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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
See “Abbreviations” at the end of the paper for the full list of the abbreviations employed.
I would like to express my gratitude to Olga Lyashevskaya (School of Linguistics, NRU HSE, Moscow), who has provided access to the RNC word-formation database, which is currently not open for the public.
I have excluded from the analysis noun-based compounds in -ec because denominal word-formation does not constitute an area of functional overlapping between the two constructions, as the suffix -tel’ is not employed in denominal word-formation (see Sect. 3.1).
Compounds in -ec also include seven compounds formed with the suffix -l-ec, which is the result of metanalysis (cf. Luschützky 2011:90) and is strictly related to -ec.
Adjectival and adverbial bases are kept together because it is not always possible to establish with certainty the categorial status of such bases in compounds (cf. Bogdanov 2011:167).
Intransitive bases are all unergative, with the only exception of the verb žit’ ‘live’, which is unaccusative and is found in three compounds with the suffix -tel’.
The strong correlation of the suffix -tel’ with transitive verbal bases is also pointed out by Andrews (1996:99, 101).
The event indicated by the verbal base is something that takes place habitually: a fable writer (basnopisec) is one who writes fables habitually, as a professional; a fire extinguisher (ognetušitel’) is an instrument that is habitually employed to extinguish fire, and so on.
In Švedova (1980, § 216), it is claimed that the suffix -ec can be attached to both imperfective and perfective bases. However, I have not found cases of perfective bases in my data.
Prefixed verbal bases are rarely found in -ec compounds (the only exception in my data is constituted by compounds ending in -prochodec: pro- ‘forth, through’ + chodit’ ‘go’), while they are much more common in -tel’ compounds (cf. also Švedova 1980, §§ 211, 216, 217).
The compound bronenosec also has the meaning of ‘battleship’.
In Fig. 1, Prototypical Agents are abbreviated as “ag”, Carriers of State as “cos”, and Instruments as “instr”.
Exact values are obtained by applying the function round().
The RNC main subcorpus contains texts from the 18th century to the present day belonging to different genres (fiction, drama, memoirs and biographies, journalism and literary criticism, scientific and popular scientific texts, instructional texts, religious and philosophical texts, technical texts, business and jurisprudence texts, letters and diaries), for a total of over 200 million words.
The correlation between diachrony and textual genres cannot be directly verified in the RNC interface, but it is possible to create a subcorpus including a certain time span and check the texts contained in that time span.
See Bauer (2005) for an overview of different productivity theories.
Hapax legomena are words occurring only once in a given text.
Note that some of the compounds in the database might be older than the 18th century. However, the search in the main subcorpus of the RNC does not allow access to older texts.
The number of texts and, consequently, the number of tokens included in the main subcorpus of the RNC is different for different time spans: 4,726,499 tokens for the 18th century, 53,090,226 tokens for the 19th century, and 141,267,193 tokens for the 20th century.
Cf. also Švedova (1980, § 559), where it is suggested that the productivity of the construction in -ec in compounding is limited to certain endings, i.e., -tvorec, -boec, -pisec, -borec, and especially -nosec and -ljubec.
Andrews, E. (1996). The semantics of suffixation. agentive substantival suffixes in contemporary standard Russian. München/Newcastle: LINCOM EUROPA.
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.
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.
Baayen, H. R. (2001). Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baayen, H. R., & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–843.
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, L. (2005). Productivity theories. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 315–334). Dordrecht: Springer.
Benigni, V., & Masini, F. (2009). Compounds in Russian. Lingue E Linguaggio, 8(2), 171–193.
Bisetto, A., & Melloni, C. (2008). Parasynthetic compounding. Lingue E Linguaggio, 7(2), 233–259.
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.
Booij, G. (1986). Form and meaning in morphology: The case of Dutch ‘agent nouns’. Linguistics, 24, 503–518.
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.
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.
Booij, G. (2005b). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Borer, H. (2013). Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Corbin, D. (1987). Morphologie dérivationelle et structuration du lexique. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
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.
Di Sciullo, A. M. (2005). Decomposing compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 2(3), 14–33.
Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
Efimova, V. S. (2006). Staroslavjanskaja slovoobrazovatel’naja morfemika [Old Slavic word-formation morphemics]. Moskva: Institut Slavjanovedenija RAN.
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.
Efthymiou, A., Fragaki, G., & Markos, A. (2012). Productivity of verb-forming suffixes in Modern Greek: A corpus-based study. Morphology, 22, 515–543.
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.
Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2006). Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89.
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.
Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D. (2010). Understanding morphology. London: Hodder Education.
Kiefer, F. (1993). Thematic roles and compounds. Folia Linguistica, 27(1–2), 45–55.
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.
Levshina, N. (2015). How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lieber, R. (1983). Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 251–286.
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luraghi, S. & Narrog, H. (Eds.) (2014). Perspectives on semantic roles. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Luschützky, H. C. (2011). Agent-noun polysemy in Slavic: Some examples. STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 64(1), 75–95.
Luschützky, H. C., & Rainer, F. (2011). Agent-noun polysemy in a cross-linguistic perspective. STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 64(4), 287–338.
Meillet, A. (1905). Études sur l’étimologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave, Partie II. Paris: Bouillon.
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.
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.
Nesset, T., & Makarova, A. (2018). The decade construction rivalry in Russian: Using a corpus to study historical linguistics. Diachronica, 35(1), 71–106.
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.
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.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plag, I. (2006). Productivity. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 537–556). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rainer, F. (2011). The agent-instrument-place “polysemy” of the suffix -tor in Romance. STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 64(1), 8–32.
Rainer, F. (2014). Polysemy in derivation. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 338–353). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Roeper, T., & Siegel, M. E. A. (1978). A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(2), 199–260.
Russian National Corpus. http://ruscorpora.ru/.
Scalise, S. (1994). Morfologia. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
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.
Švedova, N. Ju. (Eds.) (1980). Russkaja grammatika [Russian grammar]. Moskva: Nauka.
Tagabileva, M. (2013). Composites denoting nomina agentis in the Russian language: Distinguishing competing models. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, 85, 196–208.
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.
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.
Vaillant, A. (1974). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, tome IV, La formation des noms. Paris: Klincksieck.
About this article
Cite this article
Naccarato, C. Agentive (para)synthetic compounds in Russian: a quantitative study of rival constructions. Morphology 29, 1–30 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-018-9330-6
- Compound agent nouns
- (Para)synthetic compounds
- Rival word-formation constructions
- Agentive suffixes
- Modern Russian