between the two schools and some interest in Chomskyan linguistics in the 1960s (during the popularity of generative semantics), linguists in the USSR never embraced the generative approach, largely distancing from it, especially from its cognitive/nativist ('philosophical') underpinnings. I find this a rather interesting case and did (along with some former students of mine) a preliminary study of the pertinent citations of 'Chomsky'/'transformation grammar' in the major Russian journal Voprosy Jazykoznanija during this period. This whole project, however, faces some challenges due to its largely 'negative' character (i.e. absence of reception).