Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 4:2 (2014) ► pp.161–191

Testing the Semantic Homogeneity Constraint

Analogical change and Russian verbs

| UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Although it has been widely assumed in historical linguistics that semantics plays a crucial role in analogical change, it is difficult to pinpoint the contribution of the semantic factor, since meaning and form work closely together in bringing about language change. The purpose of the present article is to shed light on the issue by means of two case studies from Russian, which enable us to isolate the role of semantics. The hypothesis we test is that analogical change is restricted to semantically homogeneous domains. We call this the Semantic Homogeneity Constraint. Two phenomena from Russian conjugation are explored: suffix shift and NU-drop. Although they seem parallel, analogical change occurs in the former, but not in the latter. It is argued that this is because the verbs involved in suffix shift constitute a semantically homogeneous domain, within which analogical change can take place. By contrast, NU-verbs are semantically diverse, and these semantic differences create boundaries which block analogical change. The findings have implications both for Russian and general linguistics. While suffix shift and NU-drop are well-known phenomena in Russian conjugation, they have not been juxtaposed and compared before. Our comparison provides new insights about the differences and similarities of the two phenomena. From the perspective of historical linguistics, the present article contributes to the theory of analogy, insofar as we provide empirical evidence for the Semantic Homogeneity Constraint, which places restrictions on semantic domains where analogical change can take place.
Keywords: suffix shift, Russian verbs, analogical change, corpus linguistics, NU-drop, quantitative analysis of language data
Published online: 30 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.4.2.01nes
References (103)
Ackerman, Farrell, James P. Blevins & Robert Malouf. 2009. Parts and Wholes: Implicative Patterns in Inflectional Paradigms. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins, eds., 54–82.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam. 2008. Explaining Universal Tendencies and Language Particulars in Analogical Change. In Jeff Good, ed., 144–182.Google Scholar
. 2009. Modeling Analogy as Probabilistic Grammar. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins, eds., 185–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and Deductive Change. Language 49:4. 765–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980. Russian Conjugation: Acquisition and Evolutive Change. Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott, 285–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Markedness—The First 150 Years. Markedness in Synchrony and Diachrony ed. by Olga Mišeska Tomić, 47–66. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Markedness and the Theory of Linguistic Change. Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress ed. by Henning Andersen, 21–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Noget om analogi. Dramatikken i grammatikken ed. by Rita Therkelsen & Eva Skafte Jensen, 15–25. Roskilde: Institut for Kultur og Identitet, Roskilde Universitet.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1977. Analogy. The Hague, Paris & New York: Mouton Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 2nd revised ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1977. Analogy. The Hague, Paris & New York: Mouton Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Analogy: The Warp and Woof of Cognition. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, eds., 425–440.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Predicting the Productivity of Argument Structure Constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 321.467–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelandic: A Diachronic Construction Grammar Approach. Lingua 121: 1. 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1997. A Class of English Irregular Verbs. English Studies 781.545–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Juliette, Blevins. eds2009a. Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Juliette Blevins. 2009b. Introduction: Analogy in Grammar. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins, eds., 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulaxovskij, Leonid A. 1950. Istoričeskij kommentarij k russkomu literaturnomu jazyku. Kiev: Gosudarstvennoe učebno-pedagogičeskoe izl’stvo “Radjans’ka škola”.Google Scholar
. 1954. Russkij literaturnyj jazyk pervoj poloviny XIX veka. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe učebno-pedagogičeskoe izdatel’stvo ministra prosveščenija RSFSR.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 5. 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007a. Diachronic Linguistics. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics ed. by Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens, 945–974. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007b. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Dan Slobin. 1982. Rules and Schemas in the Development and Use of the English Past Tense. Language 581.265–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Černyšev, Vasilij I. 1915. Pravil’nost’ i čistota russkoj reči. 2nd ed, Vol. 21. Petrograd: Tipografija M. Merkuševa.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Gerald Stone & Maria Polinsky. 1996. The Russian Language in the 20th Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. New York & London: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The Course of Actualization. Language 88:3.601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickey, Stephen M. 2001. “Semelfactive” -nǫ- and the Western Aspect Gestalt. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 9:1.25–48.Google Scholar
