Aspect in Syntax

ASPECT IN SYNTAX

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

by Octav Eugen DeLazero January 2012

© 2012 Octav Eugen DeLazero

ii

ASPECT IN SYNTAX Octav Eugen DeLazero, Ph.D. Cornell University 2012

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.

iii

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 IndoEuropean 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.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge, first of all, my debt to my teachers and mentors these last five years. To my thesis advisors: Wayles Browne, for his generous advice in Slavic linguistics and much more; Molly Diesing, for her close guidance in matters syntactic and semantic; and Michael Weiss, for encouragement and direction in Indo-European. All three of them have been of invaluable help during my work both on this thesis and on the papers that preceded it, and I owe them an immense debt of gratitude. Thanks also to other teachers and graduate students at Cornell with whom I have consulted at various points about topics more or less closely connected to this project: John Bowers, for discussions and advice in morphology and syntax; Effi Georgala, for helpful suggestions and references in syntax; Wayne Harbert, for his wonderful teaching that kept alive and stimulated my interest in Celtic and Germanic; Carol Rosen, for discussions about various semantic issues. Special thanks also to the staff in the Linguistics Department, past and present, particularly to Angie Tinti and Sheila Haddad. My studies at Cornell were partially funded by a Sage Fellowship; I gratefully acknowledge their support.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations

x

1 Overview

1

2 Slavic-type aspect

4

2.1 Introduction

4

2.2 Situation aspect and viewpoint aspect

5

2.3 The semantics of Slavic-type aspect

10

2.3.1 The Perfective-Imperfective opposition

10

2.3.1.1 Distinction from viewpoint aspect

10

2.3.1.2 Imperfectives

13

2.3.1.3 Perfectives

17

2.3.1.4 Perfectives and Imperfectives in relation to each other

23

2.3.1.4.1 Complementary distribution

23

2.3.1.4.2 Temporal relations in aspectual pairs

24

2.3.1.4.3 The Imperfective general-factual

25

2.3.1.4.4 Aspectual choice in reference to sequenced events

26

2.3.1.4.5 Reversed and repeated actions

29

2.3.1.4.6 Processual and iterative readings of the Imperfective

31

2.3.2 The determinate-indeterminate opposition

33

2.3.2.1 General remarks

33

2.3.2.2 Indeterminate Imperfectives

37

2.3.2.3 Determinate Imperfectives

40

vi

2.3.3 The interaction between the two aspectual oppositions

42

2.3.3.1 Two functions of the determinate Imperfectives

42

2.3.3.2 Parallel uses of Perfectives and determinate Imperfectives

44

2.3.3.2.1 Transitions between situations as ‘restricted action’

44

2.3.3.2.2 Futurate interpretation of the present tense

45

2.3.3.2.3 Aspect in injunctions and prohibitions

48

2.3.3.2.4 Aspectual choice in negative and interrogative contexts

51

2.3.3.3 Two functions of the indeterminate Imperfectives

53

2.3.3.4 Determinate Imperfectives as biaspectual

54

2.3.3.5 Four aspectual oppositions in verbs of motion

58

3 The syntactic framework

63

3.1 Overview

63

3.2 Syntactic arguments, thematic relations, and theta-roles

64

3.2.1 Terminology and general remarks

64

3.2.2 Causers, Agents, and Themes

72

3.2.3 Locations and Affectees

76

3.2.4 Qualities and verbal concepts

87

3.2.5 Directional theta-roles

95

3.2.5.1 Theta-roles, event boundaries, and telicity

95

3.2.5.2 Theta-roles and Slavic-type aspect

98

3.3 The syntactic representation of theta-roles

101

3.3.1 Introduction

101

3.3.2 Argument structure

104

vii

3.3.3 The licensing and interpretation of arguments

110

3.3.4 Event boundaries from theta-roles

119

3.4 Arguments: applications of the theory

123

3.4.1 Causers and Agents

123

3.4.2 Verbs of positioning and Location arguments

130

3.4.3 Affectees

134

4 Aspect inside the VP: Slavic-type aspect

137

4.1 General remarks

137

4.2 The adverbial origin of verbal prefixes

138

4.3 The syntax and semantics of prefixation

143

4.4 Prefixes as applicative morphemes

155

4.4.1 Theme applicatives

155

4.4.1.1 Additional Theme arguments

155

4.4.1.2 Converted Theme arguments

159

4.4.1.3 Denominatives

162

4.4.1.4 Analysis

164

4.4.2 Completive prefixes

169

4.4.3 Directional applicatives

189

4.4.4 Locative applicatives

195

4.4.5 Multiple prefixation with different arguments

202

4.4.6 Comitative applicatives

207

viii

5 Aspect outside the VP: viewpoint aspect and actionality

232

5.1 Overview

232

5.2 Reference time and situation time in aspectual contrasts

233

5.3 Situation aspect and viewpoint aspect in Late Proto-Indo-European

242

5.3.1 Outline

242

5.3.2 The relative aspectual values of the overt aspectual categories

242

5.3.3 Neutral viewpoint aspect in Early Proto-Indo-European

252

5.3.4 Situation aspect features inherent in the verbal root

254

5.3.5 The derivation of the aspectual forms in syntax

257

5.4 Manners of action expressed by the present stem

263

5.4.1 Introduction

263

5.4.2 Survey of possibilities

266

5.4.3 Atelic non-duratives: attenuatives and semelfactives

273

5.4.4 Atelic duratives: statives and processuals

277

5.4.5 Phasal verbs with superlexical prefixes

297

5.5 The syntax of actionality

301

5.6 The semantics of the actionality morphemes

320

5.7 Conclusions and further issues

325

6 Summary

329

References

314

ix

ABBREVIATIONS

Languages

Grammatical categories

Bg.

Bulgarian

act.

active

Cz.

Czech

aor.

aorist

Fr.

French

caus.

causative

Gk.

Greek

det.

determinate

Gm.

German

f.

feminine

Goth.

Gothic

indet.

indeterminate

Hebr.

Hebrew

inf.

infinitive

Hitt.

Hittite

inj.

injunctive

Hun.

Hungarian

imp.

imperative

IE

Indo-European

ipf.

imperfect

Lat.

Latin

Ipfv.

Imperfective

Latv.

Latvian

itr.

intransitive

Lith.

Lithuanian

m.

masculine

MW

Middle Welsh

mid.

middle

Russ.

Russian

n.

neuter

SCr.

Serbo-Croatian

part.

participle

Slo.

Slovene

Pfv.

Perfective

Sp.

Spanish

pres.

present

OCS

Old Church Slavonic

tr.

transitive

OE

Old English

OFr

Old French

ON

Old Norse

PBSl

Proto-Balto-Slavic

PGmc

Proto-Germanic

PIE

Proto-Indo-European

PSl

Proto-Slavic

Pol.

Polish

Ukr.

Ukrainian

Ved.

Vedic

x

1 OVERVIEW

The main objective of this work is to explore the syntactic dimensions of the verbal category of aspect and to offer an articulated account of its manifestations. The central claim is that argument structure, as well as the syntactic structure in general, plays an important role in the definition of certain aspectual phenomena. This proposal includes a theory of argument structure as syntactic representation of precisely defined theta-roles. To this effect, I undertake an analysis based on the structural positions of aspectual morphemes which can account for their semantic interpretation, in a framework inspired mainly from the theses of Distributed Morphology about the derivation of words in syntax. The general approach is that of generative grammar – essentially X-bar theory – and compositional semantics, applied to both synchronic and diachronic analyses. The data come from IndoEuropean languages, especially the ones with a more conservative morphology, and accessorily from Hungarian. Chapter 2 is meant to introduce the major role played by arguments with theta-roles like Goal, Source, or Recipient, in what I term „Slavic-type aspect‟ – the aspectual opposition familiar from Slavic, and paralleled more or less closely in other languages like German, Latin, Hungarian, etc. I argue that this type of aspectual contrast, revolving around the expression of transitions between situations by the Perfectives, is manifested in two kinds of aspectual pairing in Slavic: on the one hand the Perfective-Imperfective opposition, and on the other hand the determinate-indeterminate opposition in unprefixed Imperfective verbs of motion (motion in one direction vs. motion without a definite direction). This comparison suggests that goal-like arguments render a verb inherently Perfective, because the presence of a goal implies a transition

1

between an event and a situation post-event, after the goal has been reached; as such, the determinate Imperfectives behave like the Perfectives when they have a Goal argument. This conclusion is exploited to its full extent in chapter 4, for which chapter 3 provides the theoretical framework. This consists of a theory of theta-roles and their representation in syntax, where all arguments are introduced by functional heads, as well as of applications to data from the languages considered in the subsequent chapters. In particular, I propose an expanded view of the nature and role of spatio-temporal „location‟ arguments, with the theta-roles of (static) Location, Goal, and Source. Chapter 4 discusses aspect „inside the VP‟, focusing on the prefixes which have a lexical, and often also an aspectual, contribution: the former consists in modifying the lexical meaning of the verbal root, and the latter in Perfectivization, where applicable. I start from the observation that some prefixes associated with applicatives also Perfectivize, when they add a specification of path – most commonly, the path followed by the action over an incremental Theme until the complete involvement of the Theme. As individual prefixes are associated with specific arguments, I propose that they form complex heads with the functional heads introducing arguments, with which they combine by predicate modification, preserving the semantic composition inherited from their original function as free modifiers. This chapter also discusses prefixes which do not Perfectivize, such as the comitative prefixes, whose function is always applicative. Chapter 5 treats aspect „outside the VP‟. This includes viewpoint aspect („outer aspect‟, e.g. imperfect vs. aorist in Greek), which provides a perspective on the event, and actionality (Aktionsart), which refers to properties of events such as duration, intensity, etc., or focuses various points of the event. This actionality component plays the main role in the derivation of

2

several aspectual subtypes in Slavic: secondary Imperfectives, semelfactive Perfectives, and Perfectives derived with phasal „superlexical‟ prefixes (inceptives, terminatives, delimitatives). A general conclusion of chapters 4 and 5 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 in the history of Slavic. The approach to the data is both synchronic and diachronic, comparing facts from genetically related languages (Indo-European), and using Hungarian examples when they can provide a better perspective by similarity or contrast. I argue that historical explanations are sometimes the most plausible ones for synchronic facts, and I discuss several cases where structures which are inherited from older stages of a language or acquired in lexical borrowings account for apparent exceptions to rules that otherwise hold quite well synchronically. The title „Aspect in Syntax‟ is meant to best describe the goal of this undertaking, which is precisely the examination of the syntactic dimension of aspect. It does not put forward any claim to universal applicability to languages other than the ones explicitly under discussion, although the theory which underlies the proposal is general enough to be tested elsewhere.

3

2 SLAVIC-TYPE ASPECT

2.1 Introduction The verbal systems of many languages display more than one aspectual opposition. The present chapter introduces three such oppositions – situation aspect, viewpoint aspect, and Slavic-type aspect –, and treats in more detail the last one. What I term „Slavic-type aspect‟ refers to contrasts of the kind Russ. čitat’ „read‟ (Imperfective) – pročitat’ „read (and finish the reading)‟ (Perfective), which have derivational and semantic parallels in other Indo-European languages, as well as in Hungarian. These languages typically have verbal prefixes or particles specialized in aspectual functions. To the extent that such parallels hold outside of Slavic, the conclusions which follow from the examination of Slavic material will carry over to non-Slavic languages. For instance, one of the most common functions of verbal prefixation is to denote the completion of the action expressed by the base verb (Hun. olvasni – elolvasni and Russ. čitat’ – pročitat’ „read‟ – „read through‟), and this function is identifiable as such, independently of how often or how systematically a given language makes use of prefixation. There are numerous differences in the manner and extent of the use of Slavic-type aspect in non-Slavic languages, but there is also a sizable amount of similarities which calls for a common explanation. The fact that the choice of an aspectually marked form in Gothic, Latin, or Hungarian, appears sometimes to be optional, cannot obscure the more significant fact that these forms still exist with a function which is very similar, if not identical, to the function of their Slavic counterparts.1

1

Cf. the comparative data in Dahl (1984) and Miller (1993), and the numerous contrastive analyses of Slavic and

German: Mehlig (1983), Dimitrova-Vulchanova (1999), Kątny (2000), Svenonius (2004), and many others. Balázs (1979), Kecskés (1989), Kiefer (1994), etc., compare the Hungarian and Slavic aspectual systems. 4

This discussion of Slavic-type aspect will focus on the relationship between the aspectual distinction in the pairs of manner-encoding unprefixed Imperfective verbs of motion of type Russ. bežat’ „run (once, in one direction)‟ (determinate) – begat’ „run (around, or in several directions, or several times in one direction‟ (indeterminate), and the more general PerfectiveImperfective opposition. The existence of this relationship is suggested by parallels in the syntactic behavior of the members in both types of aspectual pairs with respect to each other. The central claim is that both these oppositions are manifestations of Slavic-type aspect: the Imperfectives describe situations in themselves, the Perfectives describe transitions between situations, and the determinate Imperfectives can describe both situations and transitions. This dual nature of the determinate Imperfectives explains why they sometimes behave in relation to the indeterminate Imperfectives in the same manner as the Perfectives do in relation to the Imperfectives. Transitions are often associated with arguments having goal-like theta-roles and referring to situations post-event. The presence of such arguments inherently implies transitions from the situation where the goal has not yet been reached to the situation where the goal has been reached. Since transitions are expressed with Perfectives or determinate Imperfectives, verbs with goal-like arguments typically belong to one these two aspectual classes.

2.2 Situation aspect and viewpoint aspect A „situation‟2 in semantics can be defined as a triplet consisting of a spatio-temporal location, a proposition, and a truth-value (Barwise & Perry 1983). The sentence John killed Bill describes a situation taking place during a time interval in the base world if and only if the sentence is true

2

An equivalent term is „eventuality‟. 5

during that time interval. This is a linguistic (semantic) definition, not an ontological one: even if something happens during a time interval, if it is not described in a linguistic expression, it does not constitute a situation in semantics. One of the grammatical categories employed in the linguistic expression of situations is aspect. In her treatment of aspect as a category of Universal Grammar, Smith (1991/1997) distinguishes between situation aspect and viewpoint aspect,3 arguing that this distinction holds universally for all languages, and that all languages possess both aspectual categories. The aspectual interpretation of a sentence is the result of the interaction between situation aspect, viewpoint aspect, and pragmatic factors. Situation aspect comprises the basic situation types described by Vendler (1967: 106),4 and these are represented as clusters of semantic features (Smith 1997: 3, 20), where telicity refers to the property of a situation to have a natural ending:5 -

states are [-dynamic] (or [+static]): „knowing the answer‟, „loving Tom‟;

-

events are [+dynamic] (or [-static]), and include: -

activities, which are [+dynamic][+durative][-telic]: „laughing‟, „strolling in the park‟;

3

Equivalent terms are „inner aspect‟ and „outer aspect‟ respectively (Travis 1991).

4

Situations have been classified in many different ways – for instance, Comrie (1976) distinguishes between events

and states, Mourelatos (1981) between events, processes, and states, etc. Tatevosov (2002) provides an overview and a discussion of the taxonomy and terminology of various authors. 5

Several definitions of telicity have been proposed. For instance, Krifka (1989; 1992) links telicity to quantized

predicates: if such a predicate applies to two events x and y, then y cannot be properly included in x; Borer (2005) defines a predicate as telic if the event x it describes contains at least one sub-event y whose complement in x is not described by that predicate; Rothstein (2004) associates telic events with an abstract predicate BECOME; and according to Higginbotham‟s (2000), telicity involves a complex of two events, while atelicity involves only one event. 6

-

accomplishments, which are [+dynamic][+durative][+telic]: „building a house‟, „walking to school‟, „learning Greek‟;

-

semelfactives, which are [+dynamic][-durative][-telic]: „tapping‟, „knocking‟;

-

achievements [+dynamic][-durative][+telic]: „winning a race‟, „reaching the top‟.

With regard to states, there are several diagnostic tests for agentivity that also serve to distinguish activities from states, suggesting that a necessary condition for stativity is the absence of agentivity (cf. Rothmayr 2009: 51-52):

(1)

Progressive tenses:6 John is standing in that corner. #

The house is standing near the bank.

Clefting: What John did was stand in that corner (for one hour). #

What the house did was stand near the bank.

Intentionality adverbial: John deliberately stood in that corner for one hour. #

The house deliberately stood near the bank.

Purpose clause: John stood in that corner for one hour in order to please Bill. #

The house stood near the bank in order to please Bill.

6

Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995: 127-128) argue that “verbs of spatial configuration” like stand, sit, and lie, are

unergartive with animate subjects, but unaccusative with animate subjects. The second example has an irrelevant reading where the state is temporary (e.g. when talking about a mobile home). 7

Complement of verbs of perception: I saw John standing in the corner. #

I saw the house standing near the bank.

This condition is not sufficient: in John fell down the stairs, the theta-role of John is not agent, yet the predicate is not stative. Some verbs can have both a stative and a non-stative reading: (2a) describes a state, but (2b) describes an activity if the house is regarded as opposing resistance to crumbling.

(2a)

John’s house stands near the bank. – state

(2b)

John’s house is still standing. – activity

The house in (2b) acts as an agent whose agentivity is manifested as inertia or passive resistance to motion. Lloyd (1979: 39-40) points out that both active and passive (inert) agents have in common the expenditure of energy – in the action or in the resistance to change respectively. 7 Intuitively, agentivity by its very nature entails dynamism, since it supplies an input of energy,8 therefore the feature [-dynamic] associated with states entails the lack of agentivity:

7

This kind of quasi-stativity can also be acquired by a verb diachronically without affecting its argument structure

and syntactic behavior: in modern Basque, the verb iraun means „stand, remain‟, but its sole argument bears the ergative case of subjects of transitive verbs, which in this case indicates agentivity. 8

Lloyd (1979) uses this physical concept, as well as other ontological considerations, in his discussion of aspect and

actionality in Gothic. 8

(3)

agent → event [+dynamic] state [-dynamic] → no agent

If [-dynamic] is simply equated with inertia in the physical sense, this ontological concept will have a cognitive status as well, and will be translatable linguistically as the situation type „state‟ – a situation dominated by inertia, due to the absence of an energy input. Activities and accomplishments are opposed as durative events to semelfactives and achievements, which are non-durative events, while accomplishments and achievements are opposed as telic events to activities and semelfactives, which are atelic events. The situation types are pre-linguistic cognitive categories, and situation aspect as such is not expressed overtly in grammar. According to Smith, there are no morphemes or syntactic configurations 9 whose function would be to express the situation types in a system of aspectual oppositions, although there are certain constraints on their linguistic realization – for instance, a quantized NP complement triggers an accomplishment reading (eating an apple), while a bare plural or a mass term only allows an activity reading (eating apples / bread). Unlike situation aspect, viewpoint aspect has the role of „rendering visible‟ the situations: “Aspectual viewpoints present situations with a particular perspective or focus, rather like the focus of a camera lens.” (Smith 1997: 2). The viewpoints are: -

perfective: a situation is focused in its entirety;

-

imperfective: only an internal part of a situation is focused, to the exclusion of its endpoints;

-

neutral: sentences with neutral viewpoint aspect are aspectually vague.

9

Several authors have expressed the opposing view, proposing syntactic accounts of inner aspect. MacDonald

(2008: 7-26) offers a survey of these proposals, and puts forward his own. 9

Although this classification is assumed to hold universally, the definitions of the viewpoints are only “general schemata [which] underdetermine the properties of the viewpoints; along certain dimensions they are realized differently in individual languages” (Smith 1997: 61). This proviso allows the analysis of the aspectual systems of typologically dissimilar languages to be carried out in a unitary theoretical framework, leaving enough leeway for language-particular applications. Canonical examples of perfective-imperfective oppositions are 3sg.pres.ind. Fr. simple past régna vs. imperfect régnait, or Gk. aorist ebasíleuse vs. imperfect ebasíleue of régner, basileúein „reign‟.

2.3 The semantics of Slavic-type aspect

2.3.1 The Perfective-Imperfective opposition

2.3.1.1 Distinction from viewpoint aspect Slavic(-type) aspect “revolves around the way in which the speaker conceptualizes the possible occasions for an event” (Timberlake 2004: 418). Smith (1997: 227-262) treats Russian aspect as a manifestation of viewpoint aspect. However, this assumption is a priori unlikely to be correct, because the function of the aspectual opposition in Russian is essentially the same 10 as the function of its formal counterpart in other Slavic languages, such as Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, or Sorbian, which also have a separate expression for viewpoint aspect, 11 and in 10

Dickey (2000) notes several variations in the values of the aspectual forms across Slavic, but these do not interfere

with the basic functions of these forms when compared with those of viewpoint aspect. 11

The aorist-imperfect opposition in Bulgarian is generally regarded as a form of viewpoint aspect (Aronson 1985;

Marovska 1991). 10

which the two distinctions do not overlap (cf. Galton 1962; Lindstedt 1986; Guentchéva 1995). In these languages, the perfective and imperfective viewpoints are expressed in the past tense by the aorist and the imperfect respectively, and there are Perfective imperfectives (Perfective imperfects) and Imperfective perfectives (Imperfective aorists). For instance, the past tense forms of Bg. pišai – napišap „I write‟ mark both viewpoint and Slavic-type aspect:12

(4)

VIEWPOINT ASPECT IMPERFECTIVE (IMPERFECT)

PERFECTIVE (AORIST)

pisašei „he was writing / / used to write‟ napisašep „he wrote / used to write (and complete the writing)‟

pisai „he kept writing for a while‟ napisap „he wrote (and completed the writing)‟

IMPERFECTIVE PERFECTIVE

SLAVIC-TYPE ASPECT

Perhaps more significantly, the languages which had viewpoint aspect from an earlier stage of their history would not have acquired Slavic-type aspect in the first place (by using adverbial particles as preverbs with aspectual value), if these two kinds of aspectual opposition had been identical. It is generally thought that Slavic-type aspect appeared at a later date than viewpoint aspect, both in the Indo-European languages and in Hungarian, and in most languages it is not grammaticalized (Bybee & Dahl: 1989).13 Slavic-type aspect is morphologically and functionally much less systematic than viewpoint aspect. Its morphological markers are diverse and often

12

I will refer to verbs in Slavic-type aspect by using capital initials („Perfective‟ and „Imperfective‟), in order to

distinguish the two members from their homonyms in viewpoint aspect („perfective‟ and „imperfective‟), and I will mark the relevant forms in Slavic with a superscript p for Perfective and i for Imperfective. The citation form of the verbs in Slavic is the infinitive, except in Bulgarian and Macedonian, where it has been lost; Bulgarian uses the 1sg. present indicative, and Macedonian the 3sg. present indicative. 13

Hungarian had viewpoint aspect in the past tense, but the imperfective (imperfect) fell out of use in the 19 th

century. Verbal particles are present in the earliest attestations of Hungarian (Bárczi 1963: passim). 11

lexical – numerous prefixes with their own meanings, as well as several suffixes –, whereas viewpoint aspect is typically expressed, in a given language, by only one morpheme, with few or no allomorphs. Functionally, Slavic-point aspect is optional in many non-Slavic languages, as well as apparently in some early attestations of Slavic, e.g. in Old Russian (Nørgård-Sørensen 1997: 17). This internal heterogeneity of Slavic-type aspect has been argued to reflect in Slavic a gradual development of the various functional classes of Perfectives and Imperfectives (Regnéll 1944; Kølln 1958; Forsyth 1972; Bermel 1997; Dickey 2007; Janda 2008). Viewpoint aspect consists of a binary opposition whose members – the perfective and the imperfective – are functionally homogenous: although there can be several morphological classes (e.g. s-aorists, root aorists, etc., in Indo-European), there are no functional or semantic distinctions, within either the perfective or the imperfective, that would be comparable to the various morphological classes of Perfectives or Imperfectives in Slavic. Specialized uses like the conative imperfect, the gnomic aorist, or the imperfect of the truth just realized (accompanied by a particle) in Greek, apply to the imperfect or the aorist as a class, and do not divide them into subclasses: in the appropriate context, any imperfect can perform a conative function, and any aorist can have a gnomic value.14 In viewpoint aspect, the perfective and imperfective forms can

14

In Greek, the aorist of stative verbs can have an ingressive reading: erksa „I became a ruler‟ (árkhein „rule‟),

enósēsa „I became ill‟ (noseĩn „be ill‟), etc. This might have arisen as a specialization of the aorist by focusing the beginning of the atelic event / state, since the beginning (as well as the end) is „visible‟ in the perfective viewpoint, but normally the end has another lexical expression, especially with states: a state will continue indefinitely unless interrupted, and when the interruption becomes relevant, its nature is expressed by another verb – e.g. a reign is terminated when the monarch dies, abdicates, etc. (The same observation applies, mutatis mutandis, to the Slavictype aspect, where the terminative Perfectives indicating the end of a state or atelic activity are extremely rare.) 12

have various functions, but these functions do not divide the perfectives and imperfectives into semantic classes with their own characteristic morphological markers, and any specializations of forms are confined to a few verbs – for example, from Gk. histánai „stand‟ the 1.sg. indicative root aorist tr. éstēsa vs. s-aorist itr. éstēn. By contrast, the Perfectives can be classified into a variety of morphosemantic categories (corresponding to Aktionsarten in the traditional sense), which constitute disjunct subclasses: completive, inceptive, perdurative, intensive, attenuative, semelfactive, etc. Likewise, certain Imperfectives can have specialized meanings, such as determinate vs. indeterminate (in verbs of motion), iterative, or frequentative. Many of these Perfective and Imperfective classes have characteristic morphological markers, e.g. Russ. za(inceptive: zapet’p „start singing‟ vs. pet’i „sing‟), na- + reflexive -sja (intensive resultative: naest’sjap „eat one‟s fill‟ vs. est’i „eat‟), Cz. secondary -vá- (habitual-frequentative: stříhávati „cut (usually)‟ vs. stříhati „cut‟), etc. Slavic-type aspect is a more diffuse phenomenon, this fact pointing to a variety of factors responsible for its manifestation, while viewpoint aspect is semantically and syntactically more circumscribed (as I will argue in the next chapter).

2.3.1.2 Imperfectives All Imperfective verbs in Slavic are used to express either activities or states, which are durative. This is true for all recognizable uses of the Imperfective: processual, iterative, and generalfactual, including reversed action (since the reversal of an action is subsequent to the action, and

What matters here is that Greek, unlike Slavic, did not assign the ingressive function to one particular affix. (In Slavic, the only relatively productive ingressive affix is the prefix za-.) 13

there must be a non-null time interval between the action and its reversal)15 – for instance, Russ. brat’i „take‟:

(5)

Poka ja brali knigu, Tanja čitala žurnal. – processual „While I was getting a book, Tanja read a magazine.‟ (Forsyth 1970: 15)

(6)

Ja často brali knigi domoj i čital ix. – iterative „I often took books home and read them.‟ (Forsyth 1970: 15)

(7)

Ja uže čital ètu knigu. Ja brali eë v biblioteke. – reversed action „I have already read that book. I had it out of the library.‟ (Forsyth 1970: 15)

This generalization holds for all Slavic languages, and all Slavic languages display these uses of the Imperfective. Since the aspectual form used in Slavic for „naming the action‟, or identifying it otherwise, is the Imperfective in its appropriate function (general-factitive, narrative, prohibitive, etc.), a sentence with an Imperfective identifies the state or activity expressed by the verb. Resorting to an Imperfective requires that the denoted situation be durative, i.e. that there should be a non-null time interval – a durative situation S – described with the Imperfective:16

(8)

S time

15

The distinction between the main functions of the Imperfectives (and of the Perfectives in the next section) is

based on Schlegel‟s (2002) descriptions of the use of aspectual forms in Russian. 16

Durativity has oftentimes been regarded as the defining feature of the imperfectives, starting with Mazon (1911). 14

This durativity requirement, or „condition of Imperfectivity‟ Ci, states that if a proposition pi, corresponding to an expression with an Imperfective, identifies a situation e, then e is durative:

(9)

Ci: pi(e) → Durative(pi)(e)

A durative situation can be described with a Perfective as well – for example, in conjunction with a duration adverbial in Russ. pročitat’p knigu za čas „read a book in one hour‟, or with frequency adverbs introducing a sub-framework into the narrative, such as Russ. každyj raz „every time‟ (examples in Comrie 1976: 31) –, but Ci does not apply to the Perfectives as a class, whereas it does to the Imperfectives. Sonnenhauser (2006) offers a detailed study of the Russian Imperfective. All of the readings of the Imperfective distinguished in her book (Sonnenhauser 2006: 27) have in common the feature of durativity. This is true by definition for the actual-processual, inactual/continuous, durative, iterative, habitual, and permanent, readings. The conative is durative because expending effort is construed as durative. The general-factual is durative by default: being of general application, it cannot be one-time, hence it cannot be instantaneous. (A repeated instantaneous event is iterative, therefore durative.) The potential is durative because possessing the ability to bring about a situation is a state, which is durative. Finally, the „atemporal‟ reading is in fact indistinguishable from the general-factual. It can be easily verified that Ci applies to all Imperfectives as a class, in all Slavic languages, and independently of what internal classification of Imperfectives is adopted. For

15

instance, the „habituals‟,17 which are more common in West Slavic and Serbo-Croatian (Browne 1993: 332), describe situations just like any other Imperfectives do – in this case, the situations are states whose relevant feature is the respective habit; e.g. in Czech, the habitual stříhávati „cut (usually)‟ is contrasted with the non-habitual stříhati „cut‟:

(10)

Stříhávalii jsme si naše stromy sami, ale ted’ k nám chodí zahradník a stříhái nám je. „We used to prune our trees ourselves, but now a gardener comes to us and prunes them for us.‟ (Lee 1964: 121/206)

Ci applies also to those secondary Imperfectives, common especially in Bulgarian, which are derived from prefixed Perfectives with the same lexical meaning as the base Imperfective in cases where other Slavic languages do not display such derivations, even though they would be morphologically possible – e.g. Bg. pročitami, derived from pročetap, derived from četai, all meaning „I read‟ with the respective aspectual values (Friedman 1985; Fielder 1993; Sell 1995). The meaning of these Imperfectives is iterative (11), unless they are used with the narrative present (12), as a processual durative providing a more vivid description of a past event; an iterative describes a situation as characterized by the repetition of an event:

(11)

Radka pročitai vestnika vseki den. (secondary Imperfective pročitami „I read‟) „Radka reads the paper every day.‟ (Ginina 1966: 126)

17

Mønnesland (1984) and Danaher (1996) discuss the meaning of these verbs and their treatment by earlier authors. 16

(12)

Ivan Vazov napisvai romana Pod igoto prez 1888 godina. (secondary Imperfective napisvami „I write‟) „Ivan Vazov wrote the novel Under the Yoke in the year 1888.‟ (Ginina 1966: 126)

2.3.1.3 Perfectives A Perfective by itself always refers to a transition between two situations. According to Bondarko (1995: 49), this characterization of the Perfectives (in Russian) as expressing transitions goes back to Maslov (1948/1984: 48): the Perfective vyjtip „go out‟ in Ja vyšelp iz domu „I went out of the house‟ describes “an action taken in its entirety, representing a transition into a new state – from being in the house to being outside the house”. Bondarko (1995) speaks in this connection of the “emergence of a new situation” (vozniknovenie novoj situacii). Bickel (1997) and Schlegel (1999; 2000), among others, also treat Slavic aspect in this perspective. The term „transition‟ encompasses all uses of the Perfectives, and subsumes several other formulations of Perfectivity proposed in the literature on Slavic aspect, such as “boundedness” (Jakobson 1957/1971; Avilova 1976; Lyons 1977; Padučeva 1996), “totality” (Maslov 1965; 1948/1984; Forsyth 1970; Bondarko 1971; Comrie 1976), or “initial and final endpoints” (Smith 1997: 3, in her identification of Russian aspect with viewpoint aspect). What a Perfective describes can be represented as the transition between two consecutive situations S1 and S2:

(13)

S1

S2 time

A sentence with a Perfective identifies the event which initiates S2, and this event constitutes the transition from S1 to S2. In English, John ate up the cake identifies the event initiating the state of 17

the cake having been eaten (by John), and the transition into this state is the event of John eating the cake. The denotation of a Perfective verb must satisfy a „condition of Perfectivity‟ Cp, which can be formulated by stating that a situation identified by a given proposition pp, corresponding to an expression with a Perfective, must constitute the transition into a new situation which is not identified by pp – in other words, if pp is true for a situation e, there must be a situation e' following e (such that the end of e is prior to the beginning of e', or any time point in e precedes any time point in e') where pp is false:18

(14)

Cp: pp(e) → e's[e < e' & pp(e')] e < e' := tietje'[ti < tj]

The event e described with a Perfective constitutes the transition S1-S2, while e' is the resultative state post-transition S2:

(15)

transition: e = S1-S2

result: e' = S2

S1

S2 time

Examples with Perfective types in English:

18

The consequence in (14) renders what Schlegel (1999) calls “the temporal precedence of the action with respect to

the reference time”, where “reference time” (Bezugsmoment) corresponds to e' in (14) and (15), not to Reichenbach‟s (1966) sense in which I use it in chapter 4. 18

(16)

Completive:

pp = „John eating up the apple‟ e = the eating event e' = the state of the apple having been eaten

Inceptive:

pp = „John falling asleep‟ e = the event of falling asleep e' = the sleep19

Semelfactive: pp = „John sneezing‟ e = the sneezing event e' = the absence of sneezing

Cp defines the Perfectives as a class, and is satisfied by all Perfectives, whether they refer to the end or the onset of the durative situation described with an Imperfective – the completion of the reading in (17) and the falling asleep in (18) respectively –, or if they describe instantaneous events like the sneezing in (19):20

(17)

Ivan pročitalp knigu. (Russian: completive pročitat’ p „read‟) „Ivan read / has read the book.‟ S1: „the book not having been read‟ // S2: „the book having been read‟ e = S1-S2: „Ivan reading the book‟

19

The time interval corresponding to the sleep can also be described as a state, in case there are doubts about the

situation type of the sleep itself (state or activity): „the state of not falling asleep‟. 20

Perfectivity cannot be equated with „completed action‟, cf. the critique of this misconception by Galton (1980). 19

(18)

Ivan zasnulp. (Russian: ingressive zasnut’p „fall asleep‟) „Ivan fell asleep.‟ S1: „Ivan not being asleep‟ // S2: „Ivan being asleep‟ e = S1-S2: „Ivan falling asleep‟

(19)

Ivan čixnulp. (Russ.: semelfactive čixnut’p „sneeze (once)‟) „Ivan sneezed.‟ S1: „Ivan not having sneezed‟ // S2: „Ivan having sneezed‟ e = S1-S2: „Ivan sneezing‟

The Perfectives which refer to the end of the durative situation described with an Imperfective include those expressing the „natural culmination‟ of the event described by an Imperfective, such as Russ. napisat’p vs. pisat’i „write‟, and also various other Perfective classes such as the rare „terminatives‟ of the type Russ. otljubit’p „stop loving‟ (Janda 2008: 254), the reflexive intensives (Russ. naest’sjap „eat one‟s fill‟), the „delimitatives‟ in po- (Russ. pospat’p „sleep for a while‟), or the pro-Perfectives (Russ. prospat’p „sleep for a certain time‟), etc.:

(20)

Ivan pospalp. (Russ.: delimitative pospat’ „sleep for a while‟) „Ivan took a nap.‟ S1: „Ivan not having taken the nap‟ // S2: „Ivan having taken the nap‟ e = S1-S2: „Ivan taking the nap‟

20

With these Perfectives, the event itself is included in the situation described by the noncompletion of the event: in (20), the time interval during which Ivan was taking the nap (the sleeping event S1b) is included in S1: „Ivan taking the nap‟ (21) S1a

S1b

S2 time

The Perfectives which refer to the onset of the event or state described by an Imperfective, such as Russ. zapet’p „start singing‟ (pet’i „sing‟), pojtip „set off (walking)‟ (idtii „walk‟), or uvidet’p „see, spot‟ (videt’i „see‟), likewise satisfy Cp, cf. (18). In this case, the situation S2a described by a sentence with an ingressive Perfective is a part of S2 (22a), unless it is construed as qualitatively different from S2b (22b) – e.g. „falling asleep‟, „spotting‟, or „finding out‟ as involving processes of a different nature than „sleeping‟, „seeing‟, or „knowing‟, respectively: „Ivan falling asleep‟ (22a) S1

S2a

S2b time

„Ivan falling asleep‟ (22b) S1a

S1b

S2 time

Only in the latter case is a secondary Imperfective (zasypat’i) derived to describe a process of falling asleep with no reference to its transitional character.

21

Cp is also satisfied by all Perfectives which refer to punctual events, such as Russ. dat’p „give‟ and čixnut’p „sneeze (once)‟, cf. (19). If the event itself is regarded as punctual (nondurative), it will itself constitute the transition in a complex of consecutive situations: „Ivan sneezing‟ (23) S1

S2 time

The validity of (15) can be verified for all Aktionsarten listed by Isačenko (1962: 385-418) as being expressed with Perfectives, therefore it can be regarded as a definition of Perfectivity. The existence of Cp explains why Perfectives cannot be used in the present tense for describing occurences strictly at the utterance time, with no reference to expected outcomes. If the utterance time U (assumed to be a non-null time interval) is situated before or after the transition, it will be included in either S1 or S2, but if it includes the transition, it will partake of both S1 and S2. In this case, the proposition will be both true and false during U, therefore a sentence with the Perfective will be a contradiction:

(24)

impossible (present tense) possible (future tense)

possible (past tense) [ U ] S1(p)

[U

] S2(p)

[U] time

22

2.3.1.4 Perfectives and Imperfectives in relation to each other

2.3.1.4.1 Complementary distribution Cp and Ci are satisfied by any Perfective and Imperfective respectively, but by themselves they do not exclude each other, for they are not contradictory. However, the opposition PerfectiveImperfective is binary, with no third term, because there is a pragmatic two-way correlation between the aspectual forms and the conditions associated with them: -

if the speech situation requires the description of a single situation, the aspectual form which must be used is the Imperfective; and

-

if the speech situation requires a reference to more than one situation, the aspectual form which must be used is the Perfective.

(25)

Meaning:

one situation

two situations (transition)

Form:

Imperfective

Perfective

From the fact that Ci is satisfied by the Imperfective it does not follow that Ci cannot be satisfied by another aspectual form as well, but since the only other aspectual form available is the Perfective, which does not always satisfy Ci, it follows that Ci can only be associated with the Imperfective. Therefore, whenever a situation, rather than a transition between situations, is to be expressed, the speaker will have to resort to the Imperfective – and likewise for the association between Cp and the Perfective. The functions of the aspectual forms result from this expression of the singularity of situations by the Imperfectives and of their plurality by the Perfectives.

23

2.3.1.4.2 Temporal relations in aspectual pairs The Perfective can be employed, in conjunction with adverbial modifiers, in order to refer to a durative, gradual transition (26). However, at no point during Ivan‟s reading in this example will a sentence using the Perfective be true. The reading event itself, which is described with the Imperfective (27), is included in S1 (the situation before the completion of the reading), where (26) is false.

(26)

Ivan pročitalp knigu za čas. (Russ. pročitat’p „read‟) „Ivan read the book in one hour.‟

(27)

Ivan čitali knigu. (Russ. čitat’i „read‟) „Ivan was reading the book.‟ Ivan čitali knigu „Ivan was reading the book‟ is true

(28) 1 hour S1a

S1b

S2 time

Ivan pročitalp knigu (za čas) „Ivan read the book (in one hour)‟ is false

Ivan pročitalp knigu (za čas) „Ivan read the book (in one hour)‟ is true

All Imperfectives describe activities (or states), cf. Dowty‟s (1991a: 57) definition of activities: “If φ is an activity verb, then x φed for y time entails that at any time during y, x φed was true.” In Russian, Ivan čitali čas „Ivan read for one hour‟ entails Ivan čitali „Ivan read‟ at any moment during that hour. In sentences like (26), with a Perfective and an adverbial denoting duration, the

24

predicate describes an accomplishment: “If φ is an accomplishment verb, then x φed for y time does not entail that x φed was true during any time during y at all” (Dowty 1991a: 57). The predicate in (26) is telic (accomplishment), while the one in (27) is atelic (activity). In Russian, Ivan čitali knigu čas „Ivan read the book for one hour‟ (only the Imperfective form čitali is possible here) does not entail that Ivan pročitalp knigu „Ivan (has) read the book‟ (with the Perfective).

2.3.1.4.3 The Imperfective general-factual One of the functions of the Imperfectives is the „general-factual‟, 21 i.e. mentioning the occurrence of a situation. Since it is the Imperfective that describes situations in themselves, this function is fulfilled by the Imperfective:

(29)

Jesi li uspavljivaoi dete? (SCr. uspavljivatii „put to sleep‟) „Have you ever lulled a child to sleep?‟ (Dickey 2000: 97)

(30)

Odnaždy on uže polučali vygovor za opozdanie. (Russ. polučat’i „ receive‟) „He has already once received a reprimand for being late.‟ (Dickey 2000: 98)

Dickey discusses cases where the individual Slavic languages differ in their choices of aspectual forms, and notes that in the western area of Slavic (West Slavic minus Polish, plus Slovene),

21

See Rassudova 1975 (critiqued by Rul‟janickij 1977); Padučeva 1991; Dickey 2000: 95-125 for a discussion of

the situation in Slavic. 25

achievements (punctual events) are expressed with the Perfective (Dickey 2000: 100-102), even when the sense is general-factual:

(31)

Jako dziecko raz spadłemp z tego drzewa. (Pol. spaśćp „fall off‟) „As a child, once I fell off that tree.‟ (Dickey 2000: 101)

In such cases, since the event is conceived of as punctual, it can be construed as a transition between two situations, thereby falling into the functional domain of the Perfective:

(32)

achievement (punctual event)

S1

S2 time

I surmise that the western languages regard the event as a transition following from its punctual nature, and resort to the Perfective, whereas the eastern languages consider it under its generalfactual dimension, disregarding its punctual nature and its role as a transition, and therefore use the Imperfective.

2.3.1.4.4 Aspectual choice in reference to sequenced events If the western languages take into account the durative or punctual nature of the event to a greater extent than the eastern languages do, this could account for some other differences in aspectual use between the western and eastern areas of the Slavic-speaking territory noted by Dickey. One of these differences concerns the typical use of the Perfective, in all Slavic languages, in descriptions of sequenced events. Here too, the western languages, as well as the 26

eastern ones to a more limited extent, sometimes employ the Imperfective. In (33), the Imperfective šeli „went‟ is used because what is described here is the walking event, while the way in which this event follows another one, and hence the transition in the sequence of events, has already been expressed by the Perfective zvedlp se „got up‟ in its proper function. Likewise in (34), the transition into the writing situation, described with the Imperfective psali „was writing‟, has been initiated by the act of sitting down, described with the Perfective sedlp; an explicit expression of ingression, as in (35) and (36), is dispreferred because redundant (37).22

(33)

Zvedlp se tedy a šeli k vychodu. (Cz. zvéstp se „get up‟, jíti „walk‟) „Then he got up and went to the exit.‟ (Dickey 2000: 204)

(34)

Sedlp si a psali. (Cz. sednoutp si „sit down‟, psáti „write‟) „He sat down and started writing.‟ (Dickey 2000: 204)

(35)

Sedlp si a začalp psát. (Cz. sednoutp si „sit down‟, začítp „start‟) „He sat down and started writing.‟ (Dickey 2000: 205)

(36)

Sedlp si a rozepsalp se. (Cz. sednoutp si „sit down‟, inceptive rozepsátp se „start writing‟) „He sat down and started writing.‟ (Dickey 2000: 205)

22

There is a slight difference in meaning between the expression with a lexical verb denoting ingression in (35) and

the one with a derived ingressive Perfective in (36), which stems from the extent to which the event structure is explored in each sentence: (35) pays less attention to the subject‟s agentivity in starting the writing, while (36) explicitly states that the subject was the agent of the inception. I discuss this difference between ingressive expressions in more detail in section 5.4.5. 27

(37)

[začalp psát „started writing‟] [rozepsalp se „started writing‟] sedlp si „sat down‟

psali „was writing‟

S1

S2 time

Going through all of Dickey‟s (2000) examples in Chapter 7 of his book, which treats “The Imperfective in Sequences of Events and Other Expressions of Ingressivity”, it appears that they can all be accounted for by this diagram: what the Imperfective describes is the situation initiated by the Perfective; signaling the inception by means of an inceptive predicate, as in (35) and (36), is redundant, but not completely ruled out. The sequence of events occurring in (34)-(36) is [sitting down]–[starting writing]–[writing], where the first two are punctual, and the third one is durative; but since the writing event and the event of starting the writing are co-dependent, the expression of both („He sat down, started writing, and wrote‟) is redundant, and ruled out by the maxims of quantity and manner (the utterance contains redundant information). Otherwise, due to its function of describing situations, the Imperfective is resorted to as the background in a sequence of foregrounded events which constitute transitions between events. 23 In the more complex example in (38), the Imperfective describes the background situation (the subject sitting: seděli jsem) against which two punctual events (the train departing: hnulp se; and the subject starting sobbing: dalp jsem se do breku) occurred. In (39), the Imperfective seděti „sit‟ describes the situation S1+S2+S3, the Perfective hnoutp se „set out‟

23

Richardson (1994) discusses the same phenomenon in Old English (in Beowulf). Chvany (1985) presents cases of

backgrounded Perfectives and foregrounded Imperfectives in Russian. 28

describes the transition between S1 and S2, and the idiom with the Perfective dátp se do breku „begin sobbing‟ describes the transition from S2 to S3.

(38)

Ale když už jsem seděli ve vagóně a vlak se hnulp, já jsem se, pane, dalp do breku jako malý kluk. (Cz. seděti „sit‟, hnoutp se „set out‟, dátp „give‟) „When I was already sitting in the car and the train lurched forward, I began sobbing, sir, like a little boy.‟ (Dickey 2000: 206)

(39)

vlak se hnulp „the train lurched forward‟

dalp jsem se do breku „I began sobbing‟

the train being in motion

the subject sobbing

S1

S2

S3 time

seděli jsem „I was sitting‟ S1: „the train not in motion, the subject not sobbing‟ S2: „the train in motion, the subject not sobbing‟ S3: „the train in motion, the subject sobbing‟

2.3.1.4.5 Reversed and repeated actions Complex situations consisting of an action followed by its reversal are expressed in Slavic with the Imperfective. In (40), the window was opened, then closed, so the final situation is identical with the situation before the opening, and the aspect used here is the Imperfective in its general-

29

factual function of stating that the action has taken place, disregarding its consequences. On the other hand, if the window stays open, the Perfective will be required (41).

(40)

Kto zdes’ otkryvali okno? (Russ. otkryvat’i „open‟) „Who opened the window here?‟ (the window has been open, then closed) S: „the window being open‟

(41)

Kto zdes’ otkrylp okno? (Russ. otkryt’p „open‟) „Who has opened the window here?‟ (the window has been left open) S1: „the window not being open‟ // S2: „the window being open‟

The aspectual form required in (40) is the Imperfective, because what the question refers to is the occurrence of a state where the window had been open (stative adjective in English), which can only obtain after the event of the window being opened (passive in English). S1 and S3, during which the window is open, are qualitatively the same, and different from S2, when the window is closed:

(42)

state: the window being open event: opening the window

event: closing the window

S1

S2

S3 time

30

If the window is opened several times, the Imperfective otkryvat’i will be used again, in order to describe a situation characterized, as a whole, by the window being opened several times, i.e. by the repetition of the transition (expressed individually with the Perfective otkryt’p):

(43)

Kto zdes’ otkryvali okno? (Russ. otkryvat’i „open‟) „Who opened / used to open the window here?‟ S: „the window being opened‟

(44)

otkryt'p „open‟

time i

otkryvat’ „open‟

2.3.1.4.6 Processual and iterative readings of the Imperfective The Imperfective can describe situations consisting both of a single and of several occurrences of an event. Depending on the context, (40) can as well refer to a slow opening of the window („Who was opening the window here?‟) – slow enough to create a need to refer to it as a durative situation by itself (of opening the window), rather than as a transition from closed to open (41), where duration is irrelevant. When the Imperfective is used, the states S1 and S2 of the window being closed and open respectively become irrelevant, because the utterance is about S itself, rather than about the role of S as a transition between S1 and S2. The difference between the aspectual forms in (45) follows from considering the result state, via the transition (with the Perfective), or the transition as an event in itself (with the Imperfective).

31

(45)

otkryt'p „open‟

„opening‟ as transition between situations:

S1

S2 otkryvat'i „open‟

„opening‟ as a situation in itself:

(S1)

S

(S2) time

With the exception of some specialized Imperfectives, like the habituals in Czech and the iteratives in Bulgarian, mentioned above, any Imperfective in Slavic allows both a processual and an iterative reading (most often with the possibility for the latter to express the habitual as well):

(46)

Ivan otkryvali okno. (Russ. otkryvat’i) „Ivan was opening the window.‟ (processual reading) „Ivan opened / used to open the window.‟ (iterative reading)

In the following sections I will argue that the same opposition, based on different conditions of use, which exists between Perfectives and Imperfectives, applies at another level – namely, within the class of motion verbs, where it serves to distinguish determinate and indeterminate Imperfectives along the same lines as the Perfectives are distinguished from the Imperfectives.

32

2.3.2 The determinate-indeterminate opposition

2.3.2.1 General remarks All Slavic languages express, to various extents – maximal in Russian and Belorussian, and minimal in Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian –, an aspectual distinction which is confined to a closed class of unprefixed Imperfective verbs of motion which encode the manner of motion. Although there is not always complete agreement about the composition of this class in individual Slavic languages, it is always possible to isolate, in a given language, a core set of motion verbs whose aspectual behavior resembles the one of their counterparts in other Slavic languages, whether these verbs are cognates or not. Foote (1967: 6-7) and Piñón (1997: 469-474), among others, discuss the definitions of this distinction proposed by several authors, and opt for the labels „determinate‟ and „indeterminate‟. According to Piñón (1997: 474), the determinate motion verbs denote “motion processes [which are] single uninterrupted stretches of motion”, and the indeterminate ones are motion verbs which, by elimination, do not denote such motion processes. Since this definition of the determinate verbs accounts for all their uses in Polish (the language discussed by Piñón), as well as for their recognizably prototypical uses in all other Slavic languages, I will adopt his definition of the determinate aspect, and employ for “single uninterrupted stretch of motion” the term „path‟. A path is a route or itinerary on which the motion progresses; even when there are interruptions, there will still be an overall path which the mover follows, and the interruptions will be irrelevant for the motion as a whole. In their most basic and frequent uses, determinate verbs describe motion on one path, while indeterminate verbs describe a motion which does not follow one path, but either takes place randomly within a location, without a defined path, or follows the same path on several occasions (usually round-trips). Russian has perhaps the richest 33

set of determinate-indeterminate pairs (47), while West Slavic, Ukrainian and Slovene occupy an intermediate position, with fewer pairs recognized – e.g. Upper Sorbian in (48) (Šewc-Schuster 1984: 193).

determinate indeterminate

„walk‟ idtii xodit’i

„lead‟ vestii vodit’i

„wander‟ brestii brodit’i

„ride‟ exat’i ezdit’i

„convey‟ veztii vozit’i

„crawl‟ polztii polzat’i

„climb‟ lezt’i lazit’i

determinate indeterminate

„carry‟ nestii nosit’i

„fly‟ letet’i letat’i

„run‟ bežat’i begat’i

„swim‟ plyt’i plavat’i

„roll‟ katit’i katat’i

„drag‟ taščit’i taskat’i

„chase‟ gnat’i gonjat’i

determinate indeterminate

„walk‟ hići chodźići

„lead‟ wjesći wodźići

„ride‟ jěći jězdźići

„convey‟ wjezći wozyći

determinate indeterminate

„carry‟ njesći nosyći

„fly‟ lećeći lětaći

(47)

(48)

„run‟ běžeći běhaći

„climb‟ lězći łazyći „drag‟ ćahnyći ćahaći

With the exception of Slovene, the grammars of the modern South Slavic languages do not recognize such pairs, although the most characteristic uses of several cognates of verbs which come in aspectual pairs in East and West Slavic are the same in South Slavic. For example, SCr. ićii/p „go‟ and Slo. itii-det/p 24 „go‟ behave much like their Russian cognate idtii-det „walk‟ in that they denote a motion along a path, but differ from Russ. idtii-det in that they do not encode the

24

I will mark the determinate Imperfectives with a superscript i-det and the indeterminate Imperfectives with a

superscript i-indet in the languages where the existence of determinate-indeterminate pairs is recognized by traditional grammars. 34

manner of motion, and are biaspectual. Likewise, Slo. hoditii and SCr. hoditii / hodatii „walk‟,25 cognate with Russ. xodit’i-indet „walk‟, which do not always encode the manner of motion, resemble their Russian counterpart in most of their uses. Even in modern Bulgarian, where the cognate of SCr. ićii/p and Russ. idtii-det is only used with affixes (otivamp „I go‟, idvami „I come‟), the main uses of xodjai „go‟ correspond to those of SCr. hoditii / hodatii and Russ. xodit’i-indet (Venediktov 1961). Besides these areal features in the class of motion verbs in Slavic, the individual languages, ancient and modern, display various deviations from the aspectual pattern which is most systematically represented by languages like Russian or Polish. Some of these deviations are probably remnants of an older situation, obtaining prior to the grammaticalization of the aspectual distinctions (Dickey 2010) – e.g., OCS itii/p „go, walk‟ is biaspectual, and does not always encode the manner of motion, behaving in these respects like its Slovene and SerboCroatian cognates, and in Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian, the indeterminate Imperfectives (nositii-indet „carry‟, voditii-indet „lead, accompany‟, etc.) sometimes are employed in contexts where the East and West Slavic languages would use the determinate (Dostál 1954: passim; Cejtlin 1999: s.v.). Other deviations are more likely due to innovations – e.g., determinate verbs in Czech do not form the periphrastic future with býti „be‟, like other Imperfectives do, the Perfective non-past being used instead. On the other hand, these deviations, in an individual language, may not be uniform within the set of aspectually paired motion verbs: among the Old Church Slavonic indeterminate verbs, nositii-indet „carry‟ and voditii-indet „lead, accompany‟ can

25

The situation of motion verbs in Serbo-Croatian is more complex due to the derivation of explicitly

multidirectional Imperfectives unparalleled in other Slavic languages, e.g. nositii „carry‟ (Russ. nosit’i-indet) → nosatii „carry about‟ (Browne 1993: 332). 35

sometimes be translated by a determinate verb in Russian, but xoditii-indet „go, walk‟ is not attested with such function. Due to these variations, I will base the discussion in the following subsections mainly on examples from Russian, which is perhaps the most systematic Slavic language in the exploitation of the determinate-indeterminate opposition, but the conclusions will carry over to all other languages which display this opposition, for the cases in which they do. Even in the languages where the opposition is not recognized as such in the grammars (modern South Slavic, except Slovene), or the uses of the determinate and indeterminate verbs do not always coincide with those found in modern Russian – e.g. in Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian (Anstatt 1998), the determinate Imperfective most often serves to describe motion along a path, while the indeterminate Imperfective is generally used when there is no path. The distinction determinateindeterminate exists outside Slavic as well, the closest formal and functional parallels being found in Baltic (cf. section 5.4.4). The correspondence is much less systematic in other branches of Indo-European, and it is usually only functional, e.g. in Lat. īre „go‟ vs. ambulāre „walk around‟ (but not „go repeatedly / regularly‟) only the root of īre is cognate with OCS itii-det.26 Parallels exist in non-Indo-European languages as well: Hun. menni – járni, Basque joan – ibili, both meaning „go‟ vs. „go around / repeatedly‟. Taking Russian as a standard, the deviations in the usage of the non-Slavic aspectual pairs is not much greater than the ones observable in South Slavic.

26

From the same root, the present of Gk. iénai „go‟, has a future value in Attic, like the Slavic Perfectives and the

determinate Imperfectives, and its use is predominantly unidirectional; from another root, erkhesthai „go, come‟ does have multidirectional uses, so it might have been opposed to iénai in this respect, but it is also used as a unidirectional, making the parallel to the situation in Slavic less clear. 36

2.3.2.2 Indeterminate Imperfectives A motion event expressed with an indeterminate Imperfective must be confined to a location. This location can be delimited either „uni-dimensionally‟, as an „in-between‟ on an axis defined by two locations between which there is a one-time or a repeated round-trip, or „bi-/multidimensionally‟, as a location where the motion takes place:

(49)

V sredu my s bratom xodilii-indet na kinofestival’. (Russ.: round-trip, xodit’i-indet „walk‟) „On Wednesday I went with my brother to the film festival.‟ (Muravyova 1995: 46)

(50)

Njama da xodjai na kino dnes. (Bg.: round-trip, xodja’i „I walk‟) „I won‟t go to the cinema today.‟

(51)

On xoditi-indet v školu každyj den’. (Russ.: repeated round-trip, xodit’i-indet „walk‟) „He goes to school every day.‟

(52)

Več let že hodii-indet v Zagreb. (Slo.: repeated round-trip, hoditii-indet „go‟) „He has been going to Zagreb for several years.‟ (Greenberg 2006: 83)

(53)

On xoditi-indet vzad i vperëd po kabinetu. (Russ.: no overall direction, xodit’i-indet „walk‟) „He is walking around in the study.‟ (Muravyova 1995: 33)

(54)

Ta mesec letai-indet po Južni Ameriki. (Slo.: no overall direction, letatii-indet „fly‟) „This month he is flying around South America.‟ (Greenberg 2006: 82-83)

37

In a sentence with an indeterminate, the mover stays at a location. Even if the mover‟s location before the motion is different from the one after the motion, e.g. if the subject in (53) eventually leaves the room through a door other than the one through which he entered the room, that circumstance is left unexpressed. Likewise, the single or repeated round-trips in (49)-(52) take place between a source and a goal, so that the subject returns to the source, and the motion is confined to the one stretch between the goal and the source. If the source is different, the repeated round-trip must be broken down into single round-trips, and the individual sources must be expressed. All uses of the indeterminate Imperfective require that the motion event e be confined to a location; this condition Ci-indet can be formulated as below, for a proposition pi-indet corresponding to an expression with an indeterminate Imperfective:

(55)

Ci-indet: pi-indet(e) → Location(pi-indet)(e)

If this location is not specified, as in (56) and (57), the choice of the indeterminate over the determinate (both meaning „walk‟) results from the fact that the indeterminate here denotes an ability, so that the motion event e occurs during the time period lasting from the time when the subject has become able to walk unaided to the time when it loses the ability to walk (due to death, accidents, etc.), and the location can be regarded as the physical world, where the ability to walk can be exercised.

(56)

Naš rebënok uže xoditi-indet. (Russ.: ability to walk, xodit’i-indet „walk‟) „Our child can already walk.‟

38

(57)

Noga se je zacelila in zdaj hodii-indet brez težav. (Slo.: ability to walk, hoditii-indet „walk‟) „His leg has healed and now he can walk without difficulty.‟ (Greenberg 2006: 82)

Within the determinate-indeterminate opposition, the indeterminate Imperfectives are employed with the general-factual function that is characteristic of the Imperfectives within the PerfectiveImperfective opposition (cf. Janda 2008: n.3) discussed above, but Old Church Slavonic can use the determinate if the focus is on the change of location, leaving unexpressed in (60) the fact that the men did not remain at the palace:

(58)

On kogda-to tuda ezdili-indet. (Russ. ezdit’i-indet „ride, go by vehicle‟) „He went there once.‟

(59)

Xodixtei li na Vitoša v nedelja? (Bg. xodjai „I go‟) „Have you been to Vitosha on Sunday?‟

(60)

ona slavŭnaja mǫža ne iděastai-det prěžde vŭ polatǫ kŭ c<ěsa>ru (OCS: specified goal, itii-det „go, walk‟) „Those two famous men had never before gone into the palace, to the emperor.‟ (Codex Suprasliensis 205.19-20; Cejtlin 1999: s.v. iti)

As in the examples with Imperfectives in sections 2.3.1.4.3 and 2.3.1.4.5, in these cases the request for information concerns the occurrence or non-occurrence of the situation described by the verb, and the implication in (58) and (59) is that the subject has returned from the trip: the

39

action is mentioned as having taken place, but the change of location subsequent upon a motion event is irrelevant.27 Ci-indet adds to Ci the specification that the motion event must be confined to a place: moving inside a location takes time, therefore C i-indet entails Ci as a more general case. The difference between these two requirements results from the way in which the relevant situation is described: by the event expressed with the Imperfective or by the location where the motion event takes place. In the next section I will argue that a similar parallelism can be shown to exist between the conditions of use for Perfectives and those for determinate Imperfectives.

2.3.2.3 Determinate Imperfectives A determinate verb is selected over an indeterminate one when the motion follows a path, and consequently results in a change of the mover‟s location. This is true whether the goal of the motion is specified (61)-(62) or not (63)-(64), and also when there is no indication of itinerary or path (65)-(66): 28

(61)

On idëti-det v kino / k ostanovke avtobusa. (Russ.: specified goal, idtii-det „walk‟) „He is walking to the cinema / towards the bus station.‟

(62)

Jedziemyi-det nad morze. (Pol.: specified goal, jechaći-det „ride, go by vehicle‟) „We are going to the seaside.‟

27

In this connection, Kagan (2010: 157) talks about “motion back as annulled result state”. Padučeva (1996) and

Kagan (2007; 2010) derive the return trip in sentences like (58) as an implicature. 28

Rakhilina (2004:7) notes that the motion expressed by determinate verbs is “always non-arbitrary”, therefore

“goal-oriented”, even when the goal is not stated. 40

(63)

Po tropinke idëti-det ženščina s korzinkoj. (Russ.: unspecified goal, idtii-det „walk‟) „A woman with a basket is walking on the path.‟ (Muravyova 1995: 8)

(64)

Najbolje je ićii/p osvijetljenom ulicom. (SCr.: unspecified goal, ićii/p „walk, go‟) „It‟s best to go down a well-lit street.‟ (Alexander 2006: 116)

(65)

On idëti-det. (Russ.: unspecified path and goal, idtii-indet „ walk‟) „He is walking.‟

(66)

Tomasz jechałi-det tym pociągiem. (Pol.: unspecified path and goal, jechaći-det „ride‟) „Tomasz was traveling on that train.‟

The choice of a determinate over an indeterminate Imperfective requires that the location (path) l of the motion event be different from the location (goal) l' reached after the motion. Since l is coextensive with the motion event in its spatial dimension,29 this requirement can be formulated as below, where then locations have the semantic type s of situations (or the type st, if nonreferential), constituting their spatial dimension, and „<‟ means precedence on the motion axis (correlative to the precedence relation of situations on the time axis):

(67)

29

Ci-det: pi-det(l) → l's[l < l' & pi-det(l')]

Cf. Barwise and Perry‟s (1983) definition of situations as triplets of spatio-temporal locations, propositions, and

truth-values, adopted here. 41

For instance, if pi-det = „John going to Chicago‟, l is the location of the motion event (the path to Chicago), and l' is the goal (Chicago). Ci-det adds to Cp the specification that the motion event must have a goal: in the realm of motion events, the situation post-event e' is specified as the goal l' reached by the mover. Whereas the Perfectives describe the transition between two situations, the determinate Imperfectives specify these situations as locations. Since any transition between two locations involves motion, which cannot be instantaneous (assuming the impossibility of ubiquity), these transitions are durative, hence expressed with Imperfectives.

2.3.3 The interaction between the two aspectual oppositions

2.3.3.1 Two functions of the determinate Imperfectives The determinate motion verbs being Imperfective, they must also satisfy Ci, which in a determinate-indeterminate pair such as Russ. nestii-det – nosit’i-indet „carry‟ is the same for both members, having the shape in (9), since both the determinate and the indeterminate are Imperfective. On the other hand, the aspectual choice between the determinate and the indeterminate obeys Ci-indet and Ci-det, rather than Ci and Cp. The transition from rest to motion is expressed in most Slavic languages by Perfectives derived with the descendants of the Common Slavic prefix *po- from determinate Imperfectives, e.g. Pol. pójśćp „set off walking‟ from iśći-det „walk‟. These po-Perfectives are the only Perfectives derived from determinate Imperfectives that pass Forsyth‟s (1970: 35-41) tests for the validation of Perfective-Imperfective pairs (in Russian): the possibility of transposition between past tense and narrative present, and the differential use in injunctions vs. prohibitions. The chart in (68) represents the place of the determinate Imperfectives in the aspectual

42

oppositions Perfective-Imperfective, referring to the act of motion in the manner encoded by the verb, and determinate-indeterminate, referring to the change of location. A determinate Imperfective, being Imperfective, satisfies Ci by identifying a durative situation (motion events are always durative), and being determinate, satisfies Ci-det by describing a transition between situations defined in spatial terms – namely, a transition from path (motion event) to goal (state of rest).

(68)

LOCATION

MOTION EVENT

MOTION TRANSITION REST-MOTION

TRANSITION BETWEEN LOCATIONS

SITUATION AT A LOCATION

determinate Imperfective: idtii-det Perfective: pojtip

indeterminate Imperfective: xodit’i-indet

In (69), the same considerations apply to verbs which describe motions taking place at a location. The indeterminate Imperfectives derive delimitative Perfectives with the prefix po-, e.g. Russ. poxodit’p „walk for a while‟ from xodit’i-indet „walk‟. These po-Perfectives have a meaning similar to that of most other Perfectives derived with this suffix from Imperfectives describing activities and states. This delimitative meaning includes the transition between a state of rest before and a state of rest after a motion event; the motion event is construed as being confined to a location, because any change of location is irrelevant with these verbs: what poxodit’p refers to is a motion event that takes place between two states of rest.

(69)

LOCATION TRANSITION BETWEEN LOCATIONS

SITUATION AT A LOCATION

determinate Imperfective: idtii-det

indeterminate Imperfective: xodit’i-indet Perfective: poxodit’p 43

MOTION EVENT

MOTION TRANSITION REST-(MOTION)-REST

Comparing (68) and (69), it is immediately apparent that although both the determinate and the indeterminate Imperfectives participate in both aspectual oppositions, only the determinate Imperfectives will contain an inherent contradiction. The determinate Imperfectives denote both situations (as Imperfective) and transitions between situations (as determinate), while the indeterminate Imperfectives denote situations both as Imperfective and as indeterminate. It is this dual status of the determinate Imperfectives that explains why they sometimes behave towards their indeterminate counterparts in ways which parallel the behavior of the Perfectives in relation to the Imperfectives.

2.3.3.2 Parallel uses of Perfectives and determinate Imperfectives

2.3.3.2.1 Transitions between situations as ‘restricted action’ Foote (1967: 10) notes that “as a result of their similarity as verbs of restricted action, determinate verbs and perfective verbs tend to be used in similar kinds of situations.”30 This feel of “restricted action” results from the conditions of use for both Perfectives and determinate Imperfectives: any transition between situations is temporally restricted by virtue of being a transition. The transition expressed by Perfectives is construed as instantaneous (achievement), unless an adverbial of duration is employed to form a durative predicate (accomplishment); the transition between two situations when the subject is at two different locations, which is expressed as a motion event by a determinate Imperfective, implies that there is a single instance

30

Also Pahomov (1979) and Ferrand (1982) discuss the Perfective-like behavior of the determinate Imperfectives. 44

of motion on a path, as in (61)-(62), as opposed to the plurality of directions expressed with indeterminate Imperfectives in (49)-(54). On the other hand, the determinate verbs being Imperfective, they describe the situation of the subject in motion; their Perfective counterparts in po- express the entry into this motion situation.

31

As such, the determinate Imperfectives are „restricted‟ compared to their

indeterminate counterparts, but „unrestricted‟ compared to their po-Perfectives, standing in relation to the indeterminate Imperfectives as their own Perfectives do in relation to themselves. Besides the inherent meanings of the Perfectives and determinate Imperfectives, the parallelism in use between these two classes is apparent in the interaction of aspect with: -

tense – in the future tense interpretation of the morphological present of Perfectives and, under certain conditions to be discussed below, of determinate Imperfectives;

-

modality – in the use of Perfectives and determinate Imperfectives with injunctions and urgent prohibitions, as well as the preference for Imperfectives over Perfectives and for indeterminate over determinate Imperfectives with prohibitions.

2.3.3.2.2 Futurate interpretation of the present tense In all Slavic languages, determinate motion verbs can be used in the present tense to denote futurity (70)-(72), and the morphological present tense of Perfectives in East and West Slavic only denotes future tense.

31

Functionally, there would be little use for a Perfective derived from a motion verb, and aspectually paired with it,

to express the cessation of motion, i.e. for a Perfective of „walk‟ or „carry‟, because the cessation of the motion can be described with verbs meaning „stop‟. This also explains why terminative Perfectives like Russian otljubit’ „stop loving‟ are extremely rare: a termination without a significant change of state is seldom relevant. 45

(70)

Èto vy vedëtei-det segodnja studentov v muzej? (Russ. vestii-det „lead‟) „Is it you who will take the students to the museum today?‟ (Muravyova 1995: 51)

(71)

Poslezavtra moi roditeli letjati-det na Kavkaz. (Russ. letet’i-det „fly‟) „The day after tomorrow my parents will fly to the Caucasus.‟ (Muravyova 1995: 51)

(72)

Już idęi-det. (Pol. iśći-det „walk‟) „I‟m going / leaving now.‟

The future tense reading of the morphological present is obligatory with Perfectives, except in South Slavic, and is regularly available with the determinate Imperfectives, where it is more closely described as “actions which are either to take place very soon or are represented as firmly decided on” (Muravyova 1995: 52). Several determinate motion verbs in Old Church Slavonic, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovene, are in fact biaspectual:

(73)

Po selu je išaoi/p glas da je Jovan poginuo. (SCr. ićii/p „go‟, Perfective reading) „The story spread in the village that Jovan had been killed.‟

(74)

Marijan je zgodaj ustal, poklical psa in šeli-det/p čez travnik. (Slo. itii-det/p „go‟, Perfective reading) „Marijan got up early, called his dog and went through the meadow.‟ (Dickey 2000: 210)

46

With the Perfectives, this meaning of the morphological present follows immediately from the non-coincidence of the utterance time with the transition between situations expressed with a non-past tense (24): since the transition does not occur during the utterance time, it can only occur in the future. (The past-tense interpretation – as a narrative present – is usually not available, because the narrative present in general uses the Imperfective.) With determinate Imperfectives, the futurate use of the present is available only when the sentence refers to the change of location, rather than the act of motion itself. In (75), where the sentence describes the act of motion (by specifying the manner) in the absence of a goal, a future tense interpretation is, if not impossible, at least strongly dispreferred in favor of the periphrastic future with byt’. If the manner of motion is what is being talked about (contrasted with other possibilities of locomotion), the periphrastic future will be used (76).

(75)

On nesëti-det čemodan, a ona vezëti-det detej na mašine. (Russ. nestii-det „carry‟, veztii-det „convey‟) „He is carrying the suitcase, and she is driving with the children.‟ ?

„He will be carrying the suitcase, and she will be driving with the children.‟

(76)

Zavtra moi roditeli budut letet’ i-det na Kavkaz. Poezdov tuda net. (Russ. letet’ i-det „fly‟) „Tomorrow my parents will fly to the Caucasus. There are no trains going there.‟

In instances like (76), the determinate Imperfective behaves qua Imperfective, describing a situation by means of the manner of the motion performed, and a future tense interpretation of the morphological present is as restricted as it is with all other Imperfectives. The determinate

47

does not stand here in an aspectual opposition with the indeterminate, because the sentence is not about the existence vs. non-existence of the path, but about the act of motion (its manner), and as such it is opposed to the po-Perfective. On the other hand, when the emphasis is on the change of location, i.e. when the determinate expresses a transition between situations (in this case, different locations), the future tense interpretation arises from the fact that the transition to the new location, not being carried out at the utterance time, can only be projected into the future, as in (71) and (72). In this case, the determinate Imperfectives behave like the Perfectives, by virtue of describing a transition between situations (a change of location).

2.3.3.2.3 Aspect in injunctions and prohibitions In the imperative, as well as in modal constructions with equivalent meaning, the differential use of determinate and indeterminate motion verbs in positive vs. negative contexts parallels the use of Perfectives and Imperfectives. In all Slavic languages, the typical distribution of aspectual forms in such modal constructions is:

(77)

INJUNCTIONS

PROHIBITIONS

Perfective determinate

Imperfective indeterminate

In general, injunctions select Perfectives and determinate Imperfectives, while prohibitions usually select Imperfectives (for non-motion verbs) and indeterminates (Foote 1967: 11). (78) contrasts the use of determinate Imperfectives in injunctions with the use of their indeterminate

48

counterparts in prohibitions, and (79) illustrates the regular use of Perfectives in commands and of Imperfectives in prohibitions:32

(78)

Nesitei-det malyša v ètu komnatu! „Bring the boy into this room!‟

Ne nositei-indet malyša v ètu komnatu, zdes’ skvoznjak. „Do not bring the boy into this room, there is a draft in here.‟ (Russ.: injunction, nestii-det „carry‟; prohibition, nosit’i-indet „carry‟) (Muravyova 1995: 37)

(79)

Kupitep ètu knigu! „Buy this book!‟

Ne pokupajtei ètu knigu! „Do not buy this book!‟ (Russian: injunction, kupit’p „buy‟; prohibition, pokupat’i „buy‟) (Forsyth 1970: 194)

Prohibitions with Perfectives and determinate Imperfectives convey a sense of urgency or warning, whether the Perfective is agentive (80) or non-agentive (81)-(82), cf. Pete (1991):

32

Padučeva (1989) details the conditions of use of the Imperfective in imperatives in Russian. 49

(80)

Prošu tebja ne skazat’p / progovorit’sjap o bolezni druga. (Russian: urgent prohibition, skazat’p „speak‟, progovorit'sjap „let out (a secret)‟) „Please don‟t let out the news that our friend is ill.‟ (Forsyth 1970: 261)

(81)

Ne plyvii-det tuda: tam gluboko! (Russian: urgent prohibition / warning, plyt’i-det „swim‟) „Don‟t swim there, it‟s deep!‟ (Muravyova 1995: 38)

(82)

Smotri, ne upadip v reku! (Russian: warning, upast’ p „fall‟) „Mind you don‟t fall in the river!‟ (Foote 1967: 11)

This distribution of the Perfectives and determinate Imperfectives in (78)-(79) follows from the characterization of the Perfectives as denoting transitions between situations. What is of interest in an injunction is the achievement expressed by the Perfective, i.e. the transition into a new situation, and an urgent prohibition aims at preventing such a transition. In neither case is it relevant what the transition itself is like, which would be described by the Imperfective (as a general-factual). In (80)-(82), the transition into a new situation is regarded as undesirable: being in a place with deep water (81) or in the river (82) is dangerous, and other people knowing about the friend‟s illness (80) is undesirable for whatever reasons. When a determinate Imperfective functions qua Imperfective, describing an act of motion in the manner encoded by the verb, it is used in ordinary prohibitions, and the po-Perfective is reserved for injunctions. In (83) and (84), the object of the prohibition is not a change of location, but the act of walking in a certain manner or under certain conditions; on the other

50

hand, the object of the injunction in (85) is the inception of the motion, rather than the reaching of a destination.

(83)

Ne iditei-det tak bystro, u nas eščë est’ vremja. (Russ.: prohibition, idtii-det „walk‟) „Don‟t walk so fast, we still have time.‟ (Muravyova 1995: 38)

(84)

Ne idii-det po solncu: tebe vredno! (Russ.: prohibition, idtii-det „walk‟) „Don‟t walk in the sun, it‟s bad for you.‟ (Muravyova 1995: 38)

(85)

Pošlip! (Russ.: injunction, pojtip „start off walking‟) „Let‟s go!‟

Since an urgent injunction requires the Perfective or the determinate Imperfective, a more neutral injunction can only resort to the alternative aspectual form, which is the Imperfective or the indeterminate respectively.

2.3.3.2.4 Aspectual choice in negative and interrogative contexts A differential use of the determinate and indeterminate under negation is recognizable not only in imperatives, but also in statements. A negated determinate Imperfective implies the negation of the motion (86) or of the manner of motion (87), the predicate / verb being negated qua Imperfective (the Imperfective is the „unmarked‟ aspect used with negation). In order to negate a change of location, the indeterminate is used (88).

51

(86)

Zdes’ ljudi ne šli i-det, a stojali. (Russ. idti i-det „walk‟) „Here people did not walk, but stood.‟ (Forsyth 1970: 340)

(87)

Zdes’ ljudi ne šli i-det, a bežali i-det. (Russ. idti i-det „walk‟, bežat’ i-det „run‟) „Here people did not walk, but ran.‟

(88)

V voskresen’e ja nikuda ne ezdil i-indet. (Russ. ezdit’ i-indet „ride‟) „On Sunday I did not go anywhere.‟ (Forsyth 1970: 341)

In all these cases, the aspectual form used in negations is the one which is suitable for describing situations: the Imperfective, rather than the Perfective, in (86) and (87), and the indeterminate, rather than the determinate, in (88). On the other hand, the Imperfective is the preferred aspect under negation (the Perfective being confined mainly to the negation of the completion of the action33), so that the parallelism in use between the members of the two aspectual oppositions extends to negation in both imperative and declarative contexts. The indeterminate and the Imperfective are the neutral choices in questions as well, when a general-factual value is implied (“to have ever done”), as was exemplified in (29) for the Imperfectives and as it can be seen below for the indeterminates:

(89)

[Vy] plavalii-indet po Azovskomu morju? (Russian: plavat’i-indet „float / swim / sail‟) „Have you ever sailed on the Sea of Azov?‟ (Foote 1967: 29)

33

Holthusen (1951) and Akimova (1992) discuss in more detail the conditions of use of Perfectives under negation. 52

The selection of the Imperfective over the Perfective and of the indeterminate over the determinate in negative and interrogative contexts suggests that they might be licensed here as negative polarity items (cf. John doesn’t have any money with negation; have you ever seen this? in questions). In relation to a Perfective and a determinate respectively, which make reference to at least two situations on both sides of a transition,34 an Imperfective and an indeterminate are more basic, referring by their general-factual value to only one situation: in order to have a transition between situations, there must be at least one situation (no situation → no transition).

2.3.3.3 Two functions of the indeterminate Imperfectives In East and West Slavic, the indeterminate Imperfectives have two independent core meanings:35 a) one or several round-trips (49)-(52); and b) motion without a path (53)-(54). For the manner of motion „walk‟, Bulgarian distinguishes between (a) and (b): xodjai „I walk‟ (Russ. xodit’ i-indet) is used for (a), as in (90)-(91) with one and several round-trips respectively, while (b) is expressed by vărvjai „I walk‟, as in (92) for a motion with no path, and in (93) for the ability to walk, where path is irrelevant:

(90)

Njama da xodjai na kino dnes. „I will not go to the cinema today.‟

34

Semelfactive Perfectives like Rus. čixnut'p „sneeze (once)‟ involve three situations: the sneezing event plus the

states before and after the sneezing, between which the sneeze marks the transition. 35

Janda (2007; 2008) employs the concept of „granularity‟ to distinguish between (a) as granular and (b) as non-

granular. The same notion underlies Piñón‟s (1997) analysis of motion verbs. 53

(91)

Operacijata Vi beše seriozna. Njama da xoditei na rabota ošte deset dni. „You had a serious operation, so you will not be going to work for eight more days.‟

(92)

Običam da vărvjai peša. „I like to walk.‟

(93)

Lekarite sa kazali, če sled dva meseca toj šte može da vărvii. „The doctors said that in two months he would be able to walk.‟

In Russian, and everywhere else in East and West Slavic, these two meanings are expressed with the same indeterminate Imperfective, e.g. Russ. xodit’i-indet „walk‟. However, even in these languages, the meanings (a) and (b) are clearly distinct from each other, because the poPerfective (Russ. poxodit’p, meaning „take a walk‟ if intentional, and „walk for a while‟ if casual or non-intentional) is aspectually paired with its base indeterminate Imperfective only in the latter‟s meaning in (b): taking a walk or walking for a while are related to walking without a path (implicitly: within a location), i.e. to the meaning (b), as the transposition into the narrative present clearly shows in (94)-(95); The meaning of xodit’

i-indet

in (95) is (b), and (a) is not

available.

(94)

V parke, Ivan poxodilp minut dvadcat’, potom sel na skamejku. (Russ. poxodit’p „walk‟) „In the park, Ivan walked for about 20 minutes, then sat down on a bench.‟

54

(95)

V parke, Ivan xodit i-indet minut dvadcat’, potom sjadet na skamejku. (Russ. xodit’i-indet „walk‟) „In the park, Ivan walks for about 20 minutes, then sits down on a bench.‟

2.3.3.4 Determinate Imperfectives as biaspectual The po-Perfective of an indeterminate Imperfective is not aspectually paired with the meaning (a) of the latter, because it does not denote a round-trip in any sense. (b) is the meaning of the indeterminate Imperfective qua Imperfective, when it is paired with the po-Perfective, while (a) is the meaning of the indeterminate Imperfective qua indeterminate, where it is paired with the determinate Imperfective qua determinate in the same way in which an Imperfective is paired with a Perfective in pairs like Russ. otkryt’p – otkryvat’i „open‟, where the reversed action is expressed by the Imperfective general-factual. In this sense – and in this sense only – the determinate Imperfective qua determinate behaves like the Perfective counterpart of the indeterminate Imperfective qua indeterminate, i.e. in the meaning (a): -

an opening not followed by a closing is expressed with the Perfective otkryt’p, and a one-way trip by foot is expressed with the determinate Imperfective idti i-det qua determinate; and

-

one or several openings – when several, implicitly followed by closings – are expressed with the Imperfective otkryvat’i, and one or several trips – when several, implicitly followed by returns – are expressed with the indeterminate Imperfective xodit’ i-indet qua indeterminate.

Otherwise, the Perfectives of type Russ. sxodit’p „stop by‟, derived from the indeterminate Imperfectives, appear to function as the Perfective counterparts of the indeterminate Imperfectives qua indeterminate, although they only pass Forsyth‟s test of injunction (sxodit’p) vs. prohibition (xodit’ i-indet) (96)-(97), but not the one of transposition to the narrative present

55

(98)-(99), because the Imperfective is not used in the present tense to denote reversed actions (a reversed action in the present takes at least two verbs to be expressed: doing and undoing).

(96)

Sxodip ko mne, pogovorim. (Russ. sxodit’p „stop by (walking)‟) „Stop by and we will talk.‟

(97)

Ne xodi i-indet ko mne, ne o čëm govorit’. (Russ. xodit’ i-indet „walk‟) „Do not come to my place, we don‟t have anything to talk about.‟

(98)

On sxodilp ko mne i my pogovorili. (Russ. sxodit’p „stop by (walking)‟) „He came by and we talked.‟ – on one occasion

(99)

On xodit i-indet ko mne i my govorim. (Russ. xodit’ i-indet „walk‟) „He comes to me and we talk.‟ – on several occasions; only allows iterative reading

On the other hand, if (96) is uttered without making explicit the short duration or the casual nature of the visit, the determinate Imperfective idti i-det will be used qua determinate (100), and the negative imperative will be (97) in this variant, too.36

(100) Idi i-det ko mne i pogovorim. (Russ. idti i-det „walk‟) „Come over and we‟ll talk.‟

36

The transposition of a determinate Imperfective qua determinate into the narrative present cannot use the

indeterminate, because a change of location requires a path, which is excluded by the indeterminate. 56

The Imperfective counterpart of sxodit’p is xodit’i-indet, but when the latter is used as such, the nuances carried by the former (short duration or casual nature of the visit) must at least be part of the background knowledge. On the other hand, in the neutral variant of (a), the determinate functions like the Perfective of the indeterminate, and the pair idtii-det – xodit’i-indet „walk (to a destination)‟ acts as a Perfective-Imperfective pair like otkryt’p – otkryvat’i „open‟, except that xodit’ i-indet cannot have the processual interpretation, which requires a path, expressed with the determinate. As such, the determinate Imperfectives are biaspectual not only in Old Church Slavonic, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovene, but in all Slavic languages where they exist (viz. all Slavic languages except Bulgarian and Macedonian), as long as the pairing determinateindeterminate refers to the distinction between one-way trips (transitions between locations) and round-trips (no overall transition between locations at the end of a round-trip) – that is, to the essential distinction between Perfectives and Imperfectives based on their conditions of use: -

the determinate Imperfectives qua determinate are the Perfective counterparts of the indeterminate Imperfectives qua indeterminate, i.e. with meaning (a): in Russian, idtii-det qua determinate is paired with xodit’ i-indet qua indeterminate;

-

the determinate Imperfectives qua Imperfective are the Imperfective counterparts of the poPerfectives derived from them: in Russian, idti i-det qua Imperfective is paired with pojtip;37

-

the indeterminate Imperfectives qua Imperfective, i.e. with meaning (b), are the Imperfective counterparts of the po-Perfectives derived from them: in Russian, xodit’i-indet qua Imperfective is paired with poxodit’p.

37

As with all atelics, this Perfective has an ingressive value (cf. videt’i „see‟ – uvidet’p „see, spot‟): the determinate

Imperfectives qua Imperfective are atelic because they can only denote activities, consisting of a motion (on a path, and in a certain manner) with no goal. 57

These aspectual relationships can be represented as below, where the aspectual pairs are highlighted; PFV and IPFV stand for the Perfective and Imperfective functions of the members respectively:

xodit’ i(-indet) qua Imperfective IPFV (situation: motion at a location) (i-)indet xodit’ qua indeterminate IPFV (situation: repeated motion to a location)

(101)

(i-)det

pojtip PFV (transition: rest > > motion)

idti qua determinate PFV (transition: one-time motion to a location) i(-det) idti qua Imperfective IPFV (situation: motion)

poxodit’p PFV (transition: rest > > [motion at a location] > rest)

2.3.3.5 Four aspectual oppositions in verbs of motion The status of the Perfective sxodit’p is exceptional: it is only imperfectly paired with xodit’ i-indet qua Imperfective (it does not pass the test of transposition to the narrative present), and has no counterpart in the realm of non-motion verbs. There is no Perfective expressing, for instance, an opening followed by a closing: the Perfective counterpart of Russ. otkryvat’i „open‟ is otkryt’p, which can only denote an opening with no closing thereafter. In addition, unlike the pair otkryvat’i – otkryt’p, where the Imperfective is derived from the Perfective, in xodit’ i-indet vs. sxodit’p it is the Perfective sxodit’p that is derived from the Imperfective xodit’i-indet; in this respect, sxodit’p parallels some semelfactive Perfectives derived from Imperfectives, like Russ. kašljanut’p derived from kašljat’i „cough‟. The indeterminate Imperfectives qua indeterminate, i.e. with the sense (a) of xodit’ i-indet, can express both iteration and reversed action (round trip). It 58

is useful to distinguish between these two dimensions, bringing out the ambiguity of (a) as between one and several round-trips: a1) indeterminate Imperfectives qua iterative indeterminate: with this reading, xodit’i-indet is paired with sxodit’p, which describes a one-time round trip; a2) indeterminate Imperfectives qua reversed-action indeterminate: with this reading, xodit’ i-indet is paired with idti i-det, which describes a trip not followed by a return. The difference between (a1) and (a2) consists in the absence vs. presence of a path: „dropping by‟ one or several times (a1) implies not a path, but a deviation from a path –, whereas going to a place once or several times (a2) does involve a path. The two dimensions of the indeterminate Imperfectives qua indeterminate can be represented as in (102) – where the second member in each pair stands in the relation of a Perfective to the Imperfective first member, and denotes a transition, with the features [±path] and [±goal] applying to the Perfective member – or by integrating the sxodit’p-type Perfectives into (101) as in (103).38

(102)

38

[+path] xodit’i – idtii-det „go, walk‟ idtii-det – pojtip „walk‟ – „set off‟

[-path] xodit’i – sxodit’p „drop by (in a walk)‟ xodit’i – poxodit’p „walk‟ – „take a walk‟

MANNER: „WALK‟

[+goal] [-goal]

As the English glosses suggest, the distinction between the features [±path] and [±goal] (for a certain manner,

where applicable) can be applied to the compositional analysis of motion verbs / motion expressions in non-Slavic languages, too. 59

(103)

pojtip PFV (transition: rest > > motion)

PFV-IPFV:

idti(i-)det qua determinate PFV (transition: one-time motion to a location, with no return) idtii(-det) qua Imperfective IPFV (situation: motion)

xodit’ i(-indet) qua Imperfective IPFV (situation: motion at a location) xodit’ i(-indet) qua iterative indeterminate IPFV (situation: repeated round-trips) xodit’ (i-)indet qua reversed-action indeterminate IPFV (situation: one-time round-trip)

poxodit’p PFV (transition: rest > > [motion at a location] > rest) sxodit’p PFV (transition: round-trip not having occurred > > round-trip having occurred)

If the motion follows a path, but the goal is irrelevant, the motion event will be described with a determinate Imperfective qua Imperfective, and the transition from rest to motion by a po-Perfective, with the goal being optional: in Russ. pojtip v školu „go to school‟, v školu is not an argument, but an oblique: in the mere act of setting off, the goal of the motion is inaccessible – what is accessible is only the path of the motion event described by idtii-det qua Imperfective. Also the (irregular) imperative pošlip „let‟s go‟ refers to the act of setting off on a path, not to reaching a destination. If that path has a relevant destination, the motion event will have a goal, and idtii-det will act qua determinate, taking that goal as an argument.

PFV-IPFV:

When the motion event results in a pragmatically significant change of location, the event is described with a determinate Imperfective qua determinate. If there is 60

a pragmatically significant change of location followed by a return, so that the end result is a round-trip, the event is described by an indeterminate Imperfective qua reversed-action indeterminate. PFV-IPFV:

A complex motion event consisting of round-trip(s) as visit(s) deviating from an original path is described by a Perfective of type Russ. sxodit’p when talking about a single round-trip, and by an indeterminate Imperfective qua iterative indeterminate when referring to repeated visits.

PFV-IPFV:

If the motion is random, with neither a path nor a goal, it will be described with an indeterminate Imperfective qua Imperfective – or with a Perfective of type Russ. poxodit’p, if the motion is of limited duration.

The difference between the two functions of a determinate Imperfective – qua determinate and qua Imperfective – results from the presence of a goal argument in the first function and its absence in the second one. The behavior of the determinate Imperfectives qua determinate in relation to the indeterminate Imperfectives parallels the behavior of the Perfectives in relation to their Imperfective counterparts in aspectual pairs because the Perfectives, like the determinate Imperfectives, make reference to situations post-event, into which they express the transition. When the situation post-event is qualitatively different from the situation pre-event, the predicate with a Perfective is telic, as in Russ. pročitat’p knigu „read a book (to the end)‟; if there is no such difference, but the transition is between two qualitatively identical situations, as between „before‟ and „after‟ a sneeze or a nap that makes no difference in the overall state of affairs because it has no relevant consequences, the predicate with a Perfective will be atelic, e.g. with Russ. čixnut’p „sneeze (once)‟, pospat’p „take a nap‟.

61

Both the spatial goals of motion events and the resultative states of non-motion events have in common a goal-like quality which can be construed as temporal: a resultative state is a temporal goal, and a spatial goal constitutes a goal in so far as it denotes the location of the temporal goal of the motion, which is the state of the mover being at that spatial goal. I will discuss the aspectual role of goal-like arguments in more detail in the next chapter.

62

3 THE SYNTACTIC FRAMEWORK

3.1 Overview This chapter introduces the theoretical framework for the subsequent analyses. It consists of the theory of theta-roles and their representation in syntax (argument structure) that will form the basis for the discussion: all syntactic arguments are licensed by functional heads labeled according to their theta-roles, and obey a definite structural hierarchy which applies at least to the languages under discussion. I emphasize the difference between arguments and obliques, which is essential for the discussion of applicatives in chapter 4, as well as instances where a constituent can be interpreted as either an argument or an oblique, with both interpretations existing side by side and requiring different analyses. For instance, a predicate of the type find a ring in your nose allows two readings: 1) only ring is an argument, and in your nose is a locative oblique, the predicate find a ring being complete (test: find a ring – where? – in your nose); and 2) the argument is a „small clause‟ [s ring in your nose], and find a ring in your nose is interpreted as „find a ring to be in your nose‟ (test: find – what? – a ring [to be] in your nose). The assumptions made in the first half of this chapter with regard to theta-roles and argument structure, illustrated mostly with English examples, will be corroborated with data from other languages presented in the subsequent sections. For instance, assuming that direct objects with Theme theta-roles are licensed by functional heads, rather than being complements of the verb, will allow, in chapter 4, a more economical analysis of verbs where Themes are introduced as applicatives – e.g. sprinkle water (Theme argument) on somebody (oblique location / goal) →

63

besprinkle somebody (Theme argument) with water (oblique instrument), where I will argue that the prefix be- forms a complex head with Th0, introduces the new argument, and Perfectivizes the verb (cf. the overtly Perfective aspect of Theme applicatives in Slavic, illustrated in the following sections), due to its original lexical meaning of „surrounding the entire object‟. Likewise, structural hierarchies such as Recipient > Theme or Theme > Goal, and implicitly the syntactic distinction between Recipients (high) and Goals (low) (Pylkkänen 2008), are corroborated by data from languages where the order of prefixes is assumed to reflect the order of the arguments to which they correspond. A further remark regards cases where apparent deviations from the prevailing structural hierarchy are explainable by changes in theta-grids during the history of the individual languages, under preservation of the structural hierarchy.

3.2 Syntactic arguments, thematic relations, and theta roles

3.2.1 Terminology and general remarks In John quickly gave Bill an apple in London yesterday, the verb forms the syntactic and semantic core; the other constituents either are participants (John; Bill; an apple), or otherwise describe (quickly) or locate the situation in space (in London) or time (yesterday). Syntactic arguments are constituents in whose absence the predicate is perceived as incomplete, and the other DPs, PPs, or AdvPs, are obliques. In general, arguments supply essential information, whereas obliques contribute additional information. In the above sentence, John, Bill, and an apple are the only arguments. In John went from London to New York, a predicate went to New York is complete, therefore from London is an oblique; and since went by itself is incomplete, to New York is an argument. The prevailing view, which I adopt here, is that obliques are syntactic

64

adjuncts. On the other hand, the distinction between arguments and obliques cannot always be reduced to the essential vs. accessory nature of the information contributed to the sentence, but has also a syntactic dimension. In languages with agreement systems that include the direct and indirect objects, such as Basque, only arguments, but not adjuncts, trigger agreement on the verb. Sometimes, the same theta-role can be expressed as either an argument or an oblique – for instance, the beneficiary in the Basque sentences below, which are practically synonymous, is expressed as an argument in the dative in (104a), with indirect object agreement, and as an adjunct with a benefactive suffix in (104b), with no indirect object agreement:39

(104a) Iñakik atea ireki die neskei. Iñaki-k ate-a-Ø ireki-Ø di-Ø-e-Ø nesk-e-i. Iñaki.ERG door.DET.ABS(SG) open.PART AUX.DO3SG.IO3PL.S3SG girl.PL.DAT „Iñaki (has) opened the door for the girls.‟ 39

ERG = ergative, DET = determiner, ABS = absolutive, SG = singular, PART = participle, AUX = auxiliary, DO

= direct object agreement, IO = indirect object agreement, S = subject agreement, PL = plural, DAT = dative, G = genitive, BEN = benefactive. With some other verbs, slight semantic differences can be detected between the variant with a beneficiary argument and the one with a beneficiary oblique: (ia)

Iñakik opariak erosi dizkie neskei. Iñaki-k opari-a-k eros-i di-zki-e-Ø nesk-e-i. Iñaki.ERG present.DET.ABS(PL) buy.PART AUX.DO3PL.IO3PL.S3SG girl.(DET)PL.DAT „Iñaki (has) bought the girls presents.‟ / „Iñaki (has) bought presents to the girls.‟

(ib)

Iñakik opariak erosi ditu neskentzat. Iñaki-k opari-a-Ø eros-i d-it-u-Ø nesk-e-n-tzat. Iñaki.ERG present.DET.ABS(PL) buy.PART AUX.DO3PL.u(AUX).S3SG girl.(DET)PL.G.BEN „Iñaki (has) bought presents for the girls.‟ 65

(104b) Iñakik atea ireki du neskentzat. Iñaki-k ate-a-Ø ireki-Ø d-Ø-u-Ø nesk-e-n-tzat. Iñaki.ERG door.DET.ABS(SG) open.PART AUX.DO3SG. u(AUX).S3SG girl.PL.G.BEN „Iñaki (has) opened the door for the girls.‟

Jackendoff (1972) introduced the notion of “thematic relations” to describe the semantic relationships between the various XPs (DPs, PPs, or AdvPs), and the verb. For instance, in John went from London to New York, John is an agent, from London is a source, and to New York is a goal. An XP can cumulate several thematic relations: in John gave Bill an apple, John is both an agent and a source. In order to capture the correspondence between thematic relations and arguments, Chomsky (1981/1993) introduced the “theta-roles”, which are clusters of thematic relations expressed by an argument: the theta-role of John in John gave Bill an apple includes the thematic relations agent and source. Agentivity being usually perceived as more salient or „marked‟ than the source-like quality, which here is „unmarked‟, the agent thematic role is given precedence, and the theta-role is labeled as Agent. 40 In order to account for the numerous ambiguities in the assignment of theta-roles, Dowty (1991b) proposed a different approach, where the thematic relations / theta-roles are not discrete, but rather there is a continuum between the two „proto-roles‟, each defined by a set of entailments:

40

I use capital letters for theta-roles in order to distinguish them from homonymous thematic relations, and I

designate the arguments by their respective theta-roles, e.g. a Theme argument is an argument with a Theme thetarole. 66

-

Proto-agent entailments: “volitional involvement in the event or state; sentience (and / or perception); causing an event or change of state in another participant; movement (relative to the position of another participant); (exists independently in the event named by the verb)”;

-

Proto-patient entailments: “undergoes change of state; incremental theme; causally affected by another participant; stationary relative to movement of another participant; (does not exist independently of the event, or not at all”. (Dowty 1991b: 572)

In this approach, an argument is agent-like or patient-like according to whether the proposition where it appears has more proto-agent or more proto-patient entailments, with intermediate cases of arguments displaying variable numbers of proto-agent and proto-patient entailments – for instance, the recipient (Bill) in John gave Bill a book has fewer proto-agent entailments than the agent (John), and fewer proto-patient entailments than the theme (a book). Even if the ultimate linguistic or cognitive reality can be showed to consist of a continuum between two poles as in Dowty‟s proposal, the cross-linguistic syntactic and morphological evidence points to the existence of relatively uniform processes of aggregation along this continuum into discrete conceptual entities, which can be assimilated to the thematic relations or the theta-roles. For instance, as far as I could determine, the maximum number of arguments with which verbs in various languages can agree is three – namely, the subject, the indirect object, and the direct object –, and there is an overwhelming agreement across languages as to the respective theta-roles of each of these three arguments for verbs with equivalent meaning. Also, I am not aware of any language where the verbs would agree with location or goal arguments of motion verbs, and where such arguments would be distinct from the recipients or experiencers of verbs meaning „give‟, „help‟, etc. This kind of evidence suggests that, as long as the prototypical agents are generally subjects and the prototypical themes are generally direct

67

objects of monotransitive verbs, the theta-roles of Agent and Theme are useful theoretical constructs. The indirect objects are likewise very strong candidates for a distinct theta-role (Experiencer, Affectee, or some other label, with several subclasses: Recipients, Beneficiaries, Maleficiaries, etc.), if at least three facts are considered in conjunction: 1) indirect objects trigger agreement on the verb in some languages (cf. the Basque example above), which can be taken as evidence for their status as arguments, rather than obliques, at least in a syntactic (structural) sense; 2) in languages lacking indirect object agreement, such as English, the verbs whose theta-grids include Experiencers (or Affectees, Recipients, etc.) generally have as equivalents verbs with indirect object agreement in languages like Basque; 3) without ruling out the possibility that Experiencers, on the one hand, and Locations, on the other hand, might be derivationally related at some level of representation (cf. Baker 1997, among many others),41 there is substantial evidence that many languages tend to treat them as distinct theta-roles in syntax.42 41

The opposing view, based on a structural hierarchy of arguments Recipient > Theme > Location („>‟ = „higher

than‟) was advocated by Kiparsky (1987), Bresnan and Kanerva (1989), etc. The authors who argue for the identification of Recipients (typically in double object constructions: John gave Bill a book) and Locations assign primacy to either the former (e.g. Marantz 1993) or, more frequently, the latter (e.g. Larson 1988, Baker 1997). 42

Experiencer arguments in Basque (including Recipients of verbs meaning „give‟, „sell‟, „lend‟, etc.) are in the

dative and trigger indirect object agreement on the verb (ia), while Location arguments (including Goals of motion) do not trigger any agreement (ALL = allative): (ii)

Iñaki Bilbora joan da. Iñaki-Ø Bilbo-ra joa-n da-Ø. Iñaki.ABS Bilbao.ALL go.PART AUX.S3SG „Iñaki went to Bilbao.‟ 68

This last point suggests that spatio-temporal Locations are better treated as distinct from Experiencers. Further, there are arguments whose theta-role can best be described as „Qualities‟, and which cannot be assimilated to any of the theta-roles mentioned so far: John was / got sick. In the subsequent discussion, I will be assuming the following inventory of the theta-roles which can be expressed by arguments: Causer, Agent, Affectee, Theme, Location, and Quality, leaving open the possibility that Affectees might be ultimately related to, or derived from, Locations.

Goals of motion can also sometimes be expressed as Recipients in the dative with indirect object agreement (iiia), as an alternative to the unmarked expression with the locative (here, with directional / allative value) and no indirect object agreement (iiib), but the very existence of this second possibility, which is the more common way of expressing goals, together with the fact that Recipients can never be expressed in the locative or the allative (iv), shows that Goals and Recipients are distinct in Basque (LOC = locative). (iiia)

Iñakik zaldia etxeri sartu dio. Iñaki-k zaldi-a-Ø etxe-ri sar-tu di-Ø-o-Ø. Iñaki.ERG horse.ABS house.DAT enter.PART AUX.DO3SG.IO3SG.S3SG „Iñaki took the horse into the house.‟

(iiib)

Iñakik zaldia etxeri sartu du. Iñaki-k zaldi-a-Ø etxe-a-n sar-tu da-Ø. Iñaki.ERG horse.ABS house.LOC enter.PART AUX.DO3SG.S3SG „Iñaki took the horse into the house.‟

(iv)

*Iñakik opariak erosi ditu nesketara / nesketan. Iñaki-k opari-a-k eros-i d-it-u-Ø nesk-eta-ra / nesk-eta-n. Iñaki.ERG present.DET.ABS(PL) buy.PART AUX.DO3PL.u(AUX).S3SG girl.(DET)PL.ALL/LOC „Iñaki (has) bought presents to the girls.‟ 69

These six theta-roles can be ordered on an extended scale including Dowty‟s proto-roles. Causers43 are like Agents, except that they are not involved in the event: John is affected by his participation in the event in John (Agent) ate an apple, but not in John (Causer) made Bill (Agent) eat an apple. In both examples, the Agents inevitably undergo change, which is a protopatient entailment, whereas a change is much less obvious for the Causer; the Causer has less proto-patient entailments, and consequently is more Agent-like, than the Agent itself. At the other end of the spectrum, Locations are intuitively more passive than the Themes, in that their only feature is the pure existence or availability in space and time, and Qualities lack even the spatio-temporal existence. Neither Locations nor Qualities can be regarded as participants in the event: Locations supply a spatio-temporal background (as static Locations) or frame (as Goals or Sources) for the event, and atemporal Qualities cannot „participate‟ in any meaningful sense, because their „existence‟ is only conceptual. Talmy‟s (1985) distinction between Figure and Ground could be relevant in this respect, and provide a more comprehensive scale, with Causers as pure Figures, Locations as pure Grounds, and Qualities as something even more remotely „present‟ than Grounds. In addition, I will distinguish three subclasses of Affectees and Locations, in order to highlight their role in establishing limits on the event: -

Locations – static Location, Source, and Goal: John dwells in London (static Location); He went out of the room (Source); John went to London (Goal);

43

I will treat Causer as a theta-role (cf. Doron 1999), but an opposing view (Parsons 1990) regards it as a relation

between two events. Participants which abstain from causation or action can be assimilated to Causers (John let Bill go) or Agents (John spared Bill, e.g. did not kill him) respectively. (For a Causer interpretation of the subject of let speaks the fact that Gm. lassen „let‟, cognate of let, has come to function as a causative: kaufen lassen „make buy, tell to buy‟, lit. „let buy‟.) The label „Affectee‟ is used in the sense of Bowers (2010). 70

-

Affectees – Experiencer, Perdant, and Recipient: John (Experiencer) has a house; John (Perdant) lost his money; John deprived Bill (Perdant) of his rights (Theme); 44 John (Recipient) received some money; John gave Bill (Recipient) some money.

Grimshaw (1990) and Baker (1997) pointed out that Affectees in the absence of Agents manifest some Agent-like properties, and their syntactic behavior is indistinguishable from that of the Agents. For example, according to Baker, the subjects in John (Experiencer) hates Bill and John (Agent) killed Bill being both animate, their internal (mental) properties determine whether the situation described in the sentence occurs or not; likewise, the subjects of verbs of perception actively participate in the event by forming mental representations of the perceived objects (Themes). However, even if they share some properties with the Agents, these Affectees in subject position – more exactly, the Recipients – also have in common with other Affectees (Recipients) a property which I argue to be essential in determining the Perfective aspect of the verb: they constitute upper limits on the event, which constitutes an inherent transition, whence the Perfective aspect. In both John (Recipient) received some money and John gave Bill (Recipient) some money, the Recipients act like Goals, defining a situation post-event, even though in the first case the Recipient displays agentive properties and is syntactically indistinguishable from an Agent. For this reason, I will be treating these Recipients in subject position as Recipients, rather than as Agents, because their agentive qualities are less relevant for aspect.

44

In this example, Bill can also be interpreted as a Theme, with of his rights perhaps as a metaphorical or temporal

Source: „John took Bill out of (the state / condition where he still had) his rights‟. 71

3.2.2 Causers, Agents, and Themes If the physical concept of „energy‟ can be shown to have a cognitive status and be relevant in language, this will be what Causers, Agents, and Themes, have in common: a Causer and an Agent provide an input of energy, respectively effecting an event or affecting a Theme. With regard to Causers, Parsons (1990) argues that a causative relationship holds between two events, so that a causer interacts only externally with an event to which Agents, Themes, etc., are participants. For the syntactic analyses in the following sections, where causatives are marginal and their semantics is irrelevant for aspect, I will follow Doron‟s (1999) analysis of causatives as additional arguments licensed by functional heads, like the other arguments. Even if Causers are external to the event, they still act in certain respects as „additional Agents‟, although their agentivity is exerted upon the event they bring about, rather than upon a Theme proper. The caused events typically can have participants with various theta-roles: John (Causer) made Bill (Agent) kill Mark (Theme); John (Causer) made Bill (Experiencer) happy (Quality), John (Causer) made Bill (Perdant) lose money (Theme), or John (Causer) made Bill (Recipient) receive money (Theme). In John made Bill happy, the relationship between John and Bill cannot be assimilated to the one between an Agent and a Theme, for what John made Bill happy states is that John created the conditions for Bill‟s happiness, without necessarily acting directly upon Bill: John could have been repairing Bill‟s car (Theme), thereby making Bill happy, and the causing event („John repairing Bill‟s car‟) is distinct from the caused state („Bill being happy‟). The relations between Causers and other arguments (105)-(107) can be represented as in (108). An argument situated at a higher level in (108) is licensed by the positive value of the feature [±cause] on a lower argument (109), while [-cause] licenses an optional oblique causer in

72

passivized causatives: John[-cause] (Agent argument) was made by Bill (oblique causer) to eat the apple.

(105) Causer – Agent configuration: John (Causer) made Bill (Agent) kill Mark (Theme).

(106) Causer – Theme configuration: John (Causer) caused Bill (Theme) to be killed. John (Causer) had Bill (Theme) killed.

(107) Causer – Affectee configuration: John (Causer) made Bill (Experiencer) feel well (Quality). John (Causer) made Bill (Recipient) earn money (Theme). John (Causer) made Bill (Perdant) lose money (Theme).

(108) causative relations (

: „causes X to…‟)

Causer event Agent

Affectee

Theme

73

(109) argument licensing: 45 Causer

Causer

Causer

θCauser

θCauser

θCauser

Agent[+cause]

Theme[+cause]

Affectee[+cause]

Agents usually require a Theme upon which they can exercise an action – John (Agent) killed Bill (Theme) –, but they can cumulate the thematic relations of agent and patient: in John (Agent) went to Chicago, John both effects and undergoes the motion (has both proto-agent and proto-patient entailments). Here, assigning the label „Agent‟, rather than „Theme‟, to the thetarole, could be justified by the more salient role of agentivity, if a patient can undergo some effects with no identified Agent. Themes presuppose the existence of either an Agent (John ate an apple) or an Affectee: Experiencer (John feels pain), Recipient (John got an apple), or Perdant (John lost an apple). Although the thematic relation of a Theme to an Agent is intuitively quite different from the one of a Theme to an Affectee or a Location, the Theme undergoing two different kinds of change in an Aristotelian sense as explained below, I will apply the label „Theme‟ to all these cases, despite the perceptibly different thematic relations involved: -

when associated with an Agent, a Theme is a patient undergoing an internal change of state – including changes from being to non-being (destroy, demolish), or vice versa (create, build);

45

This is not theta-role assignment: theta-roles are assigned by the respective functional heads (Agent by Ag0, etc.).

What (109) means is that a positive value of [±cause] on a certain argument – here, Agent, Theme, or Affectee – licenses a Causer as an argument, rather than as an oblique, like in passives: Bill[-cause] 1 was made t1 by John to kill Mark. 74

-

when associated with an Affectee, as well as when being the implicit object of a motion verb as in John (Agent) took Bill (Theme) to London, the Theme either undergoes only a change of location, or affects the Affectee passively, by its presence; in either case, any change internal to the Theme remains irrelevant.

As suggested earlier, the distinguishing feature of Causers and Agents seems to be the existence of an amount of effective energy translated into actions and processes. Processes can be internal to sentient participants (Affectees), in which case Agents can cumulate the thematic relations of agent and recipient (beneficiary), as in John (Agent) took money from Bill, or of agent and perdant (maleficiary), as in John (Agent) gave money to Bill. The relations between Agents and other arguments (110)-(111) can be represented as in (112). An argument situated at a higher level in (112) is licensed by the positive value of the feature [±act] on a lower argument (113), while [-act] licenses an optional oblique agent in passives: John[-act] (Theme argument) was killed by Bill (oblique agent).

(110) Agent – Theme configuration: John (Agent) killed Bill (Theme). John (Agent) took Bill (Theme) home (Goal). John (Agent) gave the apple (Theme) to Bill (Goal). John (Agent) took / put Bill (Theme) out of his misery (Source > Quality).

(111) Agent – Affectee configuration: John (Agent) gave Bill (Recipient) an apple (Theme). John (Agent) deprived Bill (Perdant) of his rights (Theme).

75

: „acts upon‟)

(112) actional relations (

Agent

Affectee

Theme

(113) argument licensing: Agent

Agent

θAgent

θAgent

Theme[+act]

Affectee[+act]

3.2.3 Locations and Affectees Locations and Affectees have in common a certain conceptual classification of the members of both classes (the feature labels will be explained below):

(114)

STATIC ROLES

[-dynamic]

DYNAMIC ROLES SOURCE-LIKE

[I]

[+dynamic] GOAL- LIKE

[F]

Experiencer

Perdant

Recipient

AFFECTEE

[+sentient]

static Location

Source

Goal

LOCATION

[-sentient]

Both the goal-like and the source-like theta-roles are „directional‟, with opposite deixis. The two classes of theta-roles differ in that Affectees are endowed with „sentience‟, which I would define as the availability of a „point of view‟, or of an imaginary observer, internally to the Affectee. In John (Recipient) received a book, there is intuitively a point of view internal to the Recipient, 76

whereas in Bill went to John (Goal), there is no point of view internal to the Goal: the Goal (John) can be said to „receive‟ Bill only if a point of view is added in, and the action is presented from this point of view (which is John‟s), in which case the sentence must be rephrased as John (Recipient) received Bill. In John (Experiencer) has a book, the point of view is (at) John, who experiences the possession, whereas this is not the case in Bill (Theme) dwells at John’s place (Location): adding in John‟s point of view turns the sentence into John (Experiencer) has Bill (Theme) living at his place46. In the subsequent discussion of Locations I will suggest that they are always spatio-temporal, i.e. they are always situations, rather than entities, even when the arguments are entity-denoting nouns. Such is the case of the referent of John in Bill went to John (Goal), where the noun John denotes an entity, but its function in the sentence is to stand for, or signify, a situation – namely, the spatio-temporal goal „Bill being at John‟s location‟. This „sentience‟ can be real or figurative; here, the basic thematic relations are beneficiary, maleficiary, and experiencer. On the other hand, Locations are not „sentient‟ in the sense defined above – or if they are, this circumstance remains irrelevant: in John gave Bill (Recipient) an apple, Bill is supposedly involved in the act at least perceptively and cognitively, if not emotionally, while in John took an apple to Bill (Goal), Bill is construed merely as a spatial goal, and to Bill could as well mean „Bill‟s house / place‟. Recipients and Perdants as theta-roles usually include two thematic relations each: goal + beneficiary and source + maleficiary; but there are also Recipients / Perdants which can be construed as beneficiaries or maleficiaries with no transfer of an object, like the dative objects of Gm. helfen „help‟, nützen „benefit‟, or schaden „harm‟. Even so, beneficiaries and maleficiaries can be themselves regarded as the sentient counterparts of goals and sources respectively: a beneficiary receives something (even if only benefit or help) in the same way as a goal „receives‟ the mover, and a maleficiary 46

This sentence also has an irrelevant reading where John is a Causer, making Bill live at his place. 77

loses something, like a source „losing‟ the mover. Likewise, Experiencers seem to be little more than Locations endowed with sentience. As such, Affectee theta-roles seem to be compositional – at least conceptually, if not a semantically –, consisting each of the corresponding Location theta-role plus sentience as the distinguishing feature of their class, as in (114). The labels for theta-roles do not always reflect the concrete roles played by the respective arguments, and this is especially true for Locations and Affectees. Jackendoff (1976) speaks in this connection of a “cross-field generalization”, whereby Locations are applied to other ontological or conceptual levels – for instance, the Goal can be not only spatial (John went to London), but also temporal (The show lasted till 10 o’clock), identificational (The boy became a man), causational (Hard work resulted in high pay), etc. This cross-field generalization can account for the parallelism between Locations and Affectees mentioned above: a Recipient will be a „sentient Goal‟, and a Perdant a „sentient Source‟, the transposition between the spatiotemporal (locational) domain to the affectional one being no more difficult than the one from the spatio-temporal domain to the identificational domain, for instance. Many languages have the same morphological markers for Goals and Recipients (Turkish, Japanese), and a quite common way of expressing possession is by resorting to locative expressions, e.g. Russ. u menja est’ kniga, lit. „there is a book at me‟ (Location) (cf. Benveniste 1966: 199), and several other authors (Lyons 1967; Freeze 1992; Sørensen 1997) ascribed verbs of type „have‟ the underlying meaning „be at‟. 47 On the other hand, there seems to be no systematic, one-to-one correspondence in any given language between the members of the 47

Morphological parallelisms between Source and Perdant are much rarer, and Perdants are sometimes expressed by

the same means as Recipients, e.g. Fr. soustraire à „substract / steal from‟ vs. donner à „give to‟ / ajouter à „add to‟, or Hebr. ’ābad lī ha-kkeṣep „I lost the money‟, lit. „money went lost to me‟. In general, source-like participants are less prominent, and the respective thematic roles are less frequently expressed in arguments. 78

Affectee and Location classes of theta-roles. Heine (1997) describes four syntactic types of possessive constructions, including locative (static) and goal-like (with the possessor in the dative, e.g. Hun. nekem (D) van pénzem „I have money‟, lit. „there is my money to me‟). For these reasons – and assuming that the descriptions of the respective theta-roles for each class are accurate – I will keep Locations and Affectees distinct from each other. A verb can have maximally one Affectee or one Location argument: there are no verbs taking both a Location and a Goal argument, or an Experiencer and a Recipient (cf. Gruber 2001). On the other hand, directional theta-roles always presuppose patients or experiencers as thematic relations, even when these are only realized in participants with Agent theta-roles – as in John went to Chicago, where John cumulates the thematic relations of agent, patient (internal theme) and experiencer (of the motion). Also, all Affectees presuppose Themes, Locations, or Qualities (otherwise there would be nothing to affect them): John (Recipient / Perdant) received / lost money (Theme), bought / sold a house (Theme), learnt / remembered / forgot the word (Theme), spotted / lost sight of the bird (Theme); John (Experiencer) has / owns / knows / ignores / remembers / can see something (Theme); John (Experiencer) is happy (Quality). The examples in the preceding paragraph include verbs of perception and mental activities: see, remember, know, believe, etc. – to which can be added love, like, dislike, etc. –, whose the subject is an Experiencer. The objects of these verbs could be construed not only as Themes, but also as Locations. 48 The corresponding structural position is in any case

48

In this connection, Nesset (2010) treats the Perfectivization of verbs of “passive perception” (i.e. of type see, hear;

verbs of “active perception”, like look and listen, have an Agent and a Theme) in terms of spatial relations – e.g. Russ. uvidet’p „see, spot‟ is derived from videt’i with the suffix u-, which denotes “movement away from the speaker‟s domain of accessibility” (although the corresponding preposition is static: „at‟, and there are numerous 79

syntactically available: there is no other argument competing for a Location theta-role, and the sensation, perception, or mental object that is seen, known, remembered, liked, etc., can be regarded as the location where the subject acts as an experiencer, or where it shares in the existence of the experienced object by means of perception or mental activity. This might provide an explanation for the frequency of objects in the genitive (partitive for sharing: I will suggest below that the Locations might include partitives) with such verbs in several IndoEuropean branches like Greek or Slavic, or the locative and genitive with some psych-verbs in Sanskrit (e.g. snih- „love‟ + L/G/D) and Greek (érasthai „love‟ + G); cf. also think of / about something (G/L), believe in something (L).49 The object appears to be construed as a Location also in other verbs taking the genitive like Gk. árkhein „be the first to do, start‟ and Lat. potīrī „acquire‟ – perhaps with the object seen as a Goal to be partaken of. Locations are typically spatial (John lives / dwells in Chicago), but various cross-field generalizations are both conceivable and empirically supported, suggesting that some expansion of the function of Locations might be in order – maximally leading to a definition of the Location as „that whereof the subject partakes‟. The more concrete manifestations of this relational function of Locations are spatial, e.g. a subject (Experiencer) living in a certain place partakes of that place (Location). More abstract instances of partaking are the objects of verbs like participate (in), share (in), partake (of), accuse (of) („conceive of somebody as partaking in, i.e. being involved in, the object of the accusation‟), and possibly also, in languages like Finnish, the objects in the partitive. In the more conservative Indo-European languages, these objects are prefixed verbs where no ablative value of u- is recognizable), where the “domain of accessibility” is perhaps identifiable with the „point of view‟ that I proposed to be regarded as the definitory feature of Affectees. 49

Verbs of perception and mental activities are sometimes visibly related via evidentiality in IE languages, where

forms derived from the root meaning „see‟ occasionally acquire the meaning „know‟ < „have seen‟ (evidential). 80

typically in the genitive or locative, or the objects of prepositions: Gk. koinōneĩn / metékhein / metalambánein (G) „participate / share in‟, pínein (G) „drink‟, esthíein (G) „eat‟, Gm. sich an etwas beteiligen „participate in something‟, Pol. oskarżaći kogoś1 o coś2 „accuse somebody1 of something2‟, etc. Even in English, the objects of the verbs mentioned above are introduced by prepositions which otherwise introduce locations and „wholes‟ in part-whole relationships (in and of respectively). Given Barwise and Perry‟s (1983) definition of situations as spatio-temporal locations identified in linguistic expressions, this view of the Location arguments is entirely plausible: unless expressly considered as a physical object in its corporeality, a location is the spatial dimension of a situation, as a time interval is its temporal dimension. Since a situation has the semantic type s, both locations (as static locations, goals, or sources) and time intervals could have the same type, when referential. The common denominator of Themes and Locations could be rendered by the notion of „partaking‟: an Affectee can partake of a Theme (115) or of a Location (116) (apparently only Experiencers can, in certain idioms), but also a Theme can partake of a (dynamic) Location (117). This partaking relation can be represented as in (118), where an argument situated at a higher level in the chart is licensed by the positive value of a semantic feature on a lower argument (119): an Affectee is related to, or experiences, a Theme or a Location ([±relate]), and a Theme is located at a static Location, or moves towards a Goal or from a Source, partaking of it ([±partake]). Passivization, where possible, is associated with the negative value of the respective feature, which licenses the passivized arguments as optional obliques: The cat[-relate] (Theme argument) was found by John (oblique recipient); The top[-partake] (Location argument) was reached by the team (oblique agent & internal theme) in one hour.

81

(115) Affectee – Theme configurations: John (Experiencer) has a house (Theme). John (Recipient) found his cat (Theme). John (Perdant) lost his cat (Theme).

(116) Affectee – Location configurations: John (Experiencer) is in poverty / pain (static Location). John (Experiencer) got into trouble (Goal). John (Experiencer) got out of trouble (Source).

(117) Theme – Location configurations: John (Agent) took Bill (Theme) home (Goal). John (Agent) took / put Bill (Theme/Experiencer) out of his misery (Source). John (Theme) dwells in Chicago (Location). John (Theme) arrived in Chicago (Location).

(118) partaking relations (

: „experiences‟;

Affectee

Theme

Location

82

: „is located at / moves to, from‟)

(119) argument licensing:

Affectee

Affectee

Theme

θAffectee

θAffectee

θTheme

Theme [+relate]

Location[+relate]

Location[+partake]

Instances of Locations as sole arguments are very rare, and in any case marginal, because a location is a location only if something or something is there, a goal is a goal only if something or somebody reaches it, and a source is a source only if something or somebody leaves it: a table is a Location or a Goal (The knife is on the table; I put the knife on the table) only if construed as such, otherwise it is merely a physical object, or a portion of space(-time). Also temporal concepts like disaster or world (He is headed for disaster; He lives in another world) will not be Goals or Locations if nobody / nothing „partakes of‟ them, but remain finite or infinite intervals of space-time. On the other hand, an Agent can be an Agent even without a Causer, and a Recipient can be so without an Agent, because there are lower arguments (Affectees, Themes) which can license them as arguments with the respective theta-roles. Possible cases of Locations as sole arguments might be verbs like loom, Lat. impendēre and imminēre or Gm. bevorstehen „be imminent‟, where the subject seems to be neither an Agent nor a Theme (and even less an Affectee), but rather a Location featuring certain properties, so that whoever happens to get under its scope will feel the consequences. I will argue later in this chapter that what licenses the Location argument in the Latin and German examples is the prefix: the subject will be a Theme in Gm. Der Bahnhof ist da drüben „The train station is over there‟, but a Location in Folgenreiche Änderungen stehen bevor „Significant changes are imminent‟.

83

More debatable cases are SCr. Došlop je do rata „A war ensued / resulted‟ (lit. „It came to a war‟) and Pol. W tym domu straszyi „That house is haunted‟ (lit. „In that house it frightens). In the first example, the Goal is certainly an argument, but there might be a covert Theme subject meaning „the context‟ (whence the neuter gender agreement on the participle došlo „arrived‟). In the second one, the location might not even be an argument, the real arguments being a covert Agent („whatever is in the house‟ – but precisely, one does not know what there is, whence the apprehension) and a covert non-specific Experiencer („one‟).50 Even so, the semantic proximity to loom suggests that an interpretation where the locative expression w tym domu „in that house‟ is a Location argument is possible. The nature of the Location in the Polish example differs from the one with the English, Latin, and German verbs in the preceding paragraph, because it lacks the „remoteness‟ effect of the latter: what looms is usually seen or visualized as being remote in time or space („looms large‟), and so are the possible sole Locations arguments in the stative deadjectivals to be discussed in section 5.4.4, of type Lat. albēre „be white‟ and Russ. belet’i in the stative sense „be white‟, rather than the processual „become white‟. Such verbs are employed to describe visual impressions of distant and massive „things‟, such as a lake or the sky, whose large dimensions render insignificant any trace of corporeality, so that they are normally referred to as „there‟, rather than as „that‟. These verbs would not be used to describe objects that can be held in hand, moved, or otherwise manipulated.

50

I owe the Slavic examples to Wayles Browne. 84

The relationships between arguments mediated by the semantic features discussed above can be presented synoptically as in (120), with the Causer as the pole of agentivity (with no proto-patient entailments), and the Locations as the pole of passivity (with no proto-agent entailments). If verbs with Locations as sole arguments exist, they can be causativized (in improbable constructions like Gm. bevorstehen lassen „make something be imminent‟), and all logical relations between arguments (120) will be actualized.

(120) relations between arguments:

partaking

(

: „partakes of‟)

actional

(

: „acts upon‟)

causative

(

: „causes X to…‟)

Causer event Agent

Affectee

Theme

Location

85

(121) argument licensing:

Causer

Causer

Causer

Causer

θCauser

θCauser

θCauser

θCauser

Agent[+cause]

Affectee[+cause]

Theme[+cause]

Agent

Agent

Agent

θAgent

θAgent

θAgent

Affectee[+act]

Theme[+act]

Location[+act]

Affectee

Affectee

Theme

θAffectee

θAffectee

θTheme

Theme [+relate]

Location[+relate]

Location[+cause]

Location[+partake]

In the history of the Indo-European languages, numerous oscillations can be noticed in the ability to express partitives: some languages (Slavic) have preserved it more than others, some others have either extended (Fr. boire de l’eau (Partitive) vs. Lat. aquam (Acc) bibere „eat bread‟) or reduced it (remember with an accusative object vs. Goth. gamunan with a genitive object). These variations point to an affinity in terms of thematic relations between the theta-roles Theme and (static) Location which can be represented as in (122), where Themes and Locations share at least an „object‟ thematic relation, meaning an object which participates passively in a situation to a certain extent – either partly or totally. When this extent is regarded as relevant, the object becomes a partitive with a Location theta-role (typically marked with a partitive genitive: Fr. boire du thé, Russ. pit’i čaju „drink tea‟), otherwise it is expressed as a Theme (in the accusative: 86

drink tea). (122) can also represent the close affinity between Themes and Experiencers, based on a shared „patient‟ thematic relation, which focuses on the role of a passive object, rather than on the extent of its participation in a situation. A diachronic development in the expression of patients like Lat. me pudet (1.sg. Acc complement: Theme) > Fr. j’ai honte (1.sg. N subject: Experiencer) „I am ashamed‟ can be regarded then as a „leftward drift‟ of the patient thematic relation from Theme to Experiencer, by acquiring extra agent-like proto-roles (here: sentience).51

(122) Experiencer

patient

Theme

Fr. j’ai honte < Lat. me pudet

object

Location

Lat. aquam bibere > Fr. boire de l’eau

3.2.4 Qualities and verbal concepts In English, Qualities as arguments may accompany apparently any kind of other argument, in what can be termed „qualifying configurations‟ (comments on the examples will be given below):

(123) Causer – Quality configuration: The clouds (Causer) caused darkness (Quality). The clouds (Causer) made it get dark (Quality).

51

In methinks (1.sg. D complement) > I think (1.sg. N subject), the theta-role is Experiencer in both cases: the case

is the dative, cf. OE þyncan, Goth. þugkjan, both with the dative, the original sense being „it seems to me‟. 87

(124) Agent – Quality configuration: John (Agent) used to dress elegantly / with taste (Quality). John (Agent) acts / behaves like a fool / foolishly / in a foolish manner (Quality). Jean (Agent) fait le pitre (Quality). (French) „John acts like a clown.‟ (lit. „John makes the clown.‟)

(125) Theme – Quality configuration: The beer (Theme) is / got warm (Quality). That car (Theme) costs 20,000 dollars (Quality).52 John (Agent) painted the door (Theme) white (Quality). John (Agent) called Bill (Theme) a fool (Quality). John (Experiencer) considers Bill (Theme) intelligent / a genius (Quality).

(126) Affectee – Quality configuration: John (Experiencer) feels well / like a fool (Quality). John (Experiencer) was / felt / became sad (Quality).

(127) Location – Quality configuration: The room (Location) is / became empty (Quality). The forest (Location) is dark (Quality). The sky (Location) is / became cloudy (Quality). The day (temporal Location) is grey (Quality).

52

But the price is probably an instrumental oblique in John (Agent) sold the car (Theme) for 20,000 dollars. 88

The second example in (123) can be interpreted with the theta-grid Causer-Quality to the extent that Qualities can be sole arguments, which is the case as long as it is felt to be non-referential: it is dark meaning „there is darkness‟, rather than „the day is dark‟ (temporal location) or „this place is dark‟ (spatial location). If there is a covert spatial or temporal Location argument like „here‟ or „today‟, this will not be a good example. In (124), the Qualities appear to be arguments, contributing essential information, and the choice of the verb is less important: John dresses elegantly essentially means that John is elegant, and John acts like a fool can be paraphrased as John behaves like a fool, where the quality is an argument (*John behaves is incomplete). The second example in (123) also illustrates the variety of syntactic categories which can appear as Quality arguments. (125) features several typical patterns of Theme-Quality, including resultative constructions and „small clauses‟. In (126), the subject‟s theta-role is intuitively that of Experiencer, which usually, and perhaps always, can be shown to be the case by a using the verb like feel to differentiate the Experiencer-Quality configurations from the Theme-Quality ones: John (Experiencer) is / feels happy / warm vs. the beer (Theme) is / #feels warm. The thetarole of the subjects in (127) might seem debatable, yet there are adjectives which typically describe locations, rather than objects in their material dimension (empty, full), or describe only locations, like dark (not when applied to colors). In this sense, the forest is dark / cold can be paraphrased as it is dark / cold (Quality) in the forest (locative oblique?), said by somebody who is in the forest or who imagines himself (or the addressee, or somebody else) as being surrounded by darkness or feeling cold in the forest. The forest is dark cannot be said when pointing to a forest in the distance and describing the visual impression, unless dark refers to the color of the shape (spot, or line) in which the forest appears, so that the „remoteness effect‟ associated with Locations as sole arguments, alluded to above, is reversed with this type of

89

adjectives. Likewise, The forest is cold describes a different kind of sensation than This ice cube is cold, where the tactile element is more directly involved. Meteorological phenomena are probably on the borderline between corporeality and locational nature: the subject in The rain is cold can be interpreted as a Theme, referring to the substance (the drops of water), or as a Location, when the sentence can be paraphrased as It is cold in the rain. In The clouds are dark, the primary interpretation of the subject is probably as a corporeal Theme, but this is less clear when a mass of clouds accumulates and becomes a distant location more difficult to grasp visually as a single object; in this case, dark, referring this time to the color, can be applied to a distant location, as with the verbs of type Lat. albēre „be white‟ alluded to above. Qualities are non-referential, being outside of space and time, and their semantic type will be et or st, according to the type of the arguments they qualify. In the sections on argument structure in this chapter, I will use the notion „verbal concept‟ to designate the meaning of the verbal root, and I will consider that it has the type st. Verbal concepts and Quality arguments are both non-referential, and not infrequently the same predication can be expressed in either way, especially when the verbal concept is stative, e.g. John rejoices / is happy. Themes can be represented as participating in a quality or a verbal concept (i.e. in the kind of action, state, process, etc., denoted by the latter) by means of the positive value of the feature [±partake] introduced above. 53 To complete the picture, I will introduce a feature [±locate] to license Locations from verbal roots and Qualities, given that the only definitory aspect of Locations is 53

The expressions of qualification, typically having a Theme or an Experiencer as the subject and a Quality as an

internal argument, is not uniform across languages: in Irish, the quality can be denoted by a non-referential noun, and the qualified entity by a locative expression, in a Theme-Location configuration: scolaire atá ionam „I am a scholar‟, lit. „(it is) a scholar which is in me‟; Éireannach atá ann „he is Irish‟, lit. „(it is) an Irishman that is in him‟ (observation due to Michael Weiss). 90

their existence in space and time, and a feature [±qualify] by means of which a verbal root licenses Quality arguments (via a functional head Qua0), if clear examples of Qualities as sole arguments can be found. (128)-(133) are possible examples of predicates with sole arguments, licensed by the verbal root.

(128) verbal concept – Causer configuration: God (Causer) causes (verbal concept), but is not caused. L’homme (Agent) propose (verbal concept), Dieu (Causer?) dispose (verbal concept). „Man makes projects / proposes, but God decides.‟ (French)

(129) verbal concept – Agent configuration: John (Agent) is running (verbal concept). – unergative John (Agent) is reading (verbal concept). – antipassive

(130) verbal concept – Affectee configuration: John (Affectee) rejoiced (verbal concept). – unaccusative

(131) verbal concept – Theme configuration: John (Theme) disappeared (verbal concept). – unaccusative

(132) verbal concept – Location configuration: Disaster (temporal Location) looms (verbal concept). The war (temporal Location) began / ended (verbal concept).

91

(133) verbal concept – Quality configuration: It’s getting (verbal concept) dark / late (Quality).

Qualities as arguments appear to qualify subjects only at stage-level, when they describe a temporary state of the subject (134a). On the other hand, individual-level predications, describing a definitory quality or permanent state of the subject (134b), do not identify situations located in space-time, and do not allow locative modifiers (with either spatial or temporal value), whereas even when Qualities appear as sole arguments, with no subject, such a modification is permitted (134c):

(134a) John is happy (today / in Chicago). (134b) John is a man (#today / #in Chicago). (134c) It’s getting dark (now / in here).

With individivual-level subjects (134b), the Qualities, which are themselves atemporal, will not be licensed by a feature [+qualify] of the verbal root, as they are in (133). It can be argued that in this case they do not need to be licensed at all, since they inherently belong to the subject, and do not combine with anything to produce a new situation. All other predications, involving all other types of arguments, combine these arguments and the verbal concept in the description of a situation; also the cases where there is only one argument (128)-(133), this argument combines with the verbal concept, thereby identifying the situation. (135) integrates Qualities and verbal concepts into the synopsis in (121). Causers, Agents, Affectees, Themes, Locations, and Qualities, are licensed as arguments by the positive

92

values of the features [±cause], [±act], [±relate], [±partake], [±locate], and [±qualify] respectively: a Causer causes; an Agent acts; an Affectee relates to the situation by being sentient, or having a „point of view‟; a Theme participates passively in situations, partakes of spatio-temporal locations, or instantiates qualities; a Location exists in space-time and can functions as a spatio-temporal frame or background for a situation; and a Quality can qualify another participant or the entire situation as an attribute (133) conceptualized in the absence of a spatio-temporal support.

(135) argument licensing: Causer θCauser Agent[+cause] / Affectee[+cause] / Theme[+cause] / Location[+cause] / Quality[+cause] / vb.con.[+cause] Agent θAgent Affectee[+act] / Theme[+act] / Location[+act] / Quality[+act] / verbal concept[+act] Affectee θAffectee Theme [+relate] / Location[+relate] / Quality[+relate] / verbal concept[+relate] Theme θTheme Location[+partake] / Quality[+partake] / verbal concept[+partake]

93

Location

Quality

θLocation

θQuality

Quality[+locate] / verbal concept[+locate]

verbal concept[+qualify]

For instance, a person can: cause an event without participating in it, by acting upon a participant which is [+cause] (is „caused to…‟) (136a); cause an event by participating in it, acting upon another participant which is [+act] (is acted upon) (136b); experience a temporary condition which is [+relate] (is experienced) (136c); or be at / „partake of‟ a location which is [+partake] (is occupied by something) (136d). Likewise, a day as a temporal Location, can be described as sunny, this quality being [+locate] (is located in, or actualized by, the day) (136e), and a Quality as sole argument can be licensed by a vague verbal concept which is [+qualify] (is completed with the essential information provided by the Quality argument) (136f).

(136a) John (Causer) made Bill (Affectee[+cause]) angry (Quality[+relate]). (136b) John (Agent) ate the apple (Theme[+act]). (136c) John (Affectee) was feeling lonely (Quality[+relate]). (136d) John (Theme) lives in Chicago (Location[+partake]). (136e) The day (Location) is sunny (Quality[+locate]). (136f) It’s getting (verbal concept[+qualify]) late (Quality).

This system will remain in place even if it the inventory of theta-roles is reduced or expanded: if Affectees turn out to be a kind of Locations in some or all languages, they can be eliminated from the condensed version of (135) in (137) by deleting the sixth row and the third column.

94

(137)

Causer

Agent

Affectee

Theme

Location

Quality

verbal

verbal

verbal

verbal

verbal

verbal

concept[+cause]

concept[+act]

concept[+relate]

concept[+partake]

concept[+locate]

concept[+qualify]

Quality[+cause]

Quality[+act]

Quality[+relate]

Quality[+partake]

Quality[+locate]

Location[+cause] Location[+act]

Location[+relate] Location[+partake]

Theme[+cause]

Theme[+act]

Theme [+relate]

Affectee[+cause]

Affectee[+act]

Agent[+cause]

Finally, there can be verbs with no arguments, where the predicate consists only of the verbal concept, which itself completely identifies the situation, if there are no identifiable participants. Such is the case of verbs describing meteorological and some other natural phenomena. However, if a participant is imagined, they can acquire arguments – e.g. the Agent in Gk. Zeùs húiei „Zeus rains‟.

3.2.5 Dynamic theta-roles

3.2.5.1 Theta-roles, event boundaries, and telicity Since intuitively “the Source has the sense of a preceding Location, and the Goal of a subsequent one” (Gruber 2001: 258), it is possible to regard the state of the Theme being at the Goal or Recipient as the upper boundary of the event, and the state of the Theme being at the Source or Perdant as the lower boundary of the event. An event expressed by a verb with an argument of this type contains an inherent transition between a „before‟ and an „after‟: before vs. after leaving the Source / Perdant, or before vs. after reaching the Goal / Recipient. In the former case, the event is subsequent to a state during which the Theme is located at the Source, or is in the

95

Perdant‟s possession; in the latter case, the event is prior to a state when the Theme is located at the Goal, or is in the Recipient‟s possession. After the Theme leaves the Source / Perdant, and before it reaches the Goal / Recipient, there is an event of change of location (motion) or transfer of possession. I will represent the boundaries of events as the semantic features [I] („beginning‟) and [F] („end‟): Sources and Perdants have the feature [I], and Goals and Recipients have the feature [F]. Correspondingly, any verb with one of these four types of arguments will express syntactically a boundary of the event, hence a transition between situations. Involving a transition between two heterogenous situations, these verbs are also inherently telic:

(138) John went to Chicago[F] (Goal). John left Chicago[I] (Source). John[F] (Recipient) received an apple / remembered the song. John gave Bill[F] (Recipient) an apple. John[I] (Perdant) lost his money / forgot the song. John deprived Bill[I] (Perdant) of his rights.

A goal-like argument stands for, or signals, a situation that is construed as a goal: the Recipient Bill in John gave Bill a book, and the Goal to Chicago in John went to Chicago, denote the direction towards the location where the goal situation will obtain. (The same holds, mutatis mutandis, for Perdants and Sources, but they are less frequently expressed as arguments than Recipients and Goals are.) This location can also be conceptual or metaphoric, rather than spatiotemporal, as in John brought the task to (its) completion, in which case it can be interpreted as a Quality – more exactly, completion was a Goal and bring a motion verb at the time when the

96

idiom was created, after which the semantic bleaching of the verb accompanied the reinterpretation of the complement as a Quality argument. In John brought the task to completion, the DP completion denotes / denoted the goal of the action, which is the state of the task having been completed. In this case, the goal is the state of the task having been completed. Even when a goal-like argument denotes an individual, it also presupposes that the action is meant to reach a temporal goal: in John gave Bill a book, the state of the book being with Bill, or in Bill‟s possession, constitutes the goal of the action of giving. Likewise, in John went to Chicago, the DP Chicago denotes the spatial goal of the action, but also stands for, or signals, a temporal goal (John being in Chicago).54 As such, verbs with goal-like arguments are inherently Perfective, because the goals of the actions expressed by them coincide with the states identified in the respective sentences.

54

Due to their prospective value, goal-like arguments also have an affinity with the future tense, whence periphrastic

means for the expression of the future tense (Binnick 1974; Halpern 1975) – English I am going to read this book, Spanish voy a leer este libro, French je vais lire ce livre, Welsh yr wyf i’n mynd i ddarllen y llyfr hwn –, as well as with imperatives: in colloquial Basque, the imperative form goazen „let‟s go‟ is used instead of the regular imperative auxiliaries to combine with the allative of the verbal noun, e.g. goazen liburu hau irakurtzera „let‟s read this book‟, lit. „let‟s go to the-reading-this-book‟ (irakurtze- „reading‟). In these expressions, a verbal noun or an infinitive is used with or without an allative marker (English to, Spanish a, Welsh i, Basque -ra, French Ø) to refer to a temporal situation which constitutes a goal. Several idioms with motion verbs, like this came to mean… or this goes to prove…, illustrate the same transposition of temporal goals into more abstract relations. Also various expressions of modality in various languages contain phrases what ultimately denote goals, e.g. have to or need (to) plus an infinitive describing a situation which is the goal towards which the subject tends (cf. Haegeman‟s 1989 discussion of the conditions of usage of the construction be going to in English). 97

3.2.5.2 Theta-roles and Slavic-type aspect Given the fact that Perfectives always involve transitions, it is to be expected that verbs with one of these four types of arguments in Slavic will be Perfective or at least allow a Perfective reading (like the determinate Imperfectives qua determinate), and this is indeed the case. For instance, in all but one of the Russian equivalents of the verbs in (138), the Perfective or determinate Imperfective functioning qua determinate (i.e. having a Goal argument) is the morphologically basic form, from which the aspectual counterpart is derived in general by suffixation: exat’i-det „go (by vehicle)‟ (ezdit’i-indet), uexat’p „leave (by vehicle)‟ (uezžat’i), dostat’p „receive‟ (dostavat’i), vspomnit’p „remember‟ (vspominat’i), dat’p „give‟ (davat’i), zabyt’p „forget‟ (zabyvat’i), lišit’p „deprive‟ (lišat’i), but terjat’i „lose‟ (poterjat’p), with a well-behaved nearequivalent utratit’p (utračivat’i) used in slightly different contexts. Furthermore, most of the (originally) primary – i.e. morphologically simple – Perfectives in Slavic were verbs with such arguments. Dostál (1954: 100-101) classifies the primary Perfectives in Old Church Slavonic according to lexical-semantic criteria, and notes that most of them denote some kind of motion – whether concrete, as in pastip „fall‟, sěstip „sit down‟, leštip „lie down‟, statip „stand up, rise‟, vrěštip „throw‟, skočitip „jump‟, stavitip „set‟, vratitip „turn‟, varitip „pass ahead, outstrip‟, stǫpitip „step‟, pustitip „let go, leave‟, or involving some kind of transfer, as in datip „give‟, jętip „catch, take‟, kupitip „buy‟, desitip „come upon, find‟. In other primary Perfectives or biaspectuals, belonging to several of Dostál‟s morpho-semantic classes, the temporal Goal (the effect) is much more prominent than the action it follows (the cause), as in resultatives: reštip/i „say‟, (j)avitip „show, reveal‟, jazvitip „wound‟, vrěditip „harm‟, živitip/i „make alive‟, roditip „give birth‟, svoboditip „free‟, prostitip „free‟, gonozitip „save‟, krĭstitip/i „baptize‟, svętitip/i „hallow‟, sramitip „put shame on‟, mĭstitip „take revenge‟, truditip/i „bother /

98

overcome‟, pečatĭlětip „seal‟.

55

Isačenko (1962: 352-355) provides a list of what are

synchronically primary perfectives in Russian, and the semantic characterizations of these perfectives coincide with those in Old Church Slavonic, although many of the primary perfectives in modern Russian are historically derived forms, where the prefixation has become morphologically opaque – e.g. skazat’p „say‟, umeret’p „die‟. The most typical arguments associated with Perfectivity are those denoting locations or physical objects which constitute the goals of motions or the recipients in actions involving some kind of transfer, whether concrete or figurative. The verbs with such arguments are the most prone to function as Perfectives, because the presence of a Goal, Recipient, Source, or Perdant argument can be readily construed as indicating the inherent existence of a transition. (Although the Perfective nature of such verbs results from the existence of the respective arguments via the telicity these arguments imply, not all Perfectives are telic – and therefore not all Perfectives have this type of arguments –, because, as I argued earlier, the transitions presupposed by Perfectivity can also result from the nondurative / punctual nature of the semelfactives, which are atelic.) A motion or a transfer can bring about a resultative state either instantaneously – as in „falling‟, „throwing‟, „giving‟, „taking‟, „leaving‟, etc., where there is a real or an imagined transition between contiguous locations –, or duratively, as in „walking‟, „riding‟, „flying‟, and other manners of motion, where the source and the goal are not contiguous, and the distance between them takes time to cover, given the cognitive impossibility of ubiquity. Probably any situation can be conceived of as durative, especially with plural participants (John is throwing stones, The squad entered the building, cf. Vendler 1967), so that the respective verbs can form Imperfectives as well, which denote the situation in itself, rather than marking a transition to

55

The other verbs listed by Dostál as primary perfectives have infinitives derived with the suffix -nǫ-. 99

another situation defined by being at a location (goal). On the other hand, a motion between two non-contiguous locations can very easily be conceived of as a durative situation, because covering a distance takes time, but also as a transition, given the presence of a spatial goal indicating a situation (temporal goal) to be reached. The other class of lexical Perfectives are those describing events commonly conceived of as instantaneous, because punctual events can more easily be treated as marking a transition between a „before‟ and an „after‟ than as situations in themselves. Many of these verbs in Slavic have infinitive stems derived with the suffix -nǫ- or its reflexes (OCS kosnǫtip „touch‟, SCr. krenutip „move‟, Russ. kriknut’p „shout‟, Pol. ciągnąćp „pull‟, etc.), or present stems with the reflexes of the suffix -ne/o- (OCS statip „stand up, rise‟, 1sg. stanǫp; SCr. pastip „fall‟, 1sg. padnemp; etc.). On the other hand, verbs with static Location arguments are Imperfective, and generally denote states, e.g. Russ. žit’i „be alive, live / dwell‟, Pol. mieszkaći „live, dwell‟, and also the type Russ. belet’i „be white‟ zelenet’i „be green‟, if the arguments are Locations in the stative uses of such verbs. Since being at a Location involves time, the respective verbal concepts are durative (stative), and the verbs are Imperfective. Among Affectees, the Experiencers are the counterparts of the static Locations, but not all verbs with Experiencers arguments are Imperfective – although many of them are, e.g. OCS bolětii „be ill‟, imětii „have‟, also vidětii/p „see‟, slyšatii/p „hear‟ –, for an Experiencer can be as well affected in a punctual event, e.g. in the Perfective variants of OCS vidětii/p and slyšatii/p mentioned above, with the meanings respectively „spot‟ and „hear (suddenly)‟.56

56

A different theory of theta-roles and argument linking than the one developed here might affect these conclusions,

but for the purposes of this discussion I will continue implementing this theory. 100

3.3 The syntactic representation of theta-roles

3.3.1 Introduction In order to be pronounced, arguments must receive „case‟, which can be morphologically marked or not. Chomsky (1981/1993) distinguished between structural Case and non-structural case: the former is associated with specific syntactic positions, while the latter constitutes the morphological expression of grammatical relations like subject, direct object, and indirect object.57 For the present analysis of the interaction between argument structure and aspect, only non-structural case is relevant: for instance, in Indo-European languages, a Theme will typically have accusative case (non-structural); if it does not receive case in situ, it has to move to a position where it can get Case (structural), but such movement is outside the scope of this discussion.

57

Within the category of non-structural case, Woolford (2006) further distinguishes between lexical and inherent

case, the former being more idiosyncratic because selected by lexical heads, and the latter more regular, being associated with certain theta-positions, such as dative for Goals and ergative for Agents. She also claims that lexical case is proper to Themes, and inherent case is proper to Agents and Goals. This distinction may be relevant for the more conservative IE languages: I will suggest that locations, goals of motion, and objects of sensory perception and mental activities are closer to the verb, as are Themes (objects and experiencers), with the first group of arguments being licensed by a Locative / Goal head and having respectively locative, accusative / dative, or genitive case, and the Themes being licensed by a theme head and usually having accusative case. There will be a variety of lexical cases assigned by the functional heads (Locative / Goal and Theme respectively) that are closer to the verb, whereas the arguments that do not receive lexical case from a head immediately above the verb would have a more regular inherent case – typically, the dative for Recipients, including beneficiaries, and maleficiaries (arguments of verbs meaning „give‟, „send‟, „help‟, „harm‟ in Gm. jemandem (D) schaden, etc.), and also accusative for Agents in causative constructions (in Sanskrit). 101

The VP structure that I will assume here is partly the traditional one, with the Agent argument generated higher than the Theme, except that every argument is licensed by a corresponding functional head, which assigns it non-structural case. In this sense, every such head can be described as an applicative morpheme, although applicatives proper introduce additional arguments to a base verb. An applicative morpheme either increases a verb‟s valency by adding a new argument to its theta-grid, or specifically marks the existence of a certain type of argument.58 In the following example from Ainu (Shibatani 1990: 65), the location is denoted in the first sentence (with a non-applicative verb) by the PP [poro cise ta], which is an oblique, but in the second sentence by the DP [poro cise], which is an argument of the applicative verb:

(139) poro big

cise

ta

house in

horari live

„He lives in a big house.‟

(140) poro big

cise

e-horari

house APPL-live

„He lives in a big house.‟

There is no difference between arguments introduced by applicatives and arguments with the same theta-role which belong to the basic theta-grid of the verb (i.e. are not applicatives proper).

58

“Applicative constructions are a means some languages have for structuring clauses which allow the coding of a

thematically peripheral argument or adjunct as a core-object argument.” (Peterson 2007: 1) 102

In this framework, and assuming UTAH, 59 a Theme argument will be licensed by a Theme head Th0 in the specifier of a Theme phrase ThP, an Agent argument will be licensed by an Agent head Ag0 in the specifier of an Agent phrase AgP, etc. There is crosslinguistic evidence for the existence of each one of these heads, which can either be filled by applicative morphemes or lack phonological content; in the latter case (phonologically null heads), the existence of a Ø morpheme is manifested in case assignment to the respective argument. The VP (or the voice phrase vP, cf. Kratzer 1996) will be replaced by an XP, where X0 is the highest argument head. The verbal root will be in the complement of the lowest argument-introducing head and will undergo head movement, collecting the affixes it finds in the heads; the surface forms will result from head-movement. For instance, a proposition with a transitive verb will usually be expressed in an AgP, and this AgP will correspond to the VP/vP in the traditional view:

(141)

AgP John

VP ↔

Ag' Ag0

John

V0 read-[+active]

ThP a book Acc

V'

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

a book Acc

Root read-

John reading a book The Theme is commonly regarded as a „direct object‟ and a complement of the verb. However, the data presented in the following sections, where the arguments which can be introduced as

59

The Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis: “Identical thematic relationships between items are represented

by identical structural relationships between those items at the level of D-structure.” (Baker 1988: 46). 103

applicatives by prefixes are not only Goals, Locations, Recipients, etc., but also Themes – and they are among the most frequent applicatives in Indo-European and Hungarian – strongly suggest that the status of the Themes is not different from the one of other arguments. Agents are generally considered to be „external arguments‟ licensed in a „voice head‟ v 0 (Kratzer 1996); in this discussion, Ag0 corresponds to v0.

3.3.2 Argument structure It might seem that the individual theta-roles can be realized syntactically by arguments in various structural positions. For instance, in sentences with a Location and a Theme argument, the subject is seemingly either the Location or the Theme, and likewise with Experiencers and Themes (attribution of theta-roles cf. Gruber 2001):

(142) John (Experiencer) has a book (Theme). The book (Theme) belongs to John (Experiencer).

(143) The books (Theme) are in the bag (Location). The bag (Location) contains books (Theme).

With other sets of theta-roles, the syntactic representation is more uniform, e.g. in a set of Agent, Theme, and Goal, the Agent will be the subject, and in a set of Recipient and Theme, the subject will usually be the Recipient.60 On the other hand, (142) and (143) allow each an alternative analysis. In (142), to John in the second example might as well be interpreted as a Location, if

60

Gruber (2001: 262) refers to such regularities as “projection asymmetries of simple thematic functions”. 104

this example is compared with John (Theme) belongs here (Location). In both cases, the complement of belong designates the place of the Theme in a conceptual space where everything belongs to a certain place, or where some regulations, customs, etc., obtain which assign possessors to some things:

(142') John (Experiencer) has a book (Theme). The book (Theme) belongs to John (Location).

For the second example in (143), 61 I suggest that the reason why two arguments can have different structural positions lies in the diachrony: contain inherits the argument structure of Lat. continēre „hold together‟ (later „contain‟), whose arguments were originally an Agent and a Theme, because continēre preserves the argument structure of tenēre „hold‟, from which it is derived by prefixation. (In the section treating completive prefixes, I show that these prefixes, of which con- is one of the most typical in Latin, do not modify the argument structure of the base verbs.) Later in Latin, when continēre acquired the new meaning „contain‟, the subject modified its theta-role from Agent to Location, but the hierarchical structure remained unchanged, and was taken over as such at the time when contain was borrowed into French and English: Agent – Theme > Location – Theme. A similar development took place with the unprefixed verb from Latin to Spanish: Lat. tenēre „hold‟ has Agent – Theme, but Sp. tener „have‟ ended up with Experiencer – Theme. Likewise, verbs with the meaning „have‟ in several branches of IndoEuropean developed from roots meaning „hold‟ (> „keep‟ > „have‟) or „take‟: Lat. habēre (< PIE

61 ?

The bag has books is rather bad, due to the selectional properties of have when used for alienable possession.

With inalienable possession, The bag (Experiencer) has a small handle (Theme) is fine. 105

*gheb(h)-), Goth. haban (< PIE *kap-), OCS imětii „have‟ vs. -jęti „take‟ (both from PIE *h1em-), and Gk. ékhein originally meaning „keep, hold‟ (< PIE *se h-, cf. Skr. sah- „endure, withstand‟). With the exception of Gk. ékhein, these verbs contain a stative suffix, and their argument structure is Experiencer – Theme, as opposed to the Agent – Theme structure of the root when used in non-stative formations. The import of these remarks is that irregularities in the structural hierarchy of arguments, as in the second example of (143) with Location – Theme, can have a historical explanation. The hierarchy Theme – Location, as in the first example, is much more common both in English and cross-linguistically, and the reverse order is not the result of an inversion of the more common one, but of a modification of theta-roles: the structure is preserved even when the theta-roles of the respective arguments change; in the following sections I will present several such cases of structure preservation. A further conclusion following from this discussion is that, at least in the Indo-European languages, as well as in Hungarian, structure seems to be fairly stable diachronically and rigid synchronically, in the sense that there is a prevailing structural hierarchy of arguments – with explainable exceptions, like the one in (143). This syntactic hierarchy in (144) is amply corroborated by data from the most common patterns of linear order of arguments in English (145) and many other languages,62 and it provides a reliable framework for the analysis of verbal prefixation later in this chapter.

62

Several authors have suggested that Affectees are generated higher than Locations. For instance, Pylkkänen‟s

(2008) distinguishes between „high applicatives‟ (Affectees / Recipients) and „low applicatives‟ (Locations / Goals). As a rule, I rely in this discussion on data from languages with relatively rigid word order, like English. The list in (145) is not an exhaustive catalogue of theta-grids, but is only intended to illustrate (144). 106

(144) Prevailing hierarchy of argument heads: Caus0 > Ag0 > Aff0 (Exp0 / Rec0 / Perd0) > Th0 > Loc0 (Loc0 / Go0 / So0)63 > Qua0

(145) Caus0 > Ag0 > Th0: John (Causer) made Bill (Agent) kill Mark (Theme). Caus0 > Aff0 > Qua0: John (Causer) made Bill (Experiencer) feel well (Quality). Caus0 > Aff0 > Th0: John (Causer) made Bill (Perdant) lose money (Theme). Caus0 > Aff0: Tornadoes (Causer) frighten John (Affectee). Ag0 > Aff0 > Th0: John (Agent) deprived Bill (Perdant) of his rights (Theme). Ag0 > Aff0 > Th0: John (Agent) gave Bill (Recipient) an apple (Theme). Ag0 > Th0 > Loc0: John (Agent) took Bill (Theme) to London (Goal). Ag0 > Th0 > Loc0: John (Agent) gave an apple (Theme) to Bill (Goal). Ag0 > Th0 > Qua0: John (Agent) painted the door (Theme) white (Quality). Ag0 > Loc0: John (Agent) went to London (Goal). Ag0 > Loc0: John (Agent) exited the building (Source). Aff0 > Th0: John (Experiencer) owns a car (Theme). Aff0 > Th0: John (Experiencer) likes / fears dogs (Theme). Aff0 > Th0: John (Recipient) received an apple (Theme). Aff0 > Th0: John (Perdant) lost an apple (Theme). Aff0 > Th0: John (Experiencer) enjoys the heat (Theme). Aff0 > Th0 > Qua0: John (Experiencer) considers Bill (Theme) intelligent (Quality).64 63

I will keep Loc0 as both a generic label for Locations, including Goals and Sources, and as a specific one for static

Locations, disambiguating when necessary. 64

The attribution of theta-roles is debatable if one considers Baker‟s (1997) observation that the Affectees, when

subjects, have agent-like properties, in that they form mental representations of the affecting factor (the Theme), so 107

Aff0 > Loc0: John (Experiencer) rejoiced at (hearing) the news (temporal Location). Aff0 > Qua0: John (Experiencer) feels sad (Quality). Aff0 / Th0 > Qua0: John (Experiencer / Theme) is / got old (Quality). Th0 > Loc0: John (Theme) lives in London (Location). Loc0 > Qua0: The bottle (Location) is empty (Quality). Loc0 > Qua0 This winter (temporal Location) is very cold (Quality).

I will regard unergatives (John came to London / danced) as Agents with agent and theme thematic relations („internal theme‟), and unaccusatives (John arrived in London) as Themes. Recipients / Perdants and Locations / Goals / Sources apparently do not co-occur as arguments: in John gave Bill a book in London, there is a Recipient argument (Bill), but in London is an adjunct, as the predicate is complete without the latter (gave Bill a book), but not without the former (*gave a book – even when uttered as such, a Recipient is always understood: „to somebody‟, or „away‟, except in special uses like Cows give milk). Likewise, in John sent a book to London for Bill, there is a Goal argument (to London), and the recipient or beneficiary (Bill) is an adjunct: sent a book to London is a complete predicate, while *sent a book is not („to somebody‟, „somewhere‟, „away‟, etc. is understood if unexpressed). Consequently, I will be assuming that, at least in the languages treated here, a verb can have maximally three arguments (not counting Causers): Ag0 > Rec0 / Perd0 > Th0; Ag0 > Th0 > Go0 / So0; Exp0 > Th0 > Qua0; Ag0 > Th0 / Exp0 > Qua0 (in „small clauses‟: John considers John intelligent / happy); and Ag0 > that an alternative theta-grid of the verb in this example could be Agent(John)-Theme(Bill)-Quality(intelligent). This might prove useful in cases of apparent violations of UTAH, like John (Agent, not Affectee) considers Bill (Affectee) unhappy (Quality) – where the adjective unhappy normally qualifies sentient Affectees, rather than Themes, for which sentience is irrelevant. 108

Th0 / Exp0 > Qua0 (in resultative constructions: John painted the door white). The first two templates accomodate cases like John sent Mary a book vs. John sent a book to Mary or their Polish equivalents Jan wysłałp Marii książkę vs. Jan wysłałp książkę do Marii: the indirect object is a Recipient in the first member, and a Goal in the second member. A hierarchy Ag0 > Rec0 > Loc0 might be envisaged if the (metaphorical) Location in Gm. Hans half mir (Recipient) bei dieser Aufgabe (Location) „Hans helped me with this task‟ is an argument, i.e. if the predicate half mir „helped me‟ by itself is understood as having an extra argument taking its reference from the context (referring to the task for which the help is provided). Otherwise, if half mir is a complete predicate, the theta-grid will be Ag0 – Rec0. A structure Ag0 – Rec0 would be conceivable in beistehen „stand by, help‟, if the underlying metaphor „stand by‟ were dissolved and the subject‟s agentivity were regarded as more salient than its original theta-role as an Experiencer of the proximity to the helped party – Er (Agent) ist mir (Recipient) beigestanden „He helped me‟ as originating in Er (Experiencer) ist mir (Location) beigestanden „He stood by me‟. The semantic shift, if completed, is in any event not reflected in syntax, as the choice of the perfect auxiliary (sein „be‟ rather than haben „have‟) suggests. Furthermore, the Recipient‟s original thematic role as a Location is still conspicuous in the fact that the object to which the help applies is an adjunct: in Er ist mir (bei der Durchführung dieser Aufgabe) beigestanden „He helped me (in carrying out this task)‟, the bracketed constituent is dispensable to a larger extent than it is in Er hat mir viel (dabei) geholfen „He help me a lot (with it)‟ when talking about a specific task known from the context. Also, viel „a lot‟ cannot be felicitously used in Er ist mir ganz oft / *viel beigestanden „He helped me quite often / a lot‟, for this adverb does not make much sense when used to qualify an entity‟s presence at a location, which was the original meaning of the sentence.

109

3.3.3 The licensing and interpretation of arguments This section presents the syntactic framework for the subsequent analyses. It consists of a minimal set of working assumptions which are consistent with the data and allow a maximally economical explanation. I first state the entire theory, and illustrate it afterwards with examples. Arguments are licensed by functional heads and either receive non-structural case in situ or have to move to another position where they can get structural Case and become subjects. I will be assuming that non-structural case is assigned by the positive value of the binary semantic features in (135) / (137) on the functional heads: -

Caus0 has no such feature, and a Causer always moves: a Causer is always a subject;

-

Ag0 can have the feature [±cause]: -

[+cause]: there is a Causer (subject), and the Agent receives case in situ;

-

[-cause]: there is a passivized Causer (as an optional adjunct), and the Agent moves for Case and becomes a subject;

-

no [±cause]: there is no Causer, and the Agent moves for Case and becomes a subject; Agents in non-causative or passivized causative sentence are always subjects;

-

Aff0 can have one of the features [±cause] and [±act]: -

[+cause]: there is a Causer (subject) causing the Affectee to be affected;

-

[+act]: there is an Agent (subject) affecting the Affectee; the Agent theta-role includes the thematic relations of source or goal (or giver or taker respectively);

-

[-cause] or [-act]: there is a passivized Causer or Agent; the Affectee moves for Case and becomes a subject, if the language allows this move, for reasons which remain to be explained;

110

-

neither [±cause] nor [±act]: there is no Causer or Agent, and the Affectee becomes a subject – with the proviso that these subject Affectees might in fact be Agents, with all the theoretical implications set forth by Baker (1997);

-

Th0 can have one of the features [±cause], [±act], or [±relate]: -

[+cause]: there is a Causer (subject) causing the Theme to be acted upon;

-

[+act]: there is an Agent (subject) acting upon the Theme;

-

[+relate]: there is an Affectee (subject) affected by the existence, appearance, or disappearance of the Theme in its sensory or mental universe;

-

[-cause], [-active], or [-relate]: the Causer, Agent, or Affectee, are optional adjuncts, and the Theme moves for Case and becomes a subject;

-

no [±cause], [±act], or [±relate]: there is no Causer, Agent, or Affectee, and the Theme is a subject;

-

Loc0 can have one of the features [±cause], [±act], [±relate], or [±partake]: -

[+cause]: there is a Causer (subject) causing the Location to fulfill this role: John causes the war to threaten;

-

[+act]: there is an Agent (subject) moving to the Goal or from the Source;

-

[+relate]: there is an Affectee (subject) affected by its existence at the Location, reaching the Goal, or leaving the Source;

-

[+partake]: there is Theme (subject) located at, reaching, or leaving, the location;

-

[-cause], [-act], [-relate], or [-partake]: the passivization of Location is extremely restricted cross-linguistically;

-

no [±cause], [±act], [±relate], or [±partake]: the Location moves for Case and becomes a subject (War is imminent);

111

-

Qua0 can have one of the features [±cause], [±act], [±relate], [±partake], or [±locate]: -

[+cause]: there is a Causer (subject) causing the Quality to actualize: The clouds caused darkness;

-

[+act]: there is an Agent (subject) performing an action in the way described by the Quality – examples where the Quality is an argument, rather than a modifier adjunct, are not very numerous: John dressed elegantly could be one, as long the properties of the dressing are regarded as essential for the predicate‟s meaning;

-

[+relate]: there is an Affectee (subject) affected by its own Quality;

-

[+partake]: there is Theme (subject) displaying the Quality;

-

[+locate]: there is a Location (subject) featuring a role-specific Quality (emptiness, darkness, etc.);

-

[-cause], [-act], [-relate], [-partake], or [-locate]: I am not aware of instances of passivization of Qualities;

-

no [±cause], [±act], [±relate], [±partake], [±locate]: the Quality moves for Case and becomes a subject, if the language allows it, e.g. Hun. Csend van / lett „It is / became quiet‟ (csend „quietness‟).

Since the feature [+act] involves energy, it applies only to directional arguments: Recipients, Perdants, Goals, and Sources (146). (And perhaps static Locations are only rarely sole arguments precisely because their „energy level‟ is too low to become manifest by itself.)

112

(146) „energy chain‟: Agent

Recipient / Perdant / Experiencer

Theme

Goal / Source / Location

The assymetries in the possibility of passivization across theta-roles might find a partial explanation in functional terms, if the (main) function of passivization can be shown to be the foregrounding of individual arguments by promoting them into the subject position. (In several languages, another function of passivization is to derive sentences with impersonal Agents, Recipients, etc.) Agents and Themes are by far the most frequent subjects of passive sentences: John (Agent) was made to eat the apple by Bill (passivized Causer); John (Theme) was greeted by Bill (passivized Agent); John (Theme) was seen by Bill (passivized Experiencer / Agent? – cf. Baker 1997). There is an enormous discrepancy between the number of verbs which take Themes as internal arguments, or Agents in causative sentences, and the number of ditransitive verbs which take Affectees as middle arguments (assuming they are lower than the Agents and higher than the Themes), or Locations or Qualities as the lowest arguments. With causatives, Agents can be made to act, eat, hunt, dictate, walk, run, travel, talk, laugh, cry, etc. Likewise, Themes as internal arguments can be seen, heard, beaten, shaken, said, conceived of, created, destroyed, etc. – the list includes perhaps the vast majority of the verbs in any language. On the other hand, the ditransitive verbs which take Affectees are lexical variations on „give‟ and „take from‟ – give, sell, present with, lend, show, and deprive respectively, plus maybe a few others; if

113

these Affectees (Recipients and Perdants) are to be foregrounded as subjects, verbs with meanings in the area of „receive‟ and „lose‟ are usually available, give / present → receive, show → see, deprive → lose (Affectee subjects), sell → buy, lend → borrow (Agent subjects):

(147) X gave / presented / sold / showed / deprived Y (with / of) Z → → Y received / bought / saw / lost Z (from / to X)

Since the Affectees of both concepts „give‟ and „take from‟ can be subjects of „receive‟ and „lose‟, there is far less need for passivizing Affectees than there is for passivizing Agents and especially Themes, which can be combined as internal arguments with a potentially infinite variety of verbal concepts. Creating new verbs in the lexicon in order to foreground Themes would double the already very large number of verbs which take Themes as internal arguments – there would have to be independent lexical items meaning „be seen‟, „be written‟, etc. –, so that the task of foregrounding Themes is assigned to the syntax, where passivization can produce forms for any verb with an internal Theme argument. As for Agents, since the expressions involving a Causer and an Agent are periphrastic in English (make / have somebody write, etc.), passivization is the most convenient way to foreground the Agents, because it can apply freely to any agentive verb, with no morphological obstacles (such as phonological restrictions in the derivation). Locations and Qualities are hardly ever passivized (the Qualities apparently never), because contexts requiring their ad hoc foregrounding are unlikely: Locations essentially define spatio-temporal backgrounds and frames for the situations, and Qualities denote non-referential atemporal notions akin to verbal concepts, which are equally unlikely to need foregrounding. Besides, the verbs with Location arguments appear to be variants of „be (at)‟, „go (to)‟, and

114

„come (from)‟,65 and those with Quality arguments seem to be variations on „be‟ and „become‟ (cf. their analysis by means of lexical-semantic templates by Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1985). For instance, feel in John (Experiencer) feels well (Quality) could be analyzed as „be‟ with an external Experiencer argument, where the selection of feel over be serves to make explicit the role of the external argument as an Affectee (Experiencer), rather than a Theme or Location: The table (Theme) is / #feels red; The winter (temporal Location) is / #feels cold. I will be assuming throughout the general principles of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993), stating that words are built in syntax, with the syntactic structure of a sentence being established before the insertion of the morphemes making up words, as well as Baker‟s (1988) Mirror Principle, which states that morphological derivations must reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa). The XPs introducing arguments embed each other according to the hierarchy in (144), and the lowermost X0 takes the verbal root as its complement, which undergoes head movement. The structure of a VP with several arguments Xi with the respective theta-roles Rolei introduced by functional heads Argi0 with morphological exponents Ai (which can be null) will be as in (148). As I mentioned above, the maximum number of arguments seems to be three; I only consider here the „event-internal‟ arguments: Causers do not enter into this discussion yet.

65

The number of these variants largely can be increased by the expression of the manner of motion, as in the verbs

of motion in Slavic, or by expressing properties of the participants, e.g. the shape of the object in Navajo. 115

(148)

ArgnP Xn

Argn' Argn0 An

fn-1

… Arg2P X2

Arg2' f1

Arg20 A2

Arg1P X1

Arg1' Arg10 A1

f0 Root Root

All ArgiPs, as well as the Root, are interpretable: in John give- Bill an apple, the root (give-) denotes the verb‟s lexical meaning („give‟, rather than „sleep‟ or „be‟); give- a book (linear order is irrelevant here) can be significantly contrasted with other expressions, e.g. give- an apple; give- Bill a book is a predicate; and John give- Bill a book is a proposition.66 If an ArgiP is represented as a function fi of type st, 67 and the Root as f0, then the denotations of the morphological exponents of a head Argi0 (i.e. Ai) and a phrase ArgiP (i.e. fi) will be as below for

66

Cf. Marantz‟s (1993) analysis of applicatives as taking predicates of events and introducing new arguments.

67

The extension of the use of this semantic type from propositions to fragments of predications of type give- or give-

a book or give- Bill a book should be unproblematic: each of these fragments can either be described as an act of „giving‟ / „giving a book‟ / „giving a book to Bill‟ or it cannot, and the final step of checking whether the act can be identified by the proposition „John giving Bill a book‟ does not differ from the preceding steps in any significant way. The concept of „giving‟ by itself describes one aspect of an event (its „nature‟) in the same way in which a verb with no arguments (rain, etc.) does, except that in the latter case it is the only aspect of the event (pure occurrence, with no participants). 116

arguments of semantic type e, where fi(e) means „the event e involves fi‟, and Rolei(x)(e) means „x has Rolei in e‟:68

(149) [[Ai]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Rolei(x)(e)]

(150) [[fi]] = [[Ai]] ([[fi-1]] )([[Xi]] ) = λes[fi-1(e) & Rolei(Xi)(e)]

i = 1 for the argument closest to the root, and Root denotes the verbal concept:

(151) [[A1]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Role1(x)(e)]

(152) [[f1]] = [[A1]] ([[f0]] )([[X1]] ) = [[A1]] (Root)(X1) = λes[Root(e) & Role1(X1)(e)]

For the next argument:

(153) [[A2]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Role2(x)(e)]

68

Pylkkänen (2008: 35) uses a similar approach for her „low applicatives‟ (Recipients, etc.): the denotation of the

functional head is a function λxeλyeλfestλes[f(e, x) & Theme(e)(x) & to-the-possession(x,y)], with the order of the arguments following from the syntactic structure on which she bases her analysis. In (149), Rolei is a function of type est, i.e. the roles Causer, Agent, Affectee, Theme, Location, and Quality are functions of this type. In a transposition from metalanguage to object language, these labels preserve the semantic type est, because they are relational nouns – an entity (type e) can be an agent only in an event (type s) where its agency is exercised: the noun agent has therefore type est – so that the formulation in (149) is consistent with an extension of the inventory of denotations of common nouns in order to take into account their relational quality. 117

(154) [[f2]] = [[A2]] ([[f1]] )([[X2]] ) = λes[f1(e) & Role2(X2)(e)] = = λes[Root(e) & Role1(X1)(e) & Role2(X2)(e)]

Finally, when the third argument is added, which is most frequently an Agent, the end result is an event identification (cf. Kratzer 1996, who introduces Agents as „external arguments‟ via event identification): in (156), the proposition f3 identifies an event e by the lexical meaning of the verb (Root) and the roles of the participants:

(155) [[A3]] = [[Agent]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Agent(x)(e)]

(156) [[f3]] = [[A3]] ([[f2]] )([[X3]] ) = λes[f2(e) & Agent(X3)(e)] = = λes[Root(e) & Role1(X1)(e) & Role2(X2)(e) & Agent(X3)(e)]

A special case is the event-external argument (the Causer), for which the counterparts of (149)(150) will be as below, where fi-1 is the non-causative proposition:69

(157) [[Caus0]] = λfstλxeλes[Causer(x)(e) & e's[e = CAUSE(e') & f(e')]]

(158) [[CausP]] = [[Caus0]] ([[fi-1]] )([[X]] ) = = λes[Causer(X)(e) & e's[e = CAUSE(e') & fi-1(e')]]

69

In her discussion of causatives, Pylkkänen (2008) gives the denotation of a “universal causative element” as

λpstλes[e's[e = CAUSE(e') & p(e')]], where the Causer is not introduced as an argument. 118

3.3.4 Event boundaries from theta-roles The presence of a directional argument (Goal, Source, Recipient, or Perdant) entails a transition – either from the event to a state post-event (goal-like arguments: Goal and Recipient) or from a state pre-event to the event (source-like arguments: Source and Perdant) –, and verbs with such arguments are Perfective. As such, for a given directional argument Xm with the theta-role Rolemd, the condition Rolei(Xi)(e) in (150) entails that the event e which it identifies constitutes a transition (159): a mover does not move after reaching a goal, and a Perdant has not yet lost the object before actually losing it.

(159) Rolemd(Xm)(e) → e's[e < e' & Rolemd(Xm)(e')] – Xm is goal-like Rolemd(Xm)(e) → e's[e' < e & Rolemd(Xm)(e')] – Xm is source-like

A goal is not a goal after the end of a motion event, but rather a static location, and likewise a recipient is an experiencer after the receiving has been completed, a source is still a location before the motion away from it, and a perdant is still an experiencer before the losing occurs:

(160) Goal(x)(e) → e's[e < e' & Location(x)(e')] → e's[e < e' & Goal(x)(e')] Recipient(x)(e) → e's[e < e' & Experiencer(x)(e')] → e's[e < e' & Recipient(x)(e')] Source(x)(e) → e's[e' < e & Location(x)(e')] → e's[e' < e & Source(x)(e')] Perdant(x)(e) → e's[e' < e & Experiencer(x)(e')] → e's[e' < e & Perdant(x)(e')]

(159)-(160) are instances of the condition of Perfectivity Cp as formulated in (14) – in the reverse direction on the time axis, for the entailments of source-like arguments –, which explains why 119

verbs with directional arguments are lexical Perfectives. The denotation of a proposition fn with a directional argument Xm being as in (161), it entails that „if a situation S is identified by f n, then S is the transition into or out of a state e'‟ (162), which makes fn Perfective:

(161) [[fn]] = [[An]] ([[fn-1]] )([[Xn]]) = = λes[Root(e) & Role1(X1)(e)…& Rolemd(Xm)(e)…& Rolen(Xn)(e)]

(162) Lexical Perfectives with goal-like arguments (Goals and Recipients): [[fn]] (S) = [Root(S) & Role1(X1)(S)…& Rolemd(Xm)(S)…& Rolen(Xn)(S)] Rolemd(Xm)(S) → e's[S < e' & Rolemd(Xm)(e')] [[[fn]] (S) → e's[S < e' & Rolemd(Xm)(e')]]

Lexical Perfectives with source-like arguments (Sources and Perdants): [[fn]] (S) = [Root(S) & Role1(X1)(S)…& Rolemd(Xm)(S)…& Rolen(Xn)(S)] Rolemd(Xm)(S) → e's[e' < S & Rolemd(Xm)(e')] [[[fn]] (S) → e's[e' < S & Rolemd(Xm)(e')]]

fn is not a verb, but a proposition, and the Perfectivity derived in (162) applies to it, rather than to the verb. For Perfectivity to apply to the verb itself, it is sufficient to consider (25), which shows that a transition is necessarily expressed by a Perfective, therefore the aspectual form required by fn will be the Perfective. Other lexical Perfectives are verbs whose Themes have the similar entailments by virtue of their theta-role. The Perfectivity in (162) can be obtained not only from (159), but from any

120

entailment of transition by other arguments. The only case of this kind is that of non-incremental Themes in non-statives, which are affected in their entirety. In this case, there is no part xmi of a Theme Xm that is not involved in the event – I formulate this condition conventionally as Theme(xmi)(e):

(163) [Theme(Xm)(e) & xmiXm[Theme(xmi)(e)]] → e's[e < e' & Theme(Xm)(e')]

Non-incremental Themes of punctual verbs like die, kill (achievement) and hit (semelfactive / achievement) have the same entailments, and these verbs are also Perfective – in Russian, the Perfective is primary, and the Imperfective is derived by suffixation: umeret’p „die‟ (umirat’i), ubit’p „kill‟ (ubivat’i), udarit’p „hit‟ (udarjat’i). A non-incremental Theme can only be involved as a whole in the event, its involvement marking the limits of the event. It is important to note that this delimitative role of non-incremental Themes in non-stative contexts follows from their theta-role – which can be regarded as a subcategory of Themes: Themenon-incremental – and has nothing to do with the identity of the entity performing that role, e.g. whether the Theme is quantized or not, because quantized Themes do not impose limits on any event. For instance, a wall in itself cannot be described as incremental or non-incremental, but its Theme role is incremental in John painted the wall, and non-incremental in The ball hit the wall. The quantized or non-quantized character of the Theme is relevant in situation aspect, where a quantized Theme can turn an activity into an accomplishment by contributing telicity to the event: activity John drank water (non-quantized Theme) → accomplishment John drank a glass of water (quantized Theme). In situation aspect, the upper boundary of the event is contributed in SpecThP by a contingency (the presence of a quantized Theme), whereas in Slavic-type aspect a non-

121

incremental Theme is marked as such in Th 0, so that any XP in SpecThP must be nonincremental, and the verb is lexically Perfective for a structural reason – the denotation of the head Th0. It can be said that Slavic-type aspect „pins down‟ on the syntactic tree – more exactly, in the argument-introducing heads – the event boundaries whose presence in situation aspect is contingent upon the identity of the arguments. Russian can express the process of reading a book (quantized Theme) with the Imperfective (164), whereas only the Perfective is possible with a non-incremental Theme when reporting a non-iterated event (165); using the Imperfective would imply a slow killing or have a conative nuance, with the right context, in which case the Theme will be incremental:70

(164) Ivan čitali knigu. (čitat’i „read‟) „Ivan was reading the book.‟ Ivan pročitalp knigu. (pročitat’i „read‟) „Ivan read the (entire) book.‟

(165) Ivan ubilp Kolju. (ubit’p „kill‟) „Ivan killed Kolja.‟ Kogda Miša vošël v komnatu, on uvidel, kak Ivan ubivali Kolju. (ubivat’i „kill‟) „When Misha entered the room, he saw how Ivan was trying to kill Kolja.‟

The Perfectivity which results from the presence of non-incremental Themes in non-statives reflects the Cp contributed by this kind of Themes:

70

The use of the Imperfective in (165) can also have a general-factual value, which is irrelevant here. 122

(166) Themenon-incremental(x)(e) → e's[e < e' & Themenon-incremental(x)(e')]

(167) Lexical Perfectives with non-incremental Themes: [[fn]] (S) ↔ [Root(S) & Role1(X1)(S)…& Thememnon-incr.(Xm)(S)…& Rolen(Xn)(S)] Thememnon-incremental(Xm)(S) → e's[S < e' & Thememnon-incremental(Xm)(e')] [[[fn]] (S) → e's[S < e' & Thememnon-incremental(Xm)(e')]]

In the following sections I will test the validity of this analysis on several examples. I will not discuss prefixed verbs yet, as they will form the object of a more detailed treatment in the next chapter.

3.4 Arguments: applications of the theory

3.4.1 Causers and Agents Pylkkänen (2008: 84-86) classifies causatives into “non-voice-bundling” and “voice-bundling”; in a “voice-bundling” causative, the Causer includes the agent thematic relation. This distinction can apply not only cross-linguistically 71 but also language-internally: Sanskrit has causative morphology and both kinds of causative constructions. For example, with the causative nāyaya„make lead / have (smth.) led‟ (non-causative present stem naya- „lead‟), the first construction has three arguments: a Causer, an Agent (in the accusative), and a Theme (168), while the second construction has a Causer and a Theme as arguments, with the agent (in the instrumental)

71

Pylkkänen contrasts the non-voice-bundling causatives in Finnish and Japanese with the voice-bundling ones in

English. 123

being optional (169). If there is no Causer, but only an Agent directly acting upon the Theme, the verb is not causative (170).72

(168) Rāmaḥ Vijayaṃ (Acc) aśvaṃ nāyayati „Rāma makes Vijaya lead a horse.‟

(169) Rāmaḥ Vijayeṇa (I) aśvaṃ nāyayati „Rāma has a horse led by Vijaya.‟ (170) Vijayaḥ aśvaṃ nayati „Vijaya is leading a horse.‟

The first causative construction (168) closely parallels its English gloss, while the second one (169) is structurally identical to Hungarian causatives (vezettetni „have (smth.) led‟ vs. vezetni „lead‟), where only the causer and the object are arguments, the agent being optional:

(171) Ráma lovat vezettet Vidzsajával (I). „Rāma has a horse led by Vijaya.‟

In English, the lower verb (lead) will move up to Ag0, but this head movement is arrested at this level, because it encounters the trace left by make-. The root make- moves from Caus0 to get inflection, so lead- cannot raise farther up, and this derives the correct linear order:73 72

The Sanskrit examples, except the Vedic ones, are with resolved sandhi. Examples from Vedic in Hock (1991),

Classical Sanskrit in Speijer (1886/1993), and Middle Indo-Aryan in Bubeník (1998). 124

(172) Non-voice-bundling causatives:

CausP Rāmaḥ

CausP Rāma

Caus' Caus0

Caus0

AgP

-ay- + ablaut Vijayaṃ

Acc

Caus' AgP

make-

Ag' Ag0 Ø[+cause]

ThP

aśvaṃ

Acc

Ag'

Vijaya

Acc

Ag0 Ø[+cause]

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

ThP

Root

Acc

nī-

Rāmaḥ Vijayaṃ aśvaṃ nāyayati

Th'

a horse

Th0 Ø[+act]

Root lead-

Rāma makes Vijaya lead a horse

„Rāma makes Vijaya a lead a horse‟

(173) Voice-bundling causatives:

CausP

CausP (Vijayena)

Rāmaḥ

(Vidzsajával)

Caus' Caus0

Caus'

Ráma

Caus0

ThP

-ay- + ablaut

ThP

-tetaśvaṃ

Acc

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

Rāmaḥ (Vijayena) aśvaṃ nāyayati

Th'

lovat

Root nī-

Acc

Th0 Ø[+act]

Ráma lovat vezettet (Vidzsajával)

„Rāma has a horse led (by Mahendra)‟

73

I will be representing all syntactic trees as head-initial in order to facilitate cross-linguistic comparison. 125

Root vezet-

The Causer always has to move from SpecCausP, because there is no feature with a positive value to assign it case.74 While Agents are licensed by Ag0 and receive case in situ when Ag0 is marked as [+cause], the instances where they have to move for Case will be those when there is no Causer argument – in this example, when Ag0 is not marked as either [+cause] or [-cause]:

(174)

AgP Ag'

Vijayaḥ

Ag0 Ø

ThP aśvaṃ

Acc

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

Root nī-

Vijayaḥ aśvaṃ nayati „Vijaya is leading a horse‟

Just as the presence vs. absence of the feature [±cause] on Ag0 translates the presence vs. absence of a Causer as argument or modifier (resulting from passivization), the relationship between an intransitive (unaccusative) and a homonymous transitive in English can be represented as the absence vs. presence of an Agent argument:

74

This entails the theoretical point that the lack of case assignment is not the result of the negative value of a feature,

but of the absence of a feature‟s positive value: both the absence and the negative value of a feature leave the respective argument caseless. 126

(175)

AgP Ag'

John

Ag0 Ø

ThP the window

Th'

Th0 Ø

ThP the window

Root

Acc

break-

the window broke

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

Root break-

John broke the window

While Sanskrit has both voice-bundling and non-voice-bundling constructions with the same causative morpheme, Hungarian can have both types of causatives on the same verb. The causative suffix -(t)a/et- can be voice-bundling (173) or non-voice bundling, as in occasional double causatives with the same suffix: kigombozni „unbutton‟ (here „button up‟) → kigomboztatni „make (somebody) button up‟ → kigomboztattatni „make (somebody) have (something) buttoned up‟.

(176) sűrű könnyeimmel kigomboztattatom (folk song) „I will make somebody have it buttoned up with my dense tears‟

Voice-bundling only are the suffixes -ít- (építeni „build‟ vs. épülni „get built‟, with different derivational suffixes from an adjectival root ép(p)- „whole‟), which is productive, and -t- (tr. akasztani vs. itr. akadni „hang‟, with an old change d > sz [s] before t), which is unproductive – provided these are real causatives, and not transitive agentives (with the suffix probably in Ag0). The sequence of morphemes in verbs derived with two (or more) suffixes suggests the order Caus20 > Caus10: transitive építeni „build‟ derives causative építtetni „have (smth.) built‟, with the 127

sequence ép-ít-tet-. The non-voice-bundling causative is higher than the voice-bundling one, which includes the agent thematic relation, and the agent thematic relation expressed by the voice-bundling Causer1 in SpecCaus1P relates to the theme thematic relation of the argument with Theme theta-role, which contains also a theme thematic relation (the theme of „getting built‟). This Causer1 (causer + agent) is not expressed as an argument, because there is no positive value of a feature on Caus10 to assign it case – causative heads have no feature at all –, and it cannot move for Case because the structural slots are already occupied by the higher Causer2, which moves (177). The derivation of (177) proceeds by applying (149), (150), (157), and (158), as in (178).

(177)

Caus2P Caus2'

János

f2

Caus20

Caus1P

-tet-

Caus1'

PRO

f1

0

Caus1

ThP

-ít-

Th'

házat

Acc

Th0 Ø[+cause]

f0 Root ép-

János házat építtet „János has a house built‟

(178) Th0: ThP (f1):

[[ Ø]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Theme(x)(e)] [[házat ép-]] = [[ Ø]] ([[f0]] )([[házat]]) = = λes[get-built(e) & Theme(a house)(e)] 128

Caus10:

[[-ít-]] = λfstλxeλes[Causer(x)(e) & e's[e = CAUSE(e') & f(e')]]

Caus1P (f2):

[[házat épít-]] = [[-ít-]] ([[f1]] )([[PRO]] ) = = λes.[Causer(somebody)(e) & e's[e = CAUSE(e') & f1(e')]] = = λes.[Causer(somebody)(e) & e's[e = CAUSE(e') & & get-built(e') & Theme(a house)(e')]]

Caus20:

[[-tet-]] = λfstλxeλes[Causer(x)(e) & e's[e = CAUSE(e') & f(e')]]

Caus2P:

[[házat építet-]] = [[-tet-]] ([[f2]] )([[János]] ) = = λes[Causer(János)(e) & e's[e = CAUSE(e') & f2(e')]] = = λes[Causer(János)(e) & e's[e = CAUSE(e') & Causer(somebody)(e') & & e''s[e' = CAUSE(e'') & get-built(e'') & Theme(a house)(e'')]]]

This absence of features on Caus0 heads accounts for the similar situation with double non-voicebundling causatives: with kigomboztattatni, Causer1 is not an argument (just as in the case of építtetni), and it cannot be an oblique either, because it could not be distinguished from the agent – the thematic relations in this verb are causer 2, causer1, agent, and theme –, since both the agent and the causer1 as obliques would be in the instrumental: one would be unable to tell which is which, and word order is apparently not sufficient or reliable enough for this purpose. A more special class of voice-binding causatives is constituted by the verbs of positioning (lay, set, etc.), where the caused situation is a state described by the posture of a Theme at a Location.

129

3.4.2 Verbs of positioning and Location arguments

The distinction between Location and Goal arguments cannot be made in syntax, because they are mutually exclusive semantically: in John went to school in Chicago, only to school (goal) is an argument, because went to school is a complete predicate (and went is not, unless „away‟ is understood). On the other hand, the analysis of Location and Goal as generated in the same head has the desirable consequence of capturing the morphological and semantic relationship between intransitive (unaccusative) and transitive verbs of position of type lie vs. lay and sit vs. set. I will refer to the transitive members in such pairs as „verbs of positioning‟. In the second pair, the first member goes back to PGmc *setan(an), with e-grade of the root (PIE *sed-) and null suffix, and the second one to PGmc *satjan(an), with o-grade of the root and *-j- suffix. This Germanic suffix, although continuing the causative PIE *-eie/o- (which derives the Sanskrit causative nāyaya- mentioned above), synchronically might seem to produce not causatives, but agentives: unlike its Sanskrit cognate, it does not appear to add a Causer argument to an agentive verb, but only marks transitivity or transitivizes intransitives, i.e. it introduces an Agent, rather than a Causer. As such, Goth. sitan „sit‟ (< PGmc *set(j)an < PIE *sed-) and satjan „set‟ (< PGmc *satjan < PIE *sod-eie/o-), although differing in transitivity, will have the Location argument in the same position.75 In order to preserve the connection with theta-roles, I keep separate labels for Locations and Goals as LocP and GoP, even though they are structurally in complementary distribution, both standing between ThP and the root (179).

75

I assume for the sake of this and the next examples that Location is an argument with verbs of position and

positioning. 130

(179)

AgP Ag'

sa manna

Ag0

ThP sa manna

Th0 Ø

ThP

ablaut + -jþata barn

Th' LocP ana sitla

Acc Loc'

Loc0 Ø[+partake]

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

Loc/GoP ana sitl

Loc/Go'

Loc/Go0 Ø[+partake]

Root *set-

Root *set-

sa manna sitiþ ana sitla

sa manna satjiþ þata barn ana sitl

„the man is sitting on a chair‟

„the mann is putting the child on a chair‟

Since the Goal argument provides an inherent final endpoint, one would expect the verb to be Perfective, yet it derives several prefixed variants, including one with the most „neutral‟ Perfectivizer (gasatjan „put‟). Also in Slavic, its cognate and semantic counterpart OCS saditii/p has a Perfective reading only in Old Church Slavonic, and it became a primary Imperfective in the other Slavic languages, e.g. SCr. saditii (posaditip) „set, plant‟.76 There seems to be a principled reason for the causatives of the verbs of position(ing) to be, or tend to become, Imperfectives, for also in Hungarian the causatives ültetni „set, plant‟ (stative ülni „sit‟) and fektetni „lay‟ (stative feküdni „lie‟) are perceived as primary Imperfectives describing durative processes (a Perfective reading normally arises only when the verb is prefixed). The explanation seems to lie in the event-external nature of the causative: if X set / 76

This is also the case with Goth. ligan „lie, liegen‟ (static) / „lie down, sich legen‟ (dynamic) vs. lagjan „lay‟. In

Slavic, the Imperfective is primary, although suppletive, e.g. Russ. klast’i „lay‟ (the Perfective is typically suppletive: Russ. položit’p „lay‟, with the simplex Imperfective found in the reflexive form ložit’sjai „lie down‟.) 131

laid X on Z is equivalent to X caused [event Y to sit / lie on Z], there is no inherent final (or initial) endpoint to the causation, because X can induce the state of „Y sitting / lying on Z‟ by holding Y on Z indefinitely. In this case, Goth. lagjan and satjan will have to be regarded as preserving the causative structure of their Indo-European predecessors, in that AgP would actually still be analyzed as a CausP. This is manifestly the case in Sanskrit, where the cognate root sad- derives the present stems itr. sīda- „sit‟ (static: Gm. sitzen) / „sit (down)‟ (dynamic: Gm. sich setzen) and caus. sādaya- „set, put‟ (Gm. setzen), the latter with unambiguously causative morphology. However, considering the theta-role of the locative argument of satjan as being a Location, rather than a Goal, is rather unlikely, given that the case of this argument is most often the accusative (ana sitl in the example with satjan),77 which implies motion and is contrasted with the dative-locative denoting rest (ana sitla in the example with sitan). As such, the accusative case of the Goal argument renders the interpretation of the sentence sa manna satjiþ þata barn ana sitl „the mann is putting the child on a chair‟ as sa manna CAUSE [þata barn sitan ana sitla] „the man CAUSE [the child to be seated on a chair]‟ quite improbable. One solution would be to consider that the Goal (when expressed with the accusative: ana sitl) does supply an inherent endpoint to the event, but since this endpoint is internal to the event of sitting, this is irrelevant at the CausP level, where there is no endpoint of the causation, therefore the outcome is an Imperfective. This would imply that the causatives as a class are durative and atelic (i.e. the causative morpheme is marked as [+durative] and [-telic]), which might be a factor in the morphological similarity between the causative and atelic durative formants in Indo-European (cf. chapter 4). In

77

The dative-locative is used occasionally with verbs of positioning, in constructions with the prepositions in

„in(to)‟ and ana „on(to)‟. 132

Hungarian, a form like kitisztíttat- „have (smth.) cleaned up‟ (cf. Imperfective tisztít- „clean‟ and Perfective kitisztít- „clean up‟) is structurally unambiguous: only [[ki-tisztít-]tat-] „have (smth.) cleaned up‟ is a possible structure, and *[ki-[tisztít-tat-]] is impossible because the corresponding meaning of „have (smth.) cleaned and finish having (it) cleaned‟ is not the correct one for kitisztíttat-. This constitutes rather strong evidence for the analysis of completive prefixes, in Indo-European as in Hungarian, as generated lower than the causative morphemes. Sk. sīda- displays another type of duality. When meaning „start sitting‟, dynamic sīda- is the inchoative of static sīda-, and as such it carries the feature [I] encoding the beginning of a sitting state. In Slavic, the semantic equivalents of sīda- in the static (stative) and dynamic (inchoative) senses are Imperfective and Perfective respectively, e.g. Pol. siedzieći „be seated‟ and siąśćp „sit down‟ (→ siadaći). The relationship between the two argument structures of sīdainvolves a dual interpretation of the subject: as a Theme in the static variant, and as an Agent in the dynamic one.78 The Slavic equivalents of dynamic sīda- are Perfective, because the presence of a Goal argument in SpecGoP entails an inherent final endpoint of the event; unlike in Goth. satjan, GoP makes a predicate describing an event of sitting down, rather than a state of being seated.

78

Here I am extrapolating from English, where the subjects of sentences with verbs of reflexive positioning are

unergative (the subjects are Agents, generated in SpecAgP), and cannot appear with there-inversion: *There sat / lay down two people on the sofa. With unaccusatives (Theme subjects), this inversion is possible: There were / lived / died two people here. According to this test, also the subjects of (some) motion verbs are unaccusative: There came / arrived two people here; ?There went two people there – the subject is a Theme in the former, and an Agent in the latter. 133

(180)

ThP Rāmaḥ

AgP Rāmaḥ

Th' Th0 Ø

Ag' 0

LocP

GoP

Ag

Ø āsane

L

āsane/-aṃ

Loc' Loc0 Ø[+partake]

Root

L/Acc

sad-

Go'

Go0 Ø[+act][F]

Rāmaḥ āsane sīdati

Rāmaḥ āsane / āsanaṃ sīdati

„Rāma is sitting on a couch‟

„Rāma is sitting down on a couch‟

Root sad-

3.4.3 Affectees When there is no Agent expressed (as the source of giving, helping, or harming), the Recipient fails to receive non-structural case, just like a Theme or an Agent remains caseless and has to move when there is no Agent or Causer respectively:

(181)

AgP

RecP Ag'

John

Ag0 Ø

Rec0 Ø[F]

RecP Rec'

Bill

D

Rec'

Bill

f2

Rec0 Ø[+act][F]

a book

Acc

Th' Th0 Ø[+relate]

Root receive-

Th'

a book

Acc

ThP

f1 ThP

(from John)

Th0 Ø[+relate]

John giving Bill a book

f0 Root give-

Bill receiving a book (from John)

134

The denotation of John giving Bill a book makes reference to a transition (to the state where the book is at Bill, or in Bill‟s possession) due to the presence of a Recipient:

(182) Th0:

[[Ø]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Theme(x)(e)]

ThP (f1):

[[give- a book]] = [[ Ø]] ([[f0]] )([[a book]]) = = λes[give(e) & Theme(a book)(e)]

Rec0:

[[Ø]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Recipient(x)(e)]

RecP (f2):

[[give- Bill a book]] = [[ Ø]] ([[f1]] )([[Bill]]) = =λes[give(e) & Theme(a book)(e) & Recipient(Bill)(e)]

Ag0:

[[Ø]] = λfstλxeλes.[f(e) & Agent(x)(e)]

AgP:

[[John give- Bill a book]] = [[ Ø]] ([[f2]] )([[John]]) = = λes[give(e) & Theme(a book)(e) &Recipient(Bill)(e) & Agent(John)(e)]

[[John give- Bill a book]] (S) = [give(S) & Theme(a book)(S) & & Recipient(Bill)(S) & Agent(John)(S)] Recipient(Bill)(S) → e's[S < e' & Recipient(Bill)(e')] [[[John give- Bill a book]] (S) → e's[S < e' & Recipient(Bill)(e')]] e': „the book being at Bill‟

Given that the Recipient constitutes an inherent final endpoint of the action, the verbs with Recipient arguments are Perfective. In these verbs in Slavic, the Perfective is primary, and the Imperfective is derived: e.g. Pol. daćp → dawaći „give‟, dostaćp → dostawaći „get‟, otrzymaćp → otrzymywaći „obtain‟, odebraćp → odbieraći „receive‟. Likewise, Goth. giban „give‟ and niman

135

„receive‟ act as lexical Perfectives (Lambdin 2006: 16). 79 This is also the case when there is no transfer involved that would be limited spatially (and implicitly temporally as well) – namely, when the Recipient has a beneficiary or maleficiary thematic relation: in Polish, pomócp → pomagać „help‟ does conform to the aspectual pattern proper to verbs with Recipient arguments, but this is so because pomócp is derived from móci „can‟. On the other hand, in Pol. szkodzići → zaszkodzićp (and frequentative szkadzaći) „harm‟, the Imperfective is primary, because the verb is denominal (from szkoda „harm‟), meaning „inflict harm‟ – an action which does not involve an inherent ending, and can be easily construed as durative or habitual. In section 3.2.5.1 I introduced the event features [I] and [F], standing respectively for the beginning and the end of a situation. I also argued that directional arguments – both Locationtype (Goals, Sources) and Affectee-type (Recipients, Perdants) – inherently express one of these features, and that both features are present with non-incremental Themes, which are affected in their entirety. In the next chapter I will discuss cases where these event features are introduced by verbal prefixes, when these prefixes have a directional meaning. In Indo-European, the directional or static meaning of most preverbs results from their original function as free adverbials.

79

In the sense „take‟, where the subject is an Agent, niman can act as an Imperfective, with a Perfective ganiman. 136

4 ASPECT INSIDE THE VP: SLAVIC-TYPE ASPECT

4.1 General remarks Svenonius (2004) classifies Slavic preverbs into “lexical” (VP-internal) and “superlexical” (VPexternal). Perfectives derived with lexical prefixes are idiosyncratic in their semantic relation to the base verb, whereas the ones derived with superlexical meanings are more uniform and predictable, typically denoting Aktionsarten (inceptive, delimitative, etc.). I discuss the first class of prefixes in the remainder of this chapter, and the second one in the next chapter. The most conspicuous morphological mechanism for the expression of Slavic-type aspect is prefixation. This chapter examines the role of verbal prefixes in this respect, as well as other functions of prefixation, which are not aspectual, but whose discussion supports the overall analysis. The first section discusses the historical origin of prefixes: originally they were free adverbial particles, which were later specialized ad-nominally, as prepositions or postpositions, or ad-verbally, as verbal prefixes or (post-verbal) particles, e.g. read through vs. Gm. durchlesen „read through, peruse‟. This specialization can be followed from the earliest attestations of the Indo-European languages, and instances of univerbation are common even in the later stages of these languages, e.g. in Gm. zu Grunde legen „lay to the basis (of)‟ → zugrunde legen → zugrundelegen „take as a basis‟, the entire PP zu Grunde „to (the) basis‟ is incorporated into the verb. This fact renders analyses of verbal prefixation as incorporation by head movement of prepositions from P0 into V0 diachronically untenable and synchronically implausible. Section 4.3 presents the syntactic analysis of prefixes as adjoining argument-introducing functional heads and the semantic combination within the framework introduced in the previous chapter. In the evolution from free adverbials to verbal prefixes, the mechanism of the semantic

137

compositionality is preserved: both free adverbials and preverbs combine by predicate modification, rather than function application. The subsequent sections treat the role of prefixes in complex applicative heads and their aspectual contribution, starting with cases where their applicative function is most obvious, as in licensing Theme arguments. The discussion proceeds to classes of Perfectives where the prefixes specify the path followed by the action towards its completion (Russ. vypit’p „drink up‟) or to a goal (Russ. vyjtip „go out‟), as well as verbs where the prefixes do not Perfectivize, but describe the metaphorical spatial configurations of the arguments (Russ. podležat’i „underlie‟) in locative applicatives. The final discussion treats comitative arguments introduced as applicatives.

4.2 The adverbial origin of verbal prefixes The particles that became verbal prefixes or pre-/postpositions in the attested stages of IndoEuropean were originally adverbs. Saussure (1915/1985: 247) illustrates this evolution with two examples:

(183) “aller au-devant de la mort”: īre mortem ob

īre [PP ob mortem] obīre mortem

(184) “je viens de la montagne”

óreos baínō katá

[PP katà óreos] baínō katabaínō óreos

More examples with adverbial uses of particles which more frequently function as preverbs and prepositions in Greek (185)-(186), Latin (187), and Gothic (188):

138

(185) mélanes anà bótrues ēsan (Iliad 18.562) „up above there were bunches of black grapes‟

(186) en dè ía psukh (Iliad 21.569) „there is only one soul inside‟

(187) satis superque uixisse (Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes 1.110) „having lived enough and more‟ (lit. above)

(188) du þaim þoei faura sind (Philippians 3.14) „to those who are outside‟

In (183), ob „in front‟ starts out as an adverb, and is subsequently reanalyzed as either a preposition taking an accusative object (mortem „to death‟), or as a preverb (in obīre „go to meet‟). In either variant, the original allative-accusative noun mortem of the intransitive80 verb īre „go‟ preserves its case, with the effect that ob, become a preposition, is interpreted as assigning accusative case to its nominal complement, and the prefixed verb obīre is treated as a transitive, with mortem as its direct object. Likewise in (184), katá „down‟ starts out as an adverb, and is subsequently reanalyzed either as a preposition taking a genitive object (óreos 80

The accusative in some Indo-European languages, like Latin and Sanskrit, is associated with at least two distinct

theta-roles: Theme and Goal. The original accusative case assignment to Goals is visible in several other branches, where prepositions taking directional complements assign them accusative case, as opposed to the static Location complements, which receive other cases, depending on the language and the case syncretisms that occurred in each situation (locative, ablative, dative-locative, genitive-ablative, or instrumental). 139

„from (the) mountain‟), or as a preverb (in katabaínein „descend‟). (I discuss this reanalysis in the next section.) In both instances, the original ablative-genitive noun óreos preserves its case, so that, once katá has become a preposition, it is interpreted as assigning genitive case to its complement, and the prefixed verb katabaínein is treated as assigning genitive case to its object. In this connection, Elizarenkova (1982: 382) states that “in Vedic, there are no verbal prefixes that could be described in derivational morphology”, and there is no way to determine whether these „prefixes‟ are free or bound morphemes. She gives the following example, where the prefix and the verb constitute a “semantic unit”, whether they are separated (ava „off‟ + vraśc- split‟; veśyā avrścat) or contiguous (pra- „to‟, yam- „give, offer‟):

(189) ava sraktīr veśyāvrścad índraḥ prāyacchad víśvā bhójanā sudāse (RgVeda 6.16.17) „Indra split off the edges, and offered all the provisions to Sudāsa.‟

In Homer, these particles “can be used absolutely, next to a verb as adverbs or preverbs, or next to a noun as prepositions” (Chantraine 1963: 82), and the particle can follow the verb (below apo-enarízein „despoil‟):

(190) óphr᾽ hoì toùs enárizon ap᾽ éntea marmaíronta (Iliad 12.195) „while they were stripping them of their shining weapons‟

On the other hand, in numerous cases, the role of a particle as a preverb, rather than as an adverb or a preposition, is disambiguated by the grammatical context. In (191), the particle apo- is unambiguously interpreted as a preverb (aphaireĩn „take‟), rather than as the preposition apó

140

„from, off‟, which takes the genitive, because the noun following it (Aineías „Aeneas‟) is in the accusative.

(191) hoús pot’ ap’ Aineían helómēn (Iliad 8.108) „[horses] of which I deprived Aeneas‟, lit. „[horses] which I took-from Aeneas‟

In Germanic, this evolution is still visible in Gothic (West 1981),81 where verbal prefixes count for Wackernagel‟s law (clitics are placed after the first constitutent). In the following example, the enclitic conjunction -uh „and‟ stands between the prefix and the base verb, which otherwise occur together as insandjan „send‟.

(192) inuhsandidedun andbahtans þai Fareisaieis (John 7.32) „and the Pharisees sent officers‟

When unprefixed, the corresponding particle appears as either the preposition in „in / into‟ or as the adverb inn „within‟ (directional). The effect of the prefixation on the verb is said to be Perfectivizing (Lambdin 2006: 18 for insandjan as Perfective of sandjan „send‟). Ryder (1951: 211-212) mentions cases where “compounding forms are preposed with late verbs in the main clause”:

81

In North Germanic, the adverbial particles remained independent morphemes – either adverbs or prepositions. 141

(193) ƕaiwa agluba þai faihu habandans inngaleiþand in þiudangardja Gudis (Luke 18.24) pōs duskólōs hoi t khr mata ékhontes eis t n basileían to Theo eisporeúontai „how difficult it is for those possessing riches to enter the kingdom of God‟

The particle appears sometimes as both preverb and preposition, as in the above example. The spelling inngaleiþand belongs to the modern editions of the Gothic Bible (the codices do not separate words), possibly under the influence of the Greek original (eisporeúontai), and creates the impression that inn was cliticized to galeiþan „walk, go‟, which otherwise is considered biaspectual (no aspectual specification in Lambdin 2006: 26; the base -leiþan „walk, go‟ is attested only with prefixes). I find little reason to regard such cases as any more than collocations of adverb plus (prefixed or non-prefixed) verb – inn galeiþan / gaggan82 / atgaggan „enter‟ and inn atbairan / attiuhan „carry in‟ are the only instances –, because the Gothic corpus contains no instances of verbs with more than two prefixes, and the prefix appears otherwise as in-: insandjan „send‟, inniman „take in, receive‟, etc. In Old English and Old High German, the prefixes are much more independent than in Gothic (Harrison 1892) – e.g. OE ætstandan „stand next to‟:

82

A spelling inngaggan, if genuine – i.e. if inngaggan was a prosodic unit – could have conceivably rendered a non-

velar pronunciation of the prefix-final nasal ([ingaŋgan] or rather than [iŋgaŋgan]), because the sequence [ŋg] otherwise appears only morpheme-internally in Gothic. Also, the adverb inn „within‟ (directional) is the only instance of tautosyllabic nn, but this doubtlessly rendered a genuine geminate [nː], as opposed to the non-geminate [n] in the preposition in, because Old Norse has í (preposition) vs. inn (directional adverb), showing that the forms were pronounced distinctly in Proto-Germanic. As such, inn would be the regular development from the assumed Proto-Germanic etymon *enin- < PIE *en- plus “a disputed increment” (Lehmann 1986: s.v. inn; but this form itself is problematic, because unparalleled outside Germanic, cf. Lambdin 2006: 290). 142

(194) ða stod him sum mon æt ðurh swefn (Bede, Historia ecclesiastica 342.27) „in his dream, a man was standing next to him‟

Also Old Irish retains the possibility of separating particles from verbs (or rather keeping them separate), e.g. with an object pronoun in fot·gaibiu „I find thee‟ (fo·gaib „find‟) and forda·canat „they teach her‟ (for·cain „teach‟). In Lithuanian, the reflexive pronoun regularly intervenes between the prefix and the base: nusidirbti „overwork oneself‟ (dirbti „work‟), apsikloti „cover oneself‟ (apkloti „cover‟). There are occasional instances of tmesis in Latin too, most of them formulaic, e.g. ob uos sacro „I conjure you‟ and sub uos placo „I implore you‟ (Carmen Saliare in Festus 190) for Classical uos obsecro and uos supplico respectively (Meillet & Vendryes 1927: §812). Even though the adverbial origin of the verbal particles left numerous traces in the attested languages, it has been argued that their specialization as ad-verbal particles can be noticed already in Anatolian (Luraghi 2001). A separate case is represented by the post-verbal particles in English, Scandinavian, and Celtic languages; some of them can appear in various positions after the verb.

4.3 The syntax and semantics of prefixation Dvořák (2010) discusses ditransitive verbs in Czech where the indirect object is a Location argument, and the verb is prefixed (podříditp „adjust‟ in the example below), claiming that the verb contains a PP with a Path theta-role, headed by a phonologically null P0 which assigns case to the indirect object; the phonologically null preposition “conflates” with the verb, which undergoes head movement:

143

(195)

vP v'

Karel

v0

VP

podřídil

Acc

V'

svoje plány

V0

PP P0 Ø

Marii

D Karel podřídilp svoje plány Marii. „Charles adjusted his plans to Mary.‟

This analysis, even if proved to be correct synchronically, fails to capture the morphological complexity of the verb, where the individual meaning of the morphemes is retrievable („adjust X to Y‟ < „place X under the scope of Y‟, with pod „under‟ and říditi „drive, direct‟), as well as the diachrony: from PIE to Czech, the evolution was not preposition > preverb, but adverb > preverb / preposition. The case of the indirect object is the dative, although the preposition pod takes the instrumental or the accusative. In many cases, and in all Indo-European languages, there is a close correlation between the case assigned by a particle functioning as a preposition on the one hand, and the case of the verbal argument introduced by the same particle acting as a preverb on the other hand, but the exceptions are numerous enough. Dvořák could not assume that pod was in P0 because the case assignment would not have worked. There are several proposals which treat verbal prefixes as functional heads, e.g. the articles in Kiss & Riemsdijk (2004).

144

I propose an approach to such verbs in which a positively valued feature on a head (here, Go0) assigns case to the argument in the specifier (here, the indirect object in GoP), and the root moves from the lowest position in the tree and collects the affixes it finds in the heads. The prefix specifies the position of the Theme (the plans) with respect to the Goal (Mary) as „under‟, and its feature [+partake] assigns lexical case (dative) to the goal. In Dvořák‟s formulation, the prefix is associated with a path – except that the path describes here the spatial configuration of the situation and the relative positioning of the participants, and it is not a theta-role or a thematic relation.83

(196)

AgP Ag'

Karel

Ag0 Ø

ThP Th'

svoje plány

Acc

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP Go'

Marii

D

Go0

Root

pod-[+partake][F]

říd-

Karel podřídil svoje plány Marii. „Charles adjusted his plans to Mary.‟

83

The alternate word order Karel podřídilp Marii svoje plany, which is also possible, would suggest, if no

scrambling or other processes are assumed, that Maria is in a higher position than svoje plany, i.e. that it is a Recipient (beneficiary) in SpecRecP. The distinction between recipients / beneficiaries and goals, especially in figurative uses as with podříditp, can become quite vague. 145

In will assume that synchronically the preverb is an adjunct to a functional head (this would be Go0 in the Czech example), with which it forms a complex head, and that diachronically this is the result of a reanalysis of the adverbial particle as a preverb. In (197), the complex head is Th0; here, the Source is reinterpreted as a Theme, because it also contains a path thematic relation.

(197)

AgP

AgP Ag'

pro 0

Ag Ø

DP

f1

0

SoP

Ag

ThP

So'

DP

órous

Th' f0

órous

AP G(Abl)

Ag'

pro

Th0

So' G(Abl)

katá

So0 Ø[+act][F]

Root

Root ban-

kata-

Ø[+act][F]

ban-

óreos baínō kata

katabaínō órous

„I walk down the mountain‟

„I descend the mountain‟

This is an instance of univerbation, whereby a phrasal constituent (kata was originally an AP) is incorporated into the verb, and there are numerous such cases in both Indo-European (Miller 1993) and Hungarian. The preverb will describe the spatial configuration in which the respective argument participates in the situation. In the following sections I will detail the meaning of this spatial configuration, which can be a certain path towards a goal-like argument, a path from a source-like argument, a specific position of a Theme or an Experiencer with respect to a Location, or the „path over the theme‟ followed by an action applied to an incremental Theme:

146

(198)

Source / Perdant

Goal / Recipient

Theme Theme Location

Agents are not associated with any configuration, presumably because they only participate as sources of energy.84 Some other prefixes seem to select specific arguments, e.g. Gm. be- (and cognates and synonyms denoting encircling motion) are associated with Themes, but hardly ever with Goals, Recipients, or other arguments; and Gm. ver- and cognates from IE *pro-/per- „all the way through‟ are not used with Theme – Location structures, because these prefixes describe motion (real or metaphorical) with no possible reference to a final position (unlike for instance Gm. unter- or über-), so they are typical with Goals, Recipients, Sources, Perdants, and also with Themes, as paths over / through the Themes. I will not be discussing here prepositions (or postpositions), but I am making at this point the observation that the analysis of preverbs as adjoining a functional head, preserving the modifier semantics from their adverbial origin, suggests the application of the same mechanism to ad-nominal particles: the free particles will be incorporated into a (functional) head, which could be the equivalent of either P0 or D0 – the latter variant cf. Szabolcsi‟s (1994) analysis of determiners in Hungarian as the equivalents of the complementizers in the nominal domain –,

84

This correlates with Tenny‟s (1994) observation that external arguments do not play any role in the delimitation of

events. She also points out that: (1) direct objects (in fact, incremental Themes) measure the progress of the event – this enables their semantic contribution to be modified by path adverbials, which can also surface as preverbs or prepositions; and (2) “oblique internal arguments” (in the terms of my analysis: Locations and Affectees) determine the (upper) limit of the event. 147

whose function is to introduce nouns (as DPs or NPs, depending on the analysis adopted) into the sentence, by marking through inflection their syntactic status (e.g. the nominative as structural Case) or theta-role / thematic relation (dative, accusative, etc., if they are non-structural cases). For instance, in Gm. in dem Zimmer „in the room‟, with the structure in (199a), P0 could be a complex head [P0 in Ø[case]],85 where Ø[case] determines the case agreement on the noun and article (as well as adjectives, if they are present) as a marker of the Location theta-role (if the PP is an argument) or location thematic relation (if the PP is an oblique), and in specifies this theta-role or thematic relation as an inessive „being-in‟ (200a). In a DP-as-CP analysis (199b), the complex head will be [D0 in d(e)-],86 with the article (dem) determining the case agreement on all nouns, adjectives, and determiners, in the DP (200b).

(199a) [PP in [DP dem [NP Zimmer]]] (199b) [DP in-dem [NP Zimmer]]

85

In languages with no adjective-noun agreement (Hungarian, Basque), instead of Ø there can be an overt

morpheme (suffix), attaching to the leftmost constituent in Basque, as well as in the accusative (and possibly also the dative) in Hungarian. In Hungarian, the demonstrative (which is structurally higher than the article) does agree in case with the noun, but it can be argued to be an appositive (Rákosi & Laczkó 2005). If this is correct, the counterpart of CP in the nominal domain will be this omnipresent PP or some equivalently high projection, rather than the DP. Zwarts‟ (2005) conclusions about case government in PPs in German go in the same direction: “It is descriptively helpful to be able to say that bei governs DATIVE case, but we can never make this to mean more than: bei cooccurs with or is used with DATIVE case. There is no grammatical system behind it in the way in which there is a system behind the way NOMINATIVE and ACCUSATIVE are assigned to subject and object, respectively.” 86

If the preposition and the article belonged together in a close local configuration (same head), this could

presumably facilitate their morphological merger (in dem > im, etc.). 148

P0

(200a)

Ø[case]

in

D0

(200b) in

d(e)-[case]

For an arbitrary argument Xi introduced by a functional head Argi0 – consisting of a morpheme (Ø or otherwise) bearing a certain semantic feature (e.g. [±active]) and assigning theta-roles to the constituent in its specifier – to which a preverb Pfxi is adjoined, the preverb will combine by predicate modification:87

Argi0

(201) Pfxi

Ai

(202) [[Ai]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Rolei(x)(e)] [[Pfxi]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Configurationi(x)(e)] [[Pfxi-Ai]] = PM([[Pfxi]] , [[Ai]] ) = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Rolei(x)(e) & Configurationi(x)(e)]

The denotation of the So0 head in the VP [pro1.sg. órous kata-ban-] „I descend- the mountain‟ in (197) will be derived as below:

(203) [[Ø]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Source(x)(e)] [[kata-]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & down(x)(e)] [[kata-Ø]] = PM([[kata-]] , [[Ø]] ) = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Source(x)(e) & down(x)(e)]

87

Wunderlich (1983) treats the compositionality of preverbs in German in a somewhat similar manner. 149

If there is more than one prefix, predicate modification will apply recursively, e.g. Gk. enkatatithénai „put into‟:

Loc0/Go0

(204)

Ø en-

kata-

(205) [[Ø]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Location(x)(e)] [[kata-]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & down(x)(e)] [[en-]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & in(x)(e)] [[kata-Ø]] = PM([[kata-]] , [[Ø]] ) = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Location(x)(e) & down(x)(e)] [[en-kata-Ø]] = PM([[en-]] , [[kata-Ø]] ) = = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Location(x)(e) & down(x)(e) & in(x)(e)]

The syntactic mechanism of the incorporation of adverbs as preverbs and prepositions is perhaps best described as a structural operation of XPs, consisting of the merger of branches, following a principle of structural economy at the level of the matrix clause. Three cases can be distinguished (206)-(208), each abundantly instantiated cross-linguistically, where an XP can be compressed to one or two branches; what structural nodes remain after incorporation is determined by their order of precedence: the head X0 will always remain (or else the XP could not be projected), and SpecXP remains after incorporating the adjunct, but will be itself incorporated into the head, in polysynthetis. In all three cases, the incorporated element adjoins a head in a local configuration (possibly merging sometimes into a simple head by a subsequent operation), and the incorporation can be best regarded as a type of reanalysis (rather than involving a new type of

150

movement). 88 In (206)-(208), the constituents which do not participate in the incorporation are bracketed, and the part of the structure which is affected is highlighted:

(206)

specifier-head incorporation (deletion of the X' node):

XP YP

XP X'

X0

(207)

X0

>> (ZP)

X0

YP

adjunct-head incorporation (deletion of the X" node): XP (YP)

XP X''

WP

>>

(YP)

X' X0

X' X0

(208)

(ZP)

(ZP)

X0

WP

adjunct-(head-of-)specifier incorporation (deletion of the X" node): XP YP

XP X''

WP

>>

YP

X' X0

X' Y'

X0

(ZP)

Y0

(ZP) WP

88

(ZP)

Y0

The theory does not rule out the possibility of attaching WP to SpecYP in (208), if other data support this analysis.

Otherwise, attaching WP to Y0, and having only head adjunction, is at least more consistent with (206) and (207). 151

(206) represents polysynthesis, whereby an argument is integrated into the verb. This can occur in Indo-European languages as well, as in the univerbation example in section 4.1 with Gm. zugrundelegen „take as a basis‟, where the Goal argument zu Grunde „to (the) basis‟ is incorporated into the verb (209). (207) and (208) are the mechanisms which probably underlie the verbal prefixation and the creation of prepositions from adverbs respectively, e.g. detailing the analysis of (184) in (210) and (211).

(209)

GoP PP

GoP Go'

Go0

>>

Root

zu Grunde

Go0 Ø

Root

PP

leg-

zugrunde-

Go0 Ø

leg-

zu Grunde legen

zugrundelegen

„lay to the basis (of)‟

„take as a basis‟

(210)

SoP DP/PP

SoP/ThP So''

>>

DP/PP

órous

órous

AP

So'

So'/Th'

So0/Th0

Root

katá

ban-

So0 Ø

Root

AP

ban-

kata-

So0/Th0 Ø

óreos baínō kata

katabaínō órous

„I walk down the mountain‟

„I descend the mountain‟

152

(211)

SoP DP/PP

SoP So''

>>

DP/PP

So'

órous

AP

So'

So0 Ø NP/DP

D'/P'

katá 0

So Ø

0

Root

0

D /P

ban-

Root ban-

órous 0

AP

D /P Ø

katá

óreos baínō kata

0

kat órous baínō „I walk down the mountain‟

If the semantics is preserved after incorporation in (206) and (208), as I argue to be the case in the verbal prefixation following the template in (207), the prepositions will combine with the D0/P0 by predicate modification, and the arguments probably by functional application. If both preverbs and prepositions combine by predicate application, like adjunct modifiers do, this could be taken to support the analysis proposed here, because there are cases where the same particle appears as a preverb and a preposition in the same XP, e.g. v(-) „in(to)‟ in Russ. vxodit’i v komnatu „go into the room‟. 89 Syntactically, there can be several modifiers in a sentence, expecially several locative or directional modifiers (which is what verbal prefixes originally were) – e.g. John flew to Chicago (Goal argument) to O’Hare (goal modifier) to see Bill (purpose / temporal goal modifier) last Sunday (temporal location modifier). And semantically, even if the denotations of these modifiers are identical, as in the Russian example above, their combination by predicate modification inside the XP has the same final output.

89

I owe this suggestion to Molly Diesing. 153

In specifier-head incorporation, the functional head hosting the incorporated argument must first combine with this argument, so the denotation of the argument-introducing functional heads in (149) must adapt to the incorporation by inverting the order of the functional application in the first two arguments of the function (149'), with the end result being the same as in the absence of argument incorporation (150') = (150):

(149') denotation of functional head with incorporated argument: [[Ai]] = λxeλfstλes[f(e) & Rolei(x)(e)]

(150') [[fi]] = [[Ai]] ([[Xi]] )([[fi-1]] ) = λes[fi-1(e) & Rolei(Xi)(e)]

Since this order of the function‟s arguments in (149') is a precondition for incorporation, Baker‟s “polysynthetic parameter” might be based in fact on the two possible ordering of arguments in the argument-introducing heads – polysynthesis if (149'), no polysynthesis is (149) –, and the transition between polysynthesis and independent expression of arguments in either direction will amount to a reordering of the functional arguments between (149') and (149). If verbs with Affectee, Location, and Quality arguments are semantically decomposable (cf. the discussion in section 3.3.2) and contain abstract verbs / roots like GO, BE, or BECOME, then these roots can incorporate arguments. For instance, Basque oheratu „go to bed‟,90 from the DP/PP ohera „to bed‟ (ohe „bed‟ + allative suffix -ra) is formed by incorporating the Goal argument into Go0, with the Root consisting of the phonologically empty verb GO:

90

Actually a perfect participle, which is the citation form of verbs in Basque. 154

(212)

GoP

GoP

PP

Go'

ohera

0

Go Ø

Go0

>> Root

PP

GO

ohera- Ø

ohera GO

Root Go

0

GO

ohera„go- to bed‟

The incorporation of adjuncts can apply several times in the same structure, for instance in the case of multiple prefixation – either a lower (adverbial) adjunct will incorporate first, followed by a higher one, or they will merge into a compound and incorporate together into the verb –, and perhaps also in the formation of compound prepositions like into. Starting with the next section, I discuss in more detail the syntactic position and semantic contribution of the preverbs.

4.4 Prefixes as applicative morphemes

4.4.1 Theme applicatives

4.4.1.1 Additional Theme arguments In Sanskrit, some preverbs can have a transitivizing effect (Renou 1961: 138-139) – for instance, ruh- „grow‟ (itr.) vs. adhi-ruh- „climb‟ (tr.), with adhi- „on top of‟:

(213) yaḥ tu enam viṣamācāraḥ pāpakarmā adhirohati (Rāmāyaṇa 3.73.34) „But he who has evil behavior and acts wrongly will climb it [enam – referring to a certain mountain].‟

155

Likewise, with the same prefix vas- „dwell‟ (with a complement in the locative) vs. adhi-vas„occupy (a position)‟ (tr.); also, the prefixed compounds of krudh- „be angry with‟ and druh- „be hostile to‟ (with a complement in the dative) are transitive, e.g. with abhi- „close to‟ in the grammarian‟s example Devadattam abhikrudhyati „is angry with Devadatta‟ (Pāṇini, Aṣṭādhyāyī 1.4.38) as well as in text:

(214) na tām abhikruddhaḥ muniḥ (Vikramorvaśī 36.2, ref. as in Böhtlingk & Roth 185591) „The sage is not angry with her [tām].‟

The prefix abhi- has a transitivizing effect with quite numerous roots. In many cases, this effect can be specified as turning a locative oblique into a direct object, e.g. abhi-vrṣ- „rain (upon smb.)‟ or „shower (smb.)‟ (e.g. with arrows) vs. vrṣ- „shower‟ (with double object, e.g. arrows (Acc) on somebody (L); or with a single object, like abhi-vrṣ-). Examples can be found in both Vedic and post-Vedic Sanskrit:

(215) ávarṣīr varṣam úd u ṣ grbhāya (RgVeda 5.83.10) „you have shed rain; now, cease altogether‟

(216) bhrātarau bhrātaraṃ yudhi / śaraiḥ vavarṣatuḥ (Mahābhārata 8.2704) „the two brothers showered their brother with arrows in the battle‟

91

For these examples, Böhtlingk & Roth (1855: v.2 s.v. krudh-) note that an interpretation of the preverb as a

postposition to the noun is also possible, which would be [Devadattam abhi] krudhyati and [tām abhi] kruddhaḥ respectively. This obviously applies to prefixes in general, cf. Saussure‟s schema presented earlier. 156

(217) yád īm enāṁ uśató abhy ávarṣīt / trṣyāvataḥ… (RgVeda 7.103.3) „when he rained upon them – the eager, the thirsty…‟

(218) kusumaiḥ abhyavarṣan (tam) (Bhāgavata-Purāṇa 6.12.34) „they showered him with flowers‟

The original meaning of abhi- was „around‟, preserved in a few compounds like abhí-vīra“surrounded by men” and abhítaḥ “all around, on all sides” (Mayrhofer 1992: s.v. abhí), and corroborated by the meaning of its cognates Lat. amb-, Gk. amphí, Goth. bi, Gm. be- and um-, OCS o(bŭ)-, Lith. apie, ap(i)-, Latv. ap-, etc. (all from PIE *h2embhi92). When used as preverbs with intransitive bases, these cognates often have the same transitivizing effect, and so do the particles with similar meaning (Gk. perí, Lat. circum „around‟).93 This effect consists of adding a Theme argument to an intransitive verb. In German, for instance, this is often the role of the prefixes be-, um-, and a few others94 (Michaelis & Ruppenhofer 2000):

(219) fall upon somebody1 (Goal) → befall somebody1 (Theme) irgendwohin1 (Goal) treten → etwas1 (Theme) betreten „tread on something‟ auf etwas1 (Location) sitzen „be seated on something‟ → → etwas1 (Theme) besitzen „occupy something‟ 92

Probably derived from *h2nt- „forehead‟ + an element -bhi-. (I owe this information to Michael Weiss.)

93

These prefixes are not always transitivizing, but often only add the directional specification „around‟. Here I only

discuss the cases when they contribute a new Theme argument. 94

The verbs prefixed with be- and aus- that have this semantics retain the old stress on the root (the preverb is not

detachable): beˈlachen vs. ˈauslachen. 157

jemandem1 (Affectee) dienen → jemanden1 (Theme) bedienen „serve somebody‟ über jemanden1 (Location) lachen „laugh at somebody‟ → → jemanden1 (Theme) belachen / auslachen „deride, ridicule somebody‟ um etwas1 / jemanden1 (Location) gehen / drängen → etwas1 / jemanden1 (Theme) umgehen / umdrängen „surround / press something / somebody‟

(220) Gothic qiman „come‟

biqiman „befall, come upon‟

sitan „sit‟

bisitan „sit with / near / about‟95

hlahjan „laugh‟

bihlahjan „deride, mock‟

rinnan „run‟

birinnan „run about (smth.)‟

arbaidjan „work, toil, suffer‟ biarbaidjan „aspire to‟ skeinan „shine‟

biskeinan „shine on, illuminate‟

laikan „leap for joy, play‟

bilaikan „mock‟

(ga)leiþan „walk, go‟

bileiþan „leave, forsake, abandon‟

speiwan „spit‟ (itr.)

bispeiwan „spit upon‟

ƕairban „walk‟

biƕairban „press, crowd around‟

Greek

95

érkhesthai „go, come‟

amphérkhesthai „come around (smth.), approach‟

khoreúein „dance‟

amphikhoreúein „dance around (smth.)‟

gánuthsai „be joyful‟

amphigánusthai „enjoy (smth.)‟

píptein „fall‟

amphipíptein „fall upon / embrace‟

mákhesthai „fight‟ (itr.)

amphimákhesthai „fight around (smth.)‟

tromeĩn „tremble‟

amphitromeĩn „tremble for‟

théein „run‟

amphithéein „run around (smth.)‟

pétesthai „fly‟

amphipétesthai „fly around (smth.)‟

baínein „walk, go‟

amphibaínein, peribaínein „walk around (smth.)‟

iénai „go‟

periiénai „go around (smth.)‟

Cf. Gm. besitzen „occupy‟ with derived meaning. 158

hodeúein „travel‟

periodeúein „tour‟

hístasthai „stand‟

amphiperiístasthai „stand around (smth.)‟

Old Church Slavonic itii-det – xoditii-indet „walk‟

obitip – obŭxoditii „surround‟

graditii „build‟

ograditip „build around (smth.)‟ > „protect‟

kajatii sę „repent‟96

okajatip „feel pity for (smb.)‟

plakatii „weep‟

oplakatip „mourn‟

sijatii „shine‟

osijatip „illuminate‟

Lithuanian eiti „go‟

apeiti „go around (smth.)‟ (also itr. „go around‟)

bėgti „run‟

apibėgti „run around (smth.)‟ (also itr. „run around‟)

lėkti „fly‟

aplėkti „fly around (smth.)‟ (also itr. „fly around‟)

raudoti „weep‟

apraudoti „mourn, bemoan‟

Latin īre „go‟

ambīre, circumīre, circumambīre „go the round of, encircle‟

fluere „flow‟

circumfluere „flow around (smth.)‟ (also itr. „flow around‟)

sedēre „sit‟

circumsedēre „surround (sitting)‟ (also itr. „sit around‟)

stāre „stand‟

circumstāre „surround (standing)‟ (also itr. „stand around‟)

4.4.1.2 Converted Theme arguments Another manifestation of this transitivizing force is changing the theta-role from Location, Recipient, etc. into Theme, as an object directly affected by the action, or to which the action applies directly. What changes here is the „point of application‟ of the action:

(221) sprinkle something1 (Theme) on something2 → besprinkle smth.1 (Theme) with smth.2

96

This is not an ideal example, because in kajatii sę the verb itself is transitive, taking the reflexive pronoun as its

direct object, but the addition of the prefix still has the effect of „opening up‟ the verb to objects other than the reflexive pronoun, even if the valency of the verb remains unchanged. 159

über etwas1 (Theme) sprechen „talk about something‟ → → etwas1 (Theme) besprechen „discuss something‟ jemandem1 etwas2 (Theme) rauben „steal something2 from somebody1‟ → → jemanden1 (Theme) einer Sache2 berauben „rob somebody1 of something2‟

jemandem1 etwas2 (Theme) neiden → jemanden1 (Theme) um etwas2 beneiden „envy somebody1 for something2‟ etwas1 (Theme) auf etwas2 malen „paint something1 on something2 → → etwas2 (Theme) bemalen / ausmalen „paint something2‟ (222) Gothic satjan „set, put‟

bisatjan „beset, set around‟

wandjan „turn‟ (tr. / itr.)

biwandjan „shun‟

(us)windan „wind‟

biwindan „wrap around (smth.), swaddle‟

domjan „judge‟ (tr. / itr.)

bidomjan „judge (smb.), pass sentence on‟

graban „dig / till‟

bigraban „surround with an embankment or palissade‟

(af)swairban „wipe out‟

biswairban „wipe (a surface)‟

(ga)smeitan „smear, apply‟

bismeitan „smear, anoint‟

swaran „swear (an oath)‟

biswaran „swear to (the truth of smth.), conjure‟

tiuhan „lead, guide, draw‟

bitiuhan „go about, visit‟

maitan „cut, hew‟

bimaitan „circumcise‟97

Greek bállein „throw‟

amphibállein „envelop‟

histánai „set, place‟

amphistánai „encircle (with smth.)‟

kulíndein „roll (smth.1: Acc)‟ amphikulíndein „make (smth.1: D) roll around (smth.: Acc)‟ lakhaínein „dig‟

97

amphilakhaínein „dig around (smth.)‟

The role of the prefix in this case is both concrete („cutting around‟) and transitivizing, with the latter role deriving

from the former one. 160

légein „talk‟ („about smth.‟:

amphilégein „discuss‟ (smth.: τι1)

perí / amphí tinos1)

(vs. itr. perilégein „speak in a roundabout way‟)

Old Church Slavonic daritii „make a present of‟

odaritip „present with‟ (also denominal, cf. darŭ „present‟)

krastii „steal‟

okrastip „rob (smb.)‟

Lithuanian barstyti „strew‟

apibarstyti „bestrew‟

purkšti „sprinkle‟

apipurkšti „besprinkle‟

pilti „pour‟

apipilti „pour over (smth.)‟

karstyti „hang‟

apkarstyti „decorate with, Gm. behängen‟

dovanoti „present (smth.1: apdovanoti „award, decorate (smb.2: Acc; with smth.1: I)‟ Acc; to smb.2: D) Latin iacere „fling‟

amīcere, circumīcere „envelop‟

quarere „search for (smth.1)

anquīrere „accuse (smb.2 of smth.1)‟ – but no change of thematic

(in smb.2)‟

roles in the meaning „inquire into (smth.1)‟

struere „arrange‟

circumstruere „build around (smth.)‟

d cere „lead‟

circumd cere „surround‟ (also without change of thematic roles)

fodere dig‟

circumfodere „dig around (smth.)‟

For instance, with OCS darovatii/p vs. odarovatip „present‟:

(223) mŭnogomŭ slěpomŭ darovai/p prozĭrěnie (Codex Marianus, Luke 7.21) „[Jesus] restored the sight (Acc.) to many blind people‟ vs. odarip i […] světomĭ tvoimĭ (Euchologium Sinaiticum 33a.25) „grant her (Acc.) your light‟

161

4.4.1.3 Denominatives A third way of producing transitives with this prefix, most common in Germanic and (Balto)Slavic, is by deriving denominatives (factitives). In general, the direct object of such verbs is „surrounded with‟, hence affected in various ways by means of, the concept denoted by the base noun: a beguiled person was affected by means of a guile, eine benachrichtigte Person has received a Nachricht, etc.98 On the other hand, as these denominatives do not have non-prefixed counterparts, another possibility is that they might be derived in the lexicon. Their derivational relationship to the base nominal is different, too: denominatives have not only prefixes, but also various suffixes – in the next example set most clearly visible in benachrichtigen vs. Nachricht, and also Skr. tapasya- „practice austerities‟ vs. tapas „heat‟ > „austerity‟, etc. It is far from clear whether the Theme is introduced as an argument in syntax by the prefix, by the suffix, or at all by a derivational affix.99 I include denominatives here tentatively as a possible third class of Theme applicatives mainly because they use the same prefixes, and these prefixes are associated with Theme arguments, as in the case of other Theme applicatives.

98

There are exceptions, at least in Germanic: befriend means „make smb. a friend‟ / „behave friendly towards smb.‟ /

„become somebody‟s friend‟, not „endow somebody with a friend‟, unless examples like John befriended Bill are interpreted as „John1 endowed Bill with himself1 as a friend‟. Constructions like *John befriended Bill with Mark are possible in German: Ja, ich befreundete ihn, den irdenen, mit der Unendlichkeit (Rilke) „Yes, I made him, the earthling, acquainted with / a friend of the infinite‟. A parallel function is performed by the prefix with the opposite sense of „depriving of‟, e.g. Gm. bewaffnen „arm‟ vs. entwaffnen „disarm‟. 99

As far as I can determine, all denominatives in the languages discussed here have at least a Theme, e.g. Skr.

śithilaya- „make loose‟ (Agent and Theme) and śithilāya- „become loose‟ (Theme) from śithila- „loose‟. 162

(224) guile → beguile Mann „man‟ → bemannen „man (a ship)‟ Nachricht „news‟ → benachrichtigen „inform‟ Grenze „border, limit‟, Lager „camp‟ → umgrenzen „delimit‟, umlagern „enclose‟ Kleid „piece of clothing‟ → umkleiden100 „clothe‟

(225) Gothic baurgs „city, town‟

bibaurgeins „encampment‟ (deverbal noun from *bibaurgjan)

Old Church Slavonic101 zarja „light, dawn‟

ozaritip „illuminate‟ → ozarjatii

mrakŭ „darkness‟

omračitip „darken‟ → omračatii

dŭždĭ „rain‟

odŭžditip „irrigate‟ → odŭždatii

glasŭ „voice‟

oglasitip „admonish, edify‟ → oglašatii

lice „face, image‟

obličitip „reveal, expose‟ > „convict‟ → obličatii

plŭkŭ „crowd / troop‟

oplŭčitip sę „make ones. ready for combat‟ → oplŭčatii sę

darŭ „present‟102

odaritip „present (smb.: Acc; with smth.: I)‟ (Russ. odarjat’i) – vs. daritii and darovatii/p „present (smth.: Acc; to smb.: D)‟

100

umˈkleiden „clothe‟ vs. ˈumkleiden „change clothes‟: only the first (older) compound has the meaning relevant

here – and likewise umˈbauen „surround‟ vs. ˈumbauen „rebuild‟, and a few other pairs. All compounds with um are transitive, many of them having become so due to the prefixation. The same remarks hold for the Dutch cognates: omˈkleden vs. ˈomkleden, etc. Unlike be-, um- is used only sporadically, when the semantics („going around the Theme‟) requires or prefers it, e.g. umschiffen „steer clear of‟. 101

I only illustrate instances where a base verb is a denominal Perfective; in other cases, a denominal Imperfective is

derived by suffixation, and a Perfective is derived from it by prefixation with o(bŭ)-. For instance: žena „woman‟ → ženitii/p → „make possible for (a man) to marry‟ → oženitip (not žena → oženitip → *oženjatii); zŭloba „evil‟ → zŭlobitii „humiliate‟ → ozŭlobitip (not zŭloba → ozŭlobitip → *ozŭlobljatii). 102

In some cases it is difficult to tell apart base nouns from deverbal back formations. 163

Slavic also forms deadjectival transitive Perfectives with the meaning „impart quality X to‟: 103 (226) Old Church Slavonic

bogatŭ „rich‟

obogatitip „enrich‟→ obogaštatii

novŭ „new‟

obnovitip „renew‟ → obnavljatii

svętŭ „holy‟

osvętitip „consecrate‟ → osvęštatii (besides svętitii/p)

skvrĭnĭnŭ „impure‟

oskvrĭnitip „defile‟ → oskvrĭnjatii (besides skvrĭnitii)

(root skvrĭn-) golŭ „empty, naked‟

ogolitip „bare, strip‟ (Russ. ogoljat’i)

žestokŭ „hard‟ (root žest-)

ožestitip, ožestočitip „harden‟ (Russ. ožestočat’i)

4.4.1.4 Analysis All prefixes discussed in this section introduce new Theme arguments, acting as applicative morphemes in Th0. They add a Theme to the theta-grid of the derivational base, whether the base had no Theme (in transitives derived from intransitives, nouns, or adjectives – if these are considered to be derived in syntax), or the Theme of the base was different (change in the „point of application‟ of the action: John sprinkling water on Bill vs. John besprinkling Bill with water). Even though the effect of these prefixes is „transitivizing‟, it applies to the Theme, rather than to the Agent, because the prefixes denote the way in which the Theme is affected by the action of the new verb – namely, by comprising the entire Theme in the scope of that action. Due to their semantics, these prefixes also act as Perfectivizers: encircling the object by applying the action denoted by the root, or by a nominal or adjectival concept, on the entire circumference of the object, implies affecting the object in its entirety, therefore the action

103

I only give examples of derivations adjective → base Perfective → secondary Imperfective; in other cases, a

sufixed Imperfective is primary: radŭ „happy‟ → radovatii (sę) „enjoy‟ („make oneself happy‟), obradovatip „make happy‟. 164

denoted by these verbs is inherently telic: it has a natural endpoint, or culmination, because a circle is closed. These prefixed Perfectives derive secondary Imperfectives in Slavic, which possesses the morphological means to do so, but remain biaspectual in the other branches of Indo-European. The prefix will carry the feature [F], indicating the fact that it contributes an inherent culmination to the verbal concept expressed by the root:

(227)

(AgP)

AgP

(misfortune) (Ag')

(Ag0)

misfortune

Ag0 Ø

ThP Th'

misfortune

Th0 Ø

Ag' ThP Th'

John

GoP

Acc

Th0

Root

be-[+act][F]

fall-

Go'

upon John

Go0 Ø[+partake] misfortune falling upon John

Root fall-

misfortune befalling John

The misfortune in (227) can be interpreted as an Agent, if what befalls somebody is conceived of as having agentive qualities. A thing that falls (on somebody) may not be an Agent in ontology, but there are instances where it can be construed as such in cognition: if a rock falls on John‟s hand, he could get angry and hit the rock, irrationally attributing it intention, hence agency. Here, the meaning of fall would be more like „throw itself upon‟. Or even if the rock is at rest, and John sprains his wrist sliding on a slope and hitting his wrist against the rock, he could get angry at the rock, construing it as an agent. Also, if misfortune befalls somebody, one can curse it,

165

again regarding it as an agent. On the other hand, befall is not the best example, because it is archaic, and its subject can only be eventive: a rock can fall on people, but cannot befall them; also, expletive there is possible here with a word order which suggests that Fleeming and Jurgis in the next examples are not Themes, but rather remained interpreted as Goals after prefixation: There befell Fleeming a terrible alarm… (R.L. Stevenson), And then one day, there befell Jurgis the adventure of his life (Upton Sinclair) vs. *There ate an apple (Theme) a man (Agent), but There came to our town (Goal) two horsemen (Agent).104 The semantics of the complex head Th 0 in the structure above expresses Perfectivity as a transition into a state of completion, by applying (163):

Th0

(228) be-[F]

Ø[+act]

(229) [[Ø]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Theme(x)(e)] [[be-]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & all-around(x)(e)] [[be-Ø]] = PM([[be-]] ,[[Ø]]) = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Theme(x)(e) & all-around(x)(e)] [all-around(X)(e) → [xiX[Theme(xi)(e)]]] → → [[Theme(X)(e) & all-around(X)(e)] → [Theme(X)(e) & xiX[Theme(xi)(e)]]] [Theme(X)(e) & xiX[Theme(xi)(e)]] → → [e's[e < e' & Theme(X)(e')] & e''s[e" < e & Theme(X)(e'')]]

104

Thanks to Molly Diesing for the discussion and examples in this paragraph. 166

In the next example, Bill is first an oblique location, then a Theme argument, and water is first a Theme argument, then an oblique instrument:

(230)

AgP

AgP (on Bill)

(with water)

Ag'

John

Ag0 Ø

Ag0 Ø

ThP Th'

water

Acc

Ag'

John

Th0 Ø[+act]

ThP Th'

Bill

Root

Acc

sprinkle-

John sprinkling water on Bill

Th0 be-[+act][F]

Root sprinkle-

John besprinkling Bill with water

If denominatives are derived in syntax, they will be as below:105

(231)

AgP Ag'

John

Ag0 Ø

ThP Th'

Bill

Acc

Th0 be-[+act][F]

Root guile-

John beguiling Bill

105

But the denominative suffix would have to find a place too, even when it is null. Most likely it would be

contained in the Root, so that the Root can be verbal, rather than nominal. 167

(232)

AgP Ag'

pro2.sg.

Ag0 Ø

ThP Th'

lice zemli

Acc

Th0

Root

ob-[+act][F]

nov-

obnovišip lice zemli (OCS: Psalterium Sinaiticum, Psalm 103.30) „thou wilst renew the face of the Earth‟

For all the verbs discussed in this section, I have assumed that their new argument is a Theme, the reason being that these verbs are all transitive, and an Agent is generally associated with a Theme undergoing the action, rather than with a Location. In the absence of an Agent, the new argument could have been interpreted as a Location: surrounding something is a stationary action taking place at a location, and the act of surrounding can be conceived of as delimiting a location, and thereby introducing it as an argument. Occasionaly, other prefixes might seem to act as Theme applicatives, as in OCS bytii „be‟ → zabytip „forget‟, where the subject is not an Agent, but an Experiencer experiencing a Theme. However, the semantics of the prefix suggests the possibility that the object could have been a Location at the time when this verb was derived: za- „behind, beyond‟ + bytii „be‟ > zabytip „be behind / beyond (smth.)‟ > „forget‟ – the epistemic subject is situated behind / beyond the entire object (particular memory), hence the Perfective aspect; only the entire object can be left behind,

168

otherwise one is not behind / beyond that object.106 Conceiving of a memory or recollection as the location of the epistemic subject correlates with the fact that the objects of verbs of perception and mental activities („see‟, „remember‟, „know‟, „believe‟, „love‟ etc.) could be regarded as Locations, as I suggested earlier. Weiss (2010: 101) compares several applicatives constructions in Indo-European, noting that Lat. adolēre “means „to consume with fire, to cremate‟ and typically requires a completely affected object”. The same remark applies to several other prefixes denoting linear direction (as opposed to the ones discussed so far, which refer to the enclosing of an object) as a path over the Theme, or the path followed by the Theme towards completion of the action, i.e. towards a state where the theme is entirely affected.

4.4.2 Completive prefixes The prefixes denoting circular movement are not the only ones that both license Themes and are Perfective. The choice of the prefix depends on the shape of the object: if the object can be covered in its entirety in a linear motion, like the slope of a mountain, a directional prefix will assign case to the object, as in (197). Most instances of such transitives are derived from motion verbs, or verbs which denote actions that can be metaphorically assimilated to motion, as in the German examples below:

106

I discuss Location applicatives in a later section. The vast majority of those applicatives are Imperfective, being

stative, and zabytip is an exception presumably for the reason mentioned above (only the entire object can be left behind). 169

(233) durch etwas1 lesen „read through something‟ → etwas1 (Theme) durchlesen „read something through‟ durch etwas1 gucken → etwas1 (Theme) durchgucken „peep through something‟ durch etwas1 leben → etwas1 (Theme) durchleben „peep through something‟

(234) Gothic saiƕan „see‟

þairhsaiƕan „see through‟

arbaidjan „work, toil‟

þairharbaidjan „work through (e.g. the night)‟

gaggan „go‟

þairhgaggan „pierce‟

(ga)leiþan „walk, go‟

þairhleiþan „go through‟

Greek érkhesthai „go, come‟

katérkhesthai „descend‟; diérkhesthai „cross‟

baínein „walk, go‟

katabaínein „descend‟; anabaínein „ascend‟; probaínein „approach‟; diabaínein „cross‟ probaínein „promote, advance‟107

théein „run‟

katathéein „make an incursion into‟; diathéein „claim (the prize in a race)‟

trékhein „run‟

diatrékhein „run across‟

iénai „go‟

katiénai „descend‟; proiénai „exit‟ (tr.)

Old Church Slavonic itii-det – xoditii-indet „walk‟

proitip → proxoditii „cross (walking)‟

vějatii „blow‟ (itr.)

provějatip „blow through, fan‟

plakatii „weep‟

proplakatip sę „weep oneself through‟ > „burst into tears‟

světitii „shine‟

prosvětitip → prosvěštatii „shine through, illuminate‟

Lithuanian

107

eiti „go‟

praeiti „pass through, cross‟

bėgti „run‟

prabėgti „pass (running) through, cross (running)‟

lėkti „fly‟

pralėkti „cross (flying)‟

plaukti „swim‟

praplaukti „cross (swimming)‟

Hapax with this valency: 3.sg. future probásei (Pindar, Olympiaka 8.63). 170

Latin īre „go‟

transīre, pertransīre „cross‟

gradī „walk, step‟

transgredī „cross‟

uādere „go, advance‟

peruādere „penetrate, invade‟

scandere „climb‟ (itr.)

ascendere „ascend‟; descendere „descend‟; transcendere „climb‟ (tr.)

uolāre „fly‟

transuolāre „fly through‟

uadum „ford‟ (noun)

transuadere „ford‟ (tr.)

In (235) there is no Goal argument; going through the Tiber does not need a goal, and the motion verb behaves like a Slavic determinate Imperfective qua Imperfective, in that it only denotes the act of motion, with no direction or goal: 108

(235)

AgP Ag' Ag0 Ø

AgP (trans Tiberim)

Ag' Ag0 Ø

ThP Th'

Tiberim

Root

Acc

*ei-

Th0 trans-[+act][F]

trans Tiberim īre

Tiberim transīre

„go through the Tiber‟

„cross the Tiber‟

Root *ei-

The prefixes in (234), many of which continue PIE *pro- and *per- and have the general meaning „going all the way through / covering (the Theme)‟, are frequently used as

108

Even in contexts like „cross to the other shore‟, the other shore is not a Goal argument, but a goal adjunct:

Tiberim transīre „cross the Tiber‟ is a complete predicate. 171

Perfectivizers in Slavic: the action of „going all the way through the Theme‟ is metaphorically109 interpreted as „affecting the entire Theme‟, e.g. in Polish:

(236) czytaći ‘przez’ książkę

→

„read all the way “through” the book‟

przeczytaćp książkę „read the entire book‟

Even when the base Imperfective is transitive and takes the same kind of object as the derived Perfective (czytaći książkę „read a book‟), the derivation still has to proceed via a construction like the one above. The morpheme which appears as a free adverb, a preposition, or a prefix, describes the path over the Theme: „across‟, „into‟, „out of‟, „down‟, „up‟, etc. – respectively, OCS pro- / prě-, vŭ-, iz-, sŭ-, vŭz-. The resulting verb is Perfective, because the Theme is covered in its entirety, entailing the transition from the state of „Theme not entirely affected‟ to that of „Theme entirely affected‟. The metaphorical derivation of the Perfectives is what accounts for the occasionally expressed opinion (e.g. Isačenko 1962; Maslov 1965) that even the derivation of those Perfectives which are aspectually paired with non-prefixed Imperfectives (in the sense that the latter replaces the former in the present narrative in Russian) „adds something‟ to the meaning of the base Imperfective. What this „semantic addition‟ exactly amounts to is the spatial metaphor, expressible by the collocation of the base Imperfective treated as a motion verb (here, czytaći) with an adverbial denoting the path of the action (przez książkę). If the semantic contribution of a certain prefix is minimal compared to that of other prefixes used with the same 109

„Metaphor‟ is to be taken here in its etymological sense: Gk. metaphor ~ Lat. translatio. The action of the

Imperfective upon its Theme is translated / specified in spatial terms, and paraphrasable – in Slavic as in other languages – through a prepositional construction, which derives an applicative (the Perfective), as illustrated by the glosses in this chapter. 172

base Imperfective, the derived Perfective is treated in Slavic (except Bulgarian) as aspectually paired with the base Imperfective. Bulgarian systematically, 110 and the other Slavic languages very occasionaly, derive secondary Imperfectives from such derived Perfectives:

(237) base Imperfective

path

derived Perfective

secondary Imperfective

„through the Theme‟

read through

-

Gm. lesen

durchlesen

-

Pol. czytaći

przeczytaći

-

Bg. četai

pročetap

pročitamp

Engl. read

Th0

(238) prze-[F]

Ø[+act]

(239) [[Ø]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Theme(x)(e)] [[prze-]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & all-way-through(x)(e)] [[prze-Ø]] = PM([[prze-]] ,[[Ø]]) = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & Theme(x)(e) & all-way-through(x)(e)] [all-way-through(X)(e) → [xiX[Theme(xi)(e)]]] → → [[Theme(X)(e) & all-way-through(X)(e)] → [Theme(X)(e) & xiX[Theme(xi)(e)]]] [Theme(X)(e) & xiX[Theme(xi)(e)]] → → [e's[e < e' & Theme(X)(e')] & e''s[e" < e & Theme(X)(e'')]]

110

These secondary Imperfectives in Bulgarian denote the same kind of action as the base Imperfective, but add a

nuance of iterativity (repeated reaching of the culmination of the event as described by the Perfective), and replace the Perfective in the present narrative where the other Slavic languages resort to the base Imperfective. 173

When the metaphor involves a more radical departure from the typical way in which the base Imperfective affects its Theme, a Perfective with a specialized meaning is derived, which is not aspectually paired with the base Imperfective, but rather derives its own Imperfective (in Slavic), or remains biaspectual (in the other branches, as well as in Hungarian):

(240) base Imperfective Lat. scribere

path

derived Perfective

„from A to B‟

transcribere (Pfv. → Ipfv.)

Engl. write

write over (Pfv. → Ipfv.)

Gm. schreiben

um-/abschreiben (Pfv. → Ipfv.)

Hun. írni

átírni (Pfv. → Ipfv.)

Pol. pisać

przepisaćp

i

(241)

secondary Imperfective

AgP

przepisywaći

AgP Ag'

Ag0 Ø

Ag' Ag0 Ø

ThP coś

Acc

coś

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

ThP

Root

Th'

pis-

pisać coś „write something‟

Th0

Root

prze-[+act][F]

pis-

Acc

przepisać coś „copy something‟

The path is not always over the Theme, but can be the path along which the Theme proceeds:

(242) base Imperfective Engl. pour

path

derived Perfective

secondary Imperfective

„out of a recipient‟

pour out (Pfv. → Ipfv.)

Gm. gießen

ausgießen (Pfv. → Ipfv.)

Pol. laći

wylaći

174

wylewaćp

In instances like Lat. ob mortem īre vs. mortem (Acc) obīre „go to one‟s death‟ – and similar cases like adīre in its occasional meaning „attack‟, etc. –, the motion verb has a Goal argument, and it acts like a Slavic determinate Imperfective qua determinate. This Goal is reanalyzed as a Theme (as in death falling upon John vs. death befalling John), and the verb is Perfective, because the goal (which will become a Theme) constitutes a transition – from the state of not having reached the goal to the state of having reached it. As I argued earlier, the feature [F] is inherent in a Goal head, because a goal constitutes an inherent final endpoint of the action (243). In the semantic evolution Lat. adīre „approach‟ > „attack‟, the Goal is reanalyzed as a Theme (unless the evolution „approach‟ > „attack‟ is an illusion, and exists only in the translation) (244).

(243)

AgP

AgP Ag'

Ag0 Ø ob mortem

Ag' Ag0 Ø

GoP Go' Go0 Ø[+act][F]

GoP mortem

Root

Acc

*ei-

ob mortem īre

mortem obīre „go to one‟s death‟

175

Go' Go0 Root ob-[+act][F] *ei-

(244)

AgP

AgP Ag'

Brutus

Ag0 Ø

Ag'

Brutus

GoP

Ag0 Ø

>>

GoP

Go'

ad Caesarem

Go0 Ø[+act][F]

Go'

Caesarem

Root

Acc

*ei-

>>

Go0

Root

ad-[+act][F]

*ei-

Brutus ad Caesarem it

Brutus Caesarem adit

„Brutus goes to Caesar‟

„Brutus goes up to / approaches Caesar‟

AgP Ag'

Brutus

>>

Ag0 Ø

ThP Th'

Caesarem

Th0

Root

ad-[+act][F]

*ei-

Brutus Caesarem adit „Brutus attacks Caesar‟

The prefixes meaning „through‟ and „forth‟ are among the most frequent Perfectivizers in IndoEuropean. Latin per- usually indicates the completion of the action denoted by the base verb, e.g. perficere „accomplish‟, peragere „carry out‟ (facere „do, make‟, agere „perform‟):111 111

In the first example, per- has a superlative function in perfacile „very easy‟, and its cognate PSl *per- (OCS prě-)

is used in the same way. The basic meaning „through(out)‟ applies to both verbal and adjectival concepts, manifesting itself as a superlative degree of an action or a quality respectively. 176

(245) perfacile factu esse illis probat conata perficere (Caesar, De bello Gallico 1.3.6) „he proves to them that accomplishing [their] attempts was very easy to do‟

(246) receptus est reus neque peractus ob mortem opportunam (Tacitus, Annales 4.21) „the accusation against him had been received, but no measure was taken because of an opportune death‟

In Balto-Slavic, *pro-, and sometimes *per-, derive perdurative Perfectives from atelic verbs, with the meaning „spend a certain amount of time doing (the action denoted by the base verb)‟.112 For instance, Lith. leisti „spend (time)‟ → praleisti „spend (a certain amount of time)‟, gaišti „loiter / linger‟ → pragaišti „waste (a certain amount of time)‟ (247), Latv. dzīvot „live‟ → pārdzīvot „experience‟ (248), 113 Russ. rabotat’i „work‟ → prorabotat’p „work (for a certain duration)‟ (249), SCr. spavatii „sleep‟ → prospavatip / prespavatip „sleep (for a certain time)‟ > „miss (by sleeping)‟ (250). Both Serbo-Croatian examples in (251) – where policijski uviđaj „police investigation‟ is an event, rather than a duration – and (252) show that time length can be indicated indirectly, e.g. by equating it with the distance covered during it.

(247) Lietuviai dažniausiai piktinasi, kad puse laiko pragaišo veltui. „The Lithuanians were most often exasperated, when they linger in vain half of the time.‟

112

Genis (1997) relates the frequency of Pol. prze- to this base meaning.

113

Cf. Gm. erleben, with the prefix being a variant of ver- < *per-; an equivalent of Slavic perduratives is (Zeit)

verbringen „spend time‟. Semantically very close is durch-, e.g. durchleben as meaning „live through‟. Latv. pār(and par-, with different intonation) continues *per- (Karulis 1992: s.v). 177

(248) Pēc dziļas krizes kuru pārdzīvojām devindesmito gadu sākumā… „After the deep crisis which we experienced at the beginning of the 1990s…‟

(249) Ty zdes’ vtoroj god, a my s nim tridcat’ let prorabotalip vmeste. „This is [only] your second year here, but we have been working together for 30 years.‟

(250) Nekako smo prospavalip hladnu noć i probudili se najljepšim pogledom na obližnja brda. „Somehow we managed to sleep through the cold night, and woke up with a vista on the nearby hills.‟

(251) Zanimljivo je da je dečak prespavaop i policijski uviđaj. „What is curious is that the child slept through the police investigation, too.‟

(252) Prospavalip smo u busu skroz do Zagreba. „We slept on the bus all the way to Zagreb.‟

This perdurative function of *pro-/per- in Balto-Slavic is clearly applicative, in that the prefix introduces a specific Theme (time duration), which is most often a DP in the accusative, but can also be a PP – e.g. SCr. prospavatip [PP kroz noć] „sleep the night through‟, „sleep through the night‟, or better „spend the night sleeping‟ (to highlight the Theme theta-role of the duration). In any case, the time duration is an argument, not an adjunct.114

114

The Experiencer can be sometimes reanalyzed as an Agent, if it is regarded as having control over the action

(agentivity as resistance to change): He slept through the night in order to be fresh in the morning. (But ?He slept 178

(253)

ExpP Exp'

Jovan

Exp'

Jovan

Exp0 Ø

(cijelu noć)

ExpP

Exp0 Ø

>> Root

ThP cijelu noć

Acc

sp-

Th' Th0

Root

pre-[+relate][F] sp-

Jovan je spavaoi cijelu noć

Jovan je prespavaop cijelu noć

„Jovan slept all night‟

„Jan slept the whole night through‟

In the spatial domain, Slavic employs the prefix *pro- to form Perfectives denoting the passing of a mover, with or without a conveyed object, concretely or figuratively, past or through a spatial reference. Here, the Perfectivization follows from the idea that it is the mover and / or the conveyed object in its entirety that passes along or through that spatial reference. This is the case, for instance, in OCS itii-det – xoditii-indet „go, walk‟ → proitip – proxoditii „pass, cross‟ mentioned above in its transitive variant (accusative object). The theta-role of the argument is on the borderline between a Theme and a Location, depending on whether it is construed as affected or not affected by the motion. There are cases where it is clearly a Location, as in the next example, where the PP is an argument:115

through the night in order to please Mary is less good, perhaps because the context is less plausible. – I owe this example to Molly Diesing.) 115

The Slavic motion verbs prefixed with *pro- can be used absolutely – i.e. without an argument of the type

discussed here – in some particular cases, e.g. Russ. proxoditi vremja „time goes / elapses‟ or provestip – provodit’i „lead (people) / spend (time)‟. 179

(254) i bystŭ idǫštiju emou vŭ Imĭ. і tŭ proxoždaažei [PP meždju Samariejǫ i Galilěajǫ] (Codex Marianus, Luke 17.11) „Now it happened as he was going to Jerusalem that he was passing between Samaria and Galilee.‟

In Greek and Sanskrit, the meaning of *pro- is closer to its original sense of „forth‟ (cf. Benveniste 1966) as spatial or temporal precedence: Gk. probaínein „go forth, advance‟ (baínein „go‟), proárkhein „start first‟ (árkhein „be first, start‟) (Letoublon 1992); Sk. pra-bhā- „shine forth‟ (bhā- „shine‟), pra-khyā- „publish, announce‟ (khyā- „tell, relate‟), prathita- „well-known‟ (< „sent forth‟, from sthā- „stand‟: causative sthāpaya- „send‟), pra-nam- „bow before, salute‟ (nam- same sense), etc. The Perfectivizing effect of *pro- in Latin and Balto-Slavic, based on the notion of „passing all the way through‟, is proper to other prefixes in Sanskrit. Renou (1961: 136137) notes that the function of preverbs in pre-Classical Sanskrit is often to mark an intensified degree of the action, in some cases up to the point where the goal of the action is overtaken, e.g. nī- „lead‟ vs. ati-nī- „lead to and beyond‟ (ati- „over, beyond‟):

(255) na svargaṃ lokaṃ atinayet (Chāndogya-Upaniṣad 1.8.5) “qu‟il ne nous fasse pas manquer le ciel (en voulant nous y conduire)” (Renou 1961: 136) „so he does not make us miss heaven (wanting to lead us there)‟

In the later history of the language, this function becomes largely “ornamental”, meant to give more phonetic weight to discourse-relevant lexemes or, in Buddhist Sanskrit, to distinguish between technical terms. (Renou 1961: 137).

180

The effect of the Old Irish preverb ro· (< *pro- „through‟) is described as resultative, turning a preterit form into the equivalent of a perfect, in that the outcome indicates the present relevance of a past action (Thurneysen 1909: 319-320; Stifter 2006: 250-251). This morpheme intervenes between the prefix(es) and the root, in the manner in which the temporal augment and the root reduplication stand between prefix and root (ad·ro·anac[h]t in the example below):

(256) ad·opart Crimthann in port-sin du Pátricc, ar ba Pátric du·bert baithis du Chrimthunn 7 i Slébti ad·ranact Crimthann (Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus ii 242.9-10) „Crimthann offered that place to Patrick, for it was Patrick who conferred baptism upon Crimthann, and (it is) in Slébte that Crimthann was / is buried.‟ (Stifter 2006: 250)

All the verbs in this example are prefixed, but the function of ro· is visibly different from that of the other prefixes: even if these were used to Perfectivize the verbs as prefixes in other IndoEuropean languages do, it is only ro· that has a resultative meaning, acting like a perfect, rather than like a Perfective.116 On the other hand, in subordinate clauses in habitual contexts, ro· is employed to describe actions followed by other actions, in the same way as Perfectives are resorted to in the narration of sequenced events. 117 The next example has the „substantive verb‟ biid „be, exist‟ preceded by ro· and taking a complement of time duration in the accusative, like Slavic perdurative pro-Perfectives (Russ. probyt’p „spend (a certain amount of time)‟). In both Old Irish and Russian, the narration uses prefixed verbs with Perfective value in both clauses:118 116

Wedel (1987) discusses cases where prefixed verbs in Old High German are employed to render Latin perfects.

117

“With the imperfect (iterative), ro expresses the fact that the same action has repeatedly reached completion in

the past; therefore it occurs in sentences like: „any time this occurred, that occurred too.” (Thurneysen 1909: 319) 118

In the main clause: co·n-accae and uvidet’p „spot‟ vs. base verbs (ad·)cí and videt’i „see‟. 181

(257a) ó ro·boí dá laa 7 dí aidchi forsin muir, co·n-accae a dochum in fer isin charput íarsin muir (Immram Brain 32) „When he had been two days and two nights on the sea, he saw a man in a chariot coming towards him along the sea.‟ (Stifter 2006: 250)

(257b) Kogda on probylp na more dvoe sutok, uvidelp muža… „When he had been two days and two nights on the sea, he saw a man…‟

ro· could have evolved from a Perfectivizing prefix to a marker of the perfect,119 first indicating the transition to a resultative state (completed action), then the resultative state itself. 120 The same function as a perfect is occasionally performed by other preverbs, too – most frequent being ad· and com· –, and the choice is partly lexical and partly phonologically conditioned

119

In Modern Irish this perfect became a preterite: ro·boí in the quoted example became a „conjunct‟ preterit form

(raibh) of the substantive verb used in subordinate clauses, after negation, and after the interrogative particle. 120

The Old Irish prefix ro· also derives potentials when combining with the present and the future, and optatives

when combining with the subjunctive (observation due to Michael Weiss). The potentiality contributed by ro· contrasts with the Perfectivizing effect of its cognates in Indo-European, but in Old Irish it is consistent with the stativity associated with the perfect, which denotes a resultative state: potentiality and expectation or desire are stative, and the idiosyncrasy of ro· lies not in deriving potentials and optatives, but in its association with states – resultative states in the perfect, and states of potentiality or expectation in the potential and the optative –, so that the function of ro· here seems to be the derivation of states in the present, where the present is the reference time: the perfect as a retrospective from the present, and the potential as a prospective from the present. 182

(Thurneysen 1909: 321-322; Stifter 2006: 252-253). OI co(m)· and MW ky(n)- have the two main meanings of their Latin cognate co(m)-, when these are distinguishable:121 -

convergent motion or action (concrete or figurative), whence the Perfectivizing role (since any convergent motion has a natural endpoint): OI con·rig „bind together, tie‟ (rigid „stretch‟), con·gair „call, summon‟ (gairid „shout, call‟); MW kynnullav „gather together‟, kymynu „break down‟;

-

association or sharing: OI con·gní „help, assist‟(gniïd „do, make‟), con·mesca „mix together‟, and also in nouns: comarbae „heir‟, comáes „coeval, of same age‟; MW kyueillt „companion‟, kyuarwyd „guide‟, kywir „truthful, trustworthy‟ („having truth‟).

The Perfectivizing role of Lat. co(m)- has often been discussed and distinguished from its comitative / sociative function.122 The difference between the two uses of co(m)- is represented by Haug (2007: 82) as in (258): tōgædre denotes the convergent motion of a plural or collective subject, and, by extension, of a subject „gathering itself together‟ in order to carry out an action. Haug (2007) provides examples where this notion follows from the action having an expressed goal, which „polarizes‟ and „orients‟ the subject, e.g. commeāre „go frequently to‟ (259).

→

(258) →

←

→

OE tōgædre, Lat. in unum „together‟

121

OE ætgedere, Lat. unā cum „together with‟

This observation is only valid synchronically, since the prefix in question, at least in Latin, appears to continue at

least two prehistoric particles (Rosén 1992; Haug 2007). The prefix cy(n)- has been profusely used throughout the history of Welsh: cynghanedd „metrical consonance‟ (in traditional Welsh poetry; cf. Lat. concantāre „sing together‟), cyngerdd „concert‟ (Lat. concertāre „fight together‟), modern cysylltu „connect‟. 122

Garnier (1909), Ahlman (1916), Rosén (1992), Haug (2004; 2007). 183

(259) postquam in urbem crebro commeo, dicax sum factus (Plautus, Truculentus 682) „Since I often go to the city, I have become talkative.‟ (Haug 2007: 83)

The Perfectivization does not need a spatial goal, the prefix by itself being sufficient to contribute the completive nuance, e.g. in comedere „eat up‟:

(260) ipsus se comest (Plautus, Truculentus 593) lit. „he is eating himself [with grief]‟

The second case („together with‟), which I will discuss later, involves togetherness during an event, e.g. cohabitāre and commanēre „live together‟, consedēre „sit together with‟, cohaerēre „stick together‟, congaudēre „share in joy‟, etc. (Ahlman 1916: 16-25). For instance:

(261) mundus ita apte cohaeret, ut dissolui nullo modo queat (Cicero, Timaeus 15) „the world fits together so well, that it cannot be dismantled in any way‟

The existence of Slavic-type aspectual distinctions in Gothic and other older Germanic languages – Old High German, Old Saxon, and Old English – has long been debated.123 Especially Gothic displays tempting parallels with Slavic, in the sense that verbal prefixes very often serve to indicate the completion of an action. Lloyd (1979) discusses the role played in aspect by “verbal velocities”, meaning the tendency of the verbal concept expressed by the verb root to inherently

123

Lloyd (1979: 5-14) provides an overview of the various approaches to aspect in Gothic. Scherer (1964) and

Lindemann (1965) treat the semantics of Goth.ga- and OE ge- more specifically. 184

express non-durative events (telic or atelic): events of typically high velocity are described with primary Perfectives, while states and events of typically low velocity are referred to with primary Imperfectives. This view implies a continuum between Perfective and Imperfective, the transition between the two poles being enabled by increasing the “verbal velocity” via prefixation: a prefix adds directionality, therefore the action can proceed faster along a traced path to its completion. A further implication is that prefixes can be optional, being resorted to only in contexts of “increased velocity”, which naturally lead to completion, and in Slavic require Perfectives. By comparing the Gothic and Old Church Slavonic translations of the New Testament with the original Greek, it should be possible to determine the degree of consistency in the use of verbal prefixes in Gothic to indicate aspectual contrasts that are rendered in Old Church Slavonic by contrasted uses of Perfectives vs. Imperfectives. The comparison should be both with the Greek text (as has traditionally been done in discussions on the prefixation of Gothic compared with the Greek aspectual forms) and with the Old Church Slavonic one, in order to find out whether there are the patterns of aspectual correlation common to Gothic and Old Church Slavonic. I illustrate this approach below, on a short text sample. Lambdin (2006: 16) quotes the Gothic translation of Luke 16.6-7 to exemplify the inconsistent use of completive prefixes. The Gothic version of this passage differs from the Old Church Slavonic one by an apparently inconsistent use of Perfective forms in the imperative in Goth. gameleia/meleib vs. OCS napišipa,b (Gk. aor. grápsona,b) „write‟, although the aspect of the other imperative in the sentence is consistent in both versions: Goth. nimi,j, OCS priimipi,j (Gk. aor. déksaii,j „take‟):

185

(262) [6] þaruh qaþ1: taihuntaihund kase alewis. jah qaþ2 du imma: nimi þus bokos jah gasitands sprauto gameleia fim tiguns. [7] þaþroh þan du anþaramma qaþ3: aþþan þu, ƕan filu skalt? iþ is qaþ4: taihuntaihund mitade kaurnis. jah qaþ5 du imma: nimj þus bokos jah meleib ahtautehund. [6] onŭ že rečep1 sŭtomĭ měrŭ otŭ olěa і rečep2 emou: priimii boukŭvi tvoę. i sědŭ skoro napišipa pǫtĭ desętŭ. [7] i po tomĭ že drougoumou rečep3: ty že kolicěmĭ dlŭženŭ esi. onŭ že rečep4 sŭtomĭ korecŭ pĭšenicę. i gla.i5 emou: priimiij boukŭvi tvoę i napišipb osmĭ desętŭ (Codex Marianus) [6] ho dè eĩpen1: hekatòn bátous elaíou. ho dè eĩpen2 autōi déksai sou t grámmata ka kathísas takhéōs grápsona pent konta. [7] épeita hetérō eĩpen3: sù dè póson opheíleis? ho dè eĩpen4: hekatòn kórous sítou. légei5 autōi déksaij sou tà grámmata kaì grápsonb ogdo konta. [6] „And he said: “A hundred measures of oil.” So he said to him: “Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.”‟ [7] „Then he said to another: “And how much do you owe?” So he said: “A hundred measures of wheat.” And he said to him: “Take your bill, and write eighty.”‟

Both qiþan and reštip „say‟ are primary Perfectives (qiþan does not derive aspectually contrasted Perfectives, and the instances of Imperfective uses of reštip are very rare), because „saying‟ is inherently telic – as opposed to „speaking‟, which is atelic. Also, both niman and (pri)jętip „take, receive‟ are Perfective, since the concept of „taking‟ is inherently telic: the prefix pri- in prijętip is directional and deictic, with no aspectual contribution (cf. atniman vs. niman, with same meaning), while ganiman means „take with oneself‟, where ga- is directional because it denotes

186

convergent motion cf. Lat. co(m)- etc.; otherwise, the Perfectivizing force of ga- and its cognates with other verbs in other languages is due to their expressing convergent motion: convergence always involves a terminus, hence the situation is inherently telic, therefore the verb must be Perfective, as discussed earlier. Resorting to “verbal velocity” might explain the choice of gameljan over meljan „write‟ in a context of „higher velocity‟ of the action, as signaled by the presence of the adverb sprauto „quickly‟ in Luke 16.6. A search in the Gothic corpus shows that sprauto, when meaning „quickly‟, rather than „soon‟, quite regularly co-occurs with Perfectives or with verbs denoting transitions between two spatial or temporal situations, whose Old Church Slavonic counterparts are all Perfective: usgaggan ~ izitip „go out‟ (Luke 14.21), briggan ~ iznestip „bring‟ (Luke 15.22), gameljan ~ napisatip „write‟ (Luke 16.6), gawrikan ~ sŭtvoritip mĭstĭ „avenge‟ (Luke 18.8), urreisan ~ vŭstatip „arise‟ (John 11.29), usstandan ~ vŭstatip „stand up‟ (John 11.31), qiman ~ priitip „come‟ (1 Timothy 3.14; 2 Timothy 4.9). This distribution suggests that the choice in (262) of the Perfective gameljan, recognizable as the aspectual counterpart of Imperfective meljan, might be due to the injunction expressly referring to the desired completion of the action, while in the absence of sprauto, the Imperfective meljan could have been felt as sufficient. Finally, among the Gothic – Old Church Slavonic pairs mentioned above, briggan is a primary Perfective, because the deixis it involves renders it inherently telic; also in Old Church Slavonic, as in all Slavic languages, the Perfective of „bring‟ is primary (morphologically unmarked): OCS iznestip vs. iznositii. sprauto occurs in a negative context (1 Timothy 5.22) with the Imperfective lagjan „lay‟ (Pfv. galagjan), rendered in Old Church Slavonic also by an Imperfective vŭzlagatii, because negative contexts regularly select the Imperfective. One

187

example (John 13.27) has an Imperfective in Gothic (taujan „do‟, Pfv. gataujan) where OCS has the Perfective sŭtvoritip, contrasted with its Imperfective counterpart tvoritii immediately preceding it: Goth. þatei taujis, tawei sprauto ~ OCS eže tvorišii sŭtvori skoro ~ Gk. hò poieĩs poíēson tákhion. Wulfila might have preferred to preserve here the alliteration and assonance of the Greek original (even between the Greek and Gothic variants there is some assonance). When sprauto means „soon‟, it refers to the beginning of a state or action, not to its completion, and as such the Imperfective is selected in Old Church Slavonic to describe that state / action, while Gothic has in these cases verbs that are either Imperfective (wisan waila hugjands ~ biti ouvěštaęi sę „be in agreement (with someone)‟ in Matthew 5.25) or biaspectual (ubilwaurdjan ~ zŭloslovitii „speak evil of‟ in Mark 9.39, and afwandjan ~ prělagatii „turn away‟ in Galatians 1.6). What these data suggest is that the Perfectivizing effect of the directional suffixes follows from an accelerative Aktionsart associated with a preestablished path: 124 one proceeds faster towards a goal – which in this case is the temporal state of the Theme being completely affected – if the path is traced in advance. The accelerative Aktionsart often translates into an intensive (Dressler 1968), since a higher input of energy can be expended by increasing either the speed in a motion towards a goal or the force applied to an object, e.g. Rus. ubit’p „kill‟ vs. bit’i „hit‟. Directional suffixes indicate the path towards completion, thereby implying that there is a goal towards which this path leads. When there is already a goal- or source-like argument in the base verb, these suffixes convey various nuances modifying the meaning of the unprefixed base. 124

This is how the Perfectivizing effect of prefixes has been commonly interpreted in the literature on non-Slavic

languages which have Slavic-type aspect (Greek, Latin, Gothic, etc.): Meltzer (1902), Brunel (1939), and especially Thumb (1915) for Greek, Lloyd (1979) and Wedel (1976; 1987; 1997) for Germanic. An important contribution seems to be Milovanović (1995), inaccessible to me. 188

4.4.3 Directional applicatives Some Slavic Perfectives introduce a directional argument – for instance, in Polish the object onto which something is sewn is an argument, the predicate being incomplete without it: szyći coś1 „sew smth.‟ → przyszyćp (→ przyszywaći) coś1 do czegoś „sew something1 to something‟. The derived verb is Perfective because the action underwent by the theme goes „all the way‟ to the goal denoted by the new argument (cf. Filipović 2007): in the example below, the button (the whole of it) goes into the state of being sewn to the shirt. The morpheme that contributes both the new argument (Goal) and the completion of the action (feature [F]) is again the prefix:

(263)

AgP Ag' Ag0 Ø

AgP Ag' Ag0 Ø

Th'

guzik

ThP

Acc Th'

guzik

Acc

ThP

Th0 Ø[+act]

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP Go'

do koszuli

Go0

Root szy-

Root

przy-[+partake][F] szy-

szyći guzik

przyszyć guzik do koszuli

„sew a button‟

„sew a button to a shirt‟

The new argument can be a DP as well as a PP, and be assigned case by the prefix. In the example below, a goal argument is added to a verb whose only argument is an Experiencer (or a Theme, depending on the interpretation: whether the subject is construed as experiencing, or

189

being aware of, his reaching old age), as in żyći „live‟ → dożyćp (→ dożywaći) czegoś (goal) „live until‟:

(264)

ExpP Exp'

Jan

ExpP (do późnego wieku)

Exp0 Ø

GoP

późnego wieku

Exp'

Jan

Exp0 Ø

Root

Go0

G

ży-

Go'

do-[+relate][F]

Jan żył do późnego wieku

Jan dożył późnego wieku

„Jan lived to an old age‟

„Jan reached an old age‟

Root ży-

When a certain preposition is only used in a locative sense, lacking a directional variant (cf. Gm. in: locative with the dative and directional with the accusative), like Pol. przy + L (only locative) and its cognates in other Slavic languages, and is used to derive a Perfective with a Goal argument that has a directional case, this directional case is manifestly assigned by the feature [+relate] of Go0, not by the preposition, cf. the earlier discussion of Cz. podříditp „adjust‟ in Dvořák‟s (2010) example. The derivation of Pol. przypisywaći coś1 (Acc) czemuś2 (D) „ascribe smth.1 to smth.2‟ from pisaći coś (Acc) „write smth.‟ must have proceeded (diachronically) through the intermediary stage of making an optional goal-denoting adjunct into an argument. The prefix was added in order to signal the new argument by specifying the abstract spatial relationship between the Theme and the Goal as one of proximity (the preposition przy means „at, by‟); this spatial relationship is the way in which the Theme „partakes‟ of the Goal, whence

190

the feature [+partake] and the case assignment to the goal argument. The Goal constitutes an inherent endpoint, whence the feature [F] and the Perfectivity: pisaći coś „write smth.‟ → pisaći coś1 komuś2 „write smth.1 to smb.2‟ → przypisywaći coś1 komuś2 „ascribe smth.1 to smb.2‟.

Akt10 125

(265)

-ywa-[+durative][-telic]

… AgP

Ag' Ag0 Ø

AgP

coś

Ag' Ag0 Ø

ThP coś

Acc

ThP

Acc

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP komuś

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

Th'

Root

D

pis-

Go' Go0

Root

przy-[+partake][F] pis-

pisaći coś

przypisywaći coś komuś

„write something‟

„ascribe something to somebody‟

Likewise in Lat. adscribere aliquid1 (Acc) alicui2 (D) „ascribe smth.1 to smb.2‟, the Goal argument alicui2 is in the dative, although the preposition ad only takes the accusative:

(266) tu eius perfidiae (D) uoluntatem tuam adscripsisti (Cicero, Philippicae 2.79) „you added your consent to his perfidy‟

125

See the next chapter for the syntax and semantics of Imperfectives. 191

By contrast, the beneficiary in the following example is not an argument, since the regards are added to the letter, not to the beneficiary (tibi „to you‟):

(267) salutem tibi plurimam adscribit (Cicero, Ad Atticum 1.5.8) „he adds [to the letter] many regards for you‟

When a prefix is added to a verb that already has a Goal argument, it specifies the direction to the goal. In Slavic for instance, this is the case with two classes of verbs: a) base Imperfectives: determinate Imperfectives qua determinate (acting as Perfectives in relation to the corresponding indeterminate Imperfectives), e.g. Pol. nieśći-det „carry‟ → przynieśćp „bring‟, wynieśćp „take out‟, etc.;126 b) base Perfectives: verbs of spatial and figurative transfer („give‟, „buy‟, „throw‟, „jump‟, etc.), e.g. Pol. rzucićp „throw‟ → wyrzucićp „throw out‟, skoczyćp → wskoczyćp „jump in‟, daćp „give‟ → dodaćp „add‟, sprzedaćp „sell‟, kupićp „buy‟ → przekupićp „bribe‟, etc.127

126

One might be tempted to include into this class the verbs of positioning („set‟, „sit down‟, „set up‟, „lay‟, „hang‟),

where the relationship between the members of the aspectual pairs is obscured by idiosyncratic developments in the individual languages, e.g. Pol. kłaśći – położyćp „lay‟, with unused *łożyć(i) deriving włożyćp „put in‟. (The suppletivism in aspectual pairs like włożyćp – wkładaći „put in‟ ~ położyćp – kłaśći „lay, put‟ parallels the one in motion verbs: wnieśćp – wnosići „carry in‟ ~ nieśći-det – nosići-indet „carry‟.) However, as I argued earlier, these verbs are causatives where the caused event contains an Agent, a Theme, and a Location (rather than a Goal). 127

The derivational status of these verbs is sometimes different from English and other languages: come and go are

independent from each other, but Pol. przyjśćp „come‟ is derived from iśći-det „go‟; also, both buy and sell are morphologically simple, but in Polish, kupićp „buy‟ is simple, while sprzedaćp „sell‟ is derived from daćp „give‟. 192

The base verb in both cases assigns carries the feature [F] in Go 0, because the presence of a goal constitutes a final endpoint of the action, involving a transition between the state of the goal not having been reached to the state of the goal having been reached. [F] is responsible for both the Perfective aspect of the Perfective and the Perfective behavior of the determinate Imperfectives qua determinate in relation to their indeterminate counterparts, which do not have a Goal argument. Implicitly, the Perfective prefixed verbs of motion are derived from the determinate Imperfective qua determinate, which already have a Goal:

(268)

AgP … ThP coś

Acc

AgP … ThP coś

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP gdzieś

Acc

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP gdzieś

Go' Go0 Ø[+partake][F]

Th'

Go' Go0

Root nies-

w-[+partake][F]

nieśći-det coś gdzieś

wnieśćp coś gdzieś

„carry something somewhere‟

„bring something in somewhere‟

Root nies-

Quite similar are the prefixed ditransitive verbs with a Recipient argument. As a rule, the base verb is Perfective (due to the Recipient constituting an inherent final endpoint), and the prefixes add various nuances by specifying spatial configurations between the arguments, e.g. Pol. daćp → oddaćp „give back / deliver (mail, etc.)‟:

193

(269)

AgP … RecP komuś

D

AgP … RecP komuś

Rec' Rec0 Ø[+act][F]

ThP

D

Rec' Rec0

ThP

od-[+act][F] coś

Acc

coś

Th' Th0 Ø[+relate]

Root

Acc

da-

Th' Th0 Ø[+relate]

Root da-

daćp komuś coś

oddaćp komuś coś

„give somebody something‟

„give back something to somebody‟

There are numerous instances where the spatial configuration of the arguments (or the path of the action, etc.) is specified by more than one prefix, e.g. Russ. vosprinjat’p derived with the preverb vz-/voz- meaning usually „upwards‟ from prinjat’p „receive‟, which is itself derived with the preverb pri- „next to‟ from a synchronically irretrievable root going back to PSl *im-, which derives both the stative imet’i „possess‟ and the inchoative prinjat’p „come to possess‟ > „receive‟. Here, the semantic relationship between vosprinjat’p and prinjat’p is relatively straightforward, but there are many other instances where this is not so, like in Russ. prinadležat’i „belong‟ (to be discussed later), which does not derive from nadležat’i „be incumbent upon‟, but rather both verbs derive from ležat’i „lie‟. Therefore, I will regard such cases of multiple prefixation as having clusters of prefixes in one syntactic head, leaving the derivational relationship open: a stem Prefix 2-Prefix1-Root- could be derived from a stem Prefix1-Root-, if the latter exists and its the semantic relationship to the more complex derivative

194

is sufficiently transparent, or from the unprefixed base (Root-), even when this does not form a simple verb synchronically.

(270)

RecP

RecP Rec'

Rec0

Rec'

(pri-)[F] čto-nibud’

Acc

Rec0

→

ThP

ThP

voz-pri-[F] čto-nibud’

Th' Th0 Ø[+relate]

Root

Acc

*im-

(pri)njat’p čto-nibud’

vosprinjat’p čto-nibud’

„receive something‟

„perceive something‟

Th' Th0 Ø[+relate]

Root *im-

4.4.4 Locative applicatives The derivation of locative applicatives consists of adding a Location argument to an atelic verb (in general of existence or position), where a Theme or an Experiencer is situated at a certain Location:

(271) lie under something1 → underlie something1 (Location) X (Experiencer) stand with (original sense: „opposite‟) something1 → → X (Experiencer) withstand something1 (Location) → X (Agent) withstand something1 (Theme) bei jemandem1 stehen „stand by somebody → → jemandem1 (Location) beistehen „stand by somebody‟ > „assist, help somebody‟

195

zum Grunde einer Sache1 liegen → einer Sache1 (Location) zugrundeliegen128 „lie at / constitute the base of something‟

The prefixes used in various languages indicate the position of the theme with regard to the location (some of the Latin, Gothic, and Old Church Slavonic formations are probably calques on Greek):129

128

In German and Dutch, separable prefixes like bei- and zusammen- were probably incorporated at a later stage

than the inseparable prefixes (e.g. in unterˈliegen „underlie‟, widerˈstehen „withstand‟ – the fact that these verbs have cognates in English suggests that their formation goes back to common West Germanic). A possible diachronic scenario is the following: -

in the older stage, the prefixes were unstressed (as in the rest of Indo-European), and they attached to the root raised through the functional head, moving on attached to the root;

-

in the newer stage, the prefixes became stressed (uniform word-initial stress, as in Hungarian), so they probably did not attach to the root, but stayed in place.

In zugrundeliegen, there will have been first PP-incorporation; I discuss another case of constituent incorporation (Lat. crucīfigere „crucify‟) in the next section. (More common is the incorporation of bare nouns: manhandle, Gm. fernsehen „watch television‟, radfahren „ride a bicycle‟, Russ. blagodarit’i „thank‟, lit. „give a blessing‟, etc.; it is also important to note that the incorporated constituent is generally non-referential.) 129

The Indo-European languages use the same prefixes and prepositions to denote direction and location (but they

are usually distinguished in adverbs), because originally the distinction between direction and location was expressed by the case of the noun: accusative for direction and locative for location. In Hungarian, where the directional (to and from) and locative „case‟ morphemes were originally independent, the distinction between direction, source, and location, is carried by „case‟ morphemes, postpositions, adverbs, and preverbs, e.g. directional fel- „upwards‟ (felmenni „go up‟) vs. positional fenn- „up‟ (fenntartani „maintain‟); directional alá- „under‟ (aláírni „sign‟, aláíró „signing, signatory (authority, party)‟) vs. positional alul- „under‟ (alulírott „undersigned (in a document, underneath the text)‟); directional rá- „onto‟ (rábeszélni „persuade‟) vs. positional rajta- „on‟ (rajtakapni 196

(272) Gothic ligan „lie‟

atligan „lie in, be within‟; ufligan „lie under‟

sitan „sit‟

andsitan „take into consideration‟ < „sit opposite‟

standan „stand‟

andstandan „withstand, resist‟;130 atstandan „stand near‟; faurastandan „stand before / near > rule, govern‟; instandan „be at hand / persist‟; miþstandan „stand together with‟

Greek eĩnai „be‟

apeĩnai „be far from‟; pareĩnai „be present at‟; perieĩnai „be around (smth.)‟

histánai „stand‟

aphistánai „be separated / different from‟; periistánai „surround (with hostility)‟

keĩsthai „lie‟

sunkeĩsthai „lie together with‟; hupokeĩsthai „lie under‟; epikeĩsthai „be on top of‟

ménein „stay‟

paraménein „stay by‟

Old Church Slavonic ležatii „lie‟

nadŭležatii „be on top of‟ priležatii „be next to‟ > „take care of‟

stojatii „stand‟

otŭstojatii „be far from‟

sědětii „sit‟

prisědětii „sit next to‟

Latin esse „be‟

adesse „be with‟; prodesse „be useful to‟; deesse „be unavailable to‟; superesse „be left over after‟

iacēre „lie‟

subiacēre „be under‟; obiacēre „lie in front of‟; circumiacēre „be situated around‟

„catch by surprise‟); directional be- „into‟ (bemenni „go in‟) and bele- „inwards‟ (be(le)lépni „step in‟) vs. positional benn- „within‟ (benntart „retain‟); directional ki- „outwards‟ (kimenni „go out‟) vs. positional kinn- „without‟ (kinnmaradni „stay out‟). The positional prefixes are homonymous with their adverbial counterparts, but their status as bound morphemes (prefixes) is secured by the only partial homonymy with the adverbs (adverb fent / fenn but preverb only fenn-), as well as by the prosodic unity of the prefixed verb: ˈfennmaradni / ˈfennˌmaradni vs. ˈfent ˈmaradni. 130

The same semantic development as with withstand: Goth. and- as a prefix means „opposite‟. 197

stāre „stand‟

adstāre „stand next to‟; superstāre „be on top of‟

sedēre „sit‟

supersedēre „sit on top of‟; adsedo „assessor‟

More frequently, the verbs derived by prefixation from stative verbs are used with a covert Location argument – a pro-form whose reference is supplied by the context:

(273) quod [SpecLocP satietati eius] superfuit (Cicero, In Verrem 1.13) „what still remained after his satiation‟

(274) non multum aestatis [SpecLocP pro] supererat (Caesar, De bello Gallico 5.22.4) „not much was left of the summer‟ – proLoc = „the calendric duration of the summer‟

(275) nam et Lycaonia et Phrygia utraque et Pisidia omnis et Chersonesus, quaeque circumiacent [SpecLocP Europae], in uestra sunt potestate (Livy, Ab urbe condita 37.54.11) „For Lycaonia, both parts of Phrygia, all Pisidia, and Chersonessus, as well as all [lands] around Europe, are under your authority.‟

(276) neque multo post extinguitur, ingenti luctu provinciae et [SpecLocP pro] circumiacentium populorum (Tacitus, Annales 2.72) „And not long afterwards he passed away, to the great sorrow of the province and of the neighboring peoples.‟ – pro = „the province (Syria)‟

In some cases, the Location argument is never overt because it is always the same:

198

(277) estimate something [above the usual level]1 → overestimate something [SpecLocP pro] etwas [unter dem üblichen Niveau]1 schätzen → [SpecLocP pro]1 etwas unterschätzen

These prefixes do not Perfectivize, because being at a location, in the position denoted by the prefix, presupposes continuity; in Slavic, the verbs derived in this manner are all Imperfective, as long as the prefix has stative value: in SCr. podcijenitip – podcjenivatii „underestimate‟,131 where the Perfective is basic (derived first), the prefix pod- „under‟ probably has directional value, as in the parallel calque (on German and Latin) Hun. alábecsül „underestimate‟, where alá- „under‟ is directional (the stative form is alatt „under‟, as a postposition). The subject is a Theme or an Experiencer, and the prefix in Loc0 introduces a Location argument, usually assigning it the same lexical case that the corresponding preposition assigns to its object when this is a Location, rather than a Goal. In the following example, the case assigned by the feature [+partake] in Loc0 is the dative-locative, rather than the accusative, because there is no motion involved.

(278)

ThP Th' ThP (unter einer Täuschung)

Th' Th0 Ø

131

Th0 Ø

LocP Loc'

einer Täuschung

Root

D

lieg-

Loc0

Root

unter-[+partake] lieg-

unter einer Täuschung liegen

einer Täuschung unterliegen

„be under a mistake‟

„be mistaken‟

Thanks to Wayles Browne for this observation. 199

Locative arguments can also be licensed by a cluster of prefixes, which together specify the spatial configuration of the arguments, e.g. Russ. ležat’i → prinadležat’i „belong‟ (pri- „next to‟, nad- „above‟), with both preverbs in Loc0, since the prinadležat’i does not derive from nadležat’i „be incumbent on (smb.)‟ by licensing an extra argument, but rather both nadležat’i and prinadležat’i add one argument to the theta-grid of ležat’i. If the objects of verbs of perception and intellectual activities are locative arguments and their subjects are Experiencers, as I suggested earlier, the prefixes which contribute an inchoative and non-durative reading („spotting‟ as beginning of „seeing‟, „realizing‟ as beginning of „knowing‟) must be in Loc0 and carry both [I] and [F], since the events described with the resulting verbs are typical achievements: Pol. słyszeći „hear‟ → usłyszećp „hear (suddenly)‟ (instantaneous). In this case, the object of słyszeći is in the partitive-genitive (the hearer is sharing perceptually in what he hears), but the object of usłyszećp is in the accusative. I would surmise that what suddenly awakens the subject‟s attention is an entire sound emission (hence the accusative, rather than the partitive-genitive); even if this emission proves afterwards to be only a segment of a longer one, this knowledge is not available, due an the indeterminacy of the feature [I], whose presence means that the sudden perception (an achievement) can be the beginning of a state of perception, but does not have to: usłyszećp can be used also when the noise that is heard suddenly does not continue, and the perception remains instantaneous, so that [I] only denotes the beginning of an instantaneous event, which practically coincides with its end. In the first case, usłyszećp is the inchoative of słyszeći, but in the second one, it is a semelfactive (279). Another possible theta-grid for the verbs of sudden perception or mental activity is suggested by the semantic closeness to Russ. vosprinjat’p „perceive‟ mentioned earlier, whose subject appears to be a Recipient, to judge from the derivation from prinjat’p „receive‟. In

200

this case, the subject would be construed as the recipient of a perception, recollection, insight, etc. („spot‟, „realize‟, „forget‟, „fall in love‟, etc.), and the object as a Theme (280); these verbs are inchoative, if they denote an achievement initiating a state – such is the case of the verbs of mental activities (a sudden recollection, understanding, forgetting, etc. is inevitably followed by the corresponding state), but not of the verbs of perception:132

(279)

ExpP

ExpP Exp'

Jan

Exp0 Ø

Loc0 Ø[+relate]

LocP piosenkę

Loc'

piosenki

132

Exp0 Ø

LocP

G

Exp'

Jan

Root

Acc

słysz-

Loc' Loc0

Root

u-[+relate][I][F] słysz-

Jan słyszałi piosenki

Jan usłyszałp piosenkę

„John was hearing a song‟

„John heard a song (suddenly)‟

Unlike the „external‟ ingressive constructions (to be discussed later), where the subject is an Agent, the subject of

these verbs are Experiencers. They focus the beginning of a perception by, or mental activity of, the subject, whether this is regarded as a Recipient or as an Experiencer. 201

(280)

RecP Rec'

Jan

Rec0 Ø

ThP piosenkę

Acc

Th' Th0

Root

u-[+relate][I][F]

słysz-

Jan usłyszałp piosenkę „John heard a song (suddenly)‟

4.4.5 Multiple prefixation with different arguments The head hierarchy assumed in the preceding sections, in conjunction with the rationale given for the placement of individual prefixes in specific applicative heads, accounts for the order of prefixes in multiple applicatives, according to the Mirror Principle.133 In (281), Skr. sam-ā-nī- „bring (smth. entirely)‟ (sam- „converging‟ + ā- „hither‟ + root nī- „lead‟) contains a completive prefix sam- „together‟ 134 in Th0 and a directional prefix ā„hither‟ in Go0. The linear sequence of prefixes corroborates the head hierarchy Th0 > Go0 assumed so far. Both prefixes contain [F] – the one in Th0 because the entire Theme is supposed to be affected in the action (the addressee, which is Rāma, is brought in his entirety), and the one in Go0 because the action is supposed to go all the way to the Goal, which is Raghunandana 135.

133

Cf. its application by Speas (1991) to the analysis or prefix ordering in the Navajo verb.

134

In order to illustrate the completive value of sam-, one must choose examples with a singular Theme, otherwise

the sense could be interpreted as directional (convergent motion): the most frequent meaning of sam-ā-ni- is „gather‟, with a plural or collective Theme. 135

A character in the Rāmāyaṇa. 202

As such, [F] on Th0 and [F] on Go0 both refer to the same natural culmination of the event, which is the moment when Rāma has reached Raghunandana. The denotation of the proposition in this preceding example entails that transitions exist both when the Goal is reached and when the Theme is completely affected, but these transitions coincide pragmatically, because both the Goal and the Theme participate in the same event, which is described as an act of „carrying‟ the Theme to the Goal: if the Goal is not reached, the Theme is not completely affected by the „carrying‟, and vice versa. In (282), the fact that Raghunandana in e (the bringing event) is a Goal, rather than a static Location, entails that there is a situation e' (the state where the addressee has been brought to, i.e. is at, Raghunandana‟s place) in which Raghunandana is a static Location, and not a Goal, cf. (160). Likewise, the fact that the addressee is completely affected in e entails that there is a situation e" where it is not a Theme, cf. (166)-(167). (e' and e'' must be considered separately from each other, otherwise the addressee in e' will still be a Theme – this time not the Theme of the bringing event e, but the Theme of the state e', when it is located at Raghunandana‟s place.)

203

(281)

AgP 136

Ag'

PRO

Ag0 Ø

ThP

(adya eva)

tvāṃ

Acc

Th' Th0

GoP

sam-[+act][F] Raghunandanaṃ

Acc

Go'

Go0 ā-[+partake][F]

Root nī-

icchāmi tvāṃ samānetuṃ adya eva Raghunandanaṃ (Rāmāyaṇa 6.36.8) „I want to bring you already today to Raghunandana‟

(282) [[tvāṃ Raghunandanaṃ sam-ā-nī-]] = λes[carry(e) & & Goal(Ragh.)(e) & hither(Ragh.)(e) & Themenon-increm.(tvam)(e) & converged(tvam)(e)]

[e's[e < e' & Goal(Raghunandana)(e')]] & e''s[e < e' & Theme(tvam)(e'')]] → → [[[tvāṃ Raghunandanaṃ sam-ā-nī-]] (S) → → [e's[S < e' & Goal(Raghunandana)(e')] & e''s[S < e'' & Theme(tvam)(e'')]]

In some other cases, however, the sequences of prefixes is not what would be expected – e.g. in Skr. sam-pra-dā- „give over, hand over‟, derived from the root dā- „give‟ with completive sam-

136

PRO is coindexed with the subject of the matrix clause (1.sg.). 204

„together‟ and directional pra- „forth‟. 137 If the indirect object is a Recipient, as it is with unprefixed dā- assuming the head hierarchy Rec0 > Th0, one would expect the sequence *prasam-dā-. On the other hand, considering the quasi-synonymy between sam-pra-dā- and the causative sam-arpaya- „hand over‟, derived with completive sam- from the root r- „go, progress‟, 138 as well as the locative use of verbs, or derivatives from verbs, with the base meaning „give‟ in several languages,139 there seems to be little point in regarding the indirect object of sam-pra-dā- as a Recipient rather than a Goal (if this distinction holds for Sanskrit at all).140 I have presented earlier several examples where a root undergoes changes in theta-grid and argument structure, so that an ambiguity between a Recipient and a Goal interpretation of what I called a „goal-like theta-roles‟ (as in John gave Mary an apple vs. John gave an apple to Mary, assuming that the indirect object is a Recipient in the first sentence and a Goal in the second one) might suggest a reanalysis of the indirect object of sam-pra-dā- as a spatial goal,

137

With each one of these prefixes: pra-dā- „offer [respect / veneration (Acc) to somebody (D / L)]‟, sam-dā- „give

[something (Acc) entirely to somebody (D)]‟. In the former example, the Recipient is apparently construed either as a Recipient in the dative, or as a Goal in the locative (in Sanskrit, the locative can be used for Goals, too). 138

Both saṃpradā- and samarpaya- are attested in post-Vedic Sanskrit. The dative can sometimes be used for goals

in Sanskrit – both as arguments (sarvaṃ atimātraṃ doṣāya (D) „all that is excessive becomes reprehensible‟, lit. „will lead to a fault‟) and as obliques (angānāṃ bhangāya (D) ār ḍhaḥ bālaiḥ prākāraḥ „the children climbed the wall only to break their limbs‟, lit. „to the effect of breaking of their limbs‟) (examples from Coulson 1992: 71). 139

Examples: Lat. indere „put, place, introduce into‟ (in „in(to)‟ + dare „give‟), Gk. endidónai in the sense „flow

into‟ (about rivers) (en- „in(to)‟ + didónai „give‟), Gm. eingeben „insert‟ (ein- „in(to)‟ + geben „give‟), Russ. vdat’sjap „protrude, jut out (into)‟ (v- „in(to)‟ + dat’p „give‟ + reflexive -sja), Hun. ráadni „put (clothes, etc. on somebody)‟ (rá „onto him/her/it‟ + adni „give‟), Hebr. nātan „he gave / put‟. 140

This discussion will obviously have to be formulated in different terms if Affectees can be shown to ultimately

derive from Locations. 205

given that the prefix itself suggests a spatial interpretation: the transfer is not just a transfer of possession, but a spatial transfer from the giver to a receiver constituting a spatial goal. If this is correct, sam-pra-dā- will behave like sam-ā-nī-:

(283)

AgP Ag'

pro2.sg.

Ag0 Ø

ThP āsanaṃ

Acc

Th' Th0

GoP

sam-[+act][F] tasmai

D

Go' Go0

pra-[+relate][F]

Root dā-

āsanaṃ tasmai saṃpradāya (Mahābhārata 2.148) „having given him the seat‟

As in the preceding example, here too both Th0 and Go0 contain [F] – Th0 because the entire Theme is supposed to be affected in the action (the seat is transferred in its entirety), and Go0 because the action is supposed to proceed all the way to the Goal. As such, [F] on Th0 and [F] on Go0 both refer to the same natural culmination of the event, which is the moment when the seat in its entirety has been transferred to the Goal. My intuition is that, in general, space intervenes when there is an overt directional element, in which case the Recipient is interpreted accordingly as a Goal, e.g. the directional adverb over in John gave over a document to Mary (Goal) vs. *John gave Mary (Recipient) over

206

a document or *John gave over Mary (Recipient) a document. Also, deliver / Gm. liefern, as opposed to give / Gm. geben, usually involves space, and the indirect object in the dative is mostly restricted to pronouns; otherwise it is a PP, like the Goal arguments of motion verbs: deliver to / Gm. liefern an. If this is so, there is little room left for prefixes in Rec 0, and cases of type Pol. oddaćp „give back‟ could as well involve Goals, rather than Recipients. In any event, this change would be inconsequential for Perfectivization. An alternative analysis of the Sanskrit examples in this section would be to reconsider the role of the prefix sam- as denoting not the complete involvement of the Theme in the action, but rather the convergence of the Theme towards the goal – even when the Theme is in the singular: the entire body of the addressee converging on Raghunandana‟s location in (281), and the entire seat converging on the third party‟s location in (283). If so, the prefix complex sam-ā- would be in Go0 – and implicitly the order of prefixes would reveal nothing about the structural hierarchy of the functional heads. The two alternative analyses are not mutually contradictory, and I doubt that it is possible to exclude either one of them. Rather, they reflect two possible interpretations of the respective sentences. The most common cases of multiple applicatives involve comitative prefixes, to be discussed in the next section. These prefixes differ from all those discussed so far in that the derivational relationship of the prefixed verb to the base verb involves the expansion of the thetagrid by one argument with the same theta-role as one of the arguments of the base verb.

4.4.6 Comitative applicatives Prefixes denoting comitativity and sociativity like Gm. mit- in mitgehen „go with‟ introduce new participants („comitatives‟) into the situation as new arguments of the same type as one of the

207

existing arguments of the base verb, and the new argument (the comitative) joins the old argument with the same theta-role. In the German verbs prefixed with mit-, the old argument is usually an unpronounced pro taking its reference from the context:

(284) machen → mitmachen: Agent comitative X1 (Agent) macht Y2 (Theme) „X makes Y‟ → → Z (comitative Agent) macht pro2 (Theme) [zusammen mit]pro1 (Agent) mit „Z joins in (Y together with Z)‟ fühlen → mitfühlen: Experiencer comitative X1 (Experiencer) fühlt Y2 (Theme) „X feels Y‟ → → Z (comitative Experiencer) fühlt pro2(Theme) [zusammen mit]pro1 (Experiencer) mit „Z sympathizes (with X in Y)‟ brennen → mitbrennen: Theme comitative X (Agent) brennt Y1 (Theme) „X burns Y‟ (e.g. on a CD) → → X (Agent) brennt Z (comitative Theme) [mit]pro1 (Theme) mit „X burns Z (together with Y)‟

I will be assuming that these new arguments are introduced in a ComP (comitative phrase). In all branches of Indo-European, the comitative prefix is leftmost, which points to a position of ComP higher than that of at least the „internal‟ arguments (i.e. all arguments other than the Agent), because only the internal arguments can have prefixes in the respective functional heads. In cases where the comitative is an Agent, ComP in a German verb prefixed with mit- will be above AgP as well, this position being suggested by the compositionality (as shown in the derivations

208

below), and the semantic feature on Com0 will determine the selectional properties of the prefix: a comitative Agent, Theme, or Experiencer is the comitative of an Agent, Theme, or Experiencer, respectively. As a working hypothesis, I will further assume that Com 0 is immediately above the functional head whose theta-role it shares; I have not found data to prove or disprove this, though. There is no violation of UTAH, because what the comitative head does is to provide precisely a mechanism for the association of a new participant to an existing one in a given thetarole, the result being a collective participant with that theta-role. The pro-forms in (285) take the reference from the context. I represent this by coindexing them with their counterparts in the unprefixed verb: when describing a situation where the Prussians make an attack, either with or without the Bavarians joining in, the theme is indexed with 1, and the originally single agent with 2.

(285)

[[pro1]] = „an attack‟

ComP die Bayern

Com0

AgP

[[pro2]] = „the Prussians‟

Com' AgP

mit-

Ag'

die Preußen2

Ag0 Ø

Ag0 Ø

ThP

einen Angriff1

Acc

Ag'

pro2

Th'

Th0 Ø[+act]

ThP Th'

pro1

Root mach-

Th0 Ø[+act]

Die Preußen machten einen Angriff.

Die Bayern machten mit.

„The Prussians attacked.‟

„The Bavarians joined in.‟

209

Root mach-

Com0 is a complex head composed of Ø, whose feature [±cause] selects the Agent (this is the feature proper to Agents), and the prefix mit-, which denotes concomitance. The denotation of the complex head will state the comitativity of the new Agent, which joins the Agent of the base verb. The comitative prefix must combine by function application, rather than predicate modification, because it does not modify the way in which an argument (the comitative) participates in the event, but rather adds that new argument to the theta-grid. Compositionally, a comitative morpheme behaves like a functional head applied to another functional head. While the prefixes discussed in the preceding sections transfer the mode of combination (by predicate modification) from clause level (as adverbs) to head level (as preverbs), the comitative prefixes in a certain sense „transfer‟ the mode of combination (by function application) of functional heads, introducing arguments at clause level, into the functional heads themselves. The relative formal complexity of the denotation of the comitative prefixes in (287) and (288) compared to the denotations of the other prefixes might explain their limited distribution in Indo-European, as well as their belonging to a certain level of cultured discourse, as I will suggest below. In (286)(287), if there is no identified Agent, the function application crashes at Com0 level, and the sentence remains uninterpretable – in this example, Die Bayern machten mit is uninterpretable if one does not know what party the Bavarians joined in the attack. The derivation in (288) of the comitative example in (285) proceeds by applying (287).

Com0

(286) mit-

Ø

(287) [[Ø]] = λes[ye[Agent(y)(e)]] [[mit-]] = λgseλfstλxeλes[f(e) & with(g(e))(x)(e)]

210

[[mit-Ø]] = [[mit-]] ([[Ø]]) = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & with(ye[Agent(y)(e)])(x)(e)]

(288) AgP: [[pro2 pro1 mit-mach-]] = λes[make(e) & Theme ([[pro1]] )(e) & Agent([[pro2]] )(e)] [[die Bayern pro2 pro1 mit-mach-]] = [[mit-Ø]] ([[pro2 pro1 mit-mach-]] )(the Bavarians) = = λes[[[pro2 pro1 mit-mach-]] (e) & with(ye[Agent(y)(e)])(the Bavarians)(e)] = = λes[make(e) & Theme ([[pro1]] )(e) & Agent([[pro2]] )(e) & & with(ye[Agent(y)(e)])(the Bavarians)(e)] = = λes[make(e) & Theme ([[pro1]] )(e) & Agent([[pro2]] )(e) & & with([[pro2]] )(the Bavarians)(e)] [[[pro1]] = „an attack‟ & [[pro2]] = „the Prussians‟] → [[die Bayern pro2 pro1 mit-mach-]] = = λes[make(e) & Theme(an attack)(e) & Agent(the Bavarians)(e) & & with(the Prussians)(the Bavarians)(e)]] [[die Bayern pro2 pro1 mit-mach-]] (S) = 1 iff S is an attack and the Prussians are the agents in S and the Bavarians join the Prussians in S

Different from „simultaneous‟ comitatives like the ones mentioned above are „sequential comitatives‟, e.g. Gm. nachmachen „imitate‟ (lit. „make after‟) or vorhergehen „precede‟. (The distinction „simultaneous‟ vs. „sequential‟ applies to simple verbs as well: accompany is simultaneous, follow and precede are sequential.) For an arbitrary theta-role with a feature [±α]:

Com0

(289) nach-

Com0 Ø[±α]

vorher-

Ø[±α]

211

(290) [[Ø[±α]]] = λes.ye[Role(y)(e)]

[[nach-]] = λgseλfstλxeλes[f(e) & after(g(e))(x)(e)] [[vorher-]] = λgseλfstλxeλes[f(e) & before(g(e))(x)(e)]

Gm. mitverzehren „eat / consume with‟, derived from verzehren „consume‟, contains two prefixes: comitative mit- and completive ver-. The second one carries the feature [F], imparting the Perfective meaning „consume‟ due to its origin (< PIE *per- „all the way through‟), but the first one does not: comitativity is not Perfective, because it only denotes an accompaniment for the duration of an action, with no contribution of [I] or [F]. The sense of etwas1 mitverzehren is always „consume something1 together with something2‟, where something2 (the Theme of the base verb verzehren) is a pro-form whose referent is retrievable from the context. The Perfectivity of ver- refers to the eating of the fruit‟s pulp first, and only accessorily to that of the skin: one cannot use verzehren to describe the eating of the skin if the eating of the pulp would be better described by zehren (an) „eat at‟. 141 In the next and the following examples with comitative Themes, the accusative case of the comitative Theme in SpecComP is assigned by the feature [+act] in Com0, as in all other functional heads – not by the prefix itself (the prefix as a preposition assigns the dative-instrumental).

141

zehren (an) is actually used now only figuratively: „wear down, sap (the strength)‟. 212

(291)

[[pro]] = „the pulp of the fruit‟

AgP Ag'

man

Ag0 Ø

ComP die Schale

Acc

Com'

Com0

ThP

mit-[+act]

pro

Th' Th0 ver-[+act][F]

Root zehr-

Man kann die Schale mitverzehren. „One can eat the skin (together with the pulp of the fruit), too.‟

(292) [[Ø]] = λes[ye[Theme(y)(e)]] [[mit-]] = λhseλfstλxeλes[f(e) & with(h(e))(x)(e)] [[ver-]] = λfstλxeλes[f(e) & all-way-through(x)(e)]

The old argument can sometimes be overtly expressed in a PP or a DP with the dativeinstrumental. This is most often the case in Greek and in the calques from Greek in other languages, e.g. Gk. sumpáskhein, Lat. compatī „experience the same feelings like (smb.)‟, or Gk. sumbio n, Goth. miþliban „live together with‟. Transitive verbs with comitative prefixes have a comitative argument with the theta-role of the argument it joins (Agent or Theme) and the old argument in an DP with the dative-instrumental or a PP. The predicate sunāidei ōid n „sings a song‟ below is incomplete by itself, without the DP in the dative-instrumental tini „along with

213

somebody‟, 142 or at least an original agent retrievable from the context, as in the German example with mitmachen:

(293) āidein → sunāidein: Agent comitative X1 (Agent) āidei ōid n (Theme) „X sings a song‟ → → Z (comitative Agent) sunāidei tinì1 (Agent) ōid n (Theme) „Z sings a song along with somebody‟

(294)

ComP Com'

tis2

Com0

AgP

AgP

sun-

Ag'

tis1

Ag0 Ø ōid n

142

Ag0 Ø-

ThP

Acc

Ag'

tini1

ōid n

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

ThP

Root

Acc

āid-

Th' Th0 Ø[+act]

Root āid-

āidei tis1 (N) ōid n

sunāidei tís2 (N) tini1 (D) ōid n

„somebody1 sings a song‟

„somebody2 sings a song along with somebody1‟

The dative case of tini is not assigned by Ag0, but probably by a silent preposition – cf. the proposal I made

earlier that DPs are always introduced into clauses by PPs, even when the preposition is covert (manifesting its presence by case agreement inside the DP, in the languages where this happens. The old argument can be expressed in a PP as well. 214

The comitative prefix sun- is not used along with a locative-positional prefix to introduce two DP arguments, presumably because both the comitative and the Locative arguments would be in the dative and it would be difficult to tell apart in some contexts (although the cases of double accusative are quite common in Greek; the dative of the comitative resulted from the syncretism dative-instrumental, and the dative of the locative resulted from the syncretism dative-locative). For instance, sunephistánai (sun-epi-histánai „with-on-stand‟) „be on top of (together with somebody)‟ > „oversee (together with somebody)‟ has only one locative argument, with dative case assigned by epi-, as in ephistánai (epi-histánai) „stand on top of‟, and the comitative is introduced in a PP metá tinos „with somebody‟, but is nevertheless an argument. The Theme or the Experiencer (of an erect posture, with a locative oblique in histánai and a Location argument in ephistánai) is reanalyzed as an Agent in the semantic development of this verb, with concomitant reanalysis of the Location as a Theme (I assume here that the location is an argument, rather than an adjunct).

(295)

ThP X1 ThP X1

Th0 Ø

(epí tinos2)

Th' Th0 Ø

Th' LocP Loc'

tini2

Root

D

hista-

Loc0

Root

epi-[+partake] hista-

X1 hístēsi (epí tinos2)

X1 ephístēsi tiní2

„X1 stands (on top of something2)‟

„X1 stands on top of something2‟

215

ComP Y3 ThP

Com' Com0

(metá tinos3)

ThP

sun-

X1

Th' Th0 Ø

Th0 Ø

LocP Loc'

tini2

D

Th'

metá tinos1

LocP Loc'

tini2

Loc0

Root

epi-[+partake]

hista-

D

Loc0

Root

epi- [+partake] hista-

X1 ephístēsi tinì2 (metá tinos3) „X1 stands on top of something2 (together with somebody3)‟

Y3 ephístēsi tinì2 metá tinos1 „Y3 stands on top of something2 together with somebody1‟

ComP Y3

Com' Com0

AgP

sunmetá tinos1

Ag'

Ag0 Ø

ThP Th'

tini2

Th0

Root

epi-[+act]

hista-

Y3 sunephístēsi tinì2 metá tinos1 „Y3 oversees something2 together with somebody1‟ 216

In this reanalysis of theta-roles, the prefix epi- in sunephisánai „oversee‟ does not inherit a feature [F] from sunephistánai „stand on top of together with‟, and sunephisánai „oversee‟ is an Imperfective – it only describes activities. This is so because epi- in sunephistánai „stand on top of together with‟ verb it was in Loc0 and therefore had no [F], cf. the discussion of locational applicatives. The reanalysis of theta-roles seems to result from a structural „sliding‟ of couples of associated theta-roles along a conceptual axis (or a continuum of proto-roles) due to the inclusion of an „energy‟ factor which turns a state of being on top of something into an activity of overseeing it, whereby the Experiencer becomes an Agent (it starts acting as an overseer), and the Location becomes a Theme (it is overseen by the Agent) 143:

(296)

[+dynamic] [-dynamic] Ag > Exp / Rec / Perd > Th > Loc / Go / So sunephistánai „stand on top of with‟ (state): sunephistánai „oversee‟ (activity):

Exp Ag

Loc Th

Also cases where the comitative is a DP and the Location is a PP are encountered in Greek. For instance, pareĩnai (para-eĩnai) „be present at, assist at‟ is constructed with a Location argument in the dative, but the compound sumpareĩnai does not have a further complement in the dative, although both prefixes introduce such arguments when they do not co-occur on the same verb, cf. the examples mentioned in the section about location applicatives. In the example below (Ahlman 1916: 34), the Greek verb and its Latin counterpart *compraeesse (of which only the 143

This resembles the relation between see (Experiencer – Location) and watch / look (Agent – Theme), if the object

of verbs of perception is construed as a Location whereof the Experiencer partakes perceptually. 217

participle is attested) take only one complement, but the location is understood from the context (it is a place in Antioch):

(297) taĩs sumparoúsais moi ekklēsíais (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistula ad Trallianos 12.1) cum compraesentibus mihi ecclesiis dei „to the gatherings that are with me‟

sun- introduces a new comitative argument in addition to the Location argument, with an extra focus upon the referent (the gatherings) of the comitative oblique in the construction with the base verb. Ignatius finds himself at the specific location in Antioch, or attends the specific event in Antioch, that circumstance being indicated by the argument introduced by para- (tēi leitourgíāi „at the mass‟ in the following example). In the doubly prefixed verb, the old Experiencer is a DP – as in (294), I assume that this DP is actually a PP headed by an unpronounced preposition, since Exp0 is not [+act] and therefore cannot assign case to the argument in its specifier –, and the DP-argument of pareĩnai is introduced as a PP ([PP parà tēi leitourgíāi]) with sumpareĩnai:

218

(298)

ComP hai ekklēsíai

Exp0

Com'

Com0

ExpP

sunIgnatíōi

Exp'

Ignátios

Exp0 Ø

Exp0 Ø

LocP

tēi leitourgíāi

D

Exp'

parà tēi leitourgíāi

Loc' Loc0

para-[+relate]

LocP

Root es-

Loc' Loc

para-[+relate]

Root es-

Ignátios párestin tēi leitourgíāi „Ignatius is present at the service‟

hai ekklēsíai sumpáreisin Ignatíōi parà tēi leitourgíāi „the gatherings are present together with Ignatius at the mass‟

The Greek compounds with meta- in its comitative value behave in a similar way, and assign dative case (with comitative-instrumental value due to case syncretism) to the backgrounded argument, like the corresponding preposition metá did in the most ancient attestations with this comitative value: metalankhánei tís3 (N) tiní1 (D) tinos2 (G) „somebody3 partake of / share (in) something2 together with somebody1‟ vs. lankhánei tís1 (N) tinós2 (G) (metá tinos3) „somebody1 shares in something3 (together with somebody3)‟. As in other comitative compounds, the derivation can further involve a change of theta-roles: -

metalankhánein has a comitative Experiencer (the party which joins in the sharing), which becomes the subject, an old Experiencer in the dative (the party which was sharing), and a Theme or Location (the object of the sharing) in the genitive; 219

-

lankhánein (G) has an Experiencer (the passive sharer), which becomes the subject, and a Theme or Location (the object of the sharing) in the genitive; and

-

lankhánein can also have a Theme in the accusative and mean „obtain, receive‟; the subject is a Recipient, which cannot receive case and has to move.

(299) lankhánein (Acc)

comitative

Affectee

Theme / Location

-

Recipient

Theme

tis1 (subject, N)

ti2 (Acc)

Experiencer

Location (partitive)

tis1 (subject, N)

tinos2 (G)

„X1 obtains Y2‟ lankhánein (G)

-

„X1 shares in Y2‟ metalankhánein

Experiencer

Experiencer

Location (partitive)

„Z3 shares in Y2 with X1‟

tis3 (subject, N)

tini1 (D)

tinos2 (G)

The potentially ambiguous interpretation of the theta-role of the direct object, as either Theme or Location, is analogous to the one in share something vs. share in something, with two ways of considering the object: either as the undergoer (Theme) of the sharing, or as the Location where the sharing takes place. The prefix meta(-) in metalankhánein, which can function as adverb, preposition, and preverb (Luraghi: n.d.), might have had originally both a „simultaneous‟ and a „sequential‟ meaning. The simultaneous interpretation is available in adverbs and prepositions: as an adverb in metà dè glaukōpis Ath nē „in their midst stands bright-eyed Athena‟ (Iliad 2.446), and as a preposition + D (instrumental-sociative) / G (ablative?) meaning „among, with‟. The sequential interpretation is likewise available both as an adverb, e.g. metà Tudéos huiòn hépousan „following the son of Tydeus‟ (Iliad 10.516, about Athena) and as a preposition + Acc (allative?) meaning „after‟: X metà Y „X after Y‟ can be represented as an allative: X → Y, cf. Gm. nach(-) „after‟ in nachahmen „imitate‟ < „make after‟. If the reverse sequence X ← Y is rendered as an 220

ablative, cf. Gm. vorher „before‟ in vorhergehen „precede, go before‟, the relationship between „before‟ and an ablative is not inconceivable, cf. Fr. peur / crainte de (ablative) vs. Gm. Furcht vor („before‟) „fear of‟, which would suggest an originally sequential ablative meaning for the use of meta with the genitive-ablative, with a later disappearance of the semantic difference between simultaneous meta + D and sequential-ablative meta + G. If so, meta would have been a comitative able to function in three ways: simultaneous with the dative (instrumental-sociative), sequential-ablative with the genitive (ablative), and sequential-allative with the accusative (allative). Rosén (1992) and Haug (2007) show that the comitative function of Latin co(m)originates in Greek models first in nominal, then also in verbal compounds, e.g. Lat. conseruus ~ Gk. súndoulos „fellow slave‟ (Rosén 1992: 360) vs. Lat. seruus, Gk. do los „slave‟; Lat. colludere alicui (D) ~ Gk. sumpaízein tiní (D) „play with somebody‟. The nominal compounds are well attested in several branches: Sk. sahabrahmacārin „fellow student‟ (brahmacārin „student‟), 144 OCS sǫsědŭ „neighbor‟ (root sěd- „sit‟), Goth. gajuka „companion‟ (root juk„join‟). They are also formed in the modern languages, e.g. Pol. współpracownik (pracownik „worker‟) and Lith. bendradarbis (darbas „work‟) after Gm. Mitarbeiter and Fr. collaborateur, and the corresponding verbs Pol. współpracować, Lith. bendradarbiauti, Hun. együttműködni cf. Gm. zusammenarbeiten, Fr. collaborer. Like mitarbeiten, zusammenarbeiten and the calques after it in the modern languages do introduce a comitative argument, which is overt (here, a PP), 144

The comitative-sociative value of Sk. sa(ha)- is conspicuous in the contrast between these compounds and the

nouns derived with suffixes meaning „possessed of‟ and bahuvrīhi (exocentric) compounds: saputra- „accompanied by his son‟ (putra- „son‟) – e.g. saputraḥ āgacchati „he is coming accompanied by his son‟ – vs. putrin- „having a son‟ and mrtaputra- „whose son is dead‟ (mrta- „dead‟). (The latter is an exocentric compound, which contains a reference to an entity different from the noun which the compound adjective qualifies.) 221

unless it is co-referential with the collective or plural subject, meaning „jointly‟ / „together‟ / „with each other‟ (an overt argument, as miteinander would be instead of PRO in (302), is felt as pleonastic):

(300) Sie müssen mit ihm zusammenarbeiten. Oni muszą współpracować z nim. Privalo bendradarbiauti su juo. Együtt kell működniük vele. „They must work together with him.‟

(301) Alle1 müssen besser PRO1 zusammenarbeiten. Wszyscy1 muszą lepiej współpracować PRO1. Visi1 privalo geriau bendradarbiauti PRO1. Mindenkinek1 kell jobban PRO1 együttműködni. „All must work better together.‟ – PRO = „with each other‟

The nouns mentioned in the preceding paragraph have themselves comitative arguments, i.e. they are relational: a collaborator or co-worker can be described as such only if he works together with someone else.145 The Latin verbs with comitative co(m)- became much more common in the post-classical language (Ahlman 1916: 16), and in the other branches too they are formed on foreign models – in Slavic and Baltic on German and Romance or Latin, in German perhaps also at least partly

145

Observation owed to Wayles Browne. 222

under Latin influence, the entire procedure going back ultimately to Greek, which constantly supplied both Classical and Christian Latin with models that were readily imitated: Lat. Christo (D) concrucifixus sum ~ Gk. Khristōi (D) sunestaur mēn „I was crucified together with Christ‟ (Itala, Galatians 2.20 apud Ahlman 1916: 23). In the Latin verb in this example, the noun meaning „cross‟ is the incorporated indirect object (Goal argument) of the verb figere „fasten, attach‟, but preserves the dative case assigned to it in the specifier of GoP, assuming that the univerbation proceeds by way of demoting the goal argument from SpecGoP to Go 0:146

(302)

AgP … ThP Christum

Acc

AgP … ThP Th'

Th0 Ø[+act]

Christum

GoP crucī

D

146

Acc

Go Ø[+partake][F]

Goal argument) Th'

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP crucī-

Go' 0

(incorporation of the

Root fig-

Root fig-

Christum crucī figere

Christum crucīfigere

„attach Christ to the cross‟

„crucify Christ‟

There are other instances of incorporation of phrasal constituents where they remain in the functional head as

prefixes, e.g. Gm. zugrundegehen „die‟, lit. „go to the ground‟. 223

AgP … ComP Com'

aliquem

Acc

(comitative applicative)

Com0

ThP

con-[+act] 147 Christō

Th'

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP crucī-

Root fig-

aliquem Christō concrucīfigere „crucify somebody together with Christ‟

In a compound like Russ. soprovodit’p „accompany / append to, add as attachment to‟, derived with s(o)- „with‟ and pro- „past, through‟ from vodit’i-indet „lead‟ („lead something1 together with something2‟ > „send something1 with something2 attached / appended‟), the comitative prefix s(o)- denotes comitativity all through the path described by pro-. In one use, this verb has a comitative Theme (the accompanied person), and the backgrounded (old) Theme is a covert argument co-referential with the Agent: „X accompanies Y‟ = „X leads Y in X‟s company‟. Adding s nami „along with us‟ in SpecThP would be repetitive, because the old Theme here is co-referential with the subject, as in the German compounds with zusammen- (co-reference with a plural or collective subject).

147

As in the previous examples, I assume that the dative case of Christō is assigned here by an unpronounced

preposition. 224

(303)

AgP Ag'

pro(1.pl.)1

Ag0 Ø

ComP Com'

vas

Acc

Com

ThP

so-[+act]

Th'

PRO1

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP do domu

Go0

Go' Root

pro-[+partake][F] vod-

Razrešitep soprovodit’p vas1 do domu1. „Please allow us to accompany you1 home1.‟

As in English, the Goal argument in Russian refers to the home of the accompanied party, 148 because both Russ. do domu and English home are indexicals, unlike house (of), which is not, so that John accompanied Bill to his house is usually ambiguous as to whose house it is. This coindexation proves that the underlying construction refers to the motion of the accompanied party, rather than of the accompanying one. In the figurative sense „append to, add as attachment to‟, the old Theme is different from the Agent, and the Goal is arbitrary (PROarb) because it does not matter whereto the appended object will „accompany‟ the object to which it is appended. The verb is Perfective in both its uses

148

Bill1 goes home1; John1 accompanies Bill2 home2/*1; but: John1 takes Bill2 home1/2; John1 takes Bill2 home1/*2 with

him1; John1 leads Bill2 home1/(?)2. Thanks to Wayles Browne for these examples and observations. 225

(it derives an Imperfective soprovoždat’i), due to the existence of the Goal argument introduced by pro-, even though in the second case the goal of the action is irrelevant.

(304)

AgP Ag'

pro2.pl.

Ag0 Ø

ComP

zajavlennuju temu doklada

Acc

Com0

Com' ThP

so-[+act] kratkoj annotaciej

Th'

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP Go'

PROarb

Go

Root

pro-[+partake][F] vod-

Zajavlennuju temu doklada prosimi soprovodit’p kratkoj annotaciej. „Please append a short note to the paper topic you announced.‟ (lit. „Please accompany the paper topic you announced with a short note.‟)

I believe that the presence of a comitative argument can account for an apparent incongruity about soprovodit’p: this verb is Perfective, yet it is formed from the indeterminate Imperfective vodit’i-indet, whereas indeterminate Imperfectives derive Imperfectives paired with Perfectives formed from their determinate counterparts – for instance, the determinate-indeterminate pair vestii-det – vodit’i-indet „lead‟ derives by prefixation with pro- the Perfective-Imperfective pair provestip – provodit’i „take (to), lead‟. The Perfectivity follows from the existence of the Goal

226

argument, as I suggested before. On the other hand, the derivation from vodit’i-indet, rather than from vestii-det, is partly explainable by the non-directional nature of the comitative: the direction of a motion performed in the manner (here: „lead‟) denoted by the root is irrelevant for the association, which only has a temporal dimension, but no spatial orientation (the goal is arbitrary or irrelevant). Given the irrelevance of direction and spatial goals for the role of the comitative argument in the action, the compound verb is formed from the indeterminate Imperfective, which denotes motion at a location (here: „lead around / about‟), with no overall orientation or goal. But this is only a partial explanation at best, because it does not account for the case where the goal is non-arbitary and overtly expressed (the first one of the examples with soprovodit’p above). With a non-arbitrary or specific Goal argument, where directionality is relevant, the verb could have been derived from the determinate Imperfective, as it regularly happens with other Perfectives derived from verbs of motion, and have had the shape *soprovestip. The fact that this is not the case suggests that the irrelevance of spatial orientation for comitativity is taken into account in the selection of the derivational base also in the first (and primary) use of soprovodit’p. The structure of the synchronically unanalyzable verb accompany in its dynamic and static uses – John accompanies Bill home (again, home refers to Bill‟s home) vs. Heat accompanies sunshine – can be modeled on the Russian example. If there is no Goal argument, the theta-grid can be represented as including only the comitative Theme and the backgrounded Theme, since there is no indication as to the existence of any arbitrary goal (unlike in the second use of soprovodit’p, where this indication comes from the presence of the prefix pro- and the Perfective aspect). In the dynamic use of accompany below, John (Agent and „internal‟ Theme of

227

the motion) „goes with Bill to Bill‟s home‟ ~ „takes himself together with Bill to Bill‟s home‟.149 The difference between accompany and the verbs with comitative prefixes is that in the former the backgrounded Theme (Bill in John accompanies Bill home ~ „John takes / carries himself together with Bill to Bill‟s home‟) receives case from Th0 and the comitative Theme (John) is caseless as an internal Theme (and is a PRO), while in the latter it is the comitative Theme that receives Case, and the old / backgrounded Theme is either caseless (a pro with its reference supplied by the context) or receives case from an overt or covert preposition.

149

The translation of John goes with Mary to her home into Rumanian is Ion se duce cu Maria acasă la ea (lit.

„home to her‟), with the verb a se duce „go‟, lit. „lead oneself‟, which always has a Goal argument; another possibility is to use the verb a merge „walk / go‟ (Ion merge cu Maria acasă la ea), where the goal is an oblique (Ion merge cu Maria „John is walking / going with Mary‟ is grammatical). a se duce is a determinate Imperfective qua determinate, and a merge is a determinate Imperfective qua Imperfective, denoting the manner of motion („walking‟). This lexical distinction in Rumanian may be taken as an argument in favor of the existence of the same distinction in the Slavic determinate Imperfectives. The fact that the Agent of intransitive motion verbs is also an internal Theme might account also for the medial voice of some of these verbs in Indo-European, e.g. Gk. érkhesthai „go / come‟, poreúesthai „travel‟ (vs. active poreúein „carry, convey‟), pétesthai „fly‟. 228

(305)

AgP Ag'

Bill1

Ag0 Ø

ThP Th'

PRO1

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP Go'

home

Go0 Ø[+partake][F]

Root go-

Bill goes home .

AgP Ag'

John1

Ag0 Ø

ComP Com'

PRO1

Com0 Ø[+act]

ThP Th'

Bill

Acc

Th0 Ø[+act]

GoP home

Go' Go0 Ø[+partake][F]

John accompanies Bill home.

229

Root accompany-

At first sight, a static use of accompany, as in Heat accompanies sunshine, involves a backgrounded Theme (sunshine) and a comitative Theme (heat). However, this cannot account for the accusative case of sunshine, since Th0 would not be [+act] and would not assign case, and this applies to any verb with such an argument structure: a static comitative is impossible, because the backgrounded Theme (or Experiencer) can neither receive case in situ nor move for Case. A sequential comitative like follow and precede cannot be static also because it involves change – including in habituals: day follows night.) The static use of accompany is explainable diachronically: accompany had at first only the dynamic meaning, which is the original one in the source of borrowing as well: Fr. accompagner is a denominative derived from OFr. compain „companion‟150 with the directional prefix ad-, which contributes a Goal argument: „accompany somebody somewhere‟ < „be somebody‟s companion on a journey to somewhere‟. The older Indo-European languages seem to lack simultaneous comitatives as simple verbs, but a sequential comitative is attested in several branches (Lat. sequī, Gk. hépesthai „follow‟ < PIE *sekw-). The data presented in this section suggest that the comitative prefixes are a late addition to the verbal system in all branches of Indo-European: they appear late in the history of Sanskrit and Greek, and are accommodated in Latin, Gothic, and OCS, in loan-formations on Greek models. The compounds with comitative prefixes belong to a cultivated or literary register in all languages where they are attested, which points to sociolinguistic factors having been at work in their creation and borrowing. Comitative applicatives, not only in Latin, Germanic, and Slavic,

150

An exocentric compound meaning „[one who] shares (Lat. com-) the bread (Fr. pain)‟, where com- has adverbial

value (it applies to the act of sharing, not to the bread). 230

but also in Greek, generally signal a register that is higher on a prestige scale than that of everyday communication.151 The analyses presented in this chapter account for the vast majority of Perfectives, where Perfectivity is connected to argument structure, and is manifested inside the VP. Not discussed yet are the Imperfectives, the semelfactives (Russ. čixnut’p „sneeze (once)‟) and the phasal Perfectives – ingressives (Russ. zapet’p „start singing‟), terminatives (Russ. otljubit’p „stop loving‟), and delimitatives (Russ. pospat’p). The next chapter treats these aspectual classes, where aspect is independent of argument structure, as well as the interaction with viewpoint aspect.

151

Cf. the observations of Toops (1992; 1992-1993) concerning the loan translations of German prefixed verbs into

Upper Sorbian. 231

5 ASPECT OUTSIDE THE VP: VIEWPOINT ASPECT AND ACTIONALITY

5.1 Overview Svenonius (2004) places the Slavic “superlexical” prefixes denoting various Aktionsarten outside the VP, above the “lexical” prefixes, whose form and function are much less uniform and predictable. This conclusion follows from the linear order of the prefixes in verbs with multiple prefixes, where the superlexical prefixes are always leftmost, and the lexical ones are closer to the root, e.g. with Russ. superlexical distributive po- and lexical vy- „out‟, the prefix order is povy-brasyvat’p „throw out one by one‟, not *vy-po-brasyvat’ (Svenonius 2004: 207). In this chapter I discuss the aspectual phenomena manifested outside the VP: viewpoint aspect and actionality. From the order of morphemes I conclude to the syntactic hierarchy of functional heads, e.g. in Lat. ioculābātur „he was joking / used to joke‟, where the subject agreement marker -tur is rightmost, followed by tense, viewpoint aspect (both merged here as one morpheme -bā-), and a suffix -ul(ā)- denoting a „diminutive‟ manner of action (Aktionsart), plus the root ioc- with the lexical meaning „play‟, the syntactic hierarchy is agreement > tense > viewpoint aspect > actionality > root. The aspectual interpretation of the sentence results from the interaction of viewpoint aspect and manners of action localized on specific heads with the aspectual properties of the VP. The individual sections of the chapter survey the structural and semantic properties of the aspectual categories in Indo-European languages and Hungarian, as well as their structural positions relative to other categories: tense, modality, and causative morphemes. While viewpoint aspect is uniformly manifested in one syntactic head, there can be several layers of actionality marked in one verbal stem: in the Russian verb povybrasyvat’p mentioned above, the

232

superlexical prefix is attached to an Imperfective vybrasyvat'i „throw out‟, derived from the Perfective vybrosit’p „throw out‟ with actionality suffix -yva-; this suffix has been specialized for the derivation of secondary Imperfectives, and its basic value is iterative, with a secondary value as an atelic processual, describing activities. Actionality is discussed in some detail, in order to provide an account of its morphological manifestations and possibilities of expression: for example, based on an examination of the semantics of verbal suffixes in Indo-European, it appears that there are only two core values that are expressed: semelfactive and atelic durative (states, processes, or iteratives), and there are no suffixes which would contribute telicity.

5.2 Reference time and situation time in aspectual contrasts Whereas aspect “specifies the internal temporal structure of the situation”, tense “locates a situation in time” (Smith 1997: 97; Comrie 1985: vii). Following Reichenbach (1966: 288), Smith operates in her analyses with three temporal references (Smith 1997: 101): -

situation time: “the time at which the situation is located”;

-

reference time: “the temporal standpoint of the sentence”;

-

utterance time.

For instance, in the English pluperfect form had done, the reference time is located in the past, prior to the utterance time, and the situation time precedes the reference time, whereas in the simple past did, the reference time coincides with the situation time, and both precede the utterance time (other examples in Reichenbach 1966: 289-298). The present tense is incompatible with the perfective viewpoint, because “we conceive of the present moment as instantaneous; utterances, too, are conceived as instantaneous. It follows that a Present utterance can only refer to an event that is terminated or completed, or an event in

233

progress.” (Smith 1997: 110). As such, the present tense only allows the imperfective viewpoint, which, since it excludes the initial and final endpoints of a situation, can only focus durative situations, where the endpoints do not coincide. Reichenbach introduces the reference time without explicitly defining it. A definition capturing the intuitition about reference time was proposed by Klein (1994), who regards it as “the time span to which the speaker‟s claim on this occasion [i.e. at utterance time] is confined” (Klein 1994: 4). For instance, in John went to New York last week, the reference time is the referent of last week. Klein renames the reference time „topic time‟, because it behaves like a topic in relation to the situation described by a sentence. In John went to New York last week, the topic is last week, which provides the temporal frame, and what John did is the comment, which fills that frame: what happened last week was that John went to New York. I will keep using Reichenbach‟s term, but with Klein‟s definition. Smith‟s definition of the perfective and imperfective viewpoints can be reformulated in terms of an inclusion relation between reference time and situation time: -

in the imperfective viewpoint, the reference time R is included in the situation time S (R ⊆ S), therefore neither endpoint of the situation is visible – especially not the final endpoint, so that no prediction is made about the outcome of an unfolding event;

-

in the perfective viewpoint, the situation time is included in the reference time (S ⊆ R), therefore both endpoints of the situation are visible – and since the final endpoint is visible, the outcome of the event is known.

This reformulation accommodates Comrie‟s (1976: 24) definition of the imperfective as “viewing a situation from within” (temporal standpoint inside the situation), and of the perfective as viewing the situation from the outside, as a whole (temporal standpoint outside the situation).

234

If no inclusion relation is defined between reference time and situation time, the result will be the neutral viewpoint aspect. Portner (2005: 142-144, 220) gives examples where the English past tense can have several interpretations in terms of the relation between R and S, according to whether the situation described by a sentence is an event or a state:

(306a) Something occurred to me today. – event (306b) This afternoon, the baby seemed sick. – state (306c) Something has been bothering me today. – state (306d) Once upon a time, there was a sleepy rabbit. – state

In the eventive (306a), S ⊆ R: the occurrence (S) took place during the respective day (R). In the statives (306b-d), R ⊆ S: in (306b), the observer reports on the baby‟s condition at some point (R) during the baby‟s sickness (S); in (306c), the inconvenient situation (S) started earlier in the day, and is likely to last for same time after R, which coincides with the utterance time; in (306d), the narrator takes as beginning of his narrative a moment (R) in the past during the rabbit‟s lifetime (S). The form used in both (306a) and (306b) is the simple past, and Portner states that the difference in the relation between S and R in these two sentences follows from situation aspect – in the past tense in English, S ⊆ R for events and R ⊆ S for states. However, this difference seems to follow not from situation aspect, but from viewpoint aspect. In the stative (307a), French can only use the imperfect; with a perfective, the state is presented as closed, and the baby recovered by the end of the afternoon; if the speaker is agnostic or ignorant

235

about the present state of the baby, both variants are acceptable, so he must signal it otherwise (by statement, facial mimics, etc.).152

(307a) Cet après-midi, le bébé avaitipf l’air malade. (307b) Cet après-midi, le bébé a eupf l’air malade.

(306c) contains a perfect progressive, which again translates with a French imperfective – this time in the present, and likewise (306d) with a past imperfective:153

(308) Quelque chose me troubleipf l’esprit depuis ce matin.

(309) Il étaitipf une fois un lapin qui avait sommeil tout le temps.

In English, the simple past (he walked) is not a perfective, and the progressive past (he was walking) is not an imperfective: the opposition between progressive and non-progressive tenses is not viewpoint aspect, therefore viewpoint can play a role in the difference between (306a) and (306b), but this is not visible by examining only English examples. The parallelism [perfective vs. imperfective] ~ [non-progressive vs. progressive] holds only for non-statives.

152

I leave the French examples untranslated in order not to create confusion: the use of a certain English form to

render a French one might suggest that the correspondence is general, which is not the case. 153

The meaning of the English form in (306c) would be perhaps a state (whence the progressive) lasting into the

present (whence the perfect); John has been living in Chicago for the past four years has a stative live in the same construction. 236

The conclusion is that the relations R ⊆ S for the imperfective and S ⊆ R for the perfective hold for both events and states. If R = S, the situation can be described with either aspect (again, one should not use English, but a language with „genuine‟ viewpoint aspect), depending on the viewpoint, which can be imposed in a question:

(310) Eventive: De 2

3 heures du matin, j’ai lupf // je lisaisipf.

– Qu’est-ce que tu as faitpf de 2 à 3, quand il n’y avait plus rien faire? // – Qu’est-ce que tu faisaisipf de 2

3, quand j’ai entendu tout ce bruit?

Stative: De 2

3 heures du matin, j’ai eupf // j’avaisipf mal à la tête.

– Comment tu t’es sentipf de 2 à 3, quand il faisait si froid dans la maison? // – Comment te sentaisipf-tu de 2 à 3, quand tout le monde te regardait?

The perfect and the future can also be included in this schema, as both involve a temporal sequence between reference time and situation time: -

in the perfect, the reference time follows the final endpoint of the situation time (S < R, where „X < Y‟ means „Y follows X, and X and Y are disjunct‟): had / has / will have done;

-

in prospective forms like is / was going to do and Fr. va / allait faire, the sequence is reversed, with R preceding the initial endpoint of S (R < S).

More precisely, R follows the final endpoint of the situation FS (FS < R) in the perfect, and precedes the initial endpoint of the situation IS (R < IS) in the prospective. To this list can be added two more periphrastic forms in English:

237

-

„imminent‟ (was / is about to do, Fr. était / est sur le point de faire); and

-

„successive‟ (had / has just done, Fr. venait / vient de faire),

where the reference time is situated in the expectation or the immediate aftermath of the situation: R – S or S – R respectively, where „X – Y‟ means „X is prior to and contiguous with Y‟. The relationship between viewpoint aspect and the relative position of reference time R and situation time S can be summarized as below:

(311)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN R AND S

INCLUSION

SEQUENCE SEQUENCE AND CONTIGUITY

imperfective: R⊆S

perfective: S⊆R

prospective: R<S (prospective)

perfect: S
imminent: R–S (immediate prospective)

successive: S–R (immediate retrospective)

The viewpoint is supplied by the reference time, and viewpoint aspect is the perspective had on the situation at reference time. Two degrees of „visibility‟ of the endpoint of a situation from the reference time can be distinguished: -

full visibility is available only in retrospect, and the maxim of quality is satisfied due to the speaker‟s assumed remembrance: this is the case of the perfective, perfect, the successive; full visibility can also apply when looking back from the reference time, in the imperfective viewpoint, to the beginning of an ongoing situation;

-

prediction obtains from the reference time into the future, with the maxim of quality satisfied only assuming that the speaker possesses absolute certainty, or infallible predictive power:

238

the case of the prospective and the imminent; failing predictive certainty on the part of the speaker, the indicative (prospective / imminent) is replaced by a subjunctive. 154 The reference time R can be defined in reference to the utterance time U: -

present tense: U = R;

-

past tense: R < U;

-

future tense: U < R.

The reference time is used to make the situation visible by providing the intended perspective on it (R ⊆ S, S ⊆ R, or allowing both possibilities), and thereby determining the viewpoint aspect of the surface linguistic forms:

(312) relation to U

meaning of morphemes conveying



information about tense

locating R (defining tense) meaning of morphemes conveying information about tense and aspect intended perspective on S 

meaning of morphemes conveying

specifying R (defining viewpoint aspect)

information about aspect

For example, the finite forms of English non-stative155 verbs in main clauses will be described as in (313). The perfect continuous (has been doing) differs from the present continuous (is doing)

154

With isolated exceptions (Spanish), the subjunctive and the prospective are mutually exclusive, at least in IE

languages: Greek, Latin, etc. I suggest below that the „future tense‟ in Latin and Germanic started out as a prospective. 239

in that the beginning of the situation (IS) is fixed (John has been writing is incomplete without a time specification, e.g. since yesterday / for two hours). These forms combine the inclusion of R in S (imperfective viewpoint) with the retrospection from R onto endpoints of S: the perfect continuous focuses the beginning of S (John has been writing since 5 o’clock), while the perfect focuses the end of S: John has written states that the endpoint of John‟s writing has been reached and passed.

U=R

R
U
R⊆S

is doing

was doing

will be doing

S⊆R

-

did

will do

R<S

is going to do

was going to do

will be going to do

S
has done

had done

will have done

R–S

is about to do

was about to do

will be about to do

S–R

has just done

had just done

will have just done

Fr. vient de faire

Fr. venait de faire

has been doing

had been doing

(313)

R  S & fixed IS

S

S

(since / for [I ])

(since / for [I ])

will have been doing (since / for [IS])

In will do, the entire situation is focused (S ⊆ R) from R > U, while in is going to do, the focus is on the beginning of the situation (R < S). Unlike the future (tense) perfective, the prospective (aspect) gives no explicit information about the completion of S. If S is an accomplishment, such information is inferred: John is going to read the book states that John will start reading the book, and since „reading a book‟ is an accomplishment, he would probably finish it unless

155

For non-statives, the progressive tenses behave like imperfectives. I represent the progressives as imperfective

and the non-progressives as perfective only in order to have a complete picture of the relations between R and S – otherwise the two oppositions are distinct, as I argued above. 240

further circumstances prevent his reading the entire book. (This is only a base-level description, not taking into account the overlaps in the usage of these forms.) I am borrowing the label „prospective‟ from the grammar of Old and Middle Egyptian, where the only way to signal futurity is to use the „prospective‟, which “refers vaguely to the future, and its modal values are that [sic] of the optative […] and subjunctive. In other words, the prospective form basically expresses what the speaker considers „desirable / possible / liable / ought to‟ happen” (Hoch 1997: 87). I would suggest that in languages where the future tense developed out of subjunctive forms and/or verbs meaning „become‟, this development proceeded via a prospective, indicating the intention to start the action (development from subjunctive) or the predicted start of the action (development from a verb meaning „become‟). This could have been the case of Latin and Germanic: in Gothic, the verbs duginnan „begin‟, haban „have‟ < „seize‟ (cf. cognate root in Lat. capere „get‟), 156 and wairþan „become‟ are employed in future imperfective periphrases (Streitberg 1906: 193). To the extent that the beginning of an action beginning on the agent‟s intiative (will do, SCr. ću raditi „I will do‟, with ću < hoću, 1.sg. pres. of htjeti „wish‟) is more predictable than the planned outcome of that action, a prospective is a priori more likely to satisfy the Gricean maxim of quality than a future, which, in the perfective aspect, purports to predict the outcome as well as the beginning. This could also be the semantic reason for the use of the imperfective in Hebrew and Arabic to signal futurity (Comrie 1976: 78-81).

156

haban has a stative morphology, conceivably with the original meaning „have gotten‟, although this should have

entailed the choice of a perfect, as in the Germanic preterito-presents. 241

5.3 Situation aspect and viewpoint aspect in Late Proto-Indo-European

5.3.1 Outline The following sections outline the changes undergone by the expression of viewpoint aspect from Proto-Indo-European into the early stages of the history of several branches. I will note a set of regularities in these developments and propose a principled explanation based on the formulation of the semantics of the aspectual categories in terms of temporal references. Next, the absence of distinctions in viewpoint aspect in Early Proto-Indo-European will lead to an examination of the potential of the verbal root to encode semantic features of situation aspect. As before, I apply the thesis of Baker (1988) and Halle & Marantz (1993) about the relationship between morphology and syntax (Distributed Morphology), as well as MacDonald‟s (2008) proposal that situation aspect is manifested inside the VP, setting the stage for the discussion in the subsequent sections of the modifications in situation aspect effected by the morphemes deriving present stems.

5.3.2 The relative functional values of the overt aspectual categories The most widely accepted view of the aspectual system of Late Proto-Indo-European, i.e. after the separation of Anatolian, reconstructs three stems built on the verbal root: present, aorist, and perfect (Clackson 2007: 115-120). Semantic values are attributed to these stems based mainly on the evidence of Greek, which preserves most faithfully both form and function across tenses and moods. These values can be quite confidently reconstructed on the basis of the formal and/or functional descendants of the respective forms in the daughter languages.

242

Comparing the functions of the finite verbal categories in the earliest attested IndoEuropean languages, it is apparent that, when a language innovates in form, the function remains basically the same, meaning that the contrast between the new form and the other aspectual forms is preserved along much the same lines.157 For instance, the innovated imperfect in Latin, Lithuanian, Old Church Slavonic, and Classical Armenian, is opposed to a form combining the functions of the old aorist and perfect, along the same lines as the inherited imperfect and aorist are opposed to each other in Greek. It is never the case that the functional boundary between aorist and imperfect would be established according to other criteria: in Armenian, where the original imperfect is continued as an aorist, this new aorist is still opposed to a new imperfect in the past tense, and the contrast between the new aorist and the new imperfect is the same as the one between their respective functional counterparts before the formal innovation. The only functional deviations from the Greek model are mergers158 between members of the tripartite opposition present-aorist-perfect. The assumption that the functional boundaries between the descendant aspectual forms are either preserved or deleted, but never shifted, is inherent in the comparison of the verbal systems in the old Indo-European languages (e.g. Hewson & Bubenik 1997). In the picture of the post-Anatolian common Indo-European that emerges from this comparison, four configurations of preservation and change can be distinguished as below:

157

There are some variations in the use of aspectual forms from language to language, e.g. the Greek imperfect can

be employed to describe durative events in a sequence of past events, whereas Latin tends in this case to use the perfect (in its perfective function). 158

„Merger‟ means merger of functions; there can be no „morphological merger‟, because forms or paradigms

cannot merge, but only syncretize, as in the Latin „perfect‟, which continues aorist and perfect paradigms. 243

-

the original three-aspect system is preserved both formally and functionally: Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian (with distinctions subsequently lost in the latter);

-

the present-aorist system is preserved functionally, but not always formally (one of the terms is innovated), and the old synthetic perfect is later replaced in its function as a resultative by periphrastic or prefixed forms (the latter in Old Irish): Old Church Slavonic, Classical Armenian, Albanian, Old Irish, Middle Welsh, (Late) Latin, Lithuanian, and Tocharian;

-

there is only one preterit form, merging the functions of imperfect, aorist, and perfect: Gothic.

The appearance of the periphrastic perfects in the second group of languages postdates a functional merger of the aorist and the perfect. This conclusion results from observable patterns of semantic and morphological change: a) semantic: the aorist can perform the functions of the perfect in Old Church Slavonic and Albanian, and the perfect in Classical Armenian is limited to transitive verbs in ergative constructions (examples and discussion in Hewson & Bubenik 1997: 75-79); b) morphological: the new perfective preterits in Italic, Celtic, and Albanian, continue formally both aorist and perfect stems. The distribution of the synthetic forms in the past tense plus the perfect in (314) displays the patterns of functional merger. The labels and their positioning in the table are functional, and the forms are either inherited or innovated, but late periphrastic perfects are excluded, assuming a previous merger of aorist and perfect.

244

(314) Proto-Indo-European

imperfect

aorist

perfect

Greek, Proto-Indo-Iranian

imperfect

aorist

perfect

all other branches except Germanic

imperfect

Germanic

perfective preterit preterit

In general, there is a remarkable degree of uniformity in the semantic values of the equivalent finite verbal categories in the daughter languages, including the modern ones (cf. the discussion of later developments in the individual branches in Hewson & Bubenik 1997: 249-350). This uniformity warrants a uniform treatment of the morphological categories that have the same value across the Indo-European family. Smith (1997: 109) regards the perfect as encoding both aspect and temporal location (tense). The perfect describes resultative states, while the present and aorist provide information about viewpoint aspect. This difference in function is reflected in the morphology of the IndoEuropean perfect, in that the personal endings of the perfect set this stem off from the present and aorist stems, which share endings that are traceable to a unique proto-form, as well as additional affixes denoting temporal location. A perfect form expressed the positioning of the reference time after the situation time (S < R), being an „atypical‟ form of aspect, if the perfective-imperfective contrast, based on an inclusion relation between R and S, is taken as the standard. It has been noticed that the reconstructed personal endings of the perfect and those of the middle voice seem to be based on the same morphemes at least for 1.sg. and 2.sg. (Clackson 2007: 128, 145): 1.sg. *-h2-, 2.sg. *-th2-.159 This coincidence is not accidental: since the perfect is

159

The laryngeal appears also in the so-called ḫi-conjugation in Hittite. Jasanoff (2003: 215) proposes the following

development: “The h2e-conjugation theory makes one key assumption – that grammatical actives in late Proto-IndoEuropean could be associated with either the normal active endings *-m(i), *-s(i), *-t(i), etc., or the „perfect‟ endings 245

a resultative state, the finite verb agrees with a non-agentive subject, just as in the middle voice. If S < R (in a perfect), a participant in an event who was an agent during S is an experiencer at R, because the event, and along with it the participant‟s agentive role, has ceased, and the participant in S, when located at R, can only experience the effects of his actions performed in S. Haug (2008: 65) describes the role of the subject in the semantics of the perfect: “the PIE perfect […] is not a perfect gram at all […], but rather what Nedjalkov calls a subject resultative”, because “the perfect is restricted to telic verbs which express a change of state in the subject”.160 The idealized picture of the tense and aspect system of late Proto-Indo-European has verbal roots combine with affixes or other morphological processes, like reduplication, to form stems, which become finite verbal forms by combining with personal endings, with or without a thematic vowel *-e/o-, while temporal location was indicated by means of cliticized particles (Watkins 1962: 102-103; Seebold 1971: 189; Lehmann 1974: 189-190; Szemerényi 1980: 301): a) by an enclitic *-i, when the utterance time coincided with the reference time (present tense), deriving present tense forms; and

*-h2e, *-th2e, *-e, etc. Whether a given active present or aorist took the mi- or h2e-series of endings in the parent language was determined by its inner-IE history rather than by functional factors. Being synchronically opaque, the distinction between the two conjugations was inherently unstable. Only in Anatolian did the h2e-conjugation survive and maintain its integrity as the ḫi-conjugation, and even here the merger of the two modes of inflection is clearly under way. Outside Anatolian, h2e-conjugation presents and aorists can be recognized, inter alia, by their direct or indirect etymological connection to ḫi-verbs in Hittite.” 160

This is only a very general characterization of the verbal forms in the earliest attested languages. Wackernagel

(1920/2009: 193-197; 215 sq.; 239-241) discusses several peculiarities in the usage of the Greek perfect compared to Latin and German – for example, noting instances when the main function of the perfect is that of an iterative or an intensive. 246

b) at least in Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Armenian, by a proclitic „augment‟ *e-, when the reference time preceded the utterance time (past tense), deriving imperfects from the present stem and aorists from the aorist stem. If no temporal location was to be expressed, the finite form consisting of stem plus personal endings remains an „injunctive‟, which supplies no information about the relative position of the reference time and the utterance time, and therefore leaves temporal location unexpressed. For instance, the root PIE *gweh2- „take a step‟ will have derived the following forms for 3.sg. active:

ROOT:

(315) PRESENT STEM

*gweh2-

(R ⊆ S):

(S ⊆ R):

AORIST STEM w

w

w

root + reduplication = *g eg eh2-

root + Ø = *g eh2-

INJUNCTIVE:

INJUNCTIVE:

present stem + personal ending =

aorist stem + personal ending =

= *gwegweh2-t

= *gweh2-t

R = U:

PRESENT:

-

… + -i

present stem + personal ending + -i = = *gwegweh2-t-i

R < U:

IMPERFECT:

AORIST:

(e- + …)

(e- +) present stem + personal ending =

(e- +) aorist stem + personal ending =

w

w

= *(e-)gweh2-t

= *(e-)g eg eh2-t

The general semantic characterization of the forms derived from the aorist and present stems given in the grammars of the individual languages 161 agree on the whole with Smith‟s definition

161

For instance: “Both main aspects are termed here infective [i.e. imperfective] and confective [i.e. perfective]: the

confective sees a process or action as an occurrence, as simply having happened, completed (confit or confectum est); the infective considers the verbal content without a point of completion, a state as merely stative, a process or action as not yet completed, still happening, ongoing.” (Schwyzer & Debrunner 1950: 252) 247

of the perfective and imperfective viewpoints respectively: in the past tense, the aorist presents a situation as a whole, including both endpoints (S ⊆ R), while the imperfect describes durative or iterative situations, which can only be focused with the imperfective viewpoint (R ⊆ S).162 In Indo-European, the present stem is imperfective and the aorist stem is perfective. This characterization of the relationship between morphology and viewpoint aspect makes the correct prediction that the forms based on the present stem describe only durative situations, since these forms are imperfective, and the imperfective viewpoint can only focus durative situations: if the reference time is a proper subinterval of the situation time (R ⊆ S), then the length of S must be non-null, therefore the situation described by using a verb formed on the present stem must be durative. This explains the gap in (315), where an ongoing situation in the present cannot be viewed perfectively. The frequent merger of the aorist and the perfect in several Indo-European branches, as well as the formation of a new periphrastic perfect later in their history, can be explained based on the formulation of the perfective viewpoint as S ⊆ R and of the perfect as S < R. In both cases, the end of S must be visible, either because R includes the whole of S (S ⊆ R: perfective), or because R is subsequent to and disjunct from S (S < R: perfect). This appears to be the explanation for the correlation pointed out by Haug (2004: 400; 2008: 65), that not all roots could derive perfect stems (in Greek), and the perfect is “almost always found in combination with a root aorist, i.e. it is formed from telic roots” (Haug 2008: 65). What a perfective and a perfect have in common is this visibility of the end of a situation: both did (perfective) and has done (perfect) convey the information that the deed has been carried out. In the aspectual

162

Fanning (1990: 86-103), discussing the functions of the aorist and present in Greek (particularly in koine), adopts

Smith‟s (1997) distinction, and identifies the aorist with the perfective and the present with the imperfective. 248

systems that only contrast an imperfect and a perfective preterit, the aspectual opposition is based therefore on the availability of information as to whether a past situation has an end: in Latin, the perfective preterit fēcit „did / has done‟ does convey such information, whereas the imperfect faciēbat „was doing / used to do‟ does not. The functional boundary between the imperfect, whether formally inherited or innovated as in Latin, and the new perfective preterit, remained unchanged (314), because the imperfect had preserved its function, and the new perfective had not encroached upon it. Haug (2008: 67-68) argues that Proto-Italic had only one past tense, like Early Germanic, after the loss of the Proto-Indo-European imperfect; the new imperfect reintroduced into the system the opposition perfective-imperfective, where the new perfective

developed

independently in the Italic languages by reclassifying old aorist and perfect stems as perfective. The creation of a new perfect in the later history of most of the branches that had merged the old aorist and perfect – including Germanic, which in its earliest attested forms has only one preterit –, meant the reintroduction into the system of the contrast between those two categories, based on the availability or non-availability of information about the beginning of the situation. Consequently, the new aorist, continuing the forms that had cumulated the functions of aorist and perfect, became restricted to the former functions, while the latter were assigned to the new periphrastic perfect. In several areas of Romance, this new periphrastic perfect later tended to replace the aorist, and repeat the process by assuming the functions of a new perfective preterit, so that in the evolution from Late Proto-Indo-European to languages like French and Rumanian, the functional mergers and splits within the perfective preterit were cyclical:

249

(316) Late Proto-Indo-European

imperfect

aorist

perfect

Classical Latin

imperfect

perfective preterit (synthetic)

Early to Modern Romance

imperfect

aorist

Modern French, Rumanian

imperfect

perfective preterit (analytic)

perfect (analytic)

The periphrastic perfect in the modern Germanic languages has the same resultative meaning as the old perfect in the languages which retained it, so that it can be said to contrast only with the perfective functions of the aspectually neutral synthetic preterit. As French and Rumanian did, Yiddish and Afrikaans later replaced the inherited synthetic preterit by the periphrastic perfect:

(317) Late Proto-Indo-European

imperfect

Early Germanic

Medieval West Germanic

aorist

perfect

preterit (synthetic)

non-perfect preterit (synthetic)

Yiddish and Afrikaans

perfect (analytic)

preterit (analytic)

Ternes (1988), Abraham (1999), and Abraham and Conradie (2001) showed that the phenomenon of “preterit decay”, consisting of the replacement of the synthetic preterit by analytic forms, can be observed in various stages of completion in a large number of European languages in areal contact. In Germanic, the synthetic preterite was almost163 totally replaced in southern German dialects, Yiddish, and Afrikaans; in Slavic, a complete replacement took place 163

The one exception is the preterite of the verb „to be‟, which was preserved. 250

in East and West Slavic (except Sorbian), and a partial one in western South Slavic.164 According to Abraham, the fact that the loss of the synthetic preterit occurred suddenly and very late (early 19th century) in literary Afrikaans, long after it started evolving from Cape Dutch, suggests that areal contact may not have been the only factor at work in the spreading of this phenomenon in Europe from one common source (which in Germanic will have been southern German, where the preterit decay is documented starting with the 15 th century). He argues that, in different ways and at different times respectively in both continental West Germanic and Afrikaans, discourse prominence of the analytic forms in the colloquial language, as opposed to the written or normated registers, was the central factor favoring the preterit decay; Yiddish and Afrikaans, unlike German and Dutch, accepted into the standard language forms that had long been in existence in the popular speech. This discussion was meant to show the limits of semantic change in the diachrony of aspectual categories: as can be seen from (314), (316), and (317), the functional boundaries between the original categories of imperfect, aorist, and perfect, either remain or disappear, but are not shifted. The case of medieval Germanic (in both its western and northern branches), where the periphrastic perfect made its appearance, shows that the perfect can be opposed to a preterit as a form encoding the relation S < R versus a form that only indicated past tense (R <

164

Abraham‟s inclusion of Hungarian in this linguistic area is problematic: unlike Germanic and Slavic, Hungarian

has preserved one synthetic preterit, eliminating the imperfect and several analytic formations during the 19 th century: from menni „go‟, among the 1.sg. forms, only the perfective mentem remained, and the imperfective menék, the perfect megyek vala (present + auxiliary) and the pluperfect mentem vala (perfective preterit + auxiliary) fell out of use. As such, what Hungarian has in common with the area of preterite decay is only the simplification of the preterit system, but not the typology of the preserved forms, which is synthetic in Hungarian, and analytic in the other languages. 251

U). More exactly, this opposition obtained between the new perfect, on the one hand, and the perfective interpretation or role of the aspectually neutral preterit, on the other hand, and was based on the inclusion vs. non-inclusion of S in R. The same opposition obtained between the new perfect and the imperfective interpretation of the preterit, being based on the inclusion vs. non-inclusion of R in S. The new perfect could not be compared and contrasted with the preterit as a whole, because the comparanda would be conceptually incommensurable: the perfect is an aspect, and the preterit is a tense.

5.3.3 Neutral viewpoint aspect in Early Proto-Indo-European Starting from suggestions by Hoffmann (1970: 30-31) and Cowgill (1975: 562-563), and based on the observation that Anatolian does not contrast present and aorist stems, Schmitt-Brandt (1987) and Strunk (1994) examined the semantics of the roots which derived root presents (with zero-affix) and of those which derived root aorists in Hittite and other early attested IndoEuropean languages. Their conclusion is that there seems to be a correlation between the situation type of the verbal concept expressed by the verbal root and the interpretation of the unaffixed root as a present or an aorist stem: -

if the root expressed a typically durative verbal concept, it derived root presents, and the aorist stem was morphologically marked;

-

if the root expressed a typically non-durative verbal concept, it derived root aorists, and the present stem was morphologically marked.

In other words, after the separation of Anatolian, the unaffixed root was semantically interpreted and morphologically classified as a present stem, if the verbal concept was durative, and as an aorist stem, if the verbal concept was non-durative. For instance:

252

-

the root * egh- „carry‟ (durative) derived the unaffixed thematic stem * egh-Ø-e/o-, which was classified as a present stem after the branching off of Anatolian, e.g. 3.sg. Ved. inj. váhat, pres. váhati, ipf. ávahat, Lat. pres. uehit, OCS pres. vezetŭi; whereas

-

the root *gweh2- „take a step‟ (non-durative) derived the unaffixed athematic stem *gweh2-Øwhich was then classified as an aorist stem, e.g. 3.sg. Ved. inj. gāt and aor. ágāt, Gk. aor. ébē (Strunk 1994: 420).

Strunk and Schmitt-Brandt support their conclusions with the observation that the morphological markers of the aorists derived from „durative‟ roots in the individual languages display a degree of diversity that makes impossible the reconstruction of a common derivational morphology for the proto-language; and vice-versa, most of the present stems derived from „non-durative‟ roots cannot be traced back to proto-forms, and therefore were not inherited, but derived separately in each branch. The forms derived to build aorist stems from „durative‟ roots and present stems from „non-durative‟ roots were morphologically and semantically “characterized” (SchmittBrandt 1987: 85), in that a certain derivational affix or morphological process – suffix, n-infix (in present stems), or reduplication – carried some specific semantic information, even if the precise nature of this information, if at all consistent across the early Indo-European dialects, is difficult to reconstruct based on the attested forms. An inventory of the verbal stem formants (e.g. Sihler 1995: 491-511; Meier-Brügger 2003: 167-174) contains little information about the semantic values of these formants, apart from a group of present stems which express well defined manners of action (not situation types),165 like causatives, iteratives, or desideratives. At about the same time, Drinka (1988; 1995) claimed that the s-aorists, which had been regarded (following Watkins 1962) as an inherited formation in several branches, were in fact

165

I will treat Aktionsarten separately from situation types in a later section. 253

also derived independently. On the other hand, the existence of present-stem formants common to several branches, such as the n-infix (Lehmann 2004: 119-120) or suffixes based on the -(e)ielement, is undisputable, even where their original semantic contribution is difficult to define. Expressed in Smith‟s (1997) terms, these conclusions amount to ascribing neutral viewpoint aspect to Early Proto-Indo-European, and are based on the assumption that the roots had an inherent aspectual value. In the next section I formulate this assumption in the framework of Smith‟s definition of situation types as clusters of semantic features.

5.3.4 Situation aspect features inherent in the verbal root The aspectual value of the root, referred to as “Zeitcharacter des Verbalbegriffes” by Deutschbein (1920), can be described using the semantic features associated with the situation types. The inherent aspectual value of a certain root can be determined by examining minimal tenseless clauses, i.e. tenseless clauses containing only the verb and its arguments. For instance, in English, where the verbal stem is most often identical to the root, „be‟ is an inherent state, „sneeze‟ is an inherent semelfactive, and „reach‟ is an inherent achievement, because the minimal non-finite clauses John being tall / in Chicago, John sneezing, and John reaching the peak, denote the respective situation types. As Smith (1997: 177) points out, a „durative‟ verb like eat describes an activity, as in eating apples / bread, unless the verb‟s complement is quantized, as in eating the / anspecific apple,166 which is an accomplishment. As such, „eat‟ by itself is indeterminate as to telicity. If the object is a count noun and specific, that object determines a telic reading on the predicate, so

166

I use the term „specific‟ in relation to indefinites in the sense of Diesing (1992). Relevant for the present

discussion is the fact that a specific indefinite must have a salient referent in the discourse. 254

that the result is an accomplishment (telic). On the other hand, if the object is a mass noun, it determines atelicity, and the predicate will describe an activity (atelic):

(318) eat [+dynamic][+durative][±telic] + apples / bread [-count] = = eat apples [+dynamic][+durative][-telic] – activity

(319) eat [+dynamic][+durative][±telic] + the / anspecific apple [+count] = = eat the / anspecific apple [+dynamic][+durative][+telic] – accomplishment

Another way to trigger telicity on a „durative‟ root is to consider a goal. Motion verbs denoting a manner of motion like walk, run, or fly, are atelic in the absence of a goal (activity: John running), but become telic if there is a goal or a quantized distance: John running to the tree / 200 yards. In the latter case (specific distance), the goal is temporal, constituted by the state reached after the completion of the running. The notion of temporal goal can be generalized to the case of a locational goal as well, since such a goal involves a limited and specific distance: in John running to the tree, the temporal goal, constituted by the state of John‟s presence by the tree (locative), is overtly indicated by the directional expression to the tree. In the next examples, the semantic feature [±goal] is to be understood in this temporal sense: a goal is a resultative state reached after the completion of a telic event (here, an accomplishment):

(320) run [+dynamic][+durative][±telic] (+ in the park [-goal]) = run (in the park) [+dynamic][+durative][-telic] – activity

255

(321) run [+dynamic][+durative][±telic] + to the tree / 200 yards [+goal] = = run to the tree / 200 yards [+dynamic][+durative][+telic] – accomplishment

Goals can be explicitly temporal, as in going to his death (accomplishment) or reaching perfection (achievement), where the goal is a state of death or perfection respectively. Also „ditransitives‟ like give have a goal-like argument – the indirect object – and are therefore inherently telic, as I suggested in chapter 3. Returning now to the relationship between verb roots and situation types in IndoEuropean, the semantic features of verbal concepts representative for each situation type can be illustrated as in below, with Proto-Indo-European verbal roots denoting those concepts:167

*h1es- „be‟

(322) state [-dynamic]: semelfactive [+dynamic][-durative][-telic]:

*h2enh1- „breathe (once)‟168

achievement [+dynamic][-durative][+telic]:

*mer- „die‟ *deh3- „give‟ *peh3- „drink‟

activity [+dynamic][+durative][-telic]:

* egh- „carry‟ accomplishment [+dynamic][+durative][-telic]:

*h1ei- „go‟ *peh3- „drink‟ + NP[+count] * egh- „carry‟ + NPlocation/distance

167

Haug (2008: 64) and Willi (2007: 35-36) stress the role of telicity among the features which can be expressed by

the root; Schmitt-Brandt (1987) and Strunk (1994) primarily considered durativity as a factor in the classification of root derivatives as present or aorist stems. 168

The semelfactive value of this root is documented in Gk. ánemos „wind‟ and Lat. anima „breath‟. 256

5.3.5 The derivation of the aspectual forms in syntax If the hypothesis of Schmitt-Brandt and Strunk is correct, and inherent durativity (and telicity) constituted the criterion according to which roots were classified as aorist or present stems after the branching off of Anatolian, a characterized present stem like *dV-deh3- (3.sg. pres. Gk. dídōsi, Ved. dádāti), derived by reduplication from the inherently [-durative] root *deh3- „give‟, will have been minimally [+durative] – possibly expressing additional nuances, like iterativity –, while the simple athematic root will have been assigned an aorist meaning and classified as a root aorist (1.pl. Gk. édomen, Ved. ádāma). The derivation of a finite verb form in Late ProtoIndo-European (3.sg. imperfect *e-dV-deh3-t) involves: 1) encoding the situation type in the VP (verb root plus arguments): achievement or activity; 2) establishing the imperfective viewpoint aspect (R ⊆ S), and selecting the present stem formant in an Asp (aspect) head; 3) determining the reference time as located in the past, and inserting the past tense marker *e-, cliticized to the verb stem raised to the T (tense) head and marked for agreement with the subject (3.sg marker -t); as the order of morphemes in the corresponding present tense form *dV-deh3-t-i shows, the clitic (*e- for R < U, or *-i for U = R) was added to a personal form with subject agreement. The function of the tense markers *-i and *e- as indicators of temporal location suggests that they were originally unstressed time adverbials (VP-adjuncts), and were subsequently reanalyzed as tense markers and cliticized to the finite verb (itself unstressed in main clauses). The meaning of these temporal adverbials must have been or become vague, with no precise time reference other than pure temporal deixis, i.e. positioning with respect to the utterance time. *(-)i could

257

have indicated also spatial location – a hic et nunc, like the Uralic (Samoyed) languages which express both temporal and spatial deixis in the finite verb (Shields 1988).169 The cliticization was made onto the finite verb, rather than to a nominal or to other adverbials, perhaps because temporal location modifies the notion described by the verb, not the nominal referents (e.g., in John ate an apple yesterday, the adverbial places in time the act of eating, not the apple or John): *e-/*-i

(323) [TP Ø [AspP Asp0 [VP … *e/i … Root]]] >> [TP Ø [AspP Asp0 [VP … Root]]] – reanalysis

(324)

TP

temporal location (tense) T'

T0 Ø[past]

AspP

*e-

viewpoint aspect (outer aspect) Asp'

Asp0

VP

situation aspect (inner aspect)

REDUPLICATION

… Root *deh3-

169

A similar function and development of a temporal adverbial into a tense marker can be observed in modern

Hungarian, where the unstressed adverb majd functions as a future tense marker ad-verbally. In János megeszi majd az almát „János will eat the apple‟ (with topic subject and focused verbal prefix meg-), the order of the morphemes is Stem-PersEnding#majd, with the future tense marker after the personal endings. (majd can stand also before the verb, if there is no topic: Majd megeszem az almát „I will eat the apple‟.) The only function of majd is to indicate future tense, and it does not specify the exact location in the future. 258

These derivations of the finite and non-finite forms in syntax also applied to the perfect. The past tense marker could be used to form a pluperfect, where S < R < U. Situation aspect is encoded at VP level, viewpoint aspect at AspP level, and temporal location at TP level. The denotations of the tense and viewpoint aspect morphemes T and Asp will be functions taking as arguments the proposition (or the constituent immediately below AspP), the event, and the utterance time and reference time respectively. For a relation ρ between R and S, cf. (311) and (313), and a relation υ between U and R, these denotations will be as below, where the temporal variable r in the denotation of Asp represents the reference time, and the variable u in the denotation of T represents the utterance time; the situation time in both denotations is e:170

(325) [[Asp[ρ]]] = λfstλrsλes[f(e) & ρ(r, e)] ρ(r, e)  {r ⊆ e, e ⊆ r, r < e, e < r, r – e, e – r} e.g.:

[[Asp[ipf]]] = λfstλrsλes[f(e) & r ⊆ e] [[Asp[pf]]] = λfstλrsλes[f(e) & e ⊆ r] [[Asp[perfect]]] = λfstλrsλes[f(e) & s < r] etc.

(326) [[T[υ]]] R = λfstλusλes[f(e) & υ(R, u)] υ(R, u)  {R < u, u < R, R = u}

170

In chapter 2, I defined a situation as a time interval identified in a linguistic expression, which allows the

treatment of situations as time intervals and the formulation of relationships between situations and time intervals – here, between the variables r, u (time intervals not identified in linguistic expressions) on the one hand, and e on the other hand. 259

hence: [[T[present]]] R = λfstλusλes[f(e) & R = u] [[T[past]]] R = λfstλusλes[f(e) & R < u] [[T[future]]] R = λfstλusλes[f(e) & u < R]

R is identified at AspP level, and U is specified at TP level, so that for a proposition p:

(327) Asp0: [[Asp[ρ]]] = λfstλrsλes[f(e) & ρ(r, e)] AspP: [[…Asp[ρ]…]] R = λes[p(e) & ρ(R, e)]

(328) T0: TP:

[[T[υ]]] R = λfstλusλes[f(e) & υ(R, u)] [[…T[υ]…]] R,U = [[[T[υ]]] R([[…Asp[ρ]…]] R)]U = = [[λfstλusλes[f(e) & υ(R, u)]]([[…Asp[ρ]…]] R)]U = = [[λusλes[[[…Asp[ρ]…]] R (e) & υ(R, u)]]U = = [[λusλes[p(e) & ρ(R, e) & υ(R, u)]]U = λes[p(e) & ρ(R, e) & υ(R, U)]

The denotation of a Late Proto-Indo-European sentence Σ meaning „X was giving / used to give Y to Z‟, containing the form 3.sg. imperfect *e-dV-deh3-t mentioned above, where the reduplication was argued to convey information about viewpoint aspect, will be:

(329) Asp0: [[REDUPLICATION]] = λfstλrsλes[f(e) & r ⊆ e] AspP: [[…*-dVdeh3-…]] R = λes[p(e) & R ⊆ e] = = λes[give(e) & Agent(X)(e) & Theme(Y)(e) & Recipient(Z)(e) & R ⊆ e] T0:

[[*e-]] R = λfstλusλes[f(e) & R < u]

260

TP:

[[…*edVdeh3-…]] R,U = λes[p(e) & R ⊆ e & R < U] = = λes[give(e)& Agent(X)(e)& Theme(Y)(e)& Recipient(Z)(e)& R ⊆ e & R < U]

After agreement with the 3.sg. subject:171 [[Σ]] R,U = [[…*edVdeh3t…]] R,U = = λes[give(e) & Agent(X)(e) & Theme(Y)(e) & Recipient(Z)(e) & R ⊆ e & R < U]

The aspectual interpretation of the sentence will be derived by the algorithm presented by Smith (1997) in the framework of Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) of Kamp (1981), taking into account the aspectual contribution of the verb, its arguments, and temporal adverbials. The fundamental construct of DRT is the discourse representation structure (DRS), which represents the hearer‟s understanding of a discourse. A DRS consists of a set of discourse referents, which are the entities (events and individuals) to which the discourse refers, and a set of conditions, which constitute the information about the discourse referents. Smith (1997: 147-152) provides sample derivations of sentences containing aspectual forms. For instance, the DRT derivation of the sentence Mary was walking to school yesterday proceeds as follows, where S is the event identified in the sentence;172 the upper box in each DRS contains the discourse referents as variables, and the lower box contains the DRS conditions:

171

The agreement morpheme is perhaps in an Agr0 head above T0; here it can be regarded as semantically vacuous.

172

The verb is eventive, so the English processual acts like an imperfective. In this derivation I represent

conventionally the processual as an imperfective – but this is merely ad hoc convention, for otherwise the opposition processual vs. non-processual is not viewpoint aspect (although Smith considers it a manifestation of viewpoint aspect.) 261

1) representing of situation aspect yields a preliminary DRS, which contains the information that S is identified by the proposition „Mary walk- to school‟, that S is an accomplishment, and that the participants are denoted by Mary (Agent) and to school (Goal):

(330)

e, x, y e = [Mary walk- to school] walk(S), Agent(x)(S), Goal(y)(S) S = {accomplishment} x = Mary y = to school

2) adding viewpoint information – here, the imperfective viewpoint is located at the time interval i, and includes I(S) (the beginning of S) and F(S) (the end of S):

(331)

i, e, x, y, I(e), F(e) e = [Mary walk- to school] walk(S), Agent(x)(S), Goal(y)(S) S = {accomplishment} {viewpoint (i, S) = imperfective} I(S), F(S)  i ti[I(S) < t < F(S)] x = Mary y = to school

3) adding temporal information – locating i in time (specifying the situation time S), and specifying that S = R and R < U:

262

(332)

U, R, S, i, e, x, y, I(e), F(e) e = [Mary walk- to school] walk(S), Agent(x)(S), Goal(y)(S) S = {accomplishment} {viewpoint (i, S) = imperfective} I(S), F(S)  i ti[I(S) < t < F(S)] i at S S=R R
Starting with the next section, I will discuss the structure underneath AspP and above VP, where information about situation aspect is located, which, together with the information in the VP (e.g. directional arguments contributing telicity), defines the situation type described by the sentence.

5.4 Manners of action expressed by the present stem

5.4.1 Introduction I use the term „actionality‟ (Aktionsart) with its traditional meaning of „manner of action‟ (Aktionsarten), which is not limited to Vendler‟s (1967) situation types. 173 In this sense, the

173

Cf. Fanning (1990: 31) in a treatment of aspect in New Testament Greek: “Aktionsart involves how the action

actually occurs; reflects the external, objective facts of the occurrence; focuses on something outside the speaker. This is usually expressed lexically, either in the inherent meaning of the lexical form or in the derivational morphology (i.e. by means of prefixes or suffixes which affect the meaning of the verb). Aspect involves a way of viewing the action; reflects the subjective conception or portrayal by the speaker; focuses on the speaker's 263

manners of action include more concrete notions such as ingressive, durative, iterative, frequentative, intensive etc. (Isačenko: 385-418), sometimes even desiderative and causative, in addition to the comparatively more abstract situation types. Actionality is a semantic category which describes how the situation unfolds in time. More definitions: Smith (1997: 22) differentiates between „inchoatives‟, marking the “coming about of a state”, and „inceptives‟, which “span the entry into an event”. I shall be using „ingressive‟ as a blanket term for both inchoatives and inceptives: an ingressive marks the beginning of a situation (event or state). A morphologically derived verb can be denominal (derived from a noun or adjective) or deverbal (derived from a verbal root), or else derived from other parts of speech, or even interjections. A transitive denominal is a factitive, and a transitive deverbal is a causative. In the following sections I present an overview of the manners of action that are associated with present stems. The first section presents the situation first in Proto-IndoEuropean, to the extent that the semantics of the present stems can be reconstructed, next in the branches that later developed aspectual distinctions at least partly similar to Slavic aspect. The discussion focuses on the languages that have recognizable morphological markers of actionality in the present stem: Latin, Germanic (Gothic), Baltic, and Slavic. The next three sections treat

representation of the action. This is usually expressed grammatically, by contrasting verb-pairs as in Slavic languages or by tense-inflexion and tense-stems as in Greek.” With reference to Greek, Decker (2001: 28) distinguishes aspect from Aktionsart as follows: “Aspect is the semantic category by which a speaker or writer grammaticalizes a view of the situation by the selection of a particular verb form in the verbal system”, whereas “Aktionsart is a description of the actional features ascribed to the verbal referent as to the way in which it happens or exists. […] It is not a grammatical category based on the form of the verb, but is a pragmatic category based on the meaning of the word (lexis) as it is used in a particular context.” 264

the manners of action whose existence as morphologically marked forms played a role in the grammaticalization of Slavic aspect: a) restricted action (restricting the duration of the event) > Slavic Perfectives of two types (Old Church Slavonic examples): -

semelfactives (suffixed): drĭznǫtip „display courage (on one occasion)‟;

-

delimitatives (prefixed): posŭpatip „sleep (for a while)‟;

b) duratives (creating an iterative activity, whose subevents can then merge to yield a processual activity) > suffixed Slavic Imperfectives of several types (Old Church Slavonic examples): -

primary: -

derived from a verbal root: sŭpatii „sleep‟ (sŭp-);

-

denominal and deadjectival: veselitii „make happy‟ (veselŭ „happy‟);

-

secondary (derived from a Perfective): ostavljatii „leave‟ (ostavitip);

-

indeterminate motion verbs (opposed to a determinate): nositii-indet „carry‟ (nestii-det);

-

frequentatives (derived from an Imperfective): byvatii „be (often)‟ (bytii „be‟);

c) focus on one endpoint of the event > Perfective and Imperfective types: -

ingressives (Old Church Slavonic examples): -

Imperfective inchoatives (suffixed): sŭxnǫtii „become dry‟;

-

Perfective inchoatives and inceptives (prefixed): zapoustětip „decline‟ (inchoative), načętip „begin‟ < *„start doing‟ (inceptive);

-

terminatives (in Russian only) – Perfective: otljubit’p „stop loving‟.

Underlying the Slavic-type aspectual oppositions, which constitute the final topic of this discussion, are contrasts in actionality of the same type as those obtaining in several cases between root and present stem in Proto-Indo-European. For instance, the opposition between

265

OCS dosaditip and the derived dosaždatii „shame‟ is based on a difference in actionality between a single act and an iterative, and the opposition between OCS kosnǫtip sę and kasatii sę „touch‟, which are synchronically both derived from the root kos-, rests on the difference between a single act and an iterative. In both cases, the iterative can function as a durative, with the [+durative] feature not restricted to the iteration of the single act.

5.4.2 Survey of possibilities Sihler (1995: 495-511) discusses the reconstructed meaning and form of the PIE present stems characterized with regard to actionality. Of interest here are the present stems which denote either the durativity and iterativity of the basic action described by the verbal root, or the opposite non-durative notion (in this case: inchoative), derived from a basic stative meaning. The forms derived from „durative‟ roots were „characterized‟ presents in the sense that they changed the manner of action inherent in the root. These characterized presents were contrasted with primary presents derived from the same root, in that the former expressed an intuitively more complex manner of action – usually a durative, iterative, or causative –, while the latter conveyed the more basic manner of action of „single act‟. The changes in actionality associated with the derivation of such characterized presents as can be reconstructed with reasonable certainty can be illustrated in several patterns of derivation (cf. Rix 2001: 14-23; Sihler 1995: 495-511; MeierBrügger 2003: 167-174), where the characterized stem is morphologically and semantically marked in the sense of having a more complex morphology and denoting a more complex manner of action respectively: i) *R(e/Ø)-(e)h1-(ie/o-): Ø- or e-grade of the root plus athematic suffix with e-grade *-eh1-, Øgrade *-h1-, sometimes enlarged with the thematic suffix *-ie/o-. This type is also used for

266

aorist stems. The general meaning is stative, these stems being sometimes semantically paired with: -

ingressives: Lat. stative sedēre „be seated‟ (< -eh1-ie/o-) vs. ingressive sīdere „sit down‟, both from the root *sed- „sit‟; or

-

causatives: Lat. stative stāre „stand‟ (< -eh1-ie/o-) vs. causative sistere „set up‟, both from the root *steh2- „stand‟.

Many stems with this suffix are denominal, e.g. Gk. rigeĩn „feel cold‟ vs. rĩgos „cold‟, algeĩn „feel pain‟ vs. álgos „pain‟, with the same stative notion (a quality) being expressed verbally or nominally. ii) *R(o)-éie/o-: o-grade of the root with stressed thematic *-éie/o- suffix. The meaning was causative, as in *légh-e/o- > Goth. ligan „lie‟ (stative) vs. *logh-éie/o- > Goth. lagjan „lay‟ (causative), and/or durative / iterative, as in *bhér-e/o- > Gk. phérein „carry‟ (single act) vs. *bhor-éie/o- > Gk. phoreĩn „carry around / wear‟ (iterative).174 iii) *R(o)-éh2-ie/o-: o-grade of the root, plus stressed *-éh2- and thematic *-ie/o- suffixes. Durative / iterative / intensive: Gk. potãsthai „fly around‟ vs. pétesthai „fly‟ (cf. Ved. patáyati below). iv) *R(Ø)-éie/o-: Ø-grade of the root with stressed thematic *-éie/o- suffix. The type was transitive (but not necessarily so in Indo-Iranian: Jamison 1983), and possibly durative: Lat. 174

Jamison (1983) and Lubotsky (1989) argue that in Indo-Iranian the form *R(o)-éie/o- was transitive (causative),

and distinct from a form *R(Ø)-éie/o-, with Ø-grade of the root, which was intransitive. Kölligan (2007) proposes a “unified approach” of the corresponding iteratives and causatives in Latin: if the base verb is [+agentive], the derivative will be an iterative-intensive, and if the base verb is [-agentive], the derivative will be factitive-causative; “in the second case, an agent is added to the valency of the base verb, while in the first case, an agent is already present, so its level of activity is increased.” (Kölligan 2007: 63). 267

urgēre „prod on, urge forward‟ < * erg- „press‟, Ved. patáyati „fly around‟ < *pet- „fly‟ (cf. Kulikov 2008). v) *R(Ø)-ské/ó-: root in Ø-grade plus stressed thematic suffix -ské/ó-. The function is said to be either iterative 175 / durative, as in Archaic Lat. stative durative escit „there is‟ vs. simple stative est „is‟, or „inchoative‟ (in fact, a processual, as I will show later), as in Lat. albēscere „become white‟ vs. albēre „be white‟ (Harðarson 1998), but some other examples, like Ved. prccháti and Lat. poscit „asks‟, are inconclusive. vi) *R(Ø-né-)- / *R(Ø-n-): root with ablauting nasal infix, athematic. The original function seems to have been causative (or punctual, according to Schmitt-Brandt 1988), deriving transitive verbs from intransitive roots: *pleh1- „be full‟ > n-infixed causative *plnéh1- (Ved. act. prṇāti „fills‟) / *plnh1- (Ved. mid. prṇītá „fills‟). There are other characterized stems, sometimes including the same formants as above, which are not visibly contrasted in actionality with other present stems, and are better regarded as primary presents, pending more evidence for their original semantics: vii) *R(Ø)-ié/ó-: Ø-grade of the root plus thematic *-ié/ó- suffix with stressed thematic vowel. Durative intransitive, e.g. *gwm-ié/ó- > Lat. ueniō „I come‟, Gk. baínō „I go / come.‟ viii)

*R(é)-ie/o-: stressed root with e-grade plus thematic suffix *-ie/o-. Durative and

transitive, but probably recent formation (Sihler 1995: 503): *(s)pék-ie/o- > Lat. speciō, Ved. paśyāmi, Gk. sképtomai „I see‟ (with metathesis). 175

Dressler (1968: 162-197) describes the basic functions of this suffix in Hittite as iterative (whence distributive

and habitual), durative, and intensive. Hoffner & Melchert (2002) include a distinct „inchoative‟ function, but this, judging from their examples, seems to involve durativity as well. Cambi (2007: 237) assigns Hittite -ske/a- a more general „imperfective‟ role (meaning, in her analysis, durative and atelic), and Josephson (2008: 133-138) compares it to affixes with similar functions in other IE languages. 268

ix) *R(Ø)-né - / *R(Ø)-nu- (in fact, the nasal infix in present stems before stem-final u): Øgrade root plus athematic ablauting suffix *-né -/*-nu-. The function was to derive transitives in Anatolian – causatives (Hitt. ḫu-iš-nu-zi „causes to live‟ vs. ḫu-i-iš-zi „is alive, lives‟) or factitives (Hitt. imper. e-eš-ḫar-nu-ut „make bloody‟ vs. e-eš-ḫar „blood‟). It is not always possible to classify a certain derivational pattern as semantically characterized like (i)-(vi), or semantically primary like (vii)-(ix), if no unmarked stem is attested with respect to which another stem could be regarded as marked. The individual languages have inherited various other actionality affixes, or developed morphological mechanisms for the expression of actionality. For instance, the 4 th class weak verbs in Gothic contain the suffix -n- (< *-n(e)h2-: Lambdin 2006: 314), and have a consistently inchoative semantics, e.g. fullnan „become full‟, auknan „increase‟. In Lithuanian, there are causatives paired with non-causatives (Ambrazas 1985: 191-193; Arkad‟ev 2009; 2010), e.g. girdyti „make drink‟ vs. gerti „drink‟, both from *gwerh3- (Smoczyński 2007: 172) – the lexical base with e-grade of the root, and the causative with Ø-grade and -d-extension (cf. Specht 1947: 219-233 for nouns) of the root: *gwrh3-d-éie/o- / *gwrh3-dhh1-éie/o- 176 > girdý-. The ablaut pattern present here in the opposition causative with Ø-grade vs. basic transitive with e-grade is found in Lithuanian, with a different semantic effect, in the contrast between a transitive and an intransitive: tr. versti „turn‟ (e-grade) vs. itr. virsti „turn‟ (Ø-grade). The semantic difference between root and derived present stem is one of actionality, not of aspect. For instance, the root *bher- „carry‟ referred to a single act of carrying, which is an 176

Winter (1976) argued for the preservation of PIE *dh in Proto-Balto-Slavic, which suggested the possibility of the

Lithuanian causative suffix -d- to continue the root PIE *dheh1- „put‟ (with Ø-grade), with the same semantic development as in Lat. facere „do, make‟ from the same root. Subsequent research (Rasmussen 1992; Dybo 2002) tended to validate Winter‟s conclusions. 269

accomplishment, since it involves motion. Being durative, this root was classified as a present stem, rather than as an aorist one, in the transition between Early and Late Proto-Indo-European, so that the thematic stem *bhér-e/o- was interpreted, in the past tense, as an imperfect, rather than as an aorist: 1.sg. *é-bher-e/o-m > Gk. épheron „I was carrying / carried‟. In this case, the aorist is suppletive ( nenka „I carried‟), and in general, the root *bher- derived a characterized aorist. On the other hand, the same root could derive characterized presents as well, in order to express a difference in actionality, so that the derived present stem *bhor-éie/o- is an iterative, denoting a repeated act of carrying, and contrasting with the morphologically simple thematic stem *bhére/o-, which denotes a single act.

ACTIONALITY

(333) SINGLE ACT

Early

root

*bhor-éie/o- (imperfective)

characterized aorist stem

[characterized aorist stem (?)]

suppletive (perfective)

(perfective)

primary present stem

characterized present stem

phér-e/o- (imperfective)

phoré-e/o- (imperfective)

root

characterized aorist stem

characterized aorist stem

pher-

1.sg. nenka – suppletion

1.sg. ephórēsa – s-aorist

(perfective)

(perfective)

*b er-

ASPECT

*bhér-e/o- (imperfective)

h

VIEWPOINT

characterized present stem

root

ASPECT

primary present stem

Late

h

VIEWPOINT

*bhor-éie/o- (neutral viewpoint)

*b er-

Greek

characterized stem

*b ér-e/o- (neutral viewpoint)

h

PIE

PIE

primary stem

ITERATIVE

The present stems of Late Proto-Indo-European formed a loose system which could distinguish between a basic, or primary, manner of action, expressed by a primary (morphologically simple) stem, and one or more derived manners of action, expressed by a characterized (morphologically 270

more complex) stem. This possibility of distinguishing manners of action in the present stems was inherited to various degrees in the daughter languages, either both formally and functionally, as in the contrast between phérein and phoreĩn in Greek, or only functionally, with an innovative derivational morphology in the characterized stem. In many cases, the derivation of forms with different actionality values or different viewpoints for the same actionality value was not productive, and even for Proto-Indo-European a derivation like (333) cannot be shown to have been productive. A typical example is the distribution of these iteratives in Old Church Slavonic, where they are confined to the verbs of motion, assuming that the type OCS nositii-indet „lead‟ goes back to the Proto-Indo-European stem formation (ii); the semantic relationship in the pair OCS nestii-det (< *nék-e/o-) – nositii-indet (< *nok-éie/o-) „carry, bear‟ parallels the one in Gk. phérein (< *bhér-e/o-) – phoreĩn (< *bhor-éie/o-) „carry, bear‟, where the aorist stem enenk-e/ogoes back to the same root *nek- as the OCS verbs, but the procedure was not applied in OCS to derive an iterative **boriti with a meaning „take repeatedly / randomly‟ from bĭratii „take‟ (1.sg. pres. berǫ), and there are Old Church Slavonic verbs which have the morphological template of iteratives, but are semelfactive only, e.g. skočitip „jump (once)‟. The status of the derivations in group (ii), and perhaps of others as well, seems to have resembled the status of the iteratives and frequentatives in Slavic (SCr. nositii „carry‟ → nosatii „carry around‟), where they have in general a limited productivity, but their semantics is usually recognizable. The characterized aorist stems cannot be reconstructed: the iterative perfective (aorist) Gk. ephórēsa has no parallel formations in other languages, and the single act perfective is suppletive: Gk. aor. nenka, Lat. pf. tuli. This sporadic and lexicalized character of the derivation is apparent in the multiplicity of characterized present stems, as well as in the difficulties involved in reconstruction of their semantics.

271

An example of a partial inheritance of the derivational mechanisms for characterized present stems, alongside with the creation of new ones, is provided by Latin. The present stems of the Latin second conjugation are derived with the suffix -ē-, which continues at least three IE formations (Leumann 1977: 540-542; Sihler 1995: 531-532; Weiss 2009: 403-404; Vernet i Pons 2008: 73-77): a) roots ending in *-eh1-: flēre „weep‟ < *bhleh1- „howl‟; b) statives of class (1) with enlargement -ie/o-, either originally verbal (habēre „have‟, sedēre „sit‟, uidēre „see‟) or denominal (calēre „be hot‟ cf. calidus „hot‟ and calor „heat‟); and c) causatives of class (4): monēre „warn‟ < *men- „think‟. The statives (b) are opposed to other presents in two cases (examples from Weiss 2009: 404): -

stative (characterized) vs. transitive (primary): iacēre „lie‟ (< „be cast‟) vs. iacere „cast‟; candēre „shine‟ vs. ac-cendere „light‟; pendēre „hang / weigh‟ vs. pendere „hang up‟;

-

stative (primary) vs. inchoative (characterized): albēre „be white‟ vs. albēscere „become white‟, cf. albus „white‟.

The assumption that the stative notion is primary in the latter case and secondary (characterized) in the former is not completely ungrounded: the primary statives (type albēre) are denominal, denoting a stative notion more commonly expressed by an adjective, whereas the characterized statives (type iacēre) describe the states resulting from the action expressed by the corresponding transitives (type iacere). The opposite derivational relationship is illustrated by Goth. ligan „lie‟ vs. lagjan „lay‟, where the stative is primary and morphologically unmarked, and the causative is secondary and marked. In addition to the contrasts in actionality mentioned above, other such contrasts exist in Latin between an inherited and an innovated present stem formation with an intuitively more

272

complex manner of action. Leumann (1977: 547-555) mentions several classes of innovated presents with complex actionality: -

iteratives and intensives in -(i)tare and -ssāre, probably derived from past participles, e.g. gestāre „bear, wear‟ < gestus „borne‟ (from gerere „bear‟);

-

intensives in -essere, -issere, and -āssere: facessere „do eagerly, perform, bring on‟ vs. facere „do‟; incessere „assault‟ vs. incēdere „step, walk, move‟;

-

intensives in -āre: oc-cuppāre „seize, occupy‟ vs. capere „seize, grasp‟;

-

“diminutival verbs” Leumann (1977: 551) in -(ic)ulāre and -il(l)āre, mostly denominal from diminutives: ioculārī „joke‟ < ioculus „joke‟ < iocus „play / joke‟; petulā- (in pres.part. petulans „brash‟) vs. petere „head for, strive after‟.

In the following sections I will treat the manners of action that played a role in the appearance of Slavic-type aspect, starting with the „diminutival verbs‟ in the last class.

5.4.3 Atelic non-duratives: attenuatives and semelfactives The „diminutival verbs‟ typically describe actions of little duration and/or import, sometimes performed casually. 177 This type of formation is quite common cross-linguistically – either idiomatically, as in take a look, or more systematically, like the Yiddish aspectual forms when translatable as „have a go at…‟ (a kuk ton „take a look‟, lit. „do a look‟, cf. Diesing 1998: 132), or the Chinese reduplicated verbs with similar semantics (kànkan „take a look‟ vs. kàn „look‟). The difference in actionality between an „action of little consequence‟ of typically short duration

177

These notions are cognitively related: if an action is of little duration compared to a prototype, also its

consequences are typically negligible compared with those of the prototype, and vice versa – the duration of an action of little consequence tends to be perceived as irrelevant, and therefore as short. 273

on the one hand, and the durative prototype on the other hand, can be assimilated to an opposition in the value of the [±durative] feature of the stem, since the short duration of an action of little consequence is negligible ([-durative]) compared with the long duration of the prototypical action ([+durative]). The derivation of the Latin „diminutival verbs‟ is not productive, and in many cases the semantic relationship to the verbal root, whether or not the verb in question was derived via a diminutive noun, is obscure. In one of the more clear cases, the synchronic derivation is assumed to have been as below:

(334) root ioc- „play‟

base verb iocārī „play, joke‟ base noun iocus „play, joke‟ dim.noun ioculus „joke‟

dim.verb ioculārī „joke‟

Even though ioculārī is denominal, the contrast between it and iocārī is – mutatis mutandis across categories – fundamentally the same as the contrast between ioculus and iocus. In (335) and (336), Cicero refers to a jocular intent neutrally with iocārī, while Livy (337) describes with ioculārī a sparkling conversation, where witty remarks are uttered casually and spontaneously:

(335) iocansne an ita sentiens? (Cicero, Academica 2.63) „joking or really so thinking?‟

(336) haec iocātus sum (Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares 9.14.4) „I meant this as a joke‟

274

(337) quaedam ioculantes (Livy, Ab urbe condita 7.10.13) „saying witticisms‟

In general, the result of choosing ioculārī over iocārī is to signal an action which is limited in intent, duration, and effect. To the extent that „diminutival verbs‟ were opposed in actionality to base verbs from the same root, at least at the time of former‟s derivation, this difference (ioculārī „joke‟ < „play a little‟ vs. iocārī „joke / play‟) is conveyed by the suffix -ul-. Although the derivation with the diminutive verbal suffixes is highly lexicalized, the semantic contribution of the suffixes -(ic)ul- and -il(l)- is clear: it changes the manner of action of the semantically neutral base verb to denote a “diminutivized event” (Diesing 1998: 119) or a “single (and usually brief) event” (Katz 1987: 156) of the type expressed in Yiddish by free aspectual morphemes, namely the “light verbs” gebn „give‟ and ton „do‟ functioning as aspectual auxiliary verbs. In Yiddish, the actionality contribution of the auxiliary has been systematized to a larger extent, evolving into a quasi-aspectual opposition, yet this opposition is still based on an actionality contrast: the denotation of the aspectual head proposed by Diesing (2000: 251) contains the actionality specification that the event is “diminutivized”. Suffixes with similar semantics are attested in Lithuanian as well.178 The suffix -sė- (in the infinitive) forms “diminutives” (Senn 1961: 282), e.g. švelpsėti „lisp a little while / once‟ vs. švelpauti „lisp‟, švilpsėti „whistle a little while / once‟ vs. švilpauti „whistle‟, where a semelfactive or verb of „restricted action‟ in -sė- is contrasted with a durative / iterative in -au-. In these two cases, the diminutive force is applied to a „granular‟ event, typically consisting of a series of repeated atomic events (lisps, whistles), whence the double interpretation: either a short

178

Arkad‟ev (2011a; 2011b) offers an extensive discussion of actionality in Lithuanian. 275

or a single lisp / whistle. Many verbs in this class are onomatopoeic, like „cheep, peep‟ (cieksėti, čieksėti, ciepsėti, čiepsėti, cyspėti, čypsėti), where „diminutiveness‟ translates as low intensity, cf. also blaksėti „flicker, twinkle‟ and spyksėti „shimmer, flicker‟. In the latter case, as in several others with the same suffix, the low-intensity action is not of short duration, but repeated and sometimes sporadic, therefore the notion of restricted action applies to intensity, rather than duration. This conclusion seems to apply to the sė-derivatives as a class, including those labeled as “iteratives” by Senn (1961: 282). The semelfactive suffix -telė-, which often derives verbs from nouns and interjections, is equivalent to Russian -nu-, which derives Perfectives (cf. below), e.g. žvilgtelėti ~ vzgljanut’p „glance‟, baršktelėti ~ zvjaknut’p „tinkle (once)‟ (barškt „a tinkle‟; barškėti „rattle‟), aiktelėti ~ axnut’p „sigh (once)‟ (ai „oh‟), etc.:

(338) Šis žvilgtelėjo į jį ir viska suprato. (Orvidienė 1968: 397) „He glanced at her and she understood everything.‟

The same function is performed by the prefixes no- and su- when attached to verbs denoting granular activities: sucypti „squeal, screech (once)‟ vs. cypti „squeal, screech (repeatedly)‟, nudiegti „stab (once, on the side)‟ vs. diegti „stab (repeatedly)‟ (Ambrazas 1985: 197). In Slavic, the „restricted action‟ semantics is discernible in the semelfactive Perfectives with the suffix PSl *-nǫ- in the infinitive,179 of type OCS d(ĭ)rĭznǫtip „display courage (on one occasion) / pluck up courage‟ vs. d(ĭ)rĭzatii „be brave‟ and Russ. ševel’nut’p „move (once)‟ vs. ševelit’i „keep moving‟. These verbs have a consistently semelfactive semantics, describing a

179

This suffix continues several Proto-Indo-European nasal suffixes, but its attested shape is the result of inner

Slavic developments (Lunt 2001: 244-245). 276

single instance of an activity which is construed as granular, consisting of the repetition of identical events. The semelfactive affixes in Slavic and Lithuanian are not productive, but confined to lexical bases with appropriate meaning, since the semelfactive formants must apply to bases able to denote granular activities (inherent iteratives). In all of the cases mentioned above, the morphologically marked member of a semelfactive-iterative pair is the semelfactive – except for the Slavic nǫ-Perfectives, which are paired with Imperfectives, both members being derived synchronically from the root by suffixation (OCS drĭznǫtip and drĭzatii from drĭz-; Russ. ševel’nut’p and ševelit’i from ševel’-).180 In these Slavic pairs, the iterative and semelfactive181 manners of action are indicated by the individual morphemes, and neither the iterative nor the semelfactive is derived from its respective counterpart.

5.4.4 Atelic duratives: statives and processuals The suffixes employed to derive iteratives contrasted with semelfactives, like -a- in OCS drĭzatii (vs. drĭznǫtip) or -i- in Russ. ševelit’i (vs. ševel’nut’p), specify the predicate as durative (an activity) by means of signaling the iterative manner of action. Without it, the predicate would only contain the feature [-telic] inherent in the root, leaving durativity underspecified – in the

180

Pairings quite similar to the Slavic ones in semantics and derivational relationship to a root are found in

Hungarian, where roots of the form C1VC2- derive iteratives C1VC2-e/o/ög- and semelfactives C1VC2C2-a/en- (most often specified as „perfectives‟ with the prefix meg-), e.g. ropog „creak (repeatedly)‟ vs. (meg)roppan „creak (once)‟, csörög „rattle (repeatedly)‟ vs. (meg)csörren „rattle (once)‟. (In some cases, the semelfactive suffix signifies primarily low intensity, e.g. szédeleg „feel a little dizzy‟ vs. szédül „feel dizzy / faint‟.) Here too, the iterative and the semelfactive are on a pair derivationally, neither member being marked with respect to the other. 181

I use the term „semelfactive‟ to refer both a manner of action and a situation type. 277

same sense as neutral viewpoint aspect leaves the inclusion relation between R and S underspecified. In drĭzatii and ševelit’i, it is the suffix (-a-, -i-) that specifies that the action is also [+durative]. Whereas in the primary Imperfective drĭzatii and the primary Perfective drĭznǫtip the suffixes are added to the bare root drĭz-, in the derived Perfective posŭpatip (non-durative) the prefix is added to a base consisting of the root sŭp-182 plus the same suffix -a- employed in drĭzatii, constituting the primary Imperfective sŭpatii „sleep‟ (durative):183

(339)

ROOT

drĭzsŭp-

PRIMARY FORMATION

SECONDARY FORMATION

+ -a- = drĭzatii

-

+ -nǫ- = drĭznǫtip

-

+ -a- = sŭpatii

+ po- = posŭpatip

The Slavic suffix -a-, which in the present stems continues PIE *-eh2-ie/o-, with a durativeiterative function (Sihler 1995: 505), typically derives Imperfectives from derived Perfectives by contributing the features [-telic] and [+durative]. While the primary function of these Imperfectives is to indicate the repetition of the event described with the base Perfective, it can also serve to indicate a non-granular activity. For instance, in the pair OCS umiratii vs. um(ĭ)rětip

182

Cf. sŭnŭ < PIE *supnos „dream‟ cf. Lat. somnium, Gk. húpnos, and ousŭnǫtip „fall asleep‟ < PSl *-sŭp-nǫ-.

183

In the case of sŭpatii, the suffix -a- appears only in the infinitive, not in the present stem, as it does in the other

Imperfectives where it bears the feature [+durative]: inf. sŭpatii, 3.sg. pres. sŭpitŭi, but inf. umiratii „die‟, 3.sg. pres. umirajetŭi. 278

„die‟, the Perfective refers to a single death as an accomplishment (340), whereas the Imperfective describes either a protracted agony (341) or a series of deaths (342):184

(340) uněe estĭ edinomu čku umĭrětip za ljudi (Codex Assemanianus, John 18.14) „[…] it is expedient that one man should die for the people.‟

(341) sŭtŭniku že eteru rabŭ bole zŭlě umiraašei (Codex Marianus, Luke 7.2) „A certain centurion‟s servant was ill and dying.‟

(342) ubivajut’ dša jaže ne sutĭ umirajuštai (Ezekiel 13.19 in the Homilies of Saint Gregory the Great) „They slay the souls who should not die.‟

In either case, the Old Church Slavonic suffix -a- carries the features [+durative] and [-telic], and as such derives Imperfectives – either from a root, as in sŭpatii and drĭzatii, or from a base Perfective, as in umiratii. Durativity can be obtained either by prolonging the action into a protracted and continuous process with no foreseeable natural endpoint, or by repeating it, cf. the difference in (333) between phérein „carry‟ (single action: telic) and phoreĩn „carry around / wear‟ (iterative / durative: atelic). Some of these formations also have an intensive connotation, probably because

184

The example in (342) is very late (13th century, Russia), but the use of the imperfective to indicate a plurality of

telic events is otherwise well attested: i rĭpŭtaaxǫi kĭnižĭnici i farisei kŭ učenikomŭ ego (Codex Assemanianus, Luke 5.30) „And the scribes and Pharisees complained against his disciples.‟ 279

the notion of intensity is cognate with that of durativity: an action that is repeated or prolonged is likely to produce the same increased effect as an action of high intensity. Several suffixes among the ones listed under (i)-(ix) above have a durative / iterative semantics, and most branches of Indo-European inherited some of them. It is important to note that the durativity ascribed to these suffixes is invariably accompanied by atelicity: many verbs derived with these suffixes describe not just durative events, but activities or states, i.e. durative atelic situations. (Iterativity, which is a variant of durativity, is itself atelic.) In Latin, the suffix -ā-, continuing the Proto-Indo-European group (iv), derives several secondary formations with iterative or frequentative meaning (Weiss 2009: 400-403): -

“repetitives” (cantāre „sing, recite, chant‟ vs. canere „sing‟; agitāre „shake, agitate‟ vs. agere „drive‟), which “signal event-internal plurality, i.e. they indicate an event occurring at one time made up of multiple actions”; and

-

“frequentatives” (cantitāre „sing repeatedly‟ vs. canere „sing‟; āctitāre „do repeatedly‟ vs. agere „drive, do‟), which “tend to signal multiple-event plurality, i.e. a single type of event repeated on multiple occasions”.185

This class contains many denominal and deadjectival formations: c rāre „care‟ (c ra „care), nouāre „renew‟ (nouus „new‟). In general, the denominals derived from nouns denoting physical entities describe atelic durative situations (states and activities) if they refer to the „being‟ or „acting‟ like the respective entity, because such nominal notions are essentially static; i dex

185

I will adopt Weiss‟ (2009) distinction between repetitives and frequentatives, and apply it to Slavic Imperfective

pairs of type OCS frequentative byvatii „be (often)‟ vs. non-frequentative bytii „be‟. I use „repetitive‟ and „iterative‟ interchangeably. 280

„judge‟ derives the atelic intransitive i dicāre „act as a judge‟ (343), whence the telic transitive „pronounce a sentence‟ (344):

(343) Quod priuatus a populo petit aut populus a priuato, senatus ex aliqua ciuitate qui iudicet datur. (Cicero, In Verrem 2.32) „If an individual makes a claim on a community, or a community on an individual, the senate of another city is assigned to act as judges.‟ 186

(344) Utrum enim est in clarissimis ciuibus is quem iudicatum hic duxit Hermippus […]? (Cicero, Pro Flacco 45) „Is the one whom Hermippus brought here to be tried one of the most eminent citizens?‟

If the relationship to the nominal notion is other than „being like‟ or „acting like‟, the verb can be telic, too – e.g. in Lat. c rāre „take care of‟ (c ra „care‟) and Goth. kapillon „cut off hair‟ (Lat. capillus „hair‟), the nominal notion constitutes the object of the action. On the other hand, deadjectival verbs can express either the state characterized by the corresponding quality, or the process (an activity) of acquiring the respective quality, as in the pair albēre „be white‟ vs. albēscere „become white‟ mentioned above. The Gothic weak verbs in -on are usually durative, many of them being denominal (Kieckers 1928: 235): sunjon „justify‟ (sunja „truth‟), gredon „be hungry‟ (gredus „hunger‟). When the relationship to the nominal concept is „being / acting like‟, the verb is durative and

186

Probably not all the senators are to act as judges, but only some of them are sent to fulfill that function. 281

atelic: þiudanon „be king‟ (þiudans „king‟), gudjinon „serve as a priest‟ (gudja „priest‟), militon „be soldier‟ (Lat. mīles „soldier‟), etc. Verbs marked as atelic and durative are derived also in Baltic. Lithuanian has numerous suffixes with this function (Ambrazas 1985: 196-198). The suffixes -(s)oti and -(d)ėti usually denote states: brydoti „stay in water‟ vs. bristi „wade‟; kyšoti „be visible‟ vs. kišti „insert‟; gl doti „lie (next to smb.)‟ vs. glusti „stick‟; merdėti „be in agony‟ vs. mirti „die‟; kabėti „hang‟ (itr.) vs. kabinti „hang up‟.187 Iteratives are formed with several suffixes: -(i)oti, -ėti, -inti, -yti, -noti, -uoti, etc. – e.g. iterarive braukyti vs. single-act braukti „pull‟; šokinėti „keep jumping for a while‟ vs. single-act šokti „jump‟:

(345) Paukščiai šokinėjo nuo šakos ant šakos. (Orvidienė 1968: 397) „The birds were jumping from branch to branch.‟

Also many denominatives in -uoti and -auti describe activities, e.g. balsuoti „vote‟ (balsas „voice‟), uogauti „gather berries‟ (uoga „berry‟), grybauti „gather mushrooms‟ (grybas „mushroom‟), riešutauti „gather nuts‟ (riešutas „nut‟):

(346) Miške vasarą mes uogaujame, grybaujame, riešutaujame. (Orvidienė 1968: 397) „We gather berries, mushrooms and nuts in the forest in summer.‟

The cognate suffixes in Latvian have similar functions. For instance, the verbs in -ot denote activities and states, like dzīvot „live‟, ilgoties „be sad‟, lietot „use‟, and many of them are

187

Some of the verbs in this class denote prolonged action: aušėti „cool down gradually‟ vs. aušti „cool down‟. 282

denominatives, e.g ogot „gather berries‟ (oga „berry‟), sēņot „gather mushrooms‟ (sēne „mushroom‟), riekstot „gather nuts‟ (rieksts „nut‟):

(347) Sevišķi bieži mēs esam mežā rudeņos. Tad mēs ogojam, riekstojam un sēņojam. (Veksler & Jurik 1978: 44) „Particularly in autumn we often are in the forest. Then we gather berries, nuts, and mushrooms.‟

Baltic and Slavic do not contrast deadjectival statives and processuals as Latin does, but in general assign deadjectivals a processual reading, although some of them are stative, e.g. Latv. slinkot, OCS lěnitii sę „be lazy‟ (slinks, lěnŭ „lazy‟):

(348) Mums nav laika pļāpāt un slinkot. (Veksler & Jurik 1978: 38) – stative „We do not have time to chatter and stay idle.‟

Many deadjectivals allow both a stative and a processual reading, e.g. Lith. žaliuoti, Latv. zaļot, Russ. zelenet’i, Pol. zielenieći się „be(come) green‟ (respectively: žalias, zaļš, zelënyj, zielony „green‟), or Lith. raudonuoti „be(come) red‟, geltonuoti „be(come) yellow‟ (raudonas „red‟, geltonas „yellow‟):

(349) Tur vienmēr zaļo augi. (Veksler & Jurik 1978: 38) – stative „There are always green plants there.‟

283

(350) Rudenį soduose raudonavo obuoliai, geltonavo kriaušes. (Orvidienė 1968: 396) – stative / inchoative „In the autumn, in the garden the apple trees were / became red, and the pear trees were / became yellow.‟

(351) Ogień tańczyć zaczął już w kominie, a choinka się zielenii […] – stative (Polish rendition of a Serbo-Croatian song) „The fire already started to dance in the fire-place, and the Christmas tree is green‟

(352) Lubię kiedy się zielenii, lubię jak się piwo pieni. (Polish song) – inchoative „I like it when [trees] become green, I like how the beer foams.‟

Slavic likewise has several suffixes associated with durativity and atelicity at the same time; they either mark the [+durative][-telic] features of primary Imperfectives or contribute these features in the derivation of a secondary Imperfective from a base Perfective. In Old Church Slavonic, there is a quite close correlation between the form and function of an individual morphological class (defined by the shape of the present and infinitive stems). The morphological classes where the suffixes have a recognizable188 [+durative][-telic] semantics are as follows:189

188

I regard as the criterion for recognizing them as such the absence of Perfectives in the respective class.

189

I disregard the root ablaut present in some of the derived Imperfectives, for instance the Indo-European ablaut in

nositii-indet vs. nestii-det „carry‟ and Slavic ablaut in klanjatii sę vs. klonitip sę „bow‟. 284

(353)

PRESENT

INFINITIVE

DERIVATIONAL

SEMANTICS OF THE

EXAMPLES

TENSE

SUFFIX

STATUS IN

VERBAL NOTION

(WITH DERIVATIONAL BASE)

activity

veselitii „make happy‟

SLAVIC ASPECT

SUFFIX

-jǫ-/-i-

-i-

190

primary Ipfv.

(veselŭ „happy‟)

-ě-

indet. Ipfv191

activity

nositii-indet „carry‟ (nestii-det)

primary Ipfv.

state

bolětii „ache / be sick‟ (bolĭ „sick person‟)

-ajǫ-/

-a-192

-aje-

primary Ipfv.

activity / state

dělatii „do‟ (dělo „deed, matter‟)

secondary Ipfv.

activity

padatii „fall‟ (pastip)

indet. Ipfv.

Activity

plavatii-indet „swim‟(plutii-det)

Ipfv. from Ipfv.

activity

byvatii „be (often)‟ (bytii „be‟)

(frequentative) -jajǫ/

-ja-

secondary Ipfv.

activity

ostavljatii „leave‟ (ostavitip)

-ě-

primary Ipfv.

activity / state

umětii „know‟ (umŭ „intellect‟)

-ova-

primary Ipfv.

activity / state

darovatii „give (as a present)‟

193

-jaje-ějǫ/ -ěje-ujǫ/

(darŭ „present‟)

-uje-

This table considers three classes of derived Imperfectives, where the suffix contributes the features [+durative] and [-telic]:

190

In this table, I do not consider separately the causative formations of this class, e.g. saditii „make sit, plant‟ vs.

sěstip „sit down‟. With the exception of the indeterminate Imperfectives, all verbs in this class are transitive. 191

This refers to the determinate-indeterminate opposition in Slavic Imperfective verbs of motion of type Pol. iśći-det

vs. chodzići-indet „walk‟. 192

-va- after root-final vowel, e.g. poznavatii „realize / recognize‟ (poznatip); but byvatii „be (often)‟ is different,

keeping -va- in all forms: byvatii – 3.sg.pres. byvajetŭ vs. poznavatii – 3.sg.pres. poznajetŭ. 193

-ja- > -a- with palatalization of the preceding consonant in both the infinitive and the present stem: očištatii

„clean‟ (očistitip). 285

-

secondary – derived from a base Perfective: padatii < pastip „fall‟;

-

frequentative – derived from a base Imperfective: byvatii „be (often)‟ < bytii „be‟;

-

indeterminate – derived from a determinate Imperfective motion verb: nositii-indet < nestii-det „carry‟.

Base Imperfectives are derived from: -

a verbal root: sŭpatii „sleep‟ < sŭp-; or

-

a nominal base: veselitii „make happy‟ < veselŭ „happy‟.

In base Imperfectives, the feature [-telic] is marked, rather than contributed, by the suffix, because the nominal notions that serve as bases for primary Imperfectives are all static. On the other hand, the feature [+durative] can be either marked, as in sŭpatii, where the verbal concept is durative, or contributed, as in klicatii „shout‟, where the it is non-durative, and kliknǫtip „shout (once), call‟ is perhaps semantically closer to the meaning of the root, although of equal morphological complexity as klicatii. The indeterminate Imperfective verbs of motion in Slavic constitute a special issue. Dostál (1954: 35-37) recognizes the basic semantic identity of the determinate-indeterminate opposition in Old Church Slavonic on the one hand and in the modern Slavic languages on the other hand, even though the functions do not always correspond. It seems that in Old Church Slavonic, the act of motion or the manner of motion – as opposed to the change of location involved in motion – tended to be expressed with the indeterminate, while the modern Slavic languages resort to the determinate, although an extensive survey of data is needed to support this hypothesis. An examination of the relevant entries in Kurz (1966) and Cejtlin (1999) shows that, with two exceptions, the Old Church Slavonic determinates are translated as determinates in

286

Russian and Czech, while the indeterminates, when attested, translate either both determinates and indeterminates or only determinates:194

(354)

DETERMINATE

OCS

INDETERMINATE

RUSSIAN (CZECH)

OCS

RUSSIAN (CZECH)

nestii-det

nestii-det

nositii-indet

nosit'i-indet / nestii-det

„carry‟

vestii-det1

vestii-det

voditii-indet

vodit'i-indet / vestii-det

„lead‟

vlěštii-det

vlécii-det (Cz.)

vlačitii-indet

vláčeti-ind./ vlécii-det (Cz.)

„drag‟

itii-det

idtii-det

xoditii-indet

xodit'i-indet / idtii-det

„walk‟

teštii-det

bežat'i-det

točitii-indet

begat'i-indet / bežat’i-det

„run‟

gŭnatii-det

gnat'i-det

gonitii-indet

gnat'i-det only

„chase‟

běžatii-det

bežat'i-det

běgatii-indet

bežat'i-det only

„run‟

jaxatii-det

exat'i-det

-

-

„ride‟

vestii-det2

veztii-det

-

-

„convey‟

letětii-det

letet'i-det

-

-

„fly‟

plutii-det

plyt'i-det / plavat'i-indet

plavatii-indet

plavat'i-indet / plyt'i-det

„swim / float‟

plĭzětii-det

polztii-det / polzat’i-indet

plĭzatii-det

polzat'i-indet / polztii-det

„crawl‟

Exceptions:

The inventory of Old Church Slavonic determinate-indeterminate pairs varies between authors (cf. discussion by Amse-De Jong 1974: 84-89). As in the modern Slavic languages, the indeterminate Imperfectives in Old Church Slavonic supply the derivational base for the Imperfectives paired with the Perfectives derived by prefixation from determinate Imperfectives: itii-det „walk‟ > pritip „come‟ is paired with prixoditii „come‟ < xoditii-indet „walk‟ (prixoditii derives in turn the frequentative prixaždatii „come repeatedly‟). In Old Church Slavonic, the core 194

(355) below is an example of the variation in the use of an Old Church Slavonic indeterminate. Several

determinate verbs in this language are actually biaspectual; this table considers only their Imperfective aspect. 287

subset of these verbs, with the most readily recognizable semantics, display either the IndoEuropean ablaut (indeterminate with o-grade, and determinate with e-grade), or the Slavic ablaut (lengthening of the root vowel in early Common Slavic). In addition, the indeterminate Imperfective is marked by a suffix -i- or -a- in both the infinitive and the present stems. Whether the indeterminates derive from an o-grade root with suffixes innovated in Slavic, or have been reanalyzed as denominal in Slavic, as argued by Nichols (2010), their relationship to their determinate counterparts continues an opposition attested in other branches of Indo-European. I mentioned above the Greek pair phoreĩn vs. phérein, very closely corresponding to the respective members to the Old Church Slavonic pair nositii-indet vs. nestii-det in formation and contrastive meaning. For instance, in Matthew 11.8 both Gk. phoreĩn and OCS nositii-indet render the meaning „wear‟:

(355) idoù hoi tà malakà phoro ntes en toĩs oíkois tōn basiléōn eisín se iže mękŭka nosętŭi-det vŭ domoxŭ c<ě>sr[ixŭ] sǫtŭ (Codex Marianus) „Behold, those who wear soft clothes are in kings‟ houses.‟

However, nositii-indet does not always translate phoreĩn: when the meaning is not iterative or habitual, as in the above example, the Greek text has phérein, while Old Church Slavonic can use nositii-indet if the focus is not on the change of location, but on the act of motion itself. Also, the codices do not always agree on the determinate vs. indeterminate aspect of a motion verb. In Luke 24.1, Assemanianus chooses to focus the act of motion with the indeterminate, whereas

288

Marianus retains the perspective upon the goal, encoded by the determinate.195 Here, the Greek can only employ phérein, because there is only one act of motion.

(356) tēi dè miāi tōn sabbátōn órthrou bathéōs ep tò mnēma ēlthon phérousai h ētoímasan ar mata vŭ edinǫ sǫbotŭ zělo rano pridǫ ženŭi na grobŭ nosęštęi-indet ęže ugotovašę aromatŭi (Codex Assemanianus) vŭ edinǫ že soboto zělo rano pridǫ na grobŭ nesǫštęi-det ęže ugotovašę aromaty (Codex Marianus) „On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they [women] came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.‟

Although this is the only formal correspondence between a determinate-indeterminate pair in Old Church Slavonic and a Greek single-act vs. iterative pair, the indeterminate is employed in iterative contexts. In Matthew 10.23, even though Gk. di kein „pursue‟ is not iterative by itself, the conjunction hótan + subjunctive is an indicator of iterativity („whenever…‟, as opposed to hóti + indicative „when…‟), which licenses the use of gonitii-indet „pursue‟ and běgatii-indet „run‟ in the Old Church Slavonic translation:

195

The difference between Marianus and Assemanianus can hardly be attributed to regional variation, because both

were written on South-Slavic territory – the former in today‟s Serbia or Croatia, and the latter in Macedonia. The translations into modern Slavic languages use the determinate, unless they have lost it (South Slavic except Slovene) and have to resort to the „indeterminate‟, which does not have indeterminate value in these languages. 289

(357) hótan dè di kōsin hum s en tēi pólei taútēi, pheúgete eis t n hetéran egda že gonętŭi-indet vy vŭ gradě semĭ běgaitеi-indet vŭ drugy (Codex Marianus) „Whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to another one.‟

Likewise in Matthew 15.14, the iterative context is implied by the hypothetical condition indicated with the conjunction eán + subjunctive („if ever / whenever‟, as opposed to the factual conditional with ei + indicative), and voditii-indet is employed even though hodēgeĩn „lead‟ is not iterative by itself:196

(358) tuphlòs dè tuphlòn eàn hodēgēi, amphóteroi eis bóthunon peso ntai slěpecŭ že slěpŭca ašte voditŭi-indet oba vŭ ěmǫ vŭpadete sę (Codex Marianus) „And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into the ditch.‟

Baltic languages display a similar grouping of determinate-indeterminate verbs of motion, and in comparative treatments of Lithuanian or Latvian and Russian (Aleksandravičius 1988, Veksler & Jurik 1978) they are treated as equivalent to their semantic counterparts in Russian. The following maximal sets of pairs can be compiled for Latvian and Lithuanian (Aleksandravičius 1988: 267; Regnéll 1944: 53; Karulis 1992; Smoczyński 2007): 197 196

Here, the use of the indeterminate might be triggered also by the undirected character of the motion, if this is how

it was interpreted in the translation: the blind leads the blind around. But there is no clue in this passage as to whether the motion is directed or undirected. 197

The last column gives only rough translations, there being many differences of detail in the use of these pairs

between the three languages. The correspondences with Russian, as well as the pairing of the verbs in Baltic, are based on the predominant meaning, not on etymology. For example, Russ. nosit’i-indet is translated most often by 290

(359) LITHUANIAN

LATVIAN

RUSSIAN

eiti – vaikščioti

iet – staigāt

idtii-det – xodit’i-indet

„walk‟

plaukti – plaukyti

- – peldēt

plyt'i-det / plavat’i-indet

„swim / float‟

begti – begioti / beginėti

bēgt – beidzot

bežat'i-det / begat’i-indet

„run‟

nesti – nešioti

nest – nesāt

nestii-det / nosit’i-indet

„carry‟

vesti – vedžioti / vadyti

vest – vadīt / vadāt

vestii-det / vodit’i-indet

„lead‟

vežti – vežioti

- – vizināt

veztii-det / vozit’i-indet

„convey‟

važiuoti – važinėti

važot – -

exat'i-det – ezdit’i-indet

„ride‟

bristi – braidžioti / braidyti

brist – bradāt

brestii-det – brodit’i-indet

„wade‟

skrieti / skristi – skraidyti

skriet – skraidīt

letet'i-det – letat’i-indet

„fly‟

vilkti – valkioti

vilkt – valkāt

vleč'i-det – voločit’i-indet

„drag / pull‟

As in Slavic, the only suppletive pair in Baltic is the one rendering the notion of „walk‟ – presumably due to the difficulty of attaching vowel-initial suffixed to the root *h1ei-: Slavic resorted to the insertion of a -d- in the present stem of the determinate (OCS idei-det „walks‟), but Baltic preserved the root with final vowel, which resulted in irregular present-tense paradigms (Latv. iet, 3.sg. irregular iet „go‟), with suppletion in the past tense (Latv. 3.sg. gāja „went‟). Usually, the functional correspondence between the members of individual pairs in Slavic and Baltic is quite close, e.g. for Lithuanian and Russian (examples from Alexandravičius 1988: 267):

Latv. valkāt when meaning „wear (clothes)‟, and Latvian iet preserved the original meaning „go‟, with no specification of the manner of motion, but with specified deixis (away from the speaker; only nākt is employed with the meaning „come‟). Several of these verbs are attested in Old Prussian as well (Karulis 1992; Smoczyński 2007). 291

(360) Jie skrenda į Klaipėdą.

– single motion to a goal

Oni letjati-det v Klajpedu. „They are flying to Klaipeda.‟ vs. Virš m sų skraido lėktuvai.

– motion with no goal

Nad nami letajuti-indet samolëty. „Planes are flying above us.‟

However, an important difference (not signaled in the comparative treatments of Russian and Latvian / Lithuanian) is that the indeterminates in Baltic are only used to denote undirected motion, but not repeated motion to a goal (repeated round-trips). For instance, Latvian uses the determinate iet where Russian has the indeterminate for repeated round-trips:198

(361) Visi, kas padomju laikā gājadet skolā, ir bijusi oktobrēni. Vse te, kotorye xodilii-indet v školu za sovetskoj vlasti, byli oktjabrjatami. „All those who went to school in Soviet times have been members of the Communist childrens‟ organization.‟

Also, the passage from Matthew 10.23 quoted above, with a plurality of directed motions to a single goal, has an indeterminate in Slavic, but a determinate in Baltic, as can be seen by comparing the translations into Lithuanian, Latvian, and Russian:

198

The indeterminate staigāt only means „walk, stroll‟; in the latter meaning, pastaigāties is the normal choice. 292

(362) Kai jus persekios viename mieste, bėkitedet į kitą. (Lith. bėgtidet) Bet kad j s vajās vienā pilsētā, bēdzietdet otrā. (Latv. bēgtdet) Kogda že budut vas gnat’ v odnom gorode, begitei-indet v drugoj. (Russ. bežat’i-indet) „Whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to another.‟

On the other hand, the context in Matthew 15.14, where it is not clear whether the motion is directed or undirected, leaves room to interpretation: Lithuanian and Russian use the determinate, apparently assuming a typical instance of guidance towards a goal, while Latvian employs the indeterminate, regarding the direction or goal as irrelevant.199

(363) O jeigu aklas aklą vesdet, abu į duobę įkris. (Lith. vestidet) Bet kad aklais aklo vadaindet, abi iekrīt bedrē. (Latv. vadītindet) A esli slepoj vedëti-det slepogo, to oba upadut v jamu. (Russ. vestii-det) „And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into the ditch.‟

There are apparently no instances of Baltic indeterminate verbs of motion used to describe repeated round-trips in the manner their Slavic counterparts do, which appears to support the claim of Nichols (2010) about the denominal origin of the indeterminates, as denoting the manner of motion, cf. Dickey (2010). Judging by the examples quoted in the literature, the

199

In the pairs Lith. vesti – vedžioti / vadyti and Latv. vest – vadīt / vadāt, the determinate vs. indeterminate

character of the members matches the behavior of their Slavic counterparts rather well, although the Baltic indeterminate is sometimes translated by a Russian determinate, as is also the case with Old Church Slavonic to Russian. 293

„iteratives‟ from verbs of motion in Greek and Vedic are also used only with undirected motion, not for repeated round-trips. The typical formula for the derivation of the present stem of an indeterminate from a determinate in both Baltic and Slavic is *R(e)- → *R(o)-Suffix-, where the base determinate has a thematic root present with e-grade, and the indeterminate is derived by ablauting the root either to o-grade or to the new lengthened grade, and adding an innovated suffix – usually PBSl *-ī- or -ā- (Stang 1942: 23; Kortlandt 1989). The only instance of perfect parallelism in formation between the attested forms in Baltic and Slavic is in the pair based on PBSl *ved- „lead‟: 3.sg. pres. Latv. ved-Ø (inf. vest), PSl *ved-e-tŭ (OCS vedetŭi-det) „leads‟ vs. Latv. vad-ī-Ø (inf. vadīt), PSl *vod-ī-tŭ (OCS voditŭi-indet) „leads around‟. In the other verbs, Baltic has been in general more innovative, with root extensions (Lith. plaukti – plaukyti < *ple -k- vs. OCS plutii-det < *ple - „swim/float‟), or forms with e-grade and suffix *-ā- (Lith. nešioti < *nes-j-ā- vs. OCS nositii-indet < *nos-ī- „carry around‟). Ragnéll (1944: 41-57) argued that PBSl *-ā-, deriving indeterminate from determinate Imperfectives (OCS plutii-det → plavatii-indet), served also to derive secondary Imperfectives from base Perfectives (OCS pastip → padatii), and that the contrast between single-act verbs and iteratives encoded by the determinate-indeterminate opposition was what triggered the derivation of secondary Imperfectives. This thesis was most fully developed by Bermel (1997: 466-475), who proposed a relative chronology of the grammaticalization of aspect: first prefixed completives, then prefixed delimitatives and ingressives, and finally suffixed semelfactives. The distinction underlying the determinate-indeterminate contrast in Balto-Slavic has deeper roots in Indo-European: not only the formal and functional Greek parallels phérein „carry‟ vs. phoreĩn „carry around / wear‟ mentioned above (also pétesthai „fly‟ vs. potãsthai /

294

poteĩsthai „fly around‟ and a few others, cf. Schwyzer & Debrunner 1950: 717), but also a few determinate-indeterminate pairs in Vedic (Kulikov 2008: 335-337): present stems páta- „flies‟ vs. patáya- „fly around‟ and dráva- „run‟ vs. draváya- „run around‟, plus a few other verbs meaning „shine, gleam‟, where the formal parallels are less close. The empirical observation that all durative suffixes in Indo-European are also atelic, coupled with the logical remark that only an iterative durative is intrinsically atelic (a repetition of identical single events has no inherent limit), suggest that all Indo-European durative suffixes that are not specifically stative denote iterativity, which is [+durative] and [-telic]. Duratives and atelics are also the processuals, which describe activities. I mentioned above the Latin processuals of type albēscere „become white‟, rubēscere „become red‟. Gothic too has a specialized morpheme to indicate processuals: the verbs classified as weak class 4 contain the suffix -n-, are all intransitive, and denote process of acquiring the quality denoted by the root, e.g. fullnan „become full‟, fraqistnan, „be destroyed, perish‟, gadauþnan „die‟. Many of them contrast with causatives like fulljan „fill‟ and fraqistjan „destroy‟ (Lambdin 2006: 130):

(364) jah gafullnoda ahmins weihis Aileisabaiþ (Luke 1.41) – processual (ga)fullnan „And Elisabeth became filled with the Holy Spirit.‟

(365) þanuh galesun jah gafullidedun .ib. tainjons gabruko us fimf hlaibam þaim barizeinam (John 6.13) – causative (ga)fulljan „So they gathered [them] and filled 12 baskets with fragments of five barley loaves.‟

295

In Balto-Slavic, most deadjectivals can act as both statives and processuals, as illustrated in (349)-(352). In Lithuanian, the characteristic suffixes are -uo- and -ė-, e.g. žaliuoti „be(come) red‟ (žalias „green‟), jaunėti „become younger‟ (jaunas „young‟), but not exclusively – for instance, senti „become old‟ (senas „old‟) is a root formation.

(366) Jau pažaliavo visos pievos ir laukai. (Orvidienė 1968: 396) „Already all meadows and fields have become green.‟

(367) Ji nei sensta, nei jaunėja. (Orvidienė 1968: 396) „She got neither older nor younger.‟

Slavic forms Imperfective processuals with the suffixes *-nǫ-, e.g. OCS sŭxnǫtii „become dry‟, gy(b)nǫtii/p (gybatii) „perish‟, and *-ěj-, e.g. Russ. staret’i „become old(er)‟ and molodet’i „become young(er)‟:

(368) dělaite ne brašŭno gybljǫšteei (Codex Marianus, John 6.27) „Do not labor for food which perishes.‟

(369) Ona ne stareeti i ne molodeeti.200 „She gets neither older nor older.‟

The two manners of action discussed so far had to do with situation types – more exactly, with the features [±dynamic] and [±durative]: the statives are [-dynamic] and implicitly [+durative], 200

I owe this example to Wayles Browne. 296

and the eventives, which are [+dynamic], can be either [+durative] (the processuals, describing activities) or [-durative] (the verbs of restricted action and the semelfactives). In addition, all these verbs are atelic: the durative eventives can be either processual or iteratives, in both cases describing activities (atelic), the verbs of restricted action are equivalent to the semelfactives in that they express events of little consequence (which are also atelic), and the semelfactives and statives are atelic by definition. The fact that all these verbs are atelic confirms the observation made in the preceding chapter: telicity (the feature [+telic]) is manifested exclusively inside the VP, resulting either from the presence of a directional argument (Goal, Source, Recipient, or Perdant) or from the complete involvement of a Theme. The next section treats the phasal verbs, which do not refer directly to situation types, but rather focus various points of the event.

5.4.5 Phasal verbs with superlexical prefixes The role of verbal prefixes in Balto-Slavic is sometimes to add a beginning or an end to a situation (cf. Arkad‟ev 2011a): -

the ingressives focus the inherent beginning of an atelic situation, i.e. of a state (the inchoatives) or of an activity (the inceptives): Russ. zapet’p, Lith. pragysti „start singing‟ (activity: pet’i, giedoti „sing‟), Russ. zabolet’p, Lith. susirgti „become ill‟ (state: bolet’i, sirgti „be ill‟);

-

the terminatives add a cessation, or rather a measurement, to an atelic situation, which would otherwise continue indefinitely: Russ. otljubit’p „stop loving‟ (state: ljubit’i „love‟), otrabotat’p „finish work‟ (activity: rabotat’i „work‟), otslužit’p „finish service (e.g. in the army, or religious service in a church)‟ (activity: služit’i „serve‟), and otdežurit’p „finish shift (e.g. night shift)‟ (activity: dežurit’i „be on duty‟); also SCr. odslužitip „serve‟ (e.g. a prison

297

sentence), odpjevatip „sing‟ (a song, whose duration is usually predetermined); terminatives are very marginal, and unambiguous examples are difficult to find; -

the delimitatives contribute both a beginning and an end to an atelic situation: Russ. poxodit’p, pavaikščioti „walk for a while‟ (activity: xodit’i-indet, vaikščiotiindet „walk‟), Russ. pospat’, Lith. pamiegoti „sleep for a while‟ (state / activity: spat’i, miegoti „sleep‟), Russ. pobyvat’p „be in a place for a while, visit‟ (state: byvat’i „be, exist‟); often they have a connotation of temporal shortness: a situation which is delimited is temporally confined, therefore generally of short duration.

In Slavic, the ingressives are derived with prefixes (most frequently *za-), sometimes with both a prefix and the suffix *-nǫ-: inchoatives OCS zapustětip „decline‟, opustětip „become deserted‟, zadŭxnǫtip sę „die‟; I have found no inceptives in Old Church Slavonic,201 but they are frequent in the modern languages, especially East and South Slavic: Russ. zagovorit’p „start talking‟, Bg. začetap „I start reading‟, SCr. zadržatip „keep, retain‟ („begin holding‟, cf. držatii „hold‟):

(370) vsěko crstvo razdělĭ sę na sę zapustěetŭp (Codex Zographensis, Matthew 12.25) „Every kingdom divided against itself is doomed to perish.‟

(371) On je zadržaop kusur za sebe. (Benson 1989: 722) „He kept the change for himself.‟

201

However, začętip / načętip „start, begin‟ are derived from a root meaning „put together, assemble, arrange‟,

tending to mean more vaguely „make, do‟, in the modern languages (OCS činŭ „order, ranking‟, činitii „assemble, compose, prepare‟; SCr. činitii „make, do, perform‟, Russ. pričinit’p „cause‟, etc.), therefore their original meaning seems to have been „start making‟ > „start doing‟. 298

Terminatives of activities, of the type otrabotat’p „finish work‟ or otslužit’p „finish service‟, are most likely not completive – since no result is achieved after the work time has elapsed –, or at least not directly:

(372) On otrabotalp segodnja za ponedel’nik. „He did today Monday‟s work.‟ (lit. „He worked today for Monday.‟)

Another candidate for this class might be otobedat’p „be done eating lunch‟ (activity: obedat’i „have lunch‟), if the meaning of terminatives with activities is in fact „finish one‟s routine and activity as expected, carry it out to its expected conclusion or predictable outcome‟, in which case the state post-event would not differ in any significant way from the state pre-event; in English, this nuance can be rendered sometimes by adding one’s / his / her / their, as in John ate his lunch / did his work / served his three months in the army, then went out / on a trip.202 The lexical meaning of *otŭ- is „out of‟, therefore a terminative denotes literally the „exit‟ from the situation described by the predicate with the main verb, whether or not the action is completed. (To indicate the completion of the action, a variety of prefixes is used to indicate the „path‟ followed by the action to its completion, as explained in chapter 4.) In Slavic, the delimitatives are generally derived with the prefix PSl *po- (Baltic pa-): posŭpatip „sleep (for a while)‟ vs. sŭpatii „sleep‟, Russ. poigrat’p „play (for a while)‟ vs. igrat’i „play‟. Unlike the semelfactive, which describes a single unit of a granular activity, a delimitatives denotes an activity of delimited – hence limited – duration, and little consequence, as opposed to an activity (construed as non-granular, i.e. continuous, with no discrete units) of

202

Thanks are due to Wayles Browne for data and discussion of these verbs. 299

undetermined duration. Both in delimitatives and in semelfactives, the event described is of little consequence, and of irrelevant or negligible duration. An event of the type described with such „diminutival‟ verbs can be represented as an inconsequential occurrence, in the sense that the state of affairs is the same before and after the event. The fundamental difference between semelfactives and delimitatives lies in the fact that the former determine the situation type (a semelfactive), whereas the latter focus the boundaries of a situation. The function of the phasal prefixes can be represented as adding the features [I] (ingressives), [F] (terminatives), and both [I] and [F] (delimitatives) to the base verb, e.g. in Russian:

(373) pet’i „sing‟ → zapet’[I]p „start singing‟ – focusing the beginning ljubit’i „love‟ → otljubit’[F]p „stop loving‟ – focusing the end spat’i „sleep‟ → pospat’[I][F]p „sleep for a while‟– focusing both the beginning and the end

The phasal prefixes have scope over the entire event: the LF of Pol. Jan zachorowałp „Jan became ill‟ in the next example, with zachorowaćp „become ill‟ (ingressive of chorowaći „be ill‟), will be za-1 [event Jan t1 chor(owa)-]:

(374) Jan zachorowałp i umarłp za tydzień. „John got ill and in one week was dead.‟

On the other hand, an event-internal inception or termination caused by an Agent is expressed in Polish by zacząćp „begin‟ and przestaćp „stop‟: Jan zacząłp / przestałp pracowaći „Jan began / stopped working‟. Ingressives are more productive in Russian, where the tests of agentivity

300

clearly show that the Agent does not have scope over the prefix. In the example below, the inceptive zarabotat’p „start working‟ fails to convey the agentivity presupposed by the imperative, which can be expressed only with načat’p – načinat’i „start‟, so that the second sentence is marginally acceptable only with an added nuance of detachment of the speaker from his own command:203

(375) A sejčas načinajtei rabotat’i. ?

A sejčas zarabotajtеp.

„And now, you start working.‟

Also, expressions of will and intention tend not to be collocated with these three classes of prefixed verbs – except cases when extensions of the use of phasal verbs intervene –, which shows that agentivity cannot have scope over them. This fact constitutes an indication about the structural position of the phasal morphemes, which I will discuss in the next section.

5.5 The syntax of actionality The recognizable semantic contribution of the Latin diminutive suffix suggests that the respective Latin verbs were derived by a syntactic mechanism parallel to the one deriving the aspectual forms in Yiddish, with a functional head taking as its complement the VP headed by the verb root, which in Yiddish functions here as a free morpheme (Diesing 1998: 138). In Latin, 203

The Imperfective (načinat’i), rather than the Perfective (načat’p), is selected because there is a plural subject, and

the action is distributed: the injunction is addressed to a group of people, who might not all start working simultaneously. The Perfective načat’p used in the same context would convey a sense of urgency, where everybody has to start working at the same time. 301

which expresses viewpoint aspect as well, 3.sg. pres. ioculātur „jokes‟ will have been derived as below, where actionality is expressed by the suffix -ul- in a head Akt0, imperfective viewpoint aspect is indicated by the suffix -ā- of the first conjugation plus Ø in Asp0, and the 3.sg. personal ending -tur is a marker of subject agreement in T0:204

(376)

TP --- temporal location (tense) T' T0

AspP --- viewpoint aspect (outer aspect) Asp' Asp0 Ø

AktP --- actionality (potentially modifying inner aspect) Akt' Akt0 -ul-ā-

VP--- situation aspect (inner aspect) … Root ioc-

In Yiddish, the Akt0 head carrying a semantic feature definable as [small] or [-durative] referring to the restricted event, was interpreted as an aspectual head, because Asp 0 is otherwise empty (Yiddish has neutral viewpoint aspect – a single past tense). The feature [-durative] of the head Akt0 reanalyzed as Asp0 in Yiddish indicates a non-durative event (an event of irrelevant duration), not an instantaneous event, because the opposition [±durative] is privative, rather than equipollent, as [durative] vs. [instantaneous] would be. In Latin, the suffixes -(ic)ul- and -il(l)- in

204

The formant -ā- following -ul- specifies the conjugational class, and has no semantic contribution. Viewpoint

aspectual morphemes in this class are Ø for the imperfective and -u- for the perfective in the active voice. 302

Akt0 were most probably likewise [small] in origin, interpretable as [-intense] to denote the typical lack of intensity of the action conveyed by the verbs derived with these suffixes. Regarding the mapping of the morphology on the syntactic structure in the other IndoEuropean languages with functionally parallel suffixes, the first guess would be that the actionality morphemes – e.g. the semelfactive suffix in OCS drĭznǫtip and the iterative one in drĭzatip – are generated in the Akt0 head introduced above. Latin, Lithuanian, and Slavic, can or could also express viewpoint aspect: Lithuanian and several Slavic languages (Old Church Slavonic included) distinguish an aorist and an imperfect in the past tense, 205 and the Latin perfective past functions as an aorist and as a perfect. For instance, the morphology of the 3.sg. ipf. of Latin ioculārī, Lith. barškėti, baršktelėti, and nudiegti, and OCS drĭznǫtip (derived semelfactive), drĭzatii (derived iterative), and posŭpatip (derived semelfactive) is derived in syntax as follows (as I mentioned above, the durative suffixes also contribute atelicity; I specify roots as telic or atelic meaning the arguments of the respective verb: a root is telic if and only if the verb has directional arguments):206

205

So did Hungarian until the 19th century; at that time, the past tense forms from the semelfactive and iterative

verbs mentioned earlier could express both actionality and viewpoint aspect. 206

In all of these forms, the morphological material in T0 consists of the past tense allomorphs for imperfective

viewpoint aspect (in Old Church Slavonic: -ěax- or -aax- depending on the conjugational class) plus the corresponding allomorph for the 3.sg. personal ending (Lat. -tur, Lith. -o, OCS -e). In Old Church Slavonic, the suffix -nǫ- appears as -n- in the finite forms, the stem-final -a- of drĭza- and -sŭpa- is deleted in front of the imperfect suffix, and the -x- of the imperfect suffix is palatalized to -š- in front of the personal ending -e. The oppositions [±perfective] and [±past] are privative, because Old Church Slavonic has a perfective-imperfective (aorist vs. imperfect), and the tense opposition was originally that between a past and a non-past. The imperfect suffixes Lat. -bā-, Lith. -dav-, and OCS -ěax-/-aax-, are the allomorphs of abstract tense markers for [+past] when 303

T0

Asp0

Akt0

Base

ioculābātur

-bā-tur

[-perfective]

-ul-ā- [-durative]

ioc- (root) [-telic]

[-telic]

[+past]

barškėdavo

-dav-o [+past]

[-perfective]

-Ø-ė- [+durative]

baršk- (root) [-telic]

(377)

[-telic] baršktelėdavo

[-telic] -dav-o [+past]

[-perfective]

-tel-ė- [-durative]

baršk- (root) [-telic]

-dav-o [+past]

[-perfective]

nu- [-durative]

dieg- (root) [-telic]

-ěax-e [+past]

[-perfective]

-n- [-durative]

drĭz- (root) [-telic]

-aax-e [+past]

[-perfective]

-a- [+durative]

drĭz- (root) [-telic]

[-telic] nudiegdavo [-telic] drĭzněašep [-telic] drĭzaašei [-telic] posŭpaašep

[-telic] -aax-e [+past]

[-perfective]

po- [-durative]

[-telic]

sŭp-a- (root+suffix) [-telic]

Whereas in the first two instances the morpheme in Akt 0 is added to the bare root drĭz-, in the last one the prefix is added to a base consisting of the root sŭp- plus the same suffix -aemployed in drĭzatii, deriving the durative sŭpatii „sleep‟. These affixes can therefore be regarded as markers of actionality with a „diminutival‟ effect, indicating that the event is atelic (inconsequential action) and non-durative (irrelevant duration). The affixes will occupy the Akt 0 head, contributing non-durativity to an atelic predicate – assuming that telicity is encoded in the VP. As such, the function of these morphemes is to specify the situation type (semelfactive) by way of choosing a manner of action (single act) over another (iterative) in cases where the root allows both an (iterative) activity and a semelfactive interpretation, with no difference in argument structure. When there is no this feature combines with [-perfective]. In Latin and Lithuanian, the conjugational class marker (-ā- and -ėrespectively) determine the final shape of the suffix. 304

specification of actionality, the predicate in the main clause of John coughed, then started to speak is ambiguous between an iterative and a semelfactive reading, although the primary reading is semelfactive, and the iterative one normally requires the addition of an adverbial: John coughed several times, then… Applying the feature [-durative] to a granular activity like „coughing‟, „knocking‟, etc. triggers a „single-act‟ interpretation, whereas the same feature applied to a non-granular activity like „sleep‟ or „play‟ implies that the action is of short duration, of little consequence, or casual. Akt0 is an operator on events, which modifies the situation type of the event argument of the root. In choosing to use poigrat’p „play (for a while)‟ rather than igrat’i „play‟, a Russian speaker specifies the playing activity as restricted in effect, and implicitly also in duration. The delimitative po-Perfectives in Slavic, which can be derived from Imperfectives denoting any activity, and are quite productive – in some languages (Russian) more than in others (Serbo-Croatian) – require at least two such functional heads: -

a higher head for the prefix po- of the derived Perfective; and

-

a lower head for the suffix of the base Imperfective.

OCS posŭpatip „sleep for a while‟ will contain a lower head Akt10 filled by the suffix -aindicating durativity, and a higher head Akt 20 filled by the prefix po-, changing the sign of the durativity feature to [-durative] and yielding a delimitative. In posŭpatip, the feature [-durative] of the prefix po- overrides the feature [+durative] of the suffix -a- according to the mechanism proposed by Smith (1997: 55) in syntax: for instance, the feature [-count] carried by a plural object (houses) overrides the [+telic] feature inherent in a verb (build), so that the predicate (building houses) is atelic. Likewise, once it is assumed that morphological derivation takes

305

place in syntax, the feature [-durative] of the prefix po- overrides the feature [+durative] of the suffix -a-, so that the resulting verb is [-durative]. The durative suffix -a- in both sŭpatii and posŭpatip fills the functional head Akt10 carrying the feature [+durative], which in posŭpatip is situated below the actionality head Akt 20 with the feature [-durative]. Akt10 contributes to the specification of a „base-level‟ situation type, which can be further modified by Akt20.207 Taking into account this new actionality head, the structure of posŭpatip will be:

(378) posŭpaašep

T0

Asp0

Akt20

-aax-e [+past]

[-perfective]

po- [-durative] -a- [-telic]

[-telic]

Akt10

Root sŭp- [-telic]

[+durative]

In sŭpatii (and posŭpatip), it would be more correct to say that the suffix -a- „marks‟, rather than „contributes‟, the feature [+durative], because the verbal notion denoted by the root sŭp- „sleep‟ is already inherently durative – and likewise in drĭzatii, since this verb is based on the adjective drĭzŭ „brave‟, which denotes a stative concept. On the other hand, the same suffix in umiratii „contributes‟ durativity, because the verbal notion „die‟ expressed in the base Perfective umrětip is non-durative – and the same holds for the derivation of Imperfectives from Perfectives with this suffix: the Perfectives which derive secondary Imperfectives are always telic (in the vast majority of cases, and in all Slavic languages, they denote completion of an action) and non-

207

There is nothing that can limit in principle the number of actionality heads, so that a [-durative] Akt0 like the one

in posŭpatip could theoretically be embedded into a higher AktP with the feature [+durative], yielding a new durative, but no such derivation is attested in Slavic – presumably because the scope of use would be too restricted to justify the creation of a new lexical item. 306

durative.208 In general, it can be safely assumed that, in the languages which derive verbs of „restricted action‟, Akt10 conveys the feature [+durative], whether it contributes it to a base that does not have it, or marks its existence in a base where it is inherent. The interaction between Akt20 and Akt10 consists of the former restricting the duration of the durative atelic situation (activity or state) specified by the latter, the process yielding a semelfactive. The same restriction applied to a durative telic situation (accomplishment) would yield an achievement: „go‟ and „come‟ would become „reach‟ and „arrive‟ respectively. As far as I can determine, no Indo-European language uses suffixes to derive achievements from accomplishments. 209 In conclusion, the semantics of both actionality heads can be said to be consistent in the Indo-European languages that have them: Akt10 conveys durativity or nondurativity, and an Akt20 was created in Slavic in order to derive delimitative Perfectives. A nondurative specification of Akt10 yields: -

a semelfactive – if the verbal concept expressed by the root is „granular‟: Lith. baršktelėti, Russ. zvjaknut’p „tinkle (once)‟; or

-

a „diminutive‟ – if the verbal concept expressed by the root is not necessarily granular: Lat. ioculārī „joke‟.

208

In sentences with these Perfectives, durativity can be expressed only by an adverbial, e.g. Pol. Pociąg z

Warszawy spóźniłp się kilka razy „The train from Warsaw was late on a few occasions‟, where the adverbial kilka razy „a few times‟ contributes an iterative reading, or Przeczytałemp książkę za miesiąc „I read the book in one month‟, where za miesiąc „in one month‟ contributes a durative processual (non-iterative) reading. Without the durative contribution of the adverbial, the default reading is non-durative (achievement): Pociąg z Warszawy spóźniłp się „The train from Warsaw arrived late‟, Przeczytałemp książkę „I finished reading the book‟. 209

Achievements are derived from accomplishments only by prefixation to bases which inherently denote

accomplishments – primarily from verbs of motion, e.g. Pol. przyjśćp „arrive‟ from iśći „go‟. 307

Correspondingly, if Akt10 is specified as [+durative], it yields: -

an iterative, with „granular‟ concepts: Lith. barškėti, Russ. zvjakat’i „tinkle (repeatedly), rattle‟; or

-

a durative or neutral, with „non-granular‟ concepts: Lat. iocārī „play‟, OCS sŭpatii „sleep‟.

The distinction between two functional heads Akt 10 and Akt20 allows the analysis of the base of OCS sŭpatii in (53) as Root+Akt10:210

(379) ioculābātur

T0

Asp0

-bā-tur [+past]

[-pfv]

Akt20

Akt10

Root

-ul-ā- [-durative]

ioc-

[-telic] barškėdavo

[-telic][-gran] -dav-o [+past]

[-pfv]

[-telic] baršktelėdavo

-dav-o [+past]

[-pfv]

-Ø-ė- [+durative]

baršk-

[-telic]

[-telic][+gran]

-tel-ė- [-durative]

baršk-

[-telic] nudiegdavo

[-telic][+gran] -dav-o [+past]

[-pfv]

nu- [-durative]

[-telic] drĭzněašep

[-telic][+gran] -ěax-e [+past]

[-pfv]

-n- [-durative]

[-telic] drĭzaašei

drĭz[-telic][-gran]

-aax-e [+past]

[-pfv]

[-telic] posŭpaašep

dieg-

-aax-e [+past]

[-pfv]

po- [-durative]

[-telic]

-a- [+durative]

drĭz-

[-telic]

[-telic][-gran]

-a- [+durative]

sŭp-

[-telic]

[-telic][-gran]

There is no reason to assume the existence of Akt20 outside of Slavic. The Lithuanian prefixes nu- and su- mark the semelfactive interpretation of „granular‟ roots just like the Slavic suffix -nǫ, 210

I also mark the [±granular] feature on the roots. Since iterativity is always atelic, it follows that only atelic

concepts can be granular (inherently iterative) or non-granular (continuous: processual activities or states), meaning that there is a feature hierarchy [-telic] > [±granular]. 308

and are not added to suffixed verbs. There is a scale of productivity of the morphemes in (379), with zero productivity of the roots (belonging to the lexicon), various degrees of productivity of the affixes in Akt10 in the individual branches, comparatively higher productivity of Slavic po- in Akt20, and full productivity of the affixes encoding tense and viewpoint aspect in T 0 and Asp0. po-Perfectives are derived in Slavic from more complex bases, too. Janda (2007: 621) gives an example of such a derivation in Russian: ščipat’i „pinch, pluck (continuously or repeatedly‟ (vs. ščipnut’p „pinch, pluck (once)‟) → vyščipat’p „pluck out‟ → vyščipyvat’i „pluck out (continuously or repeatedly)‟ → povyščipyvat’p „pluck out (for a while)‟. Here, the prefix poattaches to a base containing the new Imperfectivizing suffix -yva- attached to the prefixed Perfective base vyščipa-p with deletion of the older Imperfectivizing suffix -a-. The semantic contribution of the prefix vy- is not only Perfectivizing, but also lexical: it changes the meaning from „pluck‟ (ščipat’i) to „pluck out‟ (vyščipat’p) by adding a recognizably directional specification. Unlike in the contrasted pair ščipat’i – ščipnut’p, where it served to distinguish the iterative from the semelfactive, the old suffix -a- plays no role in the derivation ščipat’i → vyščipat’p „pluck out‟, and the new base vyščipa-p is opaque to any semantic contribution of this suffix. The derivation ščipat’i → vyščipat’p proceeds from a base ščipa-i, rather than from the root ščip- plus prefix:211

211

Isačenko (1962: 367) claims that “The derivation of secondary Imperfectives proceeds not from the stem, but

from the verb‟s r oot .” This would mean that the direct derivation vyščipat’p → vyščipyvat’i (and also innumerable other cases: zapisat’p → zapisyvat’i „record‟, etc.) is actually an illusion, and one would have first to analyze the stem vyščipa-p to retrieve the root ščip- and then, „keeping in mind‟ the presence of the prefix, proceed to attach the new suffix -yva-. Such a derivation seems far less likely than simply deleting a suffix vowel before a vowel-initial suffix. 309

(380) [vy-[[ščip-]-a-]i]p – not *[[vy-[ščip-]]p-a-]i eventually: [po-[[vy-[[ščip-]-a-]i]p-yva-]i]p

The durative contribution of -a- < *-eh2- belongs to a chronological layer older than the telic prefix (the prefixes were originally free adverbials), and the new Slavic suffix -yva- is of more recent origin than the verbal prefixation in Slavic. Prefixes have a Perfectivizing effect in other Indo-European branches too, but no secondary Imperfectives are derived. Languages with Slavic-type aspect can derive Perfectives with a specialized meaning, which are not aspectually paired with the base Imperfective. In Slavic, the specialized Perfectives derive their own Imperfectives, therefore the suffixes in Akt 10 which derive these secondary Imperfectives are productive. The specialized Perfectives remain biaspectual in non-Slavic languages, where the morphemes in Akt10 are not productive, but are rather relics of earlier stages when they had started being productive but failed to reach full productivity and be incorporated into the system as markers of Imperfectivity (this is the case of the durative and iterative suffixes in branches other than Slavic, and of their unproductive Slavic counterparts). For instance, both Russ. bit’i and Gm. schlagen „hit, beat‟ derive a specialized Perfective with intensive meaning Russ. ubit’p, Gm. erschlagen „kill‟, but only Russian derives a secondary Imperfective ubivat’i, and a sentence with erschlagen is interpreted as Perfective unless modifiers trigger an Imperfective reading:

(381) Hans hat Kurt erschlagen. (Perfective) „Hans murdered / slew Kurt.‟

310

(382) Hans hat den ganzen Tag Läuse erschlagen. (Imperfective) „Hans slew lice all day long.‟

When a language with Slavic-type aspect possesses the morphological means to derive iteratives, it can derive them from prefixed Perfectives, e.g. Hun. tisztítani „clean‟ (Imperfective) → kitisztítani „clean up‟ (Perfective) → kitisztítgatni „keep cleaning (up)‟ (Imperfective). However, this derivation is not systematic: kitisztítani can be used Imperfectively if the context allows it, and kitisztítgatni can be used to describe a repetitive and protracted cleaning with no obvious implication that each of the cleaning sub-events is carried out to completion. In any case, the semantics of kitisztítgatni reflects the scope of the morphemes: the structure is [[ki-[tisztít-]]gat-] „clean up object1, then object2, etc.‟, rather than *[ki-[[tisztít-]gat-]], which cannot have the intended meaning of carrying out the complete cleaning of one or several objects by cleaning a part of object1, then a part of object2, then maybe again a part of object1, etc., … cleaning here and there until all objects are clean, and they can be said to have been „cleaned up‟ as a whole. I would suggest that the derivation ščipat’i → vyščipat’p is „opaque‟ to the structure of the base ščipa-i, just like the derivation pisat’i → napisat’p „write‟ is certainly „opaque‟ to the structure of the base pisa-i (root pis- visible in nouns: zapis’ „record, entry‟). As such, the function of the old suffix -a- is recognizable only when it is derivationally contrasted with other morphemes, as in ščipat’i vs. ščipnut’p.212 Otherwise, the suffix -a- must be regarded as part of an unanalyzable base ščipa-i, including in the derived Perfectives of type vyščipat’p. In cases like vyščipat’p, pisat’i, and napisat’p, where the semantic contribution of the suffix -a- is not

212

The infinitive stem is ščip-a-, the older present stem is ščip-j-e- (3.sg. ščiplet), and the present stem ščip-aj-e- is

innovated; and likewise for vyščipat’p: 3.sg.pres.(future) vyščiplet, sometimes vyščipaet. 311

apparent, I assume that this suffix is reanalyzed as part of the root. The structure of the infinitive of the verbs discussed above would be as in (383), where telicity is contributed only by the prefix (ščipat’i and pisat’i are atelic, while vyščipat’p and napisat’p are telic):213

(383) ščipat'i

T0 (Nom0?)

Asp0

-t’ [±past]

[±pfv]

Akt20

[-telic] ščipnut'

p

-t’ [±past]

[±pfv]

[-telic] vyščipat'p

-t’ [±past]

Akt10

Base (VP)

-a- [+durative]

ščip- (root)

[-telic]

[-telic][+granular]

-n-

ščip- (root)

[-durative]

[-telic][+granular]

[±pfv]

vy-ščip-a- (prefix+

[+telic]

+root+suffix) [+telic]

vyščipyvat'i

-t’ [±past]

[±pfv]

-yva- [+durative]

vy-ščip-a- (prefix+

[-telic]

+root+suffix) [+telic]

po-

-yva- [+durative]

vy-ščip-a- (prefix+

[-durative]

[-telic]

+root+suffix) [+telic]

[-telic] povyščipyvat'

p

-t’ [±past]

[±pfv]

[-telic] pisat'i

-t’ [±past]

[±pfv]

pis-a- (root+suffix)

[-telic]

[-telic][-granular] p

napisat'

-t’ [±past]

[±pfv]

na-pis-a- (prefix+

[+telic]

213

+root+suffix) [+telic]

Russian has neutral viewpoint aspect, because the Perfective-Imperfective opposition cannot be a manifestation

of viewpoint aspect, despite Smith‟s (1997: 227-262) considerations. Several Slavic languages (Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Sorbian) have both viewpoint aspect (aorist vs. imperfect) and Perfective-Imperfective aspect – and likewise Latin and Lithuanian, if the Perfectivizing effect of some prefixes is regarded as an incipient Perfective-Imperfective opposition, superposed on the perfective-imperfective viewpoint aspect manifested in the aorist/perfect-imperfect contrast. 312

The Imperfectivizing suffix -yva-214 being not only [+durative], but also [-telic], it cancels the telicity of the base Perfective according to the mechanism in Smith (1977: 55), yielding an atelic expression when added to a [+telic] constituent:

(384) [vyščipa-][+telic] + -yva-[+durative][-telic] = [[vyščipa-][+telic]-yva-][+durative][-telic]

The suffix PSl *-(y)va- is sometimes added to an Imperfective that is already [+durative], the result being a frequentative, as in Cz. řícip „say‟ → říkati „say‟ → říkávati „say, tell repeatedly‟. The 3.sg. present of these verbs will have the structure:215

T0

Asp0

řeknep [+telic]

-n-e-Ø [-past]

[±pfv]

říkái [-telic]

-Ø [-past]

[±pfv]

-á- [+durative][-telic]

řík - (root) [+telic]

říkávái [-telic]

-Ø [-past]

[±pfv]

-vá- [+durative][-telic]

řík-á- (root+suffix)

(385)

Akt0

Base (VP) řík- (root) [+telic]

[+durative][-telic]

The actionality heads play a role in the derivation of the indeterminate verbs of motion. If the member of the Slavic pairs (and also of the Baltic ones) are considered as derivationally related – disregarding the possible denominal origin of the indeterminates –, a comparison between Greek and Slavic will be as in (386), including the Perfectives derived from indeterminate Imperfectives. As I mentioned in the previous chapter, the indeterminate Imperfectives are 214

Also its variants: -va- after root vowel; -eva- in a few cases, cf. Isačenko (1962: 368-369).

215

The suffix -n- in the present stem of řícip is best regarded as a semantically empty morpheme. It is absent in the

Old Church Slavonic cognate (3.sg. pres. rečei/p), and sporadic elsewhere in Slavic (SCr rečep / reknep). 313

associated with the determinate Imperfectives qua determinate (e.g. Russ. xodit’i-indet „walk‟ – idtii-det „walk‟), and they derive: -

Perfectives denoting single round-trips (sxodit’p „stop by‟) from their iterative (i.e. granular) interpretation; and

-

Perfectives denoting restricted undirected motion (poxodit’p „walk for a while‟) from their non-iterative (non-granular) interpretation.

The forms represented below are the 3.sg. pres. of Gk. phérein „carry‟ and phoreĩn „carry around, wear‟, their Proto-Indo-European etymons, OCS nestii-det and nositii-indet, and Russ. xodit’i-indet „walk (around)‟, sxodit’p „stop by‟, and poxodit’p „walk for a while‟. The ablaut, both IndoEuropean (qualitative e/o) and Slavic (quantitative), is located in Asp 10 in all cases.

T0

Asp0

*bhéreti

*-e-ti

[-pfv]

[+telic]

[-past]

phérei

-ei [-past]

(386)

Akt20

Akt10

*bher- (root) [+telic]

[-pfv]

pher- (root)

[+telic]

[+telic]

*b oréieti

*-e-ti

[-telic]

[-past]

phoreĩ

-ei [-past]

h

[-pfv]

[-pfv]

[-telic] nesetŭ

i-det

-e-tŭ [-past]

ablaut e/o & *-éi-

*bher- (root)

[+durative][-telic]

[+telic]

ablaut e/o & -é-

pher- (root)

[+durative][-telic]

[+telic]

[-pfv]

nes- (root)

[+telic] nositŭi-indet

[+telic] -tŭ [-past]

[-pfv]

[-telic] xoditi-indet

-t [-past]

[±pfv]

[-telic] p

sxodit

Base (VP)

-t [-past]

[±pfv]

s- [-durative]

[-telic]

314

ablaut e/o & -i-

nes- (root)

[+durative][-telic]

[+telic]

ablaut e/o & -i-

*xed- (root)

[+durative][-telic]

[+telic]

ablaut e/o & -i-

*xed- (root)

[+durative][-telic]

[+telic]

(single-act) poxoditp

[+granular] -t [-past]

[±pfv]

po- [-durative]

ablaut e/o & -i-

*xed- (root)

[-telic]

[+durative][-telic]

[+telic]

(delimitative)

[-granular]

Given the [+granular] vs. [-granular] specifications of the base Imperfective xodit’i-indet, the feature [-durative] on the prefixes s- and po- in Asp20 is sufficient to yield the semelfactive (single-act) and delimitative meanings of the Perfectives: non-durativity picks out a single instance of a repeated event and a limited portion of a continuous atelic durative. The positioning of po- in the head Asp20, absent outside of Balto-Slavic, accords with Dickey‟s (2007) observation that this prefix was originally completive, used to derive Perfectives paired with Imperfectives, and extended in Russian its delimitative value gradually from the 11 th to the 19th century. Elsewhere in Balto-Slavic (especially in Baltic and South Slavic), it retains its primary function of deriving completive Perfectives, and so does its Baltic cognate pa-. The position of s- in Asp20 likewise reflects the limited distribution of this prefix with a semelfactive function in motion verbs: this function is in fact confined to Russian. In conclusion, the head Akt10 is of Indo-European date, and hosts morphemes whose [-durative] or [+durative][-telic] features serve to modify the situation type manifested in the VP; Akt 20 was created in BaltoSlavic (or in either Slavic or Baltic and subsequently extended to the other sub-branch), and is consistently non-durative. As far as I can determine, the phasal prefixes (ingressive, terminative, and delimitative) are only encountered in Balto-Slavic, where, in contrast to the variety of completive prefixes, the phasal functions are assigned most frequently to a closed set of prefixes;

315

in Slavic, these are *za-, *otŭ-, and *po-,216 and this late formal and functional addition to the Indo-European system is the result of the creation of Akt 2P in (Balto-)Slavic, with the prefixes *za-, *otŭ-, and *po- in their respective functions occupying the head Akt 20 and focusing endpoints of the event. The phasal prefixes appeared and spread later than the completive ones (Bermel 1997) in Slavic, and since the completives only refer to the end of a telic event, BaltoSlavic created the phasals in order to be able to focus both the beginning and the end of any type of situation. Other languages do have completive prefixes, but they are often optional; since not every verb is overtly marked as Perfective or Imperfective, there is less motivation to complete the system by creating mechanisms to focus endpoints of the situation other than the end of telic events. The high position (Akt20) of the delimitative, ingressive, and terminative prefixes is most conclusively entailed by the fact that these verbs usually do not derive secondary Imperfectives (Janda 2007), the structural reason for this fact being that the phasal prefixes are higher (in Akt20) than the head where the Imperfective morphology is located (in Akt 10). On the other hand, some inceptive and delimitative Perfectives do derive secondary Imperfectives. If the focused beginning of a base event0 is individuated as event1, its durativity can be expressed by an Imperfective (with the Imperfective morphology in a head Akt 30 above Akt20): Russ. spat’i „sleep‟ (event0) > zaspat’p „fall asleep‟ (focused beginning of event0 > event1) > zasypat’i „fall asleep‟. For 3.sg. pres. zasypaeti „(s)he is falling asleep‟:

216

These prefixes are used in other functions as well – namely, to denote completion of the action or to change the

lexical meaning of the base Imperfective, e.g. SCr. pògledatip „take a look‟ vs. durative gledatii „look‟ (and iterative poglédatip „glance from time to time‟). Here I only consider the cases where they focus endpoints. 316

T0

Asp0

Akt30

Akt20

Akt10

Root

zasypaetp

-et

[±pfv]

Ø//y + -a- [-telic]

za-

-a- [-telic]

*cъп-

[-telic]

[-past]

[+durative]

[-durative]

[+durative]

[-telic]

(387)

„Falling asleep‟ is easily conceivable as an individual event (one can notice it going on), but in most other cases the secondary Imperfective are used mostly with plural or collective subjects, where the event consists of repeated sub-events, as in „the birds start singing‟: Russ. pet’i „sing‟ > zapet’p „start singing‟ > zapevat’i „start singing‟ (with plural subject). The order of suffixes in Hungarian, which can derive causative from iteratives but not iteratives from causatives, suggests a position of Caus0 above Akt10 and below a suffix indicating potentiality inherent in the subject, which I will assume to be in a head Mod 10 where such potentials, as well as desideratives (in Sanskrit) are located: tol- „push, shove‟ → tologat- „keep pushing / shuffle‟ (iterative: Akt10) → tologattat- „cause to keep pushing‟ (causative: Caus0) → tologattathat- „be able to cause to keep pushing‟ (potential: Mod 10). Mod10 contains morphemes referring to states internal to the subject: potentiality and volition – a kind of „subject-internal modality‟. Distinct from Mod10 is Mod20, which contains modal morphology; in Hungarian and Sanskrit, 217 Mod20 contains the suffixes for the subjunctive and optative (and also the imperative), e.g. Hun. optative tologattathatna „he might / could be able to cause to keep pushing‟ (not really used, but interpretable). Like the Causer, the subject of verbs with „subjectinternal modality‟ is external to the event. This structural hierarchy is as below, with the inflectional heads T0, Mod20, Asp0 (modern Hungarian has neutral viewpoint aspect; the imperfect fell out of use in the 19th century), and higher than the derivational heads Mod 10,

217

Sanskrit desiderative: 3.sg.act. cikīrṣati „wants to do‟ (reduplication, root ablaut, s-suffix; root kr- „do‟). 317

Caus0, and Akt10, in this order, if the head hierarchy visible in Greek 218 Mod20 > Asp0 can be extrapolated to Hungarian:219

(388) tologattathatna

T0

Mod20

Asp0

Mod10

Caus0

Akt10

Root

Ø[-past]

-ná-

Ø[±pfv]

-hat-

-tat-

-(o)-gat-

tol-

The second conditional (irrealis) 3.sg. tologattathatott volna „he might / could have been able to cause to keep pushing‟ has Mod20 separated from the lexical verb, and attached to the light verb vol- „be‟ (assuming here for the sake of the argument that the meaning of the irrealis is compositionally derived somehow from realis + past):

(389) tologattathatott volna

Mod20

LV

T0

Asp0

Mod10

Caus0

Akt10

Root

-na

vol-

Ø[-past]

Ø[±pfv]

-hat-

-tat-

-(o)-gat-

tol-

So far I have been assuming that Akt 1P embeds the entire VP, including AgP. However, if Akt10 were above Ag0, the Agent would not have scope over modes of action involving intensity (attenuatives and the intensives), which intuitively relate to agency. These modes of action are

218

E.g. 3.sg. optative aorist poieúsaimi „I might be able to make‟: poieúRoot-saorist-aioptative-mi1.sg, with aorist in Asp0 as

viewpoint aspect closer to the root, hence lower in the structure, than the optative in Mod 1 as „subject-external‟ modality. 219

Some English double modals might contain the two kinds of modality: in he must can hit, when can refers to the

subject‟s physical ability, it will be in Mod10, and must, denoting objective (subject-external) modality, will be in Mod20. Diachronically, the morpheme in Mod10 was reanalyzed as objective modality in Mod20: he can / could / might write a letter [he is / was able [to write a letter]] (no AgP in the embedded clause) > [POSSIBLE [he to do]] (with AgP in the embedded clause, and he as an Agent in SpecAgP). 318

most likely expressed in Akt10, because iterative affixes can often have an intensive value (Dressler 1968), and the attenuatives usually imply short duration as well. Since AgP corresponds to Kratzer‟s (1996) voice head, Ag0 should host passive morphology, which deletes the Agent theta-role of the base (active) verb. Indo-European does not provide clues as to the hierarchical order of AktP and AgP; Sanskrit employs a suffix -ya- in the derivation of passives, which are formed directly on the root,220 and root reduplication in the derivation of intensives, so the order of morphemes in a passive intensive gives no indication about the hierarchy of AgP and AktP. For example: root tud- „strike‟ > passive tudya- „be stricken‟, intensive med. totudya„strike hard‟; the latter form has middle voice, but is marked with a suffix identical to the passive one; whether or not the two -ya- suffixes are one and the same, both Ag0 > Akt10 and Akt10 > Ag0 are conceivable. On the other hand, an indication of the order Akt 10 > Ag0 (Akt10 above Ag0) might come from the order of suffixes in Slavic: in the derivation Russ. otmetit’p → otmečat’i „note, remark‟, the Imperfectivizing suffix -a- (in Akt10) is added to the existing suffix -i- of the Perfective,221 which typically marks verbs with Agent arguments. If this -i- is situated in Ag0, this position between the root and the actionality suffix in Akt 10 would suggest the order Akt10 > Ag0.222 I consider this to be a possibility, even if remote; however, the argument for the reverse order

220

Only the causative and desiderative morphemes can intervene, in passives of causatives and desideratives: root

nī- „lead‟ > causative nāya- „make to lead‟ > passive causative nāyya- „be made to lead‟; root kr- „do‟ > desiderative cikīrṣa- „want to do‟ > cikīrṣya- „is wanted to do‟. 221

-i- + -a- > -ja-: ot-met-i- + -a- > ot-met-ja- > ot-meča-.

222

Unlike the prefixes which adjoin other functional heads in the VP, -i- cannot have an aspectual value, because an

Agent‟s participation in the event only involves its agentivity, and the extent to which the Agent itself participates is irrelevant (there are no „incremental Agents‟; cf. Tenny 1994). 319

based on the semantics of the intensives and attenuatives as intuitively involving agency is not very strong either: Sanskrit does derive intensives from intransitives and other non-agentives, e.g. bobho- (< bh - „be, become‟), vevid- (< vid- „know‟), med. soṣupya- (< svap- „sleep‟). The denotations of the actionality affixes proposed in the next section do not imply any particular affinity of individual modes of action for any particular arguments, because they only involve the event identified by the sentence. There is one apparent exception to the structural hierarchy tense >… > VP: in Greek and ancient Indo-Iranian, the morpheme order is prefix – temporal augment (tense marker), which is not what is to be expected if prefixes are merged lower than tense. The exception is only apparent, because synchronically the augment is not a prefix, but a morphological operation on the root (like the reduplication, and perhaps the infixation). In Greek for example, it can be represented as an extension of the root in a manner generally depending on the shape of the root: e- in consonant-initial roots, or lengthening of the root-initial vowel. In the putative common ancestor of Greek, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian, e- was probably a prefix, but the particles which would later become verbal prefixes were most likely free adverbials. It is only (long) after e- had coalesced with the root (and the reduplication, in the pluperfect) that prefixes started being reanalyzed as preverbs.

5.6 The semantics of the actionality morphemes The denotations of the morphemes in Akt10 reflect their role as operators on events, restricting the range of situation types that the event argument may have. Diesing (2000) describes a crosslinguistically atypical operator in Yiddish, which yields a „truncated event‟, and can apply to any situation type:

320

(390) [[Asp]] = λpstλes[p(e) & e's[e  e' & p(e')] & Small(p)(e)]

The condition e's[e  e' & p(e')] restricts the range of events e which can be identified in an aspectually marked sentence by requiring that these events may not be contained in larger events identified by the same proposition p. With a „granular‟ root like Rus. čix- „sneeze‟, this condition is contributed by the semelfactive suffix in čixnut’p „sneeze (once)‟: a single act of sneezing is the smallest event which can be described by the root čix- in a sneezing fit. The denotation of an arbitrary semelfactive affix Akt[semelfactive] will be:

(391) [[Akt[semelfactive]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & e's[e  e' & f(e')]]

The denotation of an attenuative suffix like Lat. -ul- in ioculārī „joke‟ (vs. iocāre „play‟) will contain the third conjunct in (390):

(392) [[Akt[attenuative]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & Small(f)(e)]

The Lithuanian suffixes which allow both a semelfactive and an attenuative reading, discussed in section 5.4.3, will combine (391) and (392):

(393) [[Akt[semelfactive/attenuative]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & [e's[e  e' & f(e')]  Small(f)(e)]]

Affixes denoting durativity likewise select the types of events which can be identified in sentences with the respective verbs: (394) is the denotation of the stative marker -ē- in Lat.

321

albēre „be white‟, (395) is the denotation of the processual marker -sc- in Lat. albēscere „become white‟ or -ül- in Hun. épülni „get built‟ (there is no need here to add [-telic],223 because the roots themselves are „atelic‟, i.e. the verbs do not have directional arguments), and (396) is the denotation of an iterative, like Rus. -a- in končat’i (derived from the primary Perfective končit’p) and -yva- in the secondary Imperfective perepisyvat’i (derived from the prefixed Perfective perepisat’p) „copy‟.

(394) [[Akt[stative]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & Static(f)(e)]

(395) [[Akt[processual]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & Dynamic(f)(e) & Durative(f)(e)]

(396) [[Akt[iterative]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & e1 s…en s[ei[ei  e & f(ei)]]], i  {1,…n}

In (396), the second conjunct does not specify whether or not the subevents e i are discrete, leaving open the possibility for e to be construed as non-granular, i.e. as processual, by merger of the subevents e1,…en, which yields the processual reading of the derived Imperfectives: Russ. perepisyvat’i can mean not only „rewrite / copy several times‟ (iterative), but also „be rewriting / copying‟ (processual). The effect of the second conjunct in (396) is to delete transitions at the level of e, because the number of subevents n is not specified, and can be indefinitely high, but always bigger than 1; this explains the Imperfectivizing effect of the iteratives. 223

The fact that the correlation between being and becoming in Lat. albēre vs. albēscere is cognitively and

linguistically relevant is suggested by the semantic development of the PIE root *bhuhx-, which can mean either „be‟ or „become‟, or both, in the attested languages: „be‟ in Germanic and Balto-Slavic, „become‟ in Latin and Greek, and both in Sanskrit. The suffixes -ē- and -sc- serve to disambiguate the meanings of type „be / become x‟. 322

The denotation of a frequentative suffix, like -va- in Cz. říkávati „say / speak often‟ ← říkati „say / speak‟ ← řícip „say‟, with -a-[iterative] in a head Akt110 and -va-[frequentative] in a head Akt210 (by duplicating Akt10), must specify that the sub-events themselves are iterative (the operation can apply recursively, and derive říkávávati „keep saying / speaking often‟):

(397) [[Akt[frequentative]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & e1 s…en s[ei[ei  e & f(ei) & & e1i s…emi s[eji[ej  ei & f(ej)]]]]], i  {1,…n}, j  {1,…m}

Various combinations of actionality are theoretically possible, and some are also in use, e.g. Hun. processual készül „get ready‟ (vs. készít „make ready‟) → iterative (> durative‟) készülget „keep getting ready, be busy preparing oneself, take a long time to prepare oneself‟:224

(398) [[-ül-[processual]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & Dynamic(f)(e) & Durative(f)(e)] [[készül-]] = λes[get-ready(e) & Dynamic(f)(e) & Durative(f)(e)]225 [[-get-[iterative]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & e1 s…en s[ei[ei  e & f(ei)]]] [[készülget-]] = [[-get-[iterative]]]([[készül-]]) = = λes[get-ready(e) & Dynamic(f)(e) & Durative(f)(e) & e1 s…en s[ei[ei  e & f(ei)]]]

224

As I have been doing so far, I do not represent thematic information in the denotation of verbal roots: they only

denote the verbal concept e.g. „sell‟ vs. „give‟. Roots and stems (roots expanded by affixes) are interpretable independently of the associated arguments. 225

The formulation is not redundant: get-ready may suggest by itself the features [+dynamic][+durative], but this is

a deficiency of the metalanguage; what is meant by get-ready is in fact a concept of readiness that is unspecified as to stativity („be ready‟) or processuality („get ready‟). 323

Phasal affixes make reference to points of the event. (401) requires that the sentence identify a situation whose beginning I is identified in the same way as the situation identified in the sentence with an ingressive („starting reading‟ as part of the „reading‟), (402) requires that the sentence identify a situation whose end F is identified in the same way as the situation identified in the sentence with a terminative („stop loving‟ as the final moments of love), and (403) requires that the situation identified in the sentence with a delimitative should have a beginning and an end identifiable in the same way as the situation itself (the beginning and end of a short nap are can themselves be described as „sleep‟).

(399) I = λfstλes[e's[e'  e & f(e') & e"s[e" < e' → f(e")]]] – type (st)ss

(400) F = λfstλes[e's[e'  e & f(e') & e"s[e' < e" → f(e")]]] – type (st)ss

(401) [[Akt[ingressive]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & e's[e' = I(f)(e)]]

(402) [[Akt[terminative]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & e's[e' = F(f)(e)]]

(403) [[Akt[delimitative]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & e's[e' = I(f)(e)] & e''s[e'' = F(f)(e)]]

As all three classes of phasals denote transitions (the functions I and / or F), all these verbs are Perfective. If the limits of the situation are individuated as events, they will receive a different linguistic description, i.e. will be identified by sentences different from the ones which identify the situation itself: if the „falling-asleep‟ denoted by Russ. zaspat’p / zasnut’p is construed as

324

qualitatively different from the sleep itself, the condition f(e') in the second conjunct of (399) becomes inapplicable and is deleted (404), yielding the denotation of a verb whose ingressive character is accessory – after the individuation of the event of „falling-asleep‟:

(404) I' = λfstλes[e's[e'  e & e"s[e" < e' → f(e")]]] – type (st)ss

(405) [[za-[ingressive]]] = λfstλes[f(e) & e's[e' = I'(f)(e)]] = = λfstλes[f(e) & e's[e'  e & e"s[e" < e' → f(e")]]]

The second conjunct in (405) describes a transition between situations, therefore the verb is Perfective, and can derive an Imperfective zasypat’i, with the Imperfectivizing morphology (lengthening of the root vowel plus suffix -a-) having the denotation of an iterative liable to be construed as a processual by merger of subevents (396). The transition in (405) gets deleted by the application of the iterative operator, as I explained above. The denotations of the phasal operators in (401)-(403) account for the opacity of the respective verbs to argument structure – most conspicuously, for their non-agentivity, cf. (375) –, since they make no reference to thetaroles (the variable f is a proposition).

5.7 Conclusions and further issues The conclusions about the structural localization of aspectual constrasts reached in the preceding sections can be summarizes as follows: -

viewpoint aspect is confined to AspP

-

Slavic-type aspect is distributed on functional heads below AspP

325

-

Perfectives outside Slavic are derived inside the VP

-

situation aspect is determined below AspP, consisting of Slavic-type aspect (on the functional heads) + contribution of adjuncts (e.g.: a sentence with a completive Perfective plus adverbs of frequency can express an iterative activity)

A further set of conclusions can be formulated regarding the locus of derivation of the aspectual forms, classifying the aspectual classes according to the productivity of the morphological marker and the locus of derivation (lexicon vs. syntax): a) productive (or almost) nowadays, to the extent that they can be derived ad hoc, with the derivation taking place in syntax – in Slavic and Hungarian: -

the secondary Imperfectives in Slavic: Russ. perepisat’p – perepisyvat’i „copy‟;

-

the iteratives with the suffix -gat/get- when attaching freely: szépítgetni (magát) „arrange / dress up (oneself)‟ (szép „nice‟ + causative -ít- + iterative -get-); but not otherwise: beszélgetni „talk, discuss‟ vs. beszélni „speak‟, üldögélni „sit around/ about, lounge‟ vs. ülni „sit‟;

-

the phasal Perfectives: Russ. pet’i „sing‟ > zapet’p „start singing‟ (inceptive), popet’p „sing for a while‟ (delimitative);

-

possibly the Slavic semelfactives with the suffix PSl *-nǫ-: Russ. čixnut’p „sneeze (once)‟ vs. čixat’i „sneeze (repeatedly)‟;

b) productive at some time and place in a segment of the speech community in the past or present, but failing to spread to the entire speech community and become fully productive; the respective formations would have been derived in syntax at the time and place where they appear(ed), but otherwise stocked in the lexicon nowadays:

326

-

all suffixed verbs in Indo-European and Hungarian except the Slavic and Hungarian ones mentioned above;

-

one or two classes of prefixed Perfectives in Slavic, Yiddish (and possibly Baltic): the cumulative Russ. napeč'p „bake a (certain, but usually large) quantity of‟ vs. peč’i „bake‟, Yiddish onbakn „bake an accumulation of‟;

c) non-productive, with affixes filling in syntactic structures with material from the lexicon, and having essentially the status of idioms: -

all the other prefixed verbs. In this chapter and the previous one I have investigated aspectual phenomena manifested

outside and inside the VP respectively. Not discussed here, and not classified into either of these two categories, are the perfect (in its various shapes and functions) and the aspectual forms in English. I have left them out because their inclusion would have extended the scope of this work beyond the boundaries of its present feasibility. I will only mention here the approach I envisage for their treatment: the proposal is to connect the habitual, the progressive, the perfect, as well as the resultative constructions, to argument structure, but in a manner different from the one observable in Slavic-type aspect. What these forms have in common is the fact that they involve states in various ways: the habitual – a state described by a habit; the perfect – a resultative state; and the English progressive stands in complementary distribution with states (stative verbs do not have progressive forms). I suggest that this connection with stativity results from certain properties of Location and Quality arguments. This hypothesis is based mainly on the analysis of Basque data, where morphology, syntax, and semantics point towards a link between the progressive, habitual, perfect, and prospective (as I defined it earlier in this chapter). If the function of the Location arguments is expanded in a cross-category generalization to include

327

temporal relations, various empirical facts and theoretical considerations converge towards the conclusion that the progressive and the habitual are manifested as temporal Locations in the LocP, the perfect as a temporal Source or point of reference in a static retrospective situation, and the prospective (the Basque „future‟) and the resultative as temporal Goals. Sometimes, this status is reflected in the morphology – for example, both the English and the Basque progressives are marked as locatives (John is writing < „John is at writing‟; Basque employs a verbal noun in the locative), and the Basque prospective has a verbal noun with an ending meaning „pertaining to, for the purpose of, tending to‟. This does not exclude the possibility of expressing the respective semantics in other morphemes – for instance, the relation S < R between situation time and reference time in the perfect will belong to the denotations of the lowest locational argument in English and Basque, but of the perfect morphology (root reduplication and suffix) in Greek, which is most likely located in AspP, in complementary distribution with the morphemes expressing viewpoint aspect proper (aorist and imperfect). Likewise, a habitual interpretation can result either from a temporal Location (habit regarded as a state described by a habit) or from an additional element in the durativity / iterativity denoted by an AktP. In any case, structural factors are as important as the semantics for the function of the aspectual forms.

328

6 SUMMARY

The analyses in the preceding chapters substantiate the often made observation that aspect is a multilayered phenomenon. At least five dimensions of this phenomenon can be distinguished: 1) situation aspect, classifying situations according to three criteria: dynamism (states vs. events), durativity, and telicity; 2) viewpoint aspect, determining the relationship between reference time and situation time; 3) Slavic-type aspect, having to do with the presence vs. absence of relevant transitions between situations; 4) actionality (Aktionsart), which refers, in addition to the situation types, to other (temporal) properties of situations: intensive, accelerative, attenuative, etc.; and 5) state-related aspect (briefly mentioned at the end of chapter 5), which involves states either directly (habitual, perfect as resultative) or indirectly (progressive: non-habitual / contingent activity). These dimensions are related in specific ways: -

(4) & (1): (4) is related to (1) in that it includes some situation types, but its major function is that of an operator on events, deriving ingressives, iteratives, etc.;

-

(4) & (3): (3) and (4) are the ingredients of aspect in Slavic; (3) derives lexical Perfectives, and (4) derives secondary Imperfectives, as well as semelfactive and superlexical Perfectives. Non-Slavic languages usually have only (3), and derive neither secondary Imperfectives nor (except Baltic) semelfactives or superlexical Perfectives; in addition, actionality is a component of Slavic-type aspect in that the perfectivizing role of prefixes can involve an accelerative manner of action (Aktionsart in the traditional sense); and

329

-

(5) & (2): both describe relations between reference time and situation time, but viewpoint aspect proper involves relations of inclusion, whereas state-related aspect involves sequence.

Syntactic structure plays a crucial role in aspectual interpretation: -

Slavic-type aspect (as well as state-related aspect, at least partly) is manifested inside the VP by properties of the argument heads or of the arguments themselves: it results mainly from inherent or modified properties of syntactic arguments – namely, completely affected Themes, or the presence of Goals / Recipients / Sources / Perdants in the verb‟s theta-grid;

-

viewpoint aspect and actionality (and also state-related aspect, in some languages) are manifested outside the VP in specific functional heads, and there can be multiple actionality heads – deriving, for instance, frequentatives from iteratives, iteratives from ingressives derived in turn from statives, etc.; and

-

situation aspect is not a localized syntactic phenomenon: the situation type described by a sentence is the resultant of several factors, e.g. the presence of duration adverbials which can convert a basic achievement interpretation (punctual) into an accomplishment (durative).

In particular, argument structure is a major factor in Slavic-type aspect: -

the presence of a directional argument (Goal, Source, Recipient, Perdant) renders a verb inherently Perfective; Imperfective motion verbs behave like Perfectives when they have a Goal argument; and

-

the presence of a prefix denoting the complete involvement of an incremental Theme has a Perfectivizing effect.

The role of argument structure in aspectual interpretation becomes most clearly visible in connection with the syntactic representation of precisely defined theta-roles:

330

-

the data from the languages discussed here support a structural hierarchy Causer > Agent > Affectee > Theme > Location > Quality;

-

genuine deviations from this hierarchy are explainable diachronically by the preservation of structure under change of theta-roles, e.g. [Agent – Theme] in Lat. continēre „hold together‟ → [Location – Experiencer] in contain; and

-

apparent deviations are due to the semantic proximity of specific theta-roles, e.g. in give Bill (Experiencer) a book vs. give a book to Bill (Goal).

The view of argument structure proposed here accounts also for certain applicative constructions which do not involve aspect, like the locational and comitative applicatives. The elements of this theory, which is based on a reconsideration of the theta-roles and their representation in syntax on the one hand, and on the structural location of aspectual phenomena on the other hand, support each other and create a coherent picture.

331

REFERENCES

Ahlman, Erik. 1916. Über das lateinische Präfix co(m)- in Verbalzusammensetzungen. Eine semasiologische Studie. Helsingfors: Druckerei der Finnischen Litteratur-Gesellschaft. Akimova, Tatiana. 1992. „The perfective aspect and negation in Russian.‟ In Russian Linguistics 16: 23-51. Aleksandravičius, Juozas. 1984. Litovskij jazyk. Vilnius: Mokslas. Alexander, Ronelle. 2006. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. A Grammar with Sociolinguistic Commentary. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Ambrazas, V., ed. 1985. Grammatika litovskogo jazyka. Vilnius: Mokslas. Amse-De Jong, Tine H. 1974. The Meaning of the Finite Verb Forms in the Old Church Slavonic Codex Suprasliensis. A Synchronic Study. The Hague: Mouton. Anstatt, Tanja. 1998. „Verben der Bewegung und Zielaktanten im Altrussischen.‟ In T. Berger & J. Raecke, eds., Slavistische Linguistik 1997 / Slavistische Beiträge 375: 9-28. Arkad‟ev, Pjotr M. 2008. „Uroki litovskogo jazyka dlja slavjanskoj aspektologii.‟ In Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. XIV meždunarodnyj s”ezd slavistov. Ohrid, 10-16 sentjabrja 2008 g. Doklady rossijskoj delegacii (Moskva: Indrik): 28-43. Arkad‟ev, Pjotr M. 2009. „Teorija akcional‟nosti i litovskij glagol.‟ In Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija 18: 72-94. Arkad‟ev, Pjotr M. 2010. „From transitivity to aspect: Causative-inchoative alternation and its extensions in Lithuanian.‟ Ms. to appear in Stockholm Studies in Baltic Languages. Arkad‟ev, Pjotr M. 2011a. „Aspektual‟naja sistema litovskogo jazyka (s privlečeniem areal‟nyx dannyx).‟ Ms. to appear in V.A. Plungian, ed., Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki 5: Problemy aspektual’noj tipologii. Moskva. Arkad‟ev, Pjotr M. 2011b. „Aspect and actionality in Lithuanian on a typological background.‟ Ms. to appear in D. Petit, ed., Langues baltiques, langues slaves. Paris. Aronson, Howard J. 1985. „Form, function, and the “perfective” in Bulgarian.‟ In M.S. Flier & A. Timberlake, eds., The Scope of Slavic Aspect (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica): 274-285. Avilova, Natal‟ja S. 1976. Vid glagola i semantika glagol’nogo slova. Moskva: Akademija nauk SSSR.

332

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Baker, Mark. 1997. „Thematic roles and syntactic structure.‟ In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax (Dordrecht: Kluwer): 73-137. Balázs, József. 1979. „Die ungarischen Hilfsverba in osteuropäischer Sicht.‟ In Studia Slavica 25: 21-30. Bárczi, Géza. 1963. A magyar nyelv életrajza. Budapest: Gondolat. Barwise, Jon, and John Perry. 1983 Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Benson, Morton. 1989. Srpskohrvatsko-engleski rečnik. 3rd ed. Beograd: Prosveta. Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale, Vol. 1 (Paris: Gallimard). Bermel, Neil. 1997. Context and the Lexicon in the Development of Russian Aspect. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bickel, Balthasar. 1997. „Aspectual scope and the difference between logical and semantic representation.‟ In Lingua 102: 115-131. Binnick, Robert I. 1974. „Will and Be Going To.‟ (2 parts) In W. Bauer et al., eds., Studien zur generativen Semantik (Frankfurt / Main: Athenaion): 118-137. Böhtlingk, Otto, and Rudolph Roth. 1855. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1971. Vid i vremja russkogo glagola. Moskva: Prosveščenie. Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1995. Die Semantik des Verbalaspekts im Russischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bowers, John. 2010. Arguments as Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan, and Joni Kanerva. 1989. „Locative inversion in Chichewa: a case study of factorization in grammar.‟ In Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1-50. Browne, Wayles. 1993. „Serbo-Croat.‟ In B. Comrie & G.G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages (London: Routledge): 306-387. Brunel, J. 1939. L’aspect verbal et l’emploi des préverbes en grec, particulièrement en attique. Paris: Klincksieck. Bubeník, Vít. 1998. A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 333

Bybee, Joan L., and Östen Dahl. 1989. „The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world.‟ In Studies in Language 13: 51-103. Cambi, Valentina. 2007. Tempo e aspetto in ittito con particolare riferimento al suffisso -ske/a-. Alessandria: Edizioni dell‟Orso. Cejtlin, Ralja M., et al. 1999. Staroslavjanskij slovar’ (po rukopisjam X-XI vekov). Moskva: Russkij jazyk. Chantraine, Pierre. 1963. Grammaire homérique. Vol.2: Syntaxe. Paris: C. Klincksieck. Chantraine, Pierre. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Vol.2. Paris: Klincksieck. Chomsky, Noam. 1988. „Some notes on economy of derivation and representation.‟ In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 43-74. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. Lectures on Govermnment and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [1981] Chvany, Catherine V. 1985. „Backgrounded perfectives and plot-line imperfectives: Towards a theory of grounding in text.‟ In M.S. Flier & A. Timberlake, eds., The Scope of Slavic Aspect (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica): 247-273. Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, Philippa. 2006. „The datives that aren‟t born equal: Beneficiaries and the dative passive.‟ In D. Hole et al., eds., Datives and Other Cases (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 141-184. Coulson, Michael. 1992. Sanskrit. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Cowgill, Warren. 1975. „More evidence for Indo-Hittite: the tense-aspect systems.‟ In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguistics. Vol.2 (Bologna): 557-570. Dahl, Östen. 1984. „Perfectivity in Slavonic and other languages.‟ C. de Groot & H. Tommola, eds., Aspect Bound: A Voyage into the Realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Aspectology (Proceedings from the First Scandinavian Symposium on Aspectology in Vaasa, Aug. 26-28, 1983) (Amsterdam: Foris): 3-22. Danaher, David S. 1996. „A semiotic approach to the semantics of Czech verbs of the type říkávat.‟ In Slavic and East European Journal 40.1: 118-133. 334

Danaher, David S. 2001. „Czech habitual verbs and conceptual distancing.‟ In Journal of Slavic Linguistics 9: 5-28. Decker, Rodney J. 2001. Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect. New York: Peter Lang. Deutschbein, Max. 1920. „Die Einteilung der Aktionsarten.‟ In Englische Studien LIV: 80-87. Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect. A Cognitive Approach. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Dickey, Stephen M. 2007. „A prototype account of the development of delimitative po- in Russian.‟ In D. Divjak and A. Kochańska, eds., Cognitive Paths into the Slavic Domain (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter): 329-374. Dickey, Stephen M. 2010. „Common Slavic “indeterminate” verbs of motion were really manner-of-motion verbs.‟ In V. Hasko and R. Perlmutter, eds., New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 67-110. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Diesing, Molly. 1998. „Light verbs and the syntax of aspect in Yiddish.‟ In The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 119-156. Diesing, Molly. 2000. „Aspect in Yiddish. The semantics of an inflectional head.‟ In Natural Language Semantics 8: 231-253. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila. 1999. Verb Semantics, Diathesis, and Aspect. München: Lincom Europa. Doron, Edit. 1999. „Semitic templates as representations of argument structure.‟ In Proceedings of the 1999 Texas Linguistic Society Conference: Perspectives on Argument Structure (Austin: University of Texas, Department of Linguistics). Dostál, Antonín. 1954. Studie o vidovém systému v staroslověnštině. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Dowty, David R. 1991a. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dowty, David. 1991b. „Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.‟ In Language 67.3: 547619. Dressler, Wolfgang. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Iterativum, Distributivum, Durativum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, im Lateinischen und Hethitischen. Wien: Hermann Böhlaus. 335

Drinka, Bridget. 1988. „Evidence for the space-time hypothesis: The IE s-aorist.‟ In The Journal of Indo-European Studies 16.3&4: 253-265. Drinka, Bridget. 1995. The Sigmatic Aorist in Indo-European. Evidence for the Space-Time Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man. Dvořák, Věra. 2010. „On the syntax of ditransitive verbs in Czech.‟ In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 18. The Ithaca Meeting 2009 (Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications). Dybo, Vladimir A. 2002. „Balto-Slavic accentology and Winter‟s Law.‟ In Studia Lingaurum 3.2: 295-515. Elizarenkova, Tat‟jana J. 1982. Grammatika vedijskogo jazyka. Moskva: Nauka. Fanning, Buist M. 1990. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ferrand, Marcel. 1982. „Prétérits russes de l'aller et retour unique (xodil, proxodil, bral, etc.): sont-ils perfectifs?‟ In Revue des Études Slaves 54: 455-75. Fielder, Grace E. 1993. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Verbal Categories in Bulgarian. Lewinston: Edwin Mellen. Filip, Hana. 2003. „Prefixes and the delimitation of events.‟ In Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11.1: 55-101. Filip, Hana. 2008. „Events and maximalization.‟ In S. Rothstein, ed., Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 217256. Filip, Hana, and Susan Rothstein. 2005. „Telicity as a semantic parameter.‟ In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics XIV (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Slavic Publications): 139-156. Filipović, Luna. 2007. Talking about Motion. A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Lexicalization Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Foote, I.P. 1967. Verbs of Motion. Cambridge: University Press. (Studies in the Modern Russian Language 1) Forsyth, James. 1970. A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Cambridge: University Press. Forsyth, James. 1972. „Nature and development of the aspectual opposition in the Russian verb.‟ In Slavonic and East European Review 50: 493-506. 336

Freeze, Ray. 1992. „Existentials and other locatives.‟ In Language 68: 553-595. Friedman, Victor. 1985. „Aspectual usage in Russian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian.‟ In M.S. Flier & A. Timberlake, eds., The Scope of Slavic Aspect (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica): 234-246. Galnaitytė, E. 1980. „Tipologija glagolov mnogokratnogo sposoba dejstvija. Na materiale russkogo i litovskogo jazykov.‟ In Kalbotyra 31: 5-87. Galnaitytė, E. 1984. „Glagoly dviženija v sisteme sposobov glagol‟nogo dejstvija .‟ In Kalbotyra 35: 77-88. Galton, Herbert. 1962. Aorist und Aspekt im Slavischen. Eine Studie zur funktionellen und historischen Syntax. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Galton, Herbert. 1980. „Where “completed action” for the perfective goes wrong.‟ In Lingua 52: 49-55. Garnier, K. von. 1909. „com- als perfektivierendes Präfix bei Plautus, sam- im Rigveda, syn- bei Homer.‟ In Indogermanische Forschungen 25.1 (Festschrift Brugmann): 86-109. Genis, René. 1997. „Prze-Meaning and aspect, variant and invariant meaning(s). Some remarks on “pure” perfectivization: prze- as empty prefix.‟ In Polonica 18: 191-207. Ginina, Stefana C., et al. 1966. Uchebnik po bălgarski ezik za čuždenci. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo. Greenberg, Marc L. 2006. A Short Reference Grammar of Standard Slovene. Ms. University of Kansas. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Gruber, Jeffrey S. 2001. „Thematic relations in syntax.‟ In M. Baltin and C. Collins, eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory (Oxford: Blackwell): 257-298. Guentchéva, Zlatka. 1995. „L‟imparfait perfectif bulgare.‟ In Modèles linguistiques 16: 73-94. Haegeman, Liliane. 1989. „Be Going To and Will: A pragmatic account.‟ In Journal of Linguistics 25: 291-317. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. „Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.‟ In K. Hale and S.J. Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press): 111-176. Halpern, Richard N. 1975. „Time travel or the futuristic use of “to go”.‟ In Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 5: 36-41. Harðarson, Jón A. 1998. „Mit dem Suffix *-eh1- bzw. *-eh1-ie/o- gebildete Verbalstämme im Indogermanischen.‟ In W. Meid, ed., Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen. Akten der X. 337

Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Innsbruck, 22.-28. September 1996 (Innsbruck: Institut der Sprachwissenschaft). Harrison, Thomas P. 1892. The Separable Prefixes in Anglo-Saxon. Baltimore: J. Murphy & Co. Haug, Dag. 2004. „Lateinisch concinnus und concinnare.‟ In Glotta 80.1: 24-45. Haug, Dag. 2007. „The prefix co(m)- with motion verbs in Plautus: philological study and etymological implications.‟ In C.H. George et al., eds., Greek and Latin from an IndoEuropean Perspective (Cambridge: The Cambridge Philological Society): 80-88. Haug, Dag. 2008. „Aspectual oppositions from Proto-Indo-European to Latin.‟ In F. Josephson and I. Söhrman, eds., Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 61-72. Haverling, Gerd. 2000. On sco-Verbs, Prefixes and Semantic Functions. A Study in the Development of Prefixed and Unprefixed Verbs from Early to Late Latin. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgiensis. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hewson, John, and Vit Bubenik. 1997. Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages. Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Higginbotham, James. 2000. „On events in linguistic semantics.‟ In J. Higginbotham et al., eds., Speaking of Events (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 29-75. Hoch, James E. 1997. Middle Egyptian Grammar. Mississauga: Benben Publications. Hock, Hans H. 1991. „Causees, passive agents or instruments? Instrumental NP‟s with causatives in early and later Vedic prose.‟ In H.H. Hock, ed., Studies in Sanskrit Syntax. A Volume in Honor of the Centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit Syntax, 1886-1986 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass): 71-93. Hoffmann, Karl. 1970. „Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums.‟ In Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 28: 19-41. Hoffner, Harry A. Jr., and H. Craig Melchert. 2002. „A practical approach to verbal aspect in Hittite.‟ In S. De Martino and F. Pecchioli-Daddi, eds., Anatolia Antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati Vol.1 (Firenze: LoGisma): 377-390. 338

Holthusen, Johannes. 1951. „Zur Aktionsart der negierten Präsentia perfektiver momantaner Verben im Russischen.‟ In Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 21: 90-94. Isačenko, Aleksander V. 1962. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Vol.1. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. 1976. „Toward an explanatory semantic representation.‟ In Linguistic Inquiry 7: 89-150. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Jakobson, Roman O. 1971. „Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb.‟ In Selected Writings, Vol.2 (The Hague: Mouton): 130-147. [1957] Jamison, Stephanie W. 1983. Function and form in the -áya- formations of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Janda, Laura. 2007. „Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs.‟ In Studies in Language 31.3: 607-648. Janda, Laura. 2008. „Motion verbs and the development of aspect in Russian.‟ In Scando-Slavica 54: 179-197. Janda, Laura, and John Korba. 2008. „Beyond the pair: Aspectual clusters for learners of Russian.‟ In Slavic and East European Journal 52.2: 253-269. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Josephson, Folke. 2008. „Actionality and aspect in Hittite.‟ In F. Josephson and I. Söhrman, eds., Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 131147. Kagan, Olga. 2007. „On the semantics of verbs of motion in Russian.‟ In Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 23: 1-15. Kagan, Olga. 2010. „Aspects of motion. On the semantics and pragmatics of indeterminate aspect.‟ In V. Hasko and R. Perlmutter, eds., New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 141-162. Kamp, Hans. 1981. „A theory of truth and semantic interpretation.‟ In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stockhof, eds., Formal Methods in the Study of Language (Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum Tracts). Karulis, Konstantīns. 1992. Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca. Rīga: Avots. 339

Kątny, Andrzej, ed. 2000. Aspektualität in germanischen und slawischen Sprachen. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Katz, Dovid. 1987. Grammar of the Yiddish Language. London: Duckworth. Kecskés, Istvan. 1989. „The role of preverbs in expressing aspect meanings in Hungarian and Russian.‟ In Lars-Gunnar Larsson (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Symposium on Aspectology (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell): 59-65. Kieckers, Ernst. 1928. Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik. München: Max Hueber. Kiefer, Ferenc. 1994. „Some peculiarities of the aspectual system in Hungarian.‟ In Carl Bache, Hans Basbøll, Carl-Erik Lindberg (eds.), Tense, Aspect and Action: Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology (Proceedings of seminars on Verbal Semantics at Odense University in 1986 and 1987) (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter): 185-206. Kiparsky, Paul. 1987. „Morphology and grammatical relations.‟ Ms. Stanford University. Kiss, Katalin É., and Henk van Riemsdijk. 2004. Verb Clusters. A Study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge. Kölligan, Daniel. 2007. „Iteratives and causatives in Latin: a unified approach.‟ In G. Coulter et al., eds., Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective (Cambridge: The Cambridge Philological Society): 49-64. Kølln, H. 1958. „Die Entstehung des slavischen Verbalaspekts: Die imperfektiven Ableitungen zu präfigierten Verben in ihrem Verhältnis zur Determinationskategorie und zum System der Verbalformen.‟ In Scando-Slavica 4: 308-313. Kortlandt, Frederik. 1989. „Lithuanian statýti and related formations.‟ In Baltistica 25.2: 104112. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. „Severing the argument from its verb.‟ In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (Dordrecht: Kluwer): 109-137. Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. „Telicity and the meaning of objective case.‟ In J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, eds. The Syntax of Time (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press): 389-424. Krifka, Manfred. 1989. „Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics.‟ In R. Barsch et al., eds., Semantics and Contextual Expression (Stanford: CSLI Publications): 75-115. 340

Krifka, Manfred. 1992. „Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution.‟ In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi, eds., Lexical Matters (Chicago: Chicago University Press): 29-53. Kulikov, Leonid. 2008. „The Vedic type patáyati revisited: Semantic oppositions, paradigmatic relationships and historical connections.‟ In A. Lubotsky, ed., Evidence and Counterevidence. Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, Vol.1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Linguistics (Amsterdam: Rodopi): 323-342. Kurz, Josef, ed. 1966. Lexicon linguae palaeoslovenicae / Slovník jazyka staroslověnského. Praha: Academia. Lambdin, Thomas O. 2006. An Introduction to the Gothic Language. Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Lee, W.R. and Z. 1964. Czech. London: The English Universities Press. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Létoublon, Françoise. 1992. „La déixis spatio-temporelle et le système verbal: le cas du grec ancien.‟ In M.-A. Morel & L. Danon-Boileau, eds., La Déixis: Colloque en Sorbonne 8-9 Juin 1990 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France): 265-276. Leumann, Manu. 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. 2nd ed. München: C.H. Beck. (Leumann-Hoffmann-Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik, Vol.1) Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Lindemann, J. W. Richard. 1965. „Old English preverb ge-: A re-examination of some current doctrines.‟ In Journal of English and Germanic Philology 64: 65-80. Lindstedt, Jouko. 1986. „Zašto se zapazvat svăršenite imperfekti i nesvăršenite aoristi v bălgarskija ezik?" In Ezik i literatura 41: 11-18. Lloyd, Albert L. 1979. Anatomy of the Verb. The Gothic Verbs as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lubotsky, Alexander. 1989. „The Vedic -áya- formations.‟ In The Indo-Iranian Journal 32: 89113. Lunt, Horace G. 2001. Old Church Slavonic Grammar. 7th ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Luraghi, Silvia. 2001. „The development of local particles and adverbs in Anatolian as a grammaticalization process.‟ In Diachronica 18: 31-58. 341

Luraghi, Silvia. n.d. „The history of the Greek preposition meta: From polysemy to the creation of homonyms.‟ (http://attach.matita.net/silvialuraghi/file/METAgreek.doc) Lyons, John. 1967. „A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences.‟ In Foundations of Language 3: 390-396. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2008. The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect. A Minimalist Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Marantz, Alec. 1993. „Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions.‟ In S.A. Mchombo, ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, Vol.1 (Stanford: CSLI Publications): 113-151. Marovska, Vera. 1991. „Poreden opit za interpretacija na glagolnata opozicija aorist / imperfekt.‟ In Săpostavitelno Ezikoznanie 16: 56-66. Maslov, Jurij S. 1965. „Sistema osnovnyx ponjatij i terminov slavjanskoj aspektologii.‟ In J.S. Maslov, ed., Voprosy obščego jazykoznanija (Leningrad: Leningradskij gosudarstvennyj universitet): 53-80. Maslov, Jurij S. 1984. Očerki aspektologii. Leningrad: Leningradskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. [1948] Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1992. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Mazon, André. 1911. Emplois des aspects du verbe russe. Paris: Librairie ancienne Honoré Champion. McFadden, Thomas. 2006. „German inherent datives and argument structure.‟ In D. Hole et al., eds., Datives and Other Cases (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 49-77. Mehlig, Hans Robert. 1983. „Die Sogenannten “perfektiven” und “imperfektiven” Verben im Deutschen und ihre Beziehung zum Verbalaspekt im Russischen.‟ In Studies in Descriptive Linguistics 8: 91-97. Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2003. Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Meillet, Antoine, and Joseph Vendryes. 1927. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Klincksieck. Meinunger, André. 2006. „Remarks on the projection of dative arguments in German.‟ In D. Hole et al., eds., Datives and Other Cases (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 79-101. 342

Meltzer, Hans. 1902. „Vermeintliche Perfektivierung durch präpositionale Zusammensetzung im Griechischen.‟ In Indogermanische Forschungen 12.3: 19-72. Michaelis, Laura A., and Josef Ruppenhofer. 2000. Beyond Alternations. A Constructional Model of the German Applicative Pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Miller, Gary D. 1993. Complex Verb Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Milovanović, Snežana. 1995. „Grammaticalization of Aktionsart in Ancient Slavic: A Comparison with Aspect in Ancient Greek and Latin.‟ PhD dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Mønnesland, Svein. 1984. „The Slavonic frequentative habitual.‟ In Groot, C. de & H. Tommola, eds., Aspect Bound (Dordrecht: Kluwer). Mourelatos, Alexander. 1981. „Events, processes, and states.‟ In P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen, eds., Tense and Aspect (New York: Academic Press): 191-212. Muravyova, L. 1995. Verbs of Motion in Russian. Moscow: Russky Yazyk. Nesset, Tore. 2010. „Is the choice of prefix arbitrary? Aspectual prefixation and Russian verbs of perception.‟ In Slavic and East European Journal 54.4: 666-689. Nichols, Johanna. 2010. „Indeterminate motion verbs are denominal.‟ In Victoria Hasko and Renee Perlmutter, eds., New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 47-65. Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens. 1997. „Tense, aspect, and verbal derivation in the language of the Novgorod birch bark letters.‟ In Russian Linguistics 21: 1-21. Orvidienė, Emilija. 1968. Lietuvių kalbos vadovėlis. Vilnius: Mintis. Paduceva, Elena. V. 1989. „Semantika i pragmatika nesoveršennogo vida imperativa v russkom jazyke.‟ In Studia Slavica Finlandensia 6: 37-62. Padučeva, Elena V. 1991. „K semantike nesoveršennogo vida v russkom jazyke: obščefaktičeskoe i akcional‟noe značenie.‟ In Voprosy jazykoznanija 40: 34-45. Padučeva, Elena V. 1996. Semantičeskie issledovanija. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul‟tury. Pahomov, George S. 1979. „Tense, Aspect and the Verbs of Motion.‟ In Russian Language Journal 33: 16-20. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

343

Perlmutter, David, and Paul Postal (1984). „The I-advancement exclusiveness law.‟ In D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen, eds., Studies in Relational Grammar (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): 81-125. Pete, István. „Upotreblenie glagolov soveršennogo vida v bolgarskix i russkix otricatel‟nyx pobuditel‟nyx predloženijax.‟ Săpostavitelno ezikoznanie 16: 17-21. Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Piñón, Christopher. 1997. „Verbs of motion in Polish, I: parts and processes.‟ In U. Junghanns and G. Zybatow, eds., Formale Slavistik (Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert): 467-488. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. „Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP.‟ In Linguistic Inquiry 22.1: 365-424. Portner, Paul H. 2005. What Is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Rakhilina, E. 2004. „There and back: The case of Russian go.‟ In L.A. Janda and T. Nesset, eds., Times and Cases. A View of Slavic Conceptualizations (http://www.seelrc.org/glossos/) Rákosi, György, and Tibor Laczkó. 2005. „Verbal category and nominal function: Evidence from Hungarian subject clauses.‟ In M. Butt & T. Holloway King, eds., Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, University of Bergen (CSLI Publications: http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/). Rasmussen, Jens. 1992. „Winter‟s law of Balto-Slavic lengthening – an unnatural fact?‟ In Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 63-77. Rassudova, Olga P. 1975. „Aspectual meaning and aspectual context in the teaching of the Russian verbal aspects.‟ In Slavic and East European Journal 19: 139-44. Regnéll, Carl Göran. 1944. Über den Ursprung des slawischen Verbalaspektes. Lund: Håkan Ohlsson. Reichenbach, Hans. 1966. Elements of Symbolic Logic. London: Macmillan. [1947] Renou, Louis. 1961. Grammaire sanskrite. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. Richardson, Peter. 1994. „Imperfective Aspect and Episode Structure in Beowulf.‟ In Journal of English and Germanic Philology 93: 313-25. Rix, Helmut, ed. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

344

Rosén, Haiim B. „Die Komposita mit co(n)- in funktioneller und vergleichender Sicht.‟ In O. Panagl and T. Krisch, eds., Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23.-26. September 1986 (Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1992): 357-367. Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The Structure of Stative Verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring Events. A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. Rul‟janitskii, Lev. 1977. “„Obščefaktičeskoe” značenie glagolov nesoveršennogo vida.‟ In Russian Linguistics 3: 293-96. Ryder, Frank G. 1951. „Syntax of Gothic compound verbs.‟ In The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 50.2: 200-217. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1985. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. [1915] Scherer, Philip. 1964. „Theory of the function of the Gothic preverb ga-.‟ In Word 20: 222-245. Schlegel, Hans. 1999. Zur Rolle der Terminativität/Aterminativität (T/AT) im Aspekt- und Aspektbildungssystem der russischen Sprache der Gegenwart. München: Otto Sagner. Schlegel, Hans. 2000. Der aspektuale Bezugsmoment als linguistische Grundlage für die Beschreibung und Vermittlung des russischen Verbalaspekts. München: Otto Sagner. Schlegel, Hans. 2002. Bildung, Bedeutung und Gebrauch des russischen Verbalaspekts. 2 vols. München: Otto Sagner. Schmitt-Brandt, Robert. 1987. „Aspektkategorien im PIE?‟ In The Journal of Indo-European Studies 15.1&2: 81-92. Schwyzer, Eduard, and Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Vol.2: Syntax und syntaktische Stylistik. München: C.H. Beck. Seebold, Elmar. 1971. „Versuch über die Herkunft der indogermanischen PersonalendungsSysteme.‟ In Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 85: 185-210. Sell, George J. 1995. A Comparison of Verbal Aspect in Russian and Bulgarian. PhD dissertation. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Senn, Alfred. 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. Vol.1: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Šewc-Schuster, Hinc. 1984. Gramatika hornjo-serbskeje rěče. Vol.1. Budyšin: Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina. 345

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shields, Kenneth. 1988. „Tense, linguistic universals, and the reconstruction of Indo-European.‟ In The Journal of Indo-European Studies 16.3&4: 241-251. Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [1st ed. 1991] Smoczyński, Wojciech. 2007. Lietuvių kalbos etimologinis žodynas. Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas Filologijos Fakultetas. Sonnenhauser, B. 2006. Yet There’s Method in It. Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Interpretation of the Russian Imperfective Aspect. München: Otto Sagner. Sørensen, Finn. 1997. „Possession as location. In I. Baron & M. Herslund, eds., Possessive Structures in Danish (Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School): 158-168. Speas, Peggy. 1991. „Functional heads and the Mirror Principle.‟ In Lingua 84: 181-214. Specht, Franz. 1947. Die Ursprung der indogermanischen Deklination. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht. Speijer, J.S. 1983. Sanskrit Syntax. Reprint. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [Leiden, 1886] Stang, Christian S. 1942. Das slawische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: J. Dybwad. Stifter, David. 2006. Sengoídelc. Old Irish for Beginners. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1906. Gotisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Strunk, Klaus. 1994. „Relative chronology and the Indo-European verb-system: The case of present- and aorist-stems.‟ In The Journal of Indo-European Studies 22.3&4: 417-434. Svenonius, Peter. 2004. „Slavic prefixes inside and outside the VP.‟ In Nordlyd 32.2: 205-253. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. „The noun phrase.‟ In F. Kiefer & K. Kiss, eds., The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian (San Diego, CA: Academic Press): 179-275. Szemerényi, Oswald. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. „Lexicalization patterns.‟ In T. Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 57-149. Tatevosov, Sergej. 2002. „The parameter of actionality.‟ In Linguistic Typology 6: 317-401. Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordecht: Kluwer.

346

Thumb, Albert. 1915. „Zur Aktionsart der mit Präposition zusammengesetzten Verba im Griechischen.‟ In Indogermanische Forschungen 27:195-199. Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1909. Handbuch des Altirischen. Vol.1: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Timberlake, Alan. 2004. Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toops, Gary H. 1992. „Upper Sorbian prefixal derivatives and the question of German loan translations.‟ In Slavic and East European Journal 36: 17-35. Toops, Gary H. 1992-1993. „Lexicalization of Upper Sorbian preverbs: Temporal-aspectual ramifications and the delimitation of German influence.‟ In Germano-Slavica 7-8: 3-22. Travis, Linda deMena. 1991. Inner Aspect and the Structure of VP. Ms., McGill University. Veksler, Bunim X., and Vladimir A. Jurik. 1978. Latyšskij jazyk. Riga: Zvaigzne. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Venediktov, G. K. 1961. „Morfologičeskie tipy vidovyx korrelacij glagolov dviženija v bolgarskom jazyke.‟ In Kratkie soobščenija Instituta slavjanovedenija, Akademija nauk SSSR 30: 84-99. Vernet i Pons, Mariona. 2008. La segona conjugació verbal llatina. Estudi etimològic i comparatiu sobre l’origen protoindoeuropeu de la formació dels seus temes verbals. Barcelona: Institut Privat d‟Estudis Món Juïc. Wackernagel, Jacob. 2009. Lectures on Syntax with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Ed. by D. Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [1920] Watkins, Calvert. 1962. Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. Vol. 1: The Sigmatic Aorist. Dublin: Dublin University Press. Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press. Wedel, Alfred R. 1976. „Der Konflikt von Aspekt/Zeitstufe und Aktionsart in der althochdeutschen Übersetzung der Benediktinerregel.‟ In Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77: 270-81. Wedel, Alfred R. 1987. „Syntagmatische und paradigmatische Mittel zur Angabe der aspektuellen Differenzierung: die Wiedergabe des lateinischen Perfekts im althochdeutschen Isidor und Tatian.‟ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 88: 80-89. 347

Wedel, Alfred R. 1997. „Verbal prefixation and the “complexive” aspect in Germanic.‟ In Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 98: 321-332. Wegener, Heide. 1991. „Der Dativ – ein struktureller Kasus?‟ In G. Fanselow and S. Felix., eds., Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien (Tübingen: Narr): 70-103. Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press. Weiss, Michael. 2010. Language and Ritual in Sabellic Italy. The Ritual Complex of the Third and Fourth Tabulae Iguvinae. Leiden: Brill. West, Jonathan. 1981. „Proklitische Verbalpartikel und ihr Gebrauch in Bezug auf das verbale Aspektsystem des Gotischen.‟ In Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie 100: 331-338. Willy, Andreas. 2007. „On aspects, augments, aorists – or how to say to have killed a dragon.‟ In G. Coulter et al., eds., Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective (Cambridge: The Cambridge Philological Society): 34-48. Winter, Werner. 1976. „The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. ėsti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic languages.‟ In J. Fisiak, ed., Recent Developments in Historical Phonology (The Hague: Mouton): 431-446. Woolford, Ellen. 2006. „Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure.‟ In Linguistic Inquiry 37.1: 111-130. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1983. „On the Compositionality of German Prefix Verbs.‟ In R. Bäuerle et al., eds., Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter): 452-465. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Eunjong Oh. 2007. On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Zucchi, Alessandro. 1999. „Incomplete events, intensionality, and imperfective aspect.‟ In Natural Language Semantics 7: 179-215. Zwarts, Joost. 2005. „The case of prepositions: Government and compositionality in German PPs.‟ Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, Haifa, 23 June 2005 (http://www.let.uu.nl/users/Joost.Zwarts/personal/CofPs.pdf).

348