35.2079, Review: Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics: Nesset (2022)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-35-2079. Mon Jul 22 2024. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 35.2079, Review: Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics: Nesset (2022)

Moderator: Francis Tyers (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Justin Fuller <justin at linguistlist.org>

LINGUIST List is hosted by Indiana University College of Arts and Sciences.
================================================================


Date: 23-Jul-2024
From: Philemon Gomwalk [philgomwalk at gmail.com]
Subject: Cognitive Science, Language Acquisition: Nesset (2022)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/34.481

AUTHOR: Tore Nesset
TITLE: Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics
SUBTITLE: Case Studies from the History of Russian
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2022

REVIEWER: Philemon Gomwalk

SUMMARY

The book title ‘‘Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics’’ by Tore
Nesset, is advertised by its publisher, Cambridge University Press as
its latest addition (November 2022) in the evolution of the ‘Cambridge
Elements in Cognitive Linguistics’ series. This series, as advertised
by CUP, includes several titles written by leading researchers in the
field of Cognitive Linguistics that covers a broad range of
theoretical, descriptive and methodological issues pertaining to
current trends in the field.  Titles in the Cambridge Elements series
are specifically designed to serve as basic textbooks and up-to-date
reference documents suitable for understanding a variety of topics in
advanced-level teaching and research fields.

According to Tore Nesset, author of the title under review, the
primary goal of publishing it in the Cambridge Elements series is to
explore the relevance of cognitive linguistics for diachronic language
change within the theoretical framework of four major commitments (or
tenets) that are cornerstones of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1-5).  In
order to partially fill in the perceived research gap identified
above, Nesset’s work uses seven case studies drawn from Old Russian
and other Slavic language varieties to illustrate the relevance of
some basic tenets of Cognitive Grammar to an increased understanding
of the underlying dynamics of diachronic linguistic research in
general.

Nesset’s work is organized into six (6) related major sections, each
of which seeks to develop upon selected aspects of Russian linguistic
diachrony, as each intersects with four (4) key theoretical concerns
(or commitments) of modern cognitive linguistics. These theoretical
principles can be summarized in the following manner by Nesset:

1. The cognitive commitment revolves around the primary understanding
that human language structures and communication patterns are
continuously influenced by ‘domain-general cognitive processes’.

2. The semiotic commitment revolves around the primary understanding
that all human language structures and communication patterns are
systemically analyzable in terms of ‘bipolar, systematic (semiotic)
representations, connecting form and meanings’.

3. The network commitment revolves around the primary understanding
that the ‘bipolar (semiotic) representations in any human language
constitute one unified network... a systemic construction’.

4. The usage-based commitment revolves around the primary
understanding that ‘knowledge of human language structures and
communication patterns emerges from and are tied to continuous usage’
(pp 1-2).

Throughout his work, Nesset consistently applies these concerns of
cognitive linguistic scholarship to his discussion of pertinent issues
of Russian linguistic diachrony.
In Section 1 of the monograph, titled ‘‘Introduction’’ (pp. 1-5),
Nesset provides in-depth comments on the nature of linguistic
diachrony as well as theoretical and methodological justifications for
exploring issues of diachrony from a cognitive linguistic perspective,
drawing attention to such recent publications on linguistic diachrony
as Bybee (2007); Traugott & Trousdale (2013); Hilpert (2013); Diessel
(2019); Sommerer & Smirnova (2020). In spite of the availability of
these innovative reference sources however, Nesset still makes the
point that there is  critical need for further investigations of
linguistic diachrony, as provided by other available expositions on
key aspects of the diachrony of as many modern languages as possible,
such as his own studies of Old Russian and other Slavic languages (see
Nesset, 1998; 2010;2012; 2015;2016a; 2016c; 2020); (Nesset &
Kuznetsova, 2011; 2015a; 2015b); (Nesset & Makarova, 2012; 2014; 2018)
&  (Nesset & Nordrum, 2019).

In making use of the four cognitive linguistic commitments listed (1)
to (4) above, Nesset confirms inter alia ‘…my goal is to create a
narrative for all scholars interested in cognitive linguistics (p.2).
In the light of this assertion, he chooses to embrace the use of the
cognitive grammar model first enunciated in and then progressively
developed in Langacker (1987, 1991, 2008, 2013) to anchor his
subsequent analysis of aspects of diachronic changes that are
observable in Russian/Slavic languages in general. Nesset vigorously
argues that the theoretical insights derived from Langacker’s
cognitive linguistic (grammar) model is the best fit for his proposed
treatment of diachronic change in Russian, primarily because he
believes that Langacker’s model is the most holistic model of (natural
language) grammar available in cognitive linguistics to date (p.2).

Nesset’s discourse in Section 1 of his work is fundamental to an
adequate understanding of the key issues of diachronic changes
observed in old Russian/Old Church Slavic and commented upon in
subsequent sections. His discourse is organized around the four key
commitments (or tenets) of cognitive grammar he had earlier
identified.  For example, under sub-section 1.1 titled ‘Four
Commitments’ (pp. 1-2), Nesset provides a general outline as well as
structured characterization of the four theoretical principles (or
commitments) of cognitive linguistics, in relationship to how they
would be subsequently applied to issues of Russian / Slavic linguistic
diachrony in  sections 2. 3, 4 and 5 of the book title.

Similarly, under sub-section 1.2 titled ‘Why Russian’ (pp.2-3), Nesset
also provides justification for his choice of Russian/Slavic language
varieties as the focus of his own investigation of diachronic changes
in language. In this subsection, he draws attention to the fact that
most studies of language change in cognitive linguistics appear to be
restricted to addressing issues in the history of English, as compared
to other European-based languages. He further points out that such
research lopsidedness in favor of English is rather unfortunate and
would need to be gradually redressed over time. Nesset admits that it
is primarily for this reason that he had specifically chosen to
illustrate the relevance and applicability of the four cognitive
linguistic commitments (which he had earlier identified) in addressing
issues of diachronic change, drawing upon relevant data from specific
case study scenarios in historical Russian/Slavic  languages.

Finally, under sub-section 1.3 titled ‘Seven Case studies’ (pp. 3-5),
Nesset provides the reader with seven detailed case study areas, drawn
from Old Russian/Old Church Slavic, which he would eventually use to
illustrate and demonstrate the applicability of the four theoretical
commitments (or tenets) of cognitive linguistics already identified in
sub-section 1.1. These case study areas, listed in Table 1(p.4), are
the following: first, jer-shift - involving lax vowels and rhythmic
organization of language; second, decade construction rivalry -
involving accusative vs locative oppositions; third, analogy in verbs
- involving the oppositions between /-a/, /-aj/ and /-nu/ grammatical
particles; fourth, feminine numeral construction - involving the
oppositions between /-yx/ vs /-ye/ grammar particles ; fifth,
semelfactive verbs – involving expanding network for verbs in /-nu/
grammar constructions; sixth,  case marking of objects - involving
multiple motivation of accusative vs genitive oppositions and ;
seventh, S-curves and numerals – also involving the opposition between
the  /-yx/ vs /-ye/ grammatical particles.

In Section 2 of the monograph, titled ‘‘The Cognitive Commitment’’
(pp. 5-21), Nesset provides a comprehensive account of the nature and
operation of the jer-shift phenomenon as it occurs and is observed in
Old East Slavic. In the course of his presentation, the author
explores the idea that language, apart from having other key
representational functions, is primarily shaped by domain-general
cognitive processes. Quoting the seminal theoretical opinion offered
in Langacker (2008:8), Nesset argues for the theoretical as well as
methodological importance of the cognitive commitment (as enunciated
in core Cognitive Linguistic research circles) in dealing with issues
in the diachrony of all natural languages, including Old Russian and
other Slavic languages, which provide the major reference points of
the monograph under review.

In Section 3, titled ‘‘The Semantic Commitment: The Form/Meaning
Bipolar Representation’’ (pp. 31-38 of the monograph), Nesset explores
two specific case studies from Old Russian that are relevant for a
proper understanding of the operation of the semiotic commitment
principle in cognitive linguistics. In doing so, he cites several
illustrative examples of Old Russian verbs which demonstrates the
operation of analogical changes, particularly as this involves the
cases of the synonymous verb suffixes of /-a/ and /-aj/, where a
number of verbs with the older, less productive   /-a/ suffix are in
the process of being phased out.

The diachronic process of change involving /-a/ and /-aj/, as noted by
Nesset in his discussion in Section 3, has also been earlier
investigated and reported upon in Nesset (2010) and Nesset &
Kuznetsova (2011). As Nesset has rightly pointed out in his discussion
in Section 3, the results and findings which emerged from these
previous studies had already pointed to the potential emergence and
gradual adoption of the newer (and more productive) /-aj/ suffix in
place of the older, declining /-a/ variant.  By contrast, Nesset has
also observed in his discussion in Section 3 that a similar diachronic
analogical has not been observed for verbs with the /-nu/ (see
pp.25-26 of the monograph).

Finally, in Section 3, Nesset also draws attention to other
interesting insights about the diachronic changes in some feminine
numeral constructions in Old Russian. In this respect, he cites the
relevance of the development of a specific feminine construction type
in Old Russian that permits the possible representation of a
quantified noun in a sentence pattern as uniquely feminine, even if
such a noun element does not inherently possess feminine semantic
content or associations (see pp.30-33).

In Section 4 of the monograph, titled ‘‘The Network Commitment:
Language as a Construction’’ (pp. 38-53), Nesset provides explanations
and illustrations on how the tenet of network commitment (as captured
in cognitive linguistic theory) is captured and demonstrated from data
involving Old Russian verbs. He begins by citing the previously
restricted occurrence of the suffix /-nu/ with Old Russian verbs, for
example, to express such single punctual activities as ‘to sleep’, ‘to
cough’, etc. Nesset’s analysis in this section, however, is able to
demonstrate that the use of the /-nu/ suffix gradually expanded to
cover newer categories of Russian verbs over time. The occurrence of
this phenomenon, he believes, provides strong evidence of an expanding
category network from the point of view of diachronic change,
especially as it relates to functions of the ‘semelfactive aktionsart’
phenomenon in Old Russian. On a final note, Nesset is confident in
asserting that the network commitment tenet of cognitive linguistics,
as evidenced from data drawn from Old Russian, can be said to be
significant for contemporary investigations in historical linguistics
(pp.40-46).

In Section 5, titled ‘‘The Usage-based Commitment’’ (pp. 53-68),
Nesset provides two case studies which seek to address the Usage–based
commitment of cognitive linguistics. With the aid of numerous examples
drawn primarily from data in Old Russian/Slavic language varieties,
the author draws attention to a group of verbs that combine with
objects in the accusative or genitive grammar aspects.  He further
points out, this variation in usage is ‘…primarily conditioned by a
number of different factors that are comprehensively accounted for by
reference to copious examples illustrating how aspects of the grammar
of a language can be shaped by language use from a bottom-up fashion’
(p.5).

Finally, in Section 6, titled ‘‘Conclusion: Language in Cognitive
Grammar’’ (pp. 68-69), Nesset offers concluding remarks on his
exploration of the interfaces between the three subfields of the
language sciences, namely, cognitive linguistics, historical
linguistics and Russian/Slavic linguistics.

EVALUATION

The monograph by Tore Nesset, though quite slim in size (covering only
78 pages), is well-structured and coherent in its contents. Given the
author’s own stated aim in writing the monograph, as provided on the
abstract page of the work, I adjudge the overall contents of the
monograph to be of very high academic quality. On this basis, I
welcome its publication as an important contribution and another
useful addition to a growing list of recently published volumes,
including Nesset’s own cited diachronic studies, all of which seek to
explore issues of interfaces between cognitive linguistics and
historical (diachronic) linguistics. In addition, I also appreciate
the relative balance of emphasis given to both theoretical and
methodological matters by Nesset in his discussion of topical issues
in both cognitive and historical linguistic research fields.
In the light of the limited nature of scholarly discourse that
currently exists on issues of interfaces between cognitive linguistics
and historical linguistics, I find  the contents of Nesset’s monograph
quite insightful and stimulating. To my mind, Nesset’s work is useful
for both recognizing and restating the organic connections between
cognitive, descriptive and historical perspectives in linguistics.
Such links of connectedness are identified and outlined in various
subsections of Section 1 and further canvassed and illustrated through
the use of selected case study areas in the remaining five (5) major
sections of Nesset’s work.

The overall discourse offered in each section of the work is also
vigorously supported with his citations of up-to-date references in
cognitive linguistics, descriptive linguistics and historical
linguistics. My own experience in matters relating to historical
linguistic research in particular leads me to readily empathize with
Nesset’s clarion call for more in-depth investigative studies into be
undertaken to further explore the obvious interface links between
cognitive linguistics and historical linguistics.

The publication of Nesset’s work as a specialized book title is in
tandem with some of the most cherished ideals of linguistic
scholarship worldwide. The  work offers its readers the opportunity to
critically reflect on a wide range of theoretical, analytical and
methodological issues which emerge from systematic consideration of
the interfaces between cognitive linguistics, descriptive linguistics
and historical linguistics.   It also provides a veritable avenue for
celebrating and paying  fitting tribute to the research efforts of  an
increasing number of diachronic linguistic scholars around the world ,
including Tore Nesset himself,  who have worked very hard to
contribute in promoting more in-depth investigations into matters
relating to issues of the interfaces between cognitive, descriptive
and historical linguistics.

On the whole, Nesset’s monograph should be of particular interest to
scholars and advanced readers with an interest in deepening their
current understanding of the diverse issues related to the interfaces
between cognitive linguistics, descriptive linguistics and historical
linguistics. The work would obviously be a valuable source of
reference for established scholars in cognitive, descriptive and
historical linguistics as well as for other categories of upcoming
researchers that are already familiar terminologies in the language
sciences. A high level of intellectual vigor is required to fully
appreciate the significance of Nesset’s lines of scholarly
argumentation. Specifically, for the category of upcoming researchers
and serious-minded readers, I warmly recommend Nesset’s monograph
title as a ‘must-read’ reference source and an invaluable citation
document for concomitant progression in their individual research
careers in cognitive linguistics and historical linguistics.

REFERENCES

Bybee, Joan L. 2007b. Diachronic Linguistics. In:  Dirk Geeraerts and
Hubert Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 945-987.
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure
is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments
in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1.
Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive
Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gryter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2013.Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Nesset, Tore.1998. Russian Conjugation Revisited. Oslo: Novus Press.
Nesset, Tore. 2010. Suffix Shift in Russian Verbs: A case for
markedness? Russian Linguistics 34.2: 123-38.
Nesset, Tore. 2012. One or several Categories? The Old Church Slavic
nợ - verbs and linguistic profiling.  Russian Linguistics 36: 285-303.
Nesset, Tore. 2015. How Russian Came to Be the Way It Is: A Student’s
Guide to the History of the Russian Language. Bloomington: Slavica
Publishers.
Nesset, Tore. 2016a. Does historical linguistics need the Cognitive
Commitment? Prosodic changes in East Slavic. Cognitive Linguistics
27.4: 573- 85.
Nesset, Tore.  2016c. A FOOTnote to the jers shift: The Russian
trochee-iamb shift and Cognitive Linguistics. Journal of Slavic
Linguistics 24.2: 359-91.
Nesset, Tore. 2020. A long birth: The development of gender-specific
paucal constructions in Russian. Diachronica, 37.4: 514-39.
Nesset, Tore. 2022. Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics: case
studies from the History of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. [Text under Current Review]
Nesset, Tore & Julia Kuznetsova. 2011. Stability and complexity:
Russian suffix shift over time. Scando-Slavica 57.2: 268-89.
Nesset, Tore & Julia Kuznetzova. 2015a. Constructions and Language
Change: From genitive to accusative objects in Russian. Diachronica
32.3: 365-96.
Nesset, Tore & Julia Kuznetzova. 2015b. In what case are Russians
afraid? Bojat’sja with genitive and accusative objects. Journal of
Slavic Linguistics, 23.2: 255-83.
Nesset, Tore & Anastasia Makarova. 2012. ‘Nu drop’ in Russian verbs: A
corpus-based investigation of morphological variation and change.
Russian Linguistics 36: 41-63.
Nesset, Tore & Anastasia Makarova. 2014. Testing the semantic
homogeneity constraint: Analogical change and Russian verbs. Journal
of Historical Linguistics 4.2:161-91.
Nesset, Tore & Anastasia Makarova. 2018. The decade construction
rivalry in Russian: using a corpus to study historical linguistics.
Diachronica 35.1: 71-106.
Nesset, Tore & Maria Nordrum. 2019.  Do Russian paucal numerals govern
the genitive? Evidence from stress placement. Russian Linguistics 43:
87-105.
Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova (eds.). 2020. Nodes and Networks in
Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013.
Constructionalization and Construction Changes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Philemon Gomwalk is a teacher and researcher, currently affiliated to
the University of Jos in Nigeria, with research interests in the
diachronic linguistic study and analysis of languages belonging to the
Chadic sub-phylum of Afro-Asiatic within the Nigerian sociolinguistic
environment.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please consider donating to the Linguist List https://give.myiu.org/iu-bloomington/I320011968.html


LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Brill http://www.brill.com

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-35-2079
----------------------------------------------------------