Dickey, Stephen M. & Laura A. Janda. 2009. Xoxotnul, sxitril: The Relationship between Semelfactives Formed with -nu- and s- in Russian. Russian Linguistics 33:3.229–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Natalia V. Gagarina. 1999. Basic Questions in Establishing the Verb Classes of Contemporary Russian. Essays in Poetics, Literary History and Linguistics Presented to V. V. Ivanov on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday ed. by L. Fleishman, M. Gasparov, T. Nikolaeva, A. Ospovat, V. Toporov, A. Vigasin, R. Vroon & A. Zaliznjak, 754–760. Moscow: OGI.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2007. Grammaticalisation Due to Homonymy Avoidance in Gudbrandsdalen /æpr˛ede/? Transactions of the Philological Society 105:1. 42–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Finkel, Raphael & Gregory Stump. 2009. Principal Parts and Degrees of Paradigmatic Transparency. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins, eds., 13–53.Google Scholar
Gagarina, Natalija. 2003. The Early Verb Development and Demarcation of Stages in Three Russian-Speaking Children. Development of Verb Inflection in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective ed. by Dagmar Bittner, Wolfgang U. Dressler & M. Kilani-Schoch, 131–170. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2008. Paradigmatic Uniformity and Markedness. In Jeff Good, ed., 125–143.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1989. The Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning ed. by Stella Vosniadou & Andrew Ortony, 199–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Good, Jeff, ed. 2008. Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gor, Kira. 2007. Experimental Study of First and Second Language Morphological Processing. Methods in Cognitive Linguistics ed. by Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson & Michael J. Spivey, 367–398. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gor, Kira & Tatiana Chernigovskaya. 2004. Generation of Complex Verbal Morphology in First and Second Language Acquisition: Evidence from Russian. Nordlyd 31:6.819–833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Formal Instruction and the Acquisition of Verbal Morphology. Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition ed. by Alex Housen & Michel Pierrard, 103–139. New York & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gorbačevič, Kirill S. 1971. Izmenenie norm russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Leningrad: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
. 1978. Variantnost’ slova i jazykovaja norma. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Gorbachov, Yaroslav V. 2007. Indo-European Origins of the Nasal Inchoative Class in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. Harvard University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Graudina, Ljudmila K., Viktor A. Ickovič & Lija P. Katlinskaja. 1976. Grammatičeskaja pravil’nost’ russkoj reči . Opyt častotno-stilističeskogo slovarja variantov. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
. 2001. Grammatičeskij pravil’nost’ russkoj reči: stilističeskij slovar’ variantov. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2nd ed revised and updated. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Analogical Change In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, eds., 441–461.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1995. On Seeing A’s and Seeing As. Stanford Humanities Review 4.2. Available at [URL]
. 2001. Epilogue: Analogy as the Core of Cognition. The Analogical Mind. Perspectives from Cognitive Science ed. by Dedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak & Boicho N. Kokinov, 499–538. Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Isačenko, Aleksandr V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim—Čast’ vtoraja: morfologija. Bratislava: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1948. Russian Conjugation. Word 4:3.155–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Tore Nesset & R. Harald Baayen. 2010. Capturing Correlational Structure in Russian Paradigms: A Case Study in Logistic Mixed-Effects Modeling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6:1.29–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2011. A Localistic Approach to Universals and Variation. Linguistic Universals and Language Variation ed. by Peter Siemund, 394–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda, eds. 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, John E. 2012. Saussure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiebzak-Mandera, Dorota, Magdalena Smoczyńska & Ekaterina Protassova. 1997. Acquisition of Russian Verb Morphology: The Early Stages. Studies in Pre- and Protomorphology ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressler, 101–114. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
King, Bruce M. & Edward Minium. 2008. Statistical Reasoning in the Behavioral Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona. 2007. Analogy: The Relation between Lexicon and Grammar. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Krysin, Leonid P., ed. 1974. Russkij jazyk po dannym massovogo obsledovanija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1995 [1949]. The Nature of the So-called Analogical Processes. Translated into English and with an introduction by Margaret E. Winters. Diachronica 12:1.113–145. [Originally published in 1949 in Acta Linguistica 5.17–34]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Julia & Anastasia Makarova. 2012. Distribution of Two Semelfactives in Russian: -nu- and -anu-. OSLa (Oslo Studies in Language) 4:1.155–176.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Erez, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Joe Jacson, Tina Tang & Martin A. Nowak. 2007. Quantifying the Evolutionary Dynamics of Language. Nature 4491.713–716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makarova, Anastasia & Laura A. Janda. 2009. Do It Once: A Case Study of the Russian -nu- Semelfactives. Scando-Slavica 551.78–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1958a. Tendances générales des changements analogiques. Lingua 71.298–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1958b. Tendances générales des changements analogiques II. Lingua 71.387–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980. Laws of Analogy. Historical Morphology ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 283–288. The Hague, Paris & New York: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1994. Greek and Latin Linguistics. History of Linguistics. Volume II: Classical and Medieval Linguistics ed. by Giulio Lepschy, 1–133. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 1998. Russian Conjugation Revisited. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
. 2008a. Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. Ob’’jasnenie togo, čto ne imelo mesto: Blokirovka suffiksal’nogo sdviga v russkix glagolax. Voprosy jazykoznanija 61.35–48.Google Scholar
. 2010a. Suffix Shift in Russian Verbs: A Case for Markedness? Russian Linguistics 34:2.123–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Why Not? Prototypes and Blocking of Language Change in Russian Verbs. Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back ed. by Elzbieta Tabakowska, Michal Choinski & Lukasz Wiraszka, 125–144. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2013. The History of the Russian Semelfactive: The Development of a Radial Category. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21:1.123–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore & Laura A. Janda. 2010. Paradigm Structure: Evidence from Russian Suffix Shift. Cognitive Linguistics 21:4.699–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore & Julia Kuznetsova. 2011. Stability and Complexity: Russian Suffix Shift over Time. Scando-Slavica 57:2.268–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore & Anastasia Makarova. 2011. “Nu-drop” in Russian Verbs: A Corpus-Based Investigation of Morphological Variation and Change. Russian Linguistics 35:4.41–63.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. 1996. Semantičeskie issledovanija. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1975 [1880]. Prinzipien der Sparchgeschichte. Tuebingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2000. ‘Bystro’ v grammatike russkogo i drugix jazykov. Slovo v tekste i v slo­vare: sbornik statej k semidesjatiletiju akademika Ju. D. Apresjana ed. by Leonid L. Iomdin & Leonid P. Krysin, 212–222. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available at [URL]Google Scholar
Rozental’, Ditmar È. 1977. Praktičeskaja stilistika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Vysšaja škola.Google Scholar
Schuyt, Roel. 1990. The Morphology of Slavic Verbal Aspect : A Descriptive and Historical Study. Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 2002. An Overview of Analogical Modeling. Analogical Modeling: An Exemplar-Based Approach to Language ed. by Royal Skousen, Deryle Lonsdale & Dilworth B. Parkinson, 11–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Expanding Analogical Modeling into a General Theory of Language Prediction. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins, eds., 166–184.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1997 [1991]. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Švedova, Natalija Ju. ed. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Vol. 11. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Svistunova, Tatiana I. 2008. Organizacija mental’nogo leksikona: Formirovanie v ontogenze i raspad pri narušenijax jazykovoj sistemy glagol’noj slovoizmenitel’noj morfologii (èksperimental’noe issledovanie). St. Petersburg State University kandidatskaja dissertacija.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tkachenko, Elena & Tatiana Chernigovskaya. 2010. Input Frequencies in Processing of Verbal Morphology in L1 and L2: Evidence from Russian, Oslo Studies in Language 2:2.281–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark. 2001. Cognitive Dimensions to Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and Times. Philosophical Review 661.143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinogradov, Viktor V. & Natalija Ju. Švedova, eds. 1964. Glagol, narečie, predlogi i sojuzy v russkom literaturnom jazyke XIX veka. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Wanner, Dieter. 2006. The Power of Analogy : An Essay on Historical Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1980. Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Anna A. & Aleksej D. Šmelev. 2000. Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Nesset, Tore
2022. Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics, DOI logo
Gonzalez-Trujillo, Ricardo & Ernesto Priego
2021. Searching for a Common Ancestry: Linguistic and Biological Analogies in Comic Art. The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship 11:1 DOI logo
Wandl, Florian
2020. On the relative chronology of the II regressive and the progressive palatalizations of Common Slavic. Russian Linguistics 44:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.