10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431
Modern Russian uses the same marker kak ‘how’ to introduce the standard in equative and similative constructions. Historical grammars claim that the same polysemy is found in Old Russian, where three markers, kako, aky and jako, are used interchangeably. Based on the analysis of chronicles and documents of the 11th–15th centuries and queries in the Russian National Corpus, we show that it is not the case: the markers kako and aky are distributed functionally. In the 11th–15th centuries kako is predominantly used in specific contexts which we propose to call “implicit parameter equative” (IPE), while aky is the main standard marker in similatives. In the 16th and 17thcenturies kako expands onto similative and equative constructions. The 18th century sees the complete loss of akyand the fossilization of the equative construction including the correlative pairs such as tak(oj)… kak, stol’… kak and others. As for the marker jako, it is a general subordinator that can be used in all the relevant contexts.
application/pdf
2785-0943
13431
1
en
Natalia Serdobolskaya
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
similative construction
Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers <em>kako</em> and <em>aky</em>
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
1
Research articles
2021-08-31
2021-08-07
2021-08-31
2021-10-11
257-287
LTC
Natalia Serdobolskaya
2021/08/31
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431
257
Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences/Pushkin State Russian Language Institute
2785-0943
1
similative construction
en
287
<p>Treis, Yvonne. 2018. Comparative Constructions: An Introduction. <em>Linguistic Discovery</em> 16(1). i–xxvi.</p>
Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers <em>kako</em> and <em>aky</em>
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/13431/13067
1
             Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287   ISSN 2785-0943



         Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers
                                        kako and aky

                     IRINA KOBOZEVA1, NATALIA SERDOBOLSKAYA2
   1
       LOMONOSOV MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY, 2INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS, RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF
                      SCIENCES/PUSHKIN STATE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE INSTITUTE




                         Submitted: 16/11/20      Revised version: 27/06/21
                           Accepted: 01/07/21       Published: 31/08/2021




                                               Abstract
Modern Russian uses the same marker kak ‘how’ to introduce the standard in equative and
similative constructions. Historical grammars claim that the same polysemy is found in Old
Russian, where three markers, kako, aky and jako, are used interchangeably. Based on the
analysis of chronicles and documents of the 11th–15th centuries and queries in the Russian
National Corpus, we show that it is not the case: the markers kako and aky are distributed
functionally. In the 11th–15th centuries kako is predominantly used in specific contexts which
we propose to call “implicit parameter equative” (IPE), while aky is the main standard marker
in similatives. In the 16th and 17th centuries kako expands onto similative and equative
constructions. The 18th century sees the complete loss of aky and the fossilization of the
equative construction including the correlative pairs such as tak(oj)… kak, stol’… kak and
others. As for the marker jako, it is a general subordinator that can be used in all the relevant
contexts.


Keywords: Old Russian; manner; comparison; equative construction; similative construction




1. Introduction


In Modern Russian (MR), the comparative constructions of equality and similitude
are introduced by the same manner question word and subordinator kak
‘how/as/like’:




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                 257
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                                 Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


(1)   MR
      Pëtr       takoj              že   vysokij,                kak Ivan.
      Peter      such.M.NOM.SG PTCL smart.M.NOM.SG               how Ivan
      ‘Peter is as tall as Ivan.’


(2)   MR
      On      poj-ot,           kak      solovej.
      he      sings-PRS.3SG     how      nightingale
      ‘He sings like a nightingale.’


Kak is a standard marker (STM) in both equative (1) and similative (2) constructions.
Thus, MR presents a non-differentiated system typical of SAE languages (see
Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998).
  However, equative constructions also include an indication of identity, i.e. an
adjectival demonstrative takoj ‘such’ (1) or a demonstrative adverb tak ‘in such a way’
(3), or much more rare stol’ and nastol’ko ‘to such an extent’ (4) with the emphatic
particle že.


(3)   MR
      Pёtr       begaj-et           tak že          bystro,      kak Ivan
      Peter      runs-PRS.3SG       so   PTCL       quickly      how Ivan
      ‘Peter runs as fast as Ivan.’


(4)   MR
      Ona        stol’              že       krasiva,         kak       jejё mat’
      she        to.such.extent PTCL         beautiful        how       her mother
      ‘She is as beautiful as her mother.’


In equatives like (1), (3) and (4) the PAM and the STM form a correlative pair or
construction which is attested as a prominent type of equative constructions in
languages of Europe (Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998: 285).
  The construction ‘demonstrative + emphatic particle’ is the main explicit marker
of identity used in equatives (Kobozeva & Inkova 2018: 193–199); in case it is absent
the construction is ambiguous and mostly interpreted as a similative. For example,




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                        258
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


Petr vysokij, kak Ivan is understood not as ‘as tall as Ivan’, rather as ‘Peter is tall, and
he is similar to Ivan in exceeding the neutral height of people of his age’.
   Thus, the possibility to insert takoj/tak/stol’/nastol’ko zhe can be used as a test
distinguishing between equatives and similatives in Modern Russian.
   In Old Russian, both meanings could be introduced by the same marker aki/aky:


(5)   OR (PVL)
      ...людiе сѣкyще, аки травү.
      ljudi-je                  sěk-ušče,    aki trav-u
      people-ACC.PL             cut-PTCP     like grass-ACC
      ‘…cutting people like grass’


(6)   OR (RNC. XVI)
      єсть же мѣсто то на земли ниско съз(д)ано аки ѡдръ.
      jest’                že        město     to               na        zeml-i         nisko
      be.PRS.3SG           EMPH      place     that.N.NOM.SG    on        soil-LOC.SG    low
      sъzda-n-o                   aki odrъ
      create-PTCP-N.SG            like couch
      ‘And that place is settled on soil as low as a couch.’


As for the predecessor of kak, which is kako/kakъ, examples can also be found of both
the equative (8) and the similative (7) meanings:


(7)   OR (Sreznevskij 1893: 1180)
      Тамо есть Давыдовъ домъ какъ городокъ.
      tamo         jestь           Davyd-ovъ           dom-ъ                kakъ gorod-ok-ъ
      there        be.PRS.3SG David-ADJ(M.SG)          house-NOM.SG         how town-DIM-NOM.SG
      ‘There is David’s house there, [which is] like a small fortress.’ 1392.


(8)   OR (Vass. XVI)
      А вы бы, бояре…, служили бы есте моему сыну, как есте мне служили
      прямо.
      a       vy      by,       bojar-e…            služi-l-i        by     este           mojemu
      and you IRR               gentlemen-NOM.PL serve-PST-PL IRR           be.PRS.2PL     my.DAT




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                        259
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                           Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


     syn-u,      kak este             mne      služi-l-i          prjamo.
     son-DAT     how be.PRS.2PL       I.DAT    serve-PST-PL       faithfully
     ‘And you, gentlemen, should serve my son as faithfully as you served me.’


The question arises, first, whether actually both aki/aky and kako/kakъ could be used
interchangeably in both contexts, or they were distributed according to some
semantic parameters. Second, the question is how exactly the process of the loss of
aki/aky has taken place, namely, what meanings and contexts were the first to
disappear.
  The paper is aimed at answering these two questions. Specifically, we claim that
in the earlier period, i.e. 11th to 15th centuries, kako/kakъ was chiefly used in adverbial
manner clauses and was extremely rare in comparative constructions, while aki/aky
covered both relevant contexts, that of equality and that of similarity. We suppose
that the expansion of kako/kakъ onto comparative constructions started from equative
constructions, and the switch context from manner clauses to equatives was a specific
meaning, which we propose to term as implicit equality.
  The material of the study comes from Old Russian manuscripts from 11th to 16th
century (see the List of sources), the Old Russian and the Middle Russian subcorpora
of the Russian National Corpus, and from historical dictionaries of Old and Middle
Russian.
  For the sake of simplicity, we ignore the difference between phonetic variants and
use the labels aky and kako. The labels OR and MR are used for Old Russian and
Modern Russian, respectively.
  In section 2, we provide background information about comparative constructions
in Modern and Old Russian, and introduce some relevant terms. Section 3 is devoted
to the quantitative distribution of kako and aky in OR. In section 4, we analyze their
functions in OR and discuss possible paths of their evolution.


2. Russian comparative constructions in typological perspective and in
reference grammars


2.1. Comparison in Modern Russian: typological perspective


Taking the typological perspective outlined in Haspelmath & Buchholz (1998) and
Treis & Vanhove (2017) the realm of comparison in MR is divided into two parts with



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                  260
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


respect to the marking of the STAN. In comparative constructions in narrow sense
(those of inequality) the STAN is marked either by genitive case (9a) or by the linker
chem (< instrumental case of interrogative-relative pronoun chto ‘what’) (9b).


(9)   MR
a. Slivk-i            vkusn-eje          molok-a.
   cream-NOM.PL       tasty-PAM          milk-GEN.SG
   ‘Cream is tastier than milk’.
b. Slivk-I            vkusn-eje,         čem           molok-o.
   cream-NOM.PL       tasty-PAM          what.INS milk-NOM.SG
   ‘Cream is tastier than milk’.


The second part comprises equative and similative constructions. As shown in (1) and
(2) from the Introduction, they both make use of the same STM kak to introduce the
standard (STAN).
   Modern Russian has a specific construction to differentiate equality from similarity
(Kobozeva & In’kova 2018: 193), described as a ‘relative-based equative construction
with both parameter and standard marker’ in Haspelmath & Buchholz (1998: 297),
cf. (10a,b) and (11a,b). The equative involves the demonstrative adjective takoj or
the adverb tak and the emphatic particle zhe.


(10) MR
a. Ivan tak-oj               že          vysok-ij,            kak (i)      jego      otec.
   Ivan such-M.SG.NOM EMPH               tall-M.SG.NOM        how PTCL his           father
b. Ivan vysok-ij,            tak-oj                    že        kak (i)       jego otec.
   Ivan tall-M.SG.NOM        such-M.SG.NOM             EMPH      how PTCL his        father
a.=b. ‘Ivan is as tall as his father.’
c. Ivan vysok-ij,            kak Ejfelev-a                  bašnj-a.
   Ivan tall-M.SG.NOM        how Eiffel -F.SG.NOM tower-NOM.SG
   ‘Ivan is tall, like the Eiffel tower.’


(11) MR
a. Ivan begaj-et          tak     že        bystr-o,        kak (i)     jego      otec.
   Ivan run-PRS.3SG so            EMPH      fast-ADV        how PTCL his          father




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                  261
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                                            Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


b. Ivan begaj-et          bystr-o,        tak       že             kak (i)     jego otec.
  Ivan run-PRS.3SG fast-ADV               so        EMPH           how PTCL his       father
a.=b. ‘Ivan runs as fast as his father.’
c. Ivan begaj-et          bystr-o,        kak veter.
  Ivan run-PRS.3SG fast-ADV               how wind
  ‘Ivan runs fast like the wind.’


Thus, both examples (10a,b) and (11a,b) are interpreted as the indication of an equal
extent of the parameter (PARA) ‘height’ and ‘speed’, while (10c) and (11c) are
interpreted as characterization of Ivan’s height and speed as exceeding the certain
norm and being thus similar to the Eiffel tower and the wind, which also exceed these
norms.
  It is noteworthy that in MR the word order in equatives is not fixed as it is in
English, cf. (10a), (11a) vs. (10b), (11b) in both examples. The difference between
(a) and (b) in both (10) and (11) is minimal, and primarily consists in presentation of
information: in (10a) and (11a) the focus is on the comparison, while in (10b) and
(11b) the PARA (fast) is focused, and the comparison is added as additional
information.
  This statement can be verified if we put the figurative phrase under comparison:


(10) MR
d. # Ivan       tak-oj               že             vysok-ij,                kak      Ejfelev-a
     Ivan       such-M.SG.NOM EMPH                  tall-M.SG.NOM            how      Ejfel-NOM.SG.F
     bašnj-a.
     tower-NOM.SG
e. # Ivan vysok-ij,             tak-oj                        že         kak Ejfelev-a
     Ivan tall-M.SG.NOM         such-M.SG.NOM EMPH                       how Ejfel-NOM.SG.F
     bašnj-a.
     tower-NOM.SG


(11) MR
d. # Ivan begaj-et           tak     že             bystro,           kak veter.
     Ivan run-PRS.3SG so             EMPH           fast-ADV          how wind
e. # Ivan begaj-et           bystr-o,          tak       že           kak veter.
     Ivan run-PRS.3SG fast-ADV                 so        EMPH         how wind.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                                   262
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287




Indeed, figurative comparison does not really presuppose equality of the PARAs, and
would not be welcome in the equative construction. This is what happens in (10d)
and (10e): these examples sound awkward, because they have a pragmatically strange
interpretation, namely, that Ivan is exactly as tall as the Eifel tower. The same is true
of (11d) and (11e) but they are even worse because they presuppose that the wind
runs. Thus, the presence and acceptability of the correlative pair in MR can be used
as a test for distinguishing between equatives and similatives while translating the
OR examples.
   Taking the presence of tak(oj) že as a test, we introduce another context that seems
to be close to equality constructions:


(12) MR
      Vo vremja zatmenija solnce stalo takim že, kak trёxdnevnyj mesjac.
      ‘During the eclipse, the sun became of same size as the moon on its third
      night.’ (lit. became such as…)


(13) MR
      On prodal drova tak že, kak včera.
      ‘He sold firewood on the same conditions / paying the same tax etc. as
      yesterday.’ (lit. in such a way as yesterday)


These constructions seem to be close to equatives because they have the same marking
(the correlative pairs discussed above). Furthermore, they involve the same semantic
pattern, that is, the exact equality of the PARA(s) of the comparee (size in (12) and
conditions/tax in (13)) to the same PARA(s) of the STAN. It must be emphasized that
these constructions are not about similarity, they express exact equality. The only
difference between them and true equative is the absence of the explicit expression
indicating the PARA). One step further we find the same correlative constructions
with tak(oj) že, where, however, the exact nature of the omitted PARA is neither
quantitative nor gradable unlike in (12) and (13). Still, they seem to presuppose
equality, or at least identity of objective properties. Cf.:


(14) MR
      V Saksonii našli takuju že rudu, kak na Jaximovskix mestoroždenijax v Čexii.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                         263
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                        Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


     ‘In Saxony the same ore was found, as in Jachimov deposits in the Czech
     Republic.’ (Adopted example from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/
     razrabotka-uranovyh-mestorozhdeniy-i- radiatsionno-ekologicheskaya-
     reabilitatsiya-rayonov-saksonii-i-tyuringii)


(15) MR
     Znak na dveri snizu takoj že, kak tatuirovka u mojej sestry.
     ‘The sign of the downstairs door is the same as that tattooed on my sister.’
     (https://opus.nipl.eu/OpenSubtitles2016.php).


The example (14) asserts the sameness of chemical mixture and (15) the sameness of
form, which can be measured on objective grounds, and thus, it does not have the
meaning of similarity, rather that of equality. In the following example the PAM of
comparison is binary: either the subjects participate in the parliamentary life or not,
the manner of their participation is not discussed. Thus, the two situations show
equality in their truth value.


(16) MR
     Jejё predstaviteli v parlamente učastvujut v parlamentskoj žizni tak že, kak oni
     delali eto raneje.
     ‘Its representatives in parliament participate in parliamentary life just as they
     did before.’ (https://conferences.unite.un.org).


We deliberately took the examples (15) and (16) from the texts translated by
professional translators to show that the English equivalents of these examples have
STMs same as and just as containing as, which is the prototypical STM of equatives. If
(15) and (16) were similatives, their English equivalent would have been (just) like.
  All the examples (12) – (16) are unified by the following: they involve an objective
PARA that is not expressed overtly (size, price and conditions, chemical mixture, form
and truth value) and that can be measured / counted / evaluated on objective
grounds. Thus, the semantics of these constructions is the indication of the equality
of an implicit PARA.
  It may be concluded that various constructions with tak(oj) že in Russian encode
identity. Equality of degree of an explicit property (as tall as…) is merely a particular
case of identity. For the sake of brevity we shall later use the term “equative” in a



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                               264
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


broader sense than in Haspelmath & Buchholz (1998) and Treis (2018) and apply it
for all examples that either contain “demonstrative + že” construction or can be
transformed into such a construction in a given context without the change of
meaning. To avoid any misunderstanding, we propose to call the constructions in
question implicit parameter equatives (IPE).
   It is important for our discussion to emphasize that the discussed constructions are
different from manner adverbial clauses as the following:


(17) MR
      Oformi-l               zakaz. Vsё dostavi-l-i           kak dogovori-l-i-s’.
      register-PST(M.SG) order         all   deliver-PST-PL   how arrange-PST-PL-REFL
      ‘I placed the order. They delivered everything as it was arranged.’
      (https://medtyla.ru › page_6).


Even if they seem similar to the constructions of equality of manner like in (13), they
may be distinguished by their semantic pattern. In IPE the arguments with the same
semantic role are compared, the manner (including conditions, price and tax) of
selling the firewood today and yesterday. By contrast, in (17) the speaker is not
comparing the manner of arranging to the manner of delivering the wares; rather, the
manner of delivering is the goal/theme argument of the verb “arrange”. Note that
manner adverbial clauses are most often encoded by kak without the correlative pair
as above.
   Thus, in what follows we are going to focus on STM in the following types of
constructions: equative, similative, and IPE.


2.2. Background on description of comparative constructions in Modern and
Old Russian


Descriptive grammars of MR label all the types (1-4), as well as inequality
comparatives, as comparative constructions, and classify them according to various
formal and semantic criteria. There is not a unanimous classification, the number and
the labels of the classes introduced in different grammars do not coincide. All MR
grammars distinguish between inequality vs. other types of comparative constructions
(1-2). However, they do not capture the semantic difference between quantitative and
qualitative comparison, i.e., equality (1) and similarity (2).



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                            265
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                        Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


  The classifications used in reference grammars of MR are mostly focused on the
distinction of real vs. irreal comparison (in terms of dostovernoje ‘credible’ vs.
nedostovernoje ‘incredible’ in Švedova 1980). This parameter is also considered among
others by Letuchiy (2015) in the most recent Russian Corpus grammar. He also
examines word order, syntactic type and referential properties of the STAN, realis vs.
irrealis clauses and other parameters. However, these parameters are not relevant for
the semantic types we are considering in this paper, and thus, we do not refer to them
in what follows.
  The main means of marking STAN in equative and similative constructions is kak,
as shown in (1); equative constructions also include demonstratives with the emphatic
particle, see section 2.1. Being the main STM in equative and similative constructions,
kak has several other functions in Modern Russian. It can introduce subordinate
clauses and phrases of various other kinds: 1) event complement clauses; 2) accord
clauses 3) role phrases (in terms of Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998); 4) temporal
adverbial clauses; 5) small clauses of reason; 6) conditional clauses, see Kobozeva &
In’kova (2018) for the details.
  Historical grammars of Russian hardly ever address comparative constructions, for
example, they are not described at all in Borkovskij & Kuznecov (1965). Lomtev
(1956) only considers constructions of inequality. Bulaxovskij (1958) and Stecenko
(1972) analyze inequality constructions and some sub-types of equative and
similative constructions without making a distinction between them.
  All historical grammars testify that in constructions of inequality the STAN is
marked with the genitive case:


(18) OR (Voskr. XVI)
     Юрьи Кончаковичь бѣ бол-iй вс-ѣхъ Половець.
     Yurьi Končakovičь       bě                bol-ij    vs-ěxъ         Polovecь
     Jurii Konchakovich was.AOR.IPFV.3SG big-PAM all-GEN.PL             Polovets.GEN.PL
     ‘Jurii Konchakovich had a bigger army than the Cumans.’


The subordinators neželi (< ne ‘not’+ že EMPH + li Q) and starting from the 16th
century also čem (< čto-INS) are used almost exclusively in comparative-oppositive
and substitution constructions (Krys’ko 2020: 399) containing the comparative form
with the meaning ‘better’, exemplified in (Bulaxovskij 1958: 377) by И чем было
сосуды ковати, ино лучше бы шуба переменити ‘And instead of forging tableware,



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                               266
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


it would be better to change the fur coat’ (XVI). Neither of the two, kako or aky, are
used in contexts like (18) until the 17th century when kako expands its use onto these
contexts, as well; this use is, however, not possible in the modern language.
     As for similative and equative constructions, they are analyzed in the same terms
in all the sources. It is argued that they could be introduced by any of the three
subordinators aky (with its phonetic variant aki), kako (with the variant kakъ) and
jako, see also Sreznevskij (1893).
     The marker jako is used as a general subordinator in OR, covering nearly all the
functional types of complement and adverbial clauses, including eventive and
propositional complements, adverbial clauses of time, reason, concession, and others.
Therefore, we limit our research to aky and kako.
     The first work mentioning the semantic difference between aky and kako is
Stecenko (1972: 288). He notes that aky mainly introduces «figurative» similarity, as
in the following:


(19) OR (The Moscow chronicle, cit. after Stecenko 1972, 124)
        ...сниде огнь съ небесе, акы облакъ велик над ручаи Лыбеди.
        snid-e                    ognь sъ         nebes-e,        aky oblakъ velik
        come.down-AOR.3SG fire from               sky-GEN.SG      like cloud      big(M.NOM.SG)
        nad       rucha-i            Lybed-i
        above river-ACC.SG           Lybed’-ACC.SG
        ‘A fire from heaven went down, like a big cloud above the river Lybed’.


In the recent encyclopedic dictionary “Historical Grammar of Russian Language”
(Krys’ko 2020) the observation of A.N. Stecenko turns into a categorical statement:
«The conjuncion aky (> aki) was used to form only similative sentences, containing
figurative simile»1.
     However, examples like (20) show that aky also introduces similatives that do not
represent a «figure of speech»:




1
    The term simile is used for a subtype of similatives that have generic STAN, denoting a prototypical
    possessor of the high degree of the PAM (Kölbel 1993; Fortescue 2010).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                        267
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                            Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


(20) OR (HG)
     любити ближняго своего аки себе.
     ljubi-ti    bližnj-ago           svoj-ego                   aki seb-e
     love-INF    neighbor-ACC.SG      REFL.ADJ-ACC.M.SG          like REFL-ACC.SG
     ‘to love one’s neighbor as oneself’


At the same time, neither in Stecenko (1972), nor in Krys’ko (2020) it is not specified,
whether kako can be used in such contexts.
  Note that jako and aky are considered to be stylistically marked as belonging
exclusively to written language (Stecenko 1972: 288; Bulaxovskij 1958: 368–372).
  Thus, historical grammars do not answer the question whether OR has a
differentiated system of comparative constructions. In the present paper we argue
that aky and kako were semantically distributed in the 11th–15th centuries, and later
kako has expanded onto aky-contexts.

3. Basic distribution of aky and kako in OR


This section is focused on the quantitative distribution of aky and kako. Given that
aky is not used already in 19th century, we expected to find the gradual loss of aky
and the expansion of kako onto the relevant contexts during the 11th–18th centuries.
  At first, we estimated the frequency of both markers based on simple queries for
kako/kakъ/kak and aky/aki in the Russian National Corpus (RNC). It turned out that
kako has a larger use than aky even in OR, resulting in a gradual decrease and loss of
the use of aky in 18th and 19th centuries. The exact figures are given in Table 1.

                  Time period    11th–16th cent.    17th cent.      18th cent.
                     kako             777             767           33820
                     aky              546             313              760
                     Ratio             1,4             2,4            44,5


        Table 1: Number of examples with kako and aky from 11th to 18th century in RNC.


Table 1 shows that the proportion of kako to aky slightly changes in the 17th century
(with kako attested 2,4 times more frequently than aky) showing sharp increase in
the 18th century (with kako attested 44,5 times more often).
  It is obvious that the use of similative and equative markers is highly influenced
by the genre of the text, so we also provide the distribution of kako and aky in texts


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                   268
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


belonging to the same genre and devoted to the same topic, i. e. non-fiction historical
texts. Table 2 shows that the proportion is slightly different for these texts; however,
it still reveals the sharp decrease of aky in the 18th century and its complete loss by
the beginning of the 19th century. For example, all the 4 occurrences of aky in
Karamzin’s “Istoriya gosudarstva rossijskogo” (History of the Russian State) are found
in citations of Old Russian proverbs. In archbishop Theophan’s texts, written in the
beginning of the century, the ratio is already different than in older chronicles, while
in the beginning of the 19th century aky is nearly absent.


              Chronicles written                                                    “Istoriya…”
                                        Archbishop          Historical texts
    Time          in 11 –16
                          th   th
                                                                                    of Karamzin,
                                    Theophan, beginning      of 18th century
    period         centuries                                                      beginning of 19th
                                    of 18th century (RNC)       (RNC)2
                 (our sample)                                                      century (RNC)
    kako              140                   207                  1734                   2185
    aky               85                    108                   351              0 (4 citations)
    Ratio            1,65                   1,92                  4,94                   n/a


     Table 2: Distribution of kako and aky in non-fiction historical texts of RNC and in our sample.


Thus, it seems reasonable to compare the distribution of kako vs. aky up to the 18th
century, when the latter was completely lost. It can be expected that the major
changes in the functions of both markers would be found in the texts of the 16th-17th
centuries, as it was the time period of increase of the usage of kako.


4. The functional distribution of kako and aky in OR


As discussed in section 2.2, historical grammars and dictionaries of OR do not reveal
any semantic and syntactic difference between aky and kako. Examples can be found
of both of them in both equative and similative constructions. However, it is
noteworthy that the relevant sections of historical grammars do not provide a detailed
periodization, giving together examples dating from 11th century and 17th century (the
relevant data are mostly discussed in sections dedicated to syntax, and they are not
as detailed as the ones on historical phonetics and morphology). Another important
question is the one of frequency. Even if a meaning is attested once or twice, it might

2
    A query of documents created in the 18th century and tagged as “text type: non-fiction; topic:
    historical” in RNC.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                          269
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                        Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


be an occasional example, and the expression in question might allow such use only
marginally. To reveal the main uses of words and constructions in historical corpora,
recent works on historical syntax count the frequency of various uses in a limited
sample of texts (Hilpert & Gries 2009; Diessel & Hilpert 2016). This allows to
determine, which meaning or use is the basic meaning of the examined
word/construction at a given historical period, and which use is diminishing or
increasing.
  Thus, to reveal the functional distribution of aky and kako in OR, we have compiled
several samples of their instances attested in documents belonging to various time
periods. We made a special focus on the 18th century, making a randomized search
query of 400 examples with aky and 400 examples with kako texts in RNC. For the
16th and the 17th century we made randomized search queries of 150 examples with
aky and 150 examples with kako. For older texts the RNC does not give the possibility
of specifying a query for a given period. Therefore, we compiled our own sample of
texts starting from the first available manuscripts of the 11th century up to the
manuscripts of 15th century. To make our sample consistent from the point of view of
language varieties, we limited our research, first, to documents created in the north
or center of Russia, second, to original documents (rejecting translations). The list of
sources is given at the end of the present article.
  The 11th–15th centuries sample has 81 occurrences of aky and 164 occurrences of
kako in it. All the examples (our sample + RNC queries) with the markers in question
have been manually annotated according to the meaning represented and the
presence of other markers (since both aky and kako are largely used with other
subordinators and particles to form complex subordinators and markers, for example
kako ti, kako to, aki by). Note that we have left kako i, since this complex marker seems
to have the same distribution in comparative constructions as kako without i. Sticking
to the terminology discussed in section 2.1 we use the following semantic tags:
equative, similative, inequality comparative, manner adverbial clause, IPE. The
examined markers have a number of functions outside these semantic domains,
namely, additive, role, approximation, ‘hearsay’ and irrealis. The lexeme kako is a
manner question word largely used in independent questions (21) and exclamations
and subordinate adverbial clauses of manner (22), temporal adverbial clauses,
parentheticals, manner and eventive complement clauses.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                               270
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


(21) OR (NovgB 49, XV)
        оу мене бориса в животѣ нѣтъ. какъ се господо мною попецалуѥте и
        моими дѣтми.
        u          mene boris-a        v život-ě        nětъ        kakъ       se
        around I.GEN Boris-GEN.SG in life-LOC.SG NEG.COP            how        REFL

        gospod-o               mnoju popecaluj-ete i           moi-mi        dět-mi
        gentleman-VOC.PL I.INS         care-PRS.2PL and my-INS.PL children-INS.PL
        ‘My [husband] Boris passed away (lit. At/by me, there is no Boris in life).
        Dear Sirs, how are you going to care for me and my children?’


(22) OR (NovgB 359, XIV)
        осподине како ѥсьмъ порѧдилесе тако и живу а василке село пустоши.
        ospodine        kako      ěsьmъ      porědi-l-e-se              tako i        živ-u
        gentleman       how       be.PRS.SG arrange-PST-PL-REFL         so     and live-PRS.1SG
        a          vasilke     selo    pustoši
        while      Vasilke     village ruin.PRS.3SG
        ‘Sir, I live as we have arranged (according to the conditions we have
        discussed), while Vasilke brings the village to ruin.’


The results of our tagging are as follows. Up to the 16th century, aky and kako divide
the functions in the following way: aky marks the STAN in similative (23) and
equative constructions (24), approximation (25), role (26), and irrealis complement
clauses (27), while kako is only attested in IPEs (28) and adverbial clauses of manner
(22).


(23) OR (PVL)
        постомъ явишася отци наши акы свѣтила в мирѣ
        post-omъ javi-ša-sja                 otc-i          naš-i   aky světil-a v mir-ě…
        fast-INS     appear-AOR.3PL-REFL father-PL our-PL like star-PL in world-LOC
        ‘our fathers appeared in the world like stars, through fasting…’


(24) OR (PVL)
        Нѣциї видѣша рано въсходящю солнцю бысть на 3 углы яко и коврига,
        потомъ мнѣи бысть аки звѣзда.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                      271
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                                   Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


     potomъ mněi                    bystь          aki zvězd-a
     then      small.CMPR           be.AOR.3SG     as     star-NOM.SG
     ‘Early in the morning some people saw, as the sun was rising that it was
     triangle-formed, like a loaf and then became smaller, as a star’.


(25) OR (RNC: Chudesa Nikoly. XII)
     чюдѧхѹсѧ гл҃юще къ себѣ. акы гласъ ѥсть нашего сѹсѣда дьмитри꜔а.
     čudj-axu-sja                      glagolju-šče     kъ seb-ě              aky glasъ     jestь
     surprise-IMPF.3PL-REFL            say-PTCP         to REFL-DAT.SG like voice           be.PRS.3SG
     naš-ego            susěd-a                dьmitrij-a
     our-GEN.SG         neighbor-GEN.SG        Dmitriy-GEN.SG
     ‘[The neighbours] were surprised and told to themselves: it is, apparently, a
     voice of our neighbor, Dmitriy. (However, he has left yesterday.)’


(26) OR (PVL)
     сiю бо хвалятъ Рустiе сынове, аки началницю.
     sij-u              bo             xvalj-atъ          Rusti-je              synov-e,       aki
     this.F-GEN.SG because             praise-PRS.3PL     Russian-NOM.PL son-NOM.PL            like
     načalnic-u
     initiator-ACC.SG
     (She was the first Russian who entered the kingdom of heaven.) ‘This one is
     praised by sons of Russia as their initiator.’


(27) OR (PVL)
     мнѣти же всѣмъ человекомъ зряче, аки кровь прольяна на снѣгy.
     mně-ti        že             vsěmъ      čelovek-omъ           zrja-če,     aki krovь
     think-INF EMPH               all.DAT.PL person-DAT.PL         see-PTCP     like blood
     prol’ja-n-a             na     sněg-u
     spill-PCTP-F.SG         on     snow-LOC.SG
     ‘(There was a sign from God.) All the people saw as if blood was spilled over
     the snow.’


The STAN of IPEs may be marked by both aky and kako:




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                          272
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


(28) OR (Novg1. XIII-XIV)
      солнче… бы акы въ 5 ноцiи мѣсяць.
      solnč-e         by               aky vъ       5 nocii    měsjacь
      sun-NOM.SG be.AOR.3SG            like in      5 night    moon.GEN.PL
      ‘(Describing the sun eclipse.) The sun became of the same size as a moon on its
      fifth night’.


(29) OR (NovgB 364. XIV)
      даи намъ ржи на полтину какъ людомъ поцнешь давать.
      dai             namъ      rž-i          na    poltin-u             kakъ ljud-omъ
      give.IMP.2SG we.DAT rye-GEN.SG on 50.kopejka-ACC.SG how                  people-DAT.PL
      pocn-ešь             dava-tь
      begin-PRS.2SG        give-INF
      ‘Give us rye that costs 50 kopejka’ price, [on the same conditions] as you are
      going to give to other people.’


(28) is arguably an example of the IPE, since the STAN is given a detailed description
allowing to identify its exact size (the new moon as it is on its fifth day). It seems
hard to interpret this example as a similative: the speaker’s aim is to describe the size
of the sun, rather than make a comparison (small like a moon). As for (29), it makes
use of kako to refer to the exact conditions of selling rye, which is explicitly indicated
in the context. Thus, it is not about similarity, rather the speaker aims at identifying
the extent of an implicit PARA (conditions).
   Thus, the IPE context is the only one where both kako and aky can be used
interchangeably. As for other comparison contexts, they are chiefly introduced by
aky. To verify this claim, we made randomized searches of kako in the Old Russian
subcorpus of the Russian National Corpus. The results follow the pattern observed in
our sample. This does not mean that kako could never be used as a STM of similarity
or equality (historical dictionaries Sreznevskij (1893) and Slovar russkogo jazyka...
(from 1975) give two similarity examples dating from the 14th and 15th centuries and
one equality example dating from the end on the 15th century); however, its frequency
in these constructions was low, as reflected in our sample. It may be concluded that
kako started to expand onto similatives and equatives approximately in the 14th–15th
centuries. By contrast, the IPE reading was widespread much earlier.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                              273
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                                      Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


      Further history of aky and kako, as it appears in our samples, is summarized in
Table 3. For the sake of brevity, we omit non-relevant uses of both markers, such as
the subordinator use and use of kako as a question word. The percentage is, therefore,
calculated not from all uses, rather from the relevant sample. The exact figures are
given in the last column. Empty cells in the table represent zero values.


                                                                                      Total
                               Implicit
            Time         Adv                                         Paren-   Ine-  relevant
    Mar-                        PARA Equa- Simila-      Appro- Addi-
           period      manner                      Role               the- quality examples
    ker                        equative tive tive       ximator tive
           (cent.)     clauses                                        tical compar. /whole
                                 (IPE)
                                                                                     sample
aky        11–15th             10,13          83,54 6,33                                           79/81
kako       11–15  th
                       66,67   33,33                                                              15/164
aky        16th                 0,93          78,7     3,7     15,74    0,93                      99/150
kako       16th
                       10,26   56,41   5,13   28,21                                               35/150
aky        17th
                                       2,34   82,03 7,81        6,25    1,56                      124/150
kako       17th        23,81   33,33   4,76   28,57                             9,52              21/150
aky        18th
                                               76     12,57 10,28       1,14                     237/2783
kako       18th         7,14   14,29   11,61 29,46 19,64        3,57    3,57    2,68     8,04     604/621


    Table 3: Distribution of comparative and related meanings of aky and kako in the relevant part of
                                                the sample.


The results of the Table 3 are represented in Figure 1.




3
    The whole number of examples of aky in this time period.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                             274
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287




                                             IPE




            Figure 1: Functional distribution of aky and kako in OR and Middle Russian.


The distribution of meanings seems to be similar in the 16th and the 17th centuries, so
further we treat them on a par. The results show that the main function of aky was
the similative (30), since the percentage is nearly the same (about 80%) in all the
time periods.


(30) OR (RNC. XVII)
      молот же истребляет железо аки плевели.
      molot        že        istrebljaj-et          želez-o      aki plevel-i
      hammer       EMPH      destroy-PRS.3SG        iron-NOM.SG like weed-NOM.PL
      ‘As for the hammer, it destroys iron like weed.’


The equative and IPE meanings are not infrequent; however, they seem to show
something that looks like complementary distribution: equative is absent in the
earliest period, while IPE constructions decrease in frequency in the 17th–18th
centuries. We will return to this below.
   At large, aky did not significantly change its distribution among similative and
semantically related contexts during the whole time period. The only significant
change was a decrease in use in IPEs.
   By contrast, kako was hardly ever used in any contexts of comparison in the earliest
period. The only relevant context it could cover is the IPE, where it competed with
aky. Sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, however, see the expansion of kako onto



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                              275
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                              Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


contexts of comparison, both similative (31) and equative (32). The IPE is still well-
attested (33). The parenthetical use arises in the 17th century.


(31) Middle Russian (RNC. XVI)
     79-ть ложекъ серебряны золочены… на концѣхъ какъ коруночки литые.
     na    konc-ěxъ           kakъ   korunočk-i           lityj-e
     on    end-LOC.PL         how    crown-NOM.PL         casted-NOM.PL
     ‘79 gilded silver spoons… which have at their end as if casted crowns.’


(32) Middle Russian (RNC. XVII)
     Да за стрелетцкие хлебные запасы только взять против государева указу,
     как збирано Устюжские чети з городов во 149-м и во 150-м, и во 151-м,
     и во 152-м году за стрелетцкие хлебные запасы по 168 рублев с сохи…
     tolьko       vzja-tь       protiv          gosudarev-a         ukaz-u,          kak
     as.many take-INF           according       Sire-GEN.SG         law-GEN.SG how
     zbira-n-o                […]    po         168 rublev                    s        sox-i
     collect-PCTP-N.SG.NOM           DISTR      168 rouble.GEN.PL             from     plough-GEN.SG
     ‘According to the Sire’s law, the streletses’ (a Russian army unit) bread stock
     should be paid 168 roubles each plough, as much as it was taken from
     the towns in years 149, 150, 151 and 152 by in Ustjug’s area.’


(33) Middle Russian (RNC. XVII)
     вы бъ съ тѣхъ лавокъ тѣмъ лавочнымъ сидѣлцомъ, въ которыхъ лавкахъ
     сидятъ по земь, велѣли платити къ Ивану Предтечи на годъ
     по полуполтинѣ, или какъ иные сидѣлцы платятъ.
     ili   kakъ      inyj-e               sidělc-y           platj-atъ
     or    how       other-NOM.PL         leaser-NOM.PL      pay-PRS.3PL
     ‘You should tell the sellers, who are earth leasers, to pay at John the Baptist’s
     holiday 25 kopejka a year, or on the conditions kept by other leasers.’

In the 18th century kako (already in the form kak) is largely used in all contexts of
comparison (34-36) and closely related meanings such as additive, approximation,
role etc. Note that it can also mark STAN of inequality equatives (37); this use,
however, was lost in MR.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                      276
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


(34) Middle Russian (RNC. XVIII)
      Živ-ut          v    les-ax,             kak dikij-e              zver-i.
      live-PRS.3PL in forest-LOC.PL            how wild-NOM.PL animal-NOM.PL
      ‘They live in forest, like wild animals do.’


(35) Middle Russian (RNC. XVIII)
      prežn-ije            golov-n-yje              ubor-y       bud-ut                 tam
      former-NOM.PL head-ATTR-NOM.PL dress-NOM.PL be.FUT-3PL                            there
      stol’           že        redk-i,             kak drevn-ije            stroenij-a
      same.extent EMPH          rare-NOM.PL how ancient-NOM.PL building-NOM.PL
      egiptjan.
      Egyptians.GEN.PL
      ‘The old hats will be there as rare as ancient Egyptian buildings.’

(36) Middle Russian (RNC. XVIII)
      Доношу же вам, что мы междо Верхотурья и Чусовой нашли железной
      руды такой же, как у Демидова на Тагиле.
      naš-l-i         železn-oj                rud-y           tak-oj             že,           kak
      find-PST-PL     iron-ATTR-F.GEN.SG ore-GEN.SG            such-GEN.SG EMPH                 how
      u Demidov-a               na       Tagil-e.
      at Demidov-GEN.SG         on       Tagil-LOC.SG
      ‘I hereby report to you that we have found between Verxoturje and Chusova
      iron ore, the same as Demidov has in Tagil.’


(37) Middle Russian (RNC. XVIII)
      k dostiž-enij-u           blagopoluchij-a          net        bliže                 i
      to attain-VN-DAT.SG       prosperity-GEN.SG NEG.COP           close.CMPR            and
      priličn-eje     sredstv, kak prjam-aja dobrodetel’            i        prjam-oj             razum…
      decent-CMPR means how right-F.SG virtue                       and right-M.SG                mind
      ‘There is no closer and more decent means of attaining prosperity than the right
      virtue and the right mind’.


The marker aky could also cover a number of meanings closely related to comparison,
such as approximation, additive, role etc. These uses are exclusively covered by aky
until the 18th century, while in the 18th century they can be introduced by kako, as



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                             277
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                              Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


well. The parenthetical use is only attested with kako and only in the 17th and 18th
centuries.
  Thus, we suppose that the similarity/equality use of kako develops in the 16th
century and slowly increases afterwards. In the 18th century kako shows an expansion
onto all the contexts closely related to comparison, while aky preserves the same
functions it had in older texts. The period of expansion coincides with the major
increase of kako in contexts of comparison.
  Now let us examine individual types of comparative constructions. The results on
the basic comparison constructions are demonstrated in Figure 2.




       Figure 2: Functional distribution of aky and kako in the basic contexts of comparison.


The similative meaning is the majoring type of aky in all time periods; kako expands
onto these contexts already in the 16th century. Thus, this type involves competition
of both markers, observed in historical grammars and dictionaries.
  The inequality comparative use (the yellowish green line) is only attested with kak
in the 18th century. The development of this use happened after the complete
disappearance of aky.
  The equative and the IPE contexts show the following pattern. True equative
examples are not found at all in the earliest period, neither with aky nor with kako.
Yet, this does not mean that they were totally impossible. We have made several
corpus queries of the type “adjective/adverb + aky/aki/kako/kakъ” and
“aky/aki/kako/kakъ + adjective/adverb”, with a distance from 1 to 3 words. Single



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                     278
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


examples of equatives are found, see (6); however, this construction seems to be
extremely infrequent. We also tried similar queries with jako (the general
subordinator); however, only solitary examples are found as the following:


(38) OR (RNC. XIII)
      и тако далече живоуть ѿ римлѧнъ, ꙗко нб҃о ѿ землѧ.
      i      tako daleče živ-utь              otъ       rimljan-ъ       jako   nebo     otъ
      and so       far       live-PRS.3PL from          Roman-GEN.PL SUB       heaven from
      zemlj-a.
      earth-GEN.SG
      ‘And they live as far from Romans as heaven from earth.’


Note that this example comes from the translation of “The Jewish War”, authored by
Flavius Josephus, and could be influenced by the original Greek text.
   The rise of equative use is observed in the 16th century, when it is mostly introduced
by kako as STM (the grey line); aky is also attested in these constructions, although
very infrequently (the violet line). Hence, we assume that kako is the main means of
encoding STAN of equative in the 16 – 18th centuries.
   It is intriguing that the context of IPE decreases in frequency parallelly with the
rise of the true equative. Namely, in the earliest period this context is covered by both
aky and kako (kako being more frequent), in the 16th century it is quite widespread;
however, it is predominantly covered by kako (39). Examples with aky (40) are not
numerous. The 17th and 18th centuries see the decrease of this use.


(39) Middle Russian (RNC. XVI)
      …on u nix              korm      svoj         i       kon-sk-oj          kup-it
      he     at they.GEN forage REFL.M.SG and horse-ATTR-NOM.SG                buy-PRS.3SG
      po           cen-e,           kak jemu        prodad-ut.
      according price-DAT.SG how he.DAT sell-PRS.3PL
      ‘He will buy from them forage for himself and for horses at the price they will
      sell it.’


(39) is arguably not a similative, rather an IPE, as can be inferred by the context: it
involves the instructions that the price be equal, not similar. This meaning can also
be encoded by aky, see (40), where the size of the sun is determined by equality to



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                  279
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                             Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


the size of the moon on its third night. Hence, the implicit PARAs here are the price
and the size.


(40) Middle Russian (RNC. XVI)
     a     solnc-e           že        osta-sja               aki molod-ъ
     and sun-NOM.SG EMPH               remain.AOR.3SG-REFL like young-NOM.SG
     měsjac-ъ             treju        dnej.
     moon-NOM.SG          three.GEN day.GEN.PL
     ‘The sun became just as the new moon on its third night.’


We explain the observed asymmetry in frequency of the two constructions in the
following way. The equative as a construction was nearly absent and only started to
develop in the 11–15th centuries period; the earliest examples (coming from corpus
queries (6) and historical dictionaries) date from the 13th century and are solitary.
The equative meaning at this time was encoded by the construction we termed as
“implicit PAM equative”. Indeed, many relevant examples contain an adjective that
occurs after (and not before) the STAN, see (19) and the following:


(41) OR (RNC. XIII)
     и выросло у него и(з) чела трояндофило(в̑) цвѣ(т) в̾ сыропустную н(д)лю.
     аки сыръ бело.
     trojandofil-ov-ъ             cvět-ъ […]      aki syr-ъ               bel-o.
     rose-ATTR-NOM.SG.M flower-NOM.SG like cheese-NOM.SG white-NOM.SG.M
     ‘And during the week before Lent a rose flower grew out of his forehead white
     as cheese / similar to the white cheese.’


(42) OR (HG. XIII)
     Си же благочьстивии князи рязаньстии концяшася мѣсяця июля въ 20,
     на святого пророка Илии, и прияша вѣнця от Господа Бога, и съ своею
     дружиною, акы агньцы непорочьни прѣдаша душа своя Богови.
     aky agnьc-y             neporočьn-i          prěda-ša      duš-a
     like lamb-NOM.PL innocent-NOM.PL             give-AOR.3PL soul-NOM.DU
     svoj-a                  Bogovi.
     REFL.GEN-NOM.DU         God.DAT
     ‘They gave their souls to God, as innocent as lambs / innocent like lambs.’



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                    280
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287




All these examples are ambiguous from the point of view of their syntactic structure:
they can be analyzed as “X, like a an [N Adj]” or “X, as/like a N, Adj”. Given that
punctuation marks are lacking these structures cannot be differentiated. Even if the
syntactic structure is [N Adj], it seems that semantically they should be analyzed as
constructions of equality “big as a cloud” / “white as cheese” / “innocent as lambs”.
The alternative interpretation seems to be problematic: it would be strange to
compare a rose to a white cheese, and fire to a big cloud, while the equative
interpretation seems to be pragmatically more appropriate. We termed these
examples as “implicit parameter equatives”; however, we suppose that they could
have the same meaning as English equatives like as innocent as lambs.
   Note that in our sample kako in IPE is already attested at the turn of the 12th–13th
centuries, and it is well represented afterwards. By contrast, the equative use of kako
only starts in the 16th century and comprises a single example, see (8) in section 1.
Our explanation clarifies why the equative construction is so poorly attested in the
earlier period: apparently, it developed from the IPE.
   Thus, we assume that the IPE constructions gave rise to the true equative
constructions with the parametric adjective preceding the STAN like in (6). This
explains the fall of frequency of implicit PAM constructions in the 17th century,
parallel to the rise of true equatives. Perhaps, the word order illustrated in (41-42)
and (19) is reflected in the later variation of word order in MR equatives, as shown
in (10).
   The similarity use of kako emerged from the IPE constructions, as well. We suggest
the following pattern of semantic change for kako:


    subordinator in
  adverbial clauses of    →          STM in IPEs            →    STM in equatives and similatives
        manner
            (17)                         (40)                                  (6)
                                                                   EQU: “payed much kako (as)
                                  “payed kako other
 “payed kako we have                                                      other holders”
                                holders” (on the same
       decided”                                                 SIM: “payed very much, kako (like)
                                     conditions)
                                                                          other holders”


                         Figure 3: The pattern of semantic change for kako.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                    281
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                         Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


Given that similatives encode sameness of manner (Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998:
278), it can be hypothesized that manner has served as a starting point for the
expansion of the similative use in OR. We suggest that the context of IPE has served
as a switch context, where PARA was a kind of manner, including quantitative PARAs,
price, form, structure and other. In the 16th century this construction expanded onto
subjective PARAs such as beauty, love (beautiful like a flower, loved them like his
children etc.). At this point, however, equatives are hard to differentiate from
similatives, since it is often unclear whether the author intended to mean “paid as
much as X” or “paid a lot, like X did”.
  Another issue is the emergence of the correlative pair constructions illustrated
above (3-4). We made several queries of the type “aky/aki/kako/kakъ/jako… tako/
takъ” with different word order and different word-to-word distance in RNC. The
queries’ results show that the correlate started to appear regularly in the 15th century,
while solitary examples may be occasionally found earlier, see (44) dating from the
13–14th century.


(43) OR (Novg1. XIII–XIV)
     тма бысть в солнци, съ запада акы мѣсяць бысть въ 5 ночiи.
     tma         bystь          v solnc-i       sъ     zapad-a        aky měsjac-ь
     darkness be.AOR.3SG        in sun-LOC.SG   from east-GEN.SG like moon-NOM.SG
     bystь          vъ    5 nočii.
     be.AOR.3SG     in    5 night.LOC.PL
     ‘There was darkness in the sun, [looking] from the east it was just as
     the moon on its fifth night.’


(44) OR (Novg1. XIII-XIV)
     тма бысть тако же акы мѣсяць 5 ночiи.
     tma         bystь          tako    že      aky měsjac-ь             5 nočii.
     darkness be.AOR.3SG        so      EMPH    like moon-NOM.SG         5 night.GEN.PL
     ‘There was darkness, [the sun became] just as the moon on its fifth night.’


Note that the correlate was not obligatory, since similar examples are found in the
same document, describing the same situation of the sun eclipse, with and without
tako že.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                282
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287


   However, the majority of examples with correlative pairs attested before the 15th
century include jako (38) or jako že, rather than aky or kako. We made some counts
among the equatives and IPEs in our samples. In the 16th and 17th centuries, aky never
cooccurs with a correlate. As for kako, the percentage of examples with correlates
rises to 39% in the 16th century and 50% in the 17th century, and in the 18th century
all our examples with equative and IPE include the correlate tako, takoj, stol’ and
others.
   Thus, we conclude that the correlative pairs with aky and kako spread in the 15th
century, and in the 18th century the construction “kak… tak” / “tak… kak” got
fossilized in the equative meaning.
   In conclusion, the expansion of kako onto aky-contexts happened parallelly with
the decrease of aky in frequency, namely, in the 16th and the 17th centuries. At the
same time the correlative constructions got grammaticalized as a main means of
encoding the equative meaning.
   As for inequality constructions, they do not include neither kako nor aky in the
considered time. This meaning is encoded by the genitive case both in OR and MR.
However, in the 18th century kako is largely used as STM in inequality constructions.
In MR this function is taken over by chem, the instrumental case of the question word
chto ‘what’.


5. Conclusions


The present paper studies the functional distribution of two OR markers used in the
domain of comparison, aky and kako. Contrary to what is stated in historical
grammars and dictionaries, we demonstrate that the two markers are not
synonymous. The frequency counts show that they divide the functional domain in
the following way: in 11th−15th centuries the main function of aky is similative
(although it could also occur in IPEs), while kako is mostly used as STM in IPEs.
   In the 16th–17th centuries both markers could be used interchangeably in similative
contexts, while kako (unlike aky) expanded onto equatives.
   In 18th century aky was lost, concurrently with the expansion of kako onto
similative contexts and onto comparative contexts. The marker kako then remained
as a solitary device used for all types of comparison. At this stage the correlative pair
construction has grammaticalized to encode the equative meaning. Thus, the
similative and the equative became differentiated, and this differentiation is observed



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                         283
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                                Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


until nowadays. The comparative function of kak was completely lost in the 20th
century (Švedova 1980, v. 2: 489, § 2812).
     Equative contexts are hardly ever observed in OR texts of the 11−15th centuries.
We hypothesize that the emergence of equative use of aky and kako started from the
IPE contexts like “we sold rye to Ivan as to you (on the same conditions)”. These
contexts started to include adjectives and adverbs (‘as much as’; ‘as tall as’) roughly
in the 15th century and later this use was reserved to kako, unlike aky. This latter
showed a strong preference towards the similative in all time periods.



Acknowledgements
This paper is written with support from the project “Parametric description of the
languages of Russian Federation” realized at Pushkin State Russian Language
Institute.


Abbreviations


1/2/3 = 1st/2d/3d person       GEN    = genitive                    PAM    = parameter
ACC   = accusative             IMP    = imperative                  PARA   = parameter
ADJ   = adjective              IMPF   = imperfect                   PL   = plural
ADV   = adverb                 INF   = infinitive                   PRS   = present
AOR   = aorist                 INS   = instrumental                 PST   = past
ATTR    = attributive          IPE   = implicit parameter           PTCL   = particle
CMPR    = comparative suffix            equative                    PTCP   = participle
COP   = copula                 IPFV   = imperfective                REFL   = reflexive
DAT   = dative                 IRR   = irrealis                     SG   = singular
DIM   = diminutive             LOC    = locative                    SIM   = similative
DISTR   = distributive         M   = masculine                      STAN   = standard of comparison
DU   = dual                    MR    = Modern Russian               STM    = standard marker
EMPH    = emphatic particle    N   = neuter                         SUB   = subordinator
EQU   = equative               NEG    = negation                    VN    = verbal noun
F   = feminine                 NOM    = nominative                  VOC    = vocative
FUT   = future                 OR    = Old Russian


References


Bulaxovskij, Leonid A. 1958. Istoričeskij kommentarij k russkomu literaturnomu jazyku
     [Historical comments to Standard Russian]. Kiev: Radjans’ka škola.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                       284
           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287   ISSN 2785-0943


Borkovskij, Viktor I. & Pёtr S. Kuznecov. 1965. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo
  jazykа. [Historical Grammar of Russian.] Moscow: Nauka.
Diessel, Holger & Martin Hilpert. 2016. Frequency effects in grammar. In Mark
  Aronoff (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford
  University Press.
Hilpert, Martin & Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multi-stage
  diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of
  language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4). 385-401.
Kölbel, Marianne. 1993. To grin like a Cheshire cat. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und
  Amerikanistik 18. 3–22.
Fortescue, Michael. 2010. Similitude: A conceptual category. Acta Linguistica
  Hafniensia 42(2). 117–142.
Haspelmath, Martin & Oda Buchholz. 1998. Equative and similative constructions in
  the languages of Europe. In Johan van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in
  the Languages of Europe, 277–334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kobozeva, Irina M. & Olga YU. In’kova. 2018. “Kak” i ego dvuhmestnye varianty.
  Semantika konnektorov: kontrastivnoe issledovanie. Moscow: TORUS PRESS. 169–
  239.
Krys’ko, Vadim B. 2020. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka: encyklopedičeskij
  slovar’ [Historical grammar of Russian: encyclopedia]. Moscow: Azbukovnik.
Letuchiy, Alexander B. 2015. Sravnitel’nye konstrukcii [Comparative constructions].
  Materials for the project of the Russian Corpus Grammar (http://rusgram.ru). Ms.
  Moscow.
Lomtev, Timofej P. 1956. Očerki po istoričeskomu sintaksisu russkogo jazyka: učebnoje
  posobije dlja gosudarstvennyx universitetov [Sketches on historical syntax of Russian:
  a manual for state univerisities]. Moscow: MSU.
Slovar russkogo jazyka XI~XVII vv. [Dictionary of Russian language of the XI-XVIIth
  centuries]. Starting from 1975. Moscow: Nauka.
Sreznevskij, Izmail I. 1893. Materialy dlya slovarya drevnerusskogo yazyka [Materials
  for the dictionary of the Old Russian language]. Saint-Petersburg: edition of the
  Department of Russian language and literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences
  (1893–1902).
Švedova, Natalia YU. 1980. Russkaja grammatika [Russian grammar], vol. I–II.
  Moscow: Nauka.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                            285
Kobozeva, Serdobolskaya                             Diachronic evolution of Russian standard markers


Stecenko, Аleksej N. 1972. Istoricheskij sintaksis Russkogo yazyka [Historical syntax of
  Russian.] Moscow: Vysshaja Shkola.
Treis, Yvonne & Martine Vanhove (eds.). 2017. Similative and Equative Constructions:
  A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Treis, Yvonne. 2018. Comparative Constructions: An Introduction. Linguistic Discovery
  16(1). i–xxvi.


Sources


From      Polnoje    sobranije     russkix     letopisej      (The      complete        collection
of the Russian chronicles). Saint-Petersburg: tipografija Eduarda Praca, 1841:
   -   PVL: Povest’ vremennyx let (Primary Chronicle). Lavrent’jevskij spisok (copy).
       XI–XIIth cent.
   -   Novg1: The first Novgorod synodal chronicle. XIII–XIV.
   -   Suzd: The Suzdal chronicle. XII–XIV.
   -   Voskr: The Voskresenskaya chronicle (up to page 172). XVI.


From the electronic collection of birchbank letters http://gramoty.ru/birchbark/:
   -   NovgB: Novgorod birchbank letters. XII–XVth centuries.


From the electronic collection http://lib.pushkinskijdom.ru/:
   -   Izb: Izbornik (a collection of spiritual and moral texts). 1076.
   -   RusP: Russkaya Pravda (the Russian code of laws). XIV.
   -   HG: Hagiographies and sermons. XII–XIV.
   -   Vass: A story of sickness and death of Vassiliy the III. XVI.
   -   ANik: A. Nikitin. Journey beyond three sees. XV. (Cit. after Xoženije za tri
       morja Afanasija Nikitina / Edited by Ja. S. Lur’je and L. S. Semenov. 3-e edn.
       Leningrad: Nauka, 1986.)


Subcorpora of the Russian National Corpus (RNC):
   -   The    Old    Russian     subcorpus     of    the    Russian     National      Corpus     at
       https://ruscorpora.ru/new/search-old_rus.html
   -   The Middle Russian subcorpus of the Russian National Corpus at
       https://ruscorpora.ru/new/search-mid_rus.html (We excluded from the results




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                                   286
           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 257-287   ISSN 2785-0943


       of the queries examples from chronicles, since most of them were copied from
       earlier sources.)
   -   The Main subcorpus of the Russian National Corpus.



CONTACT
Irina Kobozeva kobozeva@list.ru (corresponding author)
Natalia Serdobolskaya serdobolskaya@gmail.com (corresponding author)




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13431                                            287
