This work addresses the role of the individual in linguistic change through analysis of the decline of the older, disyllabic morphological variant of the Russian instrumental ending -oju/-eju (Long Form) in favor of the shorter -oj/-ej (Short Form) in literary prose. The variation affects certain classes of nouns, adjectives, and pronouns, exhibiting different patterns in the three parts of speech. Community norms shift in the period studied: certain general constraints can be documented throughout the process, but in the period of intense variation individuals create their own grammars. These respond in differing degrees to metrical, grammatical, semantic, and social/stylistic factors. Thus, this dissertation discusses both general patterns and the relationships of individuals to the shifting community norm.;It contains both statistical and textual analyses. Data consist of over 16,000 contextualized examples compiled from numerous works of prose fiction by 26 Russian authors born between 1766 and 1828. Authors are grouped into cohorts by year of birth. The initial chapter surveys the scarce existing literature on the subject and describes the methodology used. Separate chapters are devoted to analysis of the variation in pronouns, nouns, and adjectives. Within each chapter, the individual usage of each author is described and normative and deviant patterns recorded. The final chapter summarizes findings for individual authors and for the aggregate data.;Findings include: (1) Nouns take SF more readily than pronouns and adjectives. Stress position in nouns is relevant for most but not all authors: for some the key factor is stem vs. end stress, for others the presence of antepenultimate stress. Nouns also develop a hierarchy of LF retention/loss based on individuation/abstraction. (2) Personal pronouns, which retain LF best as a group, have highly individuated histories. Deictic pronouns, particularly the second person informal, develop a subordinate distinction of intimacy, allowing expression of emotional closeness/distance based on use of LF vs. SF. Prepositional contexts permit freest use of SF. (3) While adjectival rates fall among the earlier cohorts, adjectival LF use rises dramatically in works published in the 1860s and 1870s. Some authors publishing over several decades show extreme changes in adjectival usage reflecting changing norms.
展开▼
