Productivity of the verbal inflectional classes

Published: (2002) in: Future Challenges for Natural Linguistics, ed. K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk and J.Weckwerth. Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, vol. 30: 153-164. LINCOM EUROPA.PRODUCTIVITY OF THE VERBAL INFLECTIONAL CLASSES(THE CASE OF RUSSIAN)NATALIA GAGARINAZAS, Berlin, Germany ∗gagarina@zas.gwz-berlin.deAbstractThe present contribution is focused on the third subtheory of Natural Morphology: language-specificsystem adequacy (Dressler et al., 1987; Wurzel, 1984). A further development of this subtheory dealtwith the problem of morphological productivity (cf. Dressler, 1997b; Dressler and Ladányi, 2000;etc.), its role in inflectional morphology, and its gradualness. In Dressler and Gagarina (1999) fivedegrees of productivity were applied to classify the productive verb classes in contemporary Russian.Instead of the traditionally accepted five productive classes this study shows only four can beconsidered fully productive and one is only slightly productive. Further research by the second authorconcerning a) the sources and mechanisms of the assignment of verbs to productive classes and b) thelevel of realisation of the potential morphological patterns provides further evidence for (the patternsof) productivity of the verb inflectional classes (in Russian). The recent intensive dynamisation ofRussian, characterised by the simplification of norms and vocabulary ‘neologisation’ (Walter, 2001)provides rich material for the investigation of the morphological mechanisms involved in theseprocesses.1 IntroductionAlthough the problem of establishing verb classes in Russian has a long history, theproductive classes are still numbered arbitrarily and there is still no fixed classification of thenumerous unproductive (or closed) groups. Karcevskij (1927) established a set of five open(productive) classes, still used in descriptive grammars of Russian (e.g. Belošapkova, 1997;Lekant, 1982; Miloslavskij, 1981). Unproductive groups of verbs, compiled from about fourhundred non-prefixed/suffixed lemmas, are very heterogeneous and variable in number: seven(Karcevskij, 1927), five (Isačenko, 1960), seventeen (Vinogradov, 1938/1972), twenty(Švedova, 1980). 1The basis for the classification in Dressler and Gagarina (1999) is the traditionalcorrelation between the (open) stem (OS) of the infinitive and of the close stem (CS) of thepresent/future (1.Sg.). The OS group of finite forms comprises the past indicative and pastparticiple, while the CS group of finite forms comprises the present indicative, imperative,and the present participles. Using the theoretical assumptions of Natural Morphology(henceforth, NM) (Dressler et al., 1987; Kilani-Schoch, 1988; Dressler & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, 1997a), a hierarchical scheme with three verb macroclasses and numerous∗ I am very grateful to Laura Dowing for improving my English. All mistakes are mine.1 Bricyn and Kononenko (1983) claim that “the number of unproductive classes is low and is constantlydiminishing”. However, these figures show this is not the case.

154 Natalia Gagarinamicroclasses (in a bottom-up manner) was proposed in Dressler & Gagarina (1999). 2 For thepurpose of the present contribution the four fully productive microclasses (henceforth, MC)and one slightly productive MC are listed below (in all productive MC the verbs mainly aremotivated by the nouns, except for MC 4, where another verb serves as the motivation base):MC 1: -a/aj (zavtraka-t´/zavtrakaj- ‘to have breakfast.inf/CS’, perestraiva-t’/perestraivaj- ‘torebuild.inf/CS’ iterative),MC 2: -ova/uj (komandova-t´/komanduj- ‘to command.inf/CS’) (MC 7 in the generalschemata of all verbal MC),MC 3: palatalised consonant + i/palatalised consonant (inžener’i-t´/inžener´- ‘to perform awork being an engineer.inf/CS’) (MC 17 in the general schemata),MC 4: pluriphonemic thematic suffix nu/deletion of the final vowel of the suffix (and OS ofthe past maintains suffix nu) (svistnu-t´/svistn- ‘to whistle once.inf/CS’) (MC 22 in thegeneral schemata), andslightly productive MC 5: -e/ej (zvere-t´/zverej- ‘to become very angry.inf/CS’, lit. zver’‘animal’), (MC 2 in the general schemata).2 Degrees of productivityProductivity of microclasses is gradual (as other assumptions of NM). The gradualness of theverb classes in Russian has been established on the basis of the criteria recapitulated below(cf. productivity in Baayen (1992); Marle (1992)):a) Wurzel's (1984) secondary productivity when loan words with unfitting properties areintegrated, i.e. the highest degree of inflectional productivity is obtained in order to integrateloan words,b) Wurzel's (1984) primary productivity in the integration of loan words with fittingproperties (only minor incompatibility of the unfitting properties has to be overcome, becausethe class-defining properties of the loan word already fit into the receiving microclass),c) hierarchically lower criterion is the assignment of indigenous neologisms formed byconversion, i.e. when no suffix of derivational morphology predetermines the choice ofinflectional class,d) hierarchically still lower criterion is inflection class change from a less to a moreproductive or stable microclass,e) word formation productivity of indigenous affixations (this is the last and hierarchicallylowest criterion, because it provides direct evidence of productivity only for word formation,whereas for inflection it proves only minimal stability).2 Similar microclasses form subclasses (sub(sub(sub))classes, if necessary), and these constitute macroclasses.We define an inflectional macroclass as the highest, most general type of class, which consists of severalhierarchically lower (sub)classes and microclasses.

156 Natalia GagarinaIn case of loan verbs the problem of incompatibility seems to be more salient. Each loan verb(or stem) has to receive a thematic suffix. The examples below are taken from computereseand technology internet chat-pages (an excellent source of neologisms), dictionaries of thenew words and meanings (Levašov, 1984; Kotelova, 1989), and the author’s data collection 5 ,as well as from the other sources.(6) English to over-lock > overloč-it' (the indigenous alternation k//č) MC 3(7) English to use > jus-at‘ 6 MC 1 and perfective zajuza-t‘(8) English to format > two competitive forms format-it‘ MC 3 and format-irovat‘ MC 2 7and the creation of the perfective counter-pair format-nut’ with the additional meaningof expression.The incompatible properties which we observe in the groups of loan nouns and verbs may bedivided into the following groups:i) pure phonological, English foul [aω] > fol [o]ii) morphological (and almost always also phonological) with sub-types: (a) a one-to-onemapping when a given type of a loan word affix receives (or is substituted with) the givencorresponding indigenous affix, e.g. English nouns in –tion receive in Russian final –cija,German verbs in –ieren receive –irovat’ (the unfitting property –ieren of this group of theverbs has got the stable counterpart in Russian and, thus, cannot be considered ‘fullyincompatible’ any more. These loan verbs already fit into the receiving second MC, this wellestablishedpattern is used regularly for several centuries):(9) English falsification > fal’sifikacija, devaluation > deval’vacija(10) German kompostieren > kompostirovat’, klassifizieren > klassificirovat’, stimulieren >stimulirovat’(b) no one-to-one mapping, when the host system has to adopt the loan word on the basis ofits phonological shape or by an indigenous word formation pattern: 8(11) English champion > (čempion) > čempion-it’, upgrade > apgrejd-it’, bobsleigh >(bobslej) > bobsleistcf. loan verb with preposition (12) 9 and perfectivization of the English verb to help (13):(12) English to hang up > s-hengap-i-t’-s’a (the complicated model of word formation: s-pure aspectual perfective suffix + -i- thematic vowel of the MC 3 + -s’a reflexivepostfix),5 Examples (6), (7) and (14) were suggested by Elena Andreeva in personal communication with the author.6 Note the choice of the rare –a-pattern. The verb jusit’ ‘to slide’, ‘to whirl on a slippery surface’ (about thewheels) exists already in Russian.7 The presence of variants may serve as an evidence for the crippling and loosing of codified norms.8 As it is more often the case with verbs.9 This (as well as the example (21)) is the highest level of the incompatibility which has to be overcome.

Productivity of the verbal inflectional classes 157(13) English to help > za-help-it’ (za- pure aspectual perfective suffix + -i- thematic vowel ofthe MC 3)cf. derivation of a verb from the loan noun:(14) English haker > hač-it’ (typical indigenous alternation k//č) and its perfectivecounterpart hak-nut’or from the former loan noun already ‘well-established’ and turned to be indigenous in thelanguage:(15) German Kurort > kurort kurort-ničat’ with two meanings ‘to have a rest at a healthresort’ and ‘to behave like at a health resort’, MC 1.These kinds of incompatibilities seem to be the most difficult to overcome, because severalunfitting properties have to be accommodated. Examples like (12) and (13) show the highestdegree of productivity because the loan verb undergoes indigenous process of perfectivization(together with the accommodation to the system) and, in the case of (12), accommodates theverb with the one element.For a richly-inflected language like Russian it is, probably, more difficult toaccommodate loan words with unfitting properties than for a poor inflected language likeEnglish, where the same phonological word may belong to the class of nouns and verbs. As aresult, a loan word needs less indigenous formation rules to be accommodated to a certainclass and mainly the unfitting phonological shape of a loan word has to be overcome:(16) Russian glasnost’ > English glasnost (Green’s dictionary 1992: 109), [t’] is substitutedwith [t],(17) Yiddish naschen > English nosh (American Heritage Dictionary 1982: 849), the final–en is cut off (a o) and the word is used as a verb and a noun,(18) indigenous English abbreviation nuke ‘nuclear weapon’ (Green 1992: 186): a verb and anoun.4 InferenceVerbs in Russian have a defined stem structure which determines the assignment of averb to a certain productive class or unproductive group. The absolute majority of loan verbsdo not have such structure and, thus, lack relevant compatible properties (although,theoretically, one should admit such a possibility). Some loan verbs (and, generally, nouns),however, develop a certain counterpart – an indigenous affix assigning them to a specificproductive MC. Actually, no productive verbal MC assigns loan verbs according to criteria b)except for the MC 2 which has developed the stable correlate –irova- to the group of Germanverbs in –ieren. As to loan nouns, they can have both fitting and unfitting properties and, thus,will be borrowed according to criteria a) and b).

158 Natalia Gagarina5 The three lowest criteria of productivity and (frequent) patterns of suffixationNo examples of verb derivation from indigenous abbreviations – c) criteria – have beenfound, although noun derivation of this type is rather frequent (cf. Alekseev, 1966; Dressler &Ladányi, 2000: 123, point that “abbreviations constitute a marginal, rather small andhomogeneous set of bases which appear not to allow productive WFR (word formation rules -NG) competition”). Only very few instances of verbs formed from proper names, like Gajdar> gajdar-it’ (example from Levašov (1996)) have been found.The next hierarchically lower criterion, d), is the shift from one class to another morestable and more productive one. In Russian more than one dozen unproductive groups havefinal –a in the OS. Their OS look similar to the MC 1 with the -a/-aj correlation, howeverthey have, for example, an –a/0 correlation instead. Some verbs of these MCs have shifted toMC 1:(19) kapa-t’-kapl’- > kapaj- from MC 26(20) ryska-t’-ryšč- > ryskaj- from MC 23The last and lowest criteria of indigenous affixation, e), plays in the enrichment of theMCs a very important role. Generally, verbs are most frequently derived from nouns andadjectives (but may be derived also from adverbs, numerals, pronouns, and interjections aswell as from other verbs, and by means of compounding). Hence, enlarging the open classesof nouns and adjectives through loan words will be a prime source for enriching theproductive inflectional classes of verbs. The next step in creating a verb neologism is thepossibility of attaching the thematic suffix to a given word and to overcome the lexical andphonological restrictions on this process. I will consider the first and second factors togetherusing as an example the thematic suffixes of the MC 2 and MC 3.Of course, a verb cannot immediately be derived from every loan noun. For example,while the noun golografija ‘holography’ was registered as a loan already in the sixties(Kotelova, 1971), the verb golografirovat’ ‘to holograph’ (MC 2) was not coined until morethan thirty years later (compare this with the English to marginalize given as a new denominal(marginalization) verb registered in 1986 by Green (1992).Another type of indigenous suffixation assigns verbs to MC 3. The thematic suffix –ihas a high level of applicability which means that, potentially (cf. potential words in the senseof Aronoff 1976), ‘an –i verb, if necessary, may be derived from almost every noun’(Kuznecov, 1952). More than twenty lexical groups of nouns and adjectives may serve as thebase for –i-suffixation (Švedova, 1980; Bahturina, 1966). Some of these lexical groups,however, are closed and will not assign new members (e.g. morjak/morjachit’ ‘a sailor/towork in the see as a salior’, rybak/rybachit’ ‘a fisherman/to be busy with catching a fish’);others (the majority) are actively enriched with loan members, e.g. the group of nouns with negativecharacteristics: tiran/tiranit’ ‘a tyrant/to bully’, špion/špionit’ ‘a spy/to spy on’. Thematic –imay derive verbs even from phrases 10 , like in example (18) from Bahturina (1966):(21) German Danke schön + –i > dankeschoen-i-t’ ‘oni ... dankeshoenjat, dankeshjonjat, arabotajut medlenno’ ‘they say ‘danke schoen’, ‘danke schoen’, but work slowly’ (P.Vershigora, ‘Dom Rodnoj)).10 This fact shows the very high level of productivity of the –i-suffix derivational pattern.

Productivity of the verbal inflectional classes 159This –i model is also used for occasionalisms’ derivation, e.g. romanit’ ‘to have goodrelationship with fe/male’, lit. from imet’ roman s kem-libo ‘to have love story withsomeone’. The very minor (lexical and morphopholological) restrictions on the applicabilityof –i and the high usage of these verbs demonstrate the productivity of the MC 3 according tothe three criteria (see table).These facts would predict the highest frequency for –i suffixation in the contemporaryRussian, which is not found. Even taking into consideration the high semantic diversity of –iverbs (this is one of the peculiarities of contemporary Russian in comparison with Russian ofthe XIIIth and XIXth centuries), the thematic –i suffix is nowadays employed less frequentlythan –ova.The highest type frequency in verb production (in the last twenty years) occurs withinthe MC 2. The MC 2 suffixes -ova, -irova-, and –izirova derive verbs from loan nouns endingin a hard consonant or –cija:(22) English dollar > dollar-izirova-t´(23) English communication > kommunika-cija > kommunic- izirova-t´.Such –ova verbs have almost the same level of frequency as nouns in -izacija (Zemskaja,1997; Bojarkina, 1993), and constitute the majority in the corpus of the new ‘verb dictionary’.It is interesting to note the consequences of the emergence of this type of verbs for the wholemorphological system (and grammatical category of aspect). The frequency of –ova verbs hasbecome so high that one should be careful in saying that all verbs in Russian belong to onlyone of the two aspect classes (cf. Čertkova, 1996). As a matter of fact –(izir)ova is biaspectual:issledovat’ ‘to investigate’, imitirovat’ ‘to imitate’, stabilizirovat’ ‘to stabilise’, forexample, are the bi-aspectual verbs. Thus the large number of verbs of this type is in a waychanging the verb lexicon and also the development of aspect in Russian. Čertkova (2001)pointed out that in Kotelova (1971), (cf. Ožegov, 1989) among 11680 documented verbs only483 (4,1%) lemmas were bi-aspectual. Nowadays their amount has increased to severalthousands, 11 and 90% of all bi-aspectual verbs are neologisms.MC 2 was not so actively enriched even fifty years ago (the sphere of usage of –ovaverbs then is known to be mainly scientific, professional), and in the previous centuries theseverbs had a more than modest position in the lexicon. 12 The situation, as we observed, haschanged only recently. In the last twenty years the number of foreign nouns in –cija (as wellas other types) which serve as the base for –(izir)ova indigenous verb derivation has increasedso steeply that this model becomes highly ‘employed’. Even among competing forms likebombit’ and bombardirovat’ ‘to bomb’ the more marked and less transparent latter one seemsto have the priority at the moment, due to the influence of the high frequency of the –ova verbformation pattern.External evidence for class-shift changes, criteria d), comes from language acquisitionand colloquial Russian. In language acquisition, verbs from different unproductive MCs andeven productive MC 2 ending in (thematic) –ova will be overwhelming moved to the firstMC. Numerous examples of this are given in Ceytlin (1989; Ceytlin and Eliseeva 1996;11 There is a tendency, however, to lose bi-aspectuality. Many of the new bi-aspectual verbs will beperfectivized, e.g. unificirovat’/s-unificirovat’ ‘to unify ipf/pf’.12 In the descriptions of historical grammars of Russian and Old-Slavonic text books we find evidence that themost productive derivational suffixes participating in de-nominal word formation are –a, -ě, and –i ((Matthews,1960): 128). No –ova- class is documented at all. As to the verb classes they are correlated with the conjugation.

Productivity of the verbal inflectional classes 161application of the indigenous word formation rules to the indigenous bases (the lowestcriterion) and, thus, remains highly productive. On the other hand the other MC seldomreceives new verbs, but here the highest criterion of productivity is involved in the process.Therefore, this MC can be considered to be highly productive.Table 1. Sources and ways of enrichment of the four highly-productive MCs:MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 MC 4(a) 14 , d, (e) a, b, e a, c, e (a), ehierarchicalcriteriaexamplesvariants ofthematic suffixesthe base for theverb derivation:a) indigenousclasses of wordsb) loan classes ofwordsfrequency of theintegration/emergenceof the newverbs(a). to use > jus-a-t‘ a. transplantationd. kapa-t’-kapl’- > transplant-irova-t’kapaj- ‘to drop’ b. German pilotieren(from MC 26) > pilot-irova-t’(e). oj >ojkat’ ‘to say e. parazit >aua!’parazit-irova-t’2 (-a,-niča,+ iterative -iva/-yva)nouns,(proper names),adjectives,sound-imitations,interjections,pronounsnouns and verbs,proper names3 (-ova/-eva,-irova,-izirova)nouns,adjectivesverbs in -ieren(Germ.)a. to format >format-i-t‘,haker > hač-it’,c. Gajdar >gaidar-i-t’e. brakon’jer>brakon’jer-it’ ‘topoach’1 (-i) 2 (-nu,-anu)nouns,(proper names),adjectives,adverbs,numeralsnouns and verbs,proper names,phraseslow highest high middle(a). konvertacija >konvert-nu-t’e. golosovat’ >golos-nu-t’ ‘tomake an auto-stopsign’verbs,sound-imitationsverbs and nouns7 ConclusionsThe goal of this contribution was to show the most frequent and productive contemporaryways verbs are assigned to productive classes. The level of realisation of the potentialmorphological patterns provides evidence for (the patterns of) productivity of the verbinflectional classes in Russian.I tried to show that productivity of verb classes depends initially on productivity(quantitative assignment of loan/new indigenous nouns) of the noun (and other open word)classes, because verbs are not easily transferred from one language to another. So, the moreintensively the basic open class of words is enlarged, the greater potential will be created for14 The brackets mean that this criterion is used rarely.

162 Natalia Gagarinarule-governed mechanisms to derive (denominal) verbs. Thematic affixation is the nextbarrier in new verb creation. As we showed, thematic –i has the highest potentiality for verbderivation, and, thus, MC 3 has the highest possibility for realisation. There are only fewrestrictions on the applicability of the –i verb formation rule. Why, then, is the absolutemajority of loan and indigenous verbs are found in MC 2? There is one restriction in theapplicability of –i which plays an important role. Suffix –i cannot be attached to nouns endingin –cija. The overwhelming majority of loan nouns belong exactly to this group which, inturn, serves as the base for –(izir)ova suffixation.It seems that the two highest criteria of productivity have their own ‘priority’ for agiven verbal MC, e.g. the highest criterion a) for MC 3 (integration of the loan verbs), and,partially for MC 2. The next criterion b) may be applied only very specifically (MC 2). Andthe lowest criterion e), productive derivation from indigenous bases, participates in assigningverbs to all productive classes.ReferencesAlekseev, Dmitrij I. 1966. Abbreviatury kak novyj tip slov. In: Razvitije slovoobrazovanijasovremennogo russkogo jazyka, (eds.) Elena A. Zemskaja and Dmitrij N. Šmeljov, 13-37.Moskva: Nauka, AN SSSR.Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Baayen, Harald 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook ofMorphology 1991, 109-149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Bahturina, R. V. 1966. Znachenije i obrazovanije otymennyh glagolov s suffiksom -0-/-i-(t'). In:Razvitije slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, (eds.) Elena A. Zemskajaand Dmitrij N. Šmeljov, 74-112. Moskva: Nauka, AN SSSR.Belošapkova, Vera A. 1997. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Moskva: AzbukovnikBojarkina, V. D. 1993. Novaja glagol´naja leksika v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Avtoref.kand. dissert.Bricyn, Mikhail A. & Kononenko, Viktor I. 1983. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Kiev: Visca Škola.Ceytlin, Stella N. 1989. Detskaja rech': innovacii formoobrazovanija i slovoobrazovanija (namateriale sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Habilitation. Leningrad.Ceytlin, Stella N. & Marina B. Eliseeva 1996. Govorjat deti. Slovar’-spravočnik. St.Petersburg:Niva .Čertkova, Marina Ju. 1996. Grammaticheskaja kategorija vida v sovremennom russkom jazyke.Moskva: MGU.Čertkova, Marina Ju. 2001. Dvuvidovyje glagoly kak zerkalo razvitija kategorii russkogo vida.Paper presented at the conference ‘Slavic aspect and lexicography’, Hamburg, 27.06-01.07.2001.Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl, & Wolfgang U. Wurzel 1987.Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Dressler, U. Wolfgang & Katarzyna Dzuibalska-Kołaczyk 1997a. Polish inflectional classeswithin Natural Morphology. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 53: 95-119.Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1997b. On productivity and potentiality in inflectional morphology. vol.7: CLASNET Working Papers.Dressler, U. Wolfgang & Natalia Gagarina 1999. Basic questions in establishing the verb classesof contemporary Russian. In: Essays in poetics, Literary History and Linguistics.Festschrift V.V. Ivanov. (eds.) L.Fleishman et al. 754-760. Moscow: OGI..

Productivity of the verbal inflectional classes 163Dressler, U. Wolfgang & Mária Ladányi 2000. Productivity in word formation (WF): amorphological approach. Acta Linquistica Hungarica 47:103-144.Green, Jonathon 1992. New Words. A Dictionary of Neologisms since 1960-s. London:Bloomsbury.Isačenko, Aleksandr V. 1960. Grammaticeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii soslovackim. Bratislava: Slovackaja AN.Jakobson, Roman 1984. Russian and Slavic Grammar. Berlin, New York: de Cruyter.Karcevskij, Serge 1927. Système du verbe russe. Essai de linguistique synchronique. Prague.Kilani-Schoch, Marianne 1988. Introduction à la morphologie naturelle. Bern: Lang.Kotelova, Nadezda Z. 1971. Novoje v russkoj leksike: slovarnyje materialy. Moskva: AN SSSR.Kotelova, Nadezda Z. 1983. Novoje v russkoj leksike: slovarnyje materialy. Moskva: AN SSSR.Kotelova, Nadezda Z. 1989. Novoje v russkoj leksike: slovarnyje materialy. Moskva: AN SSSR.Kuznecov, P. S. 1952. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Morfologija. Moskva: MGU.Lekant, Pawel A. 1982. Sovremennyj russkij literaturnyj jazyk. Moskva: Vysšaja škola. [Levashov, Evgenij A. (ed.) 1984. Novyje slova i znachenija: Slovar'-spravochnik po materialampressy i literatury 70-h godov. Moskva: Russkij Jazyk.Marle, Jaap van 1992. The relationship between morphological productivity and frequency: acomment on Baayen's performance-oriented conception of morphological productivity.Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 151-163. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Matthews, W. K. 1960. Russian historical grammar. University of London: The Athlone Press.Miloslavskij, Igor' 1981. Morfologicheskije kategeorii sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moskva:Prosvešchenije.Morimoto, Yukiko 1999. Loan words and their implications for the categorical status of verbalnouns. Paper presented at the Twenty-fifth annual meeting of the Berkeley LinguisticSociety, Berkeley.Ožegov, Sergej I. 1989. Tolkovyj slovar' sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Nauka.Russakova, Marina V. & Sergej Sai 2001. Analogical levelling in the Russian aspectual ‘hyperparadigms’.Paper presented at the conference ‘Uniformity of Paradigm’, ZAS, Berlin, 9-10.03.2001.Sobin, Nicholas 1982. Texas Spanish and lexical borrowing. In: Spanish in the United States:Sociolinguistic aspects, (eds.) J. Amastae & L. Elias-Olivares, 166-181. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Švedova, Natalja Ju. 1980. Russkaja grammatika V 2-x tt. Moskva: Nauka, AN SSSR.Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1938/1972. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk (grammaticheskoe uchenie oslove). Moskva: Vysšaja škola.Walter, Harry 2001. Tendencii razvitija rechi russkoj molodjozhi. In: Sprachwandel desRussischen im Transformationsprozess am Ende des 20. und zu Beginn des 21.Jahrhunderts, (ed.) Ursula Kantorczyk, 215-227. Rostock: Universitaet Rostock.Wurzel, U. Wolfgang 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natuerlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Zemskaja, Elena A. 1997. Russkij jazyk konca XX stoletija (1985-1995). Moskva: Nauka, InstitutRusskogo Jazyka RAN.The American Heritage Dictionary (1982). Boston: Houghton Muffin Company.