Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 37:4 (2020) ► pp.514–539

A long birth

The development of gender-specific paucal constructions in Russian

ORCID logo | UiT The Arctic University of Norway
This article investigates the diachronic development of Russian numeral constructions consisting of a paucal numeral (dva “two”, tri “three”, četyre “four”) followed by an adjective and a noun. Based on statistical analysis of more than 6,000 corpus examples, it is shown that a split took place in the second half of the twentieth century when feminine nouns developed a different agreement pattern from that of masculine and neuter nouns. This split is argued to represent the final step in a long “birth process” of gender-specific paucal constructions that started with the loss of the dual in the Middle Ages. It is suggested that we are witnessing a cascading effect, whereby the feminine pattern develops when the pattern for masculine and neuter nouns is approaching stabilization. The article furthermore includes a discussion of the hypothesis that “S-curves” represent a template for language change. While the documented changes resemble S-curves, the proposed analysis also addresses some general problems with testing the S-curve hypothesis empirically.
Keywords: Russian, numerals, paucal, gender, S-curves
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Historical background
  • 3.Corpus investigation 1: Random Forest and logistic regression
  • 4.Corpus investigation 2: CART and logistic regression
  • 5.S-curves in language change – A cascading effect?
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18057.nes
References (39)
References
Andersen, Henning. 2006. Some thoughts on the history of Russian numeral syntax. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28(1–4). 57–67.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Anna Endresen, Laura A. Janda, Anastasia Makarova & Tore Nesset. 2013. Making choices in Russian: Pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms. Russian Linguistics 37(3). 253–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F. & Andrew Nevins. 2008. Russian genitive plurals are impostors. In Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Inflectional identity, 237–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berdičevskis, Aleksandrs & Hanne Eckhoff. 2014. Verbal constructional profiles: Possibilities and limitations. In Verena Henrich, Erhard Hinrichs, Daniël de Kok, Petya Osenova & Adam Przepiórkowski (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT 13). Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Blythe, Richard A. & William Croft. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 88(2). 269–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2002. Patterns of variation including change. In J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change, 349–372. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. The head of Russian numeral expressions. In Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser & Scott McGlashan (eds.), Heads in grammatical theory, 11–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallis, Arne. 1947. Tallordenes syntaks i russisk. In Erik Krag & Arne Gallis (eds.), Festskrift til professor Olaf Broch på hans 80-årsdag: Fra venner og elever, 63–75. Oslo: Det norske videnskapsakademi.Google Scholar
Gorbačevič, Kirill S. 1971. Izmenenie norm russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Leningrad: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
Graudina, Ljudmila K., Viktor A. Ickovič & Lija P. Katlinskaja. 2001. Grammatičeskaja pravil’nost’ russkoj reči. Moscow: Astrel’.Google Scholar
Iordanskij, Anatolij M. 1958. Istorija upotreblenija soglasovannyx opredelenij pri sočetanijax čislitel’nyx dva, tri, četyre s imenami suščestvitel’nymi v russkom jazyke. Učenye zapiski Vladimirskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo instituta 41. 54–82.Google Scholar
Isačenko, Alexander V. 1962. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989a. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 11. 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989b. Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do . In Ralph W. Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), Language change and variation, 133–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Syntactic change. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 699–729. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of language change. Volume 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leopold, Edda. 2005. Diachronie: Grammatik. In Reinhard Köhler, Gabriel Altmann & Rajmund G. Piotrowski (eds.), Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook, 607–633. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madariaga, Nerea & Iván Igartua. 2017. Idiosyncratic (dis)agreement patterns: The structure and diachrony of Russian paucal subjects. Scando-Slavica 63(2). 99–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1985. Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach Sonderband 161, Vienna.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2015. How Russian came to be the way it is. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
. 2019. Big data in Russian linguistics? Zeitschrift für Slawistik 64(2). 157–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore & Anastasia Makarova. 2018. The decade construction rivalry in Russian: Using a corpus to study historical linguistics. Diachronica 35(1). 71–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2010. As easy as two, three, four. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 181. 418–435.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, Gilbert C. 2002. Numeral phrases in Russian: A minimalist approach. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10(1–2). 327–340.Google Scholar
Rozental’, Ditmar È. 1987. Praktičeskaja stilistika russkogo jazyka, 5th edn.. Moscow: Vysšaja škola.Google Scholar
Ryazanova-Clarke, Lara. 2006. “The crystallization of structures”: Linguistic culture in Putin’s Russia. In Ingunn Lunde & Tine Roesen (eds.), Landslide of the norm: Language culture in post-Soviet Russia. Slavica Bergensia 61. Bergen: University of Bergen. Available at [URL]
Šaronov, Igor’. 2014. Narodnaja ètimologija i količestvennye sočetanija v russkom jazyke. Antropologičeskij Forum 211. 137–144.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, James Malley & Gerhard Tutz. 2009. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods 14(4). 323–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suprun, A. 1957. K upotrebleniju roditel’nogo i imenitel’nogo padežej množestvennogo čisla prilagatel’nyx v sočetanijax s čislitel’nymi dva, tri, četyre v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Kirgizskij gosudarstvennyj zaočnyj pedagogičeskij institut, učenye zapiski 31. 72–84.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. Harald Baayen. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wade, Terence. 2011. A comprehensive Russian grammar 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1967. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1985. Ot praslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Žolobov, Oleg F. 2002. Morfosintaksis čislitel’nyx dva, tri, četyre: K istorii malogo kvantitativa. Russian Linguistics 26(1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. K istorii malogo kvantitativa: adnumerativnye formy prilagatel’nyx i suščestvitel’nyx. Russian Linguistics 27(2). 177–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Nesset, Tore & Laura A. Janda
2023. A network of allostructions: quantified subject constructions in Russian. Cognitive Linguistics 0:0 DOI logo
Nesset, Tore
2022. Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics, 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.