Abstract
Aspectual choice is salient perceptually and morphologically in Russian. The formal contrast of perfective and imperfective viewpoints appears in every finite verb form and in many nonfinite verb forms as well (the imperative, infinitive, and certain participial forms). Speakers are keenly aware of aspectual choices and of their pragmatic and rhetorical effects.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
There is a long tradition of work on Russian aspect. Some basic sources in Western languages are Jakobson (1932, 1957), Isacenko 1960, 1968, and Forsyth 1970. More recent work which surveys the issues include Guiraud-Weber 1987, 1988 and Lehmann 1984, 1988. Reference to works in Russian can be found in these sources. The analysis offered here is squarely in this tradition. Our goal is to present the essentials of Russian aspect in the framework of the two-component theory of aspect. We will refer to a particular work when appropriate, but this Chapter does not pretend to be a detailed study of Russian aspect or of the history of the topic.
Because of the contributions of verbal affixes to both situation type and viewpoint aspect, discussion of Russian aspect has traditionally focussed on the verb. The aspectual choice available to speakers has often been viewed as a choice between paired perfective and imperfective verb forms, independent of context. However, recent work has shown that the sentence is the level of aspectual meaning (see Chapter 3). We argue that the choice of aspect in a given context is determined partly by conventions of use.
A simple, unprefixed stem is one that would not be analyzed as being derived with a prefix in a synchronic grammar There are various historically frozen forms in which a prefix has become fused with the root to form a new root. Most unprefixed stems are morphologically imperfective (exceptions number under fifty).
It is an unresolved issue in Russian linguistics how to treat verbs which systematically occur in paired forms. The relevant forms are identical in lexical meaning, but differ in the component of viewpoint meaning. The latter, of course, holds of the entire verb constellation although it appears as part of the verb stem in surface structure. Some scholars (e.g., Maslov 1948 and Isacenko 1960, following Karcevski 1927) maintain that there are no or virtually no empty prefixes in Russian, that each introduces some new element of lexical meaning in addition to expressing the perfective viewpoint. See Molosnaja 1973 for a survey. It is clear that many affixes have gradually lost their original semantic meaning as the language has developed over time. Affixes that once had a spatial meaning first convey transferred or metaphoric lexical meanings, and later refer to various temporal stages of situations without making other lexical contribution. Bogusiawski 1963a, 1963b and others opt for the notion of empty prefixes, in part because such prefixes do not introduce lexical meaning beyond that of the perfective viewpoint. The two-component approach makes no prediction in this matter, and we will not pursue it here. Note that when only one viewpoint form is available to speakers, the conventions must allow for the use of that form. And in fact the imperfective form is generally available and conventionally acceptable.
The semelfactive suffix — nu-is both morphologically and semantically distinct from another suffix of the same phonological shape. The other suffix is associated with imperfective unprefixed stems and typically conveys an inchoative meaning; e.g., merznut’ (to freeze — intransitive). The latter suffix is often called “droppable-nu-” because it undergoes truncation in some (or all) past tense forms, e.g., on merz, ona merzla (he was freezing, she was freezing).
Certain examples may suggest that the imperfective can refer to the preliminary stages of other situation types as well; for example: (i) On pisal, no ni strocki ne napisal. (Maslov 1948) He wrotemPf, but did not writePf a line But in fact such constructions are not generally possible: one cannot say, for example, *On stroll, a nicego ne postroil (He builtimPf, but didn’t buildPf anything). We suggest that the preliminaries interpretation of a sentence like (i) follows from the lexical meaning of the verb: the lexical span of pisat’ (to writemPf) need not be restricted to putting words to paper, but could include composing these words in one’s mind. Preliminary stages are visible to the imperfective viewpoint only for Achievements.
The West Slavic languages, to some extent Polish but especially Czech, differ from Russian in this respect; see, for example, Eckert 1984.
Habitual statives are licensed by a consistent pattern of repetition; see Chapters 2 and 3. The habitual is distinct from other patterns, such as occasional or sporadic action. The notion of a “sporadic action” is sometimes discussed in the Slavic literature. Sporadic actions are not necessarily derived States, and allow the perfective: (i) Inogda vdali pokazetsja korabl’ Occasionally a ship would appearPerf in the distance (ii) Vot tak inogda privjazetsja kakoj-nibud’ motiv i ne vyxodit iz golovy Sometimes a theme getsPerf stuck in your mind and doesn’t leavemPf your head Curiously, such a use of the perfective among finite forms is only possible in the non-past tense; if the sentences above are put in the past tense, the imperfective is required. Perhaps sporadic occurences are seen as patterns and thus as derived States in the past tense. Infinitives function like non-past finite forms in blocking the conceptualization of sporadic repetition as a derived State and permitting the perfective in such contexts: (iii) a. Ja xotel inogda otvetit’ na ego pis’ma I wantedlinPf to occasionally respondPerf to his letters b. On mog ezeminutno poterjat’ dorogu He could’mPf losererf his way at any minute Contrast (i), for example, with a corresponding construction in the past tense: (iv) Ja inogda otvecal /*otvetil na ego pis’ma Sometimes I respondedlmPfrPerf to his letters The possible use of the perfective in dispositional statements has the same justification: (v) On umeet koster razvesti He knowslmPf how to make’eff a campfire
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rappaport, G.C. (1991). The Aspectual System of Russian. In: The Parameter of Aspect. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 43. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-2496-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7911-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive