Cover not available
Part of
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 159–192

Chapter 6
From nouns to verbs

Analogy across parts of speech

| UiT The Arctic University of Norway
A conceptual metaphor motivates an analogy between nouns and verbs, here termed the Noun → Verb Analogy. The metaphor maps properties from the source domain of space for nouns to the target domain of time for verbs. Three case studies present evidence for this metaphorical analogy using data from Russian. The first study examines the metaphor that underlies the Russian system of verbal aspect. The second study catalogs parallels between numeral classifiers and aspectual markers in Russian. The third study, of the distribution of grammatical forms, shows that aspect in verbs behaves much like number in nouns. Recognition of the Noun → Verb Analogy facilitates a more orderly and straightforward understanding of Russian verbs.
Keywords: aspect, classifier, metaphor, Russian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Native speakers always know which aspect to use, and, in fact, even children never make errors in the use of aspect
    • 1.2Perfective vs. Imperfective is a simple binary distinction
    • 1.3Aspectual markers are semantically empty
  • 2.The properties of spatial and temporal objects
  • 3.Classifiers for spatial and temporal objects
  • 4.Number and aspect as the identifying features of spatial and temporal objects
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.06jan
References (68)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2000. Classifiers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, E., Aver’janova, G. N., & Pjadusova, G. I. 2001. The Russian verb: Form & function. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Avilova, N. S. 1976. Vid glagola i semantika glagol’nogo slova. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Bach, E. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5–16.Google Scholar
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, & E. Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bisang, W. 1999. Classifiers in east and southeast Asian languages: Counting and beyond. In J. Gvozdanović (Ed.), Numeral types and changes worldwide (113–185). Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondarko, A. V. 1971. Vid i vremja russkogo glagola. Moscow: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
Carlson, L. 1981. Aspect and quantification. In P. J. Tedeschi, & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 14. Tense and aspect (31–64). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Čertkova, M. 1996. Grammatičeskaja kategorija vida v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Childers, J. B., & Tomasello, M. 2006. Are nouns easier to learn than verbs? Three experimental studies. In K. A. Hirsh-Pasek, & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs. Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cubberly, P. 2002. Russian: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Deepadung, S. 1997. Extension in the usage of the Thai classifier /tua/. Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies in Honour of Vichin Panupong (49–55). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.Google Scholar
Dickey, S. M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dickey, S. M., & Janda, L. A. 2015. Slavic aspectual prefixes and numeral classifiers: Two kinds of lexico-grammatical unitizers. Lingua, 168, 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durst-Andersen, P. 1992. Mental grammar: Russian aspect and related issues. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Eckhoff, H. M., Janda, L. A., & Lyashevskaya, O. 2017. Predicting Russian aspect by frequency across genres. Slavic and East European Journal, 64, 844–875.Google Scholar
Endresen, A., Janda, L. A., Reynolds, R., & Tyers, F. M. 2016. Who needs particles? A challenge to the classification of particles as a part of speech in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 40, 103–132. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Forsyth, J. A. 1970. Grammar of aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gagarina, N. 2004. Does the acquisition of aspect have anything to do with aspectual pairs? ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 33, 39–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galton, H. 1976. The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.Google Scholar
Gao, M. Y., & Malt, B. C. 2009. Mental representation and cognitive consequences of Chinese individual classifiers. Languages and Cognitive Processes, 24, 1124–1179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. 1982. Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj II (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought and culture (301–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Boroditsky; L. 2001. Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In M. Bowerman, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (215–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gjervold, J. H. 2014. Prefix variation in Russian. A comparison between occasional verbs and standardized language. MA Thesis, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway.Google Scholar
Glovinskaja, M. Ja. 1982. Semantičeskie tipy vidovyx protivopostavlenij russkogo glagola. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Gvozdev, A. N. 1961. Voprosy izučenija detskoj reči. Moscow: APN RSFSR.Google Scholar
