"Borrowing Verbs into Russian: a usage-Based Approach"

“Borrowing Verbs into Russian: A Usage-Based Approach”

• Laura A. Janda

• UNC-Chapel Hill

• [e-mail], www.unc.edu/~lajanda

The problem

• Nearly all Russian verbs are either Perfective (napisat’p ‘writep’) or Imperfective (pisat’i ‘writei’)

• Except several hundred “Bi-aspectual” verbs (likvidirovat’p/i ‘liquidatep/i’)

• Nearly all Bi-aspectual verbs are foreign borrowings

• Scholars assume Bi-aspectual verbs = foreign borrowings

• But

• Nearly 40% of borrowed verbs are not Bi-aspectual
• Bi-aspectual verbs behave differently from non-Bi-aspectual verbs

Outcomes

• Empirical study confirms predictions of “cluster” model of Russian aspect

• “Cluster” model has been suggested by Janda as alternative to traditional aspectual “pair” model

• Study also suggests interaction between lexical semantics and grammatical aspect

• Bi-aspectual verbs lack a Non-Completable (atelic) construal

Overview

• Traditional assumptions about Russian aspect

• Traditional assumptions about borrowed and Bi-aspectual verbs

• Janda’s “clusters” model and borrowed and Bi-aspectual verbs

• Empirical study

• Conclusions

1. Traditional assumptions about Russian aspect

• (Prototypical situation, ignoring Bi-aspectuals)

• A given verb is either Perfective (marked) or Imperfective (unmarked) in all tenses and forms

• Simplex base verbs (usually Imperfective) are combined with prefixes and suffixes to create new Perfective and Imperfective verbs

A typical verb and some of its relatives (i.e., a “cluster”)

• pisat’i ‘write’i

• napisat’p ‘writep’
• popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’
• podpisat’p ‘signp’
• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’
• perepisat’p ‘revisep’
• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

A typical verb and some of its relatives (i.e., a “cluster”)

• pisat’i ‘write’i

• napisat’p ‘writep’
• popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’
• podpisat’p ‘signp’
• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’
• perepisat’p ‘revisep’
• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

A typical verb and some of its relatives (i.e., a “cluster”)

• pisat’i ‘write’i

• napisat’p ‘writep’
• popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’
• podpisat’p ‘signp’
• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’
• perepisat’p ‘revisep’
• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

A typical verb and some of its relatives (i.e., a “cluster”)

• pisat’i ‘write’i

• napisat’p ‘writep’
• popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’
• podpisat’p ‘signp’
• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’
• perepisat’p ‘revisep’
• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

A typical verb and some of its relatives (i.e., a “cluster”)

• pisat’i ‘write’i

• napisat’p ‘writep’
• popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’
• podpisat’p ‘signp’
• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’
• perepisat’p ‘revisep’
• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

2. Traditional assumptions about Bi-aspectual verbs

• Questionable issues:

• All verbs with borrowed stems in Russian are Bi-aspectual (Avilova 1968)
• Foreign Bi-aspectual verbs are predominantly scientific, technical or professional terms (but cf. Mučnik 1966)
• Bi-aspectual verbs resist use of aspectual morphology because they are foreign (Mučnik 1966, Avilova 1968, Gladney 1982)
• Scholars don’t agree on which verbs are Bi-aspectual (Mučnik 1966, Gladney 1982, Čertkova & Čang 1998, Jászay 1999)

2. Traditional assumptions about Bi-aspectual verbs

• What we DO know

• Borrowed verbs in Russian:
• Have –ova- suffix, which gives verbal inflection but does not designate aspect
• Bi-aspectual verbs
• Over 90% are foreign borrowings
• Can express both Perfective and Imperfective with the same morphological form (never ambiguous) (Isačenko 1960, Mučnik 1966, Avilova 1968, Galton 1976, Gladney 1982, Čertkova 1996, Jászay 1999, Zaliznjak & Šmelev 2000, but cf. Timberlake 2004)

2. Traditional assumptions about borrowed and Bi-aspectual verbs

• What we DON’T know

• Are there non-Bi-aspectual (Imperfective) borrowed verbs?
• Do Imperfective borrowed verbs behave differently from Bi-aspectual borrowed verbs?
• Do semantic factors motivate aspectual status of borrowed verbs?

3. Janda’s “clusters” model and borrowed and Bi-aspectual verbs

• An alternative to the “pair” model:

• Clusters of aspectually related verbs

• Metaphorical motivations for aspect in Russian

• More than one type of Perfective
• Completability (telicity) distinguishes among Perfectives: A COMPLETABLE ACTION IS TRAVEL TOWARD A DESTINATION
• Bi-aspectual verbs tend to lack Non-Completable (atelic) construal

“Pair” vs. “cluster”

• pisat’i ‘write’i

• napisat’p ‘writep’
• popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’
• podpisat’p ‘signp’
• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’
• perepisat’p ‘revisep’
• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

“Pair” vs. “cluster”

• pisat’i ‘write’i

• napisat’p ‘writep’ NATURAL (NP)
• popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’COMPLEX ACT (CA)
• podpisat’p ‘signp’ SPECIALIZED (SP)
• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’
• perepisat’p ‘revisep’ SPECIALIZED (SP)
• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

Completable vs. Non-Completable

• Unambiguously Completable

• Sestra ideti v kino.

• ‘My sister is goingi to the movie theater.’

• Ambiguous

• Sestra pišeti dissertaciju.

• ‘My sister is writingi her dissertation.’

• Sestra pišeti naučnuju fantastiku.

• ‘My sister writesi science fiction.’

• Unambiguously Non-Completable

• Sestra rabotaeti v kabinete.

• ‘My sister is working/worksi in her office.’

4. Empirical study

• Hypothesis:

• Bi-aspectual borrowed verbs are strongly Completable (telic), so they will be unlikely to form Complex Act Perfectives with po-
• Imperfective borrowed verbs will be more likely to form Complex Act Perfectives with po-

4. Empirical study

• Methodology:

• Cull all foreign verbs from a single source
• Sort Bi-aspectual vs. Imperfective
• Collect data on frequency of unprefixed and po- prefixed (Complex Act Perfective) forms

4. Empirical study

• 555 foreign verbs in Wheeler 1972/1992

• 349 (63%) Bi-aspectual
• 206 (37%) Imperfective

High-frequency Bi-aspectual borrowings with zero po- perfectives:

• Covering a surface

• gummirovat’p/i ‘coat with rubberp/i’, meblirovat’p/i ‘upholsterp/i’, metallizirovat’p/i ‘coat with metalp/i’, ornamentirovat’p/i ‘ornamentp/i’, plakirovat‘p/i ‘platep/i’, satinirovat’p/i ‘polishp/i’

• Removal

• demaskirovat’p/i ‘unmaskp/i’, deblokirovat’p/i ‘unblockp/i’, demilitarizirovat’p/i ‘demilitarizep/i’, demobilizirovat’p/i ‘demobilizep/i’, denacionalizirovat’p/i ‘privatizep/i’, dezertirovat’p/i ‘desertp/i’

• Physical change of state

• denaturirovat’p/i ‘denaturep/i’, gofrirovat’p/i ‘crimpp/i’, granulirovat’p/i ‘granulatep/i’, kristallizovat’sjap/i ‘crystallizep/i’, temperirovat’p/i ‘temperp/i’, vulkaniz(ir)ovat’p/i ‘vulcanizep/i’

• Cultural/Linguistic change of state

• anglizirovat’p/i ‘anglicizep/i’, evropeizirovat’p/i ‘europeanizep/i’, germanizirovat’p/i ‘germanifyp/i’, internacionalizirovat’p/i ‘internationalizep/i’, latinizirovat’p/i ‘latinizep/i’, dešifrirovat’p/i ‘decipherp/i’

High-frequency Bi-aspectual borrowings with zero po- perfectives:

• Arrangement/Organization

• decentralizovat’p/i ‘decentralizep/i’, dezorganizovat’p/i ‘disorganizep/i’, èšelonirovat’p/i ‘echelonp/i’, flankirovat’p/i ‘flankp/i’, frakcionirovat’p/i ‘fractionatep/i’, kollektivizirovat’p/i ‘collectivizep/i’

• Budgetary arrangement

• assignovat’p/i ‘allocatep/i’, debetovat’p/i ‘debitp/i’, kapitalizirovat’p/i ‘reinvestp/i’, monopolizirovat’p/i ‘monopolizep/i’

• Proclamation

• dekretirovat’p/i ‘decreep/i’, denonsirovat’p/i ‘denouncep/i’, dezavuairovat’p/i ‘disavowp/i’, indossirovat’p/i ‘endorsep/i’, inkriminirovat’p/i ‘incriminatep/i’, kanon(iz)irovat’p/i ‘canonizep/i’, ratificirovat’p/i ‘ratifyp/i’

5. Conclusions

• Both Bi-aspectual and Imperfective borrowed verbs exist

• Clusters model predicts that Bi-aspectual verbs will be unlikely to form Complex Act Perfectives with po- -- this hypothesis is confirmed

• Foreign borrowings with Completable construals become Bi-aspectuals, other verbs become Imperfectives

• Grammatical aspect is influenced by lexical semantics

THANK YOU

• The author would like to thank John Korba for collecting data and Chris Wiesen for assistance with statistical analysis. Thanks are also due to Tore Nesset and the reviewers for: Dagmar Divjak and Agata Kochanska, eds. Slavic Contributions to Cognitive Linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics Research. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Bibliography, p 1

• Anderson, Cori. 2002. Biaspectual Verbs in Russian and their Implications on the Category of Aspect. Honors Thesis, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

• Avilova, N. S. 1968. “Dvuvidovye glagoly s zaimstvovannoj osnovoj v russkom literaturnom jazyke novogo vremeni”. Voprosy jazykoznanija: 66-78.

• Avilova, Natal’ja S. 1976. Vid glagola i semantika glagol’nogo slova. Moscow: Akademija nauk SSSR.

• Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Denis Delfitto. 2000. “Aspect vs. actionality: Why they should be kept apart”. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Dahl, Östen (ed.), 189-225, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

• Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1971. Vid i vremja russkogo glagola. Moscow: Prosveščenie.

• Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1983. Principy funkcional’noj grammatiki i voprosy aspektologii. Leningrad: Nauka.

• Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.

• Čertkova, Marina Ju. 1996. Grammatičeskaja kategorija vida v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moscow: Moscow State University.

• Čertkova, Marina Jurevna and Pej-či Čang. 1998. “Evoljucija dvuvidovyx glagolov v sovremennom russkom jazyke”. Russian linguistics 22: 13-34.

• Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

• Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect. A Cognitive Approach. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Bibliography, p 2

• Dickey, Stephen M. 2006. “Aspectual pairs, goal orientation and po- delimitatives in Russian.” Glossos 7: http://seelrc.org/glossos.

• Durst-Andersen, Per. 1992. Mental Grammar: Russian Aspect and Related Issues. Columbus, OH: Slavica.

• Forsyth, J. 1970. A grammar of aspect: Usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cambridge: Cambridge U Press.

• Galton, Herbert. 1976. The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

• Gladney, Frank Y. 1982. “Biaspectual verbs and the syntax of aspect in Russian”. Slavic and East European Journal 26: 202-215.

• Glovinskaja, Marina Ja. 2001. Mnogoznačnost’ i sinonimija v vido-vremennoj sisteme russkogo glagola. Moscow: Russkie slovari.

• Isačenko, Aleksandr V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim. Morfologija, čast vtoraja. Bratislava: Vydavatel’stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied.

• Jakobson, Roman O. 1957/1971. “Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb”. In Selected Writings II. The Hague: Mouton, 130-147.

• Janda, Laura A. 2004. “A metaphor in search of a source domain: the categories of Slavic aspect”, Cognitive Linguistics 15: 471-527.

• Janda, Laura A. Forthcoming a. “Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs”. Studies in Language.

• Janda, Laura A. Forthcoming b. “Inflectional Morphology”. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens. Oxford: Oxford U Press.

Bibliography, p 3

• Jászay, László. 1999. “Vidovye korreljaty pri dvuvidovyx glagolax”. Studia Russica 17: 169-177.

• Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: U of Chicago Press.

• Maslov, Jurij S. 1965. “Sistema osnovnyx ponjatij i terminov slavjanskoj aspektologii”. Voprosy obščego jazykoznanija: 53-80.

• Mazon, André. 1914. Emplois des aspects du verbe russe. Paris: Librairie ancienne Honoré Champion.

• Mehlig, Hans Robert. 1994. “Gomogennost’ i geterogennost’ v prostranstve i

• vremeni”. Revue des etudes Slaves 66: 595-606.

• Mehlig, Hans Robert. 1997. “Nekotorye zamečanija po povodu opisanija katergorii vida v russkom jazyke”. Russian Linguistics 21: 177-193.

• Mučnik, I. P. 1966. “Razvitie sistemy dvuvidovyx glagolov v sovremennom russkom jazyke”. Voprosy jazykoznanija: 61-75.

• Ožegov, Sergej I. 1949/1989. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Mosow: Russkij jazyk.

• Padučeva, Elena V. 1996. Semantičeskie issledovanija. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.

• Schooneveld, Cornelis H. van. 1978. Semantic transmutations: Prolegomena to a calculus of meaning. Vol. 1: The cardinal semantic structure of prepositions, cases, and paratactic conjunctions in contemporary standard Russian. Bloomington: Physsardt.

Bibliography, p 4

• Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

• Šaxmatov, A. A. 1941. Sintaksis russkogo jayzka (Russian syntax). Leningrad. Učpedgiz.

• Švedova, Natal’ja Ju., et al. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Moscow: Nauka.

• Tatevosov, Sergej. 2002. “The parameter of actionality”. Linguistic Typology 6: 317-401.

• Timberlake, Alan. 1982. “Invariance and the syntax of Russian aspect”, in Paul Hopper, ed. Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 305-331.

• Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge U Press.

• Vinogradov, V. V. 1938. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Grammatičeskoe učenie o slove (Modern Russian. Grammatical analysis of the word). Moscow: Učpedgiz.

• Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1972. Russkij jazyk, 2nd ed. Moscow: Vysšaja škola.

• Wheeler, Marcus. 1972/1992. The Oxford Russian-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

• Zaliznjak, A. A. 1977. Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka (Grammatical dictionary of Russian). Moscow: Russkij jazyk.

• Zaliznjak, Anna A. and Aleksej D. Šmelev. 2000. Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju (Inroduction to Russian aspectology). Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.