Abstract not available.

The purpose of the thesis is to compare the traditional and the modern structuralist approaches to the problem of classifying the Russian verbs. In the Introduction a brief historical outline of the treatment of the problem is given. Within the traditional school two main tendencies developed: classification by the present- and by the infinitive-stem. Within the framework of modern structural linguistics new approaches to the problem of classifying the Russian verb were attempted. These attempts culminated in the descriptive system of Roman Jakobson. Besides its main purpose: a comparison of the results of Jakobson with those of two of the newer representatives of the traditional school - Berneker and Unbegaun -, the thesis has as secondary purpose to explain and to a certain extent to criticize the work of Jakobson. In Chapter I the classification of Berneker which starts from the infinitive is presented and discussed; in spite of its doubtless pedagogical merit, the classification is found to contain flaws in its methodology: it is based on mixed criteria, it is not strictly synchronic, it is not exhaustive and it separates groups of verbs which linguistically belong together (as a result of preoccupancy with script). In Chapter II the classification of Unbegaun, which is based on the present tense form, is discussed. Unbegaun’s classificatory technique is found to be stricter than Berneker’s, but this very strictness accentuates the shortcomings of the system. Like Berneker's, Unbegaun's system is largely based on script, and in his case the consequences are more serious. Chapter III is devoted to a discussion of Jakobson’s approach. Jakobson has solved the problem on which all traditional classifications stranded - the matching of present- and infinitive-stems. His solution consists of the setting up of a (sometimes artificial) underlying stem-form, from which the alternations of the stem can be predicted on the basis of the simplest possible set of rules. The alternations of the stem are, in the main, described in terms of truncation (loss of a final stem phoneme). In view of this feature the basic stem-forms are subdivided into stem in vowel, stem in j, v, m, n, and stem in other consonants. The subdivision proves useful in the statement of the rules for softening and stress, for which Jakobson has been the first to state general rules. In the Conclusion it is demonstrated that, as opposed to the confusion of varied criteria of classification characteristic of the traditional school, the basis of Jakobson's system is simply the phonemic structure of the basic stem-form. Furthermore, Jakobson's systematizing technique differs basically from that of his predecessors. Whereas the latter carry out consecutive subdivisions of the material thus obtaining separate classes of verbs - set up on the basis of separate criteria, Jakobson’s descriptive system forms one closely-knit whole, where a minimum of distinctions is employed to the describe the behavior of a maximum of the total number of Russian verbs. / Arts, Faculty of / Linguistics, Department of / Graduate

This thesis is concerned with one aspect of the problem of Russian verbal morphology: the basic patterns of different arrangements of the derivational affixes - prefixes and suffixes - of the stems of the Russian verb and the one or more stems that may be assigned to a particular arrangement. This thesis does not consider the desinential morphology of the verb, which may be neatly distinguished from the derivational. The arrangements of the patterns of the derivational affixes is determined by isolating all verb-stems with the same derivational affixes in the same relative position. To quote our examples in section 4.20, page 14 we have two verbs topta / potopta ņiza / naņiza vtaptivaj / vtopta naņizivaj / naņiza vitaptivaj / vitopta proņizivaj / proņiza with the following pattern of recurring forms (morphemes) -a / po- -a v- -ivaj / v- -a vi- -ivaj / vi- -a -a / na- -a pro- -ivaj / pro- -a na- -ivaj / na- -a and by subsuming the prefixes vi- v- pro- and na- as P- we may produce the following schema -a / P- -a P- -ivaj / P- -a for which the second line represents all prefixed forms that occur with the particular stem-base which has this derivational arrangement or matrix . The above schema has the following form in this thesis. -a / P- p-( / -a) All the stem-bases of a matrix are called the form-class of the stem-bases of that matrix. The form-classes are inserted into the matrix , morphological rules are applied, and the original stems are formed, plus those that may in theory exist according to the matrix and morphological rules. In this way we wish to demonstrate the different basic patterns of derivational morphology, and the differences of these patterns as shown by the different matrices. This second objective of this thesis is done by means of a matrix array. A matrix array is an arrangement of matrices according to certain regularities of structure. Form-Class Matrix 1 to Form-Class Matrix 47 is summarized on page 158. The remainder , Form-Glass Matrix 48 to Form-Class Matrix 52 are the complex matrices of the indeterminate | determinate stems and are found on pages 139 to 150. Besides the numbered matrices there are some special cases considered throughout the text. From an examination of the matrix array we may see that row FCM - 10 to FCM - 34 shows stems with varied aspectival imperfective structure , prefixed perfective or perfective in -nu or both. The lexical perfective is attested, but not the lexical imperfective. Row FCM - 1 to FCM - 37 shows the addition of iterative | non-iterative stems formed by -áj or -váj and the presence of lexical imperfective stems with the same structure as the iterative stems. Row FCM - 5 -to FCM - 36 (plus the unnumbered matrices of the row) show iteratives in -ivaj and lexical imperfectives with the same structure. The lexical perfective stems are identical in structure to the aspectival imperfectives and the stems in -nu also occur as lexical perfectives. Row FCM - 13 to FCM - 38 (and the unnumbered matrices) show iteratives in -ìvàj (and in one case -aj) and lexical imperf ectives in - ìvàj or one of –àj ̴ -vàj ̴ eváj. The Extended Matrices are excluded from the above mentioned for three main reasons. (1) FCM - 6, 7, 8, 14, and 22 have aspectival perfectives without an overt formant. (2) FCM - 27 and 32 have an additional lexical perfective in -i and to included these matrices with their above ones would intrude into the general pattern of the matrix array. (3) FCM - 33 , with formants in -a(j) shows characteristics of two matrices and is entered beneath them. Forms is -a(j) are rathered unsettled in usage in modern Russian, to judge by conflicting remarks in the literature. FCM - 39, 40, and 41 examines stems with the formants -aj / -i and FCM - 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46 are concerned with verbs of dual aspect , both imperfective and perfective, and with verbs formed from -ova- ̴ -uj. The form-class matrices for the indeterminate | determinate defy easy characterization, but their complications are in 'in terms of’ the other matrices. If we excluded certain specialized cases we may say that the derivational morphology of the Russian verb may be considered under five very general classes. (1) Stems with various aspectival imperfective structure, with prefixed perfectives, or perfectives in -nu, or in both. The iterative and lexical aspectival stems are formed by -áj ~ -váj ~ -V-váj or - ìvàj or both - áj ~ -váj ~ -V-váj and – ìvàj. (2) Stems with aspectival perfectives without formant and with prefixed imperfectives in - ìvàj, - áj or váj as stated for the particular case. (3) Stems with lexial perfective forms in -i in addition to -V and -nu or - áj and -nu. (4) Stems with the formant -a(j) , i.e. both -a and -aj appear as stem formants. (5) Stems with the formant pair -a / -i (6) Stems with dual aspect and stems in -ova- ~ -uj- (7) Indeterminate l determinate stems / Arts, Faculty of / Central Eastern Northern European Studies, Department of / Graduate

One of many language phenomena in Contemporary Standard Russian is the fact that besides the so-called regular prefixes, which in the process of Russian word-formation are the most common ones, there are also various prefixal variant forms used in particular phonological environments, in which the former do not occur. Alongside the regular prefixes, one of the largest groups of these variant forms is, for instance, the group with variants V0-and SO- (alternating with V- and S-, respectively), and other analogous forms with their distinct final vowel segment. An examination of such corresponding pairs of variant forms as S- and SO- leads to the conclusion that in the course of the historical development of the Russian language system, certain archiprefixes, or primary prefixes, underwent different phonological changes as the result of specific governing principles. The distribution of the prefixal related forms, like S- and SO-, provides evidence that in some early phonological environments certain primary prefixes developed into structurally more stable positional variants, their final segment being realized as the vowel segment o. The object of this study is: . a) firstly, to identify the main categories of the Contemporary Standard Russian (CSR) prefixal variants with the final vowel segment o, and those particular root morpheme segments which provide the environment essential for the resulting forms of the derivations of these prefixes; b) secondly, to determine from the data collected whether the initial root morpheme segments, with regard to their synchronic characteristics, are in any way instrumental in the realization of prefixal variants with the final o segment; c) thirdly, to systematize the significant data of prefixal and root morphemes into appropriate groups exhibiting common features; and, d) finally, by first positing the underlying representations of the prefixal variants with the final o segment and their correlating root morphemes, to generate the typical group examples by means of the relevant phonological rules and to derive their near-to-surface phonetic forms representing the broad phonetic features, as they occur at the stage at which some of the very latest phonological rules have not yet applied. / Arts, Faculty of / Central Eastern Northern European Studies, Department of / Graduate

<p> The Russian Civil War is an incredibly complex topic that is frequently oversimplified to a Red vs White framework, where the Bolshevik forces face a perceived monolithic &lsquo;White&rsquo; opposition. While this conceptualization can be useful, the reality is much more complex; various factions, some controlling far-flung territories or even no territory, formed and broke alliances with each other and fought furiously to achieve their ends. The &lsquo;White&rsquo; forces are frequently presented as an amalgamation of different factions and armies that had differing, sometimes opposing, views. The typical view of the Russian civil war is clearly oversimplified, but recent scholarship attempting to reassess the Civil War has brought new insight and understanding to the conflict. In particular, the designation of certain White elements as &lsquo;warlords&rsquo; has become more common. The warlord argument provides an alternative to the older, more traditional view of monolithic &lsquo;White&rsquo; against &lsquo;Red&rsquo; by showing that not all White commanders fought for the same ends, and many were motivated by selfish desires or goals. Similarly, since warlords tend not to work well together, it helps explain the disunity of the White movement. The warlord paradigm has its flaws, namely that the warlords of the Civil War were not common; in fact, the only commanders which truly qualified for the moniker were in the Far East, and barely participated in the Civil War. The warlord framework proves to be quite useless when applied to individual commanders of the White movement, and therefore a better means of reclassification is required. To that end, the White forces, after careful assessment of whether they are warlords, should instead be classified by new criteria. The result is a new dichotomy within the White movement: Western Whites and Eastern Whites. The dichotomy offered is based on orientation, rather than geography. Western White forces were focused on capturing Western Russia, specifically Moscow and Petrograd, while the Eastern Whites were more interested in consolidating their own power base in the Far East. The Western and Eastern White forces were nominally allies and anti-Bolshevik, but practically had very different goals and worked to achieve different ends. The Western Whites were the remnants of the Tsarist military elites, fighting to restore Russia and defeat Bolshevism, while the Eastern Whites were warlords in the employ of foreign powers primarily concerned with their own selfish ends. The main thesis of this work is that the warlord paradigm does not apply to most White commanders, and should be abandoned in favor of a broader Western/Eastern dichotomy.</p>

The affair of the Ukase of September, 1821, evokes such questions as these: What was its real purpose? Was Alexander guilty of aggression in North America or was he only attempting to solve a domestic problem, viz., smuggling in the Alaskan colony? Why did George Canning negotiate separately with Russia after he had expressed a desire to cooperate with the United States? Did he really believe that Russia would be more impressed by separate negotiations, as Harold Temperley has suggested? Did the tsar deliberately appease Britain in the hope of securing her aid in a Russo- Turkish war, as S. B. Okun and Hector Chevigny have contended, or did he follow a policy of expediency?

Why did the Tsarist Empire opt for different governance strategies in each of the territories of the Western Borderlands (here defined as Poland-Lithuania, the Baltic territories, Finland, and Hetman Ukraine)? The existing political science literature tends to reduce such a question to a distinction between direct and indirect rule, usually developing in the context of a Western European maritime empire. This literature falls short of explaining the Tsarist case and requires the addition of intervening variables concerning the role of local elites and leadership choice. Employing an interdisciplinary literature combining sources from political science, sociology and history, this dissertation develops a structural-institutional approach to explaining patterns of direct and indirect rule that emphasizes the strength and cohesion of local elites, their orientation towards the dominant unit, and the role of leadership choice in the dominant unit. In addition to better accounting for the policy trajectory of the Tsarist Empire, such an explanation can also be applied to other historical and contemporary political systems deciding between centralized and decentralized rule.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.