Aspect in English: A Bulgarian Perspective (original) (raw)
Related papers
Specification of event duration and aspectual composition in Slavic
2023
The dissertation investigates (apparent) mismatches between (im)perfectivity and (a)telicity in Slavic verbs as reflected through the grammatical and semantic status of their combinations with time-span adverbials (TSAds) and durative adverbials (DurAds). A novel analysis of traditional Slavic aspectual markers is proposed in light of these ‘mismatches’. Based primarily on data from Serbo-Croatian, but with reference to other Slavic languages, it is argued that Slavic and English differ minimally regarding verbal aspect. In Slavic, like in English, telicity is computed in the Q(uantity)P(hrase), a projection immediately above the vP that specifies atomic units for a given predicate. The QP is licensed by moving a bounded internal argument from the vP to Spec,QP, or by merging a (c)overt measure phrase directly in Spec,QP. The projection of QP is diagnosed by TSAds. DurAds merge in projections combining with homogeneous predicates. In the event domain, bounded DurAds merge in Spec,QP, licensing telicity, while unbounded DurAds modify the vP. Bare vPs are unspecified for telicity, and thus compatible with both atelic and telic contexts, and both imperfective and perfective viewpoints. Prefixes are generated as specifiers of NumP, a projection immediately above the QP responsible for number in the verbal domain, where they specify a telic predicate for singularity via Spec-Head Agreement. They carry the feature [SG], which is transmitted to the number head with an open value. The suffix -n(u) is an exponent of the number head when it enters the derivation as specified for singularity. It is thus argued that Slavic perfectivity and telicity are different but related categories: Slavic perfectivity corresponds to singularity, which presupposes telicity. The proposed view of Slavic aspectual composition brings several theoretical benefits. First, it offers a unified analysis of all Slavic perfective verbs as singular telic predicates. This analysis builds upon the insights of Krifka (1992), Paslawska & von Stechow (2003), Arsenijević (2007a), who argue that Slavic perfectivity depends on telicity. Additionally, it incorporates Kagan’s (2008, 2010) semantic analysis of Slavic perfective and imperfective verbs as verbal counterparts of number (singular and plural) in the nominal domain. Further, the division of labor between the QP and NumP enables accounting for the effects on the aspectual composition of both internal arguments and measure phrases, on the one hand, and prefixes and the suffix -n(u), on the other: the former influence telicity, i.e. measure out the event, while the latter restrict telic predicates to singularity. The dissertation also offers a unified approach to telicity in Slavic and English, by proposing that bounded internal arguments and measure phrases perform the same role in these languages: they license telicity, i.e. the projection of QP. Slavic and English differ in how they license singular telicity. This is evidenced by the fact that telic predicates licensed by bounded internal arguments and measure phrases display similar behavior in Slavic and English in contexts other than singularity, e.g. plural telicity. The difference in singularity between these languages correlates with morphological markers available in them: in Slavic, but not in English, there are overt singularity morphemes – prefixes and the suffix -n(u).
Aspect and bounded quantity complements in Russian
This paper investigates the actional recategorization of agentive accomplishment-and achievement-predications when interpreted in a temporally distributive manner. Temporal distributivity is present in a verbal predication if it refers to several entities involved in the given situation not simultaneously but sequentially, i.e., one after the other. In this case we have an incremental relation and the complement, interpreted distributively, is a derived and thus a secondary increment. Therefore, the terminative or aterminative actionality of temporally distributive predications is dependent on whether the secondary increment involves a bounded or unbounded quantity. This paper attempts to show that predications with a secondary increment bounded in its extent are hybrid with regard to their actionality, i.e., they can be both terminative and aterminative and thus in Russian permit perfectivization not only by the paired perf. verb but also by the delimitative procedural. The paper is structured as follows. Section 1 explains the connection between terminativity and the category of aspect in Russian on the basis of elementary predications. Section 2 shows how elementary terminative predications (accomplishments and achievements) can be recategorized in respect of actionality by temporal distributivity. Sections 3 and 4 are devoted to the conditions under which predications, recategorized in their actionality with an increment bounded in its extent, permit the use of the ipf. aspect in the so-called processual reading. In particular, section 3 treats the focalized-processual reading of the ipf. aspect, section 4 the durative-processual reading. Section 5 analyzes why and under which conditions predications with a secondary bounded increment can be interpreted as aterminative and thus be perfectivized with a delimitative procedural verb, delimiting the given situation temporally. The last section concludes with a summary. I use the following abbreviations: IMPF.= imperfective verb, PF.= paired perfective verb, PF-DELIM = perfective delimitative procedural verb which results from perfectivizing an imperfective verb which is aterminative by means of the prefix PO-delimiting the situation denoted temporally.
Richardson, K. R.: Case and aspect in Slavic , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, 271 pp
Russian Linguistics, 2008
In her monograph, Richardson intends to shed light on several prima facie puzzling casemarking patterns in the Slavic languages, namely case marking on internal arguments (Czech vyzvěděla to od něho za půl hodiny 'she got the information out of him in half an hour' 1 vs. *žena mi naspílala za 10 minut 'my wife scolded me (*in 10 minutes)') in the Slavic languages in general, 2 and case alternations on depictive secondary predicates (Ukrainian Borys pryjšov dodomu z likarni zdorovyj /zdarovym 'Boris came home from the hospital healthy/cured'), predicative participles (Russian druz'ja priveli Ivana i domoj oruščego i /oruščim i blatnye pesni 'his friends brought Ivan home yelling thieves' songs') and copular constructions (Russian Maksim byl vrač /vračom 'Maksim was a doctor') in the East Slavic languages. Within a syntactic framework, Richardson accounts for these patterns by relating them to lexical and grammatical aspect: the alternation of structural accusative vs. lexical casemarking on the internal argument to lexical aspect, the structural instrumental case vs. case agreement alternation on depictive predicates, predicative participles and copular constructions to grammatical aspect. The crucial determinant of lexical aspect is the quantization (telicity) of the verbal predicate, whereas grammatical aspect has to do with the temporal boundedness of the eventuality denoted (9-26). Since both features, quantization and boundedness, are specified in functional categories, the structural accusative and instrumental cases are directly linked to the aspectual featural composition of those functional
This work explores the syntactic dimension of verbal aspect, starting with a discussion of the role of argument structure in the definition of aspect. The proposal includes a theory of argument linking in a Distributed Morphology framework. I argue that the same aspectual opposition, revolving around the expression of transitions between situations by the Perfectives, is manifested in two kinds of contrast in Slavic: Perfective-Imperfective and determinate-indeterminate (in verbs of motion). This comparison suggests that goal-like arguments render a verb inherently Perfective, since the presence of a goal implies a transition between an event and a situation post-event, after the goal has been reached. This conclusion is exploited in a theory of theta-roles and their representation in syntax, with all arguments introduced by functional heads. Some prefixes associated with applicative heads also Perfectivize, when they add a path specification – e.g., the path followed by the action over an incremental Theme until the complete involvement of the Theme. As individual prefixes are associated with individual arguments, I propose that they incorporate into the functional heads introducing arguments, and combine by predicate modification, inheriting the modifier semantics from their original syntactic position as free adverbials. I also discuss prefixes which do not Perfectivize, particularly in comitative applicatives. The second part treats the syntax of outer aspect and actionality, and the role of the latter in the derivation of aspectual subtypes. A general conclusion is that Slavic(-type) aspect is a syntactically diffuse phenomenon, distributed on functional heads both inside and outside the VP, and reflecting its gradual appearance and systematization into one grammatical category. The analyses combine synchronic and diachronic approaches, comparing facts from Indo-European and Hungarian. I suggest that historical explanations are sometimes the best ones for synchronic facts, illustrating this point with cases of structure preservation in semantic change.
Aspect separated from aspectual markers in Russian and Czech
Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2021. , 2023
This article is concerned with the derivation of morphological aspect in Russian and Czech. It investigates four aspectual markers: prefixes, the secondary imperfective suffix, the semelfactive marker, and the habitual suffix. It argues that not only in Russian (see Tatevosov 2011; 2015) but also in Czech aspect interpretation is separated from prefixes and the secondary imperfective suffix. Moreover, it extends the separation to the semelfactive suffix and the habitual marker. Specific morphological aspect properties of Russian and Czech predicates are derived by an Agree analysis with minimality based on dominance relations in the complex verbal head.
Verbal aspect in Slavic languages between semantics and pragmatics
Meta-Informative Centering in Utterances - Between Semantics and Pragmatics, Companion Series in Linguistics N°143, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 306 p., 2013
The main function of the linguistic category of aspect is perfectly reflected by the traditional term “aspect” or “view” which means that the speaker chooses a view of the situation s/he is speaking about. This view of a situation, or “point of view”, is first of all reflected by an internal analysis of the situation into parts: moments and stages. This necessary choice can be compared to that of a centre of attention in order to build an utterance (cf. the definition of subject and object in Chapter 4 in this volume). As such, aspect is an essential tool of the meta-informative structure of the utterance. The internal view of the situation is further completed by external view parameters concerning its repetition, the modification of its flow or intensity, the composition of several situations into one complex situation. This approach aims at integrating into a cohesive whole the great variety of uses described in the huge literature on verbal aspect in Slavic languages. The ASMIC theory is of great help in dealing with the blurred borderline between semantics and pragmatics in aspect usage, making it possible to propose some tentative way out of endless debates on Slavic aspectology: the problem of aspect pairs, the difference between aspect and Aktionsart, the amazing differences in the use of imperfective (IPF) verbs in Slavic languages and the use of the imperfect tense in French or progressive forms in English, etc. By reference to the three sorts of parameters we have defined (concerning situation types, situation internal and external view) we can distinguish precisely the different possible semantic types of perfective (PF) partners that can be derived from a simple IPF verb in Slavic languages depending on the type of semantic situation to which the simple verb refers (in a given context). The reference to the different values of the aspect parameters also makes it possible to distinguish among derived PF verbs those which can be considered as pertaining to grammatical aspect, as opposed to the lexical classes of derived verbs formed with prefixes having not only an aspectual perfectivising meaning but adding also various (spatial or abstract) meanings to the root verb.
Bulgarian preverbs: aspect in phrase structure
Linguistics, 1997
This paper argues for a syntactic approach to aspectuality, where semantic information about subevent structure is incorporated into the phrase marker. Such an approach would be justified only if aspectual properties present syntactic as well as semantic effects. It is the aim of the paper to present evidence of such syntactic effects.
Aspect in Czech and Other Slavic Languages. How Shall We Understand and Define Verbal Action?
The paper continues and updates former analyses of the author, concentrated mainly on the situation in Czech, but also analysing various situations in other Slavic languages. The conclusion supports Bernard Comrie’s interpretation of the perfective (dokonavý) aspect as ‘marked’, perhaps better defined as a ‘verbal definite article’, whereas the stronger and stronger Czech iterative as also ‘marked’, but as a ‘verbal indefinite article’. A verbal prefix has two functions: grammatical (turns an imperfective into a perfective verb), and lexical (changes the meaning of the verb, in this case the change may be none or null).