This dissertation challenges the traditional idealized model of allomorphy by confronting it with comprehensive data on 15 Russian aspectual prefixes (RAZ-, RAS-, RAZO-, S-, SO-, PERE-, PRE-, VZ-, VOZ-, O-, OB-, OBO-, U-, VY-, IZ-) collected from corpus and linguistic experiments. The traditional definition narrows allomorphy down to a mere variation of form where the meaning remains constant and
... [Show full abstract] variants are distributed complementarily. My findings show that submorphemic semantic differences and distributional overlap are not uncommon properties of morpheme variants. I suggest that allomorphy is a broader phenomenon that goes beyond the axioms of complementary distribution and identical meaning. I examine non-trivial cases of prefix polysemy and multifactorial conditioning of prefix distribution that make it difficult to assess the traditional criteria for allomorphy. Moreover, I present studies of semantic dissimilation of allomorphs and overlap in distribution that violate the absolute criteria for allomorphic relationship. I take the perspective of Cognitive Linguistics and propose an alternative usage-based model of allomorphy that is flexible enough to capture both standard exemplars and non-standard deviations. This model offers detailed applications of several advanced statistical models that optimize the criteria of both semantic “sameness” and distributional complementarity. According to this model, allomorphy is a scalar relationship between morpheme variants – a relationship that can vary in terms of closeness and regularity. Statistical modeling turns the concept of allomorphy into a measurable and verifiable correspondence of form-meaning variation. This makes it possible to measure semantic similarity and divergence and distinguish robust patterns of distribution from random effects.