Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? Prof. Dr. Daniel Bunčić Slavic Department of the University of Cologne Cologne Center of Language Sciences (CCLS) «Филология и межкультурный трансфер в Европе» Warsaw, 8–10 December 2015
Outline 1. Introduction 2. Aspectual neutrality 3. Corpus study 4. Questionnaire study 5. Conclusion 2
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Situation types Classification according to Vendler (1957): • States e.g. know, love, belong to
состояния
• Activities e.g. read, write, eat
процессы
• Accomplishments e.g. write a letter • Achievements e.g. reach the summit
события
characteristics of the VP as a whole 3
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Aspect = a grammatical category that can emphasize different characteristics of the same event › e.g. focus the process or the completion of an accomplishment: ♦ ‘She was just writing a letter.’ (progressive) ♦ ‘She has finished writing the letter.’ (perfect)
› e.g. summarize repeated accomplishments as a state: ♦ ‘Every week she writes two letters to her mother.’ (habitual)
› e.g. set temporal borders to an activity, thus recategorizing it as an accomplishment: ♦ ‘After she had written for one hour, …’ (delimitative)
4
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Formation of aspectual pairs • The lexical meaning of a verb determines its aspect: › ›
States and activities → imperfective Accomplishments and achievements → perfective
• From this ‘α verb’ (Lehmann 1993) a ‘β verb’ can be derived for the other aspect: • perfectivization by prefixation (+ 1 suffix) (1) pro- ‘through-’: čitat’ipf ‘read’ → pročitat’pf ‘read’ → napisat’pf ‘write’ (2) na- ‘on-’: pisat’ipf ‘write’
• imperfectivization by suffixation ((i/y)v)a (3) dat’pf ‘give’ → davat’ipf ‘give’ (4) vospitat’pf ‘educate’ → vospityvat’ipf ‘educate’
• special cases: e.g. biaspectual verbs 5
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Biaspectual verbs = verbs for which imperfective and perfective aspect have the same forms (5) ispol’zovat’ipf/pf ‘use’, ranit’ipf/pf ‘hurt’, krestit’ipf/pf ‘christen’, ženit’sjaipf/pf ‘marry’… many foreign words: rekomendovat’ipf/pf ‘recommend’, motivirovat’ipf/pf ‘motivate’, bojkotirovat’ipf/pf ‘boycott’, abonirovat’ipf/pf ‘subscribe’…
including verbs that have an aspectual partner: (6) obeščat’ipf/pf ‘promise’ (despite poobeščat’pf) (7) organizovat’ipf/pf ‘organize’ (despite organizovyvat’ipf)
homonymy of perfective and imperfective forms 6
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Outline 1. Introduction 2.Aspectual neutrality 3. Corpus study 4. Questionnaire study 5. Conclusion 7
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Aspectual neutrality Are the biaspectual verbs aspectually neutral? • cf. Carlota Smith (²1997: 80): • In French you can say: (8) Le cheval gagnaitipf le course, mais il n’a pas gagnépf. ‘The horse was winning the race but he did not win.’
• But in the future you cannot say: (9) *Le cheval gagnerafut le course, mais il ne gagnerafut pas. ‘The horse will be winning the race but he will not win.’
So the French future tense is aspectually neutral. • For Smith this “neutral viewpoint” is a third aspect. • I would prefer to say: The French future tense does not have aspect.
• Transfer of this argument to Russian: (10) ?On ėto organizovalipf/pf, no ne organizovalipf/pf. ‘He organized this but he did not organize it. = He tried to organize this but without success.’ 8
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
The conative function = With accomplishments the imperfective aspect can denote an attempt (lat. cōnātus ‘attempt’). (Zaliznjak & Šmelëv 1997: 20) (11) ubivaliipf, da ne ubilipf ‘they killedipf but did not killpf’ (ebd.) (12) utešalipf, no ne utešilpf ‘he comfortedipf but did not comfortpf’ (13) sdavalaipf, no ne sdalapf (ėkzamen) (ebd.) ‘she tookipf (the exam) but did not takepf it’ (14) Antipa: A začem mundir bral, službu brosil? Tarakanov: Ob”jasnjalipf ja ėto. Antipa: Ob”jasnjalipf, da ne ob”jasnilpf. (Gor’kij, Švedova 1980: §1441) 9
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Working hypotheses • If ‘biaspectual’ verbs really have two homonymous aspect forms, they ought to be able to fulfil all the functions of the imperfective and the perfective aspect. consequently also the conative function
• If they do not allow for the conative reading, they are no full-fledged imperfectives. Then they have to be regarded as aspectually neutral. Then the imperfective/perfective meaning would exclusively come from the context. 10
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Outline 1. Introduction 2. Aspectual neutrality 3.Corpus study 4. Questionnaire study 5. Conclusion 11
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Corpus analysis • in the Russian National Corpus (over 200 million words) • search pattern: Viipf … no … ne … Vipf (with ‘…’ = 0–4 words) • at first query for 13 classical examples of the conative function • then for 15 frequent biaspectual verbs
12
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Results: aspectual pairs 12 × lovit’/pojmat’ ‘hunt for/catch’ (1831−2005) 3 × ubivat’/ubit’ ‘kill’ (all by A. N. Tolstoj 1928) 3 × utešat’/utešit’ ‘comfort’ (V. T. Narežnyj 1814, V. I. Dal’ 1843, M. Gor’kij 1928) 2 × vstrečat’/vstretit’ ‘meet’ (A. N. Ostrovskij 1879, A. Bovin 1999) 2 × rešat’/rešit’ ‘solve’ (K. Frumkin 2003, L. Zorin 2008) 1 × davat’/dat’ ‘give’ (N. S. Leskov 1864) 1 × ugovarivat’/ugovorit’ ‘persuade’ (F. M. Dostoevskij 1872) 1 × postupat’/postupit’ ‘enroll’ (V. P’ecuch 2001) 1 × dokazyvat’/dokazat’ ‘prove’ (S. Mejen 1987, in quotation marks!) 0 × sdavat’/sdat’ ‘take/pass (exam)’ 0 × ob”jasnjat’/ob”jasnit’ ‘explain’ 0 × pisat’/napisat’ ‘write’ 0 × ubeždat’/ubedit’ ‘convince’ = 26 × altogether 13
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Results: biaspectual verbs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =0 14
× × × × × × × × × × × × × × × ×
assimilirovat’(sja) ‘assimilate’ bežat’ ‘flee’ identificirovat’(sja) ‘identify’ ispol’zovat’ ‘use’ izolirovat’(sja) ‘isolate/insulate’ kaznit’ ‘execute, put to death’ likvidirovat’ ‘liquidate’ obeščat’ ‘promise’ obrazovat’ ‘form’ organizovat’ ‘organize’ razminirovat’ ‘de-mine’ rodit’sja ‘be born’ rusificirovat’(sja) ‘Russify’ velet’ ‘order’ ženit’(sja) ‘marry’ altogether
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Evaluation of corpus analysis • Only every 80th verb is biaspectual. • Therefore statistically with 26 examples of aspectual pairs only ⅓ example of a biaspectual verb would have to be expected. This is the limit of the existing corpora. • In any case, the standard examples of the conative function are surprisingly rare.
15
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Outline 1. Introduction 2. Aspectual neutrality 3. Corpus study 4.Questionnaire study 5. Conclusion 16
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Online questionnaire study • consisting of two parts • target group: Russian native speakers 1283 test persons almost exclusively from Russia 66% male, 29% female 68% graduates, 13% students, 19% without tertiary education • 18% philologists, 82% non-philologists • • • •
17
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Online questionnaire: part 1 • sentence pattern: ‘Vattempt but not Vsuccess’ • 6 biaspectual verbs with quasi-synonymous pairs • 2 contexts each • 3 sentence types each 72 sentences altogether • Every test person got 12 sentences (= ⅙, every verb only once) + 24 fillers. • task: rate acceptability from 5 to 1 (≙ +1 to –1) 18
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
6 ×2 ×2 ×3
Example of the three sentence types (15)
biaspectual verb
aspectual pair
Part 1
Part 2 ‘naked’
Five years ago on this field there were Swiss volunteers who demined it (razminirovaliipf/pf) … … but did not demine it (razminirovaliipf/pf).
Five years ago on this field there were Swiss volunteers who cleared it (očiščaliipf) from mines … … but did not clear it (očistilipf).
Part 2 with adverbial Part 2 with periphrase
… but did not demine (razminirovaliipf/pf) it completely. … but they did not find all the mines.
… but did not clear (očistilipf) it completely.
19
… but they did not find all the mines.
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
20
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Online questionnaire: part 2 • 6 sentences with a biaspectual verb in ‘present’ form. This form is interpreted › as present with imperfective verbs › as future with perfective verbs
• task: choose one out of 3 paraphrases › actual present › habitual present › future
• Every test person gets 2 of these sentences + 4 fillers. 21
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
22
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Results of part 1 n ≥ 2550
Biaspectual verbs
‘naked’ 23
Aspectual pairs
adverbial periphrase ‘naked’
adverbial periphrase
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Results of part 2 present (→ ipf)
future (→ pf)
kaznit’ ‘execute’
12%
88%
razminirovat’ ‘de-mine’
17%
83%
identificirovat’ ‘identify’
69%
31%
likvidirovat’ ‘liquidate’
80%
20%
assimilirovat’sja ‘assimilate’
90%
10%
izolirovat’ ‘isolate/insulate’
94%
06%
n ≥ 387
24
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Individual result: kaznit’ ‘execute’ n ≥ 208
Biaspectual verb
Aspectual pair
‘naked’ The adulteress was −0.85 +0.27 executed (kazniliipf/pf) but Δ 1.12 not executed (kazniliipf/pf).
The adulteress was stoned (zabivaliipf kamnjami) but not stoned (zabilipf).
adverbial
−0.68 +0.42 The adulteress was executed (kazniliipf/pf) but Δ 1.10 ipf/pf not executed (kaznili do smerti) to death.
The adulteress was stoned (zabivaliipf kamnjami) but not stoned (zabilipf do smerti) to death.
periphrase
The adulteress was −0.49 +0.60 executed (kazniliipf/pf) but Δ 1.09 suddenly the archpriest canceled the execution.
The adulteress was stoned (zabivaliipf kamnjami) but suddenly the archpriest canceled the execution.
kaznit’ without context: 88% future 12% present (3% actual, 9% habitual) 25
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Individual result: izolirovat’ ‘isolate’ n ≥ 207
Biaspectual verb
‘naked’ The biochemists isolated (izolirovaliipf/pf) the virus but they did not isolate (izolirovaliipf/pf) it.
Aspectual pair −0.72 +0.35 The biochemists identified Δ 1.07 (p < 0.001 η² = 0.45)
(opredeljaliipf) the virus but did not identify (opredelilipf) it.
adverbial
The biochemists isolated (izolirovaliipf/pf) the virus but they could not isolate (udalos’ izolirovat’ipf/pf) it.
−0.56 +0.29 The biochemists identified
periphrase
The biochemists isolated (izolirovaliipf/pf) the virus but without success because the sample was contaminated
+0.17 +0.43 The biochemists identified (opredeljaliipf) the virus but Δ 0.26
Δ 0.85
(p < 0.001 η² = 0.03)
(opredeljaliipf) the virus but they could not identify (udalos’ opredelit’pf) it .
without success because the sample was contaminated.
izolirovat’ without context: 94% present (72% actual, 22% habitual) 6% future 26
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Outline 1. Introduction 2. Aspectual neutrality 3. Corpus study 4. Questionnaire study 5.Conclusion 27
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Empirical findings • The ‘conative function’ seems to be rather a subtlety exploited by authors than an element of everyday usage. • With biaspectual verbs in general it is (even) less acceptable than with aspectual pairs. • So biaspectual verbs behave differently from ‘real’ imperfective verbs. • Without context some biaspectual verbs are interpreted as rather imperfective, others as rather perfective. 28
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Conclusions • Biaspectual verbs are not completely neutral: › e.g. kaznit’ ‘execute’ is primarily perfective › e.g. izolirovat’ ‘isolate’ is primarily imperfective
• This difference is part of the mental lexicon: not “pf + ipf” but either “pf (+ ipf)” or “ipf (+ pf)”
• So biaspectual verbs have an ‘α meaning’ and a ‘β meaning’. › The ‘α meaning’ is based on the lexical meaning of the verb (i.e. on the Vendlerian situation type). › The ‘β meaning’ is only possible in disambiguating contexts. • The full functional range of the aspect category only arises from the opposition of different aspectual forms. 29
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Conclusions • Homonymy does not explain the specificity of biaspectual verbs. › cf. Miru mir! ‘Peace (World) to the world (peace)!’ › cf. The big fish ate the small fish.
• Therefore biaspectuality has to be construed as polysemy. › The ‘β meaning’ is derived from the ‘α meaning’ by metaphor. › cf. leg ‘1. one of the long body parts that are used especially for standing, walking and running; 2. any one of the long thin parts that support a table, chair, etc.’
• With perfectiva tantum and imperfectiva tantum this metaphorical transfer is blocked. › e.g. zaplakat’pf ‘burst into tears’ has to be replaced by načinat’ipf plakat’ in rare imperfective contexts (e.g. habital use, historical present). 30
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
ipf/pf thank
I you for your attention.
www.daniel.buncic.de
[email protected] 31
D. Bunčić • Is biaspectuality aspectual neutrality? • Warsaw, 9 Dec 2015
Credits Breu, Walter. 2000. Zur Position des Slavischen in einer Typologie des Verbalaspekts (Form, Funktion, Ebenenhierarchie und lexikalische Interaktion). In idem (ed.), Probleme der Interaktion von Lexik und Aspekt (ILA). Tübingen, 21-54. Breu, Walter. 2009. Verbale Kategorien: Aspekt und Aktionsart. In Die slavischen Sprachen. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung. Ed. S. Kempgen et al. Vol. 1. Berlin (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. 32.1), 209-225. Bunčić, Daniel. 2013. Biaspektuelle Verben als Polyseme: Über Homonymie, Aspektneutralität und die konative Lesart. Die Welt der Slaven 58(1). 36–53. [urn:nbn:de:hbz:38-59937] Čertkova, Marina Jur’evna & Pej-Či Čang. 1998. Ėvoljucija dvuvidovych glagolov v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Russian Linguistics 22, 13-34. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge. Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford. Gorobec, Elena Anatoľevna. 2008. Dvuvidovye glagoly v sovremennom russkom jazyke: Problemy statusa i klassifikacii. Kazan’: Diss. Isačenko, Aleksandr Vasiľevič. 1962. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart, Teil I: Formenlehre. München.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1995. A time-relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language 71(4), 669-695. Koschmieder, Erwin. 1934. Nauka o aspektach czasownika polskiego w zarysie: Próba syntezy. Wilno. Lehmann, Volkmar. 1993. Die russischen Aspekte als gestufte Kategorien (Ein Beispiel für die Bedeutung der kognitiven Linguistik in der slavistischen Sprachwissenschaft). Die Welt der Slaven 38(2), 265-297. Lehmann, Volkmar. 1999. Aspekt. In Jachnow, H. (ed), Handbuch der sprachwissenschaftlichen Russistik und ihrer Grenzdisziplinen. Wiesbaden, 214-242. Maslov, Jurij Sergeevič. 1984. Očerki po aspektologii. Leningrad. Mende, Julija et al. 2011. Vid i akcionaľnosť russkogo glagola: Opyt slovarja. München. Smith, Carlota S. ²1997 [¹1991]. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht. Švedova, N. Ju. (ed.). 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Moskva. Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2), 143-160. Zaliznjak, Anna A. & Aleksej D. Šmelëv. 1997. Lekcii po russkoj aspektologii. München. [2nd edn: Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju, Moskva 2000] Zeľdovič, Gennadij. 2009. Počemu russkie glagoly byvajut dvuvidovymi? Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 64, 275-330.
