Element contents
Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics
Case Studies from the History of Russian
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2022
Summary
The purpose of this Cambridge Element is to bring together three subfields of the language sciences: cognitive, historical (diachronic), and Russian linguistics. Although diachrony has inspired a number of important works in recent years, historical linguistics is still underrepresented in cognitive linguistics, and the most influential publications mainly concern the history of English. This is an unfortunate bias, especially since its lack of morphological complexity makes English a typologically unusual language. In this Cambridge Element, the author demonstrates that Russian has a lot to offer the historically oriented cognitive linguist, given its well-documented history and complex phonology and morpho-syntax. Through seven case studies the author illustrates the relevance of four basic tenets of Cognitive Grammar: the cognitive, semiotic, network, and usage-based commitments.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009031554Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 01 December 2022
References
Albright, Adam. 2008. Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 144–82.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam. 2009. Modeling analogy as probabilistic grammar. In Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185–213.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1980. Russian conjugation: Acquisition and evolutive change. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. (ed.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 285–301.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2006. Some thoughts on the history of Russian numeral syntax. In Harvey Goldblatt and Nancy Shields Kollmann (eds.), Rus’ Writ Large: Languages, Histories, Cultures. Essays Presented in Honor of Michael S. Flier on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 28.1–4, 57–67.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 2nd revised ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth and Brian MacWhinney. 1987. Competition, variation, and language learning. In: Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 157–94.Google Scholar
Berdičevskis, Aleksandrs and Eckhoff, Hanne. 2014. Verbal constructional profiles: Possibilities and limitations. In Henrich, Verena, Hinrichs, Erhard, Daniël, de Kok, Osenova, Petya, and Przepiórkowski, Adam (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT 13). Tübingen: University of Tübingen, 2–13.Google Scholar
Bjorvand, Harald. 2000. Diakron lingvistikk. In Endresen, Rolf Theil, Simonsen, Hanne Gram and Sveen, Andreas (eds.), Innføring i lingvistikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 307–39.Google Scholar
Blythe, Richard A. and Croft, William. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 88.2: 269–304.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa: An International Journal of Linguistics 2: 119–27.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2007a. Diachronic linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 945–87.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2007b. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2021. Joint innovation: Integrating speaker and listener in a theory of sound change. Talk given in the series Abralin ao Vivo – Linguists Online, https://aovivo.abralin.org/en/lives/joan-bybee-2/.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2002. Patterns of variation including change. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, 349–72.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Stone, Gerald, and Polinsky, Maria. 1996. The Russian Language in the 20th Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1993. The head of Russian numeral expressions. In Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M., and McGlashan, Scott (eds.), Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–35.Google Scholar
Diels, Paul. 1963. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Mit einer Auswahl von Texten und einem Wörterbuch. I. Teil: Grammatik, 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ding, Nai, Melloni, Lucia, Zhang, Hang, Tian, Xing, and Poeppel, David. 2016. Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience 19: 158–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Divjak, Dagmar. 2019. Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, Evelina and Shain, Cory. 2021 Similarity of computations across domains does not imply shared implementation: The case of language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 30.6: 526–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filin, Fedot P. (ed.). 1972. Slovar’ russkix narodnyx govorov, vol. 8. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Gagarina, Natalija. 2003. The early verb development and demarcation of stages in three Russian-speaking children. In Dagmar Bittner, Wolfgang U. Dressler, and Kilani-Schoch, Marianne (eds.), Development of Verb Inflection in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 131–70.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2016. The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics 27.4: 527–42.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Kristiansen, Gitte, and Peirsman, Yves (eds.). 2010. Advances in Cognitive Socio-Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gor, Kira. 2007. Experimental study of first and second language morphological processing. In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelberg, Irene, Coulson, Seana, and Spivey, Michael J. (eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 367–98.Google Scholar
Gor, Kira and Chernigovskaya, Tatiana. 2004. Generation of complex verbal morphology in first and second language acquisition: Evidence from Russian. Nordlyd 31.6: 819–33.Google Scholar
Gor, Kira and Chernigovskaya, Tatiana. 2005. Formal instruction and the acquisition of verbal morphology. In Housen, Alex and Pierrard, Michel (eds.), Current Issues in Instructed Second Language Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 103–36.Google Scholar
Gorbachov, Yaroslav V. 2007. Indo-European origins of the nasal inchoative class in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. Ph.D. dissertation: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Goswami, Usha. 2012. Entraining the brain: Applications to language research and links to musical entrainment. Empirical Musicology Review 7.1–2: 57–63.Google Scholar
Graudina, L. K., Ickovič, V. A. and Katlinskaja, L. P.. 2001. Grammatičeskij pravil’nost’ russkoj reči: stilističeskij slovar’ variantov. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2015. Historical linguistics. In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 346–66.Google Scholar
Hovdenak, Marit, Killingbergtrø, Laurits, Lauvhjell et al, Arne. 2001. Nynorskordboka. Oslo: Det norske samlaget.Google Scholar
Igartua, Ivan and Madariaga, Nerea. 2018. The interplay of semantic and formal factors in Russian morphosyntax: Animate paucal constructions in direct object function. Russian Linguistics 42.1: 27–55.Google Scholar
Isačenko, Aleksander I. 1974. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart: Formenlehre. Munich: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6, 240–88.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. (ed.). 2013. Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. The Essential Reader. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. and Steven, J. Clancy. 2002. The Case Book for Russian. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Endresen, Anna, Kuznetsova, Julia et al. 2013. Why Russian Aspectual Prefixes Aren’t Empty: Prefixes as Verb Classifiers. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Lyashevskaya, Olga, Nesset, Tore, Rakhilina, Ekaterina, and Tyers, Francis M. 2018. A constructicon for Russian: Filling in the gaps. In Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Borin, Lars, Ohara, Kyoko, and Torrent, Tiago Timponi (eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. [Constructional Approaches to Language 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 165–81. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.06jan.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Nesset, Tore, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2010. Capturing correlational structure in Russian paradigms: A case study in logistic mixed-effects modeling, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6.1: 29–48.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2011. A Localistic Approach to Universals and Variation. In Peter Siemund (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 394–414.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin. 1963. Russische historische Grammatik (vol. 1). Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin. 1967. Russische historische Grammatik (vol. 2). Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kloss, Boris M. 1980. Nikonovskij svod i russkie letopisi XVI–XVII vekov. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989a. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989b. Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do. In Fasold, Ralph W. and Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), Language Change and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133–72.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 2003. Syntactic change. In Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 699–729.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].Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Julia and Makarova, Anastasia. 2012. Distribution of two semelfactives in Russian: -nu and -anu. Oslo Studies in Language 4.1: 155–76.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Language Change. Vol. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leopold, Edda. 2005. Diachronie: Grammatik. In Köhler, Reinhard, Altmann, Gabriel, and Piotrowski, Rajmund G. (eds.), Quantitative Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 607–33.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 139–69.Google Scholar
London, Justin. 2012. Three things linguists need to know about rhythm and time in music. Empirical Musicology Review 7.1–2: 5–11.Google Scholar
Lyashevskaya, Olga N. and Sharoff, Sergey A.. 2009. Častotnyj slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (na materialax Nacional’nogo korpusa russkogo jazyka). Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Lyngfeldt, Benjamin, Borin, Lars, Ohara, Kyoko, and Torrent, Tiago Timponi (eds.). 2018. Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1958. Tendances générales des changements analogiques II. Lingua 7: 387–420Google Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1980. Laws of analogy. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical Morphology. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 283–8.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. and Alan, Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 12: 79–153.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1985. Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. Sonderband, 16). Wien: Institut für Slawistik der Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Nathan, Geoffrey S. 2015. Phonology. In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 253–73.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2010. Suffix shift in Russian verbs: A case for markedness? Russian Linguistics 34.2: 123–38.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2012. One or several categories? The Old Church Slavonic nǫ-verbs and linguistic profiling. Russian Linguistics 36: 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2013. The history of the Russian semelfactive: The development of a radial category. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21.1: 123–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2015. How Russian Came to Be the Way It Is: A Student’s Guide to the History of the Russian Language. Bloomington: Slavica PublishersGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2016a. Does historical linguistics need the Cognitive Commitment? Prosodic change in East Slavic. Cognitive Linguistics 27.4: 573–85.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2016b. Russiske rivaler: Cocktailhypotesen. In Hans-Olav Enger, Monica I. Norvik Knoph, Kristian E. Kristoffersen, and Lind, Marianne (eds.), Helt Fabelaktig! Festskrift til Hanne Gram Simonsen på 70-årsdagen. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 167–80.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2016c. A FOOTnote to the jers: The Russian trochee-iamb shift and Cognitive Linguistics. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24.2: 359–91. doi: 10.1353/jsl.2016.0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2020. A long birth: The development of gender-specific paucal constructions in Russian. Diachronica 37.4: 514–39.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore and Kuznetsova, Julia. 2011. Stability and complexity: Russian suffix shift over time, Scando-Slavica 57.2: 268–89.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore and Kuznetsova, Julia. 2015a. Constructions and language change: From genitive to accusative objects in Russian. Diachronica 32: 3, 365–96.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore and Kuznetsova, Julia. 2015b. In which case are Russians afraid? Bojat’sja with genitive and accusative objects. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 23.2: 255–83.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore and Makarova, Anastasia. 2012. ‘Nu-drop’ in Russian verbs: A corpus-based investigation of morphological variation and change. Russian Linguistics 36: 41–63.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore and Makarova, Anastasia. 2014. Testing the semantic homogeneity constraint: Analogical change and Russian verbs. Journal of Historical Linguistics 4.2: 161–91.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore and Makarova, Anastasia. 2018. The decade construction rivalry in Russian: Using a corpus to study historical linguistics. Diachronica 35.1: 71–106.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore and Nordrum, Maria. 2019. Do Russian paucal numerals govern the genitive? Evidence from stress placement. Russian Linguistics 43: 87–105.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1958. Analysis of meaning and dictionary making. International Journal of American Linguistics 24.4: 279–92.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan and Byloo, Pieter. 2015. Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 32.1: 34–68.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. 1996. Semantičeskie issledovanija. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2010. As easy as two, three, four? In Wayles Browne, Adam Cooper, Alison Fisher, Esra Kesici and Nikola Predolac: Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-18). The second Cornell meeting 2009 (Michigan Slavic Materials 56). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 418–35.Google Scholar
Phillips, Webb and Boroditsky, Lera. 2003. Can quirks of grammar affect the way you think? Grammatical gender and object concepts. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 25: 928–33.Google Scholar
Rusakova, Marina V. 2013. Èlementy antropocentričeskoj grammatiki russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1983 [1916]. Course in General Linguistics. Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2014. Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. In Herbst, Thomas, Schmid, Hans-Jörg, and Faulhaber, Susen (eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 239–93.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2015. A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3, 1–27.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016. Why Cogntive Linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cogntive Linguistics 27.4: 543–58.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2017. A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning . Boston: American Psychological Association Press, 9–35.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schuyt, Roel. 1990. The Morphology of Slavic Verbal Aspect: A Descriptive and Historical Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Slovar’ russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. 1975–. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte and Smirnova, Elena (eds.). 2020. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sreznevskij, Izmail I. 1893–1906. Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka po pis’mennym pamjatnikam. St. Petersburg: Tipografija imperatorskoj akademii nauk.Google Scholar
Stang, Christian S. 1942. Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Det norske vitenskapsakademi.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1978. Word order variation: A typological study. In Greenberg, Joseph (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4 Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 585–624.Google Scholar
Szymanek, Bogdan. 2005. The latest trends in English word-formation. In Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer, 429–48.Google Scholar
Thelen, Eshter. 1979. Rhythmical stereotypies in normal human infants. Animal Behaviour 27: 699–715.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1985. Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. In Richard Brecht, D. and Levine, James S. (eds.), Case in Slavic. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 338–60.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trehub, Sandra E. and Hannon, Erin E.. 2006. Infant music perception: Domain-general or domain-specific mechanisms? Cognition 100: 73–99.Google Scholar
Worth, Dean S. 1984. Russian gen2, loc2 revisited. In Jan Joost, van Baak (ed.), Signs of Friendship. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 295–306.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2002 [1967]. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. S priloženiem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2008a. Drevnerusskie ènklitiki. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2008b. ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’: vzgljad lingvista. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamjatniki drevnej Rusi.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Anna A. and Šmelev, Aleksej D.. 2000. Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Žolobov, Oleg F. 2002. Morfosintaksis čislitel’nyx dva, tri, četyre: K istorii malogo kvantitativa. Russian Linguistics 26.1: 1–27.Google Scholar