Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 1–30 | Cite as

Agentive (para)synthetic compounds in Russian: a quantitative study of rival constructions

  • Chiara NaccaratoEmail author
Article

Abstract

The paper compares two rival word-formation constructions giving rise to compound agent nouns in Russian, i.e., (para)synthetic compounds formed with the agentive suffixes -ec and -tel’, such as basnopisec ‘fable writer’ and bytopisatel’ ‘everyday-life writer’. To understand what makes these constructions different from one another, compounds in -ec and -tel’ are analyzed based on a number of formal and semantic criteria, i.e., the part of speech and semantic role of the non-verbal element of the compound, the transitivity and formal aspect of the verbal base of the compound, the animacy of the compound’s referent, and the semantics of the compound. The study is supported by statistical analyses, i.e., conditional inference trees and random forests, which help discriminate the behavior of rival constructions and determine which parameters are more relevant for the comparison. To understand whether diachronic and/or stylistic factors also affect the survival of rival constructions, the data are checked in the Russian National Corpus, which allows retrieving information about the texts in which compounds occur, such as their creation date and textual genre. Finally, the productivity of rival word-formation constructions in modern Russian is discussed both in terms of diachronic changes and in terms of restrictions that the two constructions are subject to. The analyses carried out demonstrate that the two constructions show significant differences regarding their semantics, but also their diachronic and stylistic distribution, as well as their productivity, which prevents one construction from completely ousting the other in modern Russian.

Keywords

Compound agent nouns (Para)synthetic compounds Rival word-formation constructions Agentive suffixes Modern Russian 

References

  1. Andrews, E. (1996). The semantics of suffixation. agentive substantival suffixes in contemporary standard Russian. München/Newcastle: LINCOM EUROPA. Google Scholar
  2. Baayen, H. R. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Amsterdam: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baayen, H. R. (1993). On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992 (pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baayen, H. R. (2001). Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baayen, H. R., & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–843. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, L. (2005). Productivity theories. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 315–334). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benigni, V., & Masini, F. (2009). Compounds in Russian. Lingue E Linguaggio, 8(2), 171–193. Google Scholar
  9. Bisetto, A., & Melloni, C. (2008). Parasynthetic compounding. Lingue E Linguaggio, 7(2), 233–259. Google Scholar
  10. Bogdanov, A. V. (2011). Semantika i sintaksis otglagol’nych ad”ektivov. Dissertacija na soiskanie učenoj stepeni kandidata filologičeskich nauk, 10.02.19 Teorija jazyka [The semantics and syntax of deverbal adjectives. PhD dissertation]. Moskovskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet im. M.V. Lomonosova. Google Scholar
  11. Booij, G. (1986). Form and meaning in morphology: The case of Dutch ‘agent nouns’. Linguistics, 24, 503–518. Google Scholar
  12. Booij, G. (1988). The relation between inheritance and argument structure: Deverbal -er-nouns in Dutch. In M. Everaert et al. (Eds.), Morphology and modularity. In honour of Henk Schultnik (pp. 57–74). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar
  13. Booij, G. (2005a). Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. E. Pfeiffer, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Booij, G. (2005b). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Booij, G. (2007). Polysemy and construction morphology. In F. Moerdijk, A. van Santen, & R. Tempelaars (Eds.), Leven met woorden (pp. 355–364). Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie. Google Scholar
  16. Booij, G. (2009). Compounding and construction morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 201–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Booij, G. (2013). Morphology in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 255–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  19. Booij, G. (2015). Word-formation in construction grammar. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (Vol. 1, pp. 188–202). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar
  20. Borer, H. (2013). Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corbin, D. (1987). Morphologie dérivationelle et structuration du lexique. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Di Sciullo, A. M. (1992). Deverbal compounds and the external argument. In I. M. Roca (Ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar (pp. 65–72). Berlin: Foris Publications. Google Scholar
  24. Di Sciullo, A. M. (2005). Decomposing compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 2(3), 14–33. Google Scholar
  25. Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  26. Dressler, W. U., Thomadaki, E., Argus, R., Dabašinskienė, I., Ijäs, J. J., Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė, L., Kazakovskaya, V. V., Korecky-Kröll, K., Laalo, K., & Sommer-Lolei, S. (to appear). First-language acquisition of synthetic compounds in Estonian, Finnish, German, Greek, Lithuanian, Russian and Saami Morphology. Google Scholar
  27. Efimova, V. S. (2006). Staroslavjanskaja slovoobrazovatel’naja morfemika [Old Slavic word-formation morphemics]. Moskva: Institut Slavjanovedenija RAN. Google Scholar
  28. Efremova, T. F. (2000). Novyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Tolkovo-slovoobrazovatel’nyj [New dictionary of the Russian language. Explanatory and word-formational]. Translation in italics. Moskva: Russkij Jazyk. See https://gufo.me/dict/efremova.
  29. Efthymiou, A., Fragaki, G., & Markos, A. (2012). Productivity of verb-forming suffixes in Modern Greek: A corpus-based study. Morphology, 22, 515–543. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gaeta, L. (2010). Synthetic compounds: With special reference to German. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 219–236). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2006). Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Stekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 129–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  33. Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D. (2010). Understanding morphology. London: Hodder Education. Google Scholar
  34. Kiefer, F. (1993). Thematic roles and compounds. Folia Linguistica, 27(1–2), 45–55. Google Scholar
  35. Kuznecov, S. A. (Ed.) (1998). Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Big explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Sankt-Petersburg: Norint. See http://gufo.me/kuznec_a.
  36. Levshina, N. (2015). How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lieber, R. (1983). Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 251–286. Google Scholar
  38. Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Luraghi, S. & Narrog, H. (Eds.) (2014). Perspectives on semantic roles. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  40. Luschützky, H. C. (2011). Agent-noun polysemy in Slavic: Some examples. STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 64(1), 75–95. Google Scholar
  41. Luschützky, H. C., & Rainer, F. (2011). Agent-noun polysemy in a cross-linguistic perspective. STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 64(4), 287–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meillet, A. (1905). Études sur l’étimologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave, Partie II. Paris: Bouillon. Google Scholar
  43. Melloni, C., & Bisetto, A. (2010). Parasynthetic compounds: Data and theory. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 199–218). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Naccarato, C. (2016). A corpus-based quantitative approach to the study of morphological productivity in diachrony: The case of samo-compounds in Russian. In H. Christ, D. Klenovšak, L. Sönning, & V. Werner (Eds.), A blend of MaLT: Selected contributions from the methods and linguistic theories symposium 2015 (pp. 133–152). Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Google Scholar
  45. Nesset, T., & Makarova, A. (2018). The decade construction rivalry in Russian: Using a corpus to study historical linguistics. Diachronica, 35(1), 71–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ožegov, S. I. & Švedova, N. Ju. (Eds.) (1996). Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Moskva: Az”. See https://gufo.me/dict/ozhegov.
  47. Plag, I. (2002). The role of selectional restrictions, phonotactics and parsing in constraining suffix ordering in English. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001 (pp. 285–314). Amsterdam: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Plag, I. (2006). Productivity. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 537–556). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rainer, F. (2011). The agent-instrument-place “polysemy” of the suffix -tor in Romance. STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 64(1), 8–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rainer, F. (2014). Polysemy in derivation. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 338–353). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  52. Rainer, F. (2015). Agent and instrument nouns. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (Vol. 2, pp. 1304–1316). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar
  53. Roeper, T., & Siegel, M. E. A. (1978). A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(2), 199–260. Google Scholar
  54. Russian National Corpus. http://ruscorpora.ru/.
  55. Scalise, S. (1994). Morfologia. Bologna: Il Mulino. Google Scholar
  56. Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  57. Štichauer, P. (2009). Morphological productivity in diachrony: The case of deverbal nouns in -mento, -zione and -gione in Old Italian from the 13th to the 16th century. In F. Montermini, G. Boyé, & J. Tseng (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes (pp. 138–147). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  58. Štichauer, P. (2015). From emergent availability to full profitability: The diachronic development of the Italian suffix -zione from the 16th to the 20th century. In S. Augendre, G. Couasnon-Torlois, D. Lebon, C. Michard, G. Boyé, & F. Montermini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Décembrettes: 8th international conference on morphology (pp. 319–326). Toulouse: Université de Toulouse. Google Scholar
  59. Švedova, N. Ju. (Eds.) (1980). Russkaja grammatika [Russian grammar]. Moskva: Nauka. Google Scholar
  60. Tagabileva, M. (2013). Composites denoting nomina agentis in the Russian language: Distinguishing competing models. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, 85, 196–208. Google Scholar
  61. Tagliamonte, S. A., & Baayen, H. R. (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. See http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hbaayen/publications/TagliamonteBaayen2012.pdf. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ušakov, D. N. (Ed.) (1935–1940). Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Moskva: Gosudarstvennyj Institut “Sovetskaja Ènciklopedija”. See https://gufo.me/dict/ushakov.
  63. Vaillant, A. (1974). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, tome IV, La formation des noms. Paris: Klincksieck. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations