Quantitative Analysis of Suffix Variability of Comparative Adjectives in Russian

Authors Timur I. Galeev, Vladimir V. Bochkarev

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 485 kB
  • 6 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Timur I. Galeev
  • Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia
  • Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Germany
Vladimir V. Bochkarev
  • Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia

Cite AsGet BibTex

Timur I. Galeev and Vladimir V. Bochkarev. Quantitative Analysis of Suffix Variability of Comparative Adjectives in Russian. In 8th Symposium on Languages, Applications and Technologies (SLATE 2019). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 74, pp. 21:1-21:6, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2019)


There are two variants of the productive suffix of comparative adjectives used in modern Russian. They are a full two-syllable form and a reduced one-syllable suffix. Both variants are normative. However, they are slightly different in terms of stylistics. The suffix -ee makes the word sound neutral and the word with the suffix -ei sounds more colloquial. The article presents a quantitative study of variability of the suffixes of comparative adjectives and analyzes linguistic and extralinguistic factors that influence the frequency of the variants. The authors concluded that there is no previously anticipated influence of phonetic and morphological factors on the choice of the suffix of an adjective in a bookish speech.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computing methodologies → Phonology / morphology
  • Adjectives
  • language change
  • variability
  • Google Books Ngram
  • Russian language


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Jonathan D. Bobaljik. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 2012. Google Scholar
  2. V. Bocharov, S. Bichineva, D. Granovsky, N. Ostapuk, and M. Stepanova. Quality assurance tools in the OpenCorpora project. In Komp'juternaja lingvistika i intellektual'nye tehnologii: Po materialam ezhegodnoj Mezhdunarodnoj konferencii «Dialog», pages 101-109. Russian State University for the Humanities, Moskow, 2011. Google Scholar
  3. Claire Childs, Christopher Harvey, Karen P. Corrigan, and Sali A. Tagliamonte. Transatlantic perspectives on variation in negative expressions. English Language and Linguistics, pages 1-25, 2018. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674318000199.
  4. I.A. Es'kova. Obrazovanie sinteticheskikh form stepenei sravneniia v sovremennom russkom literaturnom iazyke. In Razvitie grammatiki i leksiki sovremennogo russkogo iazyka. Nauka, Moskow, 1964. Google Scholar
  5. L. K. Graudina, V. A. Itskovich, and L. P. Katlinskaia. Grammaticheskaia pravil'nost' russkoi rechi. Stilisticheskii slovar' variantov. Nauka, Moskow, 2004. Google Scholar
  6. Stefan Th. Gries. Syntactic alternation research: Taking stock and some suggestions for the future. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 31(1):8-29, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00001.gri.
  7. Benedikt Heller, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, and Jason Grafmiller. Stability and Fluidity in Syntactic Variation World-Wide: The Genitive Alternation Across Varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics, 45(1):3-27, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0075424216685405.
  8. O.K. Kochineva. Stepeni kachestva bezlichno-predikativnykh slov v sovremennom russkom literaturnom iazyke. Uch. zap. LGPI im. Gertsena, 402:59-67, 1968. Google Scholar
  9. V.Iu. Koprov. Variantnye formy v russkom iazyke. Voronezh state university, Voronezh, 2001. Google Scholar
  10. Aet Lees. 4 Synchronic Corpus Study of Object Case Alternation. In Case Alternations in Five Finnic Languages, pages 52-92. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2015. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004296367_005.
  11. Jean-Baptiste Michel, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K Gray, Joseph P Pickett, Dale Hoiberg, Dan Clancy, Peter Norvig, Jon Orwant, et al. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331(6014):176-182, 2011. Google Scholar
  12. Terttu Nevalainen, Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and Phillip Wallage. Quantitative evidence for a feature-based account of grammaticalization in English: Jespersen’s Cycle, November 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0060.
  13. Dirk Pijpops and Freek Van de Velde. Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2):543-581, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020.
  14. Melanie Röthlisberger, Jason Grafmiller, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4):673–-710, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0051.
  15. Uli Sauerland and Jonathan Bobaljik. Syncretism Distribution Modeling: Accidental Homophony as a Random Event. In Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX 2012, pages 31-53. Mie University, Mie, Japan, 2013. Google Scholar
  16. A. A. Shakhmatov. Ocherk sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo iazyka. Urait, Moskow, 2018. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail