Abstract
<jats:p>This article examines the polysemous Russian discourse formula malo li ( chto ) in relation to its source constructions and compares its functions with Korean equivalents. The study addresses the difficulty of accurately describing multi-meaning Russian discourse formulas that require careful contextual analysis, as well as the lack of lexicographical descriptions of their functional correspondences in Korean. The aim of the article is to provide a systematic account of the polysemy of malo li ( chto ) and to identify the most accurate Korean non-compositional equivalents. The empirical material consists of over 8,000 examples of malo li ( chto ) and a vdrug extracted from the open-access databases “Russian Constructicon” and “Pragmaticon,” as well as from the National Corpus of the Russian Language, covering both written and spoken genres. Korean data collected from web resources were used for contrastive analysis. The study adopts a corpus-based methodology. The analysis demonstrates that the semantics and pragmatics of malo li ( chto ) can only be properly understood through analysis of its underlying constructions and usage contexts. Diachronic analysis identifies two meanings of the formula. One meaning, denoting an “indeterminate large quantity,” does not meet the criteria of a discourse formula and should be described in the Russian Constructicon as a non-typical elliptical construction. The other meaning, expressing devaluation of a prior utterance, satisfies the criteria of a discourse formula and should be included in the Pragmaticon. This distinction allows inconsistencies in the treatment of malo li ( chto ) across the two databases to be eliminated. A synchronic comparison with a vdrug clarifies the functional properties of malo li ( chto ) and reveals the illusion of their interchangeability based on surface similarity. Functional frame analysis further enables the identification of corresponding Korean discourse formulas. The proposed approach refines the description of Russian discourse formulas and provides a reliable basis for comparison with typologically distant languages such as Korean.</jats:p>