Isačenko, A. V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim – Čast’ vtoraja: morfologija. Bratislava: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. O. 1957/1971. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected writings II. The Hague: Mouton, 130–147.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. 2003. A user-friendly conceptualization of aspect. Slavic and East European Journal, 47, 251–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. A metaphor in search of a source domain: The categories of Slavic aspect. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 471–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language, 31, 607–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Russkie pristavki kak sistema glagol’nyx klassifikatorov. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6, 3–47.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Lyashevskaya, O. 2011. Grammatical profiles and the interaction of the lexicon with aspect, tense and mood in Russian. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 719–763. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., Endresen, A., Kuznetsova, J., Lyashevskaya, O., Makarova, A., Nesset, T., & Sokolova, S. 2013. Why Russian aspectual prefixes aren’t empty: Prefixes as verb classifiers. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Reynolds, R. J. 2019. Construal vs. redundancy: Russian aspect in context. Cognitive Linguistics, 30, 467–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Tyers, F. M. 2018. Less is more: Why all paradigms are defective, and why that is a good thing. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(1), 109–141. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Nouns and verbs. Language, 63, 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A. 1992. Grammatical categories and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Systems of nominal classification: A concluding discussion. In G. Senft (Ed.), Systems of nominal classification (326–341). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyashevskaya, O. 2016. Korpusnye instrumenty v leksiko-grammaticheskikh issledovavijakh russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Languages of Slavic culture press.Google Scholar
Majsak, T. A. 2005. Tipologija grammatikalizacii konstrukcij s glagolami dviženija i glagolami pozicii. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
Martelle, W. 2011. Testing the aspect hypothesis in L2 Russian. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Maslov, J. S. 1965. Sistema osnovnyx ponjatij i terminov slavjanskoj aspektologii. Voprosy obščego jazykoznanija, 1, 53–80.Google Scholar
McGregor, W. B. 2002. Verb classification in Australian languages. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 25). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehlig, H. R. 1996. Some analogies between the morphology of nouns and the morphology of aspect in Russian. Folia Linguistica, 30, 87–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikaelian, I., Shmelev, A., & Zaliznjak, A. 2007. Imperfectivization in Russian. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Meaning Text Theory, Klagenfurt, May 20–24, 315–23. [ Wiener slawistischer Almanach, 60.]Google Scholar
Mironova, L. Ju. 2004. Vid glagola i sootnošenie leksiko-semantičeskix variantov mnogoznačnogo slova. Tambov: Avtoreferat.Google Scholar
Morrow, D. G. 1986. Grammatical morphemes and conceptual structure in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 423–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mourelatos, A. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 415–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Offord, D. 1996. Using Russian. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Padučeva, E. V. 1996. Semantičeskie issledovanija. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Plungjan, V. A. 2011. Vvedenie v grammatičeskuju semantiku: Grammatičeskie značenija i grammatičeskie sistemy jazykov mira. Moscow: Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj institut.Google Scholar
Šaxmatov, A. A. 1952. Učenie o častjax reči. Moscow: Učebno- pedagogičeskoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Stoll, S. E. 2001. The acquisition of Russian aspect. UC Berkeley PhD Dissteration.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A. 2004. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tixonov, A. N. 1964. Čistovidovye pristavki v sisteme russkogo vidovogo formoobrazovanija. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 1, 42–52.Google Scholar
1998. Vidovye korrelacii v sovremennom russkom jazyke. In Marina Ju. Čertkova (Ed.), Tipologija vida: Problemy, poiski, rešenija, (466–477). Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
van Schooneveld, C. H. 1958. The so-called ‘préverbes vides’ and neutralization. Dutch Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavistics (159–61). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Vey, M. 1952. Les préverbes ‘vides’ en tchéque moderne. Revue des études slaves, 29, 82–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinogradov, V. V. 1972. Russkij jazyk. Moscow: Vysšajaškola.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A., & Šmelev, A. D. 2000. Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. N. 2013. Classifier structures in Mandarin Chinese. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar