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. 303–340

Chapter 10
Analogy and contrast at the morphology-syntax interface

A case study of new Russian [N[N]] compounds

| UiT The Arctic University of Norway
This chapter brings together the issues of analogy and contrast through a perspective of linguistic borrowing. We analyze the integration of new [N[N]] compounds, borrowed from English into Russian (e.g. top-igrok ‘top player’). By discussing two corpus studies and two small experiments, we show that Russian new [N[N]] compounds reflect both “levelling” and “extension”. There are at least three factors that can block “leveling”: statistical preemption, which is overridden by pragmatic factors; multiplicity of competing alternatives, when several suffixes could be added to the stem to form a relational adjective; and semantics that leads to a split between the two forms. Compound modifiers seem to represent terms and official titles, whereas adjective phrases become qualitative, where possible, or pragmatic.
Keywords: extension, leveling, linguistic borrowing, statistical preemption
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Analogy and contrast and adjacent linguistic processes
  • 3.Analogy effects in Russian [N[N]] compounds
    • 3.1“Levelling”: [N[N]] compounds vs. adjective phrases
    • 3.2“Extension”: Contracted pattern in experimental data
  • 4.Contrast effects in Russian [N[N]] compounds
    • 4.1Contrast between [N[N]] compounds and appositions
    • 4.2Contrast between [N[N]] compounds and adjective phrases
      • 4.2.1Variation between [N[N]] compounds and adjective phrases in the internet corpus
      • 4.2.2Variation between [N[N]] compounds and adjective phrases in a linguistic experiment
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.10sok
References (72)
References
Albright, A. 2002. The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. Ph.D. dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
2008. Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change. In J. Good (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language change (144–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baš, L. M. 2009. Sovremennyj slovar’ inostrannyx slov: tolkovanie, slovoupotreblenie, slovoobrazovanie, ètimologija. Moscow: Feniks.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Conversion and the notion of lexical category. In L. Bauer, & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (19–30). Munster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., & Huddleston, R. 2002. Lexical word-formation. In R. Huddleston, & G. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (1621–1721). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belikov, V., Kopylov, N., Piperski, A., Selegey, V., & Sharoff, S. 2013. Big and diverse is beautiful: A large corpus of Russian to study linguistic variation. Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC-8): [URL]Google Scholar
Benigni, V. 2003. Produktivnye modeli v razvitii klassa analitičeskix prilagatel’nyx. In L. P. Krysin (Ed.), Russkij jazyk segodnja 2: Aktivnye jazykovye processy konca XX veka (339–342). Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Benigni, V., & Masini, F. 2009. Compounds in Russian. Lingue e linguaggio, 2, 171–194.Google Scholar
Billings, L. A. 1998. Morphology and syntax: Delimiting stump compounds in Russian. In G. Booij, A. Ralli, & S. Scalise (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (99–110). Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P., & Blevins, J. 2009. Introduction: Analogy in grammar. In J. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondarevskij, D. V. 2010. Vlijanie progressirujuščej analitizacii na formirovanie kategorii neizmenjaemyx prilagatel’nyx. Vestnik Pjatigorskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvističeskogo universiteta, 1, 137–141.Google Scholar
2009. Neizmenjaemost’ – ključevoe javlenie analitizma. Vestnik Čeljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 7, 8–12: [URL]Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. 2007. Conventionality and contrast in language and language acquisition. New directions for child and adolescent development, 115, 11–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B., & Stone, G. 1978. The Russian language since the revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Edberg, B. H. 2014. Analiticeskie prilagatel’nye i analitism v sovremennom russkom jazyke. MA thesis. UiT The Arctic Univeristy of Norway.Google Scholar
Egorova, T. V. 2012. Slovar’ inostrannyx slov sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. 1997. Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 23, 71–87.Google Scholar
2002. Priming relations in ambiguous noun-noun combinations. Memory and Cognition, 30, 637–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. 2004. Effect of relation availability on the interpretation and access of familiar noun-noun compounds. Brain and Language, 90, 478–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorbov, A. A. 2015. Atributivnye komponenty sočetanij tipa biznes-plan: analitičeskie prilagatel’nye? Vestnik SPbGU, 9(3), 36–48.Google Scholar
2010. Top-metod ekspress-nominacii ekonom-klassa: o russkix imennyx kompositax s atributivnym èlementom v preposicii k veršine. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6, 26–36.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Flach, S. This volume. A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive.
Kamynina, A. A. 1999. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Morfologija. Moscow: MGU.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V. 2019. Constructional change and relational structure in Slavic compounds. Paper presented at the 21st Nordic Conference of Slavic Studies, Joensuu, Finland, August 14–18.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V., & Vakareliyska, C. M. 2013. [N[N]] compounds in Russian. A growing family of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 69–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, F. 2005. Types of conversion in Hungarian. In L. Bauer, & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (51–65). Munster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Kim, L. A. 2009. Vopros ob analitičeskix prilagatel’nyx v sovremennoj rusistike. Movoznavstvo, 15(3), 47–54.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (171–202). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Klimov, M. V. 2013. Orfograficeskij slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Adelant.Google Scholar
Krott, A. 2009. The role of analogy for compound words. In J. P. Blevins, & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (118–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Gagné, C. L., & Nicoladis, E. 2009. How the parts relate to the whole: Frequency effects on children’s interpretation of novel compounds. Journal of Child Language, 36, 85–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Krebbers, L., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. 2002. Semantic influence on linkers in Dutch noun-noun compounds. Folia Linguistica, 36, 7–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. 2002a. Analogical hierarchy: Exemplar-based modeling of linkers in Dutch noun-noun compounds. In R. Skousen, D. Londsdale, & D. B. Parkinson (Eds.), Analogical modeling: An examplar-based approach to language (181–206). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002b. Linking elements in Dutch noun-noun compounds: Constituent families as analogical predictors for response latencies. Brain and Language, 81, 708–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Schreuder, R., Baayen, R. H., & Dressler, W. U. 2007. Analogical effects on linking elements in German compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 25–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsov, S. A. 1998. Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Sankt-Peterburg: Norint.Google Scholar
Lopatin, V. V., & Uluxanov, I. S. 2016. Slovar’ slovoobrazovatel’nyx affiksov sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Mańczak, W. 1980. Laws of analogy. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical morphology (283–288). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1958. Tendences générales des changements analogiques. Lingua, 7, 298–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinova, E. V. 2010. Vopros ob analitičeskix prilagatel’nyx v otečestvennoj i zarubežnoj lingvistike. Lingvistika, 4(2), 628–630.Google Scholar
Masini, F., & Benigni, V. 2012. Phrasal lexemes and shortening strategies in Russian: the case for constructions. Morphology, 22(3), 417–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molinsky, S. J. 1973. Patterns of ellipsis in Russian compound noun formations. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, T. 2017. Compounds in contrast. Paper presented at the Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia, October 12–14, 2017.Google Scholar
Nesset, T., & Sokolova, S. 2019. Compounds and culture: Conceptual blending in Norwegian and Russian. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 257–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. 2015. Composition. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Volume 4 (364–386). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panov, M. V. 1960. O častjax reči v russkom jazyke. In E. A. Zemskaja, & S. M. Kuz’mina (Eds.), Trudy po obščemu jazykoznaniju i russkomu jazyku. Volume 2 (151–164). Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
1971. Ob analitičeskix prilagatel’nyx. In F. P. Filin (Ed.), Fonetika. Fonologija. Grammatika (240–253). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1999. Pozicionnaja morfologija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Patton, D. P. 1999. Analytism in modern Russian: A study of the spread of non-agreement in noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. 2016. Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. 2006. The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical factors. Part 1. English Language and Linguistics, 10, 143–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. 2012. Introduction: A bird’s-eye view of lexical blending. In V. Renner, F. Maniez, & P. Arnaud (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (Trends in Linguistics – Studies and Monographs) (1–9). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. 2015. Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 467–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, D. 2005. Zero-derivation – Functional change – Metonymy. In L. Bauer, & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (131–159). Munster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Seliščev, A. M. 1928. Jazyk revoljucionnoj èpoxi. Мoscow: Rabotnik prosveščenija.Google Scholar
Sokolova, S., & Edberg, B. H. 2019. Are there analytical adjectives in Russian? Evidence from a corpus study and experimental data. Poljarnyj Vestnik, 22, 57–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Čto takoe valjut-rynok? Xarakteristika imennyx kompositov v russkom jazyke po resultatam korpusa i èksperimenta. Proceedings of the conference New Russia: traditions and innovations in language and language science. Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg, September 28–30, 2016, 178–186.Google Scholar
Sokolova, S., & Petrukhina, E. 2019. Složenie ili atributivnaja gruppa? Dinamika russkogo slovosloženija po dannym korpusa i èksperimenta. Paper presented at the 21st Nordic Conference of Slavic Studies, Joensuu, Finland, August 14–18.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 1991. Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2015. Should Cognitive Linguistics be contrastive? Plenary presentation at Language in Contrast: Diachronic, variationist and cross-linguistic studies, Paris, France, December 4–5, 2015.Google Scholar
Švedova, N. J. et al.. (Eds.). 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Volume 1. Moscow: Akademija nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Townsend, C. E. 1968. Russian word-formation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ušakov, D. N. 2011. Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Dom Slavjanskoj knigi.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1972. Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. In T. Vennemann, & T. H. Wilbur (Eds.), Schuchhardt, the Neogrammarians, and the Transformational Theory of Phonological Change: Four essays by Hugo Schuchhardt, Theo Vennemann, Terence H. Wilbur (Linguistische Forschungen, 26, 115–179). Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, V. A. 1990 Slovosloženie. In V. N. Jarceva. (Ed.), Lingvističeskij ènciklopedičeskij slovar’. Moscow: Sovetskaja ènciklopedija: [URL]Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. 1977. Grammaticeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar