55Jezikoslovni zapiski 28  2022  1
alina sherstyuk – tatiana reznikova
semantiC Continuity in a CRoss-linguistiC 
peRspeCtive: evidenCe FRom slaviC veRbs  
oF pulling and pushing
Cobiss: 1.01
Semantična kontinuiteta v medjezikovni perspektivi: primeri  
iz slovanskih glagolov za potiskanje in vlečenje
V prispevku so predstavljeni nekateri rezultati medjezikovne raziskave glagolov vlečenja 
in potiskanja v devetih slovanskih jezikih. Ti podatki postavljajo pod vprašaj tradicional-
no predstavo pomenskega polja kot jasnega razreda leksikalnih enot. Zaradi semantičnega 
sosedstva se polja lahko prekrivajo, tako da lahko v različnih jezikih isti dogodek opisu-
jejo glagoli, ki bi bili po tradicionalnem pristopu uvrščeni v različna semantična polja. 
Kršitev medpoljnih mej dokazujejo tako sinhroni kot diahroni podatki.
Ključne besede: leksikalna tipologija, glagoli povzročenega gibanja, okvirni pristop, po-
mensko polje
This article presents some results of cross-linguistic research on verbs of pushing and pull-
ing in nine Slavic languages. These data call into question the traditional notion of the se-
mantic field as a clear-cut class of lexical units. It is shown that, due to semantic adjacen-
cy, fields may overlap, so that in different languages the same event may be described by 
verbs that would be assigned to different semantic fields in the traditional approach. The 
violation of inter-field boundaries is evidenced by both synchronic and diachronic data.
Keywords: lexical typology, verbs of caused motion, frame approach, semantic field
intRoduCtion
Lexical typology is a rapidly growing field of linguistics, whose tasks include 
among others the search for cognitively universal meanings and attested pat-
terns of their lexicalization. Research on lexicon widely employs the notion of 
a semantic field, which has been coined by J. Trier (1931). This theory assumes 
that vocabulary consists of semantic fields – closed non-overlapping sets of 
lexemes with clearly defined boundaries. It means that every word of the lan-
guage belongs to one particular field: for instance, “verbs of motion”, “kinship 
terms”, etc.
Violation of field boundaries may be tolerated; such a violation is referred to 
as a metaphorical shift. This means that the lexeme begins to be used not in its pro-
totypical contexts, but changes its meaning and acts as an element of another class. 
The orientational metaphor LESS IS DOWN, described by Lakoff and Johnson, is 
 The work has been partly supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the 
Russian Federation within  Agreement No 075-15-2020-793.
https://doi.org/10.3986/Jz.28.1.03
1
56 Alina Sherstyuk – Tatiana Reznikova  Semantic continuity in a croSS-LinguiStic ...
a classic example of crossing field boundaries (cf. Lakoff – Johnson 1980). Thus, 
if some parameter (weight, size, speed, etc.) acts as a subject of a falling verb, then 
this verb shifts from the semantic field of motion to that of decreasing quantity, cf. 
the	cup	fell	from	the	table vs. house	prices	fell by	0.5%	from	June.
However, it appears that the violation of boundaries can be caused not only 
by metaphorical changes. Comparison of different languages’ data reveals that the 
same extralinguistic event in different systems is described by lexemes, which, in 
the traditional approach, would be assigned to different semantic fields. This is 
because the structure of an event often consists of several subevents, and each 
of them can be profiled through language-specific lexicalization patterns. Thus, 
the event of falling to the ground includes at least two stages: first, a down-
ward motion, and second, the collision of the moving figure with the surface. 
Accordingly, it is up to each language to choose which of the stages would be 
foregrounded in the event lexicalization. Some languages refer to the event of 
falling to the ground by a verb of motion (cf. Russian upast’ or Slovenian pasti 
‘to fall’); whereas some languages prefer a verb of impact in such contexts (cf. 
Shughni ðêdow ‘to hit’), see Rakhilina – Nekushoeva 2020.
Thus, it turns out that the same situation can be conceptualized as part of differ-
ent semantic fields. This demonstrates the lack of clearly defined boundaries; instead, 
the adjacent fields overlap each other, erasing the inter-field boundaries. However, 
where exactly such overlapping may occur, i.e., which fields are adjacent to each oth-
er, has not yet been subject to systematic investigation. Note that adjacency, or conti-
guity, is a widely discussed issue in semantic analysis, but it is considered as a basis 
for metonymy, which takes place within one semantic field and not across its bound-
aries. Research on inter-field adjacency is a clear desideratum for semantic theory. A 
typological approach has proven to be an effective tool for this task. Indeed, recent 
works have revealed many instances of cross-linguistic variation on the boundaries 
of semantic fields, see Rakhilina et al. 2020 for further cases in the domain of falling, 
and Reznikova – Ryzhova 2020 for a discussion of body postures and positions.
This paper aims at detecting the cases of such adjacency for the domains of 
pulling and pushing. For this purpose, we use the data from several Slavic lan-
guages. This material raises another important theoretical question. Normally, in 
cross-linguistic studies typologists strive not to include languages from the same 
group into the sample. It is believed to introduce distortion into the research re-
sults because the common patterns found in such data might be due to their ori-
gin from a common source, and not to their typological frequency. However, this 
sample limitation appears to be far less relevant in lexical studies, since this part 
of language systems seems to change more rapidly than grammar (see Rakhilina – 
Reznikova 2016). Synchronic examination proves that related languages can have 
rich lexical diversity (see, e.g., Majid – Bowerman 2007 on verbs of cutting and 
breaking in English, German, Dutch and Swedish; Kashkin 2013 on adjectives of 
surface texture in ten Uralic languages). This data shows that a semantic field in 
57Jezikoslovni zapiski 28  2022  1
related languages is not always covered by cognates, i.e. cognates may drift apart 
into different fields that, however, often turn out to be adjacent to each other. Since 
we are interested just in cases of such adjacency, related languages provide a fer-
tile ground for our study.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the methodo-
logical framework that will be employed in our research, and elaborates on our data 
sources. In Section 3, we discuss lexical contiguity found for the domains of pulling 
and pushing. We consider both phenomena observed on a synchronic level (when a 
lexeme shows polysemy between pulling or pushing and a meaning from an adjacent 
field) and those revealed in a diachronic perspective (when, as a result of semantic 
evolution, a verb that used to refer to pushing or pulling has become part of another 
field). Section 4 sums up the main findings illustrated throughout the paper.
method and mateRials
We will show lexical divergences on the material of two semantic domains ex-
pressing the causation of motion, viz. ‘pushing’ and ‘pulling’. We examined these 
zones previously in a wider typological perspective, see Saveleva 2017. This 
study is focused on more specific material, namely nine Slavic languages: Rus-
sian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Polish and 
Slovak.The methodology we employ in this research is a frame-based approach, 
which is advocated by the members of the Moscow Lexical Typological Group 
(MLexT, see Rakhilina – Reznikova 2016). This approach has already been ap-
plied to the study of many lexical domains (cf. verbs of AQUAMOTION in Mai-
sak – Rakhilina 2007, predicates of pain in Britsyn et al. 2009; Reznikova et al. 
2012, verbs of rotation in Kruglyakova 2010, verbs of falling in Rakhilina et al. 
2020, etc.) and has proven to be efficient and informative in the issues of compar-
ing the lexicon of different languages. 
MLexT approach is based on the idea that meanings cannot be considered 
separately from the context. Proceeding from the contexts of words that belong to 
a semantic domain under study, we identify frames, i.e. situations that are typical 
for the given domain. These frames form the basis of the questionnaire, which 
is required for data elicitation from native speakers. The questionnaire consists 
of sentences with gaps instead of the verbs we are interested in: e.g., The	dentist	
_____ both teeth out. Native speakers are asked to fill in these gaps with the appro-
priate verbs from the semantic field under study. If we had difficulty interpreting 
the information received, we had the opportunity to clarify the data by engaging in 
direct dialogue with the speakers.
To verify speakers’ judgements, we consulted dictionaries and available cor-
pus data of the respective languages. In this work, we mainly relied on the Russian 
National Corpus (RNC) and corpora of Slavic languages on the Sketch Engine 
platform. For the list of dictionaries, see electronic resources in References.
2
58 Alina Sherstyuk – Tatiana Reznikova  Semantic continuity in a croSS-LinguiStic ...
semantiCs and typology
We take the following meaning1 as the dominant for this zone: ‘X, using force, 
moves Y away/closer, with his hands’, where X is an agent (animate subject), Y is 
a patient (animate or inanimate object). Prototypically Y is a heavy object that is 
moved horizontally on the surface. 
The situation in which a subject causes an object to move includes at least 
three stages:
  initial stage – the object is at a source point; 
  middle stage – the object is being moved; 
   final stage – the object is at a goal point. 
The most crucial for both fields is the second stage, which determines whether the 
predicates belong to the field of causal motion, so the verbs of pulling and pushing 
profile the middle stage. Meanwhile, the initial and final stages may bring these 
situations closer to other semantic classes, and thus contribute to the continuity of 
lexical fields.
Pulling or pushing can be interpreted as some other type of action if the source 
or the final position of the object is cognitively salient. Staying in a container can 
serve as an illustrative example here. If the container is a source point of motion, 
then the object can be ‘pulled’ out of it. If it is a goal point, the object can be 
‘pushed’ into it. As compared to standard ways of putting objects into or taking 
them out of a container, pushing and pulling imply a specific type of causation. Its 
peculiarity is determined by the properties of the container or the object, viz. the 
space is tight or the object is heavy so that the subject has to put effort into action. 
Yet, the specific manner may be less prominent in some contexts, and the verb 
meaning shifts towards a general idea of placement or removal. Such shifts may 
go unnoticed if one stays within the data of one language, but they can be easily 
revealed in a cross-linguistic perspective. Indeed, in our data there are several con-
texts in which one language still uses a verb of pushing or pulling, whereas other 
languages switch over to a verb from the placement, extraction, or even opening 
domain. Let us illustrate these effects in turn for pulling and pushing zones.
Containers as the source point of motion
The peculiarity of prototypical pulling and pushing events (viz. the motion of the 
subject along with the motion of the object) stipulates the very manner of motion 
to be the focal point of the corresponding verbs. Beyond that, as any directional 
motion, pulling and pushing imply a source and a goal, but these components are 
usually not expressed in the sentence, cf. 1 featuring the Slovak verb ťahať ‘to 
pull’. It is clear that children pull their sleds from one place to another, that is, they 
1 This study deals only with physical meanings of the verbs of pushing and pulling, that is, their 
metaphoric use is outside the scope of this paper.
3.1
3
59Jezikoslovni zapiski 28  2022  1
have the starting and the final point of the route, however, this idea is not in the 
focus of the statement.
[1]	 Všade	naokolo	veľa	snehu,	deti	vybehujú	z	blokov	a	za	sebou	ťahajú	sánky.
 ‘There is a lot of snow all around, the children run out of the blocks and pull the sledge 
behind them.’ (Sketch Engine)
Yet, we do find contexts where the source and/or the goal points are overtly real-
ized. Due to the well-known effect of goal-bias (see Stefanowitsch – Rohde 2004), 
the verbs in our sample show a preference for encoding the endpoint over the 
starting point, cf. the use of the Slovenian verb	vleči ‘to pull’ in 2, where the goal is 
expressed by the prepositional phrase v areno ‘into the arena’. Still, the source can 
also be overtly specified, e.g., if the subject intends to move the object away from 
some reference point, as shown in example 3 with the Russian predicate	tjanut’	‘to 
pull’. Moreover, both starting and final points may be expressed in one sentence, 
see example 4 from Slovenian.
[2] Naša	volovska	vprega	je	vlekla	plug	v	areno. 
‘Our bullock cart pulled the plow into the arena.’ (Sketch Engine)
[3] 	 No	on	ne	poceloval,	a,	podojdja,	ešče	nastojčivee	i	neterpelivee	tjanul menja ot	okna. 
‘But rather than kissing me, he came up and pulled me away from the window even more 
insistently and impatiently.’ (RNC)
[4]	 Rjav	mršav	konj	vleče voz od	Fobškega	Kala	proti	Puštalam. 
‘A brown skinny horse pulls a cart from Fobški Kal towards Puštale.’ (Sketch Engine)
By itself, the expression of a source or a goal like in 2–4 does not trigger the re-
interpretation of a caused-motion event as an action of some other type, i.e., these 
sentences retain the idea that the subject is moving a heavy object using his or her 
hands. Yet, if a starting or a final point is functionally relevant, viz. if it represents 
a container, then the semantics of verbs in question may shift.
In the case of pulling, the container usually serves as a source (cf. pull	a	rabbit	
out of a hat), since pulling implies the object moving towards the subject, which 
happens when an object is being taken out of a container (not put into it). Interest-
ingly, this action differs from the prototypical pulling in that subject is not moving 
along with the object.
Nevertheless, Slavic verbs of pulling are widely encountered in such con-
texts. Note that this usage is commonly (but not necessarily) correlated with a 
derivation: as a rule, a prefix is attached to the verb, conveying the idea of moving 
outward (e.g., Sr iz-, Ru vy-), cf. the term “loose colexification” in François 2008. 
Though Slavic verbs of pulling are similar in that they can cover situations of 
object extraction, they differ as to how far they penetrate into this adjacent domain. 
Let us consider the consecutive stages of this semantic evolution.
The Russian verb tjanut’ ‘to pull’ and its derivative vytjanut’	‘to pull out’ cor-
respond to rather early stage in this development, since they still retain the idea of 
force that the subject should exert in order to cause the object to move. If applied 
60 Alina Sherstyuk – Tatiana Reznikova  Semantic continuity in a croSS-LinguiStic ...
to containers, the force may not only be needed due to handling a heavy object, cf. 
5, but also because of a narrow container, cf. 6:
[5] 	 Ženščina	v	platke	[...] tjanet vedro	iz	kolodca.
 ‘The woman in a scarf [...] is pulling the bucket from the well.’ (RNC)
[6] 	 Kordovin	vytjanul platok	iz	karmana,	netoroplivo	proter	im	stekla.
 ‘Cordovin pulled a handkerchief from his pocket and slowly wiped the glass with it.’(RNC)
The idea of applying force is what brings these situations closer to the prototyp-
ical pulling and differs them from general verbs of extraction. The next step in 
the semantic evolution is represented by verbs, in which the meaning of efforts is 
bleached, so that a verb of pulling can be used as a close synonym for a verb of ex-
traction. The Russian (vy)tjanut’ has not reached this stage, but it is characteristic 
of another Russian verb vytaščit’ ‘to drag out’.
The verb vytaščit’ is derived from taščit’ ‘to drag’, which, for some situations 
of prototypical pulling, can be used interchangeably with tjanut’. If applied to a 
situation involving a container, taščit’, just as tjanut’, retains the idea of efforts, cf. 
iz	bolota	taščit’	begemota ‘to pull a hippopotamus out of a swamp’. By contrast, 
its derivative vytaščit’ can describe extraction that is not associated with force 
exertion. Cf. vytaščit’	odeždu	iz	škafa ‘get clothes out of the closet’, which does 
not imply that the closet is packed to capacity, as taščit’, tjanut’	or	vytjanut’ in a 
similar context would do. Note that vytaščit’ here could be replaced by a general 
verb of extraction (dostat’ or vynut’) with little difference in meaning: devuška 
vytaščila	/	dostala	noutbuk	iz	portfelja	‘the girl pulled out / took out a laptop from 
a briefcase’ (cf. also the general verb of taking vzeti, which would be used in such 
contexts in Slovenian). 
A similar development can be observed for the Slovak verb vyt’ahat’. Like 
the Russian vytaščit’, it can be used in situations where no force is applied to take 
out an object, see 7. Moreover, it is appropriate in contexts, which would be infe-
licitous with vytaščit’, see 8; cf. also a corresponding use of the Bulgarian dǎrpam 
‘to pull’ in 9.
[7] 	 Ten	neváhal,	vytiahol z	vrecka	elegantného	saka	kľúče	od	Ferrari	[...]. 
 ‘He didn’t hesitate, pulled the Ferrari keys from his elegant jacket pocket [...]’ (Sketch Engine)
[8]	 Strčil	kľúč	do	zámku	a	vytiahol šuplík. 
 ‘He put the key into the lock and pulled out a drawer.’ (Sketch Engine)
[9] 	 Orсe	drăpna čekmedžeto	na	masata,	izvadi	njakolko	rakieni	čaški.	
 ‘Ortse pulled the table drawer out and took out some brandy glasses.’ (Sketch Engine)
The situation which is described in 8–9 is interesting in how differently it is 
expressed in the analyzed sample of languages. In Russian, pulling out a drawer 
cannot be referred to with any verb from the pulling zone, i.e., vytaščit’ is less 
advanced than the Slovak vyt’ahat’ or the Bulgarian dărpam in the process of 
semantic evolution towards the extraction domain. Instead, the verb vydvigat’ 
‘move out’ is used to convey this meaning, cf. vydvinut’	jaščik lit. ‘to move out 
61Jezikoslovni zapiski 28  2022  1
the drawer’. Vydvigat’	is derived from the general verb of caused motion dvigat’ 
‘move’, which, unlike pulling and pushing, does not specify the direction of 
motion with regard to the causer. Serbian also does not allow the use of pulling 
verbs in such contexts, but it resorts to a verb from another semantic domain, cf. 
otvoriti ‘to open’ (otvoriti	fioku ‘to open the drawer’). 
This cross-linguistic variation in the choice of a verb is motivated by specific 
properties of the situation of pulling out a drawer. Standing in between several se-
mantic domains, it resembles each of them in some respect, but differs from their 
prototypical representatives. First, it can be interpreted as pulling, because the 
subject causes the object to move towards him- or herself. Yet, as in other cases of 
non-prototypical pulling, the subject does not move along with the object. Second, 
the situation can be regarded as extraction, since a drawer can be conceptualized 
as an object being extracted from a container, which is a table. However, proto-
typically, the subject manipulates the extracted object, and in this case, the object 
remains partially fixed, and is actually needed as a place where other things are 
stored. Third, due to this function, a drawer itself can be viewed as a container. If 
it is pulled out then the subject gets access to its contents, and this is exactly what 
happens in a situation of opening. Yet, prototypical opening presupposes a door, 
or a lid, or another type of covering which has to be removed, and this element is 
absent in case of a drawer. Thus, the situation with a drawer can be interpreted in 
several different ways, and this fact triggers cross-linguistic variation in the lexi-
calization of this frame.
Another example of this kind, which also stands at the overlap of pulling and 
extraction, is the situation of a tooth being pulled out (e.g., by a dentist). Again, it 
can be categorized as pulling, as the subject tries to move the object towards him- 
or herself. Indeed, in a broader typological study (see Saveleva 2017) we came 
across several languages that use a verb of pulling for this action, cf. English pull	
out a tooth, or its German counterpart einen	Zahn	rausziehen	lit. ‘a tooth out-pull’, 
where rausziehen	is a prefixed derivative from the basic verb of pulling ziehen. 
Yet, Slavic languages seem to almost completely lack this pattern of lexicaliza-
tion. In our sample a similar use was only found in the Slovak dictionary data, cf. 
ťahať zub lit. ‘pull a tooth’ (https://slovnik.aktuality.sk/) and also approved by 
native speakers, albeit with a prefixed form of the verb (vytiahnuť	zub ‘pull out a 
tooth’). Nevertheless, corpus research has shown that another verb, viz. vytrhnúť, 
is more frequent for this meaning. 
Generally, vytrhnúť describes an abrupt, violent action aimed at the separa-
tion of a fixed object from the place where it is located. It is applied, for instance, 
to soft growing objects (grass, hair) or sheets of paper, cf. vytrhať	burinu	‘tear out 
weeds’, vytrhnúť vlasy ‘tear out one’s hair’, vytrhnúť	list	z	písanky	‘tear a sheet out 
of a copybook’. The use of this verb for teeth can easily be accounted for, since 
teeth are fixed in the gums, and it is the fixed position that makes them similar to 
other objects of vytrhnúť. The idea of tearing is also involved in the description 
62 Alina Sherstyuk – Tatiana Reznikova  Semantic continuity in a croSS-LinguiStic ...
of pulling out teeth in several other Slavic languages, cf. Russian vyrvat’, Polish 
wyrwać,	and Slovenian izpuliti:
[10]  Russian 
	 –	A	mne	segodnya	vyrvali	zub.	–	Bolit?	
 ‘I had a tooth pulled out today. – Does it hurt?’ (RNC)
[11] Polish
	 Wielokrotnie	chcemy	za	osobiste	pieniądze	zbadać	wzrok,	zrobić	prześwietlenie,	wyrwać	zęba. 
‘Many times, we want to have our eyes checked, x-rays taken, a tooth pulled out for our 
personal money.’ (Sketch Engine)
[12] Slovenian 
	 Kdaj	je	treba	izpuliti modrostne zobe? 
‘When it is necessary to pull out wisdom teeth?’ (Sketch Engine)
Finally, pulling out teeth can be described with a verb of extraction. In this case, 
a tooth is conceptualized as an object, and a gum as a container for it. This strat-
egy is encountered in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbian and is implemented 
by the verbs with the root vad- (Bg izvadja, Mk izvadi, Sr izvaditi). In their basic 
meaning, these verbs express taking any kind of objects out of a container, cf. Bg 
izvadja	masloto	ot	xladilnika ‘take the butter out of the fridge’. 
In sum, we found three types of lexicalization for the situation of pulling out 
teeth. Each of them focuses on a certain aspect in the situation:
(1) the fixed position of teeth at the source point of motion (this aspect is profiled 
by verbs of tearing, i.e., teeth are conceptualized as a natural growing entity), 
(2) the position of teeth inside gums (verbs of taking out, i.e., teeth are conceptu-
alized as a loose object in a container),
(3) the motion of teeth towards the subject (verbs of pulling).
Thus, we have demonstrated with several examples that the same situation can be 
regularly described by verbs belonging to different semantic fields. These options, 
first, trigger variation, which can be observed both languages internally (cf. Ru 
vytaščit’ ‘to drag out’ vs. dostat’ / vynut’ ‘to take out’) and in a cross-linguistic 
perspective (cf. Sk vyt’ahat’ ‘to pull out’ vs. Sr otvoriti ‘to open’). Second, they 
cause semantic shifts – in our case, verbs of pulling mainly take on the meaning 
of extraction from a container. As we saw above, this process can be divided into 
several stages based on the contexts a given verb can be used in. 
The next (and the last) logical step in this development would be a complete 
loss of pulling semantics, so that extraction of an object evolves into the verb’s 
basic meaning. A case in point is also encountered in our data. In all the South 
Slavic languages of our sample (except for Slovenian) we came across verbs that 
go back to the Proto-Slavic *vaditi (an enlonged grade of *voditi). Originally, this 
root meant causal motion (see Collection of etymological dictionaries of Slavic 
languages, http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/, cf. its Russian cognate vodit’ ‘to lead’), and 
now it is mainly used in the meaning of ‘extraction’, cf. examples above and 13 
from Croatian:
63Jezikoslovni zapiski 28  2022  1
3.2
[13] Ostavimo	da	se	hladi	i	tek	nakon	hlađenja	vadimo iz	kalupa.
 ‘Leave to cool and only after cooling remove from the baking dish.’ (Sketch Engine)
So far, we have considered only the cases when pulling verbs expand to cover the 
situations of an adjacent domain, viz. object extraction. However, a diachronic 
perspective reveals that the opposite process is also possible: the semantics of 
pulling can be developed by predicates from other semantic fields. This is the case 
with the Bulgarian verb dărpam that was mentioned above.
This verb goes back to the Proto-Slavic *dьrpati, which, in its turn, is related 
to *dьrati ‘to tear’ (see Collection of etymological dictionaries of Slavic languag-
es, http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/). Thus, initially the root referred to physical impact. 
Its change towards the domain of caused motion is determined by the adjacency 
of the two meanings. Prototypically, in order to tear an object, one has to pull on 
it with a quick vigorous movement. This very type of pulling is synchronically the 
core meaning of dărpam, cf. 14:
[14]  Njakoj me drăpva za răkava.
 ‘Someone pulls me by my sleeve.’ (L. Stojanov, Х, 164)
Again, the change between the domains, i.e., the violation of inter-field boundaries 
is motivated by the possibility to focus on different aspects of the situation – its 
result (tearing) or the action that brings it about (pulling).
Containers as the goal point of motion
While pulling implies the object moving towards the subject, pushing assumes the 
opposite direction of motion. Therefore, the container here is not the initial, but the 
final point of displacement, and the target of a semantic shift is thus the domain 
of putting. In other respects, the development goes along the same lines. First, the 
action differs from the prototype of pushing in that the subject remains on the same 
spot and does not move along with the object. Second, the features of the prototype 
object are modified: it can be not only a heavy object, but a variety of different 
entities (money, clothing, etc., for more details, see Sherstyuk – Reznikova 2021). 
Yet, the initial idea of effort that the subject has to make in order to bring the ob-
ject in motion is still preserved. This effort, however, may be required due to the 
properties of the container: if there is not enough space in it or the inlet is smaller 
than the object, then the force must be applied to stuff the object into it. 
Slavic verbs of ‘pushing’ regularly expand their meanings to cover situations 
of placement into a container. In Russian, for example, there are two lexemes that 
are subject to this meaning shift: tolkat’ and pixat’. Both of them describe causative 
motion (cf. tolkat’ pered	soboj	teležku	‘push the cart in front of oneself’, pixat’ ses-
tru	k	vyxodu ‘push the sister towards the exit’), and both can refer to putting things 
into a container, though tolkat’ usually gets the prefix za- in such contexts (cf. 
zatalkivat’	odezhdu	v	škaf	‘push clothes into the closet’,	pixat’	konfety	v	karman	
64 Alina Sherstyuk – Tatiana Reznikova  Semantic continuity in a croSS-LinguiStic ...
‘stuff candies into one’s pocket’). The closest synonym for	pixat’ and tolkat’	in the 
latter examples would be the verb sovat’, which is actually a dedicated lexeme for 
putting into a container (for details, see Rakhilina 2015) and this synonymy serves 
as further evidence for semantic continuity across the domains boundaries.
A similar shift is characteristic of the Ukrainian verbs štovxaty and pxaty, cf. 
pxaty in 15 where it refers to a prototypical situation of pushing, and in 16 where 
it describes placement into a container. 
[15]  Pxaty	bryčku	bulo	tjažko.
 ‘It was difficult to push the carriage.’ (Sketch Engine)
[16] Ne	bahato	znajdet’sja	ljudej,	jakiv	pusti	pljashky,	obhortky	budut’	pxaty	nazad	sobi	u	kyšenju	
čy	sumku.
  ‘There are not many people who will shove empty bottles and wrappers back into their 
pocket or bag.’ (Sketch Engine)
Shifting into the field of placing, the Ukrainian lexemes seem to “penetrate” it 
even deeper than their Russian counterparts. Thus, štovxaty, as opposed to the 
Russian verbs, is applicable to ‘putting one’s hands in one’s pockets’ (štovxati	ruki	
v	kyšeni), and pxaty can be extended to contexts where the idea of a tight container 
and hence of effort needed from the subject is erased (pxaty	ruki	v	vodu lit. ‘push 
one’s hands into the water’).
Thus, both the Russian and the Ukrainian verbs undergo a semantic shift 
towards the domain of putting into a container, with the Ukrainian štovxaty and 
pxaty being further away from the initial meaning of pushing than their Russian 
counterparts. A next possible stage in this development would be the complete 
loss of the initial meaning, i.e., the verb would no longer be used for moving 
heavy objects in front of oneself, but refer only to placing into a container. This 
very stage is represented by the Bulgarian verb păxvam, which is a cognate of 
the Russian pixat’ and the Ukrainian pxaty. Unlike its East Slavic counterparts, 
the Bulgarian lexeme cannot describe prototypical events of pushing objects, its 
use in concrete physical contexts being restricted to the situations with a con-
tainer as a goal of motion:
[17]  Raztărkvax	prăstite	i	dlanite	si,	păxax răce v	džobovete	na	baltona,	no	studăt	kato	če	
pronikvaše	i	prez	šajaka	i	ščipeše	bolezneno.	
  ‘I rubbed my fingers and palms and put my hands into my coat pockets, but the cold 
seemed to seep through my clothes and sting painfully.’ (G. Karaslavov, Izbr. săč. VІІІ, 
221)
We have seen that the data of closely related languages allow us to determine the 
consecutive stages of a semantic shift from the domain of pushing to the adjacent 
domain of putting into a container. As already stated, this shift is based on the 
idea of moving an object away from oneself. The idea is a core part of pushing 
semantics, but pushing is not unique in expressing it. There are other situation 
types that involve this motion. The domain of hitting with an instrument is a case 
in point. Indeed, verbs of this semantic class assume that the subject is moving the 
65Jezikoslovni zapiski 28  2022  1
instrument towards the object. Interestingly, though this meaning is not central for 
hitting, it still can be the source for a shift to putting domain.
The Bulgarian verb muškam can illustrate the point. It originally means ‘to 
strike, stab, stick with something sharp’, cf. muškam	s	nož ‘to stab with a knife’, 
me	muška	văv	vrata ‘he stabs me in the neck’. Note that the place of contact is 
coded by a noun group with the preposition v (văv), i.e., this participant is char-
acterized by the same marking as a container being the target of motion. Perhaps 
it is this circumstance that contributes to the reinterpretation of the construction. 
It is essential that such a rethinking – in full accordance with the key tenets of 
the Construction Grammar (see Goldberg 1995) – also provokes a change in the 
formal features of the structure as a whole. The “container” construction usually 
does not express an instrumental participant, and the direct object changes from a 
person, who is exposed to aggressive impact, to an inanimate object that is placed 
into a container. 
[18] Toj	vednaga	pregledal	zapisite	ot	kameri	i	vidjal	kak	mladoto	momče	muška	v	džoba	si	
nakitite.	
  ‘He immediately looked at the camera footage and saw the young boy shoving jewelry in his 
pocket.’ (Sketch Engine)
A similar shift occurs in the Russian verb tykat’ (tykat’	okurok	v	cvetočnuju	vazu 
‘to poke a cigarette butt into a flower vase’) and its Ukrainian cognate tikati (tikati	
meni	v	ruku	sribnogo	karbovancja ‘to shove a silver ruble into my hand’). Though 
the Russian examples seem to be outdated (similar contexts in the RNC date back 
to the 19th century), they still prove the cross-linguistic recurrence of this pattern 
of semantic change. 
Additional evidence for this pattern could be retrieved from semantic rela-
tions between the meanings of cognates (cf. the treatment of cognates as one of the 
possible realizations of semantic shifts in Zalizniak et al. 2012). We have already 
mentioned the Russian verb sovat’, which pertains to the domain of putting into a 
container. Its Slovenian cognate suniti	expresses the idea of aggressive impact on 
an object, as in suniti	koga	s	kolenom	v	trebuh ‘hit someone with one’s knee in the 
stomach’, cf. also about stabbing with a sharp object: 
[19] V	tem	me	nekdo	zgrabi	za	vrat,	vrže	me	na	tla	in	me	sune	z	ostrim	nožem,	da	zdajci	omedlim.
  ‘In this, someone grabs me by the neck, throws me to the ground and stabs me with a sharp 
knife to make me faint for a moment.’ (Sketch Engine)
Thus, the cognate words sovat’ and suniti demonstrate the same semantic relation 
as the different meanings of the polysemous verbs muškam and tykat’, and provide 
us with further evidence of semantic adjacency between hitting and putting into a 
container.
66 Alina Sherstyuk – Tatiana Reznikova  Semantic continuity in a croSS-LinguiStic ...
ConClusion
The data described in this work shows the complexity of the semantic fields of 
pushing and pulling. The situations covered by the verbs of this zone may not just 
refer to moving an object, but also include many additional meanings, which de-
termines the overlap between the analyzed fields and several others. In particular, 
verbs of pulling may presuppose the extraction of an object from a container; and 
those of pushing – the placement into a container. Strictly speaking, the mean-
ings of extraction or placement refer to other semantic fields, therefore, the devel-
opment of these meanings in verbs with prototypical semantics of ‘pulling’ and 
‘pushing’ indicates a violation of the boundaries between the fields. It is crucial 
that we are not talking about a metaphorical shift, rather, we are dealing here with 
a fundamental fuzziness of the inter-field boundaries.
We observed such a violation of boundaries, first, on synchronic material. 
Verbs of pulling and pushing may develop secondary meanings from adjacent do-
mains, and a typological perspective reveals that a verb may be found at different 
stages of this development. Second, diachronic data also testifies to the vagueness 
of the boundaries between the fields. Moreover, it follows contiguity patterns sim-
ilar to those found synchronically, namely, verbs of extraction from a container 
may etymologically go back to a verb of caused motion.
The analysis of Slavic verbs denoting a caused motion of objects clearly 
shows that semantic fields do not exist independently of each other; they intersect 
and overlap each other. A typological approach to lexical research is an effective 
way to detect such intersections.
eleCtRoniC ResouRCes
Collection of Etymological Dictionaries of Slavic Languages, http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/.
Collection of Explanatory Dictionaries of Serbian, http://raskovnik.org/.
Explanatory Dictionary of Bulgarian, https://rechnik.chitanka.info/. 
Explanatory Dictionary of Croatian, https://rjecnik.hr/.
Explanatory Dictionary of Polish, https://wsjp.pl/.
Fran: Dictionaries of the Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language ZRC SAZU,  
https://www.fran.si/.
Glosbe – A Multilingual Online Dictionary, https://ru.glosbe.com/.
Lexicographic Web Portal: Online Dictionaries of Russian, https://lexicography.online/. 
MOVA – Ukrainian Text Corpus, http://www.mova.info/corpus.aspx. 
Russian National Corpus, https://ruscorpora.ru/new/.
Sketch Engine – Text Corpus Query System for All, https://www.sketchengine.eu/.
Slovak etymological dictionary, https://slovnik.aktuality.sk/.
Small Academic Dictionary (MAS), http://febweb.ru/feb/mas/mas-abc/default.asp.
4
67Jezikoslovni zapiski 28  2022  1
ReFeRenCes
Britsyn et al. 2009 = Viktor M. Britsyn – Ekaterina V. Rakhilina – Tatiana I. Reznikova – Galina 
M. Javorska (eds.), Koncept	BOL’	 v	 tipologičeskom	osveščenii, Kiev: Dmitri Burago’s Pu-
blishing House, 2009. (In Russ.)
François 2008 = Alexandre François, Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: inter-
twining polysemous networks across languages, in: From	Polysemy	to	Semantic	Change, ed. 
Martine Vanhove, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008, 163–215.
Golberg 1995 = Adele Goldberg, Constructions:	a	Construction	Grammar	approach	to	argument	
structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Kaškin 2013 = Egor V. Kaškin, Jazykovaja	 kategorizacija	 faktury	 poverxnostej	 (tipologičeskoe	
issledovanie	naimenovanij	kačestvennyx	priznakov	v	ural’skix	jazykax), dissertacija ... kandi-
data filologičeskix nauk [Language	categorisation	of	surface	texture	(a	cross-linguistic	study	
of	quality	expressions	in	Uralic	languages), PhD thesis], Moscow State University, Moscow, 
2013. (In Russ.)
Kruglyakova 2010 = Victoria A. Kruglyakova, Semantika	 glagolov	 vraščenija	 v	 tipologičeskoj	
perspektive, dissertacija ... kandidata filologičeskix nauk [Semantics	 of	 rotation	 verbs	 in	 a	
typological	perspective, PhD thesis], Russian State University for Humanities, Moscow 2010. 
(In Russ.)
Lakoff – Johnson 1980 = George Lakoff – Mark Johnson, Metaphors	we	live	by, Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1980. 
Maisak – Rakhilina 2007 = Timur A. Maisak – Ekaterina V. Rakhilina (eds.), Glagoly	dviženija	
v	vode:	leksičeskaja	tipologija [Verbs	of	AQUA-motion:	a	lexical	typology], Moscow: Indrik, 
2007. (In Russ.)
Majid – Bowerman 2007 = Asifa Majid – Melissa Bowerman (eds.), Cutting	and	breaking	events:	
a	crosslinguistic	perspective	=	Cognitive	Linguistics, 18.2 (2007), 133–152.
Rakhilina 2015 = Ekaterina V. Rakhilina, Stylistically marked verbs in Russian: sovat’	–	sunut’, 
Tomsk	State	University	Journal	of	Philology 3.35 (2015), 73–92. (In Russ.)
Rakhilina – Nekushoeva 2020 = Ekaterina V. Rakhilina – Shakhlo S. Nekushoeva, Sistema 
glagolov dviženija vniz v šugnanskom jazyke, Acta	Linguistica	Petropolitana 16.1 (2020), 
579–609. (In Russ.)
Rakhilina – Reznikova 2016 = Ekaterina V. Rakhilina – Tatiana I. Reznikova, A frame-based 
methodology for lexical typology, in: The	Lexical	Typology	of	Semantic	Shifts, ed. Päivi Juvo-
nen – Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2016, 95–129. 
Rakhilina et al. 2020 = Ekaterina V. Rakhilina – Tatiana I. Reznikova – Daria A. Ryžova (eds.), 
Tipologija	glagolov	padenija = Acta	Linguistica	Petropolitana	16.1 (2020).  (In Russ.)
Reznikova et al. 2012 = Tatiana I. Reznikova – Ekaterina V. Rakhilina – Anastasia Bonch-Os-
molovskaya, Towards a typology of pain predicates, in: New	directions	in	lexical	typology, ed. 
Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm – Martine Vanhove = Linguistics 50.3 (2012), 421–465.
Reznikova – Ryzhova 2020 = Tatiana I. Reznikova – Daria A. Ryžova, Non-semiotic poses: a 
typological perspective, in: VAProsy	 jazykoznaniya:	megasbornik	 nanostatej.	 Topics	 in	 the	
study	of	language:	mega-collection	of	nano-papers.	Festschrift	for	V.	A.	Plungian, ed. Andrej 
A. Kibrik et al., Moscow: Buki Vedi, 2020, 309–317.
Saveleva 2017 = Alina Yu. Saveleva, Verbs of the semantic zones ‘push’ and ‘pull’ in a typolog-
ical perspective, Problems	of	computational	linguistics	and	typology:	collection	of	scientific	
papers 6 (2017), 142–152. 
Sherstyuk – Reznikova 2021 = A. Yu. Sherstyuk – Tatiana I. Reznikova, O semantičeskoj nepre-
ryvnosti: pole ‘tolkat’’ v slavyanskix yazykax, Bulletin	of	the	Russian	Academy	of	Sciences:	
Studies	in	Literature	and	Language 80.5 (2021), 21–33. (In Russ.)
Stefanowitsch – Rohde 2004 = Anatol Stefanowitsch – Ada Rohde, The goal bias in the encoding 
of motion events, in: Studies	in	linguistic	motivation, ed. G. Radden – K.-U. Panther, Berlin – 
New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004. 
68 Alina Sherstyuk – Tatiana Reznikova  Semantic continuity in a croSS-LinguiStic ...
Trier 1931 = Jost Trier, Der	deutsche	Wortschatz	 im	Sinnbezirk	des	Verstandes:	die	Geschichte	
eines	sprachlichen	Feldes, Heidelberg: C. Winters, 1931 (Germanische Bibliothek: Abteilung 
2, Untersuchungen und Texte).
Zalizniak et al. 2012 = Anna A. Zalizniak – Maria Bulakh – Dmitrij Ganenkov – Ilya Gruntov – 
Timur Maisak – Maxim Russo, The Catalogue of Semantic Shifts as a Database for Lexical 
Semantic Typology, Linguistics 50.3 (2012), 634–670.
povzetek
Semantična kontinuiteta v medjezikovni perspektivi: primeri  
iz slovanskih glagolov za potiskanje in vlečenje
V leksikoloških raziskavah je pogosto v rabi termin pomenskega polja, ki ga je vpeljal 
Jost Trier. 
Pomenska polja so po klasični opredelitvi zaprte in neprekrivne množice leksemov, 
kot so glagoli premikanja, izrazi za sorodstvena razmerja ipd. Toda tipološke raziskave 
kažejo, da meje med pomenskimi polji v posameznih jezikih ne sovpadajo. Tovrstna 
razhajanja so posebej očitna v sorodnih jezikih, kjer med sorodnimi leksemi prihaja do 
pomenskih razhajanj.
Prispevek obravnava podobne pojave, podobnosti in razhajanja v pomenskem polju 
glagolov vlečenja in potiskanja v devetih slovanskih jezikih. Opozorjeno je na primere, 
kjer se na obrobju omenjenih pomenskih polj pojavljajo situacije, ubesedene z glagoli iz 
različnih pomenskih polj, npr. pri opisu situacije ‘izpuliti zob’ se v posameznih jezikih 
uporabljajo glagoli ‘vleči’, ‘puliti’ in ‘jemati ven’.
Z razvojnega stališča se med posameznimi polji kažejo povezave, ko posamezni 
glagoli zaradi izgube prvotnega pomena in pomenskega premika lahko prehajajo iz ene-
ga polja v drugo. Takšni pomenski premiki pričajo o pomenski kontinuiteti besedišča in 
kažejo na odsotnost strogih mej med posameznimi polji.
Ob tem se tovrstne pomenske spremembe ne vpisujejo v tradicionalno klasifikacijo 
pomenskih premikov: po eni strani izhajajo iz pomenske bližine, kar je sicer značilno za 
metonimijo, po drugi pa se njihov izhodiščni in končni pomen ne nanašata na isto polje, 
kar je značilno za klasično metonimijo, in spadata v različna pomenska področja..